UDC

101.1:316;32:1

DOI

10.37482/2687-1505-V271

Authors

Konstantin G. Mal’tsev
Belgorod State Technological University named after V.G. Shukhov;
ul. Kostyukova 46, Belgorod, 308012, Russian Federation;
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1398-6625 e-mail: maltsevaannav@mail.ru

Anna V. Mal’tseva
Belgorod State Technological University named after V.G. Shukhov;
ul. Kostyukova 46, Belgorod, 308012, Russian Federation;
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7287-3113 e-mail: pavic69@mail.ru

Leonid L. Lomako
Belgorod State Technological University named after V.G. Shukhov;
ul. Kostyukova 46, Belgorod, 308012, Russian Federation;
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9608-615Х e-mail: parmend@bk.ru

Abstract

Relevance. The political order is the spatial order (K. Schmitt); globalization as a “destruction of space” and “removal of time” is a paradigmatic change in the representation of the border. The study of the ways of drawing the border in the two Western paradigms of the political becomes a politically urgent task. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that in the paradigm of K. Schmitt’s “concept of the political”, the border is assumed to be a sovereign decision distinguishing between friend and enemy and establishing a zone of anomie by the sovereign’s decision on a state of emergency. In the economic paradigm of the political (G. Agamben), the political is represented as homogeneous, universal and global, “the sovereign’s place” is an “empty place”, while the liberal principle of the rule of law means an absolute exclusion of a sovereign decision. Objectives. Firstly, it is necessary to clarify the context in which the border issue becomes meaningful; secondly, to study the conditions for the possibility of a “border decision” in the two Western paradigms of the political; and, thirdly, to clarify the consequences of the essential impossibility of the border in the economic paradigm of the political. Methodology. A comparative analysis of the two paradigms of the political allows us to raise the question of the border as the main issue of political ontotheology in the horizon of Heidegger’s interpretation of modernity as an “incapacity for death”. Results. “The era of nihilism”, the “empty space” as a “missing centre” of the political order (and an absent centre of Western political ontology (S. Žižek)) and as a zone of anomie should be presented as a metaphysical concept connecting the real and the actual. The study of ways of understanding “empty space” reveals the meaning of the border as a constitutive principle of the political order and allows us to determine the differences in the interpretation of the border in the two Western paradigms of the political. The article identifies the political consequences of these differences. Conclusion. Based on the analysis, the following conclusion is made: the “impossibility of the border” necessarily leads to the disintegration of the political order and anarchy of the “bare life” (G. Agamben): the reality of the camp and the utopia of the “good life” are unmediated, that is, formless in their facticity.

Keywords

border, sovereign decision, state of emergency, zone of anomie, “concept of the political”, economic paradigm of the political, sovereign, “empty space”, political order

