American Political Science Review, Page 1 of 14 doi:10.1017/S0003055418000680 © American Political Science Association 2018 Theopolitics Contra Political Theology: Martin Buber’s Biblical Critique of Carl Schmitt CHARLES H. T. LESCH Vanderbilt University his article recovers Martin Buber’s important but neglected critique of Carl Schmitt’s political theology. Because Buber is known primarily as an ethicist and scholar of Judaism, his attack on T Schmitt has been largely overlooked. Yet as I reveal through a close reading of his Biblical commentaries, a concern about the dangers of political theology threads through decades of his work. Divine sovereignty, Buber argues, is absolute and inimitable; no human ruler can claim the legitimate power reserved to God. Buber’s response is to uncover what he sees as Judaism’s earliest political theory: a “theopolitics,” where human beings, mutually subject to divine kingship, practice non-domination. But Buber, I show, did not seek to directly revive this religious vision. Instead, he sought to incorporate the spirit https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000680 . of theopolitics, as embodied by Israel’s prophets, into modern society. The result is a new and significant perspective on liberal democracy and political theology. “Underneath the new forms of living of the people-become- democracies, significant questions have arisen over the settled, which plants fig trees, lays out vineyards, builds place of religious discourse in the public sphere (Audi towns, and learns to treasure the value of guaranteed security, 2011; Eberle 2002; March 2009; Rawls [1999] 2002; there persists the old, nomadicizing resistance against the Smith 2010; Stout 2004; Weithman 2006) and the fea- dependency of an autocratic man and his clan.” sibility of building social solidarity on purely secular and —Martin Buber, Kingship of God ([1936] 1967, 161) rational foundations (Habermas [2005] 2008; Lesch https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms 2018, forthcoming). “It says (Exodus 32:16): ‘And the tablets were the work of One way theorists have responded to these chal- God, and the writing was God’s writing, engraved on the lenges is by turning to political theology’s most prom- tablets’; read not ‘engraved’ [harut] but ‘freedom’ [heirut].” inent, and controversial, exponent: Carl Schmitt. “All — 1 Pirkei Avot [Ethics of the Fathers] (6.2) significant concepts of the modern theory of the state,” Schmitt famously wrote, “are secularized theological olitical theology—the study of how theological concepts, not only because of their historical devel- Pideas intersect with politics, law, ethics, and opment…but also because of their systematic structure” economics—has taken on new urgency. For ([1922] 2005, 36). From its inception, Schmitt’s theory centuries, it was expected that the Enlightenment’s was highly influential both within and beyond the secularizing processes would disenchant nature, Weimar intellectual scene.2 Thinkers as diverse as rationalize society, and privatize the “sacred.” Yet Walter Benjamin, Leo Strauss, Hans Blumenberg, “public religions” (Casanova 1994) continue to sway Jacob Taubes, and Jacques Derrida engaged with his world affairs. The Western model of pluralism, toler- ideas. And today his thought remains influential for a ation, and human rights faces growing pressure from host of social, legal, and normative theorists (Agamben , subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at movements with mythological and religious under- [2003] 2005;Bockenf¨ orde¨ 1976; de Vries 2002; Esposito currents (Galston 2018;Muller¨ 2016). States and [2013] 2015; Kahn 2012; Kalyvas 2008; Lefort 2006; extremist groups justify heinous acts of violence by Mouffe 2000; Posner and Vermeule 2010; Reinhard recourse to theological doctrines and apocalyptic et al. 2005; Santner 2011). Yet basic questions about expectations (McQueen 2018). And within liberal political theology remain unanswered. Is Schmitt right that apparently secular political ideas and institutions 12 Dec 2018 at 20:04:27 are deeply entwined with religion? If so, what is the , on Charles H. T. Lesch, Andrew W. Mellon Assistant Professor of nature of this entanglement? And even if we reject Political Theory, Vanderbilt University, charles.lesch@vanderbilt. Schmitt’s controversial political theory—a state over- edu. seen by a quasi-divine sovereign and bound together Versionsof thisarticle werepresentedat the annualmeetingsofthe — 67.81.17.32 by a solidarity of us versus them might there still American Political Science Association, the Association for Jewish be something troubling about his method of con- Studies, and the Association for Israel Studies. I am grateful to the ceptualizing political ideas via theological ones? participants in