At Least Not on This Planet

[This is a post by Adam Kotsko, who quite often posts at The Weblog.]

In The Concept of the Political, we find the following paragraph:

Humanity as such cannot wage war because it has no enemy, at least not on this planet. The concept of humanity excludes the concept of the enemy, because the enemy does not cease to be a human being--and hence there is no specific differentiation in that concept. That wars are waged in the name of humanity is not a contradiction of this simple truth; quite the contrary, it has an especially intensive political meaning. When a state fights its political enemy in the name of humanity, it is not a war for the sake of humanity, but a war wherein a particular state seeks to usurp a universal concept against its military opponent. At the expense of its opponent, it tries to identify itself with humanity in the same way as one can misuse peace, justice, progress, and civilization in order to claim these as one's own and to deny the same to the enemy (pg. 54 of the University of Chicago edition).

Of course, a lot of this paragraph seems to be really right. What really stands out to me, however, is not the explicit conceptual apparatus brought to bear here so much as the strange little aside in the first paragraph: "at least not on this planet."

To some degree, it's a throw-away line. The logic is fairly transparent: If there were some alien empire out there who decided to wage war on humanity -- at least this is how the story normally seems to go in science fiction stories -- humanity "as such" would have an enemy and would therefore be able to wage war "as such." The crisis of the discovery of an extraterrestrial enemy -- an enemy not from this planet, not from earth -- would be necessary in order for humanity to become a political concept.

Thankfully, there probably aren't any extraterrestrial life forms waging war on humanity as such -- at least not at the moment. That goes without saying, right?

Perhaps not. In fact, one could say that The Theory of the Partisan takes place entirely within the space opened up by that strange little aside.

It is not by accident that I am using the term "extraterrestrial" here instead of merely "alien." After all, Schmitt specifies that a proper enemy for humanity as such is not simply alien -- every enemy is in some sense alien -- but distant from the planet, from Earth, as we call it. Humanity as such has the characteristic of being on the Earth. The humanity that has an enemy is that which is close to the earth, "telluric." And as we know, the only way humanity would know if it had an absolute enemy would be for that enemy to announce itself--but this is precisely what the bourgeois state does, in Schmitt's account:

The concept of humanity is an especially useful ideological instrument of imperialist expansion, and in its ethical-humanitarian form it is a specific vehicle of economic imperialism. Here one is reminded of a somewhat modified expression of Proudhon's: whoever invokes humanity wants to cheat. To confiscate the word humanity, to invoke and monopolize such a term probably has certain incalculable effects, such as denying the enemy the quality of being human and declaring him to be an outlaw of humanity; and a war can thereby be driven to the most extreme inhumanity. (Ibid.)

Is this not a precise description of the outcome of counterinsurgency against a telluric partisan? While one party is robbed of the name humanity, we can't help but note which side is implicitly being pegged as inhuman: precisely the side that wants to claim the name humanity for itself. This same inhuman force is called "imperialist," thus precisely the type of enemy the partisan fights -- that is, the enemy who is not "of the soil" or "telluric." The one who is a certain distance from the planet, one might say.

Schmitt of course will never be a left-winger, but he is inches away from saying: humanity does have an absolute enemy, and the war is going on now. He even has a pretty clear idea of who the aggressor was, and who is by rights entitled to the name of humanity. Although he is biased toward the state, I really think that in the situation in which he finds himself by the time he writes The Theory of the Partisan, Schmitt is effectively on the side of the partisan against the state.

This has of course only been an initial gesture toward proving such a thesis, and an inadequate one at that.

Comments

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Adam,

The problem is that the University of Chicago edition of The Concept of the Political is the second, not last, edition of that work. As such, it doesn't contain Schmitt's final revisions which bring his intentions to the forefront (intentions which Strauss hints at [which is, of course, the value of having his "Notes" appended to the text]). Considering the high regard Schmitt held for Strauss's "Notes" and, apparently, Strauss himself, understanding Schmitt's second edition of The Concept... in the light of Strauss's critique would not be misunderstanding him (even if it doesn't allow for a complete misunderstanding).

I think your blowing-off of The Concept... as not a "difficult" work may bespeak the extent to which you have underestimated Schmitt and hence failed to do what is critical for any interpretation: understand the author as he understood himself. Granted, to understand Schmitt is to read more than that one work or, for that matter, that one work coupled with Political Theology. I am the last person to disagree that those two works form the cornerstone of Schmitt's theoretical enterprise, but one *must* get beyond them to understand it wholly. I don't believe that is in any way, shape, or form possible without the 1933 edition of The Concept of the Political or, at least, access to those crucial changes which Schmitt made. (One can gain such access through the English translation of Heinrich Meier's The Hidden Dialogue.)

As a last point, I don't know what really is "the grain" as it concerns Carl Schmitt anymore. If you read Telos, you get one variety, and if you read the post-1988 European reception (exemplified by Heinrich Meier and, to some extent, Jacob Taubes), you get another. There's a great in-between and, naturally, lots of snotty polemical potshots to boot. I do believe that the publication of Schmitt's Glossary a few years ago really tipped the scale for the current European reading; a reading which had been carried out to great heights prior to any access to that work.

