TheopoliticsContraPoliticalTheology:MartinBuber’sBiblicalCritique ofCarlSchmitt
CHARLESH.T.LESCH VanderbiltUniversity
ThisarticlerecoversMartinBuber’simportantbutneglectedcritiqueofCarlSchmitt’spolitical theology.BecauseBuberisknownprimarilyasanethicistandscholarofJudaism,hisattackon Schmitthasbeenlargelyoverlooked.YetasIrevealthroughaclosereadingofhisBiblical commentaries,aconcernaboutthedangersofpoliticaltheologythreadsthroughdecadesofhiswork. Divinesovereignty,Buberargues,isabsoluteandinimitable;nohumanrulercanclaimthelegitimatepower reservedtoGod.Buber’sresponseistouncoverwhatheseesasJudaism’searliestpoliticaltheory:a “theopolitics,” wherehumanbeings,mutuallysubjecttodivinekingship,practicenon-domination.But Buber,Ishow,didnotseektodirectlyrevivethisreligiousvision.Instead,hesoughttoincorporatethespirit oftheopolitics,asembodiedbyIsrael’sprophets,intomodernsociety.Theresultisanewandsigni ficant perspectiveonliberaldemocracyandpoliticaltheology.
“Underneaththenewformsoflivingofthepeople-becomesettled,whichplants figtrees,laysoutvineyards,builds towns,andlearnstotreasurethevalueofguaranteedsecurity, therepersiststheold,nomadicizingresistanceagainstthe dependencyofanautocraticmanandhisclan.”
MartinBuber, KingshipofGod([1936] 1967,161)
“Itsays(Exodus32:16): ‘Andthetabletsweretheworkof God,andthewritingwasGod’swriting,engravedonthe tablets’;readnot ‘engraved’ [harut]but ‘freedom’ [heirut].”
PirkeiAvot[EthicsoftheFathers] (6.2)1
Politicaltheology thestudyofhowtheological ideasintersectwithpolitics,law,ethics,and economics hastakenonnewurgency.For centuries,itwasexpectedthattheEnlightenment’s secularizingprocesseswoulddisenchantnature, rationalizesociety,andprivatizethe “sacred.” Yet “publicreligions” (Casanova 1994)continuetosway worldaffairs.TheWesternmodelofpluralism,toleration,andhumanrightsfacesgrowingpressurefrom movementswithmythologicalandreligiousundercurrents(Galston 2018;Muller 2016).Statesand extremistgroupsjustifyheinousactsofviolenceby recoursetotheologicaldoctrinesandapocalyptic expectations(McQueen 2018).Andwithinliberal
CharlesH.T.Lesch,AndrewW.MellonAssistantProfessorof PoliticalTheory,VanderbiltUniversity, charles.lesch@vanderbilt. edu.
Versionsofthisarticlewerepresentedattheannualmeetingsofthe AmericanPoliticalScienceAssociation,theAssociationforJewish Studies,andtheAssociationforIsraelStudies.Iamgratefultothe participantsintheseeventsfortheirquestionsandcritiques,and wouldliketoextendspecialthankstoNancyRosenblum,Peter Gordon,MichaelRosen,MichaelSandel,AspenElizabethBrinton, AlexanderLewisKaye,StevenKlein,andShaulMagidfortheir comments.Finally,IoweasignificantdebtofgratitudetoLeighJenco andthreeanonymous APSR reviewersfortheirinvaluableinsights andguidance.
Received:January9,2018;revised:March23,2018;accepted:August 21,2018.
1 AllHebrewtranslationsinthisarticle,asidefromBuber’s,aremy own.
democracies,signi ficantquestionshavearisenoverthe placeofreligiousdiscourseinthepublicsphere(Audi 2011;Eberle 2002;March 2009;Rawls[1999] 2002; Smith 2010;Stout 2004;Weithman 2006)andthefeasibilityofbuildingsocialsolidarityonpurelysecularand rationalfoundations(Habermas[2005] 2008;Lesch 2018, forthcoming).
Onewaytheoristshaverespondedtothesechallengesisbyturningtopoliticaltheology’smostprominent,andcontroversial,exponent:CarlSchmitt. “All signi ficantconceptsofthemoderntheoryofthestate,” Schmittfamouslywrote, “aresecularizedtheological concepts,notonlybecauseoftheirhistoricaldevelopment…butalsobecauseoftheirsystematicstructure” ([1922] 2005,36).Fromitsinception,Schmitt’stheory washighlyinfluentialbothwithinandbeyondthe Weimarintellectualscene.2 Thinkersasdiverseas WalterBenjamin,LeoStrauss,HansBlumenberg, JacobTaubes,andJacquesDerridaengagedwithhis ideas.Andtodayhisthoughtremainsinfluentialfora hostofsocial,legal,andnormativetheorists(Agamben [2003] 2005;Bockenforde 1976;deVries 2002;Esposito [2013] 2015;Kahn 2012;Kalyvas 2008;Lefort 2006; Mouffe 2000;PosnerandVermeule 2010;Reinhard etal. 2005;Santner 2011).Yetbasicquestionsabout politicaltheologyremainunanswered.IsSchmittright thatapparentlysecularpoliticalideasandinstitutions aredeeplyentwinedwithreligion?Ifso,whatisthe natureofthisentanglement?Andevenifwereject Schmitt’scontroversialpoliticaltheory astateoverseenbyaquasi-divinesovereignandboundtogether byasolidarityofusversusthem mighttherestill besomethingtroublingabouthismethodofconceptualizingpoliticalideasviatheologicalones?
Inthisarticle,Iofferonewayofansweringthese questionsbyrecoveringanimportantbutoverlooked critiquefromoneofpoliticaltheology’searliestopponents:MartinBuber.Buberisalmostneverreadforhis politicaltheory,withmostinterpretersfocusinginstead onhisethicsof “I” and “Thou” andpioneeringworkon
2 Forstudiesofthisinfl uence,seeBalakrishnan( 2000),Dyzenhaus ( 1997),Kennedy( 2004 ),McCormick(1997),Muller( 2003),and Scheuerman( 1999).
Hasidiclifeandthought.3 Andheonlyrarelydiscusses Schmittdirectly.YetasIrevealthroughaclosereading ofBuber’scommentariesonJewishscripture,aconcern aboutthedangersofpoliticaltheologythreadsthrough decadesofhispublishedwork.Atthesametime,Buber doesnotmerelyimpresshisownagendaontoBiblical texts;hedrawsfromthemwhathebelievestobe Judaism’searliestandmostauthenticpoliticaltheory. Andwhathe findsistheconceptualantithesisof politicaltheology:a “theopolitics, ” wherehuman beings,mutuallysubjecttoGod’skingship,achievea formofnon-domination.4
ByrevealingthepoliticsimplicitinBuber’sscriptural hermeneutics,thisarticleaddsanewperspectiveto debatesonpoliticaltheology,Weimarpoliticalthought, Jewishpoliticaltheory,andthepoliticsoftheHebrew Bible.5 Moreover,Buberoffersinsightsintoanumber ofpressingissuesattheintersectionofreligionand politics,includingtheuseoftheologicalideastojustify politicalviolence,dilemmasofterritorialsovereignty, theinvocationofpoliticaltheologytocriticizeliberalism,andthepossibilityofreconcilingindividual non-dominationandcollectivesolidaritywithoutan enemy “other.” IndeedBuberbelievesthattheopolitics shouldspeaktoallpeople,atalltimes andperhapsto liberal-democraticcitizensmostofall.Againstall attemptstoprioritizethe “political,” heassertsthe ethical-religiousunityofallspheresofhumanaction. Andagainstthedrivetosecularizethefoundationsof humansociety,heaffi rmsthetrans-historicalvalueof theopolitics.HeoffersavantagefromwhichtochallengenotonlySchmitt’spolitics,butcertainusesof politicaltheologyincontemporarypoliticaltheory morebroadly.
Atthesametime,Buberwasnotareactionary;he doesnotarguefordirectlyrevivingtheopoliticstoday. Inprinciple,hedeniesthatanymerelyhumanpower canclaimnormativepoliticalauthority.Inpractice,he
3 Forimportantexceptionstothenon-politicalreadingofBuber,see Avnon(1993, 1998),Mendes-Flohr(1989, 2006, 2008),Novak(1985), Schwartz(2006),Schwarzschild(1990),Susser(1977, 1979, 1981),and Weltsch(1967).ForbiographicalinformationonBuber,seeAkiba (1985)andMaor(2016).
4 ItisthussurprisingthatBuberhasbeenlargelyoverlookedinrecent discussionsofpoliticaltheology.Seeforexamplethecollectionsbyde VriesandSullivan(2006),SchmidtandSchonfeld(2009),andKessler (2013).Forimportantexceptions,seeKaplan(2013),Lebovic(2008), Mendes-Flohr(2008),andSchmidt(2009).Morerecently,Yoav Schaefer(2017)haspersuasivelyproposedthatBuber’s Kingshipof God isindebtedtohisfriendGustavLandauer’sanarchism.Evenso, IcannotagreethatBuber “Soughttodresshispoliticalthoughtina theologicalgarb,therebyjustifyinghispreexistingpoliticalcommitmentsonreligiousandtextualgrounds” (243).OnthispointseeDan Avnon’sessentialbook(1998),whichdemonstratestheHebrew Bible’snormativecentralityinshapingBuber’sthought.
5 ForrecentworkonWeimarpoliticalthought,seeCaldwelland Scheuerman(2000),GordonandMcCormick(2013),Greenberg (2014),andKaplanandKoshar(2012).ForEnglish-languagecontributionstoJewishpoliticaltheoryandthepoliticsoftheHebrew Bible,seeBerman(2008),Cooper(2015, 2016),Elazar(1997),Gans (2016),HalbertalandHolmes(2017),Hammill(2012),Lesch(2014), Lorberbaum(2002),Melamed(2011),Nelson(2010),Novak(2005), Smith(1997),Walzer(2012),andWalzer,Lorberbaum,andZohar (2000–2018).
cautionsagainstrevolutionandteachesthenecessityof followingthestate’slaws.Ratherthanadvocatinga straightforwardreturntodivinekingship,Buberholds thatweshouldtransformourexistingsocietiesby incorporatingthe spirit oftheopolitics,asembodiedby ancientIsrael’sprophets,intomodernethics,politics, andsociety.
Buberwasnotasystematicthinker,andhedoesnot outlinehistheopoliticsinasingleplace.Consequently, therehasbeenatendencytoseemultiplicityratherthan unityinhiswritings.Manydivorcehisscripturalcommentariesfromhisworksofphilosophy;othersmistake histheopoliticsforaformofhierocracy,anarchism,or politicaltheology.YetasDanAvnonhasobserved, Biblicalexegesisisthe “heartofBuber’sphilosophy” (1998,47,cf.Amir 1988).6 Thusratherthanconfining myanalysistoonesubsetofBuber’stexts,Iassesshis philosophicalwritingsandBiblicalcommentaries together.Bubercomposed,researched,orplanned manyofthesecommentariesjustasSchmittwasrisingto prominenceinthe1920sand30s.7 Buber’s1936 KingshipofGod,whichIwillargueisthecenterpieceofhis critiqueofpoliticaltheology,wasoriginallyintendedto bethe firstinathree-volumeseriescalled TheBiblical Faith.Thoughhenevercompletedtheworkasplanned, hissubsequentbooks ToratHa-Nevi’im (retitledin Englishas ThePropheticFaith)and Moses,which appeared,respectively,in1944and1946,grewdirectly outofhisearlierresearchandconcerns.8 Andasan aspiringJewishacademicinWeimarGermany,he witnessed fi rsthandtheascentofaNazimovementthat Schmittenthusiasticallyendorsed.9
IbeginbyexaminingBuber’sphilosophicalcritique ofSchmitt,focusinginparticularonanessaythathe composedinthelate1930s.IthenuncoverBuber’s theopoliticalalternativethroughanextendedanalysis
6 AmongBuber’sgreatscholarlyaccomplishmentswasajoint translation,withFranzRosenzweig,oftheHebrewBibleinto German.Tellingly,hewritesthatamonghisintentionsasatranslator wastoopposethosewhowouldgrant “religioussanctiontoallthe violenceofthestate” andshowthatGod “demand[s]theshapingof societyonthebasisofbelief” ([1938] 1994,217).
