Carl Schmitt’s conflict with liberalism lies in liberalism’s insistence on the “rule of law” At the core of liberalism stands the assertion that law is prior to sovereignty, that a system of laws can be made to govern human society. Schmitt thinks not: human life is too unpredictable, and can never be subsumed under a set of laws, no matter how complex. At the end of the day, sovereignty is never located in law but in a person. Schmitt’s famous “state of exception” is focused on just this point: the sovereign is not just the one who makes the decision concerning the exception, but the sovereign also emerges / is revealed by it.
For Christian Theology, political and otherwise, the status of Jesus as King subordinates Law - Jesus is truly Lord of the Sabbath.
Schmitt finds the “rule of law” (and, consequently, liberalism) problematic because of the ways in which law constrains human relations. Human relations, when mediated by Law, are mechanized; and humans are thereby objectified. We catch a glimpse of this in the Mark 2, when Jesus and his disciples are innocently plucking grain on the Sabbath. The disciples are grist for the law’s operation: insofar as they are recognized by the law, insofar as they are found under the law, they are recognized as lawbreakers. Just as the doctor cannot diagnose “health” (so the truism goes) so also the Law does not recognize Justice or Goodness or Mercy - or even Subjects at all - but it can only capture deviants. Thus, to be included in the law is to be a lawbreaker. On the other hand, to be included, found, under a king is to be a Subject.
Entries (RSS)