Carl Schmitt and Identity Politics

The distinction between friend and enemy is the core of identity politics. We’re going to see how it works.

Introduction

Today, I want to speak to you about the thought of Carl Schmitt and its relation to identity politics. This unnoticed connection shows us the logic that drives identity politics, and it helps us understand how it works. In this regard, I’m going to discuss the distinction between friend and enemy and its relation to identity politics.

This dimension of identity politics explains its dynamic, and the theoretical base that inspires it. Besides this, it will show how specific processes of politicization work nowadays. This aspect of identity politics is fundamental to grasp how it transforms the political stage.

The concept of the political

When I spoke about the concept of the political on another occasion, I discussed how Schmitt defined it in terms of friendship and enmity. He based his argument on contradictory identities between groups. Their identities become political insofar as they are considered incompatible with each other. In this way, other groups’ identities are the existential negation of your identity. So, others’ identity is the negation of my identity.

Identity is a social construction, and it has its base on different bonds and affinities between people. Shared beliefs, ideas, interests, and so on constitute the identity of each group. That makes it different. Their identity becomes political when antagonist relations with other groups arise. It happens when someone perceives another group’s identity as a negation of their identity. As a result, conflict and opposition develop, and they fight each other.

That has been a brief explanation of the concept of the political developed by Schmitt. Now it’s time to see how it works in identity politics.

Identity politics

We refer to a specific approach and analysis based on the most relevant concerns to particular groups when we talk about identity politics. These concerns are related to their particular condition: race, religion, culture, gender, and so on. In this way, they promote their group’s interests by asserting their identity. Usually, these identities result from a victimization process in which these groups present themselves as an oppressed group by the whole society. They are marginalized groups that look for justice and redress of grievances.

Therefore, by virtue of their identity, those who belong to these groups are more vulnerable to forms of oppression, such as cultural imperialism, violence, exploitation of labor, marginalization, or powerlessness. To achieve an equal society, these lines of social difference go through the politicization process, becoming a way to attain empowerment. That allows a fair society in the long run.

The politicization of these identities depends on the particular role that someone attributes them. As a result, a whole narrative of victimization defines these identities in political terms, insofar as they describe the marginalization of a specific group. Everything focuses on the experience of this group, and how it suffers injustice because of its position in society. They are oppressed due to the subordination and marginalization they undergo. That defines their identity and opposes them to other groups that exercise their power against them. The positions these groups hold in society and their members’ common features constitute the raw material for identity politics.

Hence, identity politics has to do with those who feel oppressed and suffer under systemic social inequities and articulate their suffering in terms of their experience thanks to a process of consciousness-raising and collective action. Their identity becomes a political matter, and they strive to attain justice by changing their position in society and ending marginalization.

Nevertheless, some authors have stressed the real consequences of identity politics by perpetuating marginalization. In this respect, it’s notable the critic of Arthur Schlesinger Jr. He argued that basing politics on group marginalization fractures the civil polity. In this way, identity politics doesn’t work against marginalization but for its conservation. That is because of the importance of difference, and how it works as an element of politicization and cohesion of the group to fight for specific policies differentiated from the rest of the population.

Identity politics is based on confrontation with groups and structures representing the negation of a specific group’s identity. They are evil because they keep this group in a subordinated position. The distinction between friend and enemy is clear-cut. However, the importance of identity makes it become something essential for the survival of the group as a political actor. For this reason, identity politics prevents integration in the mainstream culture or the acceptance of a broader political frame. It is against participating in politics as an undifferentiated actor. Rather than that, identity politics fosters specific public policies aimed at these groups. So, it rejects equal treatment from official institutions, as any other group. Still, it advocates for particular policies intended to tackle their problems. The differentiation is fundamental because it makes necessary a differentiated treatment. Otherwise, it would be another injustice against these groups from those structures and actors that oppress them.

Insofar as identity politics vindicates a special treatment for marginalized groups, and it dismisses any equalization of their political position in the broader context of the polity, it contributes to keeping marginalization. That has to do with the notion of justice identity politics holds. It entails the need of preserving identity as a means of cohesion to achieve any gain in the political realm. In some way, it is a kind of corporatism or lobbyist attitude. Special treatment is the recognition of the difference, and in this way, it maintains it. That is considered fair. It also results from the search for special treatment for these groups. So, the notion of justice is not equality, but the implementation of measures that confirm the differentiation of marginalized groups and improve their conditions. Public policies are fair when their approach involves focusing on these groups’ peculiarities by fulfilling their demands.

Carl Schmitt made identity a political matter insofar as it gathers people in different groups that oppose each other. Identity becomes existential because those who don’t share your identity are a threat, and become your enemy. In domestic politics, different groups develop their rivalries in this way, especially in identity politics. As we’ve already seen, it applies the logic of the distinction between friend and enemy to politicize the identity of specific groups. In this way, they mobilize and take part in political quarrels to attain power and influence by resorting to victimization.

Question of the day

Question of the day! What do you think about identity politics? Post your opinion in the comments section below, and I’ll check it out.

Bibliography used:

Schmitt, Carl, The Concept of the Political

Wiarda, Howard J., Political Culture, Political Science, and Identity Politics: An Uneasy Alliance

Heyes, Cressida, “Identity Politics” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2016

Schlesinger, Arthur, The Disuniting of America

M.A. Chaudhary and Gautam Chaudhary, Global Encyclopaedia of Political Geography

O’Neill, Brendan, “Identity politics has created an army of vicious, narcissistic cowards” in Spectator 19 February 2015

Disclosure: Some of these links are affiliate links where I’ll earn a small commission if you make a purchase at no additional cost to you. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.