Carl Schmitt's Critique of Liberalism : Against Politics as Technology (Modern European Philosophy)

Rating:
Summary: Best of the Secondary Literature
Review: If one were planning to read just one secondary source on Carl Schmitt--this should be it. The book provides a broad and fair study of Schmitt's thought (both his legal and political theory), and is generally written in a lively fashion. Moreover, McCormick's thoughts on Hobbes, Weber, Nietzsche, and the Critical Theorists are also illuminating. Much of the other secondary literature on Schmitt is either too polemical (Scheuerman on the left, Gottfried on the right), too focused on his legal theory, or too caught up in bending Schmitt to their own purposes (see the journal "Telos"). This book originated from Prof. McCormick's PhD thesis, and sometimes reads like a first book (the organization and chapter segues are sometimes rough), but if this is his first effort it will be worthwhile to pay attention to his future efforts.

Rating:
Summary: Best of the Secondary Literature
Review: If one were planning to read just one secondary source on Carl Schmitt--this should be it. The book provides a broad and fair study of Schmitt's thought (both his legal and political theory), and is generally written in a lively fashion. Moreover, McCormick's thoughts on Hobbes, Weber, Nietzsche, and the Critical Theorists are also illuminating. Much of the other secondary literature on Schmitt is either too polemical (Scheuerman on the left, Gottfried on the right), too focused on his legal theory, or too caught up in bending Schmitt to their own purposes (see the journal "Telos"). This book originated from Prof. McCormick's PhD thesis, and sometimes reads like a first book (the organization and chapter segues are sometimes rough), but if this is his first effort it will be worthwhile to pay attention to his future efforts.

Rating:
Summary: Ponderous
Review: One of the biggest problem exponents from the school of critical theory have is that their desire to critique usually precedes and therefore overcomes their ability to fully understand and comprehend. This problem is exceedingly true of the ambitious task that McCormick herein sets for himself in an attempt to synthesize quite a disparate and complicated range of modern philosophical and political thought in order to establish Schmitt's place in that discourse. The result of this disparate look into Schmitt's thought is that much of what McCormick puts forward is far from comprehensive and thus fails to engage the complex themes in a way that would allow one to believe that he has truly mastered as much as he thinks he has. To make matters worse, McCormick engages in what can only be described as syntactical gymnastics and excessive jargon, probably in the hope the appearance of technical competence will impress the reader. Furthermore, McCormick's political motives for offering his objections to Schmitt are apparent, despite his claim that he is engaging Schmitt theoretically. For example, in an exhortation to his fellows on the Left to unite against the conservative fascists McCormick writes: "But the advocates of identity and difference qua concrete otherness ought not to leave wholly unexamined there own potential essentializing of themselves or others in their challenges to traditional pluralism. When both sides forclose the possibility of commonality and mutual rational exchange, they consequently leave the public sphere vulnerable to those who would seek to enforce a stable and unifying order from above and who would exploit concrete otherness, not on behalf of those unjustly marginalized or banished from the redistributive picture but rather in strategy aimed at naked political gain" (310). McCormick neither delineates nor gives a defense of his notion of "justice." You get an idea from this passage what he thinks justice is, but nowhere in the book is there any argument on behalf of his concept of justice or why we should accept it.

Schmitt is of course a controversial figure and McCormick seeks to use this to his advantage by often failing to explain Schmitt's arguments and reverting to claims of "authoritarianism" and the like. Such labeling is fine, and may even be true in a certain respect, but it is then incumbent upon McCormick to clearly and fully delineate what he means by such terms and not simply conjure up pejorative images designed to obsfucate the meaning of Schmitt's work. What are the reasons for Schmitt's authoritarianism? Simply saying Schmitt is authoritarian is not a philosophic or theoretical explanation, and does not allow us to understand Schmitt's thought.

McCormick contantly tells the reader that he is seeking to engage Schmitt on a truly theoretical level and not, as he claims others have done, simply offer grist for the mill of those for or against. He fails in this task. McCormick is clearly in the "aganist" camp and his desire to voice his displeasure with "conservative" political theory and enter into a critique prior to explaining that theory severely mitigates his ability to communicate whatever knowledge he may actually possess about Schmitt's work. This is definitely a case where it is better to go directly to the source, Schmitt himself, and leave the assistant professor to stew in his own tenure driven juices. Better luck next time.

Rating:
Summary: Ponderous
Review: One of the biggest problems enthusiasts of critical theory have is that their desire to critique usually precedes and therefore overcomes their ability to fully understand and comprehend. This is true of the ambitious task that McCormick herein sets for himself; for in his attempt to synthesize quite a disparate and complicated range of modern philosophical and political thought, in order to establish Schmitt's place in that discourse, McCormick is more eager to critique than he is to comprehend and explain. The result of this disparate look into Schmitt's thought is that much of what McCormick puts forward is far from comprehensive and thus fails to engage the subject matter in a way that would allow one to believe that he has truly mastered as much as he thinks he has. To make matters worse, McCormick engages in what can only be described as syntactical gymnastics and excessive jargon, probably in the hope the appearance of technical competence will impress the reader. Furthermore, McCormick's political motives for offering his objections to Schmitt are apparent, despite his claim that he is engaging Schmitt theoretically. For example, in an exhortation to his fellows on the Left to unite against the conservative fascists McCormick writes: "But the advocates of identity and difference qua concrete otherness ought not to leave wholly unexamined there own potential essentializing of themselves or others in their challenges to traditional pluralism. When both sides forclose the possibility of commonality and mutual rational exchange, they consequently leave the public sphere vulnerable to those who would seek to enforce a stable and unifying order from above and who would exploit concrete otherness, not on behalf of those unjustly marginalized or banished from the redistributive picture but rather in strategy aimed at naked political gain" (310). McCormick neither delineates nor gives a defense of his notion of "justice." You get an idea from this passage what he thinks justice is, but nowhere in his book is there any argument on behalf of his concept of justice or why we should accept it.

Schmitt is of course a controversial figure and McCormick seeks to use this to his advantage by often failing to explain Schmitt's arguments and reverting to claims of "authoritarianism" and the like. Such labeling is fine, and may even be true in a certain respect, but it is then incumbent upon McCormick to clearly and fully delineate what he means by such terms and not simply conjure up pejorative images designed to obsfucate the meaning of Schmitt's work. What are the reasons for Schmitt's authoritarianism? Simply saying Schmitt is authoritarian is not a philosophical or theoretical explanation, and does not allow us to understand Schmitt's thought.

McCormick contantly tells the reader that he is seeking to engage Schmitt on a truly theoretical level and not, as he claims others have done, simply offer grist for the mill of those for or against. He fails in this task. McCormick is clearly in the "aganist" camp and his desire to voice his displeasure with "conservative" political theory and enter into a critique prior to explaining that theory severely mitigates his ability to communicate whatever knowledge he may actually possess about Schmitt's work. This is definitely a case where it is better to go directly to the source, Schmitt himself, and leave the assistant professor to stew in his own tenure driven juices. Better luck next time.