Understanding The Political Schmitt: A Comprehensive Guide To His Philosophy

The concept of the Political Schmitt refers to the influential ideas of German jurist and political theorist Carl Schmitt (1888–1985), whose work continues to shape discussions on sovereignty, politics, and the state. Central to Schmitt's thought is his definition of the political as rooted in the distinction between friend and enemy, a binary he argued was fundamental to understanding political identity and conflict. His most renowned work, *The Concept of the Political* (1932), emphasizes the role of the state in maintaining order and the necessity of a sovereign authority capable of making decisive decisions, particularly in times of crisis. Schmitt's theories, though controversial due to his association with Nazi Germany, remain pivotal in debates on democracy, authoritarianism, and the nature of political power, making the Political Schmitt a critical lens through which to analyze modern political theory and practice.

Explore related products

Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty

$22.97

The Concept of the Political: Expanded Edition

$17.2 $26

Theory of the Partisan: Intermediate Commentary on the Concept of the Political

$21.95

Constitutional Theory

$32.95 $32.95

The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes: Meaning and Failure of a Political Symbol (Heritage of Sociology)

$28

Dictatorship

$26 $26

Schmitt's Concept of Sovereignty: Central to his theory, sovereignty defines ultimate political authority, shaping state power

Carl Schmitt, a prominent German political theorist of the 20th century, is best known for his controversial yet influential ideas on politics, law, and sovereignty. Central to his theory is the concept of sovereignty, which he defines as the ultimate political authority that shapes and defines state power. Schmitt's understanding of sovereignty is rooted in his belief that politics is inherently a realm of conflict and opposition, where the distinction between friend and enemy is the defining criterion. In this context, sovereignty is not merely a legal or institutional concept but a fundamental political reality that determines the existence and identity of the state.

Schmitt's concept of sovereignty is closely tied to his critique of liberal democracy and the rule of law. He argues that in a liberal democratic system, the principle of legality and the separation of powers can lead to a diffusion of authority, making it difficult to identify the ultimate source of political decision-making. In contrast, Schmitt posits that sovereignty requires a clear and unambiguous decision-making authority, one that can act decisively in times of crisis or exception. This sovereign authority, according to Schmitt, is embodied in the person or institution that has the power to decide on the exception, to suspend the normal operation of law and to take extraordinary measures to preserve the state's existence.

The sovereign, in Schmitt's view, is not bound by legal or moral constraints but is rather the source of law and order. This idea is encapsulated in his famous dictum: "Sovereign is he who decides on the exception." The exception, in this context, refers to situations where the normal rules and procedures of the legal order are inadequate or insufficient to address a particular crisis or threat. In such situations, the sovereign has the authority to take extraordinary measures, even if they violate existing laws or norms, in order to preserve the state's existence and ensure its survival. This concept of sovereignty as the power to decide on the exception has significant implications for the understanding of state power and the limits of legal and constitutional constraints.

Schmitt's concept of sovereignty also has important implications for international relations and the global order. He argues that sovereignty is not limited to the internal affairs of a state but also extends to its relations with other states. In the international realm, sovereignty is expressed through the principle of non-intervention, which holds that states have the right to conduct their affairs without external interference. However, Schmitt also recognizes that sovereignty can be limited or constrained by international law, treaties, and other forms of cooperation between states. Nevertheless, he maintains that the ultimate authority to decide on matters of state existence and survival remains with the sovereign, whether it is a single individual, a group, or an institution.

In conclusion, Schmitt's concept of sovereignty is a central and defining feature of his political theory, shaping his understanding of state power, authority, and decision-making. By emphasizing the importance of a clear and unambiguous sovereign authority, Schmitt challenges traditional notions of liberal democracy, rule of law, and constitutionalism. His ideas continue to provoke debate and controversy, but they remain a significant contribution to political theory, offering a unique perspective on the nature of power, authority, and the state. As a concept, sovereignty in Schmitt's thought serves as a reminder of the complexities and challenges inherent in the exercise of political power, particularly in times of crisis and exception.

