The concept of the political and Carl Schmitt

The distinction between friend and enemy is the essence of the political. Here we’re going to see why and how Carl Schmitt set forth this idea and how it shapes the process of politicization.

Today, I’m going to speak about the political. That’s a concept widely used in political science, but generally as an adjective — for instance, political power, political issues, political stage, and so on. However, here we’re going to address “political” as a noun, namely, as the political.

If we’re going to talk about the political, we also have to speak about Carl Schmitt, the German philosopher, and jurist. He wrote an essay on this concept to define its nature and examine its place in modern politics. It will be helpful to understand the current dynamics in politics, especially how individuals and groups articulate their political relations.

First of all, it’s essential to stress that this concept doesn’t have a clear-cut meaning. In fact, many authors use it in different ways. That’s because, in political science, there are no objective definitions for concepts that may adopt different meanings depending on the context they show up. In each context, they have a different sense because they are used for diverse purposes.

Nevertheless, Carl Schmitt put forward his proposal to define this concept, and it resulted helpful to understand the dynamics of politics. In this respect, his proposal is straightforward and practical for politics.

For this reason, the work of Schmitt is used nowadays in certain debates, and it has an evident reflection on specific political practices. Any sharp observer will notice how embedded the political is in the power struggle inside any community or organization. Probably, the most obvious example of this is the current identity politics, and we’ll see why in a moment.

Schmitt reduced the political to the existential distinction between friend and enemy. This distinction is rooted in the fact of human diversity that creates social conflicts. Therefore, identities and practices, beliefs, and ways of life can, in theory, conflict with one another.

This distinction defines the political, and it differs from other distinctions that define other fields such as economics, ethics, aesthetics, and so on.

For this author, conflict is part of existence. So, the distinction of friend and enemy takes place in a conflictive context where individuals build different groups, with their interests, ideas, beliefs, and so on, that constitute the group identity. These identities become political insofar as they are considered contradictory and incompatible with each other. In sum, if individuals form groups based on a specific affinity, their identity as a group makes them existentially different and opposite to other groups with their respective identities.

Hence, the distinction between friend and enemy defines the political, and the political is, at the same time, the essence of politics. But we have to mention one more thing linked with the Schmitt’s perspective. Any other distinction can be transformed in political. That’s because the political is not an autonomous domain equivalent to the other domains, but rather the existential basis that would determine any other domain.

Let me give you some examples. When the economic distinction between profitable and not profitable ceases and becomes a distinction between friend and enemy, we witness a politicization of the economy. And it’s the same when a theological distinction becomes a political one. In each case, other distinctions are reduced to the political distinction between friend and enemy.

So, the political is in its essence the distinction between friend and enemy, and it’s the result of a decision. A decision which is the answer to one question, that is, who is my enemy? However, the process can work in the other way round, and someone else might answer that question instead of you.

In any case, the political distinction always works in the same way. It has an existential dimension insofar as the enemy can be anyone whose identity is perceived as the negation of yours. Therefore, the political explains to us how relations work and articulate in politics. Still, it doesn’t tell the content of these relations, namely, the cause of enmity, because it can be anything.

Schmitt described this relation of hostility as something intense due to its existential character. Yet, this antagonism works in the domestic and international realm. Hence, the political is helpful to explain domestic politics, how different groups fight each other in their struggle for power to survive and dominate. But it’s also useful to understand international politics because, in this sphere, the same principle is the base of international relations. In this case, the other is also considered a stranger and enemy. So, the other represents a threat or conflict. Thus, the other poses a threat or conflict because their identity is the negation of our identity.

The concept of the political is easy to understand. Still, its importance rests on its capacity to explain relations in politics. And this is an excellent opportunity to take a look at this.

We’ve seen in a former video the scope of politics changes all the time. What matters here is how this scope changes. At this point, the concept of the political works very well to explain the dynamics of politics, and more specifically, the process of politicization.

The plurality of society is the root of social conflicts. However, this diversity can’t by itself turn these conflicts into political. It’s necessary a process of politicization that makes certain social differences a political matter. To do so, it’s vital a redefinition of social relations in political terms. It entails the introduction of the principle of antagonism in these relations. The most obvious consequence of this is the expansion of the politics’ scope. Something that had been out of the political arena is brought into it.

This politicization doesn’t happen by coincidence. There is an intention that responds to a specific political goal. Aside from this, the politicization itself entails a clear attempt to modify the scope of politics to regulate certain realm. So, any politicization looks for the intervention of the political authority in a particular matter. Obviously, if someone seeks the intervention of political power, this is because they want a benefit, and it entails specific measures regarding the political issue at stake.

Now, one question arises. Where does this politicization come from? It might come from anywhere. It depends on what actors are involved in this process. However, we can identify two possible origins. It may be internal or external to the social conflict.

If the origin is internal, the actors involved in the issue have contributed to the politicization of the conflict. For instance, a company that has decided to alter the security standards in its factories. The consequence is the reaction of its employees with a strike to draw public attention and ask for the intervention of the political authority. The former economic relation between the company and workers becomes a political issue because the principle of antagonism has transformed it.

If the origin is external, the situation is much more complicated, because usually there are many different actors involved in the process. In these cases, it’s hard to identify who ignited the politicization and what the purpose is. Normally, someone is trying to take advantage of a favorable situation to exploit it in political terms.

There are many examples of this type, and usually, they all have the same pattern. That’s to say, troubled conditions in a specific realm and someone who capitalizes them by transforming that controversial situation in a political one. And sometimes, even there are no social strains, but they are artificially created.

Unfortunately, the latter situation is more usual than we think, that is, when someone instigates controversy to politicize a specific matter and takes advantage of it. One example of this is the old Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. Until then, there was ethnic coexistence. There were interethnic families, and they lived together. However, divisions in the ruling elite led them to politicize ethnic identity to get supporters for their respective causes. They transformed the fact of being Serb, Croatian, or Bosnian in a political matter by redefining ethnic identity in terms of the distinction between friend and enemy. The rest is history.

Nowadays, there is a new wave of politics that assumed identity matters as part of the political agenda of some groups, individuals, and institutions. All of this is part of social and political engineering, but also of some actors who try to flare up political controversy and collect the ensuing benefits.

We’ve seen the dynamics of politics, and more specifically, how individuals and groups interact in political terms. In sum, we can state that from Schmitt’s perspective, politics is a process of self-assertion guided by the distinction between friend and enemy. That’s valid in the domestic realm, but also the international sphere. So, identity is crucial since it feeds the dialectics between friend and enemy.

Question of the day

Question of the day! What do you think about identity politics? Do you think there is a link between it and Schmitt’s ideas? If so, how does it affect to society?. I know I’ve asked three questions, but I’m interested in your opinion. Post it 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.