Carl Schmitt’s cold opening: An ancient Greek myth analogy:
The depreciation of man: different metals tells a history, describe different stages or types of human development and understanding, ranging from a deeply enlightened state to a more materialistic and socially driven existence. It reflects on how humanity has changed over time, from being deeply connected with spiritual and philosophical truths to being more enmeshed in societal structures and human-made laws.
Gold Man: This represents the ideal human being in ancient philosophy. These people are seen as having a natural understanding of divine laws, leading lives filled with deep philosophical and theological thought. Imagine them as wise philosophers or enlightened individuals who live in harmony with the world and have a profound understanding of the mysteries of life.
Silver Man: These individuals are knowledgeable about ethics (moral principles) and physics (the natural world). They try to understand the divine (or the ultimate truths) through the lens of creation and use science and reason to explore and explain these higher truths. Think of them as scientists or rational thinkers who use their understanding of the natural world to get closer to spiritual or existential truths.
Iron Man: This represents modern humans. Unlike the gold and silver men, iron men are constrained by human-made laws and societal norms. They often focus on the state or government and are less connected to spiritual or religious experiences. They are described as being unable to see beyond the everyday, tangible world and thus miss out on the 'miracles' or deeper truths of life.
Aluminum Man: This suggests a possible evolution or ascension of modern man. Perhaps, as humans progress, they might develop new ways of understanding and interacting with the world, transcending the limitations of the iron man.
Petro Man: This represents a descent or degradation, where people focus primarily on social sciences like sociology, and might be heavily involved in social movements or socialism. This could imply a shift away from individual enlightenment towards a more collective, society-focused mindset.
Absolutism and Totalitarianism are complex political systems that often emerge during periods of intense national crisis, particularly when the very existence and future of a nation and its people are perceived to be at stake. These systems are characterized by the concentration of all political power in the hands of a single ruler or a small group, who then exercise complete control over the state and its citizens.
This phenomenon can be understood in the context of historical events, such as those in Europe during the 1930s. During this era, many European nations, even those considered great powers, faced existential threats. The fear was that the outcome of conflicts, like wars, could determine the fate of nations and their people for generations. The looming possibility of defeat wasn't just about losing territory or sovereignty; it was about the long-term subjugation and control by victorious powers. This fear was not unfounded, considering the aftermath of World War I, known as the Great War.
Following World War I, the defeated nations were subjected to heavy reparations and military occupations. These reparations were financial penalties imposed to compensate for the war damages, and they were so burdensome that they affected the economies of these nations for many years, in some cases lingering until after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The military occupations involved the presence of foreign troops within a nation, often exerting significant influence over its governance and society.
In such high-stakes situations, where the future of a nation and its cultural identity are perceived as being on the line, people often resort to supporting more centralized and authoritarian forms of governance. The rationale behind this support is the belief that strong, decisive leadership is necessary to navigate through crises and safeguard national interests. In this context, every sacrifice, whether in terms of individual freedoms or societal norms, is deemed worthy if it contributes to the nation's survival and independence. Absolutism and Totalitarianism, thus, become appealing as they promise a unified and strong response to existential threats, albeit at the cost of democratic values and individual liberties.
Political theology encompasses the intricate relationship between religious doctrines and political authority. It reflects a tradition where rulers, such as kings or government officials, often justify their authority through religious or spiritual principles. This notion can be traced back to historical practices where monarchs defended their rule as being aligned with their deity’s will, and similarly, chancellors or political leaders justified their legal frameworks as echoing divine or moral orders.
Carl Schmitt's perspective on this matter delves into the complex dynamics of law interpretation. He argues that interpreting laws, which he terms as "the free deed of legal perception," can elevate a disparate set of laws into a unified and structured system. This process is akin to discerning a coherent pattern or a unifying principle within a collection of diverse and seemingly unrelated regulations, thereby creating order from chaos. However, Schmitt warns of a significant pitfall in this process: the potential erosion of the perceived objectivity within the law. This inherent risk stems from the subjective nature of human interpretation, suggesting that laws, despite their detailed construction, are vulnerable to individual biases and interpretations.
