War in the Time of Love: Reflection on the Paper by Svyatoslav Kaspe in the Light of the Distinction between Private and Public Enmity in the Teachings of Carl Schmitt
{"title":"War in the Time of Love: Reflection on the Paper by Svyatoslav Kaspe in the Light of the Distinction between Private and Public Enmity in the Teachings of Carl Schmitt","authors":"Vladimir Brodskiy","doi":"10.17323/1728-192x-2023-3-147-171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article develops the discussion initiated by professor S. I. Kaspe in his 2023 paper Love in the Time of War. Contra autonomy of the Political. The text formulates Carl Schmitt’s supposed response to S. I. Kaspe’s proposal to de-autonomize the political by creating an opportunity for the partial subordination of political relations to the Christian commandment, indicating the necessity of love for one’s enemies (Mt 5:44). It is noted that, according to Schmitt, the considered prescription is valid only for private enmity, representing a different continuum in relation to the public enmity that realizes political antagonism. Love directed towards a private enemy is entirely acceptable to Schmitt. In the conditions of external tension, it can contribute to the temporary oblivion of interpersonal conflicts, thus strengthening political unity, and is fully consistent with the logic of Schmitt’s teaching. Carl Schmitt’s reference to Plato’s description of stasis (civil war, sedition) as an illustration of the private enmity is analyzed in the text in the light of its possible contradictions. It is argued that none of the forms of stasis reveals confrontation with inimicus, the private enemy. It is questioned whether love is admissible under the conditions of a full-fledged foreign war (in Schmitt’s understanding) as the apogee of political enmity. The answer takes the characteristics of various forms of war into account. A number of contemporary military trends is considered as significantly narrowing the space for love.","PeriodicalId":43314,"journal":{"name":"Sociologiceskoe Obozrenie","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociologiceskoe Obozrenie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192x-2023-3-147-171","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The article develops the discussion initiated by professor S. I. Kaspe in his 2023 paper Love in the Time of War. Contra autonomy of the Political. The text formulates Carl Schmitt’s supposed response to S. I. Kaspe’s proposal to de-autonomize the political by creating an opportunity for the partial subordination of political relations to the Christian commandment, indicating the necessity of love for one’s enemies (Mt 5:44). It is noted that, according to Schmitt, the considered prescription is valid only for private enmity, representing a different continuum in relation to the public enmity that realizes political antagonism. Love directed towards a private enemy is entirely acceptable to Schmitt. In the conditions of external tension, it can contribute to the temporary oblivion of interpersonal conflicts, thus strengthening political unity, and is fully consistent with the logic of Schmitt’s teaching. Carl Schmitt’s reference to Plato’s description of stasis (civil war, sedition) as an illustration of the private enmity is analyzed in the text in the light of its possible contradictions. It is argued that none of the forms of stasis reveals confrontation with inimicus, the private enemy. It is questioned whether love is admissible under the conditions of a full-fledged foreign war (in Schmitt’s understanding) as the apogee of political enmity. The answer takes the characteristics of various forms of war into account. A number of contemporary military trends is considered as significantly narrowing the space for love.
本文发展了S. I. Kaspe教授在其2023年的论文《战争时期的爱情》中发起的讨论。反对政治自治。文本阐述了卡尔·施密特对s·i·卡斯佩提议的回应,即通过创造一个机会,使政治关系部分服从基督教戒律,从而使政治去自治,表明爱敌人的必要性(玛5:44)。值得注意的是,根据Schmitt的观点,所考虑的处方仅对私人敌意有效,代表了与实现政治对抗的公共敌意相关的不同连续体。施米特完全可以接受对私人敌人的爱。在外部紧张的条件下,它有助于暂时忘却人际冲突,从而加强政治团结,这与施密特的教学逻辑完全一致。卡尔·施密特引用柏拉图对停滞状态(内战,煽动)的描述作为私人敌意的例证,在文中分析了其可能的矛盾。有人认为,任何形式的停滞都不能揭示与仇人(私人敌人)的对抗。在一场全面的对外战争(在施密特的理解中)作为政治敌意的顶点的情况下,爱情是否可以被接受,这是一个问题。这个答案要考虑到各种战争形式的特点。许多当代军事趋势被认为大大缩小了爱情的空间。
期刊介绍:
Russian Sociological Review is an academic peer-reviewed journal of theoretical, empirical and historical research in social sciences. Russian Sociological Review publishes four issues per year. Each issue includes original research papers, review articles and translations of contemporary and classical works in sociology, political theory and social philosophy. Russian Sociological Review invites scholars from all the social scientific disciplines to submit papers which address the fundamental issues of social sciences from various conceptual and methodological perspectives. Understood broadly the fundamental issues include but not limited to: social action and agency, social order, narrative, space and time, mobilities, power, etc. Russian Sociological Review covers the following domains of scholarship: -Contemporary and classical social theory -Theories of social order and social action -Social methodology -History of sociology -Russian social theory -Sociology of space -Sociology of mobilities -Social interaction -Frame analysis -Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis -Cultural sociology -Political sociology, philosophy and theory -Narrative theory and analysis -Human geography and urban studies