Long Sunday

Germany vs Argentina France vs Whomever Open Thread!

Apologies to CR for being frivolous (then again post-not, complain-not; and for seriousness' sake, as you well know, there is Zizek in the summertime.)  I haven't the faintest idea how these things work, but all half-grudging respects to champions aside, do sort of enjoy the fanciful thought of Germany playing France. 

Brian Lamb's got a great post from Zagreb, in which he recommends TomDispatch on the politics of the game.  For an alternate take, and a few apposite remarks on the Global North's crumbling faith in 'Brazil' manifesting itself in endless laments over Ronaldo's lion lethargy/mediocrity, see over here.  All references to philosophers in comments –if they be other than soccer players – strictly banned.  Have at it, if you care to.

America is waiting

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights …

If a consideration of privelige occupies the thoughts of North American progressives, by contrast the principle that has sometimes preoccupied radical politics in Italy (and perhaps, in other versions, radical politics elsewhere) is non credere di avere diritti – don't believe you have rights.

The Enemy Among Us

In our "Post 9/11" world, the enemy is diffuse, using our "freedoms" against us in order to threaten our safety and undermine our way of life.  This is why the New York Times must be stopped!

Conclusion: Carl Schmitt

Not looking to cut off at the last bits of discussion or to discourage future posts on the topic, but below is an interim index to the Carl Schmitt discussion, here at Long Sunday and elsewhere.  Should anyone be aware of any other discussions, please leave a comment with the URL.

I'd like to thank all the contributors - posters and commenters alike - for their participation.  The 'symposium' was far more successful than I had anticipated, given the length of the paper and the tendency of people to divide between those who can't look past his political affiliations and those who try to.

While there are no future symposiums under discussion at this time, I'd encourage people to write on nationalism/patriotism as we approach Canada Day (July 1) and the American Independence Day (July 4) and as we sit in middle of that soccer tournament.  Might I suggest the next formal discussion be on the topic of privilege?

The Two Politicals

1. A number of commentators have speculated on the relationship between the people, the state and the political in Carl Schmitt’s political theory. Some, of course, have pointed out that this is a futile task: on the one hand, the English translation of The Concept of the Political is of the second edition and not the apparently decisive third and, on the other hand, the situation in the Weimar Republic is hardly comparable to our own. Thus, in one case we are told not to speak because of a lack of information and in the other case we are told not to speak because of the inherent difficulties in transposing concepts developed in one conjuncture to another. Readers of Carl Schmitt should, apparently, remain silent. (Indeed, some critics would prefer that Schmitt not be discussed at all.) And, yet, non-stop chatter, discussion and inquiries. The present 'symposium' is, by some measures, the most successful to date: it looks as though it will last the entire month featuring a diversity of contributions (many unduly neglected!) from a wide spectrum of contributors.

The Führerprinzip

Let not propositions and "ideas" be the rules of your Being.  The Fuhrer alone is the present and future German reality and its law.  Learn to know ever more deeply: from now on every single thing demands decision, and every action responsibility.  Heil Hitler!

Martin Heidegger, 1933

Zen vs. Episteme?

From the Hsin-Hsin Ming, by Seng-Ts'an, third Zen patriarch (sixth century):

Deny the reality of things
and you miss their reality;
Deny the emptiness of things
ad you miss their reality.
The more you talk and think about it,
the further you wander from the truth.
So cease attachment to talking and thinking,
and there is nothing you will not be able to know.

Tis a difficult thing to imagine Long Sunday without attachment to knowing, to pontificating, to ascertaining and argument...  And yet, is it possible?  Can we imagine a quiet space and mode of non-attachment when it comes to what we do here?  Is it possible that this non-attachment, this negation that is not denial, is kin to Deleuze's plane of immanence, or Derrida's differance?

Schmitt and Weber

The general progress of Schmitt's lecture (up to the point I'd like to discuss, which is the treatment of Lenin, which I don't get to below) goes like this: The emergence of the partisan, best represented by the anti-French resistance in 1808-1813 Spain, begins a long process that decays the distinction between 'citizen' and 'soldier.' Due to this international actors are pushed more in the direction of total war, where there are no citizens who can be reliably separated off from combattants. A lot of fascinating detail from the history of partisan activity is provided to illustrate the legal and technical changes. Particularly striking is the attempt by the Prussian state to adopt the Spanish model and, by legal fiat, compel the citizens of Prussia to employ 'partigiano' tactics against the French.

But at the same time Schmitt accompanies the description of this development with hyperbolic phrasing about the significance of the phenomena under study. "A spark flew north from Spain at that time. It did not kindle the same flame that gave the Spanish Guerrilla War its world-historical significance. But it started something whose continuance today in the second half of the twentieth century changed the face of the earth and its inhabitants. It produced a *theory* of war and of enmity that culminates in the theory of the partisan" (5). What do people think: does Schmitt overstate the significance of development he traces? Would it be fair to paraphrase Schmitt like this: "The emergence and growth of the partisan meant that the old approach to wars – which relied on a sharp, binary distinction between regular and irregular, combattants and non, legal and illegal – was no longer applicable. That's why the partisan is a world-historic figure that ends up producing new theories of war."

How shame and envy maketh "the enemy" to go 'round; knights, be ye forever wroth, then with name cast vote, whilst women watch and nearly swoon

        When Sir Palomides saw that Sir Tristram was disguised, he thought to shame him:  he rode to a knight who was sorely wounded and who sat under a tree a good way from the field.
       "Sir knight," said Sir Palomides, "I pray you to lend me your armor and your shield, for mine is overly well known in this field; that hath done me great damage.  Ye shall have my armor and my shield which are as good as yours."
       "I will well," said the knight, "that ye have my armor and my shield.  If they may do you any avail, I am well pleased."
        So Sir Palomides armed hastily in that knight's armor and his shield, which shone like any crystal or silver, and he came riding into the field.  Neither Sir Tristram nor any of Sir Tristram's or King Author's party recognized Sir Palomides.  Just as he came into the field Sir Tristram smote down three knights, right in the sight of Sir Palomides.  Then he rode against Sir Tristram and each met the other with great spears, so hard that the spears burst up to their hands; then they dashed together with swords eagerly.  Sir Tristram marvelled what knight it was who did battle so mightily with him.  Then he was wroth, for he felt that knight to be passing strong, and he deemed he could not have ado with the remnant of the knights because of the strength of Sir Palomides.

what we lose with 'the partisan'

Schmitt makes a very interesting point around p. 28 of the English translation of "Theory of the Partisan." First there was the irresistible temptation experienced by established European powers to use 'partisans' for their wars of national salvation. He refers to Bismarck's comments about wanting to use "any weapon" made available by new-found national feeling against France and the Hapsburg monarchy. The Prussian Landsturm edict, signed by the Prussian king in 1813, ordered all Prussian citizens to use every means to oppose the French and demanded that citizens refuse to cooperate with any measures, no matter how banal, of the occupiers (29). But at the same time established armies treated 'irregular' troops with great harshness. When armies fought, everyone wore uniforms, carried weapons openly, and you knew who who was. The beneficial aspect of this, Schmitt points out, was that a sharp limit was established concerning who war was directed at. If a soldier from an invading army came upon a civilian in a town -- someone not dressed as a soldier, not carrying a gun or sword -- the soldier didn't have to worry that the 'citizen' might jump up and stab him. The citizen, likewise, did not have to worry that the soldier would regard her as a menace. The result is a barrier against total war. This distinction held up, with exceptions, through World War I.