7 ForanalysesofhowBuber’sthought fitsintobroaderJewishdebates overreligionandnationalism,seeBatnitsky(2011),Gordon(2003, 2007),Hazony(2000),Jacobson(2003),Lowy([1988] 1992),Luz ([1998] 2003),Pianko(2010),andRabinbach(1997).Forstudiesthat situateBuberintotheWeimarandearlyIsraeliphilosophicalmilieu, seeGordon(2013)andRosenhagen(2012).
8 InrecognitionofBuber’soriginalintentionto “treatOldTestament problemsinthatexactorderofsuccessioninwhichthetextpresents them” ([1936] 1967,13),myanalysisinthisarticlefollowstheBiblical chronologyratherthanthepublicationdatesofBuber’swritings.
9 SchmittnevercitesBuber,anditisnotconclusivelyknownwhether hereadhim.Nonetheless,itisknownthatSchmittcloselyreada reviewofBuber’s KingshipofGod (SchmittandFeuchtwanger 2007, 377–82).ThereisalsocircumstantialevidenceforSchmitt’sconnection toBuberviaLeoStrauss.In1932,Strausspennedacriticalsetof “Notes” onSchmitt’s ConceptofthePolitical ([1932] 2007).Sixyearslater, SchmittrespondedbycriticizingStrauss’ readingofSpinozaand referringtohimas “theJewishscholarLeoStrauss” ([1938] 2008,10). Notably,thisrhetoricallymirrorsBuber’sreferencetoSchmittin “The QuestiontotheSingleOne” asa “CatholicexponentofConstitutional Law” ([1936] 1957,73),suggestingthatSchmittmayhavesubsumed Buberintohisderogatoryimageofthe “Jewishscholar.”
ofhisscripturalcommentaries.Theopolitics,Buber argues,aroseasawaytotransplantpre-state Israel’s “nomadicethos”—itstotalrejectionofhuman power intosettledlife:Whenallpeoplearemutually dependentondivinerule,nonearedependenton merelyhumanrule.Butwhiletheopoliticswassuccessfulforatime,itwasalsoinherentlyunstable,leading totheadventofkingsandthesecularizationofpolitical life.Thisgaverisetotheprophets, figureswhovoicethe spiritoftheopoliticswhileacknowledgingtheinfeasibilityofitsdirectrealization.Itisaversionofthis propheticstance,Iconclude,thatBuberbelieveswe shouldadopttoday.Bydrainingoursocialrelationsof domination,wecometoact asif weliveunderdivine ruleinpractice.Andwhateverourintellectualstanceon theism,this,forBuber,isultimatelythepoint.
AGAINSTPOLITICALTHEOLOGY,FOR “RELIGIOUS” POLITICS
Schmitt’s(1922) PoliticalTheology centersaroundan analogybetweenGodandthehumansovereign:Justas avoluntaristdeitysustainstheuniverse’snaturallaws throughmiracles,sotooahumansovereignsustainsthe state’sjuridicallawsthroughinscrutableactsofwill.10
ThusagainstliberaltheoristslikeJohnLocke,ImmanuelKant,andhisGermancontemporaryHansKelsen, Schmittinsiststhatliberaljurisprudencecannotbea closedsystemwhoseedictshaveintrinsicnormativity andcorrespondtoatimelessreason([1922] 2005,14).11 Moreover,asSchmittwouldarguetenyearslaterin The ConceptofthePolitical ,onceanyrationalandnormativegroundsforlegalorderhavebeeneliminated,a people’sunifyingbondcanbeneitherrationalnor normative.Itmustbewilled.Schmittreferstothisway ofconstructingin-groupsolidarityas “thepolitical,” a wayofrelatingtoothersthatdividestheworldinto “friends” and “enemies” ([1932] 2007,26).Thusin contrasttoliberalism’s “artofseparation” (Walzer 1984),inwhichdifferentspheresofsociety thereligious,aesthetic,economic,legal,cultural,andscientific retainadegreeofautonomy,Schmitt’s “totalstate” subordinatesallrealmsofhumanexistencetopolitics ([1932] 2007,24–5,38,72).Andinthisway, “the political” provideshimwithwhatthesociologistDavid Martinhascalleda “secularmetaphysic”:Itreproduces forpoliticalsolidaritythemoralabsolutismofreligious faith(1978,90).
BuberrespondstoSchmittbyrejectingtheanalogical thinkingunderlyingpoliticaltheology, firstthrougha philosophicalcritique,andthenmoresubstantially throughanewreadingoftheHebrewBible.The “political,” Buberinsistsinhis1936essay “TheQuestion totheSingleOne,” appearsnotinmomentsofviolence
10 Thebook firstappearedin1922.Allmyreferencesaretothesecond edition,publishedin1934.
11 ForaninterpretationwhereSchmitt’spoliticaltheologyaimsnot merelytocreatean analogy betweenGodandthesovereignbutto actually ground politicalauthorityinrevelation,seeMeier([1998] 2011).
betweenfriendsandenemiesbutintheconcrete organizationofsocieties.Ithasnoexistentialmeaning. YetBuberneitherrejectsnorquarantinespolitics. Instead,heseeksoutanew,morallydefensibleconcept ofthepolitical,oneboundupinanorientationtowardthe worldthathecalls “religious” ([1936] 1957).
BubertakesSchmittseriouslynotonlyasaphilosophicalbuttheologicalopponent,arguingthat Schmitt’s “political ” canonlybeunderstoodinlightofa religiousinstitution:the “trialbycombat” or “duel” ([1936] 1957,73).12 Inaduel,theoutcome wholivesor dies isunderstoodtoreflectdivinewill;ineffect,the disputantsmakeGodintotheirjudge.Itispreciselythis logic,Buberargues,thatisatworkinSchmitt.Though Schmittusesthelanguageofsecularpoliticaltheory,his secretintentistoscaleupthe “trialbycombat” from interpersonalstrugglestothoseofstates. “Everyclassic duelisamasked ‘judgmentofGod,’” Buberwrites. “ThatiswhatSchmitt,carryingitovertotherelationof peoplestooneanother,callsthespecifi callypolitical” (ibid.,74).Thusthepoliticalisnotmerelyavitalist celebrationofviolence.Itisawholetheologyof bloodshed.Itlendswaradivinesanction.
Buberoffersthreeargumentsinresponse,which, takentogether,pointtowardanalternativeconceptof thepolitical.His firstismethodological.Schmittholds thatthespecificallypoliticalappearsattimesof “the mostintenseandextremeantagonism” betweenfoes ([1932] 2007,29).Inthosemoments,con flicthasitsown meaning;itisirreducibletoanyreason,value,orjusti fication.ForBubersuchaviewisunworkable.It suggestssomethingabsurd:thatpoliticsonlytrulyexists “intimesinwhichthecommonlifeisthreatened,notin timesinwhichitexperiencesitsstabilityasself-evident andassured” (Buber[1936] 1957,74).Schmitt,inother words,wouldreducepoliticstotransientperiodsofwar andemergency.AccordingtoBuber,bycontrast,the truesiteofthepoliticalmustbefoundinwhatis “lasting” (74).
Second,BuberarguesthatSchmitt’stheorysuffers fromaninternalcontradiction.Thepoliticalmanifests instrugglesbetween “friends” and “enemies,” which Schmittnotesmaybe “domestic” and “internal,” asfor examplerebelsincivilwar([1932] 2007,46–7).Yetas Buberpointsout,rebelsgenerallyseektotransform,not dissolve,theirstate.Andifthatisthecase,thenthere mustbeconcretepolitical structures and institutions overwhichtheconflictisbeingfought([1936]1957,74). ThusbySchmitt’sowncriteria,itcannotbethatthe politicalisdefi nedbyconflictalone.Itmustrefl ect somethingmorepermanent.
Finally,Bubertakesaimatthefriend–enemydistinctionitself.Schmitthadarrivedatthisideaby comparingitwithotheroppositionalpairs: “beauty” and “ugliness” inaesthetics, “good” and “evil” in morality,andsoforth([1932] 2007,26–7).Butwhat
12 Onfacethismayseemsurprising.Schmittdevelopshisconceptof politicaltheologyviaananalogytothedeity;butinexpoundingthe “political,” hemakesalmostnoreferencetotheology,donninginstead therealistmantleofMachiavelliandHobbes([1932] 2007,58–68).For Buber,however,thisprofanediscourseismerelyaruse.
Schmittfailedtorecognize,Buberargues,isthateachof thesepairingsactuallyimpliesyet another pairofconcepts.Behindthebeautiful–uglydistinction,forexample, isacontrastbetween “form” and “formlessness.” Sotoo withthepolitical.Enemiesandfriendsdonot fightover nothing;theirhostilitytakesplaceagainstamorefundamentaljuxtapositionbetween “order” and “absence oforder.” 13 Thusitisonlywhenachallengearisesto whatpoliticallifeshouldlooklikethatan “enemy” emerges.Anditisthis “dynamicoforder” thatisthe “real principleofthepolitical” (Buber[1936] 1957,75).
Buberconcludesbyreturningtothereligiousplane andattackingSchmitt’s “theologicalassociate” FriedrichGogarten,animportantscholarofreligioninthe firsthalfofthetwentiethcenturyandoneofthe founders,alongwithKarlBarth,of “dialecticaltheology.”14 Gogarten,Buberargues,wascorrecttoreject thereligiousindividualismofthinkerslikeSøren Kierkegaard.Whereheerredwasbyadoptingthe opposite,collectivistextreme:that “theethicalisvalidas theethicalonlybyitsconnectiontoman’spoliticalbeing” (ibid.,76).ForBuber,suchaperspectiveabdicates individualmoralresponsibility.Ifourdecisionsreceive theirmeaningsolelyfrompoliticalinterests,wecannot distinguishbetweenthestate’sgoodandthemoralgood inabroadersense.Thusalthough “Gogartenmayspeak intheologicalterms,” Bubercontends,hegivesfreereign toaMachiavellianmentality(76).Helendsreligious imprimaturtoSchmitt’scelebrationofviolence.
Buber’salternativetoSchmitt’spoliticalisanewbut equallyall-encompassingethos:the “religious.” To beginwith,thereligiousisnotmerelyoneWeberian sphereofvalueamongmany;itpotentiallyinterpenetratesallofthem. “Ifcommunallifewereparceled outintoindependentrealms,oneofwhichis ‘thespirituallife,’” Buberhadwrittenin IandThou,thiswould “robthespiritcompletelyofreality” ([1923] 1958, 50–1).Agenuinely “religious” person,therefore,cannotliveadouble(ortriple)life.Shecannotbeacaring motherintheevening,aback-stabbingpoliticianinthe morning,andanapatheticconsumerintheafternoon. Whileshecanperformmanyroles,allofthemmustbe informedbythesamewellspringofvalue.Atthesame time,thereligiousisnotanti-political.Politics,Buber
13 WithoutcitingSchmittexplicitly,Buberoffersasimilarcritiquein hislaterwork PointingtheWay.Inanalmostdirectquotefrom Schmitt’s ConceptofthePolitical,hereferstothosewho “definedthe conceptofthepoliticalsothateverythingdisposeditselfwithinit accordingtothecriterion ‘friend–enemy,’ inwhichtheconceptof enemyincludes ‘thepossibilityofphysicalkilling’” (1957,216).