References

1. Schmitt K. Der Nomos der Erde im Völkerrecht des Jus Publicum Europaeum. Cologne, 1950. 308 p. (Russ. ed.: Shmitt K. Nomos Zemli v prave narodov jus publicum Europaeum. St. Petersburg, 2008. 670 p.).
2. Schmitt K. Rimskiy katolitsizm i politicheskaya forma [Roman Catholicism and Political Form]. Schmitt K. Ponyatie politicheskogo [The Concept of the Political]. St. Petersburg, 2016, pp. 60–92.
3. Schmitt K. Ponyatie politicheskogo [The Concept of the Political]. Schmitt K. Ponyatie politicheskogo [The Concept of the Political]. St. Petersburg, 2016, pp. 280–408.
4. Schmitt K. Politicheskaya teologiya. Chetyre glavy k ucheniyu o suverenitete [Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty]. Shmitt K. Ponyatie politicheskogo [The Concept of the Political]. St. Petersburg, 2016, pp. 5–59.
5. Agamben G. Il regno e la gloria. Per una genealogia teologica dell’economia e del governo. Vicenza, 2007. 333 p. (Russ. ed.: Agamben Dzh. Tsarstvo i Slava. K teologicheskoy genealogii ekonomiki i upravleniya. Moscow, 2018. 552 p.).
6. Hardt M., Negri A. Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. New York, 2004. 426 p. (Russ. ed.: Khardt M., Negri A. Mnozhestvo: voyna i demokratiya v epokhu imperii. Moscow, 2006. 559 p.).
7. Schmitt K. Dukhovno-istoricheskoe sostoyanie sovremennogo parlamentarizma [The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy]. Schmitt K. Ponyatie politicheskogo [The Concept of the Political]. St. Petersburg, 2016, pp. 93–170.
8. Ankersmit F.R. Aesthetic Politics: Political Philosophy Beyond Fact and Value. Stanford, 1997. 415 p. (Russ. ed.: Ankersmit F.R. Esteticheskaya politika. Politicheskaya filosofiya po tu storonu fakta i tsennosti. Moscow, 2014. 432 p.).
9. Rawls J. Political Liberalism. New York, 1996. 525 p.
10. Kantorowicz E.H. The King’s Two Bodies. A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology. Princeton, 1997. 568 p. (Russ. ed.: Kantorovich E.Kh. Dva tela korolya. Issledovanie po srednevekovoy politicheskoy teologii. Moscow, 2015. 752 p.).
11. Hegel G.W.F. Dukh khristianstva i ego sud’ba [The Spirit of Christianity and Its Fate]. Hegel G.W.F. Filosofiya religii [Philosophy of Religion]. Vol. 1. Moscow, 1975, pp. 101–194.
12. Weber M. Khozyaystvo i obshchestvo: ocherki ponimayushchey sotsiologii. T. 4. Gospodstvo [ Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Vol. 4. Domination]. Moscow, 2016. 542 p.
13. Arendt H. On Revolution. London, 1963. 343 p. (Russ. ed.: Arendt Kh. O revolyutsii. Moscow, 2011. 464 p.).
14. Agamben G. Homo sacer: Stato di eccezione. Turin, 2003. 120 p. (Russ. ed.: Agamben Dzh. Homo sacer. Chrezvychaynoe polozhenie. Moscow, 2011. 148 p.).
15. Münkler H. Imperien: Die Logik der Weltherrschaft: Vom Alten Rom bis zu den Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin, 2005. 331 p. (Russ. ed.: Myunkler G. Imperii: Logika gospodstva nad mirom. Ot Drevnego Rima do SShA. Moscow, 2015. 398 p.).
16. Kant I. Otvet na vopros: Chto takoe prosveshchenie? [Answering the Question: What Is Enlightenment?]. Kant I. Sochineniya [Works]. Vol. 8. Moscow, 1994, pp. 29–37.
17. Lal D. In Praise of Empires: Globalization and Order. New York, 2004. 270 p. (Russ. ed.: Lal D. Pokhvala imperii: Globalizatsiya i poryadok. Moscow, 2010. 364 p.).
18. Maltsev K.G., Maltseva A.V. More to the Interpretation of “K. Schmitt’s Decisionism”. Izvestiya Yugo-Zapadnogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser.: Ekonomika. Sotsiologiya. Menedzhment, 2021, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 216–229 (in Russ.).
19. Schmitt K. Der Leviathan in der Staatslehre des Thomas Hobbes: Sinn und Fehlschlag eines politischen Symbols. Hamburg, 1938. 132 p. (Russ. ed.: Shmitt K. Leviafan v uchenii o gosudarstve Tomasa Gobbsa. St. Petersburg, 2006. 300 p.).
20. Lenin V.I. Detskaya “bolezn’” levizny v kommunizme [“Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder]. Lenin V.I. Polnoe sobranie sochineniy [Complete Works]. Vol. 41. Moscow, 1981, pp. 1–104.
21. Agamben G. Homo sacer: Il potere sovrano e la nuda vita. Turin, 1995. 225 p. (Russ. ed.: Agamben Dzh. Homo sacer. Suverennaya vlast’ i golaya zhizn’. Moscow, 2011. 256 p.).
22. Heidegger M. Einführung in die Metaphysik: Freiburger Vorlesung Sommersemester. Frankfurt am Main, 1935 (Russ. ed.: Khaydegger M. Vvedenie v metafiziku. St. Petersburg, 1998. 302 p.).
23. Benjamin W. Zur Kritik der Gewalt. Benjamin W. Gesammelte Schriften. Frankfurt am Main, 1972–1989. Vol. 2.1, pp. 179−203.
24. Žižek S. Violence: Six Sideways Reflections. London, 2008. 149 p. (Russ. ed.: Zhizhek S. O nasilii. Moscow, 2010. 184 p.).
25. Mal’tsev K.G., Mal’tseva A.V. Tsifrovizatsiya i “tsifrovoy fetishizm”: predvideniya v bytiyno-istoricheskom myshlenii M. Khaydeggera [Digitalization and “Digital Fetishism”: Foresight in the Historical Thinking of M. Heidegger]. Chelovek. Kul’tura. Obrazovanie, 2020, no. 4, pp. 46–58. DOI: 10.34130/2233-1277-2020-4-46
26. Lomako L.L., Mal’tsev K.G. Diskurs “antiterroristicheskoy voyny” i spravedlivaya, to est’ total’naya, voyna [The Discourse of the “Anti-Terrorist War” and a Just, Total, War]. PolitBook, 2020, no. 3, pp. 80–97.
27. Kaldor M. New and Old Wars: Organised Violence in a Global Era. Cambridge, 2012. 268 p. (Russ. ed.: Kaldor M. Novye i starye voyny: organizovannoe nasilie v global’nuyu epokhu. Moscow, 2015. 416 p.).
28. Lomako L.L., Maltsev K.G. A Few Comments on the “Novelty” of the “New War” Discourse: “Innovation” and Tradition. Intellekt. Innovatsii. Investitsii, 2020, no. 4, pp. 70–80 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.25198/2077-7175-2020-4-70
29. Heidegger M. Überlegungen II–VI: (Schwarze Hefte 1931–1938). Frankfurt am Main, 2014. 536 p. (Russ. ed.: Khaydegger M. Razmyshleniya II–VI (Chernye tetradi 1931–1938). Moscow, 2016. 584 p.).
30. de Benoist A. Carl Schmitt actuel: Guerre “juste”, terrorisme, état d’urgence, “Nomos de la terre”. Paris, 2007. 162 p. (Russ. ed.: de Benua A. Karl Shmitt segodnya. Moscow, 2013. 189 p.).