The thesis examines the relationship between sovereignty and eschatology in Carl Schmitt’s political theology. Schmitt is seen as an important political theorist of sovereignty but the contemporary understanding of his sovereignty lacks an eschatological dimension. As a political theologian, Schmitt notices that sovereignty and eschatology are in tension: if the apocalypse is near, the earthly sovereign order has no legitimacy to exist. According to him, this tension was rooted in Christianity but radicalized by 20th century Marxism which destructs the sovereign order by extremizing the class contradiction to negate the class enemy and creating a universal unity of humanity at the end of human history. This thesis interprets Schmitt’s concept of sovereignty as a response to the Marxist apocalypticism and argues that Schmitt’s political theology is a project to revive the sovereign as a Katechontic power which perpetuates but simultaneously restrains enmity to delay the apocalypse and continually legitimate sovereignty as the earthly order. / Graduate / 2023-04-28

Esta pesquisa pretende examinar o problema teológico-político da soberania, a partir da ideia de que concepções teológicas de uma época se conectam intrinsecamente com o sentido das instituições políticas. A principal literatura sobre Teologia Política foi produzida na Alemanha do século XX e é ainda pouco debatida no Brasil. A reflexão sobre o lugar da Teologia Política no quadro da Ciência ou da Religião sobre o seu uso como ferramenta hermenêutica de conceitos históricos serve como glossário para as definições gerais e dos autores sobre « Teologia », « Política », « Ciência » e « Religião ». Em Teologia Política (1922), Carl Schmitt escreve sobre o conceito de soberania e seus desdobramentos implícitos na tese da secularização servem de ponto de partida para as discussões posteriores com Erik Peterson sobre a « liquidação » teológica de toda Teologia Política. A soberania em Schmitt é concebida como uma categoria sociológica não-positivista e contrarrevolucionária, na analogia estrutural do estado de exceção como milagre e no paralelo de Deus como o Estado. O levantamento biográfico dos dois autores, bem como a correspondência entre eles, revela detalhes importantes sobre a mudança de interpretação de certos conceitos em seu tempo. Na década de 1930, os tratados teológicos de Peterson não se destinavam apenas às teses teológico-políticas de seu amigo (e rival intelectual), mas representavam um estudo erudito para compreender e refutar a situação excepcional de seu tempo. Apenas muitos anos depois da publicação desses textos de Peterson, Schmitt, em Teologia Política II (1970), tentou rebater os argumentos de Peterson, que já tinha falecido. A tarefa desta investigação é reconstruir esse diálogo, apontando as principais conclusões desses autores e seus pontos de convergência e divergência, com destaque para a relevância dos estudos da Teologia Política como fonte de estímulo intelectual para pensar o presente e, se possível, se precaver dos reveses do futuro. / This research aims to examine the theological-political problem of sovereignty, from the idea that theological conceptions of an era are intrinsically connected with the meaning of political institutions. The main literature on Political Theology was produced in Germany in the 20th century and it is still underestimated in Brazil. The thoughts on the place of Political Theology in the framework of Science or Religion - on its use as a hermeneutic tool of historical concepts - serve as a glossary for the general concepts and author\'s definitions of \"Theology\", \"Politics\", \"Science\" and \"Religion\". In Political Theology (1922), Carl Schmitt writes about the concept of sovereignty - and its implicit ramifications in the thesis of secularization is usefull as a starting point for further discussions with Erik Peterson on the theological \"liquidation\" of all Political Theology. Sovereignty in Schmitt is conceived as a non-positivist and counter-revolutionary sociological category, in the structural analogy of the state of exception as a miracle and in the parallel between God and the State. The biographical survey of the two authors, as well as the correspondence between them, reveals important details about the change of interpretation of certain concepts in their time. In the 1930s, Peterson\'s theological treatises were not only aimed at the theological-political theses of his friend (and intellectual rival), but represented an scholarly study to understand and refute the exceptional situation of his time. Only many years after the publication of these texts by Peterson, in Political Theology II (1970), Schmitt tried to refute Peterson\'s arguments, who though was already dead. The task of this investigation is to reconstruct this dialogue, showing the main conclusions of these authors and their points of convergence and divergence, highlighting the relevance of the studies of Political Theology as a source of intellectual stimulus to think about the present and, if possible, to prevent against the setbacks of the future.

