تمایز سیاست و امر سیاسی در اندیشه «کارل اشمیت» و «شانتال موف»
محورهای موضوعی : پژوهش سیاست نظری
خیراله اکبری
1
,
علی اشرف نظری
2
1 - دانشجوی دکتری علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
2 - دانشیار گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
کلید واژه: سیاست, امر سیاسی, اشمیت, موف, آنتاگونیسم,
چکیده مقاله :
پرسش اساسی مقاله این است که «امر سیاسی از چشمانداز شانتال موف و کارل اشمیت از چه وجوه همسان و ناهمسانی برخوردار است؟» در پاسخ، فرضیۀ اصلی این است که موف در عین عاریه گرفتن مفهوم امر سیاسی از اشمیت، فاصلۀ بيشتري از مدل اشميتي آنتاگونيسم با محوریت حکمران گرفته و معتقد است که تنها با قبول جنبۀ آنتاگونيسم امر سياسي ميتوان امکان تحقق سياست دموکراتيک را فراهم نمود. دموکراسي آگونيستي موف، شکل وارونۀ آن چيزي است که کارل اشميت از پنداره امر سـياسي ارائه کرده است.
The Distinction between Politics and the Political in the Thought of Carl Schmitt and Chantal Mouffe
Kheirollah Akbari*
Ali Ashraf Nazari**
The central question of this article is: “From the perspective of Chantal Mouffe and Carl Schmitt, what are the points of similarity and divergence regarding the political?” The main hypothesis suggests that while Mouffe borrows the concept of the political from Schmitt, she distances herself considerably from Schmitt’s sovereign-centered model of antagonism. She contends that only through the acknowledgment of antagonism at the heart of the political can the possibility of democratic politics be realized. Mouffe’s agonistic democracy thus represents an inversion of Carl Schmitt’s conception of the political.
Keywords: Politics, The Political, Schmitt, Mouffe, Antagonism.
Introduction
Every interpretation of the political contains within it a distinct prescription regarding the nature of the state. Exploring this claim through the lens of Carl Schmitt’s adversarial conception of the political and Chantal Mouffe’s agonistic reworking, which frames politics as rooted in power, conflict, and enmity, constitutes a significant inquiry. Schmitt grounds the political in a permanent sphere of hostility, insisting that any definition of the political requires a distinct classification.
At the same time, although many separate studies have examined Schmitt and Mouffe individually, there has been no sustained comparative assessment of their approaches to differentiating politics from the political—hence the significance and necessity of this study.
For Schmitt, antagonism is the constitutive element of the political, and war functions as an ever-present possibility that fundamentally shapes political behavior. From this premise, he criticizes the liberalism of his era. Schmitt grounds social existence in religion and defines the political in relation to politics. His analysis highlights the inextricable link between politics and war, where the sovereign’s decision to wage war—killing or being killed—constitutes the highest expression of political action. In his formulation, the political rests upon the friend/enemy distinction as its most radical principle.
Mouffe, by contrast, views politics as an arena of contestation among antagonistic human beings situated in a contingent world, structured through linguistic practices and social struggles. Advocating pluralism, she seeks to open the political to a diversity of groups. Politics, for her, is the domain of co-existence among conflicting values mediated through discursive hegemony; its purpose is not to eradicate antagonism but to transform it into a manageable form. Against dominant deliberative and consensual models, Mouffe articulates an agonistic conception of democracy, distinguishing agonism from pure antagonism.
The central argument of this article is that while Mouffe, influenced by Schmitt, regards the political as irreducibly conflictual, she redefines it through the concept of agonism, distancing herself from Schmitt’s model of sovereign-centered antagonism.
Literature Review
Mouffe (1403 SH / 2024 CE), in her work The Axis of the Green Democratic Revolution: Left Populism and the Power of Affects, critiques rationalist currents within the left and modernist notions of progress, emphasizing the role of emotions and subjective experience in crafting successful political strategies.
Schmitt (1390 SH / 2011 CE), in Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, stresses that politics consists in the sovereign decision and the differentiation between “us” and “them,” culminating in the friend/enemy distinction. For him, this dichotomy is so decisive that it supersedes religious, economic, or cultural criteria.
Methodology
This research employs an analytical–critical (theory critique) and comparative approach, relying primarily on library-based sources.
Theoretical Framework: Arendt’s Pluralism vs. Schmitt’s Distinction
Hannah Arendt conceptualizes the political as the sphere of consensus-building. For her, politics concerns the peaceful co-existence of diverse human beings. By contrast, Schmitt defines the political in terms of distinction, not acceptance of difference: its essence lies in the friend/enemy divide.
