Conflict as a vocation - Carl Schmitt and the possibility of politics

Carl Schmitt's critique of liberal pluralism (of individuals and associatio ns) was conducted in the name of a different pluralism, a truer pluralism, according to him, namely, the plural ism of equal and sovereign nation-stat es. His friend/enemy distinction dictates that conflict is the only legitim ate model for politics, at least on the international level. By translating Schmitt's theory of politics as conflict into terms derived from the work of Lyotard and Luhmann, this article asks whether Schmitt's concept of the political has any relevance for the contemporary world, especially consider ing that the liberal pluralism of associations (or social systems) seems to have carried the day. Such a transposition requires that the modem, horizo ntal structure of operationally closed (but internally bifurcated) social s ystems be thought of as sovereign states fiercely fighting to maintain thei r autonomy. Thus, the common battle fought by the anti-modernist, Schmitt, the ultra-modernist, Luhmann, and the post-modernist, Lyotard, is the one a gainst de-differentiation and the expansion of a universalist morality and economy.