Le problème de l’association de la monnaie et des biens réels n’est toujours pas résolu dans la littérature instituée, qui reste marquée par une dichotomie de la sphère monétaire et de la sphère réelle. La monnaie y est habituellement considérée comme une grandeur marchande, une entité extra-économique ou le résultat d’une génération spontanée de la part du système bancaire. Elle serait alors échangée contre des biens réels ou des actifs financiers, ce qui interdit formellement de saisir l’idiosyncrasie qui permettrait de la déterminer dans un modèle. Déterminer la monnaie requiert alors de remonter à la production des biens réels, quand le paiement des salaires témoigne de l’union d’une monnaie-forme et d’un produit-fond. Dans ce cadre, la monnaie est un flux circulaire instantané (une grandeur positive et négative à la fois), que la banque émet sur demande des entreprises, et dans laquelle se loge le produit. Les travailleurs reçoivent ainsi le produit de leur travail sous une forme monétaire, l’association de la monnaie et des biens réels se traduisant par le revenu, qui restitue le pouvoir d’achat de la monnaie et la mesure économique. La valeur étant une relation entre la monnaie et les biens réels, elle est créée par le paiement des salaires et détruite à l’occasion de la dépense de consommation. Développée à l’origine par Bernard Schmitt, la théorie des émissions est le point fixe à partir duquel relire de manière critique les analyses classique, néoclassique, circuitiste et postkeynésienne. L’analyse classique distingue le concept de monnaie des supports monétaires, mais reste minée par une conception physique de la valeur, qui l’empêche de rapporter correctement le circuit. Cet échec est aussi celui de l’analyse circuitiste, qui pèche par une lecture physique du circuit et confère aux banques une capacité de création métaphysique. L’analyse néoclassique ne parvient pas à intégrer la monnaie à la théorie de la valeur-utilité en considérant la monnaie comme une grandeur nette, dont la valeur est déterminée par l’échange. De façon apparentée, l’analyse postkeynésienne prône, malgré le principe de la demande effective, une conception patrimoniale de la monnaie, qui laisse l’offre globale et la demande globale indéterminées. S’interdisant d’associer la monnaie et les biens réels formellement, l’ensemble de ces analyses laisse la valeur de la monnaie et la mesure économique inexpliquées, tout en étant miné par un principe conservatif, qui interdit de restituer l’augmentation de la richesse sociale. L’association de la monnaie et des biens réels doit finalement se retranscrire dans la réalité, par une réforme adaptée des structures bancaires, qui détonne ici des stratégies de ciblage monétaire et de ciblage d’inflation, du Bank Charter Act, du Plan for the Establishment of a National Bank de David Ricardo, des plans de couverture intégrale, ainsi que des propositions de libéralisation monétaire (à la Friedrich Hayek notamment). / The problem of the association of money with real goods is still unsolved in the established literature, which remains affected by a dichotomy between the monetary and the real sectors. Money is traditionally seen as a commodity, an extra-economic entity, or the result of a spontaneous creation of the banking system. It is notably considered as if it were a positive magnitude, which prevents understanding the peculiarity of money that would allow it to be integrated in an economic model. Integrating money in economic theory requires taking into account production, when the payment of wages associates money as a numerical form with real goods. In this framework, money is issued by banks as an instantaneous flow (a positive and a negative magnitude at the same time), which is demanded by firms for the monetization of production. Wage earners receive the product of their labour in a monetary form, the association of money with real goods giving rise to income, which provides value to money and the homogeneity of real goods. Since value is a relation between money and real goods, it is created by the payment of wages and destroyed by consumers’ spending. Originally developed by Bernard Schmitt, the theory of money emissions is the starting point for a critical analysis of Classical, Neoclassical, and Post-Keynesian theories, as well as for the theories of monetary circulation. Classical theory distinguishes between the concept of money and the things in which money is reified, but remains undermined by a physical view of value, which leaves the monetary circuit indeterminate. This failure is also present in the theories of monetary circulation, which have a physical view of the monetary circuit and give banks the metaphysical power of creating value out of nothing. By considering money as a net quantity whose value is seen as a relative price, neoclassical theory fails to integrate money within the theory of value. Post-Keynesian theory, despite the principle of effective demand, retains a net-asset-view of money, which leaves global supply and global demand indeterminate. By ignoring the association of money with real goods, these different theories leave the value of money and the measure in economics unexplained and are undermined by a conservation principle, which logically prevents the explanation of the net increase of national wealth. The association of money with real goods is finally translated in the realm of economic policy through a coherent reform of the banking system, which clashes with the Bank Charter Act, the Plan for the Establishment of a National Bank (by David Ricardo), full-reserve banking, as well as the proposal for monetary liberalization.

