Friends, enemies, and human connections
Recognizing that an enemy is human does not make him your friend or cause him to stop his oppression. It does not remove the basic and most important division between friend and enemy, in the Schmittian formulation, which is organized on political lines. It is a sad thing that humanity may need to be “recovered” in some cases, but it is an even sadder thing that the friend/enemy distinction has been so perverted and distorted, that some people are naive enough to believe that to humanize is to make another your political friend, instead of your political enemy. Do we already believe that enemies are not human, in order to be surprised that in fact, they are?
If we premise political friendship on our humanity, then we implicitly confirm that an enemy is not human, and that what is not human, is our enemy. Insodoing we rely upon and produce an abstract humanity that has conditions on its membership greater than one’s simply being a Homo sapien. Actual political conflicts are not resolved by “recognizing our common humanity,” even if prejudices might be challenged through such work; but prejudice and hatred are not the only political conflicts we know, and they are probably not even the most important ones. So Israeli-Palestinian comedy tours won’t stop the occupation, and they won’t resolve the political division between friend and enemy. Claiming that they do only serves to obscure their own ineffectiveness from view, as well as the real political conflict and the related power dynamics. The fact that they don’t shape or re-shape power dynamics is the surest marker that they are in fact not engaged, intrinsically, in any political activity whatsoever.
It is easy enough to prove this, as the statement “we are all human,” is robbed of its delusional grandeur simply by adding the word “obviously” either before, after, or in the middle of it.
6 Responses to “Friends, enemies, and human connections”
By عزير on Jun 17, 2008
Indeed what bothers me most about comedy tours (not that I don’t enjoy poking fun at some things, whether or not it’s appropriate to do so is another question) is that they try to “humanize” people, or even events, that are inherently human. Of course they could just be assuming that everyone thinks of themselves as gods, in which case being brought down to earth is necessary.
By yael on Jun 26, 2008
Yaman,
I don’t understand what you try to say… How is friendship/animosity related to political rivalry? Is admitting your political rival is human so difficult? Does it necessarily demand to accept their views? Why can’t one accept their enemy is human, and even (god forbid) likable - and still disagree on political issues and have competing political agendas?
Please explain.
Have a good time in Damascus!
By yaman on Jul 7, 2008
yael, I am referring to Carl Schmitt’s friend/enemy in On the political, where he defines the political as that division which the possibility of war presupposes. He uses the terms “friend” and “enemy” to mark the political’s independence from other possible axes of difference, like religion, ethnicity, etcetera. So “political friendship” has nothing to do with “friendship” in the common sense we refer to.
As for “accepting that the enemy is human,” that is the point, I am actually taking the more ‘humane’ perspective by saying that saying your enemy is human is not a feat and should not be considered as one, since they obviously are. If you consider establishing one’s humanity a project to be undertaken, then you are actually taking a concept of ‘humanity’ that is not obvious, and is implicated with a number of other ideas. Thus to place conditions on one’s humanity is inhumane.
By yael on Jul 10, 2008
yaman,
humanity IS not obvious, the history of the 20th century alone shows that quite well. so your stand that the enemy is human is not as simple as you present it, but an agenda. I agree with you and embrace that.
do you remember the guy who commented on your civilians post, saying all israelis are military and therefore not civilians? his is the common way of thinking about an enemy. I feel you are struggling with this issue, b/c you know that the enemy (and specifically, the israeli) is human, and yet, many times (like in the Khaldi post) you assume it has no other goal but evil (i.e. not quite human.
Franz Fanon’s entire writing on violence, greatly misunderstood, is that violence is a tool that enables dehumanized people to reclaim their humanity. I personally think that both Israeli and palestinian violence have to do with claiming humanity.
– humanity needs to be actively claimed, many times. it is not a given for the enemy.
By yaman on Jul 11, 2008
The only reason you would say that ‘humanity’ is not obvious is if you believe that violence is not possible except against people who are ‘dehumanized’ or ‘non-human.’ Fanon inverts this to say that violence is a tool of reclaiming one’s own humanity. But this ‘humanity’ that he talks about is the concept of humanity in colonial logic, so it is strange that you would abstract it to the point you can apply it to ‘Israeli violence,’ as if Israel is a colonized subject. You are robbing Fanon of the angle that colonialism plays in his thoughts.
That aside, you are clearly not with Fanon on this, so I am not sure why you cite him, since he says violence is a means of regaining one’s humanity in the colonized condition, but you say that “humanity must be actively claimed,” presumably in order to protect one’s self from violence. And I will say it again: this presumes that violence only occurs against people who are thought to be non-human. If you believe this, I am sure that your idea of the human is not simply a Homo sapien. The fact that one must lay a claim to being means you are transforming it into something other than a simple fact about your being, into some sort of justification for one’s existence. Your premise is identical to your conclusion.
By yaman on Jul 11, 2008
Also, as for ‘that guy’ who talked about civilians and military personnel: you did not clarify, what does that have anything to do with being human? Are civilians human, and military personnel not? Or the other way around? Is claiming your enemy is all military the same as claiming they are not human? This is strange: it seems to me inhumane to claim that a military person is not human.
Are you a psychiatrist? I am surprised by all the diagnoses you feel the need to give me in your comments.