International Boggarts Carl Schmitt, Harry Potter, and The Transfiguration

polp_357 403..
423
International Boggarts: Carl Schmitt,
Harry Potter, and the Transguration of
Identity and Violence
EMMA R. NORMAN
Policy Studies Organization
Harry Potters boggarts arouse our deepest fears and shape-shift
according to those fears. Consequently, nobody knows what this
magical monster really looks likeadding to our insecurities. The
striking parallels with international issues involve fear and (in)security
as the central forces driving state behavior, and how to confront shape-
shifting nonstate sources of violence. Yet examining the connections
between identity and violence in the boggart metaphor problematizes
several assumptions underpinning constructivism and realism. Using
Schmitts friendenemy distinction, I argue that it is not a Hobbesian
freedom from fear of violent death that motivates the search for
security, but the fear of not belonging to a clearly dened group. For it
is not the dread that an international boggart will kill us that makes it
so paralyzing, but its the lack of a clear identity that renders other
and self indistinguishable. In a world where globalization has blurred
state-oriented differentiation of (national) self and (foreign) other,
Schmitts theory of identity proves particularly valuable.
Keywords: Identity, Violence, International Relations, Carl Schmitt,
FriendEnemy Distinction, Belonging, State, Harry Potter, The Political,
Security, Constructivism, Realism, Nonstate Violence, Boggarts.
Related Articles in this Politics & Policy Symposium
Mena Alemn. 2012. Editors Introduction to the Symposium: Politics,
Policy, and Harry Potter. Politics & Policy 40 (3).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00355.x/
abstract
Acknowledgements: I am grateful to David Mena, Brian Danoff, Elizabeth Schneider-Rebozo,
Carol Wise, Paul Rich, and the Politics & Policy reviewers for their comments, criticisms, and
suggestions on earlier versions of this article. Thank you also to Andres Lores for transguring my
original, pedestrian presentation into a technical work of art on Adobe Flash (Adobe Systems
Incorporated 2012) accessible via the Supplementary Information section. A former version of
this article was presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association,
Chicago, IL, April 11-14, 2012.
bs_bs_banner
Politics & Policy, Volume 40, No. 3 (2012): 403-423. 10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00357.x
Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
The Policy Studies Organization. All rights reserved.
Norman and Deln. 2012. Wizards under Uncertainty: Cognitive Biases,
Threat Assessment, and Misjudgments in Policy Making. Politics & Policy
40 (3).
abstract
Grijalva. 2012. Deconstructing the Grand Narrative in Harry Potter:
Inclusion/Exclusion and Discriminatory Policies in Fiction and Practice.
Politics & Policy 40 (3).
abstract
Related Media
Film Clips: The Boggart. 2001. http://archive.org/details/TheBoggart
George W. Bush. 2002. State of the Union Address.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/stateoftheunion2002.htm
Course Syllabus: Harry Potter and International Politics: Identity, Violence,
and Social Control.
http://ipsonet.org/data/les/psoproceedings16.pdf (7-18)
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of
this article:
Adobe Flash Presentation: International Boggarts (PC version).
Adobe Flash Presentation: International Boggarts (Mac version).
Presentation Talk Transcript: International Boggarts (17 minutes).
Please note: Wiley-Blackwell are not responsible for the content or
functionality of any supporting materials supplied by the authors. Any
queries (other than missing material) should be directed to the
corresponding author for the article.
Los boggarts en Harry Potter despiertan nuestros ms profundos
miedos y cambian de forma de acuerdo a ellos. Por lo tanto, nadie sabe
realmente cul es el aspecto de estos monstros mgicoslo cual
aumenta nuestras inseguridades. Las notables semejanzas con asuntos
internacionales actuales se relacionan al uso del miedo y la
(in)seguridad como la principal fuerza motivando el comportamiento
del estado, y as como la forma en la que se confronta la naturaleza
elusiva de fuentes de violencia provenientes de actores no estatales. Sin
embargo, al examinar las conexiones entre la identidad colectiva y la
violencia en la metfora de los boggarts conlleva a cuestionarse un
nmero de supuestos fundamentales para el constructivismo y el
realismo. Usando la distincin amigo-enemigo de Schmitt, establezco
que nuestra bsqueda por seguridad no es motivada por una libertad
hobbesiana derivada del temor a una muerte violenta; sino por una
necesidad de pertenecer (o miedo a no pertenecer) a un grupo
claramente denido. Ya que un boggart internacional no es paralizante
por el miedo a ser ultimado por este, sino la falta de una identidad clara
que vuelve a otros y uno mismo indistinguible. En un mundo donde
la globalizacin ha difuminado los medios tradicionales usados por el
404 | POLITICS & POLICY / June 2012
estado para diferenciar el yo (nacional) de los otros (extranjeros), la
teora de la identidad de Schmitt demuestra ser particularmente til.
Of all the magical monsters in Harry Potter, boggarts are interesting both
for the narrative function they perform and for how they emphasize the complex
relation between identity and violence in international politics. Boggarts have a
very specic function in the Potter stories. They are not directly violent; instead,
like Dementors, they represent and play on the fears of the characters and, in
that way, become a mirror for their darker alter egos. Drawing from the bogles
or boggarts of Old English, Scottish, and Irish folklore (see Mysterious Britain
and Ireland 2010; The Boggart 2001), J. K. Rowling depicts these malevolent
shape-shifting beings as terrifying not in and of themselves but because they
assume that the form of what whoever confronts them fears the most. In the
magical universe, these include a bloodstained mummy, a giant spider, a
tyrannical professor, an animated, severed hand (Rowling 1999, ch. 7), the dead
bodies of loved ones, or in the case of Lord Voldemort, his own dead corpse
(Rowling 2005). Consequently, no one knows what a boggart really looks like,
which adds to the aura of fear that surrounds these creatures and to the
insecurities of anyone in their presence.