In the 1932 essay The Concept of the Political, German legal philosopher Carl Schmitt (1888– 1985) raises the question: what is the modern state? In his answer Schmitt indivisibly links state and politics by stating that the concept of the state presupposes the concept of the political. The modern state is subsequently characterised as the political unity of a people. In the following thesis, I investigate the meaning of this designation by examining Schmitt’s state theory. Firstly, I set out to analyse his understanding of the political as a realm of conflict (chapter 2). On that basis, I scrutinise his views on the nature of the state as a political form of organisation (chapter 3). The thesis argues that given Schmitt’s understanding of the political as basically antagonistic, the raison d’être of the state is to relativise domestic tensions and conflicts in such a way as to facilitate the maintenance of order, peace and stability in a territorially enclosed configuration. Furthermore, the thesis contends that the ultimate purpose of the state, according to Schmitt, is to ensure a strong sense of political unity within the population and to promote the common goods a flourishing political community requires. In light of this, the thesis concludes that Schmitt’s state theory is essentially teleological in the sense that the political unity constituting the state is not merely an empirical phenomenon but rather a standard every real state should endeavour to realise.

Diss. Univ. Bern, 2005. / Register. Bibliogr.

<p>Slutgiltigt godkännandedatum: 2022-10-03</p>

The jurist Carl Schmitt’s views on the total state and race need further clarification as long as the English language edition of his Concept of the Political presents an apologist commentary. The questions are to which degree Schmitt’s works written during the Weimar Republic are tainted with totalitarian and racist ideas and whether Schmitt gave up fundamental principles during Nationalist Socialism. This thesis examines writings by Schmitt between 1913 and 1940 to reconstruct a coherent anti-individualistic legal viewpoint and its arguments. The first part finds that Schmitt undermines the individual rights of the Weimar Constitution. The second part discusses Schmitt’s role as a theorist of totalitarianism. The third part considers Schmitt’s anti-Semitism as underlying motivation for his political theory and analyzes his racism in light of his anti-individualism. Schmitt frequently argues by invoking necessity of history and by justifying some political action as necessary. These arguments should be rejected.

