칼 슈미트의 ‘정치적인 것’의 개념

Abstract

Schmitt’s concept of the political has been intensely discussed throughout the world. In this article, I review his concept of the political by analyzing his epistemic and anthropological premise. His concept of the political as the distinction of friend and enemy is a definition in the sense of a criterion, not as exhaustive definition or one indicative substantial content. He asserts that the political is not a realm or a field, but denotes the utmost degree of intensity of a union or separation of an association or dissociation of humans whose motives can be religious, national, economic, or of another kind. It implies that any opposition, whatever the realm in which it first emerged, can morph into a political conflict. In his concept of the political, it is crucial to define the enemy. According to him, the political enemy need not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly. The enemy concept is to be understood in its concrete and existential sense, not as metaphors and symbols. The enemy in the distinctively political sense is a public enemy, not a private enemy whom one hates. An enemy exists only when, at least potentially, one fighting collectivity of the people confronts a similar collectivity. In the extreme case of conflict, it becomes clear who the enemy is. He is famous(or infamous) for Etatist. According to him, the state is political unity of the people. However, the pluralist theories of the state, based on political liberalism, jeopardize the political ontology of statehood. In this situation, his core objective was to explain what the state is called upon to do if it wants to keep the monopoly of the political. He asserts that the sovereign is the one who decides on the state of exception, i.e., the state of extreme political conflict. The exception can not be regulated in the existing legal order and it requires concrete decisions to overcome the particular emergency. The state, as the holder of sovereign power, carries out this task by identifying the concrete enemy who disturbs the political unity. In this context, his concept of the political was a theoretical measure to restore the state’s monopoly of the political.