Three initial observations lead from the boggarts of ction and myth to the
international politics of today and our theories regarding them. The rst is that
the amorphous, indenable quality of the boggart poses the question who is the
other, the enemy?a question that is ultimately unanswerable in terms of a
concrete subject. Because they are only denable in relation to ourselves,
boggarts reveal more regarding our own identity and innermost fears than they
do about theirs. It is this creatures capacity to reect nothing except what is
projected onto it that rattles our securities so badly. The present essay relates this
aspect of the boggart metaphor to the growing importance of identity and
difference
1
in explanations of international behavior, which is central to theories
drawing from the constructivist tradition. Indeed, some sustained reections on
boggarts are very useful in attempting to understand the increasingly complex
dynamics that drive how identities are formed, and maintained, in a globalized
world. The second connection with international politics concerns the prime
emphasis this magical monster places on fear and (in)securitymotivators that
lie at the heart of the realist and neorealist theories underpinning much
contemporary foreign and domestic policy. The third connection involves the
evident parallels between boggarts and the elusive, shape-shifting nature of
nonstate sources of violent threats. This has been a particular cause for concern
in the decade since 9/11, and has also proved somewhat difcult to integrate into
international relations theories that are grounded on a traditional notion of state
sovereignty that no longer fully holds in the contemporary global era.
1
Though they approach political issues of identity and difference in Harry Potter from rather
divergent perspectives than the one offered here, see also Anatol (2003, 2009), King (2009), Peters
(2009), Nexon and Neumann (2006), and Sterling-Folker and Folker (2006).
Norman / INTERNATIONAL BOGGARTS | 405
Boggarts, Identity, and International Politics
Rowlings boggarts highlight both the intersubjective quality of identity and
what happens when intersubjectivity ceases to function in simple terms. The
grounding claims made by Rousseau (1973)
2
and Hegel (1967, 178-96)
underpinning social constructivist theories in psychology, psychoanalysis,
sociology, politics, and international relations, were that to identify as a self,
one requires the existence of an other. This turned on its head the essentialist
model of Descartes or Kantepitomized in Robinson Crusoewhere
subjectivity is generated in, and preserved by, an individual self independently
of a required reference to others.
In international relations, constructivist approaches place identity, and not
security or rational self-interest, at the heart of international politics. Most
famously elaborated by Alexander Wendt (1999, 1), constructivists generally
follow the claims (1) that the structures of human association are determined
primarily by shared ideas rather than material forces, and (2) that the identities
and interests of purposive actors are constructed by these shared ideas rather
than given by nature. Constructivists thus see collective identity as inclusive
and stimulated largely from the inside out. National identity, for example, is
assumed to be created through shared norms, values, and experiences of a
particular group with a shared history, or a shared perception of one (see e.g.,
Anderson 1991; Hobsbawm 1990). A further assumption is that the more those
norms and values can be spread outside the nation (or state), the more likely
larger identity groupings could be forged as a corrective to security dilemmas
one day managing to create minimally contested, integrated regional, or even
global groupings based on shared norms, values, and experiences (Wendt 2003)
not dissimilar to liberal universalist and cosmopolitan theories (Archibugi and
Held 1995; Kant 2002).
Constructivism has become widely accepted in mainstream international
relations largely due to the increasingly complex relations among individuals,
communities, and states that globalization has engendered. Collective identities
are no longer fully tied to, and contained by the borders of, nations or states (if
indeed they ever were). And the increased contact between different cultures
that global forces have made inevitable has also evidenced that such identities
and the shared values constituting them are contingent and particular rather
than xed. However, for all the explanatory power constructivism has
demonstrated in unraveling the ideational motivations for state and other group
behavior on the global international stage (see e.g., Biersteker and Weber 1996;
Finnemore 1996), certain key developments in world politics have not panned
out as the general approach suggests.
2
The famous claim appears near the end of the Second Discourse and sets the groundwork for the
Social Contract: social man lives constantly outside himself, and only knows how to live in the
opinion of others, so that he seems to receive the consciousness of his own existence merely from
the judgment of others concerning him (Rousseau 1973, 116).
Perhaps the best example concerns the drive toward regional integrationat
the economic, political, and identity levelsthat many strands of constructivism
underwrite (see Fabbri 2005). In North America, for instance, since the run-up to
the NorthAmericanFree Trade Agreement , the hope was that integrationwould
be a process of learning how to forge a collective identity through an increasing
awareness of, and focus on, the shared values and circumstances of the partner
states. In practice, this premise has proved overoptimistic. On many accounts,
the three North American partners remain far more concerned with those values
and interests that are not shared, and, as a result, deeper integration, at least
in the form of regional identity development, remains elusive (Denis 2007;
Gabriel and MacDonald 2007; Luccisano and Romagnoli 2007; Morris 2005;
Norman 2009; VanNijnatten 2007; Wise 2009).
Rowlings boggarts problematize a key assumption that lies at the base of
constructivist accounts of identity, for while such theories recognize that
identity is based on intersubjective inclusion (self/us) and exclusion (other/
them), they tend to overplay the role of inclusion in how identities are
constructed. Boggarts clearly do depend on the existence of a concrete victim
to become physically dened themselves. Yet their most intriguing feature
which complicates a simple understanding of intersubjectivityis the obverse:
their lack of a clear, denable identity makes it difcult to identify, and perhaps
even express, ones own identity with certainty. The insecurities that result
produce fear in the magical universe and, in the contemporary world, fear and
resistance to mutual identication and cooperation of exactly the kind that
North America is experiencing, particularly since 9/11. Strong evidence of this,
in addition to the war on terror, includes the 2010 Arizona Immigration Law
(SB1070), related legislation in Alabama (HB56, 2011) and other U.S. states,
Canadas clampdown in 2009 on the free access of Mexicans across its borders,
and the continuing reluctance of the United States and Mexico to work more
wholeheartedly together to resolve the problems associated with narcoviolence
(see Norman 2012). Constructivisms emphasis on inclusion as the focus of
identity appears unable to cast a counterspell potent enough to capture these
kinds of international boggarts. For intersubjectivity does not always
function in terms of the straightforward self-other dichotomy this approach
assumesa point to which I return later.
Perhaps the most salient international analogue of Rowlings boggarts
concerns the difculties involved in dealing with nonstate sources of violence.
As I mentioned earlier, the amorphous, indenable quality of the boggart poses
the question who is the enemy?a question that is ultimately unanswerable
in terms of a concrete subject in the Potter books. This reects a difculty
confronting classical realist and neorealist theories and the politicians who
implement their principles in their attempts to identify terrorists: many of those
principles function less adroitly when the perpetrators of violence and fear are
not sovereign states. Boggarts portray perfectly the elusive, unpredictable,
shape-shifting, and often invisible nature of terrorist cells and individuals who
are often indistinguishable from the rest of the population. And, like boggarts,
when terrorists are momentarily revealed, they tend to exhibit more regarding
our own collective identities and innermost fears than they do about themselves.
