Pankakoski (2013) Reocupying Secularization Schmitt and Koselleck On Blumenberg S Challenge

Wesleyan University
REOCCUPYING SECULARIZATION: SCHMITT AND KOSELLECK ON BLUMENBERG'S

CHALLENGE
Author(s): TIMO PANKAKOSKI
Source: History and Theory, Vol. 52, No. 2 (MAY 2013), pp. 214-245
Published by: Wiley for Wesleyan University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24542852
Accessed: 11-06-2018 12:42 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Wesleyan University, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to History and Theory
This content downloaded from 141.20.0.9 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:42:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
History and Theory 52 (May 2013), 214-245 © Wesleyan University 2013 ISSN: 0018-2656
REOCCUPYING SECULARIZATION:
SCHMITT AND KOSELLECK ON BLUMENBERG'S CHALLENGE
TIMO PANKAKOSKI1
ABSTRACT
This article analyzes the compound of the categories of secularization and reoccupatio
its variations from Hans Blumenberg's philosophy to Carl Schmitt's political theory
ultimately, to Reinhart Koselleck's conceptual history. By revisiting the debate be
Blumenberg and Schmitt on secularization and political theology with regard to the p
ical-theoretical aspects of secularization and the methodological aspects of reoccup
I will provide conceptual tools that illuminate the partly tension-ridden elements at
in Koselleck's theorizing of modernity, history, and concepts. For Schmitt, seculariza
is inherently related to the question of political conflict, and, correspondingly, he att
to discredit Blumenberg's criticism of secularization as an indirectly aggressiv
thereby hypocritical, attempt to escape the political. To this end, I argue, Schmitt app
ates Blumenberg's concept of "reoccupation" and uses it alternately in the three di
senses of "absorption," "reappropriation," and "revaluation." Schmitt's famous the
political concepts as secularized theological concepts contains an unmistakable me
ological element and a research program. The analysis therefore shows the relevan
the Blumenberg/Schmitt debate for the mostly tacit dialogue between Blumenber
Koselleck. I scrutinize Koselleck's understanding of secularization from his early S
tian and Löwithian theory of modernity to his later essays on temporalization of his
and concepts. Despite Blumenberg's criticism, Koselleck holds onto the category of
larization throughout, but gradually relativizes it into a research hypothesis among o
Simultaneously, Koselleck formalizes, alongside other elements, the Schmittian acc
of reoccupation into his method of conceptual analysis and uses the term in the
three senses—thus making "reoccupation" conceptually compatible with "seculariza
despite the former notion's initial critical function in Blumenberg's theory. The exam
tion highlights a Schmittian residue that accounts for Koselleck's reserved attitude to
Blumenberg's metaphorology, regardless of a significant methodological overlap.
Keywords', secularization, reoccupation, Reinhart Koselleck, Carl Schmitt, Hans Bl

berg, conceptual history, political theory, conflict
I. INTRODUCTION
In a global era, when religion and politics repeatedly intertwine, secularizat

is bound to remain a matter of contention. In the inherently ambiguous pr
of secularization, religion is not simply jettisoned, but rather interacts with
1. The author would like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers of History and Theor
well as Mika Ojakangas and Heta Moustgaard for their helpful comments.
REOCCUPYING SECULARIZATION 215
worldly sphere, whereby some of its transcendental elem

immanent. Whether this is a loss or liberation depends
normative valuations. Further, such an abstract and
secularization is never unequivocally over, but rather is
ations regarding its state and success. We are thus faced
lence. If religion is positively valued, secularization app
the original content and subjective meaning or as a partl
act of absorption in which these meanings are confined
however, religion is negatively valued, secularization ap
tion and liberation from the original theological straitjac
a shortcoming of the same procedure and therefore, po
No wonder secularization has been debated not only with
status and mechanisms of this process, but also to its nor
imprints, and the explanatory force of the notion itself.2
Rather than reflecting on the theme of secularization
a further summary of the career of this fundamentall
will provide a political-theoretical commentary on its d
century German intellectual milieu. I will focus on thre
Blumenberg (1920-1996), Carl Schmitt (1888-1985), a
(1923-2006). I will show that the category of secularizat
tion in their respective systems of thought and captures th
regarding modernity, history, and politics. The argumen
rather than in a merely chronological or fixed teleologic
sideration of Blumenberg and Schmitt to the analysis o
Ultimately, I will attempt to provide conceptual tools th
tension-ridden elements at play in Koselleck's work.
The wider motivation of the article is to contribute to
of combining Koselleckian and Blumenbergian perspecti
political-theoretical aspect of the matter. In this context
in a negative fashion and focus merely on removing a ce
by clarifying the disagreement regarding secularization.
edge the contingency of this disagreement and thus rela
supposed ideological implications is it possible to fully u
cal and methodological overlap between conceptual histo
2. The range of participants, particularly in the German context, is

Marx to Weber and Troeltsch to Löwith and Blumenberg, to name only
Säkularisierung: Geschichte eines ideenpolitischen Begriffs, 3"1 ed.
Jean-Claude Monod, La querelle de la sécularisation de Hegel à Blume
a contemporary reassessment of secularization, see Charles Taylor, A
Harvard University Press, 2007).
3. For the conceptual history of "secularization" in Germany, s
Wolfgang Strätz, "Säkularisation, Säkularisierung," in Geschichtlich
Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, ed. Otto B
Reinhart Koselleck [hereafter GG], Band 5: Pro-Soz (Stuttgart: K
Marramao, "Säkularisierung," in Historisches Wörterbuch der Philos
Karlfried Gründer, Band 8: R-Sc (Basel: Schwabe, 1992), 1133-1161.
4. For a primarily methodological assessment of the prospects of c
cepts with metaphorology, see Frank Beck Lassen, '"Metaphorically
and Hans Blumenberg's Metaphorologie," in Eine Typologie der For
216 timo pankakoski
The essay consists of two main p

seldom fully understood and con
berg and Schmitt regarding secular
attempted to pinpoint Schmitt's po
torical categories that did not quite
switched to the political register an
into replies regarding the possibilit
in confessions—religious and secula
of departure and aims, the dispute
prehension and conceptual manipula
rather underlines the importance of
highlights how much is in play. I w
with regard to their significance fo
particular, my reading emphasizes
flict, on the one hand, and the polit
theory of concepts, on the other.
Secularization is a point where phi
considerations meet. Schmitt's polit
cogent concepts of modern state th
claim that contains an unmistakable
In the second part, I will therefore s
ed. Riccardo Pozzo and Marco Sgarbi (Hamb