14 “Dialecticaltheology,” alsoknownas “neo-orthodoxy” or “crisis theology,” emergedaftertheFirstWorldWarasareactionagainstthe liberaltheologyofthenineteenthcentury.Thoseassociatedwiththe movement,includingEduardThurneysen,RudolfBultmann,Emil Brunner,ReginaldH.Fuller,inadditiontoBarthandGogarten, stressedrevelationagainstnaturaltheology;divinetranscendence againstimmanence;andtheradical,intractableevilofhumannature andsotheneedforGod’sgrace.Theywerealsofrequentlydrawnto Kierkegaard’sexistentialism.SeeGordon(2013).AsBuber’scritique ofSchmittiscouchedwithinacritiqueofKierkegaard,itisunsurprisingthatBuberconnectedSchmitttoGogarten.Andindeed, SchmitthimselfwaspartlyindebtedtoKierkegaardforhisconceptof the “exception” ([1922] 2005,15).
insists,shouldneitherberejectednorsequestered fromotherpartsofhumanlife;itshouldbemorally transformedandredeemed. 15 Thusinasense,what Buberarticulatesisakindofinvertedrenderingof politicaltheology:WhileSchmitt ’ s “ totalstate ” isone that “ nolongerknowsanythingabsolutelynonpolitical, ” Buber ’ sidealpolityisonethatnolonger knowsanythingabsolutelynon- “ religious. ”“ Ifethicalproblemsreceivetheirrelevancefromthe politicalrealm, ” Buberwrites, “ theycannotalso receivethemfromthereligious,noteven[asinthe caseofGogarten]ifthepoliticalhasareligiousbasis ” ([1936] 1957 ,76).
Yetbywhatmeanscanpoliticallifebeneither sequesterednorabandonedbutstillinfusedwithamoral ethos?Whatdoesthis “religious” orientationlooklike? Inplaces,Buberseemstoanswerinasociologicalkey. “Tothepoliticalsphere,” hewritesinalateressayon community, “therewasalwaysopposedtheorganic, functionallyorganizedsocietyassuch,agreatsociety builtofvarioussocieties” ([1949] 1958,131).16 But atothertimes,hehintsatadifferentanddeeperstrain: “ThereisnoseparatesphereofethicsinJudaism” (1946,9).Orasheputsitinhisbook Moses: “The traditionofthepyramidfacesthatofthecampfire” ([1946] 1965,28).
THEPYRAMIDANDTHECAMPFIRE
In Moses, firstpublishedin1946,Buberdevelopshis “religious” politicsbycontrastingIsrael’snomadic ethos anardenthostilitytodependenceonthewillof others withthedespotismoftheEgyptianstate.The BookofExodusteachesthat “TheLordmakesadistinctionbetweenEgyptandIsrael” (11:7).ForBuber, thisisnotmerelyadifferenceinculturebutadeep contrastinvaluesandorientation.Egyptrepresentsthe summitofcentralizedandcoercivecivilization.Having subduedtheNileanditspopulace,theEgyptianstate exhibiteditstotaldominationthroughmonumental architecture: “Asthepyramidculminatesinitsapex,so theEgyptianstateculminatesofalmostmathematical necessityintheCrown,the ‘red flame’,whichis addressedinthepyramidtextsaslivingGodhead”
15 Ananti-politicalroutewascertainlyavailabletoBuber.Following hiscontemporaryWalterBenjamin,hecouldhavewashedhishandsof theinstrumentalismofpoliticalactionandthecoercionofjuridical order,valorizinginsteadapurer “ethical” sphere(Lesch 2014).Yet Buber firmlyrejectsthispossibility.Anti-politics,heinsists,amounts tolittlemorethanasecularizedversionofPauline-Christianrenunciation,reinforcinganartificialdualismbetween “truthandreality, ideaandfact,moralityandpolitics” (1967,126).SeealsoYanivFeller (2013),whohaspersuasivelyarguedthatBuber’sembraceofdivine kingshipshouldbeunderstoodintermsofhisoppositionto Gnosticism.
16 Buber’scritiqueofSchmittundoubtedlyinformedhisgeneral aversiontostatesovereignty,centralizedpoliticalcontrol,and “nationalideologywhichmakesthenationanendinitself,” sentimentswhichbegintoappearinhiswritingsintheearly1920s([1921] 1983,54).ForarecentviewwhichunderstandsBuber’sthoughtas beingmoreconducivetonationalism,seeRam(2015).
([1946] 1965,21).ThepyramidforBuberthussymbolizesaperfectlyrealizedpoliticaltheology,a Schmittian “totalstate.” Allpartsofthesocietyare subordinatedtoitsinterest,embodiedinthepersonof thepharaoh;anditisfromthisinterestalonethatthey derivetheirvalueandmeaning: “Inthelastresort everybodyreceivedfromtheKingthefunctionwhich madehimaman” (21).
AgainstEgypt’sdomineeringconceptofthepolitical, nomadicIsraelofferedanemancipatedalternative. Historically,nomadsrepresentedaphysicalhazardto thestate,persistinginthehinterlandsbeyondthereach ofitslaws.YetasthepoliticalscientistJamesScott (2009)hasshown,theirmoreprofoundthreatwastoits governingideology.Byrefusingtoacceptanykindof structuredhierarchy,and flourishingnonetheless, nomadswerelivingrefutationsofthestate’sHobbesian insistencethatfreedomfromviolencerequirestotal domination.ThusforEgyptandotherancientcivilizations,thenomadwasa figureofbothfearanddesire. BuberquoteswithfondnessaSumerianhymnthat speaksoftheone “whoknowsnosubmission…whohas nohouseinhislifetime,” aswellasanEgyptiansource thatrefersto “themiserablestranger Hedoesnot dwellinthesamespot,hisfeetarealwayswandering. FromthedaysofHorus[thatis,fromthemostancient past]hebattles,hedoesnotconquer,andisnot conquered” ([1946] 1965,25).
Itisthisintensenomadicantipathytodependenceon humanwill,Buberargues,thatAbrahamandhis descendantsinherited,linkinglifeunderarbitrary authoritytothemostprofoundunhappiness.Indeed suchadeepplacedidthenomadicethoscarveoutin Israel’scollectivememory,Bubernotes,thatitsurfaces evenintheritual agricultural offering,the first-fruits prayerinDeuteronomy: “Myfatherwasawandering Aramean…” (26:5).Thusbythetimeitbeginsits sojourninEgypt,embryonic-Israelhasacquireda visceralaversiontoanypoliticalsystemrootedin domination,anideawhichinformshowBuberunderstandsMoses’ yearsasashepherdinMidian.Onlyby leavingEgyptcouldMosesrecoverthenomadicethos thatIsraelhadlostthroughitslongyearsofslavery: “A manoftheenslavednation,buttheonlyonenot enslavedtogetherwiththem,hadreturnedtothefree andkeenairofhisforbearers” ([1946] 1965,38).17
Inthistask,however,Mosesencountersaproblem. Nomadicsocieties small,insular,unitedbyblood permita “fluid” non-dominationtocoexistwitha “strong collectivesolidarity” (28).Butwhathappensinsettled life?TheIsraelitesmightbeabletosustainanomadic ethosthroughtheirSinaijourneys.Yettheirdestinyisnot tomigrateaspastoralistsbuttosettleasfarmers;notto wanderforeverinthewildernessbuttoinheritaland flowingwithmilkandhoney.Andofcoursethisisnot merelyIsrael’schallenge.Itreflectsageneralproblem: Howcanthenomadicethosbereproducedin
17 BuberthusdivergessharplyfromSigmundFreud,whoinhisown bookonMoses(pennedonlysevenyearsearlier),depictedIsrael’s prophetasanEgyptianthroughandthrough,theleaderofafaction supportingtheproto-monotheisticpharaohAkhenaten([1939] 1967).
civilization?Bywhatmeanscanitsskepticismabout humanauthorityanditsinsistenceonfreedomfrom domination findaplaceinsettledhumansocieties,suffusedastheyarewitheconomicexploitation,social hierarchy,andvastdisparitiesofpower?Buberoffershis answer—“theopolitics”—in KingshipofGod
THEOPOLITICSANDTHEKINGSHIPOFGOD
BysubjectingthemselvestoGod’sexclusivekingship, Buberargues,thenascentJewishpeopleuncovereda novelmeansofrealizingnon-domination:Whenall humanbeingsarefullydependentonGod’swill,no humanbeingisdependentonmerelyhumanwill.And suchanorientation,Buberinsists,constitutesnota rejectionofpoliticsbuta “theopolitics.”18 Thistheopolitics,Iwillnowshow,isBuber’s “religious” alternativetoSchmitt’spolitical.Byinvertingpolitical theology,itextendsthenomadicethosintosettled civilization.
Kingship,whichlikeBuber’scritiqueofSchmittin “TheQuestiontotheSingleOne” appearedin1936,is writtenintheformalandscholarlymodeofWeimar academia,butBuber’snormativeaimsshowthroughin hismethodology.The “historicalfacts” behindBiblical happenings,hewrites,arelessimportantthanthe experienceofparticipants their “innertruth” (1967, 117).ForonlyifancientIsraelitesexperiencedthemselvesasactuallylivingunderdivinerule notasa metaphororideal,butinconcretecognitiveandemotionalfact couldsomethingofthisexperiencebe conceptualized,recovered,andrepurposed.Buber’s approach,therefore,istopeelbackthelayersofthetext, to find,concealedbeneathstrataofredaction,editorializing,andideologicalsediment,the “spontaneous forms,notdependentuponinstructions,ofapopular preservationbywordofmouthof ‘historical ’ events” ([1946] 1965,15).
Hiscore findingisthis:Forasubstantialperiodduring theirearlyhistory,theIsraelitesexperiencedGodas theirking.Ofcourse,theideaofthedeityas “king” is hardlynew,somethingBuberacknowledges.Yetinhis formulation,ittakesonashapethatisbothradicaland uncanny.Tobeginwith,Buberarguesthatdivinerulein ancientIsraelwasunderstoodtobeexclusiveanddirect. NoonewaspermittedtoserveasGod’sintermediary; nonecouldshareinGod’ssovereignty: “‘Youshallbe forMeakinglydomain’ , ‘therewastheninJ’shuruna King,’” Buberwrites,citingExodusandDeuteronomy respectively, “Thisis exclusive proclamationalsowith respecttoasecularlordship:theLorddoesnotwant, liketheotherkinglygods,tobesovereignandguarantor ofahumanmonarch.HewantsHimselftobetheLeader andthePrince” ([1936] 1967,136).
18 In ThePropheticFaith,Buberdefinestheopoliticsas “aspecialkind ofpolitics whichisconcernedtoestablishacertainpeopleinacertain historicalsituationunderdivinesovereignty,sothatthispeopleis broughtnearerthefulfillmentofitstask,tobecomethebeginningof thekingdomofGod” ([1944] 1960,135).
