The Concept of the Political: Expanded Edition [Paperback]

Carl Schmitt (Author), George Schwab (Translator), Tracy B. Strong (Foreword), Leo Strauss (Commentary)

Book Description

Publication Date: May 15, 2007 | ISBN-10: 0226738922 | ISBN-13: 978-0226738925 | Edition: Expanded

In this, his most influential work, legal theorist and political philosopher Carl Schmitt argues that liberalism’s basis in individual rights cannot provide a reasonable justification for sacrificing oneself for the state—a critique as cogent today as when it first appeared. George Schwab’s introduction to his translation of the 1932 German edition highlights Schmitt’s intellectual journey through the turbulent period of German history leading to the Hitlerian one-party state. In addition to analysis by Leo Strauss and a foreword by Tracy B. Strong placing Schmitt’s work into contemporary context, this expanded edition also includes a translation of Schmitt’s 1929 lecture “The Age of Neutralizations and Depoliticizations,” which the author himself added to the 1932 edition of the book. An essential update on a modern classic, The Concept of the Political, Expanded Edition belongs on the bookshelf of anyone interested in political theory or philosophy.

Editorial Reviews

Review

“Contains much of what is fundamental in Schmitt’s understanding of the political nature of man and the state, including his contentious definition of the political as the distinction between friend and enemy. . . . Its scholarship is unquestionable.”

(Joseph W. Bendersky Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory )

“The best introduction to Schmitt’s thought.”

(Mark Lilla New York Review of Books )

Language Notes

Text: English (translation)
Original Language: German --This text refers to an alternate Paperback edition.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 162 pages
• Publisher: University Of Chicago Press; Expanded edition (May 15, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0226738922
• ISBN-13: 978-0226738925
• Product Dimensions: 5.5 x 0.5 x 8.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 2.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (17 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #81,204 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

29 of 32 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars The Political as Friend-Enemy Distinction. May 22, 2006

By New Age of Barbarism

Format:Paperback

This edition of Carl Schmitt's _Der Begriff des Politischens_ is translated by George Schwab and contains several interesting writings on Schmitt and his thought. In addition to _The Concept of the Political_ proper, this book also contains a "Foreward" by Tracy B. Strong, an "Introduction" by George Schwab, and ends with a series of notes on the book by Leo Strauss. Carl Schmitt was a legal scholar and political theorist during the time of the Third Reich who was raised in the Roman Catholic tradition. While unfortunately Schmitt joined the Nazi party, this should not prevent one from reading his otherwise important works which have much to say about the political and provide trenchant critiques of liberalism. Schmitt can be rightfully considered as one of the conservative revolutionaries, including such figures as Junger, Spengler, and Heidegger, who opposed liberalism in the period before the Second World War. Schmitt's writings were an important influence on Heidegger in particular, but have also seen a resurgence in their importance among the New Right and the Left as well. Schmitt was influenced by such political thinkers as Machiavelli, Hegel, and Hobbes, but also by Catholic counter-revolutionaries such as de Maistre and Donoso Cortes. This book lays out the essential details of his thought.

In _The Concept of the Political_, a book which profoundly criticizes liberalism, Schmitt essentially argues that the political must be understood in terms of the "friend-enemy" distinction. Schmitt explains how the state presupposes the concept of the political. In searching for a definition of the political, Schmitt explains how the state has become an absolute, total state in the twentieth century in contrast to the neutral, noninterventionist state of the nineteenth century.... According to Schmitt, the political may be understood in terms of the distinction between friend and enemy, much as morality can be understood in terms of the distinction between good and evil, aesthetics in terms of the distinction between the beautiful and the ugly, economics in terms of the distinction between the profitable and the unprofitable. This distinction between friend-enemy provides the groundwork upon which Schmitt builds his concept of the political. Schmitt distinguishes the idea of the "enemy" from that understood in the private-individualistic sense as the competitor or partner in conflict in general as that of the private adversary. Schmitt offers an interesting interpretation of the dictum of Christ to "love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27) as indicating only the private enemy and not the political enemy. As proof of this, Schmitt offers the fact that Christians have not surrendered to the Muslims throughout the many centuries of conflict between the two groups. Schmitt also argues against pacifism claiming that eventually pacifism will be pushed into a "war against all war", leading ultimately to great destruction. Schmitt considers the case of the League of Nations and the reparations forced upon Germany and argues that rather than serving as a preventive against war the League of Nations has opened up new possibilities for war. Underlying all of this is the notion of the political. In addition, Schmitt contrasts "authoritarian" and "anarchistic" theories, arguing that the central difference between them is the view of human nature as fundamentally evil or good, respectively. Schmitt brings to the fore the thoughts of both Machiavelli and Hobbes on this point. Schmitt also contrasts the political to the economic, arguing against economic liberalism. Schmitt calls attention to the thinking of Fichte and Hegel, whose thought was subverted by Karl Marx. Schmitt also emphasizes the Catholic counter-revolutionaries who represented the forces of reaction such as de Maistre and Donoso Cortes. Schmitt brings out the contrast between the ideas of "freedom" and "progress" and those of "feudalism" and "reaction". Finally, Schmitt argues that a final war waged to expand economic power or a war to rid the world of war, while promoted as non-political or even anti-political will ultimately open up new ground for the friend-enemy distinction to be made yet again.