cal approach, see Elias José Palti, "From Ide
Intellectual History and the Complex Fabri
Cf. Gottfried Gabriel, "Kategoriale Untersch
Bedeutung von Begriffsgeschichte
Meta und
ed. Anselm Haverkamp and Dirk Mende (Fr
5. For critical reactions in German, see R
Fürst dieser Welt: Carl Schmitt und die Fo
(Munich: Fink, 1985). A brief but lucid ove
ler, A Dangerous Mind: Carl Schmitt in Pos
Press, 1993), 156-168. For a survey of the d
polemical, examination of Schmitt's theolog
Heillosigkeit der Welt: Zur politisch-theolo
(Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1998), 156
a wide-ranging, albeit rather opaque afterw
per, "Nachwort: Logik der Differenzen und
Schmitt," in Hans Blumenberg and Carl Sch
ed. Alexander Schmitz and Marcel Lepper (F
ily theological reading of the debate, comme
in Peter Hohendahl, "Political Theology Rev
1 (2008), http://konturen.uoregon.edu/vol
also comments on the debate in a new after
Theologie: Ein Rückblick," in Die Lehre Car
Theologie und Politischer Philosophie, 3"1
article by Pini Ifergan summarizes well the
philosophers and suggests that their oppositi
Pini Ifergan, "Cutting to the Chase: Carl Sc
Secularization," New German Critique 37 (20
to trace Schmitt's philosophy of history. Se
Political Theology: The Hans Blumenberg a
History 5 (2011), 84-104.
nexus for the mostly tacit dialogue between Blumenberg

prominent theorist of German Begriffsgeschichte. Kosel
Schmitt has been recorded,6 but the question of seculari
in these debates. Koselleck certainly theorized secularizat
ed key elements from Karl Löwith's reading of modern
as secularized eschatology and Schmitt's theorizing of p
Blumenberg's attack on the secularization thesis is large
Löwith and Schmitt, it is only logical that Blumenberg
dissertation concisely but decisively in this context. Desp
response, there are clear indications that Koselleck ackn
in fact, I will show that he counters it with a creative re
berg's key categories, identical to that of Schmitt.
So far, this link among the three philosophers remains
scholarship. I will build my analysis upon a close readin
"reoccupation" (Umbesetzung), a concept that has remar
for the political aspect of the debate. I will first summa
of modernity by focusing on the conceptual axis of sec
tion. Next I will analyze the significance of the categor
Schmitt as well as the motivations and maneuvers of his
of his alternative usages of "reoccupation." Finally, I wil
of Koselleck's view on secularization and temporalization
way he formalizes, alongside other Schmittian elements
"reoccupation" into an essential element of his method
II. REOCCUPATION AND THE DYNAMICS OF EPOCHAL CHANGE
Hans Blumenberg is known primarily for four major contributions. First, in

lectual historians often encounter Blumenberg as the developer of the appro
of "metaphorology," a self-declared subfield or auxiliary resource of concept
history. In Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie (1960) Blumenberg introduce
the notion of "absolute metaphor" to refer to metaphors that cannot be replac
by literal language, thus emphasizing an irreducible metaphorical element in c
tural and scientific concept-formation.8 In the late 1970s, Blumenberg revisite
6. Timo Pankakoski, "Conflict, Context, Concreteness: Koselleck and Schmitt on Concepts,

Political Theory 38 (2010), 749-779; Reinhard Mehring, "Begriffsgeschichte mit Carl Schmitt,
Begriffene Geschichte: Beiträge zum Werk Reinhart Kosellecks, ed. Hans Joas and Peter Vogt (Fra
furt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2011), 138-158; Niklas Olsen, "Carl Schmitt, Reinhart Koselleck and
Foundations of History and Politics," History of European Ideas 37 (2011), 197-208; Niklas Ol
History in the Plural: An Introduction to the Work of Reinhart Koselleck (New York: Bergh
Books, 2012), 23-26,41-100, and passim.
7. The most perceptive treatment of secularization in Koselleck is Hans Joas, "Die Kontingenz d
Säkularisierung: Überlegungen zum Problem der Säkularisierung im Werk Reinhart Kosellecks,
Begriffene Geschichte: Beiträge zum Werk Reinhart Kosellecks, ed. Hans Joas and Peter Vogt (Fra
furt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2011), 319-338. For an earlier exposition of the main lines (in Dan
see Frank Beck Lassen, "Tyveri! Til sekularisieringens semantik," Slagmark 48 (2007), 139-15
thought-provoking, but less detailed reading, with additional comments on Schmitt and Blumenb
is in Kathleen Davis, Periodization and Sovereignty: How Ideas of Feudalism and Secularizatio
Govern the Politics of Time (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 77-102.
8. Hans Blumenberg, Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie [1960] (Frankfurt am Ma
Suhrkamp, 1999).
218 timo pankakoski
his earlier theory, now giving it a mo

in the theory of "non-conceptuality.
odological reflections, Blumenberg
metaphorical themes, such as the im
cave as paradigms for reality and kno
is widely known for his anthropologi
tural reinterpretation by the human
of reality but also to be able to live
of his principal work in this field, A
anticipated in 1971 in two major essay
logical perspective.12 A substantial v
anthropological fragments was publi
extensively on the questions of the h
the philosophical, theological, and ot
what later came to be known as the
the debate on Blumenberg has center
contribution to the debate on secular
ing title Die Legitimität der Neuzeit
republished in four independent volu
The four main areas are deeply inter
on Blumenberg as a theorist of moder
to map the political aspects of the de
provided a systematic political theor
ences. However, his attempt to provid
indirect, cumbersome, and self-purpo
commitment to the democratic-parliam
some will-formation through persuasi
9. Hans Blumenberg, Theorie der Unbegriff

am Main: Suhrkamp, 2007); Hans Blumenberg
[1979], in Schiffbruch mit Zuschauer: Para
Suhrkamp, 1997), 85-106.
10. Blumenberg, Schiffbruch mit Zuschauen
(Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, n. d.); Hans
Main: Suhrkamp, 1996).
11. Hans Blumenberg, Arbeit am Mythos (Fra
12. Hans Blumenberg, "Wirklichkeitsbeg
in Ästhetische und metaphorologische Schr
Suhrkamp, 2001), 327-405; Hans Blumenberg,
Rhetorik" [ 1971 ], in Ästhetische und metapho
am Main: Suhrkamp, 2001), 406-431.
13. Hans Blumenberg, Beschreibung des M
(Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2006).
14. Hans Blumenberg, Die kopernikanische W
Blumenberg, Die Genesis der kopernikanische
15. Hans Blumenberg, Die Legitimität der Neu
revised volumes are now published as Hans Bl
edition (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1996
16. Jean-Claude Monod, "A Rhetorical Appr
ficient Reason and its Pascalian Consequences
initiatives/documents/BlumpaperMonod.pdf
berg's thought manifests a consistent opposition to absolu

