Schmitt's Concept of the Political

Hello everyone:

I enjoyed reading this piece, because it is the first time I have read something from Germany during the Weimar Republic period. The first important point I noticed was the interesting use of semantics by the author - he examines the linguistic background for public versus private enemies, by looking at both Plato's Republic and the books of Matthew and Luke. I suppose I implicitly understood the difference between the two, but he explains them in such a manner as to make it perfectly clear how the state deals with the two - that is to say, as the same entities (pg. 28-29). In fact, he goes on to point out the vital differences in word use regarding the German reparations following WWI. He explains that the nations being paid held it aloft as tribute from a defeated nation - this inflamed the German people, who wanted it called reparations or a pension. I have always been taught that WWI was generally one of the larger causes of WWII, and that the reparations didn't help, but it really interests me to learn that one of the major points of contention was over a bit of language.

From this one point, I started considering how this work applies to today. What is striking to me is Schmitt's argument revolves around the inherent importance of the state as the least common denominator of the political (politics being something he doesn't acknowledge unless a state is highly weakened), and how much that is no longer the case in today's world. The modern-day example that comes to mind is the dynamic between Islamic terrorist groups and the United States. In addition to actual skirmishes being fought around the world, this is both a battle of words and ideas. Bin Laden wrote extremely eloquent pieces decrying the decadence, inherent sloth, and other problems he saw within the American people. George W. Bush responded with equally polemic words, decrying the [Islamic] terrorists as extremists, enemies of freedom [the core of America], and so forth. Similar to the situation in Europe following the first world war, there are fairly large differences of opinion, but these could have been solved. The problem is (in an extremely simplified analysis for the sake of this post], leaders on both sides were unwilling to compromise or back down, and things deteriorated with such aggressive uses of language. This falls right back into a later passage of the work, on page 33: "war is the existential negation of the enemy." This holds true today - both sides are in the business of utterly eliminating "the Great Satan" and the Islamic fundamentalists, respectively. This is not a perfect match, because the soldiers on both sides are no longer clearly marked, and even more importantly, both sides are no longer states. It is just interesting to consider many of ideas by Schmitt on state-to-state interactions, in terms of recent events.

Have a good evening, England prevails, etc

-Mike

Ender's Game: Post-class Reaction

Our class discussion about Ender’s Game was in large part a topic that is really important to me: communication (or lack of it) between two different sides. I agree with Mike that lack of communication has been responsible for a lot of destruction and violence in our history. And I truly believe that if people tried harder to communicate and understand “the other” whoever that other may be then a lot of problems could be resolved and the situation would not turn to violence. I see a lot of conflicts around the world where both sides just try to make the other side look more monstrous and just want to destroy or suppress them. Such violence, hate and narrow-mindedness can never lead to good. But I also agree with Jen’s point where she says that well sometimes the other side really does mean you harm for whatever reason. So I guess when it comes to matters of life and death and a situation of hostility it is important to try and fix things by trying to communicate and understand but one also can’t just stand by and let themselves be destroyed.

In one of my classes we are currently looking at the issue in Tibet and I just read one of the Dalai Lama’s books. The things he advocates are truly beautiful. He talks of peace and a symbiotic relationship between China and Tibet (he is not even demanding Tibet independence, he is just asking for just treatment of his people), he also wants to make Tibet a land of “Ahimsa” which means a place of peace and non-violence, and he advocates caring for the Earth and nature. One key point he makes is “Universal Responsibility” and he says that all of humanity needs to realize that they are responsible for this world and that one can’t just live separate from issues that happen in it, because we are all connected. I mention the issue between Tibet and China because it is the perfect example of a clash of two cultures...China has been basically raping Tibet for half a century, but a lot of the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama are still pushing for understanding, communication and peace, now the younger generations are getting restless and are starting to consider more violent ways to fight back. So this is the perfect example of the issue we faced in class…what to do with an aggressive “Other” because that is what China is. Plus the Tibetan people are fighting for their survival (China is basically slowly committing cultural and religious genocide). And there is a great communication gap between the two. I just learned more about his issue, so it is fresh in my mind and something that really frustrates me because I just can’t understand why things like this keep happening. Which goes back to the point I made in the first part of this post: if only people made an effort to communicate and understand then maybe interactions with “the Others” won’t be as negative and violent.

And finally I would like to say that I also agree with Tim, this book really is one of the best we have read and it made me really think about important ideas.