Buber’sunusualHebrewtranslationhere,where “mamlekhetkohanim, ” usually “kingdomofpriests,” is renderedinsteadas “kinglydomain,” pointstoasecond aspectofhisthesis:God’skingshipwasnotunderstood atallinametaphoricalsense.19 Todescribethedeityas “king” isusuallyintendedasa figurativeshorthandfor itsroleaslaw-giver,judge,andcosmologicalarchitect. Ahumanking,bycontrast,sitsonathrone,hearsout disputes,andleadshistroopsinbattle.Thoughelevated fromhispeople,hedwellsamongthem,something commonlyassumedtobebeneathamonotheisticcreator-God(cf.Harvey 2009).Andyetthis,Bubercontends,wasexactlyhowancientIsraelunderstooddivine rule,thatis,as “kingshipofGod”:
[By] ‘king’ Imeanpreciselythe ‘primitive’ melekh [king] whichtheeldersofIsraelmeanwhenthey(ISamuel8:19ff) demandaking….Forthushadtheyexperiencedit:Godhad dispensedjusticeforthem,Hehadgoneonbeforethemand hadfoughttheirbattle,the melekh ofanoriginalearly period([1936] 1967,25).
God’sthronewasthearkofthecovenantandHispalace thetentofmeeting.WhenIsraeltraveled,God’stentpalacetraveledwiththem.WhenIsraelmadewar, God’sark-thronewasbroughttothefrontlines.The deity,Buberthusinsists,wasthenation’sking[melekh] ineverysenseoftheword:itscounselor,decisionmaker,arbiter,and fieldmarshal(ibid.,102).20
Thisleadstothe finalandmostcriticalimplicationof divinekingshipforBuber:itspolitics orrather,theopolitics.God’srule,hestresses,wasexperiencedasa palpablepartofIsraelitepsychology.But andcritically thisdidnotprecipitateaquietistturnawayfrom politicallife.Onthecontrary,preciselybecauseGod’s sovereigntywasthoughttoextendintoeveryhuman domain,politics,toowasunderstoodtobealegitimate formof “religious” expression. “Thereisin…[premonarchic]Israelnoexternalityofruler-ship,” Buber writes,adding “forthereisnopoliticalsphereexceptthe theo-political” (136).
Inthisway,Buberiscarefultopreemptthetendencyof MichaelWalzer(2012)andotherstoreadananti-political messageintoHebrewscripture.Ethicsandpoliticsare bestunderstoodnotasopposingvaluespheresbutas differentmanifestationsofaunifi edefforttowork throughtheimplicationsofdivinerule:
Wemaycharacterizethedomain,inwhichthe individual as suchseekstodealseriouslyinvitalfashionwith theexclusiveness[ofGod’ssovereignty],astheethical Thesameisvalidforthe people withrespecttopolitics.The strivingtohavetheentiretyofitslifeconstructedoutofits
19 ThepassageinquestionisExodus19:6.Buber’stranslationisselfconscious,ashemakesthesametranslationearlierinthebook([1936] 1967,37).
20 AgainstthechargethatdirecttheocracywasnotuniquetoIsraelin theancientworld,Bubersurveysthereligiouspracticesofits neighbors,arguingthatwhileothernationsalsoregardedtheirgodsas “kings,” theyconfinedtheirruletotheheavens,leavingpoliticsto humanrulers([1936] 1967,86,92).
relationtothedivinecanbeactualizedbyapeople([1936] 1967,118–9,emphasismine).
Ifpoliticsreferstothecollectiveaffairsofapeople,the premonarchialIsraelitespracticedpolitics.Theyconqueredterritoryandbuiltcities;theylivedunderlaws andredistributedwealth.Theyembodied “atendency towardactualizationwhichcanbenootherthana politicalone” (ibid.,118).Thattheydidsounderdivine sovereigntyinnowaydetractsfromtheirpolitical character.Inthissense,Buber’stargetissimultaneously PaulineChristianityandWeber’sdivisionofvalue spheres.TheGodofIsrael,hewrites, “isnotcontentto be ‘God’ inthereligioussense.Hedoesnotwantto surrendertoamanthatwhichisnot ‘God’s’….He makesknownHiswill fi rstofallasconstitution not constitutionofcultandcustomonly,alsoofeconomy andsociety.” Havingmadethisveiledreferenceto EconomyandSociety,Weber’smagnumopus,Buber concludeshisanalysiswitha finalshotathispredecessor: “Theseparationofreligionandpoliticswhich stretchesthroughhistoryishereovercome ” (119).
Herewearriveattheopolitics’ foremostcontribution: transposingthenomadicethosintosettledlife.Forthe nomad,thereisnogreaterslaverythandependenceon another’sarbitrarywill.Anditispreciselyfreedomfrom dependencethattheopoliticsachieves.Humanbeings, bymakingthemselvesmutuallyandfullydependenton God,becomemutuallyandfullyindependentofone another.Thuscounterintuitively,itwaspreciselythe Israelites’ extremeallergytodominationthatledthem toembraceabsolutedivinerule: “[The]intractableness ofthehumanperson,thedriveofmantobeindependentofman,butforthesakeofahighestcommitment,alreadyappearsintheSinaicovenant” (138). Undersuchanarrangement,power,reservedtothe deity,cannotbeexploitedbymenfortheirownaims. Andwhenpower is exercised,itisunderstoodashaving beendonesobyGodintheformofdivinelaw.Itsuseis notinterpretedasarbitrary.21
Atthesametime,theopoliticstamesandchannelsan anarchictendencywithinnomadismthatisnotonly antinomian,butantisocial:
Thejustlawofthejust Melekh [King,i.e.,God]istherein ordertobanishthedangerof ‘Bedouin’ anarchy,which threatensallfreedomwithGod.Theunrestrainedinstinct ofindependenceoftheSemiticnomads,whodonotwishto permitanybodytoriseabovethemandtoimposehiswill uponthem, findsitssatisfactioninthethoughtthatallthe ChildrenofIsraelarerequiredtostandinthesamedirect relationtotheLord;butitachievesrestraintthroughthe factthattheLordhimselfisthepromulgatorandguardian ofthelaw([1946] 1965,108).
21 Buberanticipatesandrespondsatlengthtotheobjectionthat rulershipbyGod(theocracy)isinpracticerulershipbyapriestlyclass (whathe,followingWeber,calls “hierocracy”).Hisargumenthinges onhisconceptofcharismaticleadership.Unlikeaking,whose authorityisupheldviadirectrelationsofdomination,thecharismatic individual’sauthorityisnon-coercive,derivingsolelyfromhisability topersuadethepeoplethathehasaspecialcommissiontospeakfor God([1936] 1967,139–41).
Forapeoplethathasjointlyandequallyacceptedthe “ yoke” ofGod ’skingship,divinelaw’ scoerciveforceis notrecognized as coercion([1944] 1960 ,99).Yetthe result,Buberinsists,isnotanarchy, “ notanegative freedom,adisorderlylawlessness, ” buta “ fi rm,bold standingundertheoneauthority ” ([1936] 1967,25).
THEOPOLITICS’ ACHIEVEMENTSANDLIMITS
Throughouthisscripturalcommentaries,Buberillustrateshowtheopoliticsinfusedtheinstitutionsandethos ofIsraelitesociety.Heconcludes,however,bystressing itsintrinsiclimitations.
BuberofferstwoexamplesofhowtheopoliticsshapedIsrael’sinstitutions:theSabbaticalyear[Shmita] andtheJubilee[Yovel].TheSabbaticalextendsthe logicoftheSabbath[Shabbat]fromcommunaltoterritoriallife.Justashumanbeingsrestonedayoutof seven,thelandofIsraelitselfismadeto “rest” oneyear outofseven.Proactivecultivationofthesoilis prohibited,andaspecialholiness thatis, kedushah, orthestatusofbeing “separated” or “reserved” for God attachestoanyproducethatdoesgrow.The Jubilee,inturn,broadensthelogicoftheSabbaticalfrom yearstodecades:AttheconclusionofsevenSabbaticals, thelandnotonlyrestsbutalsoisrestoredtoitsoriginal holders.
Ononelevel,theSabbaticalandJubileeforBuberare primarilysymbolicinstitutions.Foranagricultural societysubjecttofamines,neglectinganentireyear’s croprequiresrealfaithinthedeity’scontrolofnature. Andbypublicallypromulgatingthe “postulatethatGod ownsalltheland,” itbuildsconfidenceinthe “realand directruleofGod” ([1946]1965,179).
Yetonanotherlevel,Bubernotes,theseinstitutionsproducedatangibleyield:Asthe fi ftiethyear begins,allslavesarefreed.Slavery,ofcourse,isthe nomad ’ snightmare,atotaldependenceonthearbitrarywillofanother.WhatboththeSabbaticalandthe Jubileeoffer,therefore,i snotonlyatokenreminder ofGod ’ skingshipbutaconcreteexpressionofits power:Areturntoaconditionofnon-domination betweenmanandman.People,thesepracticesinsist, “ oughtnottothrustoneanotheraside,theyoughtnot toimpoverishoneanotherp ermanentlyorenslave oneanother. ” Theyshouldbemade “ freeandequal againandagain,astheywereatthebeginning ” (181). AndsotheSabbaticalcycleseffectivelyfurnisha “ renewaloftheCovenant ” bothinsymboland sociopoliticalsubstance(179).Notonlytheagriculturalproducebutalsothenationalcommunityasa wholebecomes “ reserved ” forGod a “ HolyPeople ” [ GoyKadosh ](181).
Buberfurtherelicitstheopolitics’ institutionalform viaacontrastwithitsancientcounterpart:theGreek polis.Hebeginsmagnanimously,referringtothe polis as “antiquity’smostbeautifulcreation” (1967,115).Yet wesoonseethatthiscomplimentisactuallyaslur.The polis,hecontinues,acquireditsbeautyonlythroughthe mindsofmodernphilosophers;insearchofutopia,they fabricatedanaestheticidealbeliedbyhistoricalfact.
Whatispresentedasamodelofequalityanddemocracy wasactuallyadeeplyunequalsociety,onewhoseway oflifedependedonavastslavery(115–16).22 And whiletheslavesweresometimesfreed,thiswasdone “occasionallyandtemporarily,superficiallyand imperfectly,” onlytobe “revokedbyforcethrough politicalupheavals.” Buber’sintendedcontrastisclear. WhereinancientIsraelthelawcodifi ed “theideaof rhythmicadjustment” insocio-economicstatus,inthe polis we find “legalstatics…interruptedonlybyoccasionalcrises.” WheretheTorah’scentral “socialconcept” istheequalityofallhumanbeingsunderGod, Greekphilosophypreachesa “radicalinequality.” And whereJudaism’swatchwordsarekindness[hesed], righteousness[tzedakah],andjustice[mishpat],in Greekthought “virtue” itselfwasatermreserved “solelyforthearistocrats,thatis,thewell-to-do” (116). 23
Buberlocatesthegreatestembodimentofthetheopoliticalspiritinthe figureofGideonfromtheBookof Judges.Judgesisanearlypropheticworkthatrecounts Israel’shistoryfollowingtheconquestofthelandbut priortothemonarchy.Itsnarrativefollowsacyclical pattern:thepeoplesin;theyarepunishedwithdefeat byforeigners;theyrepent;Godsendsacharismatic leader a “judge” [shofet] toleadtheminbattle;and thisjudge,havingvanquishedIsrael’senemies,relinquisheshisleadership,atwhichpointthecyclebegins again.Buber’sinterestinthetextstemsfromthislast stage.Historically,individualshaveoftenconverted theirsuccessasmilitaryleadersintopoliticalpower.Yet Israel’sjudgesrepeatedlydeclinedtotakethisstep. Theydidnotseekpower,andtheyrefusedtoacceptit whenoffered.24
WhatmakesGideon(ajudge)aspecial fi gurefor Buberisthatheframeshisrefusalinexplicitlytheopoliticalterms.Gideonisapproachedbythemasses
22 Thechargethatcertainthinkersromanticizedaspectsofthe polis fortheirowntheoreticalendsgoesbackatleasttoHegel,andhasalso beenleveledagainst(amongothers)FriedrichNietzsche,Martin Heidegger,andHannahArendt.ItisnotclearwhetherBuberhadany particulartargetinmind,orwassimplyreactingagainstwhathesawas aproblematictrend.
