This paper will attempt a Hegelian reading of Derrida’s Beast and the Sovereign Vol 1 lectures to unpack certain apories and paradoxes in Ambedkar’s brief 1932 statement on modern India’s founding figure, Gandhi. In that small text Ambedkar is critical of Gandhi’s seemingly saintly attempt at fasting himself to death. Ambedkar diagnoses that Gandhi’s act of self-sacrifice conceals a type of subtle coercion of certain political decisions during India’s independent movement from British colonialism. In order to unpack philosophical assumptions in (...) Ambedkar’s statement, this paper examines Derrida’s startlingly original insights into animality, law, and sovereignty in confronting two of the Western tradition’s giants in political philosophy, namely Hobbes and Schmitt. My intuition is that Derridean deconstruction can be expanded further by deploying certain Hegelian resources. My ultimate aim is to show how Western notions of man, soul, God, the sovereign, and the state begin to dissolve when examining the Hindu metaphysical cosmology of the caste system. My thesis and concluding reflections argue that only by destroying that cosmological system of politico-metaphysical inequality can a true democratic notion of the sovereign state emerge in the Indian context. (shrink)

The paper addresses Giorgio Agamben’s affirmation of post-sovereign politics by analyzing his critical engagement with the Hobbesian problematic of the state of nature. Radicalizing Carl Schmitt’s criticism of Hobbes, Agamben deconstructs the distinction between the state of nature and the civil order of the Commonwealth by demonstrating the ‘inclusive exclusion’ of the former within the latter in the manner of the state of exception, which functions as a negative foundation of any positive order. Since the state of nature is no (...) longer cast as spatially external and temporally antecedent to the former, it cannot be escaped by the perfection of the legal order, nor can it itself be posited in an essentialist manner as a pre-political site uncontaminated by sovereign violence. While denying any way out of the state of exception, Agamben nonetheless argues for the possibility of its appropriation in the way that dissociates anomie from the locus of sovereignty and reclaims it as an attribute of free social praxis. The paper analyzes three central features of this ‘post-sovereign’ politics and concludes with a discussion of the differences between Schmitt and Agamben with regard to the fate of Hobbes ’s Leviathan in late modern politics. (shrink)

Straipsnio tikslas – Carlo Schmitto politinės teologijos statuso analizė. Siekiama įrodyti, kad Schmitto pristatyta koncepcija negali būti suprasta kaip teisės sąvokų sociologija, kaip ją kai kuriuose darbuose apibūdino pats autorius. Ji taip pat negali būti aiškinama kaip teologijos dalis, kaip tai daro daugelis dabartinių interpretuotojų. Schmittas „politinės teologijos“ vardu pavadino politikos teorijai priskirtiną projektą, pagrįstą teologinių prielaidų įvedimu į filosofiją. Tai primena XIX a. katalikų reakcio­nierių Josepho de Maistre’o, Louiso de Bonaldo ir Juano Donoso Corteso politinę filosofiją.

The agonistic vs. epistemic dichotomy is fairly widespread in contemporary democratic theory and is endorsed by scholars as outstanding as Luis Felipe Miguel, Chantal Mouffe, and Nadia Urbinati. According to them, the idea that democratic deliberation can work as a rational exchange of arguments that aims at truth is incompatible with the recognition of conflict as a central feature of politics. In other words, the epistemic approach is bound to obliterate the agonistic and conflictive dimension of democracy. This article takes (...) this dichotomized way of thinking to task by reconstructing the association between democracy and compromise made by John Stuart Mill, John Morley, and Hans Kelsen. It concludes that the conceptualization of democracy as compromise offers an alternative to the agonistic vs. epistemic divide that disconcerts a significant part of political philosophy today. (shrink)

This article traces the semantics of ?life? and ?vitality? in Carl Schmitt up to the 1930s. It shows that Schmitt deploys these vitalist elements against the modern ?spirit of technicity? in his attempt to combat the lack of substantial ideas in modern politics. However, Schmitt himself cannot escape a fundamental political relativism. There remains an unstable tension at the heart of his thought between the quest for substance and the quest for order. The latter is relativist because it is a (...) quest for order as such, any order. Although Schmitt's semantics of life and vitality is not drawn from a biological register, it adopted a völkisch meaning in 1933. Anti-Semitism becomes a form of life and racial homogeneity fills in for substance. The article concludes that, while there are good reasons for criticizing the modern ?spirit of technicity,? Schmitt's critical model is fundamentally flawed. (shrink)

Aunque el debate jurídico entre Hans Kelsen y Carl Schmitt ha sido extensamente discutido y analizado, rara vez se lo sitúa en el marco de la disputa entre el mundo político antiguo y el moderno. La pérdida de este punto central de referencia impide focalizar la raíz filosófica de fondo en la polémica entre ambos autores, a saber, una batalla entre dos modelos alternativos de racionalidad política y moral. Uno es el antiguo (reivindicado por Schmitt) y otro el moderno (defendido (...) por Kelsen). Sostengo que no situar dicho debate en semejante contexto nos priva de comprender las implicaciones jurídicas que se desprenden del conflicto entre los supuestos teóricos normativos que hacen surgir a la Modernidad y el horizonte teleológico que da lugar a la Antigüedad. While the legal debate between Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt has been widely discussed and analyzed, it is rarely located within the coordinates of the political dispute between the ancient and modern world. The loss of this central point of reference prevents focusing on the deeply philosophical root wich is in the midst of the controversy between the two authors, namely, a battle between two alternative models of political rationality and morality. One is the ancient (claimed by Schmitt) and the other is the modern (defended by Kelsen). i argue that not placing this debate in such context deprives us from understanding the legal implications arising from the conflict between the normative theoretical assumptions that give rise to Modernity and the teleological horizon which gives rise to the ancient world. (shrink)