The as well. For example, the always

The politics of enmity could be thematized from
different perspectives. Of course, there is the standard opportunity to begin
with the presupposed transhistorical-inimical nature of the human beings as a
substantial content to be applicated in every concrete historical epoch. In
this case, the theologically or non-theologically treated human nature serves
as the source for the explosion of enmities between individuals or collectivises.
Such procedure inevitably leads to the naturalization imbued with the ideological
meanings, and the logic of naturalization long time haunted the discourse on
nationalism and was always of importance for the national-nationalistic designs.
In our attempt to show that the dynamic of nationalism most often successfully
hides its own “nature”, we intend to address the axis “ethnicity-nation”
because the modern substantialization and naturalization of culture leads to
the deepening of that same axis.

there are other opportunities as well. For example, the always highly controversial
Carl Schmitt in his often-debated political philosophy (including his famous
friend-enemy distinction) projects a transcendental-ontological possibility of
enmity on the basis of the pure difference between the Self and Other who is
not the empirical given being, or entity but the constitutive element in the
space of differences. In accordance with this, the intersubjective relationship
(or “intersubjective pluralism”) as such, i. e. the ontological fact of the
exposure of the being to other being opens the transcendentally existing
enmity. This deconstructive reading1
with a far-reaching repercussion for the understanding of enmities could
provide interesting insights for our problem, but we are not engaged here with
the depths and contradictions of the philosophy of Carl Schmitt, or with the
traces of his “authoritative liberalism” (see Streeck 2016). In fact, we aim to
note that the political ontology of
enmity-relations is loaded with some theoretical deficiencies concerning the position
of nation in capitalism: political ontology dealing with the transcendental
level of argumentations could not articulate the nation (or its ideological
counterpart, nationalism) as the politico-economic
quasi-community, or as the
community instead of community. Despite the clear advantages of the second
approach in relation to the first one, it does not provide satisfying account
for the structurally formed opportunities of enmities related to the nations.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

1 For this mode of reading
of Carl Schmitt see Prozorov 2006: 75. Prozorov points out the paradoxical
result: Schmitts anti-liberalism is more plural than liberalism itself. In
fact, confronting with the pluralism liberalism necessarily meets its own