As we shall see, since the intersubjective dynamic of identity abhors a vacuum,
it becomes almost paramount to concretize the terrorist, to ll the lack of
identity in the other that feeds our own identity insecurities with some content.
Among other things, then, an exploration of the boggart metaphor raises the
question: how much of that content comes from our own imagination and
identity needs?
Concretizing the enemy, as G. W. Bushs famous Axis of Evil speech
attempted (see Bush 2002; CNN 2002), certainly generatesindeed
perpetuatesthe very Hobbesian fear and search for security that underpins
and is used to justify realist principles and policy. It is nevertheless unclear that
these principles can actually resolve the problems posed by nonstate sources of
violence, primarily because these approaches continue to be grounded in a
traditional view of the state system, based on a similarly traditional view of state
sovereignty that globalization has already eroded on several fronts (see Dunn
1995; Norman 2012; Ochmae 1996; Sassen 1996). Again, this provides rather
shaky ground on which to base real-world counter-policies that could soundly
defeat these particular international boggarts.
While they might be a surprising source for clarifying key issues in
international relations, reection on boggarts and other facets of how identities
are formed and maintained in Harry Potter is helpful in demonstrating that the
complex connections between identity, fear, security, and violence may be in
need of more nuanced theorization. The suggestion developed throughout the
rest of this article for how these connections might be apprehended and
articulated with more precision draws from the conceptual work of Carl
Schmitt, whose theory is based on elements of political realism and group
identity construction in a way that circumvents the problems identied above,
although it shares several points of contact with key ideas in both realism and
constructivism. The potential explanatory power of Schmitts paradigm and its
applicability to todays international boggartsterrorism, the war on terror,
harsh border control and immigration measures, and stalling regional
integration, to identify but a fewis thus hard to ignore. Schmitt can contribute
much to our theoretical grasp of how identities are formed and reformulated in
an international context and how this context can quickly succumb to
violencewhich occurs through a process that has been embraced under the
contemporary banner of identity politics.
3
Recognition of the signicance of Schmitts work has not been quick to
surface in international relations theory. At the margins, his relevance has been
3
The ideas expressed here can have a bearing on current identity politics of varying kinds.
However, Schmitt is concerned with exclusion as a crucial element of identity construction itself,
rather than as a consequence of belonging to certain groups that might experience exclusion
which is more commonly termed identity politics today.
stressed in work on critical theory and its poststructuralist variants (Chandler
2008; Odysseos and Petito 2007), in international law research (Burchard 2004;
Kochi 2006), and in some mainstreamdebates (Barder 2006, 2009, 2011; Kelanic
2008; Shapiro 2008) over the last few yearslargely as a result of the growing
purchase of the subdiscipline of international political theory. However, an
increase in traction of this thinker within more mainstream international
relations approaches has been dogged by the fact that since the early 1980s,
Schmitts very carefully formulated concepts became catchy slogans
(Bendersky 1983, 135), which were often truncated and misappropriated by
political leaders, ideologues, and commentators to serve and justify their own
ends (Strong 1996, vi-viii; Wolfe 2004). Schmitts viewof collective identity as the
driving force for human groupings and regroupings, and his notion that the
possibilities of enmity and war are intrinsic to this process, nevertheless render
his work a key theoretical resource for thinking about contemporary questions
of identity and violence with conceptual precisionregardless of whether one
is sympathetic or hostile to his conclusions.
Freund versus Feind: Carl Schmitts Theory of Identity
The rst area where the strengths of Schmitts theory emerge is his refusal to
ground (inter)national politics on the concept of the state. In the 1920s, Schmitt
witnessed how historical forces were undermining state sovereignty and rapidly
destabilizing an international order suffering a deep crisis of legitimacy.
4
Perturbed by the circularity in legal arguments that sought to dene what is
political by equating it with the state, he worried that the concept was subject to
collapse if its referent (the state) became unstable (Schmitt 1996, 20). The point
is as pertinent now, in an era when globalization is concomitantly eroding the
concept and practice of state sovereignty, as it was in Schmitts time. He thus
replaced the state with what he considered to be a more stable, and truly
inter-national, referent: detaching the concept of the political from its
equation with the faltering institution of the state, he connected it instead to the
experience of identifying with or against a nation (or other nonstate collective
identity).
In 1932, Schmitt (1996) argued that every sphere of human endeavor is
characterized by an irreducible antithesis: protable and unprotable in
economics, beautiful and ugly in aesthetics, sacred and profane in religion, good
and evil in morality, and friend and enemy in the political. None of these
distinctions, he said, can or should be directly reduced to, or confused with, the
others (26), although we often do so.
4
Which included the defeat of Germany after World War I, its humiliation under the Treaty of
Versailles, reparations and their economic ramications, the collapse of the Weimar Republic, the
Wall Street Crash, and the Communist victory in Moscow.
The political enemy need not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly; he need
not appear as an economic competitor, and it may even be advantageous to
engage with him in business transactions. But he is nevertheless the other,
the stranger . . . existentially something different and alien, so that in the
extreme case conicts with him are possible . . . Each participant is in a
position to judge whether the adversary intends to negate his opponents
way of life and therefore must be repulsed or fought in order to preserve
ones own form of existence. (27)
Schmitt thus saw the political as a result of a fundamental struggle in the quest
for achieving identity where, in contrast to constructivism, identity is based on
a relation of negativity (Kochi 2006, 289): the exclusion of the enemy.
Schmitts clear focus on the enemy as more signicant than the friend
underscores the pivotal claim that while inclusion and exclusion always logically
accompany each other (to say us presupposes a them), it is exclusion that is
critical in creating group identities: identifying the other is required for the
self to be fully recognizable. The friend side of the equation is nevertheless still
importantnot merely to preserve the distinction that risks becoming obscured
in the constructivist account but because it highlights that peoples sense of
belonging is tested by being prompted to take sides.
5
For Schmitt (1996, 27-8),
whenever a group engages in taking sides, they are actively consolidating their
group identities. The more intense the degree of unication or separation, and
the more this raises the prospect of violence, the more political the group
becomes (29).
