Dr. Jonathan Fein (3:03)

We are talking about Carl Schmitt.

Dr. Claire Aubin (3:07)

Wonderful. So this is going to be a theory heavy episode for people at home, but I promise we will make it as interesting and as painless as humanly possible. Partially because I am not a theory, philosophy slash intellectual history girl. And also partially because you have to know about and understand this guy in order to get what's happening in the world right now. So we're going to try to make this as accessible for you as we possibly can. So rest assured, we're talking about philosophy, but you can do it. You can do it. It's going to be great. Before we talk about why Schmidt sucked, we have to establish what his original sort of popular historical narrative is. So why is he famous? What contributions to the world would you say he's best known for?

Dr. Jonathan Fein (3:56)

Yes, and I'm just going to start by saying that Carl Schmitt was a Nazi. And that is the fundamental fact that you really should take away. He was an unrepentant Nazi from when he joined the party in 1933 to the moment he died in 1985 at the age of 96. Unlike figures like Martin Heidegger, who at least went through the process of denazification, were penalized for a certain amount of time and then got back to their lives, Schmidt never went through any denazification and remained quite. He was interrogated, he was in prison after the war, but he remained a proud Nazi for a very long time. And in addition to being a Nazi, just to state at the very beginning he was a very militant anti Semite for a while. We didn't have access to some of his diaries from before the war and from his time just stewing at home for 40 years. But we now do. And so we know that his antisemitism started young. So there are remarks in his twenties talking about Jews as insects. And he continued on into the Third Reich, which was really disinhibiting for him. And his anti Judaism antisemitism continued as he found himself out of a job and just watching Jews take control as he felt. So in addition to those fundamental facts of Nazism and antisemitism, he's known for a set of ideas that have been incredibly influential Starting when he was alive, but still today among thinkers on both the right and the left. If we're going to kind of go back to the very beginning, he made his name in the Weimar Republic. So he was confronted every day with what he felt was great disorder. And he saw it as his task to set that into order to determine what was wrong and to set the world right. So one of his first major ideas is what's called the state of exception. And that's from a starts to be developed in a text called the Dictator. It's about dictatorship. One of his earliest pieces and what he's interested in, particularly if you look at a concrete level, is Article 48 of the Weimar Republic's constitution. And what that does, or what that did is gave the President of the Reich the ability to suspend the laws to create a state of emergency, a state of exception, in response to any disorder that the president felt was being perpetrated. And that was something that, to Schmidt that was important. He was really, he wanted to reinvigorate dictatorship, which is, it's an ancient political. He was fully in support of the Romans having it. At this point he's still really thinking about it as a time delimited. You have a state of exception, a state of emergency, and that ends and you go back to a better order than you presumably had before the state of exception.

Dr. Claire Aubin (7:55)

Just to hop in here also, and I'm sure that you are planning on explaining this at some point also, but the state of exception that we're talking about, just for Clarity's purposes, it's the idea that you can suspend laws, norms, et cetera, like is in the Weimar Constitution, you can suspend laws, norms and rights in order to address some emergent situation. Right. Or allegedly address some emergent situation. So for people thinking of this at home, it's the idea is that a case or a circumstance can be so extreme that it's okay to erode these democratic norms and rights that we would typically call civil liberties in order to transfer more decision making power to a leader. So for example, when we have a national emergency or like a terrorist attack or things where we're that were normally meant to have like a right to privacy are basically suspended as a result of rulers exercising their powers as sovereigns in order to address whatever the alleged emergency is. And that is the state of exception. Is that right?

Dr. Jonathan Fein (9:07)

Exactly. So he develops this relatively early. This is far before Hitler was on the scene. And the state of exception was actually used quite a lot in Weimar. So it's not something that was abnormal. And it was defending one particular use of it that actually got him the attention of the Nazis. So he defended a coup in the state of Prussia. The Chancellor at the time had the president take control of Prussia, the government which was dominated by socialists, who Schmidt hated, as he hated all leftists. And that he lost to some extent. But the Nazis noticed that he was zealously committed to clauses that they would then make their own. So the state of exceptions, sovereignty, that's one huge thing that, you know, continues to be with us to this day.

