Carl Schmitt theorized about the State and stressed its main aspects from his point of view based on his notion of politics. That led him to defend the total State, and in some way, to forecast the totalitarian State that came to life in Germany during the Nazi regime.
Today, I want to speak to you about the total State in Carl Schmitt’s thought. Inevitably, it would make it necessary to talk about his critic of parliamentarianism and how he understood the State and its role in society. That will explain why Schmitt spoke about the total State, which doesn’t necessarily mean the totalitarian State. In any case, we can’t deny the fact that Schmitt was a defender of totalitarianism in Germany and a strong supporter of the Nazi regime. That doesn’t deny his importance in intellectual terms in political science and law.
Carl Schmitt criticized the parliamentary system bitterly. That made him famous in conservative circles because of the nature of his critic but also gave intellectual ammunition to those who looked for establishing a totalitarian State.
His critic focuses on different aspects. In this respect, he criticized pluralism in parliamentary systems insofar as it fosters weakness in the polity due to its procedures based on negotiation and deliberation. Besides, he stressed the way parliamentarianism understands politics according to its pluralist view. It means that politics develops in the context of a neutral State, that is, the liberal State, which carries out the depoliticization through the management of public and social affairs. In Schmitt’s view, the search for a neutral field to put an end social conflict represents the liberal aspiration insofar as it reflects on a technique and economic world. Schmitt argued that economy and technique constitute the center of gravity in which depoliticization takes place in the broader context of the liberal State. Hence, everything in politics becomes a managerial matter that requires technical and neutral measures for its solution.
That contrasts with the Schmitt’s perspective and how he considers politics as the distinction between friend and enemy.
The essence of politics is the principle of hostility that conducts political interactions. Besides this, the critic of Schmitt combines with his emphasis on a powerful executive that holds the authority to define who the enemy is. That is related to his notion of sovereignty, and the critical role of decisionism in which decisions determine moral and legal precepts because the proper authority made them. That influences directly in the political, namely, the identification of the enemy. The answer to the question of who is the enemy results critical. That involves excluding from the legal order and society those who the enemy are.
Schmitt’s political theory is broader, and it would need more time to discuss it as it deserves. However, we’ve seen the main aspects of Schmitt’s critic of the parliamentary system and liberalism. Now, let’s go ahead with the meaning of the total State.
The notion of total State is related to Schmitt’s understanding of technique and its political influence. He referred to the interpenetration between society and the State. He underscored this phenomenon insofar as it broke with the liberal distinction between the sphere of society and the State’s politics. In his view, the State has expanded its intervention up to the point of producing goods and managing the population. Its infrastructural power has grown, and that has provided it with more power. Indeed, the scope of the State is larger than ever. Now the State is total insofar as it intervenes in any human sphere. As a result, everything is political.
Schmitt made a difference between the weak total State represented by the Republic of Weimar and the strong total State represented by the Nazis’ totalitarian regime. Regarding the former, he advocated for the extension of extraordinary powers in the form of a constitutional dictatorship. It would rest on the legitimacy of Article 48. On the contrary, the latter represents the strong total State that resorts to force and seeks to maximize its power. In this case, all means of domination belong to the State, and they serve it to strengthen it. In this way, such kind of State doesn’t admit dissent and puts in practice the distinction between friend and enemy. That entails the politicization of the whole human life.
Therefore, the total State aspiration is to become a third party above social conflict. In this way, it regulates and appeases social and economic interests and conflicts. That is possible if the State is total and has the supremacy with the help of a closed and robust organization that imposes order. That means the existence of a clear hierarchy, separated from society, and supported by a large and overwhelming organization. Without these requirements, the State can’t have the supremacy, and play its role as a third party above other social actors. That connects directly with the totalitarian State because it is also a total State. Indeed, it is the strong version of the total State, while the constitutional State represents its weak version.
In addition to this, Schmitt emphasized the importance of the control of technique due to its growing weight in politics. In this regard, it is fundamental not only to extend the State’s power in all realms but also to facilitate the cooperation between the people and the State. It also has to do with mass media and the formation of consent. They shape public opinion and contribute to the creation of consent. That becomes of paramount importance in a technological context that originated the mass society. As a result, they outline the will of the people. In this way, the total State achieves the legitimacy it needs. For this reason the State has to take control of the fourth power by renouncing to the liberal concept of freedom. We can sum it up in monopoly and censorship.
The total State is a despotic institution that organizes the whole society with its massive intervention in all realms. It has the domination means to do so, that is, the organization that provides it with an infrastructural power. That includes not only the coercive instruments but also the economic, technique, and economic means. It subdues social conflict, and its cohesion and compactness allow it to determine who the enemy is. Nothing is beyond its reach.
Question of the day! What is your view on total State? Post your opinion in the comments section below, and I’ll check it out.
Bibliography used:
Schmitt, Carl, The Concept of the Political
Schmitt, Carl, On Dictatorship
Schmitt, Carl, The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy
Schmitt, Carl, Political Theology
Holmes, Stephen, The Anatomy of Antiliberalism
Ramas San Miguel, Clara, “The Total State in Carl Schmitt: Overflow of the Political and Totalitarian Decision. A Theoretical-Doctrinal Reconstruction” in Res Publica. Revista de Historia de las Ideas Políticas 22(1), 2019, pp. 141-156
Wolin, Richard, “Carl Schmitt, Political Existentialism and the Total State” in Theory and Society 19(4), 1990, pp. 389-416
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.
En esta ocasión analizamos los orígenes del Estado moderno.
Analizamos diferentes conceptualizaciones del modo en el que funciona la política: como organismo, máquina, mercado,…
On this occasion, we analyze the civil-military relations and the paradox between democracy and militarism.
En este episodio desvelamos las claves del funcionamiento de la política.
Abordamos el Estado moderno y sus principales características que lo diferencian de formas estatales previas.
This website uses cookies.