Schmitt further posits that as jurisprudence evolves and laws attain a level of clarity and precision reminiscent of natural laws and scientific axioms, an unexpected and paradoxical outcome ensues. Rather than culminating in a more equitable society, the application of these refined laws often becomes increasingly arbitrary. This phenomenon may arise from the heightened role of human interpretation in applying these 'divine-like' laws. In reaction to this trend, human societies often seek equilibrium through alternative forms of understanding and social organization.
This tendency towards seeking balance is notably evident in the post-World War II spiritualism movement, spearheaded by figures such as Carl Jung. Jung’s theories emphasized the significance of the human psyche and individual spiritual experiences over formalized religious institutions or rigid legal frameworks. This approach resonates with beliefs in Eastern religions, where the sanctity and divinity of humanity and the individual spirit are often placed above gods or celestial entities. This perspective proposes a counterpoint to the rigid enforcement of laws, highlighting the value of personal spiritual experiences and the inherent worth of human life and consciousness against the backdrop of legal or doctrinal rigidity.
Democracy, in its essence, is a system of governance driven by the collective will of its people, representing a broad spectrum of society's views and interests. It is, at its core, a human-centric construct, designed to aggregate the diverse opinions and needs of a population. The reference to democracy as the "form factor of the least common denominator" suggests that it functions by finding a common ground among various groups, often settling on solutions that, while not ideal for all, are acceptable to the majority.
However, this democratic process can lead to an evolution towards what are called "big-tent coalitions." These are political alliances that encompass a wide range of ideologies and beliefs, attempting to cater to as many constituencies as possible. This approach is analogous to a black hole, where the central mass – in this case, the core principles or policies of the coalition – becomes increasingly dense and dominant. As the core of the coalition consolidates, it attracts more members (mass and population) to its center. Conversely, those who find themselves outside of this growing consensus may feel increasingly alienated and marginalized. These outliers, or 'outcasts,' may react by moving faster in the political spectrum, adopting more extreme or revolutionary stances as they find themselves further from the coalition's center.
The dynamics within these big-tent coalitions often necessitate more cross-the-aisle politics, where members are required to engage with and sometimes compromise with those of differing ideologies to maintain the coalition's unity. This process inevitably leads to the formation of new norms and dogmas within the coalition, as members negotiate and redefine their collective values and policies. Those who enforce these evolving norms can be seen as part of what is described as the "radical center" or a "radical singularity." These individuals or groups act as inquisitors or guardians of the coalition’s new consensus, ensuring adherence to the unified vision of the group. This radical center may promote a singular perspective or ideology that they believe best represents the collective will, emphasizing the importance of one unified mind, will, and national identity.
In addressing the nuances of modern social progressivism and conservatism, it's imperative to consider the interplay of scientific understanding, economic accessibility, and the evolution of democratic institutions. Firstly, the common perception that a thorough comprehension of scientific principles is essential for partaking in the benefits of contemporary life warrants reevaluation. As scientific knowledge becomes increasingly intricate, it surpasses the grasp of even the experts in the field. This evolution has led to the development of technology and scientific products that are designed for user-friendliness, effectively democratizing access to the fruits of scientific progress. Therefore, it is not the depth of one's scientific acumen but rather one's economic capacity that predominantly determines access to a modern lifestyle.
Regarding wealth as a determinant factor, it is observed that the primary delineation between a rudimentary existence and a life of suburban comfort is essentially economic. The disparity in access to modern conveniences and a higher standard of living is, thus, more a matter of financial means than of intellectual engagement with the underpinnings of science.
When contemplating the historical context of governance, particularly the role of ancient democratic theologies exemplified by institutions like the Roman Papacy, it becomes evident that these structures did not necessarily catalyze the advancement of scientific thought or enlightenment. This observation challenges the notion that the progression towards a more enlightened and scientifically advanced society is inherently linked to specific forms of political governance or ideology.
