Reflection:Concept of the Political

In class last week I was a member of the group that argued that humanity should not view an alien species as a political “other,” nor would it when an alien-human interaction actually happened. Personally, I do not agree that human politics is either defined by or confined to a “friend-enemy” dynamic. Nor do I believe in defining another entity, whether it be a religious minority or insect-like species, as an “other” no matter how foreign it may be. To demonize, antagonize and to generalize is to not only to limit oneself, but to prevent wondrous relationships. If I were to fall prey to stereotypes and believe everything I have heard about non-Caucasians and non-Americans, I would be friendless and a fraction of the person I am today. If I were even to view people who didn’t necessarily fall into mainstream society, such as my friends in the LGBT community, as “others” I would have deprived myself of life changing friendships. However, by being open-minded I have had interactions that have strengthened not only myself but others. It is good to be wary that some people might try be manipulative and antagonizing, because realistically many people are. However, many people are also altruistic and loving. To me, the risk of being manipulated is worth taking if it creates an opportunity for beneficial cooperation. It would be easy to ostracize the “others,” but in the end if you join a group that follows a “friend-enemy” dynamic, one day you will be enemy. Why do you think Mao, Stalin, and Hitler purged their ranks so many times? Do you think the stereotypical high school clique that maliciously gossips is based in fiction? My advice is to be around those who build you up, not those who bring down “others” and scapegoats. When aliens arrive it is very possible they will be hostile, but attempts to achieve friendship should be made as it is not only the moral choice, but because the fruits of cooperation are exponentially greater than those of atrocious wars and domination.
The question of whether or not humans would actually pursue a path of friendship is another question. Humanity’s history of colonialism, genocide and racism would indicate otherwise. I myself have questioned how far we have advanced in light of Darfur and Rwanda. However, humanity has gained a greater sense of objectivity and enlightenment; otherwise this discussion would not be taking place. The fact also remains that humanity is not uniform in mentality or societal values. Therefore, to say one single human response would occur is improbable. Personally, I would strive for peace… but would not be surprised if a ship hovering over DC was shot down. Such is the human condition.

Reflection: The Concept of the Political

I want to do a blog post here not necessarily comparing Carl Schmitt's work The Concept of the Political to any work of science fiction we've studied so far. The work, although easily compared to works of fiction, needs to stand on its own and be considered in its own context. That being said, I'd like to reiterate what Prof Jackson said during our class period: The Concept of the Political is a fascist work. Now, it's very easy to get caught up in the implications of calling it that. People see that label and tend to dismiss it outright. But the label itself doesn't dictate exactly what's contained inside - just because it's fascist doesn't mean there isn't anything to learn from the work. When working with The Concept of the Political, it's good to be mindful of George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language". We can understand Carl Schmitt if we read him for what he truly says; we cannot him if we instead read the implications of what kind of person he was and the language associated with him.

I wanted to address once specific issue brought up in class that I think never got answered clearly. Prof Jackson put forth a very pointed question after our discussion of what Schmittian political philosophy looks like: who makes the decisions in an alien encounter? Of course, the position is that of a human's - who calls the shots when the aliens land on Earth? There's two ways we can tackle it - how Carl Schmitt would of LIKED to see it handled, and how it might ACTUALLY be handled today. Schmitt's position is slightly easier to identify in this context. Schmitt was writing during the time of the League of Nations and a time of overwhelming liberal democratic spirit. The feeling during this period of the 20s was a great confidence in the processes of liberalism, in which talk and communication between nations could prevent wars. In reaction to this, Schmitt put forth a very realistic kind of view - that if nations continued to operate under these kind of liberal assumptions, they were liable to be stabbed in the back and taken advantage of. Schmitt deeply despised the talk and deliberation associated with these liberal nations, and instead called for a deference to a single leader to make important decisions (as he writes, to make the distinction between friend-enemy). So would a deference to a single leader actually occur if aliens landed in your backyard?

