Skip to the main content

Review article

https://doi.org/10.21464/sp31112

Whose Reason, Whose Law, Whose Public? “The Political” and “Hegemonic Sovereignty” in Carl Schmitt

Funda Günsoy ; Uludağ University, Arts and Sciences Faculty, Görükle Campus, TR–16059 Nilüfer/Bursa


Full text: croatian pdf 399 Kb

page 169-180

downloads: 934

cite

Full text: english pdf 399 Kb

page 169-180

downloads: 588

cite

Full text: french pdf 399 Kb

page 169-180

downloads: 399

cite

Full text: german pdf 399 Kb

page 169-180

downloads: 366

cite


Abstract


Carl Schmitt is one of the most dedicated opponents of liberal universalism, with its notion of pluralist, rational and non-exclusivist consensus politics as a progressive democratic project and its understanding of the political arena – “purified”, being free from struggles and conflict – as the progressive move of democratic logic. In this paper I will first try to show Schmitt’s pessimistic and negative stance based on ontological and theological grounds on the deliberative model of politics with its claim about the possibility of making particular wills reach the conception of common public interest or the common good through discussion and dialogue. Secondly, I’ll try to show that, within Schmitt’s project, the concept of the sovereign dictatorship exists as the necessary counterpoint to the concept of the political. Schmitt refuses to understand political life as a medium of dialogue leading to a rational consensus. In this context, the sovereign in Schmitt’s theory should be precisely understood as a force constructed to reproduce homogeneity in a hegemonic manner. Hegemonia, in a Gramscian sense, is not a bare oppressive force. Rather, it refers to a ruling force which is able to inject its own ideology and world view into the public through persuasion. In this framework, leftist thinkers like mouffe, who recommended that we should think “with Schmitt against Schmitt” in order to develop a new democratic political understanding, draw attention to Schmitt’s thesis that every political identity functions as “we-they” antinomy, yet they miss the fact that it is impossible to deduce a conception of a truly democratic public sphere from Schmitt’s theory. As it will be emphasized in this paper, democracy in the Schmittian sense can be the perfect form of sovereignty, one which in contrast to liberal democracy results in homogenization and the exclusion of the heterogeneous and thus must be conceived as a fundamentally hegemonic system. The Schmittian ideal of democracy requires that political identities, public opinion, public sphere and will formation are the products of a sovereign will and not of open and free discussion.

Keywords

Carl Schmitt; modernity; the political; public sphere; Chantal Mouffe; Karl Marx; social determination

Hrčak ID:

179899

URI

https://hrcak.srce.hr/179899

Publication date:

5.9.2016.

Article data in other languages: croatian french german

Visits: 4.112 *