On this basis, Mouffe’s political thought can be understood through Arendt’s pluralist stance: opening space for the other within politics through dialogue, cooperation, and rivalry. This contrasts with Schmitt’s insistence on the centrality of the friend/enemy distinction as a quasi-transcendental condition defining the subject of the political.
Similarities and Differences in Schmitt’s and Mouffe’s Conceptions of the Political
Schmitt’s analysis provides the point of departure for Mouffe’s argument and underpins her insistence on pluralistic agonism. Schmitt’s critiques of liberal democracy opened conceptual space for Mouffe’s project of radical democracy. She adopts his concept of “neutralization” to argue that liberal democracies, in the aftermath of the Cold War, have universalized a hegemonic interpretation of democratic values while excluding any external “other.”
Points of similarity include: their shared recognition of conflict as constitutive of the political and the acceptance of antagonism as irreducible.
Points of divergence include: Schmitt’s insistence on an unresolvable antagonism versus Mouffe’s transformable agonism; Mouffe’s rejection of Schmitt’s sovereign-centered logic of conflict; and her inversion of Schmitt’s formulation of the political through pluralism and agonistic democracy.
Critical Reading of Schmitt and Mouffe
Critiques of Schmitt include:
- Ambiguity and over-simplification in defining the political
- A one-sided conception of the enemy
- Theorization of political violence
Critiques of Mouffe include:
- Distance from Enlightenment rationalism and conventional sociological approaches
- Rejection of traditional socialist interpretations
- Reliance on minimal consensus and dialogue even amid antagonism
Conclusion
Mouffe advances the necessity of theorizing the political by reinterpreting Schmitt’s concepts of antagonism and decision. For her, the political pertains to conflict and contestation, and thus to decision, not free deliberation. She borrows from Schmitt two central ideas—antagonism and decision-making—while reframing them in her critique of liberal democracy.
Schmitt’s friend/enemy distinction forms the theoretical backbone of Mouffe’s agonistic pluralism. Yet, Mouffe’s agonistic pluralism suffers from a fundamental shortcoming: the assumption that agonism can be domesticated into stable democratic practice. Her model remains vulnerable to the problem that reconciliation within agonism may not, in practice, be possible or sustainable.
Refrencecs
Arendt, H. (1998) The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ārent, H. (2015) Siyāsat chīst? (N. Fatturchi & S. Najafi, Trans.; M. Farhadpour et al., Eds.). Tehran: Bidgol. [In Persian/Farsi]
Bāqerī Qal‘eh-Sarī, A. (2022) Tamāyuz-e siyāsat va amr-e siyāsī dar falsafe-ye siyāsī-ye noṣadrā’īyān. Faslnāmeh-ye Andīshe-ye Siyāsī dar Eslām, 34 (Winter), 55–77. [In Persian/Farsi].
Barrett, M. (1991) Ideology, politics, hegemony: From Gramsci to Laclau and Mouffe. Michigan Quarterly Review, 30, 231–258.
Crowder, G. (2006, September 25–27) Chantal Mouffe’s agonistic democracy. Paper presented at the Australasian Political Studies Association conference, University of Newcastle.
Erman, E. (2009) What is wrong with agonistic pluralism? Reflections on conflict in democratic theory. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 35(9), 1039–1062. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453709343385
Ḥamīdī, S. (1394/2015) Revāyat-e te’olojīkal az amr-e siyāsī dar andīshe-ye Kārl Eshmīt. Pazhūhesh-e Siyāsat-e Naz̤arī, 18(Fall & Winter), 25–48. [In Persian/Farsi]
Jīžek, S. (Žižek, S.) (2019) Rāhnamā-ye sargashtagān (M. Z. Zamānī, Trans.). Tehran: ‘Elmi va Farhangī. [In Persian/Farsi]
Malekzādeh, Ḥ. (2014) Shāntāl Mūf va vārunagī-ye amr-e siyāsī. Faslnāmeh-ye Pazhūheshhā-ye Siyāsī, 11(Winter), 131–151. [In Persian/Farsi]
Mouffe, C. (1999) Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745–758.
Mouffe, C. (2000) Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Vienna: Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS).
Mouffe, C. (2005) On the political. New York: Routledge.