This is obviously a huge and multi-faceted question, one I'm sure has actually been given legitimate thought by at least some legislators in the course of history. And, of course, the question has a huge amount of variables. To bring it down to size for now, let's assume that the aliens literally land right on the White House lawn. At this point, I believe Schmitt would be satisfied with an American response, with general deference given to the Commander-in-Chief in a kind of logistical situation like that. However, I think Schmitt would have problems with the likely reaction of the US to the alien landing. In class we put together a grid of Schmittian philosophies: we should use Schmittian politics, and we do; we should use Schmittian politics, and we don't; we should not use Schmittian politics, and we do; and finally we should not use Schmittian politics, and we don't. The problem of course in deciding which category your situation falls into, is that you'll only know once the event has actually passed. Look at War of the Worlds, a situation where humanity was obviously too ignorant of the destructive power of aliens, and should have used a friend-enemy distinction. In modern times, I would hope our government is all too cognizant of the possible threats alien weaponry could pose. Considering the threats America has tackled before, I can only imagine a Schmittian response taking place on American soil. However, this doesn't necessarily mean throwing a bomb at the spaceship. Schmittian policy allows specific directions to be taken, but in the end prevents against possible destruction.

Substantive on "The Concept of the Political"

It is often joked that “politician” is Latin for bloodsucking creature. Although this is a popular misconception, I cannot entirely say that I disagree with this parasitic description of politicians, and in extension politics. Schmitt’s description of the “political” touches upon the darker side of politics by characterizing the “political” purely as a “friend-enemy” relationship that can potentially escalate into a war. This relationship need not consist of two friends that consider each other to be “aesthetic” or “moral,” or by two enemies that are total opposites. Such conditions would surely aid the legitimacy of a conflict, but they are not necessary. What is necessary is the existence of a common threat or foe. For example, both the UK and the US allied with the USSR during WWII even though barely twenty years ago both countries had sent soldiers against the communist movement and Roosevelt had only recently recognized the USSR. However, all three nations had the common enemy of Nazi Germany. When this threat was extinguished, however, the Cold War between the US and its’ Western allies and the USSR and its’ satellite nations soon began. Although the sides of the conflict were based on ideologies and morals, neither were preserved during the Cold War. For example, the US sided with totalitarian regimes in South America in order to weaken the totalitarian USSR. The USSR, while preaching against the exploitive capitalist West, had a government plagued by greed and corruption. Often ideals are a pretense or a secondary consideration when it comes to defeating a foe. I disagree with Scmitt, though, that the friend-enemy relation is the entirety of politics. Sometimes a foe is not an actual threat, but a means of scapegoating. Wars can also be waged for the personal gain of a leader at the expense of an unsuspecting opponent. Besides this, Schmitt fails to realize that a ‘foe” does not need to be a person or escalate into a war in order to unify a side or create a “friend-enemy” dynamic. For example, there have been benevolent bi-partisan efforts against drugs, poverty and other social issues in the US. Recently the world has united to help aid Haiti, viewing the destruction caused by the recent earthquake as a “foe.” In a non-political situation, I personally know of bickering friends who have reunited in order to comfort a mutual friend with a terminally ill mother. Unity against a foe does not have to have a negative connotation or even be violent. Schmitt also fails to realize that sometimes ideologies and morals prevent people from looking at the world from a “friend-enemy” lens. There are some people who would rather sacrifice themselves than harm another human being. In my own life I’ve personally helped people who have seriously harmed me multiple times even though I knew it was a futile gesture. I could have emotionally crippled this person and protected myself, but I did not. Instead I offered aid even though it was disadvantageous and destructive to me. Politics and human nature is not constituted by antagonism. Rather, it is a small facet of both.
In terms of Schmitt’s “other,” I would argue that we do not need another species to have a perfect “other” and that an alien species may actually be similar to humans and thus cannot be a perfect “other.” Humans have a tendency to dehumanize their opponents to the point that they are no longer humans. Even as children we call certain people “bullies” and feel little remorse if they get in trouble or are berated by others. If someone fights back and hurts bully its’ ok as they are evil and they deserve it because they’re a mean bully. If a terrorist is killed, do we feel remorse? Do we view them as human? We might feel more disgust if we witnessed a sheep being killed more than a member of the Taliban. I feel that even within humanity we humans may view others almost as aliens or another species. On the other hand, certain alien species may be very “human.” Extraterrestrials may be humanoids who talk like humans, think like humans and act like humans. If this were to happen, they could not be a perfect “other” to be antagonized. However, in films such as Starship Troopers, where the aliens are seen as non-sentient insects, extraterrestrials can serve as good “others.” In the film, the threat of insect attacks helps keep an authoritarian federation strong, despite several defeats. The Formics in Ender’s Game also serve a similar purpose, and once they have been defeated the alliance in the plot falls into disarray. I’d like to reiterate a point I made in another blog post. There can exist alliances for the betterment of humanity that are not formed around a “friend-enemy” dynamic. Today the UN does charitable work throughout the world and the EU has interconnected many countries together to the point that war is considered to be impossible between Western European nations. Our future does not need to be characterized by an authoritarian federation. Instead we can strive for an organization like the Federation from Star Trek, which is a viable goal to strive for… a political entity based on self improvement and peaceful cooperation with others.