In the realm of modern democracy, the concept of an 'enlightened science technocracy,' where governance is predominantly in the hands of scientific experts, is a subject of debate. It is posited that contemporary democratic societies should not necessarily aspire to this model. Instead, drawing from Carl Schmitt's critique, it is suggested that these societies ought to engage in a deeper exploration and reconnection with their historical and philosophical roots. This approach advocates for a nuanced understanding of democracy that transcends the binary perspectives often associated with modern social progressivism and conservatism, recognizing the multifaceted influences that shape societal progress.
Criticism of Political Economists: Schmitt criticized "political economists" for their approach to analyzing various societal issues. He argued that these economists attempted to interpret complex social phenomena—such as racial, gender, national, cultural, and psychological dynamics—solely through the lens of economic theory. Schmitt believed this reductionist approach was inadequate because it oversimplified the multifaceted nature of these issues, neglecting the intricate interplay of non-economic factors.
Personal Definition of Evil: The statement “I hereby define evil as my incapability, so that I can do everything, but I CHOSE to not do evil” presents a unique moral philosophy. It suggests that evil is defined by the failure to act, despite having the will to do so. This viewpoint emphasizes society and morality is here to contain humanity’s evil, especially those who are capable of great evil deeds.
Law and Human Development: The concept that "Men created law yet law also created men" reflects a dialectical relationship between law and human nature. It implies that while humans have constructed legal systems, these systems, in turn, have a profound impact on human psychology and behavior. People raised under different legal and environmental conditions will develop distinct psyches, creating a sort of "echo chamber" where the legal and cultural environment shapes and reinforces certain beliefs and behaviors across generations.
Democracy and Theology: The idea that modern democracy has inherited aspects of the theology from absolute monarchies raises questions about the nature of political authority and legitimacy. The speculation about whether marginalized groups in such societies might turn to alternative belief systems, akin to the early adoption of Christianity in Rome, suggests a potential for dissent and the emergence of new ideologies. This hypothesis probes the depth of democratic representation and the possibility of divergent voices seeking solace in alternative belief systems or ideologies.
Artificial Objectivity of Democracy: Describing democracy as "artificial objectivity" hints at the inherent subjectivity in democratic processes. It implies that while democracy aims to represent the collective will, it often reflects a constructed version of objectivity that may not fully encapsulate the diversity of opinions and perspectives within a society.
Political Theology and Feudalism: The comparison of political theology to a form of resurrected feudalism draws parallels between contemporary political structures and historical forms of governance. The analogy of Jesus as the universal king and the Kaiser as the king of Deutschland (Germany) illustrates how political authority and religious or symbolic leadership can be intertwined, echoing feudal structures where rulers claimed divine sanction for their authority.
In an era where democracy is increasingly regarded as the ultimate form of political organization or any organizations, even in business and non-profits, understanding its various archetypes becomes crucial. The legacies of early 20th century archetypes:
1. Democracy by One: This archetype centers around the concept of a singular, almost omniscient leader, often referred to as the "holy king." This leader possesses an extraordinary ability to understand and respond to the collective voices and needs of the populace. Unlike a traditional dictator, this leader's authority is derived from the people rather than divinely ordained power. The key here is that the leader's mandate is rooted in the will of the people. A practical example of this might be seen in times of war, where democratic societies sometimes grant extensive powers to a single leader, such as a president or prime minister, who acts as the supreme commander. This concentration of power is often justified as necessary for decisive action and unity of command during crises.
2. Democracy of Many: This model is characterized by representative democracy, where the fate of the nation is decided by elected officials. These representatives might come to power through various means: self-creation (emerging due to their ideas and public appeal), inheritance (following in the footsteps of a mentor, or through familial or traditional lineage), or through democratic elections. This system often involves intense political competition, where candidates engage in debates and campaigns to win the trust of the electorate. The ideal in this model is that the best or most capable leaders will emerge victorious; however, there's a critique that sometimes it results in the election of the "least common denominator" – a candidate who, while not the most capable, is the least offensive or most ideologically stable to the majority.
3. Democracy of Majority: This archetype represents a form of democracy that theoretically eliminates barriers to participation, allowing an unfiltered expression of the majority's will. It's a purer form of democracy in theory, but it's also unprecedented and largely untested in practice. The implication is that such a system could lead to entirely new forms of governance and societal organization, as it allows for direct and unmitigated expression of the popular will. However, there's an underlying question about the feasibility and potential outcomes of such a radically inclusive form of democracy, especially considering the complexities and diversities of modern societies.
