Polemic nature of concepts
Some concepts are terribly polemised
Tous les concepts, représentations, et mots politiques ont un sens polémique, ils visent un antagonisme concret. (Carl Schmitt)
All political concepts, representations and words have a polemical meaning: they are aimed at a concrete antagonism. (Carl Schmitt)
Carl Schmitt can be a complicated political philosopher, especially because of the links to Nazi Germany. I am not going to analyse this quote in all its context. We take the quote as it is and reflect on this.
Is it true that all political concepts have a certain polemic sense? Are all the concepts (even the social and moral ones) having a political angle? If we accept it, the quote is about a huge set of concepts.
- Take the concepts like Indian, Pakistani, French, American, Chinese etc. Yes, we might be born in those countries or have roots related to that country. It needn’t be always polemic, but it can be used by rulers or writers in a polemical fashion.
- Let’s take a concept like fraternity, which can be translated as brotherhood and sisterhood. Is the concept truly universal, or our brotherhood limited to certain people? The ideals of French revolution were equality, fraternity and liberty; there are beautiful saying after the revolution which says “republic (French State) is fraternity and fraternity is republic.” This can beautiful as an ideal, but this fraternity also excluded many people. We as Christians speak of fraternity — based on children of the same father. Whether it includes truly all? A good question to ask. And it is equal sad that we use the word fraternities for a group of people with a certain vision etc, but they can have extreme exclusivist tendencies to the outsiders.
It can be contested that this is true with all concepts. They make a certain division. But whether that division is always required is a good question to ask? Even if it creates a separation, can we be cautious of the possibility of polarisation it can create? Or can we still keep the boundaries porous enough for crossing to happen?
I look at few examples from the life of Jesus. He didn’t create any concepts (may be Kingdom of God). But he went beyond the polemical meaning throughout his life.
- “Love your neighbours” is a beautiful commandment. Jesus expanded it much to exclude none, or to put it bluntly, he will say “love your enemies.” None is outside the zone of loving. Whether his disciples like me, follow it or not, is another question.
- Think of the Samaritan of Jesus’ most famous parable. Samaritans and Jews were enemies. But through the symbol of neighbour, he is going beyond that boundary of enmity. None is a non-neighbour.
- His supreme act was incarnation, to become one of the creation in flesh and blood. The salvific work could have been done in different ways, by continuing to maintain the strong differences between God and humans. We haven’t become the same; but in him, there is a unity. Unity between humans and with God.
When concepts like love, fraternity, neighbour (atleast in the life of Christians) become polemical, this is a sign of extreme degradation.