23 Ofcourse,Buber ’ sargumentisvulnerabletothesamecritique thathelevelsagainstthe polis :WhileboththeSabbaticaland Jubileeexistedonpaper,itisfa rfromclearhowconsistentlythey werepracticed.Thea uthorofChronicles,forexample,suggests onereasonfortheBabylonianexilewasIsrael ’ slengthynonobservanceoftheSa bbatical(36:20 –21).AndNehemiahrecords theIsraelitesrecommittingtobot htheSabbathandSabbatical(10: 29 –30,32).Atthesametime,Josephus,writinginthe fi rstcentury CE,notesthattheJewsinPalestinepracticedtheSabbatical(1999, 14:10.6).
24 Inhisessay “ManhigotSheba-Mikra [BiblicalLeadership]” ( 1964a,cf.2000),Buberidenti fi es fi veleadership “archetypes[avot hatzurot ]” (129)uniquetotheHebrewBible:thePatriarch, exempli fi edbyAbraham;afounder-type,exempli fi edbyMoses;the Judge,exempli fi edbyGideon;theKing,exemplifi edbyDavid;and theProphet(129 –132).Thequalitywhichuni fi esthese fi guresisnot simplytheirinclusioninscripture,buttheirelection “contrarytothe wayofnature[shelomiderekhhateva ], ” thefactthattheyriseto prominencedespitebeing “weak[halash]” andof “inferior[ nehut]” origin(126–127).Foranin-depthdiscussionseeAvnon( 1998, 88–97).
whoofferhimbothkingshipanddynasticrule: “ Rule overus,bothyouandyourson,andyourson ’ sson also ” (Judges8:22).At fi rst,Gideon ’ sreplysimply mirrorstherequest: “ Iwillnotruleoveryou,neither shallmysonruleoveryou. ” Butheconcludeswith whatamountstoarebuke: “ TheLordshallruleover you ” (8:23).ForBuber,thisstatementcapturesthe essenceofthetheopoliticalspirit: Kingshipitself ,as aninstitution,isreservedtoGodalone.Nohuman being,noworinthefuture,isentitledtodominion overanotherhumanbeing,fordominionitselfisa provinceofthedivine.Inthisway,Buberwrites,Gideon “darestodealseriouslywiththerulershipofGod” ([1936] 1967,59).His “No”—an “unconditionalNofor alltimeandhistoricalconditions”—concretizesthe “immediate,unmetaphorical,unlimitedlyreal” kingship ofGod(59,93).
Schmittisneverexplicitlycitedin Kingship.Butwhen thebookisreadthroughBuber’scritiquefrom “The QuestiontotheSingleOne,” his fingerprintsareallover thetext.Israelitetheocracy,Bubernotes,isoften presentedas “hierocracy,” rulenotbyGodbutapriestly class.Consequently,itisconceivedintermsexactly opposedtotheopolitics:Becausetheleaderclaims God’sauthority, “thepowerovermenisfundamentally atitsstrongest” (59).YetBuber,makingaveiledreferencetoSchmitt,insiststhatthisinterpretationis fundamentally fl awed,reflectingareadingofHebrew scripturein “thegripofpoliticaltheories” (25).Real theocracyispreciselytheoppositeofhierocracy,preciselytheinverseofpoliticaltheology.Inplaceofanallpowerfulsovereignmodeledonthedeityistheactual deitywhosepower,reservedtoitalone,neednever befelt.Inplaceofa “political” solidarityde finedby violenceisatheopoliticalonedefinedbypeaceful equality.Andinplaceofadependenceonthewillof otherhumanbeings monarchs,Pharaohs,landlords, andtaskmasters isatotaldependenceonthewillof Godthatisalsoatotalfreedomfrommen.ForBuber, therefore,Schmitt’spoliticaltheologyresemblesless theBible’smonotheismthanthepagandespotismson Israel’sborders eachonea “unionofpowerbetween godandman,” ledby “divinized” princesexercising absolutepowerovertheirpeople(89).
TheopoliticsisthusBuber ’ sanswertopolitical theology.Itisthealternative, “ religious ” politics hintedatbutneverspelledoutinhisattackonSchmitt in “ TheQuestiontotheSingleOne. ” Giventhatboth thatessayand Kingship appearedin1936,itissafeto assumethatBuberworkedonbothatthesametime. Anditisreasonabletobelievethathesawthetwo worksascomplementingeachanother:One,acritiqueofSchmittatthelevelo fphilosophy;theother,a critiqueatthelevelofBiblicalexegesis.Thusby joiningcollectivesolidaritytoindividualnondomination,hedrawsaroadmapforrealizingthe “ trueoriginalnomadfaith” eveninthemidstof settledcivilization([1944] 1960 ,43).Humanbeings, heinsists,arecapableoforganizingthemselvesunder adistinctlypoliticalformof “ rule ” (thatis, arche ,as opposedto a-arche or “ anarchy ” )withoutrelying onviolence.Indeedwheneverheinvokesthe
term “ anarchy ” in Kingship ,itisnotaspraisebut pejorative. 25
YetattheveryinstantthatheanswersSchmitt,Buber posesanotherdilemma.Theupshotofdivineruleisits counterintuitivecombinationoffreedomandsubmission:TotaldependenceonGodguaranteestotal non-dependenceonhumanbeings;the “morepurelyit occurs,thelessitwishestocompelobedience” ([1936] 1967,148).Butforexactlythisreason,Bubernotes,itis alsohighlyunstable.Lackingcoercion,itsefficacyrests entirelyonthevigoroustheopoliticalspiritofitsparticipants.Solongaseverypersonacts asif Godis sovereign,Godeffectively is sovereign;solongasdivine rulesustainsitselfinthought,itsustainsitselfinfact.But oncethetheopoliticalspiritfades,sotoodoesthe reluctancetodominate.Thusfortheunaffectedegoist, divineruleoffersnotacalltoequalitybutawayof escapingresponsibility.Indeedpreciselybecauseheis “sheltered” bytheopolitics’ prohibitiononhuman power,he fi ndshimselfafoxinhiscommunity’schicken coop:Hecanexploitwhomeverhewishes(148).
Buberthusconcludesthatdirectdivinekingship,for allofitspromise,ultimatelyfailsasaviablepolitical system.HissourceistheBookofJudgesitself.Switching fromanhistoricaltoasociologicalkey,hearguesthat althoughdivinerule “envisionsacommunityasvoluntariness,” infactit “degenerate[s]intoamoderately sanctioneddisorder” (148).Astheunbelievingegoists growinnumber,conflictsarise.Lackinga “unifiedand superiorearthlygovernment,” itbecomesimpossibleto “maintainorderandcivilization.” Israelis “plunged againandagainintoanarchy” (84).Andsothepeople, exhaustedbywar,theirfaithindivineleadership diminished, “rebelagainstthesituation.” Theytake whatforBuberisthemostpivotalstepinthehistoryof politicaltheory:Requesting andreceiving ahuman king(162).26
25 Buberexplicitlydistinguishestheopoliticsfromanarchismin describingtheconclusionofJudges,arguingthatrulershipofGod entailsan “order” whichanarchismexplicitlyrejects([1936] 1967, 83–4).Aswehaveseen,itwaspreciselydefiningthe “political” in termsof “order” thatgroundedBuber’sattacksonSchmittin “The QuestiontotheSingleOne” ([1936] 1957,74–5).Likewise,indiscussingtheJothamstoryinJudges,Buberarguesthatthenarrative “couldbeunderstoodanarchistically[anarchistisch]” only ifitwere read “independentlyoftheGideonpassage.” Thuswhileitsmessageis indeedthatitis “seditiousthatmenruleovermen,” itsalternativeis notthat “nooneneedstorule,” butthat “Godalone” shouldrule;nota “commonwealthwithoutgovernment,” buta “commonwealthfor whichaninvisiblegovernmentissufficient” ([1936] 1967,75).Seealso thepreviouslycitedpassagefrom Moses wherehecontrasts “thejust lawofthejust Melekh, ” with “thedangerof ‘Bedouin’ anarchy” ([1946] 1965,108).Forcontraryviews,seeGudopp(1975),Ratzabi (2011),andSusser(1981).
26 Likemanyscholars,BuberunderstandstheBookofJudgestobea redactionoftwobooks:Anolderanti-monarchicalworkandamore recentpro-monarchialwork,withthe finalproductreflectingan attemptatreconciliation.BasedonBuber’sstatedmethodology of unearthingthetext’s “popular” voice hecouldhavedismissedthe redactionasunreflectiveofthe “true” Israelitestandpoint.Yethe declinestotakethisstep,arguinginsteadthattheredactor’seffortwas anauthenticallyreligiousone:Deeplysympathetictothe spirit of directdivinekingshipwhileacknowledgingits practical failure([1936] 1967,83).
THESECULARIZATIONOFPOLITICS
Theopoliticsprovedimpossibletosustain.Wearyof incessantwar,theIsraelitesagainaskforahumanking. AndGod,recognizingachangeinthepeople’sspirit, grantsit.AsBuberarguesinhis 1944 book ThePropheticFaith,thismomentmarkedaworld-historical shiftnotonlyfortheJewishpeoplebutforpoliticsin general.Whenahumanbeingascendedthethronein Israel,itinstantlysecularizedpolitics,grantingita Weberiandisconnectfromotherhumandomains. Moreover,itsetintomotionaprocesswherebythose domains religion,aesthetics,morality,economics, andsociety eachacquiredautonomy.
Israel’srequestforakingisrepeatedand finally grantedintheFirstBookofSamuel.Thequestioniswhy. InJudges,Gideondeniesthepeople’sofferofthethrone inforcefulterms,adenialthatextendsnotonlytohimself andhisdescendants,butseeminglytoallofIsrael,forall time.InSamuel,thepeoplepetitiontheprophet,the prophetconsultswithGod,andGodimmediately approves.ButifGoddidnotchange,whatdid?
Theanswer,Buberargues,isthepeopleofIsrael,and inparticular,thestrengthoftheirtheopoliticalspirit.As they fleeEgypt,traversetheSinai,andconquerCanaan, theIsraelites,inBuber’sview,conceiveofthemselvesas livingunderdirectdivinerule.God’skingshippermeateseveryaspectoftheirlives.War,politics,economics,morality,andculticsacri fice:Allarewoven togetherthroughareligiousorientation.Asthey transitionintosettledlife,however,thisfeelingbegins tofade.Withoutthedivinepresencecontinuallyintheir midst God’spalace-tentandark-throne theIsraelitesgraduallyforgettheirdeity.Theirloyaltiesfracture. Foragriculturalfertility,theysacrificetothegodsofthe soil[baalim].Forfestivecelebration,theyconsortwith theirneighbor’sidols(Buber[1936] 1967,95–8).Tobe sure,theGodwhodeliveredthemfromEgyptian bondageretainstheirloyaltyinmomentsofcrisis in repellingforeignincursionsandpunishingtribalmisdeeds.AndHekeepsanaltaratShilohoverseenbya cultofloyalpriests.YetIsrael’sreligiousorientation undergoesaninvisiblebutprofoundtransformation. Previously,Godwasunderstoodasthesubjectof bindingobedienceandawellspringofindeclinable obligation.Divinewordwaslaw ateverymoment, andineveryhumansphere.Now,Godisregardedlike anyotherpagandeity:Asourcenotofresponsibilitybut ofpower,anobjectwhich,throughaproperlyworded incantationoranunblemishedoffering,canbepressed intoservice.God,inshort,isredefi nedas useful and useable.Heisrecognizedfor “hispowerofvictory,not hissovereignty” (1964b,751).