Each of these archetypes offers a different perspective on how democracy can function and the challenges it might face. "Democracy by One" emphasizes centralized leadership, "Democracy of Many" highlights representative governance with its merits and flaws, and "Democracy of Majority" proposes a more direct, yet unexplored, form of democratic participation. Contrary to popular belief, Carl Schmitt is indifferent to democracies but against tyrannies.
In the realm of political theory and legal philosophy, Carl Schmitt's contributions provide a profound commentary on the intersections of human nature, societal constructs, and democratic governance. His work critically examines the role of theology and its complex integration into the social fabric, a concept he articulates with keen insight.
Schmitt posited that human societies are often inclined towards seeking simplified solutions, a "via brevis," to navigate the intricacies of social existence. This inclination leads to the adoption of tools that obviate the need for specialized knowledge, encapsulated in the phrase "scientia specialis non requiritur." In democratic contexts, theology frequently emerges as one such tool, providing a framework for understanding and navigating life without necessitating deep intellectual engagement. This phenomenon is particularly pronounced in democratic societies, "in ambitu democratico," where theology offers a readily accessible lens through which individuals can interpret their experiences.
Humanity's interaction with theology in societal dynamics, or "Humanitas et Theologia in Societatis Dynamicis," suggests that human society cannot be wholly governed by theological doctrines, known as "theologia," within the fabric of social life, or "vita socialis." This is primarily because there exists an inherent quest for simplified solutions, "via brevis," to the complexities of societal functioning. People often seek readily accessible tools or methods that do not require specialized knowledge, "scientia specialis non requiritur" - tools that are easy to understand and apply, even for those without extensive education.
The role of theology as a societal tool, "Theologiae Munus ut Instrumentum Societatis," becomes evident within the democratic milieu, "in ambitu democratico." Theology provides a framework for understanding and navigating life's challenges without necessitating deep intellectual engagement. Interestingly, there is a tendency among people to embrace these theological concepts abstractly, "abstracte amplecti," and to abandon them when they become inconvenient or burdensome, "cum inopportuna fiunt, deserunt." This phenomenon reflects a certain flexibility in how theological beliefs are treated in modern society, distinct from the rigid adherence to traditional dogma, "rigida adhaesio dogmati tradito."
In the context of immanence, pantheism, and spiritualism, "Immanentia, Pantheismus, et Spiritualismus," this aspect of societal dynamics becomes particularly intriguing. These beliefs emphasize the presence of divinity in all aspects of the natural world and the importance of personal spiritual experiences. It is often in times of great distress or dire need, "in temporibus angustiis," that groups turn to ideologies like Marxism, seeking systemic explanations and solutions, while individuals might turn to personal theology or spiritual beliefs for guidance and solace.
The transition from absolutism to democratic law, "A Absolutismo ad Legem Democraticam Transition," implies that it is improbable for a nation to completely abandon the absolute authority traditionally held by kings and sovereigns, "auctoritas absoluta regum et dominorum." Such a deep-rooted influence of these forms of governance suggests that a society that has never faced extreme adversity, "societas numquam maxima adversitate affecta," may not fully relinquish these older, more centralized forms of rule.
The transformation of public law into "positive law," "Lex Positiva et Auctoritas Regnans," highlights a shift where the law becomes an expression of the will of the ruling class, "voluntas classis regnantis." This is encapsulated in the phrase "auctoritas non veritas facit legem," meaning "authority, not truth, makes the law." It signifies a potential departure from the ideal of law as a manifestation of objective truth, instead becoming a tool wielded by those in power.
Carl Schmitt presents the base of modern American analysis of the metamorphosis of human understanding, the dynamics of political structures, and the intricate links between law, theology, and democracy, providing critical insights into societal evolution and governance.
In times of greatest need, the collective turns to Marxism, the solitary to theology; a nation untouched by true adversity relinquishes kingly absolutism without struggle.