Thursday, April 3, 2008
The Concept of the Political: Post-Class Reactions
I feel like this class discussion was one of the most interesting we have had. In the end it really made me think about the future possibilities of humanity. Ultimately we came to the conclusion that Schmitt thinks that enemies are necessary for a state to function properly. So the question that came to my mind towards the end of class was: is it always going to be just about conflict? To me that just seems depressing. Especially since now conflicts do seem to take that “we are fighting for humanity and you are against humanity if you are against us” theme, which Schmitt says is a bad idea. And as we have seen it creates very intense and hateful conflict, plus to me it seems like that type of conflict can easily be taken to the “ultimate conflict” level, especially with the damage modern weapons can do. In my other class where I have been reading about Dalai Lama and similar peaceful leader, and those readings presented me with an insight to people who believe that if people try then the world can be more peaceful, and societies would live in harmony and understanding. So in the end I was contrasting these two views and trying to see which is more likely, or will it be something in between or something else. Can humanity ever come to a point where it won’t be so quick to label the “other” as an enemy, and try to understand before destroy. Can people become better at cross cultural communications? Or will it be like Schmitt says, always about friends and enemies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Lena, I see what your saying about how we all should follow peaceful leaders and work out our differences. But in the end I think Schmitt is right. We will always divide into political entities and we will always have war.
Yea, I can't help but have a more pessimistic outlook on the world too. But reading some of the Buddhist works and the Dalai Lama's autobiography did give me some hope. Because if people like him exist and there are small societies where love and trust do rule the people, then maybe humanity can still at least improve.
I don't think there will be a point where we don't label the other as the enemy. Even if these small societies you mention refuse to acknowledge an enemy, the friend-enemy distinction and political will still exist through those claiming to act in the name of humanity. Schmitt alludes to this on page 52 "If a people is afraid of the trials and risks implied by existing in the sphere of politics, then another people will appear which will assume these trials by protecting it against foreign enemies and thereby taking over political rule. The protector then decides who the enemy is by virtue of the eternal relation of protection and obedience." Declaring friendship for the entire world might sound like a good plan of actiong, but it is not necessarily reciprocated and will involve other friend-enemy distinctions on the peaceful society's behalf. As disheartening as it might be, I think Tim and Schmitt are right. It's always about friends and enemies and war.
Post a Comment