be they theological, metaphysical, or political. In particular
conservative and authoritarian implications of Carl Schmitt
anthropology manifests a striving for a more open-ended in
potential. Whereas Schmitt maintained that all genuine poli
the human being to be evil, and consequently favored dec
over norms and the generation of consensus in public disc
down the line emphasized indeterminacy, contingency, and
upon what the human being is or to delegate such a decisi
or institution.171 believe Jean-Claude Monod is correct in p
indeterminacy implies a skeptical attitude toward not only
but also toward radically progressive, emancipatory, and U
as those of the Marxist Left.18 In this regard Blumenberg's
far removed from the consistent anti-utopianism of Reinh
proponent of contingency, despite their dissimilar points of
Let us first, however, briefly sketch Blumenberg's view
Legitimität, he attempts an original defense of the modern
position of the human being in the universe, history, and
of the volume range from the conceptual history of scien
theological underpinnings of medieval cosmology, the cha
and the questions of epochal thresholds. In four independen
seeks to bolster the forms of modern "self-assertion" by s
independence from their alleged religious origins. Rather t
tives of earlier religious modes, the modern intellectual a
own sources of legitimacy and serve distinctively modern
he does not deny the possibility of secularization having a
particular historical cases, Blumenberg denies the heuristi
tion as a historiographical category. Secularization as the o
of church property by secular authorities connotes illegitim
Blumenberg's quarrel with the notion derives largely from
the partly hidden metaphorical implication that modernity
gitimate epoch. The denial of derivation amounts to an asser
and for Blumenberg it is in this discontinuity that modern
lies. However, Blumenberg also questions the era's prepost
itself as completely independent of previous epochs and de
absolutely fresh starts in history.20
17. See Brad Tabas, "Blumenberg, Politics, Anthropology," Telos 158

18. Monod, "A Rhetorical Approach," 10-12.
19. For a concise summary, see Robert M. Wallace, "Translator's Intro
berg, The Legitimacy of the Modern Age, transi. Robert M. Wallace (C
1985), xi-xxxi; for a wider philosophical assessment, consult David Ing
Anthropocentric Limits of Scientific Realism: Blumenberg on Myth, R
of the Modem Age," in Dialectic and Narrative, ed. Thomas R. Flynn an
SUNY Press, 1993), 165-183; cf. Robert B. Pippin, "Blumenberg and th
Idealism as Modernism: Hegelian Variations (Cambridge, UK: Cambridg
265-285.
20. Blumenberg, Legitimität (1966), 72; Blumenberg. Legitimität (1996), 129.
220 timo pankakoski
To capture the interplay of contin

ticated manner, Blumenberg build
change that he had already develope
category of "reoccupation" (Umbeset
succession of Christian eschatology
linguistic borrowings from theology
a common substance and a transpos
progress.22 The eschatological unde
dental element, distinct from the c
a sufficient answer to the question
The doctrine of progress, in contrast
immanent to history here and now
within this history, for example, b
idea of eternal normative models in th
Already these principal differences

stantial transposition (Umsetzung) b
radical change of eschatology does n
view is reduced to one linear period
teleology that gives world history
turns into anticipation and fear of i
life history. The fact that these exp
an allegorical interpretation, and th
a secular philosophy of history.25 E
some sense of the word, "worldly" b
which there is no need to actively s
gence of progress, on the other han
birth of the scientific method.26 Blu
is not a "transformation" (Transfor
or "spontaneous generation" (Urzeug
not emerge by transforming the esc
originally has a limited but autonom
becomes wider. Thereby progress b
regarding the nature of history as
pertinent but was unable to answer
21. See Benjamin Lazier, "Overcoming G

Legitimacy of the Natural World," Journal
22. The main points had already been expr
the first part of Legitimität. Hans Blumenbe
Illegitimität" [1962], in Die Philosophie und
Franz Wiedmann (Munich: Pustet, 1964), 24
23. Blumenberg,"'Säkularisation'," 243. Cf
Legitimität (1996), 39-40.
24. Blumenberg, Legitimität (1966), 23; Blu
25. Blumenberg, "'Säkularisation'," 245-24
26. Ibid., 247 and 249; Blumenberg, Legi
(1996), 57 and 60.
27. Blumenberg, Legitimität (1966), 43; Blu
28. Blumenberg, "'Säkularisation'," 248-2
berg, Legitimität (1996), 59-60.
For Blumenberg, the historical identity implied by the sec

esis is thus an illusion that emerges because of "the identity o
can admit quite heterogeneous contents to certain positions
system of interpretation regarding the world and himself."
transposition [Transposition]" was used in this process.30 Slig
vocabulary, Blumenberg notes that we are not dealing he
position [Umsetzung (Transposition)] of an authentic theo
secular self-alienation," but with "the reoccupation [Umb
tion [Position] that has become vacant but as such cannot be
Blumenberg, there is, then, some continuity in history, but t
of the survival of substances, but of the inheritance of prob
of functions.32 In the transition between two epochs, carry-o
emerge. Some of them arise as questions only after the old an
untenable, thus leaving an empty functional position and a "re
following era to deal with. Both continuities and discontinuiti
in Blumenberg's assessment of secularization.33
In my interpretation the early epochal model and the notion
are closely linked to Blumenberg's attempt to find means fo
hension of recurring phenomena in the history of thought and t
of close reading that is not only accurate and historically sens
cal toward continuities and presumed necessities. Methodologi
of secularization entails the need to study language with a kee
of the linguistic level fabricates an illusion of continuity be
secular concerns even if the questions have in fact changed. T
ity of vocabulary is thus the first obstacle for the analyst t
stancy of language indicates the constancy of the function of
not a genetic nexus of contents."34 If a reoccupation of funct
taken place, then linguistic constancy, indeed, is to be expecte
29. Blumenberg, "'Säkularisation'," 249-250; Blumenberg, Legitimität (1