Friend-Enemy Distinction: Core idea that politics is defined by existential conflicts between friends and enemies

The concept of the "Friend-Enemy Distinction" is central to Carl Schmitt's political philosophy, as outlined in his seminal work *"The Concept of the Political"* (1927). Schmitt argues that the essence of politics lies in the ability to differentiate between friend and enemy. This distinction is not merely a personal or moral categorization but an existential one, rooted in the potential for conflict that defines political life. For Schmitt, the political sphere is inherently confrontational, and the friend-enemy relationship serves as its foundational criterion. This means that politics is not about economic interests, moral principles, or social cooperation alone but is fundamentally shaped by the possibility of existential struggle between groups or entities.

Schmitt emphasizes that the friend-enemy distinction is not arbitrary or subjective; it is a concrete, real possibility of conflict that can escalate to the point of violence or war. The enemy, in this context, is not necessarily a personal adversary but a collective or political opponent whose existence poses a threat to one's own group or way of life. This distinction is what separates the political from other spheres of human activity, such as the economic, the moral, or the aesthetic. While these other domains may involve competition or disagreement, only the political realm is defined by the potential for life-or-death conflict. Schmitt's point is that politics is unique because it deals with the ultimate questions of survival and identity.

The friend-enemy distinction also implies a degree of unity and solidarity among friends. In Schmitt's view, the awareness of a common enemy fosters cohesion within a group, as members rally together to protect their shared interests and values. This unity is not based on abstract ideals or universal principles but on the concrete reality of a threat. Schmitt argues that this is why political identities are often formed in opposition to an external adversary, whether it be another nation, ideology, or social group. The friend-enemy dynamic, therefore, is not just about conflict but also about the creation and maintenance of political communities.

Critically, Schmitt's friend-enemy distinction has profound implications for the role of the state and sovereignty. He asserts that the state is the entity that holds the monopoly on deciding who is a friend and who is an enemy, both internally and externally. This decision-making power is what defines sovereignty, as the state has the authority to mobilize resources, declare war, and enforce order in the face of perceived threats. Schmitt's theory challenges liberal notions of politics, which often emphasize consensus, compromise, and the rule of law. Instead, he highlights the irreducible role of conflict and decision-making in political life, arguing that the ability to identify and act against enemies is essential for the survival of any political entity.

Finally, Schmitt's friend-enemy distinction has been both influential and controversial. While it provides a stark and clear framework for understanding the nature of politics, it has also been criticized for its potential to justify authoritarianism, exclusion, and violence. Critics argue that Schmitt's focus on conflict can lead to the dehumanization of opponents and the erosion of democratic values. Nonetheless, his ideas remain a crucial point of reference in political theory, particularly in discussions about the nature of power, identity, and conflict in the modern world. The friend-enemy distinction continues to provoke debate about the boundaries of politics and the role of antagonism in shaping human societies.

Critique of Liberalism: Schmitt rejects liberal norms, arguing they weaken state authority and political clarity

Carl Schmitt, a prominent German political theorist of the early 20th century, is known for his sharp critique of liberalism, which he saw as fundamentally incompatible with the essence of the political. Central to Schmitt's thought is the distinction between the "friend-enemy" dichotomy, which he argues is the defining criterion of the political. Liberalism, in his view, fails to recognize and maintain this distinction, leading to a dilution of state authority and political clarity. Schmitt contends that liberal norms, with their emphasis on individual rights, universalism, and legalism, undermine the state's ability to act decisively in the face of existential threats. By prioritizing abstract principles over concrete political realities, liberalism, according to Schmitt, creates a vacuum of authority that weakens the state's capacity to ensure order and security.

