Skip to main content

The Partisan, or the Man of Exception

  • Chapter
  • 125 Accesses

Abstract

Schmitt believed that Hobbes had offered an insightful analysis of the political during the Westphalian period, but that in the context of the twentieth century his diagnosis was no longer valid. Hobbes’s identification of political and state had become problematic; the primary task of the political is to provide protection in return for obedience, but the twentieth-century state was becoming increasingly incapable of performing such a role.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. C. Schmitt, Concept of the Political (London and Chicago: University of Chicago Press, [1932] 1996), p. 29

    Google Scholar 

  2. G. Balakrishnan, The Enemy: An Intellectual Portrait of Carl Schmitt (London and New York: Verso, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  3. E. Bolsinger, The Autonomy of the Political: Carl Schmitt’s and Lenin’s Political Realism (London: Westport, 2001), p. 35.

    Google Scholar 

  4. C. Schmitt, Theorie des Partisanen (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2002), p. 50.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Schmitt refers us to books 6 and 8, Chapter 6B of Clausewitz’ On War. The quotation in the text is from C. Clausewitz, On War (Ware: Wordsworth Classics, 1997), p. 357.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Aron, R. Clausewitz: Philosopher of War (London: Routledge, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Aron, R. History and the Dialectic of Violence (London: Harper and Row, 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Aron, R. Peace & War: A Theory of International Relations (New Brunswick, N.J. and London: Transaction Publishers, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  9. A discussion of Carl Schmitt and Karl Marx can be found in J.E. Dotti, ‘From Karl to Carl: Schmitt as a Reader of Marx’ in C. Mouffe (ed.) The Challenge of Carl Schmitt (London and New York: Verso, 1999), 92–117.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Most stimulating discussions on norm and exception can be found in William E. Scheuerman, ‘The rule of law under siege: Carl Schmitt and the death of the Weimar Republic’, History of Political Thought, 14 (1993) 265–80

    Google Scholar 

  11. E. Kennedy, Constitutional Failure: Carl Schmitt in Weimar (Durham, N.C. and London: Duke University Press, 2004)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. D. Dyzenhaus, Constitution of Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. R. Cristi, Carl Schmitt and Authoritarian Liberalism (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  14. As argued by Jerry Z. Muller, for Schmitt ‘a normal state was one in which relations of enmity were directed outward, in which the “enemy” was foreign’. See J.Z. Muller ‘Carl Schmitt, Hans Freyer and the radical conservative critique of liberal democracy in the Weimar Republic’, History of Political Thought, 12 (1991) 695–715

    Google Scholar 

  15. In Theorie des Partisanen, Schmitt does not restate his view on the total state and on the distinction between the quantitative and qualitative senses of ‘total state’. On this issue, see Jerry Muller, who quotes from Schmitt’s article in the Europäische Revue of February 1933: ‘the total state [in the qualitative sense] is an especially strong state [...] Such a state allows no forces to arise within it which might be inimical to it, limit it, or fragment it [...] Such a state can distinguish friend from foe’, J.Z. Muller, op. cit., p. 712. See also J-W. Muller, A Dangerous Mind: Carl Schmitt in Post-War European Thought (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2003)

    Google Scholar 

  16. P. Caldwell, ‘Ernst Forsthoff and the legacy of radical conservative state theory in the Federal Republic of Germany’, History of Political Thought, 15 (1994) 615–41.