Itisinthiscontext,accordingtoBuber,thatIsrael’s requestforakingshouldbeunderstood.Withthedivine reducedtoitsutility,recognitionofitskingshipbecomes contingent,isolatedtothosespheresinwhichithas instrumentalvalue.Andsowhendeitycannolonger proveitsvalue whenIsraelsuffersdefeatinbattle,for example anewkingmustbefoundtoreplaceit(751).
“Listentothevoiceofthepeopleinallthattheysayto you,” Godsaystohisprophet, “Fortheyhavenot rejectedyou,buttheyhaverejectedme,thatIshould notbekingoverthem” (8:7).
Nonetheless,God’sansweralsohasanotherimplicationforBuber:Israel’skingswillberadicallydifferent fromthosetheworldhasknown.Theywillbekingsnot inplaceof,but under God(1964b,751–2).Intheancient NearEast,thekingwasasemi-divine figure.Regarded aseitherthedeity’sviceroyorakindofgodhimself,he heldabsoluteswayoverthehumanrealm.Heavenwas God’sdomain;theearthwashis([1936] 1967,86).What thismeantpracticallywasthathumankingswere thoughttolegitimatelyexercisecoercivepower.Even withoutdivinesanction,theycould fightbattles,force labor,andpunishcriminals.Nocheckexistedontheir authority.WhatGodimpliesbyapprovingthepeople’s request,forBuber,isthereforethatIsrael’skingsmust bedifferent.Thoughresponsibleforeconomicsand war capable,asSamuelwarnsthepeople,of “taking your fields” and “conscriptingyoursons”—theyareto conductstateaffairsmindfulofthedeity’sultimate dominion(Samuel8:14,8:16).Andwhilesharingthe titleof “king,” theirroleistobemorelikethatofa permanentjudge:Instrumentsofdivinewill,awarethat thepowertheywieldisnottheirown.Theyaretobe humankings,butinatheopoliticalspirit.
Itsuniquenessnotwithstanding,thisnovelapproach tokingshipcollapsedalmostassoonasitbegan.And whatitbequeathedtohistorywasnotanewmodelof humanrule,butaworld-historicalrupture:thesecularizationofpolitics.Inprinciple,themonarchywas meanttostrengthenIsrael’stheopoliticalspirit.In practice,itrenta fi ssureinitslifeworld,dividingthe politicalspherefromthereligious.
Buber’scentralexampleisSolomon.Fulfillinghis fatherDavid’spledge,SolomonbuildsatempletoGod inJerusalemanddeliversanorationdesignedto recommitthepeopletodivinelaw.Buttheaddress,while offeringastirringaffirmationofmonotheism—“Heis God,thereisnoother”—isequallynotableforwhatit leavesout:anyreferencetoGodas king (1Kings,8:60). And,asBubernotes,italsohasaconspicuouswayof referringtothedivine–humanrelationship.Deuteronomyenjoinseverypersonto “bewholewiththeLord yourGod” (18:13).Solomon,bycontrast,concludeshis orationwithsubtlydifferentappeal: “Letyour heart be wholewiththeLordourGod” (1Kings,8:61).ForBuber, thisshiftinemphasis fromtheselfinitsundivided entiretytotheheartalone presagesabroaderpsychologicalandinstitutionalrealignment:Amovement awayfromtheunityofallhumandomainsunderGod’s rulershipandtowardapluralityofvaluespheres,the “religious” and “political” inparticular.
Thusinadeepersense,whatSolomon’soration refl ectsisthedissipationofthetheopoliticalspirit. “Therealreadyblowshere,” Buberwrites, “theairofa politicallifeinwhichthe ruach [spirit]ofGodnolonger reigns [and]atimewhenthetemple-mountandthe
“Giveusakingtojudgeuslikeallthenations” the IsraelitespetitionSamuel.Sucharequest,thebiblical textinformsus, “displeases” him(Samuel8:6).Butin respondingtoSamuel’sconcerns,Godindicatesjust howfarIsraelhasstrayedfromthetheopoliticalspirit.
citadel-mount,religionandpolitics,areseparated” ([1936] 1967,117).Beforethemonarchy,Godrulesas the “soleownerofallland” andthe “solesovereignof thecommunity.” Withitsadvent,Godisdemoted, reassignedasafeudalchieftaininchargeof “spiritual ” and “religious” affairs.Althoughthedeityremainsin liturgytheLord, “creatorofheavenandearth,” His sovereigntyextendsnofurtherthanIsrael’shearts.It stopsshortofitspalacesandcitygates: “Thereisherean acknowledgmentoftheLordoftheheavensandthe Lordoftheculttoo,butthereremainsnoplaceforGod astheleaderofthepeople,andindeedSolomondidnot needthis.ThefunctionsoftheLordaretobereducedso thattheydonotbindtheking” ([1944] 1960,83).By doingthis,Buberargues,Solomonawardedavictoryto politicaltheologyandbeganthesecularizationofpolitics.Buthealsocreatedanopeningfortheprophetic stance.
THEPROPHETICSTANCE
Israel’sprophets,accordingtoBuber,voicethetheopoliticalspiritinthemidstofprofanepolitics.Theystress therealityofGod’skingshipandtheinauthenticityof politicaltheology.Andtheyserveasgadfliestobothking andpopulace,remindingtheformerthathispowerisnot trulyhisown,andthelatterthatnohumanbeingis entitledtodominateanother.Yettheadventofthe propheticstance,Buberemphasizes,representslessafall fromutopiathanaresponsetounavoidableloss. Andpreciselybecauseitispracticedundernonideal conditions,itofferswhathebelievestobeamodelfor ourowntime:Itkeepsalivethe “anarchicpsychic foundation[anarchischerSeelengrund]” oftheopolitics withoutinsisting dangerouslyandunfeasibly onits directrealization.
Theprophet’sfundamentalteachingisthe “undivided humanlife.” Tobarthedeityfrom any sphereofhuman activity,heproclaims,iswickedandidolatrous a rebellionagainstGod’skingship([1946]1965,199).And sohischargeistoreversethistrend,torealize “theunity ofreligiousandsociallifeinthecommunityofIsrael,” andsubstantiate “arulingbyGodthatshallnotbe culturallyrestrictedbutshallcomprehendtheentire existenceofthenation” (186).Heattemptstoreintegrate awarenessoftheTorah’sbasiccharge toseekkindness, righteousness,andjustice into “thewholelife,the wholecivilizationofpeople,economy,society,and state,” aswellasthe “wholeindividual,hisemotions,and hiswill hislifeathomeandinthemarketplace,inthe templeandinthepopularassembly” (1967,195–6).What heasksfor,inshort,isnotonlywholenessoftheheartbut oftheentirehumanbeing. “Theprophets,” Buberwrites, “neverdifferentiatebetweenthespiritualandthetemporal,betweentherealmofGodandtherealmofman. Forthem,therealmofGodisnothingmorethanthe realmofmanasitistobe” (119).
Yetincompletinghistask,theprophetconfrontsa formidableobstacle:Thecorruptingtendenciesof kingshipitself.Intheory,theIsraelitemonarch’spower isnothisown;hishandsaretiedbyGod’slaw;andhis
personisdemythologized,presentednotasademigod butahumanbeingthroughandthrough.Butoncein power,hetransgresseshislimitations.Withanarmyof soldiersdependentonhiscommand,heforgetshis dependenceonGod.Exercisingthepowertopunish,he takesnonoticeofthatpower’srealorigin.Andalthough hisarm,bearingaTorahscroll,isliterallyboundby divinestatute,heexperiencesnopenaltyforoverreaching.27 Thuswhilepayinglip-servicetotheinvisible God,intruthhedeifieshimself,testing,overstepping, andultimatelyannihilatingthelineseparatinghimfrom thepagankings. “Thepossessorsofpowerandproperty,” Bubernotes, “naturallyresistthedemandforthe integralfulfi llmentofdivinetruthandjustice;they thereforetrytolimittheserviceofGodtothesacral sphere,andinallotherspheresrecognizehisauthority merelybywordsandsymbols” (196).
Theprophet’srolevis- ` a-vistheking,therefore,isto continuallyaffirmGod’skingship,rejectpoliticaltheology,andsoinfusethekinghimselfwiththetheopoliticalspirit.Havingnopowerbuthisvoice,notitlebut hisname,andnoclaimtoauthoritybuthischarisma,he mustnonethelessfacedownthegreatestpowerinthe land.Andwhilehecannotchallengethemonarchyas such,hecanremindtheenthronedofwherereal kingshiplies: “TheLordisthetruevanguard,thetrue champion,thetrueleader,thetrueking.Thatisthe nabi [prophetic]attitude” (Buber 2000,134).Theprophet thusservesasanecessaryfoiltothemonarch.A relentlessgadfl ytohumanpower,hetakesonthe “commissionoftheLord’srepresentativewhichisnot ful filledbythekingsinIsrael” ([1944] 1960,67,cf. Avnon 1998,93).
Inthissense,theprophetalsoepitomizeswhatBuber, inhiswritingsonexistentialismandethicalphenomenology,holdstobeaninescapabletruthofthehuman condition:Apersonchoosesneitherhishour,norhis society,norhispolity.He findshimselfenmeshedin norms,economicstructures,socialdynamics,and politicalinstitutionsthathedidnotcreateandcannot fullyescape.Confrontedwiththisreality,peopleoften reactinoneoftwoways.A firstgroupembracesit.They celebratetheworldasitis,exultinitsfacticity,and reconcilethemselvestoitswaysandvalues.ToparaphraseHegel,theyrejoiceinthepresent,attuningtheir rationalitytoaccommodateitsgoverningrationality. Asecondgrouprevoltsagainstit.Findingtheirworlda siteofunpunishedinjusticeanduncheckedimmorality, theyturntheirbacks.Topreservethebeautyoftheir souls,theyretreatintoanti-politicalquietismorthought’s internalexile.
Buber’sprophettakesathirdpath. “Theprophets,” hewrites “donot fightthestateasstate,” butthe “state thatlacksadivine,aspiritualelement.” Becausethey
27 Deuteronomy(17:18–19)teachesthat “when[akingofIsrael]sits onthethroneofhiskingdom,hewillwriteforhimselfacopyofthis teaching[lit. “torah”]inabook Anditwillbewithhim,andhewill readinitallthedaysofhislife.” Fromthispassage,rabbinicthought inferredthateachkingofIsraelshouldwriteandkeepforhimselfa smallTorahscrollliterallyboundonhisarm.SeeforexampleMaimonides, MishnehTorah, HilchotMelachimu’Milchamot,3.1.
are “faithfultotheJewishconcept,theycannotdenythe worldasitexists,cannotturnawayfromit;theymust endeavortopermeateitwithspirit,thespiritoftrue community” (1967,118–9).Recognizingtheineluctabilityofhishour,theprophetneitherrefusesnor embracesit.Hetakesstockoftheworld,scrutinizesits flaws,andmeasuresitsneeds.Rejectingtheinevitability ofdomination,heseekstodiminishit onareal, objective,andstructurallevel inallhissocialroles. Andheacceptsitasatestandchallenge indeeda “higherformofchallenge” thananypossibleunder immediatedivinerule(1964b,735).Heembodiesthe theopoliticalspiritinapost-theopoliticalage.
PROPHETSINTHEPRESENT
“AndtheboyrantotellMosesandsaid: ‘EldadandMedad areprophesyinginthecamp!’/AndJoshuasonofNun, attendanttoMosesfromhisyouth,spokeoutandsaid, ‘My lordMoses,restrainthem!’/AndMosessaidtohim, ‘Areyou jealousformysake?WouldthatalltheLord’speoplewere prophets!”