Mouffe, Ch. (2012) Dar bāra-ye amr-e siyāsī (M. Anṣārī, Trans.). Tehran: Rokhdād-e Now. [In Persian/Farsi]
Mouffe, Ch. (2014) ‘Arṣa-ye āgūnīsm* (A. ‘Abbās Beigī, Trans.). Retrieved April 11, 2014, from http://thesis11.com/Print.aspx?Id=135 [In Persian/Farsi]
Mouffe, Ch. (2024) Enqelāb-e demokrātīk-e sabz: Pūpūlīsm-e chap va qudrat-e ‘avātef (E. Āqāyī, Trans.; 2nd ed.). Tehran: Ketābsarā-ye Mīrdaštī. [In Persian/Farsi]
Naẓarī, ‘A. A. (2015) Bāzḵẖwānī-ye enteqādī-ye mafhūm-e amr-e siyāsī dar naẓarīye-ye Kārl Eshmīt. Faslnāmeh-ye Siyāsat, 45(4, Winter), 991–1014. [In Persian/Farsi]
Naẓarī, ‘A. A. (2017) Charkhesh-e mafhūm-e siyāsat va bāzāfarīnī-ye amr-e siyāsī: Dark-e zaminehā-ye hastī-shenākhtī. Faslnāmeh-ye Siyāsat, 41(Spring), 257–277. [In Persian/Farsi]
Nīrumand Ālānkesh, M., & Morteẓavī, K. (2021) Amr-e siyāsī az naẓar-e Shāntāl Mūf dar fahm va tabyīn-e jonbesh-e Jalīqe Zardhā. Jostārhā-ye Siyāsī-ye Mo‘āṣer, 12(1/39, Spring), 157–181. [In Persian/Farsi]
‘Ābedī Ardaḳānī, M., & Allāhdādī, N. (2018) Kārl Eshmīt va te’orizah kardan-e khoshūnat. Do Faslnāmeh-ye ‘Elmī–Pazhūheshī-ye Gharbshenāsī-ye Bonyādī, 9 (1, Spring–Summer), 115–139. [In Persian/Farsi].
Omīd‘Alī, B., et al. (2024) Bardāsht-e Rālz az amr-e siyāsī. Pazhūhesh-e Siyāsat-e Naz̤arī, 36 (Fall–Winter), 1–28. [In Persian/Farsi]
Owrbak, M. (Orbak, M.) (2014) Kārl Eshmīt dar jost-o-jū-ye amr-e siyāsī: Elāhiyyāt, taṣmīm-gīrī va mafhūm-e doshman. In Kārl Eshmīt, Mafhūm-e amr-e siyāsī (Y. Jīrānī & R. Namāzī, Trans.). Tehran: Qoqnūs. [In Persian/Farsi]
Pozūkī, G. (2011) Sūyehā-ye siyāsī-ye khod va degarī dar adabīyāt-e dāstānī-ye dahe-ye chehel-e Jalāl Āl-e Ahmad (Master’s thesis). Tarbiat Modares University, Faculty of Humanities. [In Persian/Farsi]
Roskamm, N. (2015) On the other side of agonism: The enemy, the outside, and the role of antagonism. Planning Theory, 14(4), 384–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095214533959
Schmitt, C. (2011) Elāhiyyāt-e siyāsī (L. Chamanxwāh, Trans.; Vol. 1). Tehran: Negāh-e Mo‘āṣer. [In Persian/Farsi]
Schmitt, C. (2014a) Elāhiyyāt-e siyāsī: Chahār faṣl darbāre-ye ḥākemīyat (L. Chamanxwāh, Trans.). Tehran: Negāh-e Mo‘āṣer. [In Persian/Farsi]
Schmitt, C. (2014b) Mafhūm-e amr-e siyāsī (Y. Jīrānī & R. Namāzī, Trans.). Tehran: Qoqnūs. [In Persian/Farsi]
Strauss, L. (2013) Yāddāsht-hā dar bāb-e Kārl Eshmīt, mafhūm-e amr-e siyāsī. In Kārl Eshmīt, Mafhūm-e amr-e siyāsī (Y. Jīrānī & R. Namāzī, Trans.). Tehran: Qoqnūs. [In Persian/Farsi]
Tājīk, M. R. (2013) Pāsāmārksīsm va pāsāmārksīsm. Tehran: ‘Elm. [In Persian/Farsi]
* Corresponding Author: Ph.D Student in Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
** Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
aashraf@ut.ac.ir
آرﻧﺖ، ﻫﺎﻧﺎ (1394) «ﺳﯿﺎﺳﺖ چیست؟»، ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﻧﺎدر ﻓﺘﻮرچی و ﺻﺎﻟﺢ نجفی، در: ﻧﺎمﻫﺎي ﺳﯿﺎﺳﺖ، گزﯾﻨﺶ و وﯾﺮاﯾﺶ ﻣﺮاد ﻓﺮﻫﺎدپور و دیگران، ﺗﻬﺮان، ﺑﯿﺪگل.
امیدعلی، بابک و دیگران (1403) «برداشت رالز از امر سیاسی»، پژوهش سیاست نظری، شماره 36، پاییز و زمستان، صص 1-28.
اشتراوس، لئو (1392) «يادداشت¬هايي در باب كارل اشميت: مفهوم امر سياسي»، در: مفهوم امر سياسي، كارل اشميت، ترجمه یاشار جیرانی و رسول نمازی، تهران، ققنوس.