Before examining the implications of these claims, two qualications are
needed in the face of Schmitts radical, unusual, and, frankly, disturbing theory.
First, this is no celebration of violence. The alignment and the decision about
who is the enemy and about whether or not to go to war with him, rather than
ghting the war itself, is what galvanizes a collective identity. Schmitt was
careful to emphasize that [t]he politics of avoiding war (35) was one plausible
outcome of his model.
6
Second, a possibility is not an actuality. Physical conict
is not required to occur for Schmitt; however, the possibility of the relation
escalating into violence must exist if functional group identities are to be formed
and preserved (33). In the Potter saga, for example, we know far more regarding
the group identities of Gryfndor and Slytherin Houses through their
potentially violent rivalry than we do about Hufepuff or Ravenclaw, even
5
One reason he critiqued liberal parliamentarism so strongly for refusing to take sides in an
argument, and for refusing to acknowledge that the stakes at play in the political are extremely
high (see Schmitt 1992, 1996).
6
Characteristically, Schmitt took care to distinguish himself soundly from the usual misreadings
of Clausewitz on this. Schmitt (1996, 34, 34fn) points out that Clausewitzs phrase politics is a
continuation of war by other means is almost always misquoted and misunderstood. A more
accurate translation is [w]ar is nothing but a continuation of political intercourse with a mixture
of other means (von Clausewitz 1908, 120).
though that violence rarely materializes beyond schoolyard tauntings and the
occasional scufe on and off the Quidditch pitch. The salient idea for
international politics concerns the necessary connection between identity and
potential conict. For Schmitt, the link stemmed from his belief that humans are
only really prepared to take full responsibility for their lives, values, and the
groups they belong to and identify with if the possibility of losing all these things
is reala point that J. K. Rowling seems to agree with.
The friendenemy distinction is the most fundamental of human antitheses
for Schmitt precisely because, like Harry Potter, he felt that the threat of losing
ones identity is the strongest motivation for a human to risk dying for their
beliefsalthough his argument indicates that ones motives for doing so might
be thoroughly buried under successive layers of justication. The motive sounds
inconsistent at rst, which in the Potter stories is reected in how Voldemorts
view of death contrasts so deeply with Harrys: dying, of course, does not
preserve ones identity, it ends itunless ones particular beliefs indicate
otherwise. Yet, as Harry comes to realize at the very climax of the saga, there is
a crucial difference between losing ones life and ending it. Indeed, the threat of
remaining alive and yet being forced to subsume ones identity under that of
another group in times of conict has been a perennial motive for dying for
ones country, nation, religious, or ideological views, or cultural values
whether one is a professional or conscripted soldier, insurgent, suicide-bomber,
civilian, or member of the Order of the Phoenix. From Yugoslavia to Rwanda,
this has been the underlying force in the fragmentation and collapse of these
states in the middle of waves of interethnic violence.
The pivotal idea to be drawn from Schmitt here adds a complex dimension
to identity that constructivism fails to capture, as well as a deeper layer of
reasons behind violence and war missed by realism. Country, nation, religion,
and cultural values are secondary tokens of what Schmitt saw as their
underlying raison dtre: collective identity denition and maintenance. [I]t
would be senseless to wage war for purely religious, purely moral, purely
juristic, or purely economic motives. War today is in all likelihood none of these.
This obvious point is mostly confused by the fact that religious, moral and other
antitheses can intensify to political ones and can bring about the decisive friend-
or-enemy constellation (Schmitt 1996, 36).
Schmitts point may not be quite as obvious as he thought. It is best
understood in terms of the actions between nation-states, some of which do
escalate to war for reasons that are as much (if not more) to do with preserving
and re-clarifying a threatened group identity as they are pursuing economic
interests or defending a set of moral values. This is, I think, precisely what
underpinned much of the global uneasiness that met the moral justications
for the war on terror given by Bush and others in 2002. Yet Schmitts work
exposes those justications from a perspective different to the familiar realist
line that moral discourse merely functions to cloak baser motives of economic
self-interest, which are justiable on rational grounds, although not always on
ethical ones. A Schmittian view adds that rationally self-interested motives also
serve as a cloak for the more elemental motive of preserving a threatened group
identity, which is even less open to justication on either moral or rational grounds.
The grounds for justication are purely political, in Schmitts very precise
understanding of this term.
The implications are profound, for, if Schmitt is right, it matters very little
which particular moral values are invoked in the war on terror or any other
conict, in Harry Potters world or ours, or how plausible the arguments used to
uphold them are. It also matters little whether justications based on rational
assessment of an imminent threat, such as an inux of illegal immigrants or
the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in a certain territory, turn out to
be exaggerated, erroneous, or even fabricated. Each group would still ght to
protect their way of life regardless, merely on the basis that it is theirs. This
conclusion might be an uncomfortable one, particularly if one feels morally
committed to the rightful causes of conicts like the ght against Voldemort
(or Sauron, or Darth Sidious, or Mr. Smith and the Matrix), or against the
real-world obstructions to human freedom and human rights posed by similar
exclusionary views. However, disturbing though it might be, if Schmitts
argument is taken seriously, we would likely ght these battles even if that moral
commitment disappeared. Another one would be found to take its place.
If this is the case, then the war on terror and the new world (dis)order has
less to do with the confrontation of radically incompatible cultural worldviews
(a confrontation originating in Schmitts sphere of morality, not the political),
or even with competition for limited national resources (economic sphere), than
with an urgent need to sharpen the distinctions between collective identities
distinctions that have been blurred or diluted by the forces of globalization/
glocalization and the collapse of the bipolar international order. This claim
complicates Samuel Huntingdons (1993, 22) famous hypothesis that the
fundamental source of conict in this new world will not be primarily
ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among human kind and
the dominating source of conict will be cultural. Contra social constructivist
7
or communitarian (MacIntyre 1985; Sandel 1982; Taylor 1989) accounts, for
Schmitt, the cultural values that galvanize group identities are not fully
equivalent to collective identities. They are emergent properties of them.
Although he is not explicit on the matter, his claims suggest that in constructing
a we, the fact of sharing, or not sharing, something is not dependent on
what exactly is shared. The value of the sense of belonging itself, through
sharing something with others, goes deeper than this: a commitment to what
is shared is a consequential moral and cultural expression and justication of
that belonging, not a cause of it. The fundamental commitment is to the human
7
I am thinking here not just of Wendt and his followers but also of Benedict Anderson (1991) and
E. J. Hobsbawms (1990) inuential accounts of national and cultural identity.
relationships in the group. The basic claims here permit an explanation of how
collective identities and their interests change over time that is at least as
plausible as constructivist accounts.
