The Concept of the Political as a Space of Conceptual Controversies and Theoretical Debates
- Authors: Prigorian N.1
-
Affiliations:
- RUDN University
- Issue: Vol 25, No 4 (2023): New Reversals in the Theory and Methodology of Political Science
- Pages: 817-830
- Section: THE WORLD OF THE POLITICAL
- URL: https://journals.rudn.ru/political-science/article/view/37384
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-1438-2023-25-4-817-830
- EDN: https://elibrary.ru/QJXPTP
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
In the field of political theory and philosophy, the concept of political has undergone a complex evolution over the past century. Since its inception in the pioneering work of K. Schmitt in 1927, this term has become a deeply controversial concept, the interpretation of which was carried out by the most significant political theorists and philosophers of the twentieth century. However, Carl Schmitt, Hannah Arendt, Jürgen Habermas, and John Rawls made notable contributions to understanding the term. This article aims to reveal and analyze the three main approaches to the conceptualization of the political and to identify the differences/similarities between the three formulations. Each conceptualization of the political is explored through the prism of three components: the perception of the other; the principle of building political relationships in society; and the nature of the conflict and the forms of its resolution. Based on the comparative method and cognitive analysis, the essence laid down by each author is derived: political as an existential confrontation between friend/enemy of K. Schmitt; political as an activity that realizes human freedom in the interpretation of H. Arendt; and political as the space of rational consensus in J. Habermas and J. Rawls. Nevertheless, common elements or consequences can be traced even in radical different formulations. The critical importance of the dynamic and evolving nature of the concept of the political is recognized, however, the explanatory power of each concept of the political reality of the present is questioned. In conclusion, a new level of conceptualization of the political is proposed, which considers the instability and uncertainty of the modern world.
About the authors
Nelly Prigorian
RUDN University
Author for correspondence.
Email: 1042215273@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9247-7695
Postgraduate of the Department of Comparative Politics
Moscow Russian FederationReferences
- Agamben, G. (1998). Homo Sacer. Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
- Arendt, H. (2000). Vita activa, or about active life. St. Petersburg: Aleteyya. (In Russian).
- Arendt, H. (2014). Between the past and the future: Eight exercises in political thought. Moscow: Publishing House of the Gaidar Institute. (In Russian).
- Badiou, A. (2010). Being and event. L.; N.Y.: Continuum.
- Bourdieu, P. (1993). Sociology of politics. Moscow: Socio-Logos. (In Russian).
- Derrida, J. (2002). Globalization, peace, and cosmopolitanism. Negotiations: interventions and interviews. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
- Esposito, R. (2003). Common immunity: Biopolitics in the age of the pandemic. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
- Filippov, A.F. (2015). Hannah Arendt and Carl Schmitt: Two concepts of the political. In Contemporary meaning of Hannah Arendt’s ideas. Materials of the international conference. (pp. 52–65). Kaliningrad: Publishing House of the Kant Baltic Federal University. (In Russian).
- Foucault, M. (2015). The will to truth. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
- Freund, J. (2003). The essence of politics. Paris: Dalloz.
- Fusillo, F. (2008). Nihilismo y soberanía. In Carlos Galli y Vicenzo Vitiello (Eds.), Nihilismo y política de Roberto Esposito (pp. 175–195). Buenos Aires: Ediciones Manantial
- Habermas, J. (2011). What is “political”. The Rational Meaning of the Dubious Heritage of Political Theology. Russian Journal. [Butler, J., Habermas, J., Taylor C., & West, C.E. Mendieta, J. Van C. Antwerpen, (Eds.), The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere:. N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 2011.]
- Habermas, J. (2018). Teoría de la acción comunicativa. Madrid: Trota,
- Habermas, J. (2001). Involvement of the Other. Essays on political theory. St. Petersburg: Nauka. (In Russian).
- Kukartseva, М., & Dmitrieva, I. (2020). Political as aesthetical. Voprosy Filosofii, (7), 17–27. (In Russian).
- Lefort, C. (1991). Ensayos sobre lo político, México: Universidad de Guadalajara.
- Magun, A. (2020) The Future of the State: Philosophy and Politics. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
- Meier, H. (2008). Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss y “El concepto de lo político”. Sobre un diálogo entre ausentes. Buenos Aires: Katz Editores.
- Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. L.; N.Y.: Verso.
- Nancy, J.L. (2011). Inoperative community. Moscow: Aquarius. (In Russian).
- Podoroga, V.A. (2010). Apologia for the political. Moscow: HSE Publishing House. (In Russian).
- Prigogine, I. (1997). El fin de las certidumbres. Madrid: Taurus.
- Pushkareva, G.V. (2012). Political space: problems of theoretical conceptualization. Polis. Political studies. (2), 166–176. (In Russian).
- Ranciere, J. (2021). On the shores of politics. L.; N.Y.: Verso.
- Rawls, J. (2005). Political liberalism. N.Y.: Columbia University Press.
- Schmitt, C. (1968). La dictadura. Desde los comienzos del pensamiento moderno de la soberanía hasta la lucha de clases proletaria. Madrid: Revista de Occidente, 344 pp.
- Schmitt, C. (2016). The concept of the political. St. Petersburg: Nauka. (In Russian).
- Schmitt, C. (2007). Theory of the Partisan: Intermediate commentary on the concept of the political. N.Y.: Telos.
- Schmitt, C. (2010). Politics. Sociological Review. 9(3), 93–97. Retrieved from https://sociologica. hse.ru/2010-9-3/27370495.html (In Russian)
- Strauss, L. (2008). Comentario sobre El concepto de lo político de Carl Schmitt”. In H. Meier (Ed.), Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss, “El concepto de lo político”. Sobre un diálogo entre ausentes. Buenos Aires: Katz Editores.
- Zolotareva, E.V. (2013). Conceptual foundations of deliberative democracy. RUDN Journal of Political Science, (1), 84–94.