Feminist scholars have long debated on a key contradiction in the political theory of Thomas Hobbes: While he sees women as free and equal to men in the state of nature, he postulates their subjection to male rule in the civil state without any apparent explanation. Focusing on Hobbes’s construction of the mother–child relationship, this article suggests that the subjugation of the mother to the father epitomizes the neutralization of the ancient principle of ‘governance’, which he replaces with a novel (...) concept of ‘power’ as formally authorized command. This scrutiny leads to three main conclusions: a radicalization of Pateman’s concept of ‘sexual contract'; the acknowledgement that patriarchy is inseparable from the logic of political authority constructed by Hobbes; and the claim that criticism of patriarchal rule requires an overall problematization of the mainstream conception of political participation we have inherited from modern political science. (shrink)

The political teachings of Thomas Hobbes and Carl Schmitt imply fundamental ontological structures that reflect the processes of the genesis, assertion, and destruction of political being. The article investigates similarities and differences between these political projects. The approach applied by the author is marked by a reliance on the theoretical analysis of the Leviathan's frontispiece and by employing the conceptual framework of Giorgio Agamben's Homo sacer project. The application of these theoretical optics helps to evaluate the political significance of the (...) present people (the people composed of living human beings) in Hobbes's and Schmitt's contexts and to detect the notable difference between the two projects. The article highlights that political existence presupposes the total depoliticization of the present people in the framework of Hobbes's philosophy. It is argued that the security of the present people's life becomes an underlying condition for the mentioned construction (and is therefore ontologically significant). The provision of security potentially saves the sovereign's own life and guarantees recognition by the subjects. An investigation of Schmitt's teaching reveals the political significance of the present people. Since - according to Schmitt - political will is understood only in the context of political enmity (the necessary "horizon” of which is armed confrontation), it is concluded that the political significance of the present people is closely associated with its members' readiness to die in the war. Due to the fact that political existence is generated through the decision on the public enemy (in which the present people might be involved via acclamation procedures), the resoluteness toward death that underlies this decision must be considered as the key factor of Carl Schmitt's political ontology. In light of this statement, it is argued that the project of Martin Heidegger's Being and Time could be considered as Carl Schmitt's "unwritten" ontology of the individual being. (shrink)

This article offers an in-depth analysis of Carl Schmitt's social ontology to explain how and why he came to reject exceptionalist decisionism. To this end, the authors unearth the considerable shifts in terms of social ontology that paved the way for this conceptual turn. The gist of their argument is that Schmitt's Political Theology (1922) espoused a Hobbesian conception of the political as the possibility condition for stable patters of social interaction. Though the first three chapters of Political Theology were (...) originally designed for and published in a posthumous Festschrift for Max Weber, his understanding of the social was indebted to a Hobbesian legacy. Nonetheless, shortly thereafter, he began to revise his conception of the social and to put stress on the organisational dynamics of social institutions as independent of there being a political authority. From 1927 through to 1950, Schmitt never got back to his 1922 exceptionalist view of politics and rather sought to make sense of how the state could and should draw the contents of the legal order from the normative life of social institutions. (shrink)

Hobbes redefines his conception of liberty in the Leviathan as the absence of external impediments to motion. Power, on the other hand, refers to the body’s intrinsic dimension, that is, to the faculties possessed by each individual. There thus appears to be a clear distinction between liberty and power in Hobbes’ political philosophy. Taking into consideration Hobbes’ Latin works, however, in which he uses two different terms to refer to power: at times potestas and others potentia, such a distinction may (...) need to be revisited. As we will argue, there is a marked relation between liberty and power when considering human sociability. In this way, the aim of the article is to discuss Hobbes’ conception of power, through the pages of the Leviathan and De Homine, trying to clarify its complex, even ambiguous relation with his conception of liberty. (shrink)