Dans notre thèse de doctorat, nous avons cherché à tester l’hypothèse selon laquelle l’enjeu européen constituerait, en France, l’épicentre d’une « actualisation » — pour partie assumée, pour partie occultée — de la pensée du juriste allemand Carl Schmitt. Les réflexions politico-philosophiques de Schmitt représentent en soi un assemblage rhétorique et systématique puissant, aisément mobilisable dans le cadre des débats théoriques sur la construction européenne, afin de battre en brèche les affirmations néo-cosmopolitiques, que l’on soit de droite ou de gauche. Il s’est agi, pour nous, de vérifier jusqu’à quel point la pensée politique du juriste se retrouvait « recyclée » dans le débat français contemporain relatif à l’idée d’Europe. Était ainsi ouverte l’opportunité d’évaluer, de manière systématique, la facticité ou la pertinence d’une antinomie : une Europe schmittienne contre une Europe kantienne. Dans un premier temps, nous avons tâché de reconstruire ce que fut la position schmittienne concernant la gestion de l’espace européen, avant d’évaluer, dans un second temps, l’impact causé par une telle pensée sur les réflexions qui animent le débat français contemporain. La première partie de la thèse visait à rendre compte de la vision schmittienne de l’Europe. Schmitt a pensé la décision politique en des termes statonationaux : l’ordre juridique étatique serait modelé sur la base de la nature axiologique et culturelle de l’amitié politique, de la communauté des citoyens soudés par un seul et même critère d’appartenance, souvent religieux ; critère qui précéderait la nationalité et la réalisation « politique ». Il s’ensuit que l’ordre mondial ne peut se présenter que sous la forme d’un pluriversum d’États, animés dans leurs relations mutuelles par la dynamique de l’ami et de l’ennemi. Le libéralisme et le pluralisme provoqueraient des regroupements fonctionnels, dont le pan-européisme serait l’une des manifestations les plus visibles, à l’origine d’un sapement du politique et de l’unité souveraine de l’État. Quatre points analytiques permettent d’expliquer l’appréhension schmittienne de la gestion juridico-politique du Vieux Continent : l’indissociabilité du couple conceptuel État-politique, l’idée que la nation demeure l’horizon indépassable de la démocratie, la critique de la notion d’humanité et de toute morale universelle, et l’idée que le droit serait nécessairement d’origine politique, donc particulariste. En France, l’intérêt pour l’œuvre de Schmitt s’est largement accru ces dernières années. Le débat théorique actuel autour du problème de la construction européenne offre d’ailleurs une place particulière à la réactivation de l’argumentaire schmittien statocentré, antilibéral et culturaliste. À gauche comme à droite de l’échiquier politique, intellectuels et philosophes mobilisent raisonnements et schémas discursifs, tantôt réclamés de Schmitt, tantôt très proches des arguments du juriste de Plettenberg. En passant en revue les réflexions d’auteurs aussi différents qu’Étienne Balibar et Pierre Manent, Alain de Benoist et Marcel Gauchet, Daniel Bensaïd et Pierre-André Taguieff, nous avons tenté d’approcher et de rendre compte de la pluralité des emprunts à la pensée de Schmitt et à son appréhension de l’ordre européen, dans le cadre des discussions françaises relatives à l’intégration régionale européenne. Chez certains de ces auteurs, la construction européenne apparaît comme la manifestation avancée d’un phénomène général de dilution du politique. Autrement dit, elle incarnerait un idéal de société qui ramène le politique au niveau du marché. Pour d’autres, Carl Schmitt aurait diagnostiqué mieux que quiconque la mort du droit des gens européen et les travers de l’universalisme abstrait que brandirait l’Union européenne en expansion. Par ailleurs, la théorisation schmittienne de la souveraineté constituerait une référence incontournable pour éclairer les thématiques actuelles relatives à une mutation des niveaux de pouvoir.

Zugl.: Berlin, Freie Univ., Diss., 2007

This thesis investigates the relation between exception and governmentality in the critique of sovereignty. It considers exception and governmentality as an expression of the problem of sovereignty and argues that this problem is expressed both within the accounts of sovereignty that exception and governmentality articulate, as well as between them. Taking Michel Foucault and Carl Schmitt as the paradigmatic theorists of governmentality and exception, respectively, I engage in close readings of the texts in which these concepts are most thoroughly elaborated: Security, Territory, Population and Political Theology. These readings demonstrate that, despite their apparent differences, exception and governmentality cannot be differentiated from one another. The instability evident in Schmitt and Foucault’s concepts show that the relation between them is best characterized as aporetic. / Graduate / 0615 / 0616 / reganburles@gmail.com