Carl Schmitt’s claim that politics is fundamentally distinct from other spheres is persuasive on the premise that the core of politics consists on the friend/enemy theory with each side of the conflict posing a perceived existential threat of violence to one another. However, his argument is less persuasive when he uses this premise to critique liberalism because he does not provide an alternative solution to his criticism. Schmitt contends that, “the political must rest on its own ultimate distinction, [and] the specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is between friend and enemy” (Schmitt 26). Schmitt defines a political or public enemy as a collective group that poses an existential threat of violence, “the real possibility of physical killing” (Schmitt 33). Therefore Schmitt contends the political cannot exist without violence, or the threat/possibility of violence. …show more content…
He states that, “the phenomenon of the political can be understood only in the context of the ever present possibility of the friend-and-enemy grouping” (Schmitt 35). Schmitt maintains that in order for politics to exist, there must be a conflict or rivalry between two sides and that conflict exists because the enemies provide the possibility of a violent attack against each other’s state. Schmitt continues this argument by asserting, “the justification of war does not reside in its being fought for ideals or norms of justice, but in its being fought against a real enemy” (Schmitt 49). Here Schmitt is successful in identifying the core of politics and how it distinctly identifies itself in juxtaposition to other spheres, such as justice and economics, which he contends are separate from the pure concept of the
This view is consistent with the theories of David Mayhew (The Electoral Connection, 1974) who asserts that the desire for
Factionalism is still alive and well today with many articles, reports, and news pundits on all sides of the political spectrum containing or using phrases such as, “radical left” or “alt-right.” to modern society because it addresses the subject of factionalism and the threats it offers to democracy. Madison’s warning still rings true with so focused on spreading their dogma or vilifying opposing views to the point they forget to focus on improving or making changes for the sake of the people as a
For better or worse, war is a part of human nature (Walzer, 337). Throughout history, men have taken up arms against one another; initially in individual combat, as society progressed in tribal battles, and eventually in international war. Prussian philosopher, Immanuel Kant theorized that the “unsocial sociability” of mankind brings people together as a society but also drives them apart. The basic human need to be with others creates great societies, however the essential need for balance leads to warfare, which drives them apart.
The number of genocides committed in the history of the human race is inconceivable. In the Holocaust the minimum estimate of fatalities is five million, in the Holodomor Genocide the minimum was two million, in the Congo Genocide the minimum was three million,and this list could go on. Humanity has killed itself in massive numbers over and over again. Why, but for joy of the violence, of the death, and of the destruction? Humanity justifies these atrocities with religion, racial and ethnic superiority, and patriotism, in other words hatred.
Or there will be the total demoralization of the workers” (prompt) To paraphrase, Violence seldom does any good for either side of the dispute in question. Violence generally does not attract followers according
This piece of work is mainly about the social analysts position to the issue of racism and mass incarceration and also how the various principles of distributive justice can be applied to different positions in our issue of focus. It is quite evident that the main work of the social policy analysts is to identify current problems, evaluating them and coming up with solutions regarding to it. Once they discover the problem they try to check for the causes that may leading to that problem and also other problems that may be related to it. However, different social policy analysis’s have differing views regarding a certain problem and also
"A perpetrator is not the most dangerous enemy. The most dangerous part is the bystander because neutrality always helps the killer. " This quote, said by Holocaust survivor, Miles Lehrman, presents the idea that being a bystander to a situation is worse than being the perpetrator. While it is true that bystanders can play a role in enabling violent actions, it is an oversimplification to say that they are the most dangerous part of the equation. In fact, perpetrators of violence are an even greater threat to society than passive bystanders.
Hardly a convenient place to hold a war.” (Author Unknown in Schloeffel, J,
Looking back over the development of the Security Studies field, there can be no doubt that the realist tradition has exercised enormous influence. Even the harshest of critics can acknowledge that with their focus on power, fear, and anarchy, realist theories have provided centrally important explanations for conflict and war (Williams, 2013). One interpretation of realism that is unbroken amongst most commentators of the theory is that realists are individuals that believe the State is the principle actor in international politics and that they are very concerned with the balance of power (Marsalis, 2013). They argue that all the State’s actions and choices are a reflection of the collective will of the people, which is also an argument
The first great-war shattered the human mind so profound that out of its aftermaths’ emerged a fresh discipline (in 1919 at the University of Whales known to us as International Relations) proposed to prevent war. “It was deemed by the scholars that the study of International Politics shall find the root cause of the worlds political problems and put forward solutions to help politicians solve them” (Baylis 2014:03). International Relations happened to play the role of a ‘correcting-mechanism’ restoring the world order of peace and amity by efforting at its best to maintain the worlds’ status quo. However with the emergence of a second world war much more massive that the first put at stake all the values of that young discipline of IR. The
Throughout Chapter five of her book Shadows of War, Carolyn Nordstrom shares her views on war in terms of social, physical and mental goals and punishes of such violence. To begin, one of the first goals of war as defined by Nordstrom is a direct result of a threat of loss of control. She explains that it is common for one military to feel the need to destroy another when their control over a certain (land area owned or controlled by someone) is under threat (56). An interesting point that Nordstrom makes is relating to/about (community of people/all good people in the world)'s do not tell the difference between the existence of different violences. As stated by Nordstrom, most people will naturally tell/show the difference between different wars; however, very few tell/show the difference between the experience of violence throughout such wars (57).
Although Schmitt thinks negatively of the relationship between state and politics describing it as unsatisfactory, the friend/enemy distinction is used fairly to clear up some of these terms. Gopal Balakrishnan, a professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz once asked Schmitt what he meant by the term “presupposes” Schmitt replied by stating that “conflict” appears as the primitive kind of condition that labels the term “political,” and then “order" (the state being the thing that represents order) comes from them same primitive condition as conflict, and since order only came to be because of conflict, and conflict never was subdued by our subconscious, state becomes secondary. Balakrishnan claims that in the case of Schmitt, the term “state” represented an amount of status having to do with political relations—a situation rapidly encroaching a constant territorial effect of real bloodshed. Balakrishnan argues that the role of the original ideal state in the early modern historical period of Europe was decreasing in political strength and that the constant sustainability of such a design for state in the future would be unrealistic. If he was right,
Undoubtedly politics is “the study of influence and the influential”, there is most certainly truth in Harold D.Lasswell’s definition of politics. Throughout the course of this essay the study of politics will be examined in relation to Laswell’s definition. Furthermore the concept of government and how people influence government action will be looked at. In Lasswell’s book “Politics, Who Gets What, When and How” he clearly outlines the “influential are those who get the most of what there is to get”, in his opinion politics was primarily to do with power and influence. Lasswell’s definition of politics has been in the past supported by prominent political scientists such as Abraham Kaplan and Robert A. Dahl, both men believe the study of politics is largely to do with the use of influence by those who find themselves in influential positions.
In James Scott’s writings about “Everyday Forms of Resistance”, he makes many points about power and where it may lie, even if the points are unintentional they provide a solid argument with great examples to back up those arguments. Scott argues that a vast realm of political action is overlooked for two reasons. The first reason is that it is not openly declared in the usually understood sense of “politics”. Second, the group action displayed is not how we normally understand collective action. From these two reasons, Scott suggested that arguments could be developed, stating that “much of the politics of subordinate groups fall into the category of “everyday forms of resistance”, these activities should most definitely be considered political.””
The violent conflict approach is defined through coercion, threats, and destructive assaults. Galtung’s, model suggests that each of these components influence one another, and while each