Acceso usuarios
Andrew Arato
Why should we engage in the secularization and disenchantment of political concepts, the preservation or the re-establishment of their secular and rational character? This paper will first argue, using the example of Carl Schmitt, that positive reliance on political theology not only can have a profoundly authoritarian meaning, but is helpful in disguising and misrepresenting that meaning. Second, I will try to show, that taking this topos seriously does not commit a thinker to a political theological posture. As demonstrated by Claude Lefort, political theology can be thematized in order to go beyond it. Lefort is important for my paper, because his concept of democracy as the empty space of power clearly draws the line of distinction with not only totalitarianism as he stressed, but with all modern forms of dictatorship. Finally, I will argue, that without uttering the word, a political conception can be deeply theological with similar consequences as self-admitted versions. At a time when one can no longer openly argue for dictatorship as Schmitt still could in the 1920s, disguising the authoritarian disguise itself, �namely, political theology, �can preserve its meaning and function. I will try to develop this point through a critique of populist politics in the version introduced by Ernesto Laclau, who explicitly advocates not only the construction of "the people" in an entirely voluntaristic manner, but filling the empty space of power by leadership incarnating a subject that does not exist
