Carl Schmitt Political Summary

In Political Theology and The Concept of the Political by Carl Schmitt, he discusses what he coins “the political”: the most intense and extreme antagonism, which is presupposed by the concept of the state . To understand what the political is, it is imperative to flesh out what the state is and what this “extreme antagonism” raised by Schmitt really is.
To start, in the Concept of the Political, Schmitt defines the state as “a specific entity of people. Vis-à-vis the many conceivable kinds of entities, it is in the decisive case the ultimate authority.” In other words, the state is an organized body of people that makes the “political” decisions in periods of what Schmitt would call “extreme antagonism.” This association of people is not …show more content…
Instead, the state, according to Schmitt, is just the decisive actor of power that exists outside of norms. Nonetheless, Schmitt’s conception of the state raises many questions about who is sovereign and what normativity is which I will further address later.
The “extreme antagonism” that Schmitt uses to define the political is actually a state of war that is created once the state makes the Friend-Enemy distinction. He affirms that this distinction is the only thing that political actions and motives can be reduced to. Schmitt uses this distinction as the foundation of his concept of the political because it showcases what he considers to be the true nature of the state: the ability to exercise power without normative restrictions. To reiterate, a temporary period of conflict is the only time that someone can observe the political in its purest form because in times of war there are no limitations …show more content…
In the Concept of the Political this is identified as the existential polemic of the Friend-Enemy distinction. Therefore, the sovereign is who gets to declare an enemy of the state. To be clear, the sovereign is not necessarily the state according to Schmitt, although they both have the potential to take these actions. The sovereign in a time of conflict could be the state or any other worthy entity able to make the pressing choices in a time of extreme antagonism. In other words, the sovereign is who holds the power to decide the fate of the state. In Political Theology Schmitt states, “To maintain order, peace, and stability, the legally constituted sovereign authority is supported by an armed force and a bureaucracy operating according to rules established by legally constituted authorities.” This reiterates the fact that he who holds the power to decide whether the state is in a time of peril is able to coordinate the resources and man power needed to combat the