Legitimität (1996), 74.
30. Blumenberg, "'Säkularisation'," 249.
31. Ibid., 250; Almost identically in Blumenberg, Legitimität (1966), 42 a
mität (1996), 15.
32. Blumenberg, Legitimität (1966), 35; slightly modified in Blumenberg, L
33. In his subsequent work in the history of science and myth theory, Blu
of these elements further and sporadically uses "reoccupation" in altered sen
"In Memoriam: Hans Blumenberg [1920-1996], An Unended Quest," Journal
58 [1997], 520-521; Franz Josef Wetz, Hans Blumenberg zur Einführung [H
Whereas in Legitimität the emphasis is on the discontinuity between mediev
ern progress, Blumenberg's next monumental work employs a similar approa
to show that what has been metaphorically conceptualized as the Copernican
pivotal extra-scientific origins in, and significant continuities with, the med
Here he still holds onto the figure of "reoccupation" in a "functionally presup
remains intact and makes partial changes not only bearable but, above all,
Die Genesis der kopernikanischen Welt, 596). The new emphasis on continuity
also reflected in the second edition of Legitimität: "The concept of 'reoccu
minimum of identity that it must be possible to find, or at least presuppose a
most hectic movement of history" (Blumenberg, Legitimität [1996], 541).
34. Blumenberg, "'Säkularisation'259; slightly modified in Blumenberg, L
and Blumenberg, Legitimität (1996), 98.
222 timo pankakoski
needed to facilitate the substitution

to hide this fact from view.35 Furth
consistency to fabricate "emotional
gestions to the legitimizing traditio
prehensible. There is an unmistakab
sacred sphere of language lives long
timidly conserved and brought in
scientifically, or politically new thin
"secularization," then at least the wo
rather than being drawn abstractly
III. SECULARIZATION AND THE TAMING OF CONFLICT
Even if the criticism of secularization was largely directed against Löwit

others, these are the essential ingredients of Blumenberg's challenge to Sch
political theology, too. Carl Schmitt, the constitutional lawyer and radica
cal theorist very much in vogue in the Anglophone world since the 1980s,
known for proposing the distinction between friend and enemy as the crit
"the political" in his Der Begriff des Politischen (1927, second edition 1932,
edition 1933).39 Rather than a separate field of substance like economy, a
ics, or ethics, "the political" for Schmitt leans upon the intensity of the
tion between friend and enemy. Even if warfare for Schmitt is not the
of politics, the eventual possibility of the physical destruction of the en
war or civil war is in his view the theoretical presumption that makes a par
situation political in the specific sense. "The political" thus has an intimate
conflict. At the same time, however, Schmitt was particularly keen to emp
the disruptive potential of domestic political strife. Schmitt was consistent
revolutionary, anti-utopian, antiparliamentary, antipluralist, and antiliberal
Weimar period he argued for the authoritative rule of the president by eme
powers not only to protect the constitutional order against extra-parliam
powers but also against the immanent threat of party splintering, resultin
the pluralistic and compromising nature of the Weimar constitution itself
will show in detail later, the religious civil wars served as a model for Sc
analysis of pluralism. Both the problem and the proposed solution leaned
previous theological considerations. Already in his Politische Theologie
second edition 1934) Schmitt had scrutinized the links between theologica
political structures, vaguely implying that the historical and conceptual pa
between divine omnipotence and secular sovereignty support his own thesi
35. Blumenberg, "'Säkularisation'," 257.

36. Ibid., 259.
37. Blumenberg, Legitimität ( 1966), 51; Blumenberg, Legitimität (1996), 87. Emphasis a
38. Karl Löwith, Meaning in History: The Theological Implications of the Philosophy of
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949). For an assessment of the political ramificat
Jeffrey Andrew Barash, "The Sense of History: On the Political Implications of Karl Löw
cept of Secularization," History and Theory 37 (1998), 69-82.
39. Carl Schmitt, Der Begriff des Politischen, 7th ed. [1932] (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot
40. Carl Schmitt, Der Hüter der Verfassung, 4th ed. [ 19311 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot
sovereign decision, rather than a norm as the legal positivi

of a legal order.41
It is mainly this book that Blumenberg addresses in his
a century later. He attempts to tackle the close, but ultima
between theological and political absolutism and to show t
political conclusions from theological absolutism has been
ficial ever since theological absolutism became untenable f
After a reoccupation, the early modern state was left with
tiges that helped to fabricate an illusion of historical deriv
level and thus to legitimize absolute rule. Further, to invok
in contemporary political theory, as Schmitt allegedly does
to resort to "metaphorical theology" as a rhetorical strateg
aspect of the actual need for background and pathos."42 T
malized and sealed theoretically by the secularization hypo
the now cliché-like thesis that "[a]ll cogent concepts of mo
secularized theological concepts."43
Unsurprisingly, Schmitt reacted vigorously. In 1970, he
little book entitled Politische Theologie II in which he att
original thesis against a set of contemporary critics, and co
explicitly in an afterword.44 At the time Schmitt was alread
been detached from German academia since 1945 due to h
the Nazi regime. Even though he was banned from teachin
a central inspiration for a large circle of friends and pup
lectual aspirations.45 This outsider position was also manif
the style of Schmitt's reply is consciously nonacademic, e
polishing the manuscript in late 1969, Schmitt laments tha
openly apologetic Ex Captivitate Salus (1950), he had los
in the scholarly manner of his earlier legal treatises.46 His
shifted to topics that allowed a more speculative approach,
of time, world history, and theology. In 1963, Schmitt ha
of Der Begriff des Politischen with a new preface to restat
Cold War context, as well as Theorie des Partisanen, an an
figure of the partisan in the era of ideological and revolutio
not, however, significantly revise his earlier political the
mostly silent with regard to questions of constitutional law
41. Carl Schmitt, Politische Theologie: Vier Kapitel zur Lehre von de
[1922/1934] (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2004).
42. Blumenberg, Legitimität (1996), 104 and 112.
43. Schmitt, Politische Theologie, 43.
44. Carl Schmitt, Politische Theologie II: Die Legende von der Erledigu
logie, 4th ed. [1970] (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1996).
45. See, above all, Dirk van Laak, Gespräche in der Sicherheit des Sch
der politischen Geistesgeschichte der frühen Bundesrepublik (Berlin: A
Dangerous Mind.
46. Schmitt to Ernst Forsthoff, December 15,1969, in Ernst Forsthoff-
1926-1974, ed. Dorothee Mußgnug, Reinhard Mußgnug, and Angela Re
Verlag, 2007), 297.
47. Carl Schmitt, Theorie des Partisanen: Zwischenbemerkung zum Begr
[1963] (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2006).
224 timo pankakoski
altered environment of the Federal R

attempted to provide the earlier read
At the time of the debate, Blumen
academic hermit of his own volition.
losopher who since the early 1950s h
Bochum, and, finally, Münster befor
mität was published, Blumenberg inc
such as the famous Poetik und Herm
and instead devoted his time to writ
literary glosses in a reflective, allusiv
Schmitt's reaction to his criticism, Bl
in 1971, and the two writers in searc
other. Pregnant, albeit formally poli
ensued.48 Instead of outlining their di
particular themes that fascinated both
and the interpretation of Goethe's en
ipse. Blumenberg extended his analysi
of Legitimität but toned down some o
theology in 1979, now defending his
Schmitt's christological reading,49 bu
due to his age.
Rather than summarizing the details
original bitter reaction in order to elu
his thought. Before examining the str
let us sketch some of Schmitt's basic
exactly, does "secularization" mean to
category that Blumenberg's criticism
Schmitt's political theory has been r
logical foundation.50 Peter Hohendahl,
notion of secularization is not "a neut
notion."51 Although the importance o
vation, affection, and expression is un
particular case of his reply to Blumen
around. I believe the intensity of the
more prominently from the directly
theological. Schmitt's aim in Politi
ous relevance and inevitability of the
argument, however, is not that by m
possibility of religious experience ha
experience in modernity is possible:
the theological point of view, is still
48. Hans Blumenberg and Carl Schmitt, Bri

