The aim of this essay is to consider both Schmitt’s polemical and his analytical claims in dealing with a concept which is central to his theory and yet strangely overlooked by the secondary literature: the concept of friendship. The essay proceeds in three steps; first it makes some textual claims about the meaning and role of friendship in Schmitt’s writings; secondly its puts forward an interpretation of the significance of friendship in Schmitt’s political thought; finally, it tries to disentangle polemics (...) from diagnostics in Schmitt’s discourse and draws some tentative conclusions. (shrink)

According to a particular view of political realism, political expediency must always override moral considerations. Perhaps the strongest defense of such a theory is offered by Carl Schmitt in The Concept of the Political. A close examination of Schmitt’s main presuppositions can therefore help to shed light on the tenuous relation between politics and morality. Schmitt’s theory rests on two keystones. First, the political is seen as independent of and prior to morality. Second, genuine political theory depends on a view (...) of human beings as evil by nature. I will argue that both claims are incomplete. Just as the political sometimes demands that morality be overridden, so morality can demand the overriding of political expediency. Moreover, the view of human beings as evil, which serves as the foundation of political realism, itself depends on affirming that human nature must also be, in some sense, good. Political realism is thus shown to have its theoretical foundation within a normative framework that demands the political pursuit of at least some moral aims. (shrink)

A careful reading of Harvey C. Mansfield's Manlines s and the recent translation of Daniel Tanguay's Leo Strauss; une biographie intellectuelle reveals that neither text supports the view that Leo Strauss was a harmless if qualified friend of liberal democracy. Key Words: Leo Strauss • Straussians • Nietzsche • Carl Schmitt • Heidegger • National Socialism • Liberalism • Redlichkeit • Hobbes • Hegel • Viktor Trivas.

Carl Schmitt’s radio broadcast ‘Hegel and Marx’, aired on 13 November 1931, and newly translated here, recapitulates the account of Marxism that Schmitt started to develop in the 1920s. Beginning from Schmitt’s early theory of adjudication inLaw and Judgement, the concepts of decision, representation and the friend/enemy distinction are analysed, connected, and shown to structure Schmitt’s critique of Marxism, both in the broadcast, and in his other writings during this period. Some concluding remarks are offered on the substantive issues Schmitt’s (...) critique raises for Marx’s political theory. (shrink)

Tärkeä ulottuvuus modernissa tavassa ajatella politiikkaa on erottelu politiikan ja talouden välillä. Tässä artikkelissa käsittelen tätä erottelua konservatiivisen oikeustieteilijä Carl Schmittin poliittisessa teoriassa ja varsinkin hänen talousliberalismin kritiikissään. Liberalismi rajasi Schmittin mukaan talouden omaksi autonomiseksi alueekseen pyrkimällä rajaamaan valtiovallan oikeutta vaikuttaa siihen. Tämä kuitenkin johti hänen mielestään poliittisen siirtymiseen valtiolta talouteen, eli taloudellisten suhteiden politisointiin. Artikkelini analysoi Schmittin kritiikin ohella myös hänen omaa teoriaansa vahvasta valtiosta. Schmitt vastasi liberalismin heikkouteen argumentoimalla, että vain vahva valtio voi ylläpitää talouden autonomisuutta. Argumenttini on, (...) että toimiessaan näin Schmitt ei lopulta ylitä modernille poliittisella ajattelulle ominaista erottelua valtion ja yhteiskunnan välillä. Päinvastoin, Schmittiä ja liberalismia yhdistää pyrkimys tavalla tai toisella erotella talous politiikasta. Artikkelini avulla voidaan monipuolistaa sitä kuvaa, joka poliittisessa filosofiassa ja teoriassa on talouspolitiikan ja -hallinnon historiasta. Argumenttini vahvistaa ajatusta siitä, että käsitteellinen erottelu talouden ja politiikan välillä on perustavanlaatuinen modernille poliittiselle ajattelulle. (shrink)

