Realist Constructivism, Social Nothingness, Ender, Aliens and Lady Gaga

Schmitt is right. How can we define politics without defining what makes politics what it is? Processes through which neutral domains slowly collide into each other, creating anitheses of political -which in return establishes and ensures legitimacy of state & politics. Politics, though it can derive its antithesis from other "neutral" domains also creates (or shall I say "constructs") its own antithesis: friend vs. foe. Realist constructivism anyone?

This is not my first encounter with Carl Schmitt, but I am awestruck by his use of language, aliens and human nature all the same. I read his notes on Leviathan last year, and I kind of expected a similar level of performance with his book- I am not disappointed. He relies on similar assumptions about human nature as Hobbes ("...entire life of a human being is a struggle and every human being symbolically a combatant. (33)") however, he develops Hobbes' state of nature analogy and considers conflict as undesirable, but an indestructible constant. According to Schmitt, political neither "favors war or militarism" because "neither war nor revolution is something social nor something ideal. (33)" However, the undesirable allows political human narratives which as a result gives meaning to the friend and enemy. As long as the potential for conflict remains, state cannot become a neutral domain. And when the state is not neutral political continues. The cycle continuously legitimize state as a social entity and social as a contingent factor of the political. Result? Solution to human fear of cultural and social nothingness (94).


Some of my favorite Schmitt moments in the book are on page 53:

 "If the people no longer maintain the energy or the will to maintain itself in the sphere of politics, the latter will not vanish from the world. Only the weak people will disappear."

Through political that is. This does not necessarily mean that the weak people will be eliminated, but their visibility in political could be affected. This in return gives rise to a specific political behaviour by people to remain part of the political realm which they belong with. However, I would like to hear Schmitt's input on what the low voter turnout of the European Parliament elections mean.

"Political entity presupposes the real existence of an enemy and therefore coexistence with another political entity."

...or semi-political entities (given it's 21st century) i.e. terrorist organizations and even Multi-national Corporations! ( International organizations and states fall into political category for Schmitt, but I'm unclear on whether we should consider MNCs and terrorist organizations as political entities). Schmitt never eliminates the possibility of conflict: League of nations does  not eliminate the possibility of wars just creates new possibilities for them. 


Speaking of enemies; Schmitt submits "A political enemy needs not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly, [s]he need not appear as an economic competitor, and it might even be advantageous to engage with [her/]him in business transactions" (27). Ruling out Bono, I say we might be facing a political enemy disguised/a.k.a. as Lady Gaga.

 "The political world is a pluriverse not a universe."

(Pluriverse? Orwell must be turning in his grave*.)
Therefore, the friend and foe distinction shall remain the only antithesis of political realm. Concept of political yields pluralistic consequences simply because many factors contribute to cause of the consequence. This can explain Ender's motive in saving the Queen bugger despite the efforts that were put in by his teachers to envision the enemy as a monster "which must not only be defeated but also utterly destroyed. (36)"



I'm so excited about our upcoming class discussion on Schmitt!

* Please see Orwell's Politics and English Language essay's Meaningless Words section. I believe he would have approached the word Pluriverse  with same level of disgrunt as he has with fascism, democracy and socialism.