Alexander Schmitz and Marcel Lepper (Frank
49. Blumenberg, Arbeit am Mythos, 567-604
50. See, above all, Meier, Die Lehre Carl Schm
51. Hohendahl, "Political Theology Revisited
elements still have "contemporary significance" for us.52 Se

Schmitt's reply remains obscure if we assume a simple lo
via secularization, for this is hardly compatible with the poin
theology.
Rather, the reasoning is that modern attempts at secularization were not based
on political power and were thus merely apparent and hypocritical seculariza
tion. The structure of the argument here is similar to the central idea of Schmitt's
criticism of parliamentarianism: in their attempt to substitute parliamentary
competition for serious political conflict, modern liberal democracies end up hid
ing, rather than escaping, "the political"—which, for Schmitt, always contains
the possibility of physical confrontation of the enemy. This reasoning has an
inherent link to secularization, because for Schmitt religion is not only a source
of meaning but also of conflict. My thesis is that secularization is a focal point
for Schmitt's political theory primarily because for him the early modern confes
sional civil war is a recurring model for political conflict in general. In this para
digm, religious, political, and military elements coincide. Schmitt's persistent
attempt to avoid nonnegotiable confessional conflicts leads to his peculiar theory
of both the political and the theological as total and inescapable. Conflict, albeit
always only potentially aggravating conflict, is what connects the two spheres,
their inescapable tertium comparationis.
Let us now analyze secularization more closely as a part of Schmitt's historical
narrative of the modern state, elaborated in several publications since the 1920s
and, as I will show later, largely shared by the young Koselleck. In its first stage,
secularization for Schmitt was a historical-political necessity: the secularized
absolute state emerged as an inevitable response to incessant religious wars.
Conflicts were successfully suppressed, first, in the domestic realm by a sharp
demarcation between autonomous public politics and private confessional moral
ity and, second, by securing equal rights to wage external wars to all nations in
the European power constellation, demarcating clearly between political enemies
and criminals, and thus creating room for neutrality.53 For Schmitt, the modern
state is a "a vehicle of secularization [Säkularisierung]"54 and the historically
unique product of the overcoming of confessional civil war by "neutralization
and secularization [Neutralisierung und Säkularisierung] of the confessional
fronts, that is, de-theologization [Enttheologisierung]."55 It is this step from the
medieval political world to the classical Jus Publicum Europaeum that Schmitt
52. Carl Schmitt, Donoso Cortés in gesamteuropäischer Interpretation: Vier Aufsätze, 2nd ed.
[1950] (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2009), 10.
53. Carl Schmitt, Der Leviathan in der Staatslehre des Thomas Hobbes: Sinn und Fehlschlag
eines politischen Symbols, 3rd ed. [1938] (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 2003), 85-94; Carl Schmitt, Die
Wendung zum diskriminierenden Kriegsbegriff, 2nd ed. [1938] (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1988);
Carl Schmitt, Der Nomos der Erde im Völkerrecht des Jus Publicum Europaeum (Cologne: Greven,
1950), 112-119.
54. Schmitt, Nomos der Erde, 97.
55. Carl Schmitt, Glossarium: Aufzeichnungen der Jahre 1947-1951, ed. Eberhard Freiherr von
Medem (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1991), 19 (September 27,1947); cf. Schmitt, Nomos der Erde,
96,98, and 112.
226 timo pankakoski
praises as the true epochal threshold o

ress in human history.56
This pacification was reinforced b
political terminology. Schmitt descri
from the church as not a withdrawa
profane sphere, a journey for which
ics: "The state adorned itself with m
"the power of worldly princes was el
spiritual descent."57 Crucially, howev
their fathers" and remained "guardian
not at a "church robbery" but "salvag
that the authority of the theologian
"profaned" {profaniert) by the early
era that the relics first "faded into p
got fully profaned by the technical er
had described the gradual process of
to the present technical era in his Ze
secularization, however, was a rescue
The idea of salvage rather than churc
metaphors, the claim of inherent illeg
Similarly, in a 1965 review, Schmitt
Hobbes only exteriorly held onto the
Christian totalitarianism. For Schmit
author, aiming to found a Christian
objectivity and utilized geometrical vo
contributed to the ensuing process o
claims, intend to neutralize confession
eign decision in the spirit of cuius reg
the Christian tradition.61 We may th
tion" and strong "neutralization" of c
"secularization," is distinct from the
"neutralization" in the weak sense—e
the terminology and uses "secularizat
For Schmitt, there is continuity in t
nuity of tradition, succession, legacy
than a metaphysical principle of histo
56. Schmitt, Politische Theologie II, 86.

57. Carl Schmitt, Ex Captivitate Salus: Erfa
Duncker & Humblot, 2002), 70
58. Schmitt, Ex Captivitate Salus, 72-73.
59. Ibid., 72-74.
60. Carl Schmitt, "Das Zeitalter der Neutrali
nen und Begriffe im Kampf mit Weimar-Ge
1988), 120-132.
61. Carl Schmitt, "Die vollendete Reformati
Interpretationen," Der Staat 4 (1965), 52, 55-5
62. Schmitt to Blumenberg, November 24, 1
point that analogies are not transformations63 is trivia

terminology, but in the light of textual evidence it doe
fact, Blumenberg is hard put trying to argue that Schm
transformation. In his early work, Schmitt describes se
in which worldly factors such as humanity, nation, or
place of God" (sind .. .an die stelle Gottes ... getreten) an
him,64 and repeatedly speaks of "analogic positions"
gies" between religion and politics.65 As Schmitt consis
original act of secularization as active and intentional tra
accusation of having proposed a substantial or metaphysi
seemed unfair to him. There are certainly emotive inten
needs in play in Schmitt's decisionism, but Blumenberg
with the distinctions between analogy and transformat
transposition, respectively. Textually, Schmitt can still
political theology is a conceptual-historical research hyp
gies. To Blumenberg's claim that political theology is "m
a strange accusation coming from a metaphorologist wh
"metaphorical" pejoratively—Schmitt could now have si
tively, but only in the sense of studying such metaphori
performing them. Schmitt evades the charge that he wo
cal elements selectively by projecting also this rhetorical
modern jurists' thoroughly justified initial secularization,
only observes historically.
IV. NEUTRALIZATION AND THE RETURN OF CONFESSIONAL CONFLICT
If political theology consisted merely of studying structural analogies, Sc

could have kept to this. However, Schmitt draws on the latter part of the nar
in his reply, too. Gradually the order of the state begins to unravel. As S
radicalizes the original tension between the exterior and the interior, relig
confined to private, and absolutely free, faith. Secret societies and religiou
catalyze the gradual rise of the private over the public and the hollowing o
state sovereignty from within.66 These politically irresponsible "indirect po
Schmitt posits, return in the liberal era as political parties, interest group
other societal organizations.67 Simultaneously, the power balance in intern
relations, too, begins to crumble: the sovereign states' equal rights to wage
are replaced by the moral doctrine of the just enemy. The eventual criminal
of aggressive warfare leads to a discriminating concept of war where some
are just while some are not, which brings in moral categories, forces each
of the conflict to justify its actions with reference to moral superiority, an
63. Blumenberg, Legitimität (1996), 103.