Substantive: The Concept of the Political

In this post, I want to continue the application of Schmitt to Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game. Last post I covered what I saw as the application of Schmitt's political philosophy to the politics being played out on Earth as Ender was attending battle school in the asteroid belt. Principle to the politics of of post-Bugger Earth were the internet (I use internet in the context of what we would understand the concept to be, not necessarily what Card 100% envisioned) personalities of Locke and Demosthenes. As we understand from some of the interspersed chapters and the final chapter of Ender's Game, the current political entities of Earth are united under the banner of defeating the Buggers, but on the brink of collapsing into infighting once again. In deft political maneuvering, Peter Wiggin utilizes his created personas to elevate himself to the position of Hegemon of Earth, essentially keeping Earth united. As opposed to the union of Earth during the Bugger wars, which very much so mimics Schmitt's friend-enemy political dynamic, Peter defies Schmitt's logic, and keeps humanity together via colonization practices, and steeling itself against future enemies, but not necessarily one present.

In this blog post I want to continue the application of Schmitt's friend-enemy political theory, but this time to the concept of the International Fleet, and how it represents humanity as a whole (and, indeed, how Ender plays into the concept of the IF), and the Buggers themselves. In general, when analyzing the IF and the Buggers under Schmitt's political philosophy, I'm going to ignore the League War at the conclusion of the novel and its effects on the IF, as I believe I've covered that sufficiently in the last post.

The IF fleet represents the best of humanities military steeled against a common enemy. However, the Bugger threat is a very unique one to humanity. As Chris pointed out in his latest post, the Buggers fail to attack innocent human settlements, and in general human bystanders. While I think this has an easy internal explanation in the story's universe (the Buggers were innocent of the fact they were killing individuals, but knew not to attack worlds, which they may have seen as containing a queen), it has interesting applications to Schmitt's theories in that the public never really had any reason to fear the Buggers. In essence, the public never had anything personal against the Buggers - they were simply a threat to the whole. From The Concept of the Political; "The enemy is not merely any competitor or just any partner of a conflict in general. An enemy exists only when, at least potentially, one fighting collectivity of people confronts a similar collectivity. The enemy is solely the public enemy... The enemy is hostis, not inimucus in the broader sense," Schmitt relays that an opposing collective of fighting people may not necessarily have to commit crimes against people in order to be considered the enemy. Only "because everything that has a relationship to such a collectivity of men, particularly to a whole nation, becomes public by virtue of such a relationship," says Schmitt. In Schmitt's sense, we can say the IF (representing humanity) and the Buggers are enemies not by virtue of the crimes the Buggers have committed against humanity, by but virtue of there existing an opposing fighting force which could jeopardize the existence of humanity.

