Engaging with Enemies through Plural Politics: Arendtian Reflections on Security

• In Event: Poster Session: Political Thought and Philosophy & International History and Politics
  In Poster Session: Poster Session: Political Thought and Philosophy: Historical Approaches

Abstract

With the recent rise of divisive populism, scholars have turned their attention to Hannah Arendt’s vision of free politics, which is far from rulership, enforcement, and violence. In so doing, however, they tend to render Arendt’s thinking congenial to cosmopolitanism, entertaining a oneness of humanity in which no enemies exist. This paper argues that such a quasi-cosmopolitan interpretation of Arendt’s thought is misleading. On the contrary, Arendt considers it entirely natural that enemies exist in the real world of politics. In fact, her thinking can effectively deal with issues the so-called “friend-and-enemy distinction” raises.

For this argument, I conceive of enmity according to two levels of politics: macro and micro. Constant vigilance against an emerging force that could constitute an enemy creates a chain of threat formation at the macro level of politics. This consistent alertness misleads us into thinking that any act of striving for survival overwhelms and destroys plural politics. Viewed from the micro angle of politics, however, the same act of survival only deals with a concrete threat for a time; that is, the fight does not set up a permanent enemy but allows for the variation of threat. Here, plural voices can be raised about what constitutes a threat, how to deal with it, and when the fight with it ends.

The revised enmity argument, however, still requires a large dose of Arendt’s remedy for politics. Arendt would point out that for questions about security to be addressed properly, a vibrant community facilitating debate and deliberation on the best way to preserve and augment the common space of freedom is essential. To Arendt, this demand in turn necessitates that agonistic individuals compete for public appearances so that their existence and actions resist any rise of the sovereign dictator who makes and enforces arbitrary decisions. As this reading of Arendt shows, the real strength of her thought does not lie in envisioning a cosmopolitan world in which everyone has become friends but in engaging with questions about security through a robust form of plural politics.

Author

• Shinkyu Lee, University of Notre Dame