    Google Scholar 

  17. It is worth mentioning that the link between weak state and partisan guerrilla has been confirmed by empirical research. J. Fearon and D. Laitin summarize the finding of their empirical research on internal wars in the 1990s thus: ‘Decolonization from the 1940s through the 1970s gave birth to a large number of financially, bureaucratically and militarily weak states. These states have been at risk for civil violence for the whole period, almost entirely in the form of insurgency, or rural guer-rilla warfare [...] The conditions that favor insurgency [are] state weakness marked by poverty, a large population, and instability’. See J. Fearon and D. Laitin, ‘Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War’, American Review of Political Science, 97:1 (2003) 75–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. See G. Borradori, Philosophy in a Time of Terror: dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  19. L. Odysseos, ‘Crossing the Line? Carl Schmitt on the Spaceless Universalism of Cosmopolitanism and the War on Terror’, in L. Odysseos and F. Petito (eds) The International Political Thought of Carl Schmitt (New York and London: Routledge, 2007) 124–43

    Google Scholar 

  20. G.L. Ulmen, ‘Partisan Warfare, Terrorism and the Problem of a New Nomos of the Earth’, in L. Odysseos and F. Petito (eds) The International Political Thought of Carl Schmitt (New York and London: Routledge, 2007) 97–106

    Google Scholar 

  21. A. Behnke, ‘Terrorising the Political: 9/11 within the context of the Globalisation of Violence’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 33:2 (2004) 279–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. J. Derrida, Politics of Friendship(London: Verso, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  23. See A. Jongman and A. Schmid, Political Terrorism (Amsterdam and Oxford: North Holland Publishing Co., 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  24. P. Wilkinson, Terrorism versus Democracy (London: Frank Cass, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  25. R.D. Howard and R.L. Sawyer (eds) Terrorism and Counterterrorism (Guilford, Conn.: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  26. B. Cole and N. Gurr, The New Face of Terrorism (London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  27. M. Crenshaw (ed.) Terrorism in Context (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  28. M. Crenshaw, ‘The Causes of Terrorism’, Comparative Politics, 139 (1981) 379–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. W. Laqueur, The New Terrorism (London: Pheonix, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  30. C. Townshend, Terrorism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  31. B. Hoffman, Inside Terrorism (London: Victor Gollancz, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  32. M. Wieviorka, The Making of Terrorism (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1993), p. 294.

    Google Scholar 

  33. B. Hoffman, op. cit., p. 41. See also P. Wilkinson, Terrorism and the Liberal State (London: Macmillan, 1977), p. 60.

    Google Scholar 

  34. On this issue see T. Honderich, Terrorism for Humanity (London: Pluto Press, 2003), pp. 14–16

    Google Scholar 

  35. C. Schmitt, The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum (New York: Telos Press Publishing, 2003), pp. 78–9.

    Google Scholar 

  36. For more on this issue, see Jerry Muller, who quotes from Schmitt’s article in the Europäische Revue of February 1933: ‘the total state [in the qualitative sense] is an especially strong state. [...] Such a state allows no forces to arise within it which might be inimical to it, limit it, or fragment it. [...] Such a state can distinguish friend from foe’, J.Z. Muller, ‘Carl Schmitt, Hans Freyer and the radical conservative critique of liberal democracy in the Weimar Republic’, History of Political Thought, 12 (1991), 695–715

    Google Scholar 

  37. J. Muller, A Dangerous Mind: Carl Schmitt in Post-War European Thought (New Haven, Conn., and London: Yale University Press, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  38. E. Bolsinger, The Autonomy of the Political (Westport, Conn.-London: Greenwood Press, 2001), p. 120

    Google Scholar 

  39. P. Caldwell, ‘Ernst Forsthoff and the legacy of radical conservative state theory in the Federal Republic of Germany’, History of Political Thought, 15 (1994) 615–41.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Schmitt’s writings between 1937 and 1941 suggest that a possible answer to the question of a true political form that can replace the state is the Grossraum; see for example J. Kervegan, ‘Carl Schmitt and World Unity’, in C. Mouffe (ed.), op. cit., 54–74, especially pp. 62–4 and P. Stirk, ‘Carl Schmitt’s Völkerrechtliche Grossraumordnung’, History of Political Thought, 20 (1999) 357–74.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 2009 Gabriella Slomp

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Slomp, G. (2009). The Partisan, or the Man of Exception. In: Carl Schmitt and the Politics of Hostility, Violence and Terror. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230234673_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics