Carl Schmitt and the mythological dimensions of partisan war
| Date | 01 October 2016 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1755088216637091 |
| Published date | 01 October 2016 |
| Author | Marcus Schulzke |
Journal of International Political Theory
2016, Vol. 12(3) 345 –364
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1755088216637091
ipt.sagepub.com
Carl Schmitt and the
mythological dimensions
of partisan war
Marcus Schulzke
University of York, UK
Abstract
I offer a reading of Theory of the Partisan that focuses on Carl Schmitt’s discussion of the
ideological dimensions of war. Schmitt indicates that partisans are heavily mythologized
figures that are partially constructed by politicians, military strategists, and intellectuals
in an effort to incite and control “people’s wars.” The myths are open to appropriation
and modification by states, intellectuals, and revolutionaries. These actors engage in an
ideological struggle over myths and use them to ensure success in wars that depend
on mass mobilization. Partisan myths are particularly valuable in moments of crisis,
when states must go beyond the boundaries of conventional war to preserve their
territorial boundaries. However, they are capricious weapons that are often turned on
their creators.
Keywords
Carl Schmitt, ideology, myth, partisan, war
Introduction
Carl Schmitt’s political thought has been extremely influential in recent decades, serving
as a basis for agonistic theories of politics, as a critique of liberal constitutionalism, and as
a lens through which to see contemporary security issues (McCormick, 1997; Mouffe,
1999; Salter, 2012; Scheuerman, 1999). Although Theory of the Partisan has received less
attention in the rapidly growing secondary literature than some of Schmitt’s other works,
it has inspired noteworthy interpretive efforts that can be loosely organized into two types.
First, close readings of Theory of the Partisan are primarily directed at uncovering the
text’s meaning, usually with the goal of understanding it in relation to Schmitt’s other
Corresponding author:
Marcus Schulzke, Department of Politics, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK.
Email: marcus.schulzke@york.ac.uk
637091IPT0010.1177/1755088216637091Journal of International Political TheorySchulzke
research-article2016
Article
346 Journal of International Political Theory 12(3)
works or as a commentary on historical changes in the conduct of war (De la Grange,
2004; Gasché, 2004; Hohendahl, 2011; Hooker, 2009; Odysseos and Petito, 2008: 475;
Slomp, 2005). Second, many commentators appropriate Theory of the Partisan to analyze
current political issues, such as the War on Terror, the exercise of sovereign power beyond
the boundaries of international law, and the actions of violent non-state actors (De Benoist,
2007; Griffith, 2006; Kochi, 2006; 2009; Koskeniemmi, 2002; Ralph, 2010; Scheuerman,
2006; Werner, 2010).
Commentators in both of these interpretive traditions note the significant differences
between real partisan fighters and the conceptual models of them that Schmitt and other
intellectuals create. They likewise recognize that Schmitt’s history is both an account of
the development of a particular form of warfare and a conceptual exploration of the
efforts that intellectuals have made to theorize a type of combatant whose irregularity
resists conclusive definitions. As Gasché (2004) points out, Schmitt attempts “to draw
out a genuine or authentic partisan from the undoubtedly ‘irrational’ and chameleon-like
phenomenon of partisanship” (2004: 12). This is part of what makes Schmitt’s theory so
attractive. The partisan’s indeterminacy allows us to continually revisit Schmitt’s theory
with new interpretive strategies, or as a source of insights that can illuminate emerging
security challenges. However, it is important to recognize that the conceptual indetermi-
nacy is not only a philosophical puzzle; it also shapes the conduct of partisan warfare
insofar as the struggle over ideas and their meaning shapes wars’ legitimacy and affects
people’s willingness to fight them.
My goal is to build on previous studies of Theory of the Partisan by exploring how
real partisan fighters and the theorists who develop conceptual accounts of partisan war-
fare produce and use partisan myths. I focus on how partisans function as ideological
weapons that states, revolutionaries, and intellectuals deploy to shape the course of con-
flicts. Efforts to characterize partisans create images of these indeterminate figures and
may help to promote, legitimize, or guide irregular fighters. Throughout his history of
irregular war, Schmitt frequently characterizes partisans as heavily mythologized figures
and comments on the extent to which the ideas associated with this mode of warfare take
on a life of their own. Although Schmitt clearly thinks that there are real partisan combat-
ants and credits these fighters with having enormous direct influence on events, he also
shows that partisans’ political significance is closely linked to the myths that are con-
structed about them and explores how these myths create a new dimension of war.
I will follow Schmitt’s conception of myth by arguing that the partisan myths he
describes are not simply factual inaccuracies or distortions. In The Crisis of Parliamentary
Democracy, Schmitt (2000 [1923]) says that myths are “images” projected onto real
actors and events, shaping political reality by influencing the way we perceive it (2000
[1923]: 68). Thus, while the partisans Schmitt discusses are usually real actors that have
a direct influence on conflicts, often through military contributions, they are not reduci-
ble to their concrete acts. Partisans give rise to images of themselves and images of new
forms of warfare, which are important objects of analysis in their own right. Schmitt’s
interpretations of myth in other contexts likewise link myths to real entities, thereby
demonstrating that they are not wholly imagined but that they take on a distinctive char-
acter when they are abstracted from ordinary political life (Bottici, 2007; Croce and
Salvatore, 2013).
To continue reading
Request your trial