[Nate]

hi Gabriel,
I don't have time to read through all this now, I've just skimmed it. I'm eager to return to read it more slowly when I have the time, and I appreciate you taking yours to make these comments.
That said, your placing of "intellectual" and "symposium" and use of the world "allegedly" as a modifier of intellectual strike me as rude. I'm not LS management, just a reader and two time contributor when they've offered to let nonmembers contribute pieces on stuff I've been trying to get clear on. As one reader to another, please don't do this, here. I suspect that will also help make for more openminded and constructive responses to your comments.
Best regards,
Nate

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Nate,

I'm not sure what you are referring to, especially with me placing "symposium" in quotes on here (though I did so on my blog). I think "allegedly" describes it as best as I can tell because, like I said in another post, I haven't read through everything here. However, when you have responses from lead posters on here of the nature of Adam's, placing "intellectual" in quotes seems more than warranted.

I look forward to your reply.

[Adam Kotsko]

Gabriel,

Your comments seemed very aggressive to me and seemed to be rather territorial with regard to Schmitt -- basically, you seemed to be holding us to a standard that none of us claimed to be aspiring to. Since your commitment to and knowledge of Schmitt are obviously greater than ours (and I'm not being sarcastic here), all I could say was that I hoped you found an appropriate forum for your love of Schmitt.

I will abstain from remarking on the irony of the fact that the posters here at Long Sunday are doing precisely what you suggest -- going beyond the two "big" works of Schmitt. Yet you complain about this!

(I'd say that I'm most influenced by Taubes and Agamben in matters of Schmittian interpretation.)

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Adam,

I think your two replies to me is exactly what I was getting at with my placing "intellectual" in quotes. I was very interested in your initial post in that it brought the discussion squarely on the central text in Schmitt's corpus, but I thought your reading of it was poor. Instead of replying to me, you mocked me and now, with your "love of Schmitt" remark, you are at it again. What is that even supposed to mean? Call me crazy, but I have always found it better to try and understand a thinker accurately before posting something about him, especially in a forum that is self-consciously calling itself a symposium. Also--and this may be equally bonkers--I have found it helpful in my life to listen to the criticism of others on a topic that I have an incomplete understandong of. (And, judging by your remarks, you are wholly conscious of your own with regard to Schmitt.)

You seem to miss the point that my suggestions to go beyond those works presupposes one understands those works. As I have stated on here multiple times, there has been a shortcoming there with regards to The Concept of the Political. So, there is hardly any irony in my suggestions.

As for Taubes, I would make the qualification that he understands Schmitt. However, his position is decidedly contra Schmitt and therefore I don't know if that lends him to being the best interpreter. The same for Agamben, though he seems caught too much in the notion of Schmitt as a juridical thinker. The benefit of Meier is the charity and depth of his reading to draw his conclusions. (Though I do have doubts that Meier in any way agrees with Schmitt.)

[Adam Kotsko]

I was just trying to say that you appear to have a very significant investment in Schmitt. I don't view that as a slur -- in fact, it's a good thing.

On to your more substantive points:

You don't know that Schmitt ever claims that "the state" hijacks "humanity" as a political term -- but I said "modern bourgeois state," which was an inference from Schmitt's connection of the hijacking of the term "humanity" and imperial expansion in modern times.

My thoughts on distance were based purposely on taking Schmitt's "aside" at its word -- I know that, officially, Schmitt doesn't think that "humanity" can be a political concept, but I was trying to tease out the conditions under which his "aside" said that such a thing would be possible. My intention was to link this idea of "humanity" as political and the idea of "absolute emnity" (presumably something with higher stakes than your everyday run of the mill emnity -- and probably different from Schmitt's previous concept of the enemy since he says that Lenin discovered it, no?) from Theory of the Partisan.

[Nate]

hi Gabriel,
I need to fix mint tea and get a coldpack for my unfortunately migraine afflicted partner, so I must be brief (and I haven't yet had time to read all of this, my apologies). You put symposium in quotes in your comment that begins "I fear that I am beginning (...)". If you didn't mean the quotes to indicate basically the equivalent of "allegedly", then I take back those comments. As I said, I only skimmed and the scare quotes and "allegedly" jumped out at me.
If I were to attend any in person event and say "your so-called activist group/reading group/writing group/community theater/etc (...)" that would be a bit rude. You may not have intended for the comment to come off that way - I have a US midwestern sense of manners, you may not, I know not everyone does. All I mean to say is first, please act here as you would in an in-person gathering to discuss this stuff, and second, the exchange will be more productive if we stick to that level. If your sense is that you're not the only one's been rude, then fair enough - this is an omni-directed appeal on my part. Now, lest my remarks here become themselves a source of unproductive and acrimonious exchanges, I'll leave this off and go pour that cup of tea.
All of this aside, I look forward to reading your remarks on Schmitt here and at yours as soon as I'm able. Schmitt's a figure I find interesting and who I want to know better.
Best regards,
Nate

[Nate]

Drat. I wasn't as clear as I meant - I meant to say "an in-person gathering with relative strangers". (Many of my close friends and I are often quite rude to each other person as a form of humor, but it's predicated on a prior and very secure trust, respect, and affection.)