64. Carl Schmitt, Politische Romantik, 6th ed. [1919/1925] (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot
18-19.
65. Schmitt, Politische Theologie I, 43.
66. Schmitt, Leviathan, 85-94.
67. Ibid., 116-118.
228 timo pankakoski
intensifies the original conflict into t

"intermediate state" between war and
On domestic and international levels
conflicts. Further, when the suppres
ized form. For Schmitt, modern p
and the repetition of confessional st
dimensions."69 Schmitt criticizes the
invoking Weber's polytheism metaph
gods "arise from their graves and wag
they are "disenchanted and have beco
ghostly and the combatants hopeless
"mere" metaphors, but they accura
modernity for Schmitt: unregulated
original secularization was replaced b
Blumenberg briefly criticizes the fr
exception in Legitimität. He questi
suppression of internal conflict and th
on the basis that this model is not on
the scale of the external crises, in the
of any internal conflict.71 Blumenber
of the development, but draws a diffe
the critical domestic setting after th
Cold War crisis indicates the anachro
the whole model. Once this framew
becomes difficult to uphold the impr
instance when the ultimate decision
this, further, questions the assumpt
state of the political," as Blumenberg
Schmitt's basic tenets.721 believe Blum
theory with eschatological imagery a
nection between eschatology and mod
theory of its underlying temporal fr
However, if Blumenberg's own read
religious elements rhetorically and
positions, then it is logical, correspon
anxiety concerning the intensificatio
rather than the theological. I believe
story of secularization, summarized
of a regulating authority, are not stri
any moment actualize and the merely
68. Schmitt, Nomos der Erde, 91-96, 132, 23

69. Schmitt, Ex Captivitate Salus, 13-14.
70. Carl Schmitt, "Die Tyrannei der Wert
Studien (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1967), 54.
71. Blumenberg, Legitimität (1966), 59-60; B
72. Blumenberg, Legitimität (1966), 60; Blum
cal killing—and for purely secular reasons. Commenting

Weimar, Schmitt credits the absolute state for putting an
disorder and civil war, the battle for the normatively rig
liberal era the neutralization of quarrels is replaced by at
intervention. This allows the rival forces of society to aim
into the totality of the state. In this unstable power con
unity is replaced by a weak set of contracts between pri
of pacta sunt servanda, which, for Schmitt, equals only
and conceals "an ethic of civil war," liable to intensify in
war."73 This is the way, I posit, we should understand th
the grim horizon of expectations in Schmitt's theorizin
gives a form and description to the immediately experie
tion in the political realm, but it is not the source of this t
We may draw a similar critical conclusion regarding t
conflict: it is not evident that the quarrels of the libera
deriving from values or interests, relate to the early mo
genetically rather than purely rhetorically. The fact that
be described in military terms does not prove the link b
but rather only suggests a dual situation blurred by term
this connection is loosened, the idea of modern democrat
of nonnegotiable confessional conflict and civil war is di
menberg never fully applied his approach to political co
thought he was faced with this challenge, too. As I will
analysis, this is clearly visible in Schmitt's reply. For Sc
ogy is still theology, and pacified civil war is still civil w
V. SCHMITT'S REACTION: ABSORPTION, REAPPROPRIATION, AND REVALUATION
In his scornful and parodying reply, Schmitt locates the focal point of the quar
rel quite correctly but intentionally misrepresents it. He describes Blumenberg's
position as consisting of exposing and criticizing all "translations [Übersetzun
gen] and reoccupations [Umbesetzungen]," all "continuing influences [Weiter
wirkungen] or reoccupations [Umbesetzungen] from the theory of salvation,"
and every "secularization or reoccupation [Umbesetzung] of old images of the
enemy."75 But this, of course, is precisely what Blumenberg did not do: he criti
cized transpositions ( Umsetzung), not reoccupations ( Umbesetzung), which is the
category that he himself introduced for the purposes of this very criticism.76 Sec
73. Schmitt, Hüter der Verfassung, 76; Carl Schmitt, "Staatsethik und pluralistischer Staat"
[1930], in Positionen und Begriffe im Kampf mit Weimar-Genf-Versailles 1923-1939 (Berlin:
Duncker & Humblot, 1988), 145; Carl Schmitt, Hugo Preuß: Sein Staatsbegriff und seine Stellung in
der deutschen Staatslehre (Tübingen: Mohr, 1930), 26, n. 1.
74.1 have earlier analyzed the temporal deep structure of the particular concept of the "intermedi
ate state between peace and war" and the military metaphors supporting this in Schmitt's work. See
Timo Pankakoski, "Carl Schmitt versus the 'Intermediate State': International and Domestic Vari
ants," History of European Ideas 39, no. 2 (2013), 241-266.
75. Schmitt, Politische Theologie II, 85, 86, and 98.
76. The English translation employs the term "transposition" throughout and thus obscures the
contrast by fabricating more concurrence between Schmitt's and Blumenberg's arguments than the
230 timo pankakoski
ond, Schmitt claims that he was alwa

lic theology to Jus Publicum Europ
reoccupation [Umbesetzung] by mea
two lines of defense appear contrad
cupations," then what good could po
he himself was advancing one—and
advocate of "reoccupation," then wh
to blur the concept?
The paradox begins to clear up a
"reoccupation" in the senses "absorp
respectively. Creative alternation b
Blumenberg's theory as a self-empo
tific, fully rationalized modernity t
ultimately, the possibility of politic
ities and hypocritically fabricating
Scholars have so far overlooked th
vice of this argument. In one of the
notes that Schmitt adopts the conce
to describe loss rather than reorient
tation slightly simplified. It relies
secularization in this way, as was su
Jacob Taubes.79 But it is essential t
the ambivalence of secularization. B
secularization proper, on the one han
could easily respond to Blumenberg
ently positive reoccupation by the ab
losses of meaning in the liberal era
was for him a rescue attempt and a
cal meanings were conveyed into th
Schmitt also interprets "reoccupatio
direction, and a process in which new
old by transfer, displacement, and
of continuity and directed movemen
Blumenberg as criticizing reoccupat
Schmitt reinforces his argument in
"reoccupation." In his earlier exposi
posits that the early modern jurists
dispute warrants. See Carl Schmitt, Politica