Dr. Claire Aubin (10:19)

This is also the sovereignty thing is also a big part of his, of his theorizing in general. Right. Like he comes up with something called decision or not comes up. It already exists ambiently in the world. But within his theorizing, he talks about decisionist sovereignty, which again, for people at home, it will be explained. It just means that someone who is in charge, or a ruler, a sovereign, just all that is, is having the power to make decisions. Most famously, he talks about sovereigns as people who have the right to make decisions in terms of things like the state of exception. So it's just like to have decision as sovereignty, or to think about this theory, which he is a huge proponent of and is the guy behind sort of like making this popular as a sort of solid political theory is about this decision making power. And that's what's really inherent to political leadership. According to Schmidt. If you make decisions, then you are a decisionist sovereign, or you are a sovereign with decision, with decisionist powers. Wow, that is a hard thing to say, by the way.

Dr. Jonathan Fein (11:32)

Yeah. So Schmidt, the idea of sovereignty, that's something that he develops further in a book called Political Theology, which is also from the 1920s. And he's not the first originator, but certainly the popularizer of that term. And he declares that the sovereign is the person who decides on the state of exception. So the sovereign gets to make the choice, whether that applies or not. And he. Yes, we will probably should talk about decisions later, because the most fundamental decision, the most fundamental political decision for Schmidt, which he expounds upon in Concept of the political in the 20s, you've revised it even during the Third Reich, is the friend, enemy, distinction. So he argues that in each of these, in many different fields, there is a fundamental distinction that you're being made that needs to be made. So if you're talking about ethics, morality, you have to decide what is good and what is bad. If you're in economics, you decide what is profitable, what is unprofitable. Aesthetics, you Decide what's beautiful, what's ugly. And he thinks about politics because politics decisions are fundamental for him. And he thinks that politics is deciding who is one's friend and who is one's foe. And that that is the fundamental distinction. That is that the core of everything. He calls it the political. It's not politics. This distinction becomes quite important later. The politics versus the political. Politics would be the everyday institutions, votes, things that he really didn't care about, or he cared about because he didn't like them. But the political, that's the underlying reality. That is what is covered up by everything that. The superstructure that tries to obscure that. And he's very clear that this is not just someone who I disagree with. It's not. We have different ideas about this or that the enemy is someone that has to be killed. It has to be physically annihilated. And the violence is at the core of that.

Dr. Claire Aubin (14:07)

And we haven't even gotten into what's wrong with him really yet. But, yeah, he's saying that politics and the political are defined by conflict. And that politics and the political, in sort of his terminology, are basically just about survival and require this identification of an enemy. That the identification of the enemy is, at its core, the purpose of the political, which is pretty straightforward when you think about it. In that sense, whether or not people agree with it is worth what we're going to be talking about. Can you talk a little bit more about this sort of idea of violence as being at the core of the political?

Dr. Jonathan Fein (15:02)

Yes. So he takes. So in terms of violence, what's kind of interesting in Schmidt is that he is always asserting these distinctions, these binary distinctions. And it's either black or white in basically everything that he writes. So the violence is part of humanity. And what's interesting about that is you can see in some Schmidt texts that he is kind of working with the tradition. He has a great understanding of these texts, great thinkers. He's elaborating upon what they said, dissecting it. And like a scholar would, other times, he's making claims that are just transcendental, fundamental claims about human nature. And that is the friend, foe distinction is one of those. It's not grounded in any empirical evidence. It's not grounded in any really understanding of politics as it's been thought of the millennia since Aristotle. It's just his uncovering of this great hidden truth which other thinkers have, of course, addressed. One of the key ones, and one who Schmidt talks a lot about being Thomas Hobbes, with the state being what the people, naturally, are in a war of all against all. So kind of similar to what Schmidt is saying. And then the state comes in. So we delegate to the sovereign the ability to keep us safe. And we. Then our natural violence is submerged under the state. And the state has the monopoly on that violence, that use of force.