A good illustration of this point in the Potter books would be Neville
Longbottoms placement in Gryfndor House. The cultural values associated
with belonging there are bravery and daringwhich poor Neville patently does
not exhibit at the beginning of the saga. Rather, he aspires to belong (or is afraid
of not belonging), and so cultivates, or discovers, those values within himself
and externalizes them as the narrative progresses, in the end justifying his
belongingto himself and to otherswithout doubt. The need to belong, to
t in, is what motivates Longbottoms character arc perhaps more than any of
the other characters except Harry.
8
The values he externalizes are secondary to
this need, although they remain connected to maintaining its fulllment, but in
his case, they could feasibly have been substituted by others. Schmitts position
on this, as illustrated by Neville, thus makes a distinction between the need
to belong or a sense of fullling or lacking that need, and the expression
and performance of that belonging through shared signs that represent
and reinforce a group (e.g., ags, House/national colors, language, values, and
practices).
This gives an interesting twist to the centrality of both security and identity
in international relations theory and practice. Underlying Schmitts position is
the tacit assumption that it is not so much a Hobbesian (or Voldemortesque)
freedom from fear of violent death that motivates the search for security (which
rests on a rational-individualist assumption of self-preservation that neither
Schmitt nor Harry accept), but rather the need to belong to, or the fear of not
belonging to, a clearly dened group. As we have seen, the way to dene any
group is to contrast it with an other, which requires exclusion. However,
Schmitts emphasis is on a more extreme form of othering: clear denition
comes only where the self-other relation can potentially intensify into a
friendenemy one. In other words, only an intense relation of difference, with
a strong and well-dened other, can produce a similarly strong and well-dened
sense of collective self-identity.
International Boggarts: The Enemy Within
Schmitts argument is intricate and difcultpartly because he makes such
a concerted attempt to capture the complexity of how identity functions in its
close relation to violence and fear, and partly because his background in
8
Because, at rst, Neville in fact displays none of the characteristics that dene any House:
bravery (Gryfndor), intellectual cleverness (Ravenclaw), conscientiousness (Hufepuff), or
ambition (Slytherin). In a way very different to Harry, Neville is also afraid that he might not
really belong anywhere in the magical or nonmagical universes. As such, his commitment to dying
for his newfound group is at least as strong as that of Dumbledore or Sirius, and may even equal
Harrys.
constitutional legal theory made meticulous conceptual precision the pivot of
his ideas. Rowlings stories can be of some assistance in clarifying these ideas,
however, and it is here that boggarts reveal something truly interesting. These
creatures do not represent the strong, well-dened, unequivocal other/enemy
that Bellatrix or Voldemort (after the end of Book 4) do. Shape-shifters are
weak others because they have no self-derived physical identity or strong,
unequivocal continuity of personality. For centuries, the boggarts of ction and
folklore have frightened us because their lack of identity, their shape-shifting
inconsistency, makes us question our own and confront fears we would rather
keep locked away. Although they do not pose a physical threat to our livesa
boggart would not kill us directlyin playing on our insecurities, they weaken
our sense of self from within, which in an extreme case might cause us to
self-destruct, or at least psychologically fall to pieces as Molly Weasley does
when she confronts a boggart alone (Rowling 2003, ch. 9).
Given this, it seems to be no accident that Rowling chose laughter as the
(Riddikulus!) counter-spell for a boggart. In contrast with nervous laughter in
social situations, or feeling schadenfreude as a result of low self-esteem, to nd
genuine amusement in something potentially threatening requires a strong sense
of security and identity, and the ability to detach momentarily from ones fear
of the other. If this is done correctly, with practice (and the help of a magic
wand), the boggart disappears. However, the deeper intersubjective dynamic
of identity functions in Rowlings saga here, too, since other, stronger enemies
are present in the books to serve the more Schmittian political function of
sharpening the identities of the main characters and the magical communities
themselves.
Clearly, laughing at international boggarts is not going to be much of a
defense. However, the boggarts of Harry Potters world do underline why
Schmitt insists that the potential for direct violent conict is a crucial factor in
identity formation. And why, if that potential is not there, a strong group
identity might be hard to maintainto the point where we may even go out and
look for another other to contrast it with. Schmitts emphasis on the exclusive
nature of identity construction leads to the conclusion that an international (or
other plurality of identities) context is required to provide the contrast necessary
for the clear denition of a collective identity. This position conicts strongly
with arguments extolling the possibility of a universal human collective, or single
world state. However not just any form of other will doneutral liberal
toleration of others, or half-hearted partnerships to foster security or prosperity
fail on this model to provide the required clear denition. Intensication to the
friendenemy status on at least one front is, for Schmitt, required. It is also
inevitable. If one enemy disappears (as a direct result of enemy actions or for
other systemic reasons), a vacuumis created that at some point needs to be lled.
One illustration of this involves the transition to a unipolar international
order after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The effects of losing such a starkly
dened enemy threwthe collective identity and global role of the United States
intoserious question, bothinternally andexternally. This blurring of a solidsense
of national identity was reected in the haziness of U.S. foreign policy during the
1990s, which lacked a clearly dened geopolitical strategy (see Zakaria 2008).
This included a continuous wavering over whether and how to intervene in some
admittedly daunting international crises. Joint peace operations in Bosnia and
Kosovo in the face of ethnic cleansing and atrocious human rights abuses did
succeed, although they were entered into in a way that Schmitt would not have
seen as wholehearted expressions of either friendship or enmity. However, U.S.
stances toward Rwanda and Somalia were abysmal failures.