Theology [1970], translated and introduced
Polity, 2008), 117-119 and 128-129.
78. Hohendahl, "Political Theology Revisite
79. Jacob Taubes, The Political Theology
Assmann, Jan Assmann, Horst Folkers, W
Stanford University Press, 2004), 66.
80. My reading here concurs with that
"secularization" refers "to the transferenc
'secular' state, in which theology thus beco
until then had been occupied [besetzt] by theologians."81

jurists' habit of making use of earlier arguments of med
for instance, the right to resist a tyrant. As the argumen
tyrannum licet occidere, had been occupied before, this i
in a particular sense of the term. Now, this derivation
differs from the Blumenbergian technical term that was
the structural aspects of epochal change. In Blumenberg
functional positions is filled with new content so that
cept replaces the former but still has the same function
takes place despite the permanence of vocabulary and is
this permanence. In the Schmittian variant, by contrast,
themselves become positions to be occupied. The change
but important. Let us reserve the term reappropriation
particular sense.
Blumenberg s project, in Schmitt s perspective, would be one 01 criticizing
such reoccupations: for Blumenberg, there is "no new scientific political theology
in the sense of reoccupations [Um-Besetzungen] of earlier theological positions
[Positionen] "82 Schmitt reads Blumenberg's theory of modernity rather one
sidedly as a celebration of novelty and discontinuity from all traditions, and in
this regard even the maintenance of "positions" would be too much. This is what
Schmitt parodies with the image of a tabula rasa wishing to "de-tabulize" itself.83
Such a reading, however, clearly misses the point of the model of functional
positions, condensed in the notion of Umbesetzung that Blumenberg introduced
precisely in order to mediate both continuities and discontinuities.
In harmony with the general orientation of his political theory, Schmitt also
gives "reoccupation" a significantly more competitive and aggressive tone than
the original. The word besetzen carries, among others, a military connotation
of occupying positions in order to wage battle, which allows the interpreter to
extend Umbesetzung in this direction while simultaneously maintaining full con
tinuity on the linguistic level. The word for "marching" to positions in the quote
above, einrücken, also carries a military connotation. In the Weimar Republic,
Schmitt stresses how moral and political concepts are not only "weapons" in
"battles" but also the "soil" on which the battle is fought84 and argues forcefully
against the liberal attempt to "occupy" (okkupieren) or "confiscate" (beschlag
nahmen() universal concepts like "humanity," "peace," "justice," "progress,"
or "civilization."85 Similarly, in a state of civil war, each concept becomes "an
attack [or encroachment, Übergriff] into the enemy camp."861 claim that Schmitt
sees Blumenberg's image of "occupying positions" in the light of the military
81. Schmitt, Ex Captivitate Salus, 70.

83. Ibid., 96-97.
84. Schmitt, Hüter der Verfassung, 90.
85. Schmitt, Der Begriff des Politischen (1932), 55; Carl Schmitt, Der Begriff des Politischen, 3rd
ed. (Hamburg: Hanseatische Verlagssanstalt, 1933), 37.
86. Schmitt, Glossarium (October 31, 1947), 36. Also cited in Groh, Arbeit an der Heillosigkeit,
160.
232 timo pankakoski
paradigm, as advancement in the the

prospective gains.87
The antagonistic interpretation of
Schmitt's response in Politische Theo
the scientific-positivistic aspect of B
ology as its content, such an attempt
replies to the theologian Erik Peterso
which the demarcation between theol
the secular age, all parties to the quar
politics or politicizing theology and th
Similarly, the decision on whether so
liticized is always already a political d
attempt to hide the political and thus
conflicts cannot be tamed by simply
activities as "peaceful measures" or "
positions in the battle. In making his
cized reoccupations, Schmitt uses the
tion. To criticize reoccupations would
are being aggressively reoccupied. Sch
(alleged) criticism into one more varia
with mere wishful thinking.
Closely connected to this is the thir
a full-blown attack on the "tyranny
where collective interests manifest as
engages in nearly untranslatable wo
response to Blumenberg's Umbesetz
tification," the basic categories of
tence turn into values.89 After a cate
"statuses" (Stellen-Werte), it is chara
occupation of a position" (Stellen-Set
"revaluations" (Umwertungen) by me
the scale of values.90 The ultimate pr
opposes un value, and that setting the
(.Durchsetzung).91 As individuals set
leads to "an eternal battle of values a
contra omnes" and a repetition of th
deities by novel means that "are n
destruction."92 Schmitt here clearly a
87. In Politische Theologie II Schmitt goes so

locates conflict and civil war (stasis) even wit
Gnostic position. See Schmitt, Politische Theo
conceptual history of stasis. See Reinhard Me
2009), 550.
88. Schmitt, Politische Theologie II, 83-84.
89. Schmitt, "Tyrannei," 42-43.
90. Ibid., 42 and 55-56.
9\. Ibid., 55 and 58.
92. Ibid., 54.
his earlier criticism of the just war tradition: bringing in m

intensification of conflict, moral condemnation, and ultima
of the enemy instead of honorable oppositions that would a
ity. Even if in the case of value philosophy the confronta
phorical, the whole doctrine of values, for Schmitt, is chara
and "immanent aggression."93
Schmitt makes explicit references to this analysis in
Blumenberg's appraisal of modern curiositas as precisely s
laration of independence, a setting of value where the old i
unworthy—not only a self-assertion of the new rational m
groundless self-empowerment.94 But, for Schmitt, Blumen
moves in a circle and suffers from "autism": when novelty
immanent aggression of the unfettered new" is doubly inten
revaluation itself, logically, becomes a value, too.95 I belie
Blumenberg's basic concepts in this light. In his idiosyncr
treatment, Um-Setzung would be the resetting of the value
been set in the process of Setzung, and as the values als
position in the value system, Um-Besetzung can be interpre
refilling these positions. The difference between Umsetzu
thus fades because for Schmitt both are foundationless, ag
parts of the general activity of "revaluation" (Umwertung
tive of value philosophy, Blumenberg's basic concepts bear
grand claim.
In sum, then, Schmitt paints an image of Blumenberg, first, as advocating
hubristic revaluations that are seemingly harmless but indirectly violent: "The
new man is aggressive in the sense of incessant progress and incessant re-settings
[Neu-Setzungen] ,"96 Second, he depicts Blumenberg as criticizing continuous
influences and rejecting "any secularization or reoccupation [Umbesetzung] of
old images of the enemy"97 in order to gain the independence needed for the
claim of novelty and to secure the supposed nonaggression. Third, as enmity for
Schmitt cannot be escaped but only adjourned or covered, and thus intensified,
this very attempt turns into one more modern facade behind which aggression
can operate uncurbed. It is thus the permanent task of scientific reflection to
critically observe any "reoccupation [Umbesetzung] [of the enemy] from the old
political theology into a supposedly totally new, pure worldliness, and humane
humanity."98 For Schmitt, there are no human beings as such, but only particular
concrete groupings of humans (potentially) against others, even if the category
of humankind can be invoked to give the opposite impression.99 Whereas Schmitt
earlier depicted Blumenberg as criticizing reoccupations, here he accuses him of
93. Ibid., 56.

