The Concept of the Political - Classic Text | Alexandria
The Concept of the Political, a linchpin in 20th-century political theory, dares to define the political sphere not by its aims or content, but by the stark existential distinction between friend and enemy. This work, often misunderstood as a simple endorsement of conflict, presents a radical challenge to liberal universalism and its attempts to eliminate the possibility of political antagonism. Some even misconstrue it as advocating for perpetual war, a notion far removed from its complex assertion of the political’s ultimate, albeit undesirable, necessity.
While the seeds of Schmitt’s thought can be traced back to his earlier works on sovereignty and constitutional theory, The Concept of the Political crystalized in essays published during the tumultuous years of the Weimar Republic. The first version appeared in 1927, followed by a more expansive edition in 1932, amidst growing political polarization and the palpable sense of impending crisis. This era, shadowed by the Treaty of Versailles and haunted by economic instability, provides a crucial backdrop for understanding Schmitt’s stark vision of politics as an arena of potential life-and-death struggle.
Over time, interpretations of The Concept of the Political have diverged sharply. Critics, notably Leo Strauss and Jurgen Habermas, dissected its philosophical underpinnings and perceived dangers. Its influence, however, is undeniable. Thinkers across the political spectrum, from radical leftists like Chantal Mouffe to conservatives wary of global governance, have grappled with its ideas. Interestingly, some argue that Schmitt’s definition, originally meant to expose the illusion of a pacified global order, inadvertently provides tools for analyzing the very nature of contemporary political polarization.
Today, The Concept of the Political continues to provoke debate, its central thesis echoed in discussions on populism, nationalism, and the nature of international relations. Is the friend/enemy distinction an inescapable reality of political life, or a self-fulfilling prophecy? Does Schmitt’s analysis offer a warning against the dangers of utopian ideals, or a justification for unchecked power? This controversial work stands as a persistent challenge to easy answers, an invitation to confront the uncomfortable realities that may lie beneath the surface of political life.