One of Schmitt's primary criticisms of liberalism is its reliance on neutral, depoliticized frameworks that obscure the inherently conflictual nature of politics. Liberalism, he argues, seeks to replace the political with the legal, reducing political questions to matters of procedural correctness or moral universalism. This shift, Schmitt claims, strips politics of its existential seriousness, as it fails to acknowledge that political life is fundamentally shaped by conflicts that cannot be resolved through legal or moral appeals alone. By attempting to transcend the friend-enemy distinction, liberalism creates an illusion of harmony that leaves societies vulnerable to internal and external threats. Schmitt insists that true political clarity requires recognizing and confronting these antagonisms rather than suppressing them under the guise of neutrality.

Schmitt further critiques liberalism for its tendency to fragment political authority and sovereignty. Liberal systems, with their emphasis on checks and balances, constitutional limits, and the protection of individual liberties, disperse power in ways that Schmitt believes render the state ineffective. He argues that a strong, centralized state is necessary to make decisive decisions in times of crisis, a capacity that liberalism undermines through its institutional design. For Schmitt, the liberal commitment to pluralism and the rule of law leads to a paralysis of decision-making, as competing interests and legal constraints hinder the state's ability to act swiftly and authoritatively. This fragmentation, he warns, leaves societies ill-equipped to address existential challenges that demand unity and resolve.

Another key aspect of Schmitt's critique is his rejection of liberalism's universalist aspirations. Liberalism, with its belief in the applicability of its principles across all contexts, fails to account for the particularities of political communities, according to Schmitt. He argues that political decisions must be rooted in the unique historical, cultural, and existential conditions of a given state, rather than in abstract, universal norms. By imposing a one-size-fits-all framework, liberalism disregards the concrete realities that shape political life, leading to a loss of political clarity and effectiveness. Schmitt advocates for a politics that is deeply embedded in the specific identity and interests of the state, rather than one that seeks to transcend them in the name of universal values.

Finally, Schmitt's critique of liberalism extends to its treatment of the state as a mere instrument for protecting individual rights, rather than as an end in itself. He argues that liberalism reduces the state to a neutral arbiter of competing interests, stripping it of its role as the embodiment of a political community's identity and purpose. For Schmitt, the state must be understood as a sovereign entity with the authority to define the political realm and to act decisively in defense of its existence. Liberalism's focus on limiting state power, he contends, undermines this sovereignty, leaving the state unable to fulfill its essential function of ensuring the survival and integrity of the political community. In rejecting liberal norms, Schmitt calls for a reassertion of state authority and a return to a politics that acknowledges the irreducible reality of conflict and antagonism.

Explore related products

Carl Schmitt: Politics and Theory (Contributions in Political Science)

$125

Political Theology II: The Myth of the Closure of any Political Theology

$19.28 $22.95

The Enemy: An Intellectual Portrait of Carl Schmitt

$26.6 $29.95

Political Romanticism

$40

The Concept of the Political

$0.99

The Oxford Handbook of Carl Schmitt

$51.3 $69

State of Exception: Explores how emergencies justify extraordinary state powers, bypassing legal norms

The concept of the "State of Exception" is central to understanding Carl Schmitt's political philosophy, particularly his ideas on sovereignty and the role of the state during crises. Schmitt, a German jurist and political theorist, argued that in times of extreme emergency, the state must be able to act decisively, even if it means suspending legal norms and constitutional constraints. This state of exception, according to Schmitt, reveals the true nature of sovereignty: the power to decide what constitutes an emergency and how to respond to it. In this framework, the sovereign is not bound by the rule of law but rather stands above it, ensuring the survival of the political order.

Emergencies, such as wars, natural disasters, or civil unrest, create conditions where normal legal procedures are deemed insufficient to address the threat. Schmitt posits that in these moments, the state must assert its authority in extraordinary ways to restore order and protect the collective good. This justification for bypassing legal norms is rooted in the idea that the law itself is designed for stability, not for crisis. When the very existence of the state is at stake, adherence to legal formalities can become a liability, and the state must act with unencumbered power to ensure its survival.

