Where does politics live

On September 20, 2012 (Thursday), as part of the Public Lectures project, Polit.ru was Alexander Friedrikhovich Filippov , Dokt. social. Sciences, Ordinary professor of the Faculty of Philosophy, Head. Department of Practical Philosophy of NIU-SHE , head of the Center for Fundamental Sociology of IGITI .

Lecture theme: where politics lives.

"Public Lectures" Polit.ru "are held with the support of:

Briefly about the lecture :

A few years ago, giving the lecture “Discourse about the state” , A.F. Filippov said that the political, as some famous authors understood it, has little chance of a police state. Where there is a police, there is no politics, or rather, it is taken beyond the boundaries of the state, becomes a policy of almost exclusively external. Of course, this is only in theory, in the idea. It is difficult to destroy political, it breaks into the surface in different ways reliably, it would seem, depolitized situations. Recall that a few years ago, life in our country, which had a number of signs of the “socio-police state of the common good” seemed reliably stained.

Video recording of a direct broadcast of the lecture:

Audio recording of a lecture (113 MB, MP3)

The release of the political - and we already see the first signs of this - leaves relatively less space for an individual solution and reflection on the nature of the individual action. The enmity acquires its own dynamics, political, as if empty, devoid of substantiality, crushes everything under itself and sucks all the energy from other areas of life. But this path is extreme, extreme. However, it is necessary to consider other cases. We are interested in the principle of dividing and the registration of those political participants who, one way or another, belong to the same social unity.

Thesis A.F. Filippova to the lecture :

A few years ago, giving a lecture “Discourses about the state”, I said that the political, as some famous authors understood it, has little chance of a police state. Where there is a police, there is no politics, or rather, it is taken beyond the boundaries of the state, becomes a policy of almost exclusively external. Of course, this is only in theory, in the idea. It is difficult to destroy political, it breaks into the surface in different ways reliably, it would seem, depolitized situations. Let me remind you that a few years ago, life in our country seemed reliably stained. In order to characterize it, in some respects the concept of “police state” was best worked, understandable, however, not only as a state of repression, but more widely, in a historical context, as a “socio-police state of the common good”. Such a state has its own, in general, unpleasant dynamics, but in addition, the suppression of the political could not but be partially and only temporarily successful. We have already seen a revival of political life, and it is unlikely that it will stop in the foreseeable future. One could say that the whole thing is in the desire for freedom, realizing themselves contrary to the police. But accuracy is needed here. Political is not so much connected with the desire for freedom as with freedom itself. This needs explanation, this is the main issue that we have to discuss.

Between the old and memorable definition of Karl Schmitt, according to which political is an existential confrontation between enemies, and the assertion that political is related to human freedom, there is a visible contradiction, because enemies are public enemies, that is, confrontation is the confrontation of consolidated groups that often do not leave significant space within themselves for individual freedoms. The release of the political - and we already see the first signs of this - leaves relatively less space for an individual solution and reflection on the nature of the individual action. Political demarcation - and this is another important feature of it, which should be remembered - can develop from any opposite: religious, economic and even aesthetic. But at the same time, it reaches such a degree of intensity that opponents or competitors become enemies, and at an angle of enmity, deadly, existential hostility, see the rest. The enmity acquires its own dynamics, political, as if empty, devoid of substantiality, crushes everything under itself and sucks all the energy from other areas of life.

What happens to political entities, which we, out of habit, call states, if they develop a confrontation of such a high degree of political intensity? - Obviously, they are threatened by civil war and decay, unless there is a new consolidation, if a new unity of the “political people” does not appear, opposing other peoples as enemies, but eradicated enmity within themselves. It must be understood that this path is one of the possible, regardless of whether we like it or not. But this path is extreme, extreme. There are many reasons why this is the highest tension of political unity cannot be long, and unity itself is deprived of internal political differences and contradictions. Nevertheless, I repeat, this is the ultimate case when the political, as it were, burns itself from the inside. However, it is necessary to consider other cases. It would seem the most natural - to take as a sample of a country with a normal political life, where the legitimate power, rivalry of parties, a stable bureaucratic apparatus, ensuring the technical reliability of the execution of many functions of the state when changing power, etc. But what gives us a focus on such a understood sample, even if you neglect the differences between countries and their political system? For quite some time - and quite reasonable - Claude Lefors said that political is not found in what we call political activity, but in the “double movement”, thanks to which the method of “establishing society” becomes clear and hidden.

It is through political society that it becomes visible as an orderly unity, but the limited area in which parties compete and the power is reproduced, hides the “principle of production of the entire configuration”. If you reformulate his words in a more general form, we can say that we are interested in the principle of division and the design of those political participants who are one way or another to the same social unity. It is within this unity that their tense mutual relations are important. It is here that the matter comes or does not reach the genuine political enmity, it is here that what lies on the surface can be equal to success and discovering and hiding the essence of the matter. Why is this due to freedom? Because political is traditionally the highest stage of human self -determination. In order to perform actions for which he can be responsible, a person must fenced himself the space of certainty, in which each of his acts is exactly what he intended to do, and the consequences of the act may be imputed. But it is also a space inhabited by other people, and it is possible to make it predictable, or turning other people into their tools, slaves, or by establishing consent with them, establishing a political community. Where this community is established as if once and for all, there apparently the political disappears. Where it has to be reinstalled and redesigned constantly, human freedom makes itself felt.

What does the motionless constancy of the established community report? - The force holding it from decay. But what does power telling the power? - This is no longer only political philosophy, but political theology, the structure of the world and the justification of what is committed in it, including the highest political power. The motivational energies of the political participants, gleaned through an appeal to the transcendental worldly structure, the principles (God or the gods) can not only strengthen, but also destroy the existing order. Thus, freedom, transcendental, attributing oneself to a political community (cash, designed or imagined as the initial, original), and only after the so -called “gross interests” and the routine of the political process are the sources of the appearance and manifestation of the political.

See also:

• "I think the dissertation of D. Yu. Kurakin is thorough, the defense is brilliant, and the decision of the specialized council is shameful"
• Public lecture by Alexander Filippov "Discourses about the state", December 3, 2009
• Theses for the lecture 2009
• Power as a means and environment: two reasoning on the topic of Karl Schmitt (2008)
• In theoretical sociology, Yu.N. Davydov was a key figure. Interview with A. Filippov (2008)
• From October 21 to 24, 2008, the III Sociological Congress will be held in Moscow. Comments Vadim Radaev and Alexander Filippov (2008)
• “We must understand how far a breakdown has gone in order to at least slowly move back.” About the situation on social. Faculty of Moscow State University (2007)
• Ivan the Terrible on the "Paths of Russia" (2007)
• Expert's fate (2003)

* * *

Lecture Poster for September 2012

Alphabetical list of lecture lecture lectures

To subscribe to lecture mailing, send a letter to [Email Protected] . The coming letter with a request for confirmation, send back. And that's it, you are signed for the newsletter.

In order to unsubscribe from the newsletter at any time, you need to send a letter to [email protected] .

The lecture will take place on September 20, 2012 (Thursday) at 19-00 in the Zavtra cafe (former Pir.G.I. on Sretenka). Address: Moscow, st. Sretenka 26/1 (m. "Sukharevskaya"). Driving scheme . The entrance is free. Phone for inquiries: +7 495 787-11-62.