« The Becoming-Partisan of Thought: Fragments on Schmitt and Deleuze/Guattari | Main | Partisan of No Part »
Schmitt, at a tangent
What follows are fragments, with some modification, pulled from notes for a longer study
on Lucretius, which explains the Latin turns and preoccupations – they
barely amount to a reading of Schmitt’s “The Theory of the Partisan”,
from which my attention kept veering.
Carl Schmitt is not, I think, the 20th century’s most persistent philosopher of the political but of the mos maiorum – which is to say, politics conceived as the inheritance, codification and preservation of a ‘way of life’. In Schmitt’s writings, as in Lucretius’s time, the mos maiorum ascends to conceptual reverence in the midst of and as a symptom of its crisis.
Schmitt’s analysis, while it purports to be a rigorous, literal observation of the conduct of politics, is, on the contrary, a romantic, sentimental devotion to borders and polemos.
Throughout his work, Schmitt’s jus bellum is assembled and reconstructed on the ground of an apparently indisputable and absolute right to self-preservation. And so, while the question of self goes begging, it seeks protection from politics in the existential, anti-heretical, and dualist lexicon of friendship and enmity.
The mos maiorum depoliticises and ahistoricises – that is, renders as if created ex nihilo – certain formalised, abstract parameters of selfhood, through existential assertions that a given ‘way of life’ corresponds to and exhausts every sense of life, the nation every sense of self, the communis sensus every sense of bodies and the range of possible experiences between them, including those of intimacy, neglect, delight, unconcern.
Tangere enim et tangi, nisi corpus, nulla potest res. – Lucretius, De Rerum Natura.
To be sure, there is an acknowledgement at times that there are other ways of being with others, but the essence of politics for Schmitt has to do with acquiring the “intensity” – the vīs and vir – that formal and abstract “unity” provides, for him.
The idea of representation rests upon the fact that a people existing as a political unity has a higher and more intense way of being than the natural being of a group of people who just happen to live together. - Carl Schmitt, Verfassungslehre, 1928.
The Christiana Respublica in extending as empire, encounters difference in the world and, increasingly, breaches in the civitas and religio.
In the Schmittian schema, modified after the end of World War II and in the wake of the ruin of the Tausendjähriges Reich, the figure of the partisan will emerge as the irreversible convulsions of the mos maiorum, and the anticipation of an interminable and global civil war.
For Schmitt, this serves as confirmation of the supremacy of ‘Western Europe’ and nostalgic lament for the ostensibly real, authentic and tractable enmity of a Westaphalian demarcation of the world into the territories of an everlasting war and the zone of a contracted peace.
Two kinds of war are particularly important and in a sense even related to partisanship: civil war and colonial war…. Classical European international law marginalised these two dangerous forms of war and enmity. - Schmitt, TTP, emphasis added.
The abstract, depoliticising injunction of the mos maiorum is to conserve the inheritance.
The theorist can do no more than preserve the concepts and call things by their names. - Schmitt, TTP, emphasis added.
The Schmittian corpus - Noli me tangere - Tertullian Christian flesh. [+]
..
Postscript: If I were to approach “The Theory of the Partisan” without vectoring it through a reading of Lucretius, I think it might more fruitfully be read as Schmitt’s response to Walter Benjamin’s insistence on bringing about a “real state of emergency”.
[xposted]
By s0metim3s | June 7, 2006 in Carl Schmitt, Polemics, War | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/361357/5042492
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Schmitt, at a tangent:
Comments
I like this very much Angela, thanks for writing it. I like the point very much about Schmitt treating way(s) of life as if created ex nihilo and as exhaustive. This occurs in his account of and preference for the telluric partisan. In light of that, then, Schmitt's fascination with the partisan seems partially a desire to render the partisan not a disruption but an extension of the mos maiorum (like the Landsturm edict and the Napoleonic army both making the partisan functional for the state). I'm curious as to what degree Agamben's form-of-life is or is not also mos maiorum. The degree to which it's not would sort of anchor a possibility for a fully non-telluric partisan (as, to my mind, Lenin's partisanship is much more telluric than Schmitt thinks). Any thoughts on that? I'd also love hear more on that postscript.
Posted by: Nate | Jun 11, 2006 3:25:42 AM
I think Agamben's argument, in State of Exception, that Schmitt is responding to Benjamin, is quite possibly right but, more importantly, I think it's an interesting path to follow. Even if one heads in another direction with it than Agamben does.
Rather than grant the Schmittian definitions - politics as conditioned by the distinction between friend-enemy, and so on -, positioning Schmitt as Benjamin's respondent makes it a question of how the state (or law) responds to struggles.
So, for instance: contra Schmitt, the state of emergency is the not the ability to decide the exception so much as the state's response to - in the form of acquiring flexibility and mobility against - the emergence of exceptions (to the law and state, among other things). Something of that thinking lay behind this.
In the more specific case of Schmitt's discussion of partisanship - it would be interesting, to me anyway, to read Schmitt's partisan as a (geopoliticised and figurative) stand-in for Benjamin's messianic. It's something I'd have to think about more, obviously, but I find it more promising than getting stuck in Schmitt-land.
By the by, and jumping ahead, does anyone recall where exactly Schmitt discusses Tocqueville and the katechon?
Posted by: s0metim3s | Jun 11, 2006 4:50:18 PM
I like that, I'll have to think more on it.
I don't know about Tocqueville, but the katechon comes up in the Nomos book. I'll look over my notes and see if I can find more specific references. (And would be quite interesting to use to read in relation to disagreement about multitude among some of the postoperaisti - Virno's is a katechonic multitude which must prevent Empire's constitution, quite different from Negri's call to constitute Empire then break on through to its other side.)
Posted by: Nate | Jun 11, 2006 7:34:45 PM
Does Virno use the term katechon?
Some mention of Schmitt's lament about Tocqueville here, but would be good to locate the source, if anyone knows it offhand.
Posted by: s0metim3s | Jun 12, 2006 1:35:24 AM
No, he doesn't, it's an imputation on my part.
Posted by: Nate | Jun 12, 2006 9:59:54 PM
Schmitt's major engagement with Tocqueville seems to be in the 1950 text Ex Captivitate Salus. I'm unsure about it being available in English translation.
Posted by: Brett | Jun 13, 2006 6:27:23 AM
Post a comment
Please note: comments are published at the discretion of the post's author and will not appear immediately. Do not submit comments more than once.