HebrewBible,BookofNumbers (11:27–29)
ThisarticlehasofferedanewreadingofMartin Buber’spoliticalthought.ThoughBuberisnotoften readforhisinsightsaboutpolitics,runningthroughhis oeuvreisanoverlooked,original,andimportantcritiqueofpoliticaltheology.AndthoughBuberwasan unsystematicthinker,aclosereadingofhisscriptural commentariesrevealsthathefoundanalternativeinthe HebrewBible’searliestpoliticaltheory:thekingshipof God whathecalled “theopolitics.”
Asoriginallyconceived,theopoliticsisprincipledand uncompromising.Itteachesthatnohumanbeing,atany time,inanysphereofactivity,hastherighttomake anotherdependentonherwill.Theopolitics’ history, however,teachesthatthishasbeenunworkable.Ittells ofapeoplewhotriedtosustainaradicalegalitarianism, whocyclicallyfallowedtheir fieldsandfreedtheir slaves,thenbackslidintoidolatry,hadstretchesofreal success,butultimatelyfailed,succumbingtoegoistic defection,thecravingforsecurity,andtheall-toohumanneedforatangiblesemioticsofpolitical power.Ittellsofboththepromiseandparadoxofdirect divinerule:Thesamevoluntarinessthatguaranteesits freedomalsomakesituniquelyfragile.Itpersistsin practiceonlyaslongasitpersistsinitsadherents’ minds. Thesewerethecircumstances,Buberargues,thatgave risetohumankings.Andascendingalongsidethemwere theprophets.Theseindividualspromulgatedthetheopoliticalspiritwhileacceptingitsinstitutionalimpracticality;theyrefusedasidolatrousanycomparisonofGod andhumansovereignwhileaffirmingtherealityof worldlypower.Inconcludingthisarticle,Iwillarguethat itisthispropheticstance,withcertainmodifications,that Buberbelievesweshouldadoptinourowntime.
Tobeaprophetinthepresentrequireslivingindeep moraltension.Asamatterof normativeprinciple we affirmthatnopersonisentitledtomakeanotherperson dependentonherwill.Butasa practicalnecessity,we
acceptsuchformsofpower.Companymanagersneedto assignworktotheirsubordinates;militarycommanders needtoordertheirsoldiers;parentssometimesneedto say “no” totheirchildren.Ourtaskisthusnottoimpose theopolitics.AsBuberwritesofElijah, “heserveshis Godasanomad,buthehasnonomadicideal” ([1944] 1960,80).Ratherthanoverthrowthesecularstatewith themodernequivalentofdirectdivinerule(anarchy), wecriticizehumanauthorityineverysphereofactivity. Weprovideaclearandsteadyvoiceforthetheopolitical spirit,remindingpersonsandinstitutionsalikethatthey havenoinherentrighttopowerandofthewrongfulness ofdomination.Wecensureandchasten,rebukeand reprimand.This,Buberinsists,isthe “nabi [prophetic] attitude withorwithouttheapplicationoftheterm” (2000,134).
Ofcourse,thisisbynomeanstheextentofBuber’s politicalprogram.Hewrites,forexample,abouthow thestate’srolecanbegraduallyscaledbacktomake roomformoreorganicandspontaneousformsofsocial organization,likethekibbutz([1949] 1958,104,cf.40).28 Hedeeplyopposesallformsofimperialism,xenophobia,and “hypertrophic” nationalism([1921] 1983, cf.Gordon 2008).Moreover,heacknowledgesthat thereareimportantdifferencesbetweentheBiblical ageandourown.Israel’sprophetshadtocontendwith kingswho,intheirvastdominion,werealwaysindanger ofsuccumbingtoself-deification.Peopleinourtime mustvienotonlywithSchmittian “totalstates” butwith farmoredepersonalizedhierarchies:themarket’s “immutablelaws,” bureaucracy’srationalizingforces, andthefettersofinequality.AsBuberwrites,inaveiled referencetoWeber,such “dogmasofgradualprocess” implythatexploitationtodayisasimmutableasinpremodernity([1923] 1958,57).Theyleavenoroomforthe beliefthatdominationcanbediminished.
Yetdespitethesedifferences,Buberarguesthatour responsibilitytodayisessentiallythesame:Tovoicethe theopoliticalspiritinasocietythatalwaysrisksburying itbeneathlayersofdependence;torejectpolitical theologiesofallstripes;andtoreinforcethebeliefthat everyhumanbeing “isplacedinfreedom,andthatevery hourinwhichhe,inhiscurrentsituation,feelshimself addressedisanhourofgenuinedecision” (1967,219). Thuswhilewemaysuperficiallysustainthedistinction betweenvaluespheres,deepdownwebreathethetheopoliticalspirit. “Nofactoryandnooffi ceissoabandonedbycreation,” Buberwrites,thatitisinsulated fromthepossibilityofa “soberandbrotherlyglance,” fromanawarenessof “facesandnamesandbiographies,” fromthetreatmentofeachindividualnotasa “numberwithahumanmaskbutasaperson ” ([1929] 1957,37–8).Andasfoils,nottokings,buttonaturalizationsofallkinds,weconstantlyreaffi rmthebasic theopoliticalmessage:Thatinterpersonalexploitation isnotanecessity,butachoice;thattruefreedomisnot lordshipoverothers,butmutualnon-domination;and that “destinyisnotadomepressedtightlydownonthe
28 Seeespecially PathsinUtopia ([1949]1958).ForanalysesofBuber’s contemporarypolitics,seeAvnon(1998),Kohanski(1972),MendesFlohr(2006),andSusser(1979).
worldofmen,” butlivessharedtogetheringenuine solidarity([1923] 1958,57).
Inthisway,Buberalsogivesusavantagetoquestion contemporaryapplicationsofpoliticaltheologymore broadly.Whentheoriststodayinvoketheologicalideas, itisalmostnevertosupportSchmitt’sstatetheorybut rathertoadvanceemancipatoryandegalitarianaims antitheticaltohispolitics(Agamben[2011] 2013; Badiou 2003;Raschke 2015;Reinhard,Santner,and Zi ˇ zek 2005;Robbins 2011;Santner 2011).Indeeditis preciselythepromiseofharnessingthepowerofreligiousrhetoricwithoutitsaccompanyingmetaphysical commitmentsthathasmadepoliticaltheologyattractivetoawiderangeofpostmodernthinkersgraspingfor newsourcesofnormativity.Buber,seemingly,wouldbe sympathetictotheseefforts.Butasshouldnowbeplain, hisprojectdiffersfromthematitscore.Adoptingthe modeofpoliticaltheologyentailstheorizinganalogicallyfromreligion,assigningtheologicalconceptsto taskstraditionallyreservedformoralandpoliticalones: Thesovereign’spowerbecomeslikeGod’spower (Schmitt[1922] 2005);thestate’s “generalwill” becomeslikethedeity’s “generalwill” (Rousseau [1762] 2010);theAmericanpeople’spresenceinpolitics becomeslikethedivinepresence “hovering” overthe universe(deTocqueville[1835] 2000,1.1.4).Yetwhat BuberlearnedfrombothHebrewscriptureandrecent historyisthatweare not gods.Wearecreaturesin flesh andblood.Andneitherfreedomfromdominationnor solidaritywithotherscanbeachievedbyfeigning divinity.Thusinsteadofusingtheologicallanguageto supportpreconceivedideas,BuberlookstotheHebrew Bibletogroundhisnormativeviews.Hisconceptof theopoliticsarisesfromethicallyattentiveexegesis,not philosophicalrumination.Itrefl ectsanenduringlesson ofIsrael’snomadicethos:Thatourhope,intheend,lies notwiththephilosopher’spenorthesovereign’ssword, butinthehard,dailytaskofethicallife.Politicaltheory mayhelptoguidetheselabors;onlywecanworkfor theirsuccess.
InanearlyessayonHasidism,Buberobservesthat despitethemovement’sassociationwithmysticism,this “magicalelement” wasintruthperipheral.LikeIsrael’s prophets,its “old/newprinciple” wasprimarilypractical:TheabsenceofGod’s presence didnotentailthe endofGod’s meaning (1946,70).Hasidismrecognized thatwecannolongerrelyonmiraclesforsalvation.We musttakeresponsibilityforourowndestiny.29 Andyet whatHasidismalsoperceivedisthatourdestinyinan importantsense is God’sdestiny. “YouthinkIamfar awayfromyou,” saystheHasidicdeity,inBuber’s words, “butinyourloveforyourneighboryouwill fi nd Me” (1967,212).Whenwelivethespiritoftheopolitics inallourrelationships,weeffectivelyrestoreaconditionofdivinesovereignty(1946,70).Wedrainour socialrelationsofcoercion.WerealizeGod’spurpose withoutGod’spresence.Andthis,forBuber,isultimatelythepoint.
29 Inthisway,theHasidicmessageisforBuberarestatementofthe propheticone;it “completesandwidenstheancientteachingofIsrael” (1946,106).
REFERENCES
Agamben,Giorgio.(2003)2005. StateofException.TransKevinAttell Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress.
Agamben,Giorgio.(2011)2013. TheHighestPoverty.PaloAlto: StanfordUniversityPress. Akiba,ErnstSimon.1985. Ye ’ adim,Tzematim,Netivim [Aims –Junctures –Paths] .TelAviv:SifriatHapoalim[Hebrew]. Amir,Yehoshua.1988. “‘Emunahve’hitgalutetzelMordekhaiMartin Buber’ [‘FaithandRevelationintheWorkofMartinBuber’].” Bar–Ilan 22–23[Hebrew].
Audi,Robert.2011. ReligiousCommitmentandSecularReason Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Avnon,Dan.1993. “The ‘LivingCenter’ ofMartinBuber’sPolitical Theory.” PoliticalTheory 21(1):55–77.
Avnon,Dan.1998. MartinBuber:TheHiddenDialogue.NewYork: Rowman&Littlefield.
Badiou,Alain.2003. SaintPaul.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress. Balakrishnan,Gopal.2000. TheEnemy.London:Verso.
Batnitsky,Leora.2011. HowJudaismBecameaReligion.Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress. Berman,Joshua.2008. CreatedEqual.Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.
Bockenforde,Ernst-Wolfgang.1976. State,Society,andLiberty.New York:Berg.
Buber,Martin.(1921)1983. “Nationalism.” In ALandofTwo Peoples,ed.PaulMendes-Flohr.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 47–57.
Buber,Martin.(1923)1958. IandThou,trans.RonaldGregorSmith. NewYork:Scribners.
Buber,Martin.(1929)1957. “Dialogue.” In BetweenManandMan trans.RonaldGregorSmith.Boston:Beacon,1–21.
Buber,Martin.(1936)1957. “TheQuestiontotheSingleOne.” In BetweenManandMan,trans.RonaldGregorSmith.Boston:Beacon, 46–97.
Buber,Martin.(1936)1967. KingshipofGod.trans.RichardScheimann.NewYork:Harper&Row. Buber,Martin.(1938)1994. “TheHowandWhyofOurBible Translation.” In ScriptureandTranslation,ed.EverettFoxand LawrenceRosenwald.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress, 205–19.
Buber,Martin.(1944)1960. ThePropheticFaith,trans.Carlyle Witton-Davies.NewYork:Harper.
Buber,Martin.1946. Mamre,trans.GretaHort.Melbourne:Melbourne. Buber,Martin.(1946)1965. Moses.NewYork:Harper.
Buber,Martin.(1949)1958. PathsinUtopia,trans.R.F.C.Hull. Boston:Beacon.
Buber,Martin.1957. PointingtheWay,ed.MauriceS.Friedman.New York:Schocken.
Buber,Martin.1964a. DarkoshelMikra[TheWayofScripture] Jerusalem:Bialik[Hebrew].
