I took a philosophy course in which the first selected reading during the semester was “The Concept of the Political” by Carl Schmitt. The professor at the time explained that he chose to lecture on that book because of Schmitt background and the interesting definition that he granted to the ‘state.’ The professor seemed to be like a critical theorist, he liked to challenge the theories embedded in society. The class was categorized as a contemporary ethics philosophy course that focused on ethical topics such as race, Marxism and feminist theory. When I registered I thought that it was going to be based on prominent philosophers like Mill’s, Kant and Devlin. But, the first week I felt intimidated because of the challenge of the course and the manner that the professor expressed himself, this was highlighted throughout his entire lecture. I became mesmerized by the book because of Schmitt ideology and his definition of the political although I disagree with his Nazi’s ideals. Before I read this analysis, I had a vague idea of what the political was, but this philosophical examination made me understand and acquire a distinct perspective of the political. The particularity of this analysis written by Schmitt is that he contradicts the previous definitions that have been granted to the political. He defines the political as a friend-enemy distinction and as such, it is the utmost disassociation that exists. Therefore, the state as the sovereign and supremacist determine this distinction because they imposed societal norms. The purpose of the enactments of laws is to protect the self-interest of the friends and not the enemies because the friends have a moral right to preserve their beliefs. Carl Schmitt was a historical figure that created the friend-enemy theory that served as a basis and explained why German jurisdiction and laws did not protect the basic rights of the Jews. Simultaneously this theory explains why immigration laws in the United States do not protect the right of the immigrants but of the legislators, the white supremacist, it serves as a justification for their doings.

Carl Schmitt was a Catholic German jurist and political theorists that supported Nazism (National Socialist German Workers Party). He is well-known for his definition of the political as a friend and enemy distinction and regarded as one of the most fundamental critics of liberalism. Schmitt was born to Catholic parents in Plettenberg, Prussia, Germany. Schmitt studied and attained a doctorate in Law at the University of Berlin. After getting his doctorate Schmitt proceeded to teach at the University of Greifswald during what Germany was the Weimar Republic. During this time, he wrote extensively and criticized the defects of political philosophy. A prominent paper that he wrote was “Dictatorship” which he explains the infrastructure of the Weimar Republic and argues that a dictator can more easily represent the will of the individuals in a body politic rather than a legislative body. In such domain, a dictator, according to Schmitt, can be more conclusive whereas a legislative body has to debate and then come up with an agreement. This writing further helped him developed his state theory on “The Concept of the Political.” What I found to be more intriguing about the development of Schmitt theories especially, friend-enemy distinction, is that they were utilized as an ideological development and justification of the Nazi’s political party. Afterward, he was directly accused of using jurisprudence to justify the sovereign and supremacist state of the Nazi’s. Thus, he became part and then was proclaimed president of the Nazi party. Schmitt can be characterized as an anti-Semite that held the notion that German laws did not have to conform Jews beliefs, solely Germans. But soon after, he was removed from his position as president after being accused of criticism of Nazi’s ideologies regarding the Aryan race.

This historical figure, Carl Schmitt, is significant to my autoethnography because of his definition of the political as a friend-enemy distinction that places immigrants as the enemy in the United States. I think that the definition he grants to the political is legitimate because the state as the sovereign and supremacist determines who its internal enemies/friends, they make legislation. Schmitt explains that the enemy is “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 extreme case conflict with him are possible.”[1]In the state, the enemy is classified as such when they present a threat to a group of individuals way of life, the collective group of individuals feel an existential crisis. The enemy is the threat to a collective group of people morals and beliefs, they believe that their life is being assaulted by the ‘other.’ Schmitt explains that if a collective group of individuals feels such a threat then they should fight to preserve their form of life. This historical figure is important to my writing project because of the development of his theory. This serves a context of why immigration laws are discriminatory and racist. My aunt was not denied because she committed fraud but because as an immigrant she is already categorized as a stranger, other and alien. She as a Latina poses a threat to the white supremacist and the inherent feeling that they have to protect their form of life led to her rejection. This theory also relates to me because I am an immigrant and in the United States legal system I am already ‘othered.’ I do not have nor receive the privileges that white people do and that fact excludes me and everyone that does not belong to that race. Schmitt was anti-Semitic that believed that Jews beliefs ought not to influence German laws. This is reflected in contemporary society were Trump openly prejudice against people that do not belong to his race, he publicly states who are his enemies. Ultimately, Schmitt is crucial to my project because he theoretically explains the reasons why my aunt was denied twice with his theory of the friend-enemy distinction. The United States just enacted discriminatory immigration laws to protect its form of existence. Schmitt ideals are reflected in contemporary immigration laws because they were not made to protect immigrants but to protect the white supremacist of the United States.

[1]Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, translation. George Schwab(Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1996), 27.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.