A Schmittian interpretation of these occurrences is that another (strong)
other subsequently had to be found (or invented) to escape the inevitable
tension that the post-Cold War blurring of U.S. identity entailed. The U.S.
reaction to the attacks of 9/11 reected this. And although an enemy existed
after that date, its identity was not altogether denedat least in the traditional
sovereign state-political sense that governments had been previously
accustomed to recognizing and responding to during the Cold War. Much effort
was thus devoted to embellish an account of the enemys evil origins and
purpose (see CNN 2002; Maggio 2007) and to reattach it to an axis of more
familiar, well-dened state-political identities. As Kelanic (2008, 17-8) observes
regarding Schmitts theory, [t]he seemingly innite and recurring supply of
existential enemies suggests that the real action stems less from the presence of
any nite, essentialist differences between peoples, leading to the recognition
of Other as enemy, and more from the inclination of peoples to reinvent each
other as existential enemies. G. W. Bushs comment in 2006 illustrates the
wider implications of her point: [y]ou know, one of the hardest parts of my job
is to connect Iraq to the war on terror (Couric 2006).
What sets the friendenemy distinction apart in its contemporary
applicability is that, despite government attempts to concretize current enemies
through reattaching them to sovereign states, it makes theoretical room for the
idea that legitimate political actions may no longer be the exclusive privilege of
the state. In Schmitts (1996, 2004) view, they can originate from identity
collectives at the sub- or supra-state level. Schmitt (1996, 37) mentions labor
unions or social class in this context, but it is not difcult to see how the
formation of other sub- or transnational identities based on distinctions of race,
gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, or religion t without much adjustment
in this model. While such identities are based on associations that may be
motivated by shared economic, moral, cultural, or religious interests, if the
internal antithesis of any of these spheres intensies enough to raise the prospect
of violenceeven if that prospect is subsequently rejectedthe friendenemy
criterion is engaged, and the community becomes a political entity. If that
entity is prepared to take a decision that violent repulsion of an enemy is
necessary, then it wields political power (Schmitt 1996, 37-40, 2004).
Identifying the enemy within in this way challenges the prevailing
Weberian denition of the state as an entity that successfully claims the
monopoly of the legitimate use of violence within a given territory. Schmitts
work certainly forces us to question the assumption of a prima facie illegitimacy
of contemporary acts of terror (Kochi 2006, 292) as well as a similar prima facie
legitimacy of state-drivencounterterror war. It concomitantly highlights the need
for serious reection on how reconceptualizing traditional forms of war (see
Crawford 2003) and nonstate acts of terror raises the question of what coherent
grounds should be used to legitimate one while delegitimating the other, since
the prior framework we used to do so is not functioning as it did before the advent
of global forces.
As the resources possessed by the state in Schmitts time far outclassed the
resources of internal or transnational communities, he believed that
friendenemy groupings formed on membership of a sovereign state would
always be the strongest political entities capable of the most decisive use of
political power. Competition between rival associations for the loyalty of the
citizen dilutes the sense of belonging and works to obscure rather than dene
a clear group identity. The allegiance an individual can demonstrate to any
group is also diluted because which association commands ones obedience is
unclear. However, when a state is exposed as unable to provide security to its
citizens, Schmitt predicted that the rise of other, nonstate centers of political
identity and allegiance are likely, along with the rise of potential conict
between them. If within the state there are organized parties capable of
according their members more protection than the state, then the latter
becomes at best an annex of such parties, and the individual citizen knows
whom he has to obey (Schmitt 1996, 52). This part of his argument
anticipates Harrys creation of Dumbledores Army in response to the
Ministry of Magics refusal to teach practical Defense Against the Dark Arts
skills (Rowling 2003). It likewise applies particularly strongly to recent power
shifts in Mexico concerning the burgeoning inuence of narcotrafcking
cartels.
As traditional realist explanations for war built on balance of power and
hegemonic stability theories have been eclipsed by world events in the post-9/11
era, the value-added of Schmitts theory lies in the different perspective it brings
to understanding the changing nature of war and terror(ism), the deeper causes
of war, and the impact that these have on how violence is or should be
legitimated. All are based on the intricate connections he traces between group
identity and violence and their union in the sphere of the political. As we have
seen, the causes of violent conict are often hidden behind successive
justications based on the tensions that emerge from other spheres of human life
(good/evil in the moral sphere, protable/unprotable in economics, and sacred/
profane in religion). For Schmitt, these overlay, and frequently obscure, the
primary driving force of international behavior: addressing threats to group
identity (threats that may well be systemic rather than genuinely attributable to
the enemy) by sharply dening the other in an attempt to sharpen the
boundaries of the collective self.
Conclusion
It can be argued that fear and the search for security still lie at the base of
motives for international politics, but both Schmitt and the boggarts of Harry
Potter show that the relations among identity, violence, fear, and security are far
more complex and interdependent than the Hobbesian-realist model assumes.
Returning to Harry Potter, this certainly invokes a clear distinction between the
rather simple Hobbesian character of Voldemort whose worst fear is dying,
so his entire character arc is consumed by his possessively individualistic
(MacPherson 1962) strategies to avoid death, and Dumbledore who claims
consistently that there are far worse things than death. It also contrasts with
Harry, the orphan who feels such an outsider in the world of muggles, who is
prepared to die to save his friends and the wider magical community he so
strongly identies with because it gave him a place to belong, a side worth
ghting for. It is the fear of not belonging, rather than the fear of violent death,
that drives Rowlings hero and forms the foundation of Schmitts thought.
Schmitt generated not a normative vision but an attempt to capture
something elemental regarding international empirical reality that is difcult to
grasp. If Schmitt is right, his theory exposes that the motives for many group
behaviors are not only less noble than their moral justications exhort but also
less rational than their economic or physical security justications imply.
Surprising though it might seem, the boggarts of Rowlings ction and folklore
capture and reect the elemental fear of not knowing clearly who we are or
where we belong in a way that is highly relevant to international group
behavior. Their amorphous, mirror-like quality claries that the self-other
dialectic does not necessarily function in simple terms that naturally lean toward
widening inclusion. Reinforcing that self requires other for its own denition,
boggarts illustrate in somewhat poststructuralist fashion (see e.g., Laclau and
Mouffe 1985) that if the denition of the other is faint, blurred, or otherwise not
fully constituted, the denition of the self reects a similar indistinctness. That
indistinctness leads to insecurity and the projection of our own inner fears onto
the other in a desperate attempt to provide it with stronger content that our
identity can then draw from. Schmitt uses the same antagonistic (Laclau and
Mouffe 1985; Mouffe 1993) principle applied to collective identities, adding that
if the distinctness of the other disappears, if the intensity of the friendenemy
constellation is subsumed into inclusiveness or reduced to the level of mutually
disinterested toleration, then a replacement enemy will eventually be found or
invented. I have argued here that, in confronting the international boggarts that
are currently feared the most (terrorists, illegal immigrants, and nonstate
sources of violence), several key contemporary international scenarios appear to
have followed precisely this dynamic of identity.