The state of exception is not merely a temporary suspension of law but a fundamental political act that redefines the relationship between the state and its legal framework. Schmitt argues that this act is not arbitrary but is legitimized by the necessity of the situation. The sovereign’s decision to invoke the state of exception is, in his view, a manifestation of political existence itself. This perspective challenges liberal notions of the rule of law, which prioritize legal continuity and individual rights, by emphasizing the primacy of political survival over legal consistency.

Critics of Schmitt’s theory argue that the state of exception can easily become a tool for authoritarianism, as it grants unchecked power to the sovereign. History provides numerous examples where emergencies have been used to justify repression, curtail civil liberties, and consolidate power. Schmitt’s own alignment with Nazi Germany has further complicated the reception of his ideas, as his theories were employed to legitimize totalitarian rule. However, his framework remains influential in debates about the balance between security and freedom, particularly in contemporary discussions about counterterrorism, public health crises, and other emergencies.

In exploring the state of exception, it becomes clear that the concept raises profound questions about the nature of law, sovereignty, and the limits of political power. While Schmitt’s argument highlights the necessity of extraordinary measures in times of crisis, it also underscores the dangers inherent in bypassing legal norms. The tension between order and liberty, between the survival of the state and the protection of individual rights, remains a central challenge in political theory and practice. Understanding the state of exception is thus essential for grappling with the complexities of governance in an uncertain world.

Political Theology: Links political concepts to religious ideas, framing authority as quasi-theological

Carl Schmitt's concept of Political Theology is a cornerstone of his political philosophy, offering a profound framework for understanding the intersection of politics and religion. At its core, Political Theology posits that political concepts are inherently linked to religious ideas, and that political authority can be understood through quasi-theological lenses. Schmitt argues that secular political orders, despite their claims to rationality and modernity, often mirror the structures and logics of religious systems. This is not merely a metaphorical comparison but a fundamental assertion that the sacred and the political are inextricably intertwined.

Schmitt's central thesis in *Political Theology* (1922) is encapsulated in the famous dictum, "Sovereign is he who decides on the exception." Here, sovereignty is framed as a quasi-theological concept, akin to divine authority. Just as God in religious traditions holds the power to suspend or transcend natural laws, the sovereign in the political realm possesses the authority to declare a state of exception—a moment when the legal order is suspended to address an existential crisis. This act of decision-making in the exception is not bound by legal norms, much like divine intervention, and thus elevates the sovereign to a position of ultimate authority. Schmitt's framing underscores the sacredness attributed to political power, even in ostensibly secular states.

The linkage between political and religious ideas is further evident in Schmitt's analysis of concepts like miracle, representation, and sacrifice. He argues that political systems often employ these religious notions to legitimize authority. For instance, the miracle—an event that transcends natural laws—finds its political analogue in the sovereign's ability to act outside the legal framework. Similarly, the idea of representation in politics mirrors the religious concept of a mediator between the divine and the human. Sacrifice, another key religious theme, is reinterpreted in the political context as the willingness of citizens to subordinate their interests to the collective good, often symbolized by the state.

Schmitt's Political Theology also critiques the secularization of modern politics, arguing that it has not truly escaped its religious roots. Instead, it has merely replaced traditional religious authority with new forms of sacredness, such as the nation, the constitution, or the people. These entities are treated with a reverence akin to religious dogma, and their violation is met with moral outrage rather than mere legal consequences. This quasi-theological framing of political authority reveals the enduring presence of religious structures in modern political thought, even in societies that claim to be secular.

Finally, Schmitt's Political Theology has profound implications for understanding the nature of power and legitimacy. By framing authority as quasi-theological, he highlights the emotional and symbolic dimensions of politics, which often transcend rationality and legality. This perspective challenges the liberal notion of politics as a neutral, secular sphere governed by reason and law. Instead, Schmitt reveals that political orders are deeply rooted in myth, symbolism, and the sacred, making Political Theology an essential tool for analyzing the hidden religious underpinnings of modern political systems.

Frequently asked questions