This book provides an excellent translation of one of Schmitt's most important works. The groundwork for the political understood as the friend-enemy distinction is laid out by Schmitt here. Schmitt's thinking continues to be important to many today, despite his apparent encounter with the dark side and his involvement with the Nazi regime. Schmitt would live the rest of his life in relative obscurity although he would continue to write and teach. While Schmitt disavowed his Nazi past, he also adamantly opposed the denazification procedures inflicted on Germany by the Allies. This book provides an excellent introduction to his political thought. Read more ›

23 of 27 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars The paradox of the enemy recognition March 11, 2003

By Scott

Format:Paperback

The other reviews of this book already give the potential reader a good insight into what they are buying, and so I will comment on a fascinating conceptual tension within the book. Like all political realists (or so Schmitt would claim), Schmitt begins his theorizing from the empirical fact that "man is a dangerous and dynamic being". Schmitt allows that the nature of man may not be evil, but man's nature is inarguably problematic. Schmitt then inquires as to how man's problematic nature reveals itself conceptually. His answer is the enemy recognition. We know man is evil because he is prone to locating in the stranger, the other (that person or group who holds inimical aesthetic, religious, ethical beliefs), a potential source of violent conflict. A tension (there are many in the book!) then materializes when Schmitt speaks of the necessity of the state to make the proper enemy recognition if peace and security are to be maintained. It is of course a perilous folly if the state fails to make the proper enemy recognition (see Hindenburg's 1933 alliance with Hitler, Neville Chamberlain's appeasement, and Stalin's secret pact with Hitler for three failed enemy recognitions before WWII). But how does the state make the proper enemy recognition, and not simply needlessly multiply conflict in order to root out the enemy? Thus, the Soviet archives tell us that Stalin erroneously viewed the West as a threat (particularly a rebuilt Germany) after WWII, and so seized Eastern Europe as a buffer zone. The tension of the enemy recognition is that it is the source of all of our troubles, but yet it must be made when necessary. Sounds like the stuff of which politics is made...

7 of 8 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars One of the best books on political theory ever written November 17, 2006

By Ulrich

Format:Paperback

Others have described the book quite well, so I simply wanted to add a corrective to Mr. Dermeval's review, which criticized Schmitt's analysis as being crudely bipolar relative to Weber. While I agree that Weber's analysis is superlative, it does not in fact contradict Schmitt's theory at all. Schmitt views "the political" as a particular process that pervades human life to varying degrees, depending upon the particular degree of friend/enemy antagonism that is involved in a given social situation. Obviously, not every judgment that involves some aspect of the political rises to the highest point of friend/enemy antagonism. Battles over health care rights, for example, are inherently less "political" in Schmittian terms than is an outright war. The health care conflict is resolved with more rational and bureaucratic elements -- for example, determining which approach will likely be lowest in total cost. Schmitt's theory takes full account of this varying intensity of the political in social life; in fact it is premised on it.

It is thus a mistake to think that the "friend/enemy" distinction is fully manifested in every judgment made by a state. Many (if not most) such judgments are apolitical decisions made on generally rational grounds, consistent with Weber's description of the state. On Schmitt's theory, such particular rational judgments are not truly (i.e. distinctively) political, even though made by a political entity. Such judgments *become* political to the extent they involve one group seizing advantage over another group, rather than a purely rational technical analysis based on accepted criteria.