Confronting Schmitts thought, like confronting Rowlings boggarts, is not
for the faint hearted. Yet, while it might be disturbing in its stark pragmatism,
Schmitts claim that questions of collective identity have their own imperative
and operate beneath the level of moral and rational justications is plausible, and
empirically supported in a number of cases in a way that challenges some of
the central assumptions of both constructivism and realism. However, if
his connection between identity and potential conict is as valid as it appears,
this leaves open a great many normative questions that cannot be quite so
readily bracketed outside of contemporary international politics as Schmitt
believed. Schmitts approaches, conceptualizations, and arguments are as
characteristically precise as they are provocative. However, they are best used in
tandem with alternate theories rather than as their replacements.
About the Author
Emma R. Norman is Co-Editor in Chief of Politics & Policy (Policy Studies
Organization/Wiley-Blackwell) and was formerly an associate professor at the
Universidad de las Amricas Puebla, Mexico. Her Spanish and English
publications over the last 15 years focus on identity, participatory citizenship,
applied ethics, and the work of Hannah Arendt and Carl Schmitt. She also
writes on scholarly publishing. Her latest chapter on feminism and citizenship at
the U.S.Mexico border will be published this year by Ashgate in Anne Runyan
et al., (eds.), Feminist (Im)Mobilities in Fortress North America: Identities,
Citizenships, and Human Rights in Transnational Perspective.
References
AN:1oi, Gizriir Liz:, ed. 2003. The Fallen Empire: Exploring Ethnic
Otherness in the World of Harry Potter. In Reading Harry Potter: Critical
Essays, edited by Liza G. AN:1oi. Westport, CT: Praeger. 163-178.
___. 2009. Reading Harry Potter Again: New Critical Essays. Santa Barbara,
CA: Praeger.
ANnrsoN, BrNrnic1. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reections on the Origin
and Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso.
Acninici, D:Nirir, and D:vin Hrin. 1995. Cosmopolitan Democracy: An
Agenda for A New World Order. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
B:nr, Airx:Nnr D. 2006. Carl Schmitt and Humanitarian Intervention:
Making Sense of the Problem of Terrorism and Insurgency in Todays Iraq.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies
Association, San Diego, California. March 22-25. Cited with permission.
___. 2009. Lessons from the Grand Inquisitor: Carl Schmitt and the
Providential Enemy. Theory and Event 12 (3): 3. Accessed on April 2, 2012.
Available online at http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/
journals/theory_and_event/v012/12.3.barder.html
___. 2011. Agonal Sovereignty: Rethinking War and Politics with Schmitt,
Arendt and Foucault. Philosophy and Social Criticism 37 (7): 775-793.
Accessed on March 10, 2012. Available online at http://psc.sagepub.com/
content/37/7/775
BrNnrsxx, Josrin. 1983. Carl Schmitt: Theorist for the Reich. Priceton:
Princeton University Press.
Birs1rxr, Tnox:s J., and CxN1ni: Wrnr. 1996. State Sovereignty As Social
Construct. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bicn:n, Cnis1oin. 2004. Puzzles and Solutions: Appreciating Carl
Schmitts Work on International Law as Answers to the Dilemmas of His
Weimar Political Theory. Institute for International Law. Accessed on March
29, 2012. Available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_
id=692750
Bisn, Grocr W. 2002. State of the Union Address. Video and transcript.
Accessed on April 6, 2012. Available online at http://www.americanrhetoric.
com/speeches/stateoftheunion2002.htm
Cn:Nnir, D:vin. 2008. The Revival of Carl Schmitt in International
Relations: The Last Refuge of Critical Theorists? MillenniumJournal of
International Studies 37 (1): 27-48. Accessed on March 29, 2012. Available
online at http://www.davidchandler.org/pdf/journal_articles/Millennium%20-
%20Schmitt%20published.pdf
CNN. 2002. Bush State of the Union Address. CNN.com Inside Politics.
Accessed on March 29, 2012. Available online at http://edition.cnn.com/2002/
ALLPOLITICS/01/29/bush.speech.txt/
Coiic, K:1ir. 2006. Couric and the President. CBS News. Accessed on
March 9, 2012. Available online at http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/
?id=1980368n
C:vron, Nr1: C. 2003. Just War Theory and the U.S. Counterterror War.
Perspectives in Politics 1 (1): 1-25. Accessed on April 1, 2012. Available online
at http://www.pol.illinois.edu/alumni/XTRACLINE/Crawford%20Just%20
War%20Terror.pdf
DrNis, Ci:inr. 2007. Canadians in Trouble Abroad. Politics & Policy 35 (4):
648-663. Accessed on February 26, 2012. Available online at http://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00357.x/abstract
DiNN, JonN, ed. 1995. Contemporary Crisis of the Nation State? Oxford:
Blackwell.
F:nni, Ci:ini: M., ed. 2005. The Constructivist Promise and Regional
Integration: An Answer to Old and New Puzzles. CSGR Working Paper
(November). Accessed on March 12, 2012. Available online at http://www2.
warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/research/workingpapers/2005/wp18205.pdf
FiNNrxor, M:1n:. 1996. National Interests in International Society. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
G:niri, Cnis1iN:, and L:i: M:cDoN:in. 2007. Migration and
Citizenship Rights in a North American Space. In Requiem or Revival? The
Promise of North American Integration, edited by Isabel Studer and Carol Wise.
Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. 267-287.
Hrcri, Groc W. F. 1967. Lordship and Bondage. In Phenomenology of
Mind. Translated by J. B. Baillie. London: Harper and Row. 214-267.
Honsn:vx, Eic J. 1990. Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme,
Myth, Reality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
HiN1iNcnoN, S:xiri. 1993. The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign
Affairs 72 (3): 22-49. Accessed on March 9, 2012. Available online at
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/48950/samuel-p-huntington/the-clash-
of-civilizations
K:N1, Ixx:Niri. 2002. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. In Kant
Political Writings, edited by H. S. Reiss. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press. 93-130.
Kri:Nic, Rosrx:x A. 2008. Carl Schmitt, the FriendEnemy Distinction
and International Relations Theory. Paper presented at the Midwest Political
Science Association Annual Conference, Chicago, Illinois. April 3-8. Cited with
permission.
