Carl Schmitt and the politicization process

When specific social differences lead some groups to fight each other, we’re witnessing a politicization process in progress. We’re going to see how this process works by applying the political notions of Carl Schmitt.

Introduction

Today, I want to speak to you about how the politicization process happens in society. It’s something that scholars take it for granted, and they don’t explain. However, if you know how it works, you will understand a lot about political phenomena.

For this reason, I want to discuss this process by resorting to the definition of the political Carl Schmitt set out. Why? Because it is useful insofar as the distinction between friend and enemy helps explain the political conflict and its dynamic. So, let’s see it.

The distinction between friend and enemy

Although I’ve already addressed the distinction between friend and enemy on another occasion, this time is necessary to go over it again.

In this respect, Schmitt defined the political as an existential distinction between friend and enemy. That means this distinction depends on the human diversity. That is the origin of social conflict because identities and practices, beliefs, and ways of life conflict with one another.

In this troubled context, individuals form different groups with their interests, ideas, beliefs, and so on. These features constitute their identity. However, these identities become political insofar as people consider them contradictory and incompatible with each other. That leads them to fight because they perceive other identities as the negation of their particular identity. Therefore, social groups oppose each other.

The singularity of the distinction between friend and enemy is that any other distinction, any social difference, can become political. So, any difference, such as social status, culture, race, gender, nationality, religion, and so on, can adopt a political character. That’s because the political is not a free domain equivalent to the other fields, but rather the existential basis that would determine any other domain.

The political is empty. What I mean by this is that it only tells us how relations work and articulate in politics. It shows how a social difference can end up being a political one insofar as it leads people to form groups that fight each other. Hence, it doesn’t tell the content of these relations, only the cause of hostility, and it can be anything.

Despite all of this, what I have discussed so far doesn’t show how the politicization process works. Social differences don’t become political by themselves. They need something else to become controversial in political terms and boost conflict between opposing groups. That process involves the redefinition of social relations in political terms, and as a result, the introduction of the principle of antagonism.

The politicization process

When the politicization of a specific social difference takes place, it doesn’t happen by coincidence. There is always an intention that responds to a particular political goal. In these cases, we still find a political agenda that directs the course of action. Besides, this process entails the modification of the scope of politics to extend the regulation capacity of the political authority. That happens by requiring its intervention to attain certain benefits. It is a way of pressing to get these benefits.

In general, this process follows a pragmatic and instrumental logic. What I mean by this is that a social difference becomes a political device to politicize a group of society. That makes it possible to mobilize that group, and it contributes to involving it in the political struggle. That’s the usual procedure to gather human resources to wage political fights and collect the following benefits. In these situations, that social difference gathers people in groups that fight each other, and follow the logic that the distinction between friend and enemy establishes.

Politics has an instrumental dimension that shows in blunt terms its logic. That explains why many political conflicts respond to specific rationality aimed at achieving particular goals. Aspects, such as ethnicity, race, language, culture, religion, and so on, are means to mobilize people, build cohesive groups, and fight other groups that represent an existential threat. In this way, these elements constitute aspects of many people’s identities. Thanks to this process of politicization, they become dominant and reorient loyalties. That means, all in all, the politicization of already existing identities. They play a crucial role in specific circumstances when they make people fight each other.

A clear example of this is nationalism. In European history, this ideology reoriented loyalties. Indeed, it broke with old loyalties that many people had toward their sovereigns, such as princes and kings. However, the French revolution and other events at the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century drastically altered the political scenario. Being French, German, or British, and therefore speaking a language, and having different citizenship, was enough to create hostilities between countries’ societies. The politicization of certain traits of society was crucial because it made possible the confrontation, thanks to the distinction between friend and enemy. That dynamic explains the dramatic involvement of peoples in warfare and the bloody experiences of the first half of the twentieth century.

Something similar happened at the end of that century in the former Yugoslavia. In this case, the ethnic background of different communities hadn’t been relevant in political terms until the early 1990s. Then, it achieved paramount importance by defining the new relations of entire communities in terms of hostility. Local elites developed a politicization process to use these identities to take advantage of them and attain their political goals at any cost. They didn’t hesitate to sacrifice thousands of lives to do so and stir up hate. It’s a dramatic example of politicization and real evidence of the importance of this process in the formation of political identities as such.

Question of the day

Question of the day! What politicization processes do you know? Post your opinion in the comments section below, and I’ll check it out.

Bibliography used:

Schmitt, Carl, The Concept of the Political

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.