This essay examines the French reception of the Carl Schmitt's thought, specifically its Hegelian strand. Beginning with the early readings of Schmitt's thought by Alexandre Kojève and Georges Bataille during the mid-1930s, it attends to the partial adoption of Schmitt's friend/enemy distinction and his theories of sovereignty and neutralization in Kojève and Bataille's Hegelian writings, as well as to their critical responses. The essay then turns to examine the reading of Kojève by the Jesuit Hegelian résistant Gaston Fessard during the (...) war, a reading specifically intended to delegitimate Vichy as a “slave-prince,” resistance to whom would be legitimate. The final section returns to Bataille and his 1948 book The Accursed Share in order to propose that his Maussian understanding of the Marshall Plan suggested an overcoming of the friend/enemy distinction, a suggestion that was later made explicit in a 1957 talk by Kojève at Düsseldorf before Schmitt and a group of his supporters. At stake throughout are both the thoroughly critical reception of Schmitt, the particular political inflection of Hegel carried out by and in Kojève's reading, and certain methodological links between conceptual history and the reception history. (shrink)

Why has Schmitt's political theology been influential among some Chinese scholars? It is pointed out in this article that this special phenomenon resulted from the Chinese awareness of the deep crisis within modern politics as well as the Chinese hope for the alternative model of modern politics. To these Chinese scholars, Schmitt, by making clear the hidden theological dimension of modern politics, seems to have offered both a sharp criticism of the tendency of mechanization of the state and a creative (...) proposal to save modern politics. Based on the analysis of the reasons for these Chinese scholars' preference for Schmitt's political theology to Marx's criticism of modern politics, it is also argued that this acceptance of Schmitt's political theology could actually hamper the Chinese efforts toward new possibilities of modern politics. (shrink)

Resumen La experiencia religiosa y la experiencia política han subsistido, a pesar de que la Modernidad y de que nuestra época pretendió a menudo reducir lo político a un campo de relaciones técnicas y procedimientos administrativos. En este contexto es necesario formular la pregunta filosófica por el valor y legitimidad de la relación entre ambos campos en su versión contemporánea. En este artículo se indaga, en primer lugar, en la noción de legitimidad a partir de la obra de Schmitt, para (...) comprender los orígenes y la dependencia simbólica de la mencionada relación. Esta indagación mostrará una tensión entre dos experiencias: la expectativa de lo apocalíptico y la “administración” del tiempo, que atraviesa toda la reflexión teológica. En segundo lugar, se verá a partir de Voegelin el riesgo necesario que se corre en toda acción política. Finalmente, se mostrará a partir de Taubes y Metz cómo la tradición monoteísta de la memoria de la Ley y del sufrimiento postula el peso de una autoridad que permite un horizonte posible desde el cual juzgar y limitar los déficits de toda acción político-religiosa, y cómo se puede sostener la tensión entre ambas experiencias.Religious experience andpolitical experience have survived, despite the fact that Modernity and our age have often tried to reduce the political to a field of technical relations and administrative procedures. In this context, it is necessary to formulate the philosophical question about the value and legitimacy of the relationship between both fields in its contemporary version. This article investigates, firstly, the notion of legitimacy based on Schmitt's work, to understand the origins and symbolic dependence of the afore- mentioned relationship. This inquiry will show a tension between two experiences: the expectation of the apocalyptic and the “administration” of time, which runs through all theological reflection. Second, it will be seen from Voegelin the necessary risk that is run in all political action. Finally, it will be shown from Taubes and Metz how the monotheistic tradition of the memory of the Law and of suffering postulates the weight of an authority that allows a possible horigon from which to judge and limit the deficits of allpolitical-religious action, and how the tension between the two experiences can be sustained. (shrink)

Bringing continental sensibilities and skill to his project, David Janssens has abandoned the line of defense heretofore used by North American intellectuals to shield Leo Strauss from criticism: Janssens wastes no time trying to prove Strauss was a liberal democrat, frankly admits his atheism, and emphasizes the continuity and European origins of his thought. Nevertheless committed to defending Strauss even at his most vulnerable points, Janssens is compelled to anchor his new defensive position on a misreading of what he calls (...) "an inconspicuous footnote" in Philosophie und Gesetz (1935). (shrink)