Related to this, I have to say I entirely agree with Morgan's post on the alien nature of the Buggers and the quote from Schmitt she uses. This quote follows up logically from what I have just presented: Schmitt says that the enemy need not be the enemy which has committed certain crimes against specific people, and need only be a public threat. But, of course, we need to ask why that enemy would be a threat. Schmitt here makes it clear that simply the concept of being different is enough to cause conflict; "The political enemy need not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly; he need not appear as an economic competitor, and it may even be advantageous to engage with him in business transactions. But he is, nevertheless, the other, the stranger; and it is sufficient for his nature that he is, in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible.”

Consider, for a moment, that humanity was capable of actually communicating with the Buggers. We know that Mazer Rackham tells Ender on the way to Eros that humanity did in fact attempt to communicate with the Buggers, but all the attempts failed. At this point, we have no idea if this account is even true, considering the extent of the lies all the adults were telling Ender. So then, would humanity still wage war against the Buggers even if we were capable of communicating? And, to another extreme, would humanity still wage war if we met a race of, say, sentient cute bunnies? Schmitt says, "Emotionally, the enemy is easily treated as being evil and ugly, because every distinction, most of all the political... draws upon other distinctions for support... [T]he morally evil, aesthetically ugly or economically damaging need not necessarily be the enemy; the morally good, aesthetically beautiful or economically profitable need not necessarily become the friend..." Therefore, the friend-enemy distinction Schmitt puts forth isn't even based on other contributing factors, it is the simple alienness of the two political entities that drive them to war.

Substantive: Concept of the Political

“The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy…The political enemy need not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly; he need not appear as an economic competitor, and it may even be advantageous to engage with him in business transactions. But he is, nevertheless, the other, the stranger; and it is sufficient for his nature that he is, in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible.” (p. 26-27)

This quote, to me, summarizes everything we were discussing with Ender’s Game last week. Schmitt proposes that the justifications for war, and the existence of the enemy, come from this notion of otherness, that it is not high-minded values of good and evil that we suggest when we discuss enemies, but a kind of xenophobia, this sense of other. This, Schmitt says, is politics. The very distinction of enmity is what makes politics possible, because that is what political motives can be reduced to. It makes perfect sense, in a way, as to why bipartisan issues seldom get resolved—the whole point of a political system is “Well, my opponent wants this, but I want this.”

“The notions which postulate a just war usually serve a political purpose.” (p. 49)

If we look at the real world, what Schmitt is saying makes a large amount of sense, particularly in the terms of the last presidency, and the war in Iraq. While we can justify war on a level dominated by opposition and capital letters (i.e., Good vs. Evil, Freedom vs. Terrorism) it boils down to pragmatism, and the notion of a just war is just that: a notion. The justification for war as an instrument of “justice” is almost always a cover for something entirely without the bounds of these social mores.

“Never in the thousand-year struggle between Christians and Moslems did it occur to a Christian to surrender rather than defend Europe out of love toward the Saracens or Turks.” (p. 29)

I believe this also goes back to our discussion last week. We talked a great deal about Ender’s love of the buggers, that it is this which enables him to destroy them. And yet Schmitt makes an excellent point here, that this friend/enemy dichotomy creates a situation in which few other actions are possible. Even though Ender loves the buggers, he ultimately destroys them, and the people who are manipulating him choose to do so because they believe that no other choice is possible—because the buggers are other, and therefore enemy, and therefore must be destroyed. I am simplifying matters here, but only because I don’t want to get into the Hierarchy of Foreignness, which we will discuss next week. I understand that Earth attempted to communicate, but I also understand that the final invasion was Earth’s doing, and that lives were lost because humanity had no way of knowing that this other, this alien race, finally understood.