La guerre civile (mondiale ?) et le dialogue Schmitt-Benjamin

In his criticism of Weimar liberal democracy, Carl Schmitt mainly shows his opposition to pluralism. The State sovereignty that he wants to maintain takes on the form of intensified presidentialism and he thus intends to save the substance of the German Constitution against Weimar Constitution. Walter Benjamin, although he does not stand on the same level and criticizes the after-war world even before contemplating a democratic essence, agrees with Schmitt on the notion of sovereignty. While everything leads them apart from each other and in spite of the explicit tribute paid by Benjamin to Political Theology, Schmitt’s more discreet homage to Benjamin, the feeling that they do not argue according to the same definition of sovereignty must at least be considered as a hypothesis likely to become contradicted. What are they really agreed on ? Diagnosing the conflict and acknowledging an epoch are but a partial and unsatisfactory answer in many respects. Using Giorgio Agamben’s analyses, we will take the fleeting meeting between Schmitt and Benjamin as a starting point to study a concept that plays a pivotal role for both of them : the state of emergency being given concrete expression by civil world war with Schmitt, and by civil war turned into terror with Benjamin. In the interplay of the concepts the meeting point focusing two very different lines of thought is also a divergent point. This will lead us at first to define civil world war as a signature, a semi concept or the illustration of a concept and, subsequently, to redefine what underlies these two conceptions, i.e. political temporality in a time of crisis for democracy