these events for their questions and critiques, and In this article, I offer one way of answering these . IP address: would like to extend special thanks to Nancy Rosenblum, Peter Gordon, Michael Rosen, Michael Sandel, Aspen Elizabeth Brinton, questions by recovering an important but overlooked Alexander Lewis Kaye, Steven Klein, and Shaul Magid for their critique from one of political theology’s earliest oppo- comments. Finally, I owe a significant debt of gratitude to Leigh Jenco nents: Martin Buber. Buber is almost never read for his and three anonymous APSR reviewers for their invaluable insights political theory, with most interpreters focusing instead and guidance. on his ethics of “I” and “Thou” and pioneering work on Received: January 9, 2018; revised: March 23, 2018; accepted: August 21, 2018. 2 For studies of this influence, see Balakrishnan (2000), Dyzenhaus 1 All Hebrew translations in this article, aside from Buber’s, are my (1997), Kennedy (2004), McCormick (1997), Muller¨ (2003), and https://www.cambridge.org/core own. Scheuerman (1999). Downloaded from Charles H. T. Lesch Hasidic life and thought.3 And he only rarely discusses cautions against revolution and teaches the necessity of Schmitt directly. Yet as I reveal through a close reading following the state’s laws. Rather than advocating a of Buber’s commentaries on Jewish scripture, a concern straightforward return to divine kingship, Buber holds about the dangers of political theology threads through that we should transform our existing societies by decades of his published work. At the same time, Buber incorporating the spirit of theopolitics, as embodied by does not merely impress his own agenda onto Biblical ancient Israel’s prophets, into modern ethics, politics, texts; he draws from them what he believes to be and society. Judaism’s earliest and most authentic political theory. Buber was not a systematic thinker, and he does not And what he finds is the conceptual antithesis of outline his theopolitics in a single place. Consequently, political theology: a “theopolitics,” where human there has been a tendency to see multiplicity rather than beings, mutually subject to God’s kingship, achieve a unity in his writings. Many divorce his scriptural com- form of non-domination.4 mentaries from his works of philosophy; others mistake By revealing the politics implicit in Buber’s scriptural his theopolitics for a form of hierocracy, anarchism, or hermeneutics, this article adds a new perspective to political theology. Yet as Dan Avnon has observed, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000680 . debates on political theology, Weimar political thought, Biblical exegesis is the “heart of Buber’s philosophy” Jewish political theory, and the politics of the Hebrew (1998, 47, cf. Amir 1988).6 Thus rather than confining Bible.5 Moreover, Buber offers insights into a number my analysis to one subset of Buber’s texts, I assess his of pressing issues at the intersection of religion and philosophical writings and Biblical commentaries politics, including the use of theological ideas to justify together. Buber composed, researched, or planned political violence, dilemmas of territorial sovereignty, many of these commentaries just as Schmitt was rising to the invocation of political theology to criticize lib- prominence in the 1920s and 30s.7 Buber’s 1936 King- eralism, and the possibility of reconciling individual ship of God, which I will argue is the centerpiece of his non-domination and collective solidarity without an critique of political theology, was originally intended to enemy “other.” Indeed Buber believes that theopolitics be the first in a three-volume series called The Biblical https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms should speak to all people, at all times—and perhaps to Faith. Though he never completed the work as planned, liberal-democratic citizens most of all. Against all his subsequent books Torat Ha-Nevi’im (retitled in attempts to prioritize the “political,” he asserts the English as The Prophetic Faith) and Moses, which ethical-religious unity of all spheres of human action. appeared, respectively, in 1944 and 1946, grew directly And against the drive to secularize the foundations of out of his earlier research and concerns.8 And as an human society, he affirms the trans-historical value of aspiring Jewish academic in Weimar Germany, he theopolitics. He offers a vantage from which to chal- witnessed firsthand the ascent of a Nazi movement that lenge not only Schmitt’s politics, but certain uses of Schmitt enthusiastically endorsed.9 political theology in contemporary political theory I begin by examining Buber’s philosophical critique more broadly. of Schmitt, focusing in particular on an essay that he At the same time, Buber was not a reactionary; he