Buber,Martin.1964b. Werke.Munchen:Kosel-Verlag.
Buber,Martin.1967. OnJudaism,ed.NahumGlatzer.NewYork: Schocken.
Buber,Martin.1997.IsraelandtheWorld.Syracuse:Syracuse. Buber,Martin.2000. OntheBible,ed.NahumGlatzer.Syracuse: SyracuseUniversityPress.
Caldwell,Peter,andWilliamScheuerman,eds.2000. FromLiberal DemocracytoFascism.Boston:Humanities.
Casanova,Jose.1994. PublicReligionsintheModernWorld.Chicago: ChicagoUniversityPress.
Cooper,JulieE.2015. “ADiasporicCritiqueofDiasporism.” Political Theory 43(1):88–110.
Cooper,JulieE.2016. “TheTurntoTraditionintheStudyofJewish Politics.” AnnualReviewofPoliticalScience 19:67–87.
Critchley,Simon.2012.TheFaithoftheFaithless.London:Verso. deTocqueville,Alexis.(1835)2000. DemocracyinAmerica.Chicago: ChicagoUniversityPress. deVries,Hent.2002. ReligionandViolence.Baltimore:JohnsHopkins. deVries,Hent,andLawrenceE.Sullivan.2006.In PoliticalTheologies.NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress. Dyzenhaus,David.1997. LegalityandLegitimacy.Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress. Eberle,Christopher.2002. ReligiousConvictioninLiberalPolitics Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Elazar,Daniel,ed.1997. KinshipandConsent.NewBrunswick: Transaction.
Esposito,Roberto.(2013)2015. Two.NewYork:FordhamUniversity Press.
Feller,Yaniv.2013. “FromAhertoMarcion.” JewishStudiesQuarterly 20:374–9.
Freud,Sigmund.(1939)1967. MosesandMonotheism.NewYork: Vintage.
Galston,William.2018. Anti-Pluralism.NewHaven:YaleUniversity Press.
Gans,Chaim.(2013)2016. APoliticalTheoryfortheJewishPeople Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Gordon,Adi,ed.2008. “BritShalom” ve’hatziyonutHadu-Leumit[“Brith Shalom” andBi-NationalZionism].Jerusalem:Carmel[Hebrew].
Gordon,Peter,andJohnMcCormick,eds.2013. WeimarThought Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Gordon,Peter.2003. RosenzweigandHeidegger.Berkeley:UCPress. Gordon,Peter.2007. “TheConceptoftheApolitical. SocialResearch 74(4):855–78.
Gordon,Peter.2013. “WeimarTheology.” In WeimarThought,eds PeterGordonandJohnMcCormick.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,150–79.
Greenberg,Udi.2014. TheWeimarCentury.Princeton:Princeton UniversityPress.
Gudopp,Wolf-Dieter.1975. MartinBubersDialogischerAnarchismus.Bern:Lang.
Habermas,Jurgen.(2005)2008. BetweenNaturalismandReligion. Cambridge:Polity.
Halbertal,Moshe,andStephenHolmes.2017. TheBeginningof Politics.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress. Hammill,Graham.2012. TheMosaicConstitution.Chicago:Chicago. Harvey,WarrenZev.2009. “KingdomofGod.” In 20thCentury JewishReligiousThought,eds.ArtherCohenandPaulMendesFlohr.Philadelphia:JPS,521–26.
Hazony,Yoram.2000. TheJewishState.NewYork:Basic.
Jacobson,Eric.2003. MetaphysicsoftheProfane.NewYork: ColumbiaUniversityPress. Josephus.1999. TheNewandCompleteWorksofJosephus.Grand Rapids:Kregel.
Kahn,Paul.2012. PoliticalTheology.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity Press.
Kalyvas,Andreas.2008. DemocracyandthePoliticsoftheExtraordinary.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Kaplan,Gregory.2013. “PowerandIsraelinMartinBuber’sCritique ofCarlSchmitt’sPoliticalTheology.” In Judaism,Liberalism,and PoliticalTheology.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,155–77.
Kaplan,Leonard,andRudyKoshar,eds.2012. TheWeimarMoment Lanham:LexingtonBooks.
Kennedy,Ellen.2004. ConstitutionalFailure.Durham:DukeUniversityPress.
Kessler,JonMichael,ed.2013. PoliticalTheologyforaPluralAge. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Kohanski,Alexander.1972. “MartinBuber’sRestructuringofSociety intoaStateofAnocracy.” JewishSocialStudies.34(1):42–57.
Lefort,Claude.2006. “ThePermanenceoftheTheologico-Political?” In PoliticalTheologies.NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress, 148–87.
Lesch,CharlesH.T.2014. “AgainstPolitics:WalterBenjaminon Justice,Judaism,andthePossibilityofEthics.” AmericanPolitical ScienceReview 108(1):218–32.
Lesch,CharlesH.T.2018. “WhatUnderminesSolidarity?Four ApproachesandTheirImplicationsforContemporaryPolitical Theory.” CriticalReviewofInternationalSocialandPoliticalPhilosophy 21(5):601–15.doi: 10.1080/13698230.2017.1398865
Lesch,CharlesH.T.forthcoming. “DemocraticSolidarityinaSecular Age?Habermasandthe ‘LinguistificationoftheSacred’ . ” The JournalofPolitics Lebovic,Nitzan.2008. “TheJerusalemSchool.” NewGermanCritique 105:97–120.
Lorberbaum,Menachem.2002. PoliticsandtheLimitsofLaw Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress. Lowy,Michael.(1988)1992. RedemptionandUtopia.Stanford:Stanford. Luz,Ehud.(1998)2003. WrestlingwithanAngel.NewHaven:Yale UniversityPress. Maor,Zohar.2016. MartinBuber.Jerusalem:Shazar[Hebrew].
March,Andrew.2009. IslamandLiberalCitizenship.Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress. Martin,David.1978. AGeneralTheoryofSecularization.NewYork: Harper.
McCormick,John.1997. CarlSchmitt’sCritiqueofLiberalism Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
McQueen,Alison.2018. PoliticalRealisminApocalypticTimes Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Meier,Heinrich.(1998)2011. TheLessonofCarlSchmitt.Chicago: ChicagoUniversityPress.
Melamed,Abraham.2011. Wisdom’sLittleSister.Brighton: Academic.
Mendes-Flohr,Paul.1989. FromMysticismtoDialogue.Detroit: WayneStateUniversityPress.
Mendes-Flohr,Paul.2006. “TheDesertwithinandSocial Renewal MartinBuber’sVisionofUtopia.” In NewPerspectives onMartinBuber,ed.MichaelZank.Tubingen:MohrSiebeck, 219–30.
Mendes-Flohr,Paul.2008. “TheKingdomofGod.” Behemoth. 2: 26–38.
Mouffe,Chantal.2000. TheDemocraticParadox.NewYork:Verso. Muller,Jan-Werner.2003. ADangerousMind.NewHaven:Yale UniversityPress.
Muller,Jan-Werner.2016. WhatisPopulism? Philadelphia:Pennsylvania UniversityPress.
Nelson,Eric.2010. TheHebrewRepublic.Cambridge:Harvard UniversityPress. Novak,David.1985. “Buber’sCritiqueofHeidegger.” Modern Judaism 5(2):125–40. Novak,David.2005. TheJewishSocialContract.Princeton:Princeton. Pianko,Noam.2010. ZionismandtheRoadsNotTaken. Bloomington: IndianaUniversityPress.
Posner,Eric,andAdrianVermeule.2010. TheExecutiveUnbound Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Rabinbach,Anson.1997. IntheShadowofCatastrophe.Berkeley:UC Press. Ram,Uri.2015. ShuvushelMartinBuber[TheReturnofMartin Buber].TelAviv:Resling[Hebrew].
Raschke,Carl.2015. ForceofGod.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity Press.
Ratzabi,Shalom.2011. Anarkhizembe’Tziyon[Anarchismin “Zion”].TelAviv:AmOved[Hebrew].
Rawls,John.(1999)2002. TheLawofPeoples.Cambridge:Harvard. Reinhard,Kenneth,EricSantner,andSlavoj ˇ Zi ˇ zek.2005. The Neighbor.Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress. Robbins,Jeffrey.2011. RadicalDemocracyandPoliticalTheology NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Rousseau,Jean-Jacques.(1762)2010. “OftheSocialContract.” In TheSocialContractandOtherLaterPoliticalWritings,ed.andtrans. VictorGourevitch.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Rosenhagen,Ulrich.2012. “TogetheraSteptowardstheMessianic Goal.” In TheWeimarMoment,eds.LeonardKaplanandRudy Koshar.Lanham:LexingtonBooks,47–72.
Santner,Eric.2011. TheRoyalRemains.Chicago:ChicagoUniversity Press.
Schaefer,Yoav.2017. “BetweenPoliticalTheologyandTheopolitics.” ModernJudaism 37(2):231–55.
Scheuerman,William.1999. CarlSchmitt.Lanham:Rowman&Littlefield. Schmidt,Christoph,andEliSchonfeld,eds.2009. Ha’Elohimlo Ye’alemDom[GodWillNotStandStill].Jerusalem:VanLeer [Hebrew].
Schmidt,Christoph.2009. DieTheopolitischeStunde.Munchen:Fink. Schmitt,Carl,andLudwigFeuchtwanger.2007. Briefwechsel.Berlin: Duncker&Humblot.
Schmitt,Carl.(1922)2005. PoliticalTheology.Chicago:Chicago UniversityPress.
Schmitt,Carl.(1932)2007. TheConceptofthePolitical.Chicago:Chicago UniversityPress.
Schmitt,Carl.(1938)2008. TheLeviathanintheStateTheoryof ThomasHobbes.Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress.
Schwartz,Yossef.2006. “ThePoliticizationoftheMysticalinBuber andHisContemporaries.” In NewPerspectivesonMartinBuber,ed. MichaelZank.Tubingen:MohrSiebeck,205–18.
Schwarzschild,Steven.1990. “ACritiqueofMartinBuber’sPolitical Philosophy.” In ThePursuitoftheIdeal,ed.MenachemKellner. Albany:SUNY,185–208.
Scott,JamesC.2009. TheArtofNotBeingGoverned.NewHaven:Yale UniversityPress. Smith,StevenB.1997. Spinoza,Liberalism,andtheQuestionofJewish Identity. NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress. Smith,StevenD.2010. TheDisenchantmentofSecularDiscourse Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress. Stout,Jeffrey.2004. DemocracyandTradition.Princeton:Princeton. Strauss,Leo.(1932)2007. “NotesonCarlSchmitt,theConceptofthe Political.” In TheConceptofThePolitical,ed.GeorgeSchwab, trans.J.HarveyLomax.Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress,97–122.
Susser,Bernard.1977. “IdeologicalMultivalence.” PoliticalTheory 5(1):75–96.
Susser,Bernard.1979. “TheAnarcho-FederalismofMartinBuber.” Publius 9(4):103–16.
Susser,Bernard.1981. ExistenceandUtopia.London:Associated.
Walzer,Michael,MenachemLorberbaum,andNoamZohar. 2000,–2018. TheJewishPoliticalTradition 3volsNewHaven:Yale UniversityPress.
Walzer,Michael.1984. “LiberalismandtheArtofSeparation.” PoliticalTheory.12(3):315–30.
Walzer,Michael.2012. InGod’sShadow.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.
Weithman,Paul.2006. ReligionandtheObligationsofCitizenship Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Weltsch,Robert.1967. “Buber’sPoliticalPhilosophy.” In ThePhilosophyofMartinBuber,ed.PaulArthurSchilppandMaurice Friedman.LaSalle:OpenCourt,435–49.