KiNc, Cn:irs. 2009. Redening Ethnic Conict. In Political Issues in J. K.
Rowlings Harry Potter Series, edited by Dedria Bryfonski. Farmington Hills,
MI: Greenhaven. 157-167.
Kocni, T:ix. 2006. The Partisan: Carl Schmitt and Terrorism. Law and
Critique 17 (3): 267-295. Accessed on March 9, 2012. Available online at http://
obinfonet.ro/docs/tpnt/tpntres/kochi-the-partisan-schmitt-and-terrorism-.pdf
L:ci:i, ENrs1o, and Cn:N1:i Moirrr. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist
Strategy. London: Verso.
Liccis:No, Licx, and Axx Rox:cNoii. 2007. Comparing Public Social
Provision and Citizenship in the U.S., Canada and Mexico: Are There
Implications for a North American Space? Politics and Policy 35 (4): 716-751.
Accessed on March 20, 2012. Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00357.x/abstract
M:cIN1xr, Ai:sn:i. 1985. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. London,
UK: Duckworth.
M:cPnrsoN, C.B. 1962. The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: From
Hobbes to Locke. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
M:ccio, J:xrs. 2007. The Presidential Rhetoric of Terror: The (Re)Creation
of Reality Immediately after 9/11. Politics and Policy 35 (4): 774-809. Accessed
on March 20, 2012. Available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/
10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00357.x/pdf
Mois, S1rinrN D. 2005. Gringolandia: Mexican Identity and Perceptions of
the United States. Lanham, MD: SR Books.
Moirrr, Cn:N1:i. 1993. The Return of the Political. London: Verso.
Mxs1riois Bi1:iN :Nn Iri:Nn. 2010. Boggarts. Mysterious Britain and
Ireland. Accessed on March 20, 2012. Available online at http://www.
mysteriousbritain.co.uk/england/folklore/boggart.html
NrxoN, D:Niri H., and Ivr B. Nrix:NN, eds. 2006. Harry Potter and
International Relations. Lanham, MA: Rowman and Littleeld.
Nox:N, Exx: R. 2009. Applying Carl Schmitt to Global Puzzles: Identity,
Conict and the Friend/Enemy Antithesis. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Toronto, Canada.
September 3-6. Accessed on April 6, 2012. Available online at http://works.
bepress.com/emma_norman/1
___. 2012. Falling through the Cracks: Superuous Women at the Fault Lines
of Citizenship, Sovereignty, and Human Rights. In Feminist (Im)Mobilities in
Fortress North America: Identities, Citizenships, and Human Rights in
Transnational Perspective, edited by Anne Runyan, Marianne Marchand, Amy
Lind and Patricia McDermott. London, UK: Ashgate. Forthcoming.
Ocnx:r, KrNicni. 1996. The End of the Nation State: The Rise of Regional
Economies. New York: The Free Press.
Onxssros, Loiiz:, and F:nio Pr1i1o, eds. 2007. The International Political
Thought of Carl Schmitt: Terror, Liberal War and the Crisis of Global Order.
London, UK: Routledge.
Pr1rs, R:iin. 2009. Ethnic Separation Is a Nonviolent Form of Ethnic
Cleansing. In Political Issues in J. K. Rowlings Harry Potter Series, edited by
Dedria Bryfonski. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven. 148-156.
Roissr:i, Jr:N-J:cqirs. 1973. Discourse on the Origins of Inequality.
Translated by George D. H. Cole. London, UK: Everyman.
RoviiNc, Jo:NNr K. 1999. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. New
York: Scholastic.
___. 2003. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. New York: Scholastic.
___. 2005. J. K. Rowling Interview. MuggleNet. Accessed on March 20, 2012.
Available online at http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview2.shtml
S:Nnri, Micn:ri. 1982. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
S:ssrN, S:sxi:. 1996. Losing Control?: Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Scnxi11, C:i. 1992. The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. Translated by
Ellen Kennedy. Cambridge, MA, London: MIT.
___. 1996. Concept of the Political. Translated by George Schwab. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
___. 2004. Theory of the Partisan: A Commentary/Remark on the Concept of the
Political. Translated by A. C. Goodson. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University Press.
Sn:iio, K:x. 2008. Carl Schmitt and the Intensication of Politics. Lanham,
MD: Rowan & Littleeld.
S1riiNc-Foixr, JrNNirr, and Bi:N Foixr. 2006. Conict, Power and
the State in the Muggle and Magical Worlds. In Harry Potter and International
Relations, edited by Iver B. Neumann and Daniel H. Nexon. Lanham, MA:
Rowman and Littleeld. 108-115.
S1oNc, T:cx B. 1996. Foreward. In Carl Schmitt, Concept of the Political.
Translated by George Schwab. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. vi-viii.
T:xio, Cn:irs. 1989. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tnr Bocc:1. 2001. Archive.org. Accessed on April 1, 2012. Available online
at http://archive.org/details/TheBoggart
V:NNiN:11rN, Drno:. 2007. The Security and Prosperity Partnership as an
Indicator Species for the Emerging North American Environmental Regime.
Politics and Policy 35 (4): 664-682. Accessed on February 16, 2012. Available
online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00357.x/
abstract
voN Ci:isrvi1z, C:i. 1908. On War. Translated by Colonel James and John
Graham. London, UK: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trbner.
WrNn1, Airx:Nnr. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
___. 2003. Why a World State Is Inevitable. European Journal of International
Relations 9 (4): 491-542.
Wisr, C:oi. 2009. The North American Free Trade Agreement. New
Political Economy 14 (1): 135-149.
Woirr, Ai:N. 2004. A Fascist Philosopher Helps Us Understand
Contemporary Politics. Chronicle of Higher Education. Accessed on March
20, 2012. Available online at http://www.stanford.edu/~weiler/Wolfe_on_
Schmitt_044.pdf
Z:x:i:, F:rrn. 2008. The Post-American World. New York: W.W. Norton.
Copyright of Politics & Policy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed
to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

International Boggarts Carl Schmitt, Harry Potter, and The Transfiguration

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

International Boggarts Carl Schmitt, Harry Potter, and The Transfiguration

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

polp_357 403..

Potrebbero piacerti anche