اشمیت، کارل (1390) الهیات سیاسی، ترجمه لیلا چمن¬خواه، جلد 1، تهران، نگاه معاصر.
----------- (1393الف) الهيات سياسي: چهار فصل درباره حاكميت، ترجمه ليلا چمن¬خواه، تهران، نگاه معاصر.
---------- (1393ب) مفهوم امر سياسي، ترجمه ياشار جيراني و رسول نمازي، تهران، ققنوس.
اورﺑﻚ، موریس (1393) «کارل اشمیت در جست‌وجوی امر سیاسی: الهیات، تصمیم¬گیری و مفهوم دشمن»، در: مفهوم امر سیاسی، کارل اشمیت، ترجمه یاشار جیرانی و رسول نمازی، تهران، ققنوس.
باقری قلعه¬سری، اكرم (1401) «تمایز سیاست و امر سیاسی در فلسفۀ سیاسیِ نوصدرائیان»، فصلنــامه اندیشه سیاسی در اسلام، شماره 34، زمستان، صص 55-77.
پورزکی، گیتی (1390) سویه¬های سیاسی خود و دیگری در ادبیات داستانی دهه چهل جلال آل‌احمد، رساله دکتری، گروه علوم سیاسی، استاد راهنما عباس منوچهری، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، دانشکده علوم انسانی.
تاجیک، محمدرضا (۱۳۹۲) پسامارکسیسم و پسامارکسیسم، تهران، علم.
حمیدی، سمیه (1394) «روایت تئولوژیکال از امر سیاسی در اندیشة کارل اشمیت»، پژوهش سیاست نظری، شماره 18، پاییز و زمستان، صص 25-48.
ژیژک، شان شیهان (1398) راهنمای سرگشتگان، ترجمه محمدزمان زمانی، تهران، علمی و فرهنگی.
عابدي اردكاني، محمد و نفيسه الهن‌دادي (1397) «كارل اشميت و تئوريزه كردن خشونت»، دوفصلنامة علمي- پژوهشي غرب¬شناسي بنيادي، پژوهشگاه علوم انساني و مطالعات فرهنگي، سال نهم، شمارة اول، بهار و تابستان، صص 115-139.
ملک¬زاده، حميد (1393) «شانتل موف و وارونگي امر سياسي»، فصلنامه پژوهش¬های سیاسی، شماره 11، زمستان، صص 131-151.
موف، شانتال (١٣٩١) دربارة امـر سـياسي، ترجمة مـنصور انـصاري، تـهران، رخداد نو.
---------- (1393) عرصة آگونيسم، ترجمة علي عباس بيگي، آخرين دسترسي: ١١ فروردين ١٣٩٣، قابل دسترسی در: http://thesis11.
com/Print.
aspx?Id=135.
---------- (1403) انقلاب دموکراتیک سبز؛ پوپولیسم چپ و قدرت عواطف، ترجمه عرفان آقایی، چاپ دوم، تهران، کتابسرای میردشتی.
نظری، علی‌اشرف (1396) «چرخش مفهوم سیاست و بازآفرینی امر سیاسی: درک زمینه‌های هستی‌شناختی»، فصلنامه سیاست، شماره 41، بهار، صص 257-277.
-------------- (1394) «بازخوانی انتقادی مفهوم امر سیاسی در نظریه کارل اشمیت»، فصلنامه سیاست، مجله دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، دوره چهل-وپنجم، شماره 4، زمستان، صص 991-1014.
نیرومند آلانکش، مهین و خدایار مرتضوی (1400) «امر سیاسی از نظر شانتال موف در فهم و تبیین جنبش جلیقه زردها»، جستارهای سیاسی معاصر، سال دوازدهم، بهار، شماره 1 (پیاپی 39)، صص 157-181.
Arendt, Hannah (1998) The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Barrett, Michèle (1991) Ideology, Politics, Hegemony: FromGramsci to Laclau and Mouffe, Michigan Quarterly Review 30, 1991, pp. 231-58.
Crowder, George (2006) “chantal mouffe’s agonistic democracy”, Refereed paper presented to the Australasian Political Studies Association conference University of Newcastle 25-27 September 2006.
Erman, Eva (2009) What is wrong with agonistic pluralism? Reflections on conflict in democratic theory, https, //doi. org/10. 1177/0191453709343385.
Mouffe, Chantal (1999) Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research 66(3): 745–758.
------------------ (2000) Deliberative Democracy or agonistic pluralism, institute fur Hoherstudien (IHS). Wien institute for advanced studies, Vienna. ------------------ (2005) On the Political. New York: Routledge.
Roskamm, N, (2015) On the other side of agonism: The enemy, the outside, and the role of antagonism. Planning Theory, 14(4), 384–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095214533959.