94. Schmitt, Politische Theologie II, 88-89.
95. Ibid. (translation by Hoelzl and Ward).
96. Ibid., 97.
97. Ibid., 97-98.
98. Ibid., 96.
99. This is fully in line with Schmitt's habitual references to Proudhon's dictum "whoever invokes
humanity wants to deceive" (Schmitt, Begriff des Politischen [1932], 55).
234 timo pankakoski
attempting to pull off a reoccupatio

Schmitt himself stands guard.
Schmitt's conceptual maneuvers ar
from the unimportant esotericism
age."100 Rather than trivial, the crit
of summarizing his political theory
a correction to Hohendahl's remark
concept of reoccupation, Schmitt "se
his misapprehension appears intent
his Weimar theorizing put forward
to neutralize Blumenberg's challeng
reloading it with a meaning more i
cally, epitomizes what Schmitt unde
confiscation of concepts and the ac
lectual categories at hand.
VI. KOSELLECK ON SECULARIZATION AND CONFLICT
As was shown above, the themes of secularization and conflict are inter
linked in Schmitt's work, and this connection manifests paradigmatically in
rebuttal of Blumenberg. In modern politics, when not manifesting in outri
warfare, the hostilities are transposed to the medium of conflictual concepts
"secularized slogans." There is thus an intimate connection between Schmitt
two central theses on concepts, I claim. The idea that "all cogent concep
modern state theory are secularized theological concepts" relates to the succes
imposition of order by the modern state. The equally overstated claim that
political concepts arise out of a concrete polarity of foreign or domestic polit
and that "every political concept is a polemical concept" that "has a poli
enemy in mind"103 rather connects to the latter part of the narrative. Both t
contain not only a bold historical claim but also a methodological point
conceptual-historical research program: they prescribe how political concept
modernity should be understood, interpreted, and studied in order to bring
their political point.
It thus seems only logical that Koselleck integrates these starting points i
his early approach to conceptual conflict. Scholars have recently paid increa
attention to Koselleck's intellectual debt to Schmitt as well as the ways in w
Koselleck sought to remedy the shortcomings in the theory of his teacher
colleague.104 Schmitt unofficially supervised Koselleck's dissertation Kritik
100. Schmitt to Blumenberg on March 31, 1971, in Blumenberg-Schmitt, Briefivechsel, 111

roles of the "old man" and the "jurist" are parts of his apologetic and strategic self-positionin
a long chain of self-mythologizing epithets ranging from "the last defender of Jus Publicum
paeum" and "Beneto Cereno" to the "Christian Epimetheus." See Groh, Arbeit an der Heillosig
115-155.
101. Schmitt to Ernst Forsthoff, November 4, 1969, in Forsthoff -Schmitt, Briefwechsel, 294.
102. Hohendahl, "Political Theology Revisited," paragraph 18.
103. Schmitt, Hugo Preuß, 5.
104. Niklas Olsen consistently emphasizes Koselleck's constructive efforts to build an understand
ing of history and politics that would allow for "pluralistic" rather than "antagonistic" settings, and
Krise (1954, published 1959). Although his ultimate aims

ally and politically more constructive than Schmitt's
simistic analysis of the paradoxes of Enlightenment thou
upon a detailed duplication of the Schmittian narrative.1
is of critical importance for Koselleck's later understan
reoccupation, and conflict.
After the original neutralization of confessional strif
tics and morality, political conflict, Koselleck maintain
the moral and universal, and hence presumably politica
tion of enlightened citizens was initially made possib
neutrality,"106 but the actions of the new elite groups,
are "indirectly political" and challenge this order from w
goes the argument—leads to a moralization of politics, po
constant political crisis, intensification of oppositions,
ary energies, and, ultimately, as the oppositions take g
twentieth-century ideological wars.
In the 1954 original, Koselleck notes explicitly that th
and politics could gain such dimensions only after a dou
the "political neutralization of ecclesiastical oppositions,
the "intellectual overcoming of the religious points of
opment of modern philosophy of history, on the other.10
more analytically two elements in the process: "The
earlier restrained the humanist movement were suppre
elements related to the history of salvation in them" we
umphant moral self-consciousness via 'secularization.'"10
onto Schmitt's interpretation of the process of seculariz
and absorption. However, whereas Schmitt labels the fo
larization" and the latter pejoratively as "neutralization
terms and interprets the latter along Löwithian lines as
"secularization." This Löwithian element is, then, projec
framework of analysis. In the reworked edition, Kosell
process concisely as follows: "The neutralization [Neutra
by politics promotes the secularization [Verweltlichung
weakening of religiousness based on revelation, whic
becomes the fate of this state as the old themes recur—
risierte] form."109
sees Koselleck as "depoliticizing" Schmittian categories before applyi

and thus constructing "an intellectual project and a normative agenda
with Schmitt's writings" (Olsen, History in the Plural, 53,72, and 75).
to the intellectual proximity between the two, even if many of Olsen
to the direct ideological implications.
105. For a more detailed comparison, see Pankakoski, "Conflict, Cont
106. Reinhart Koselleck, Kritik und Krise: Eine Studie zur Pathoge
[1959] (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, n.d.), 30.
107. Reinhart Koselleck, "Kritik und Krise: Eine Untersuchung d
dualistischen Weltbildes im 18. Jahrhundert" (PhD diss., University of
108. Koselleck, "Kritik und Krise" (1954), 21-22. Emphasis added.
109. Koselleck, Kritik und Krise (1959), 31.
236 timo pankakoski
What thus returns is the rigidity of

are now morally condemned. The ost
ties of the Enlightenment thinkers'
nature, and this camouflage intensifie
is legitimized, and the consequent cr
The fictive and Utopian assumption o
of humankind turns history into an i
Enlightenment thinkers from the un
constant human task.110 In the light
planning of the future upon the parti
observation of unfolding objective h
legitimation from the future, a whole
past are "torn apart."111
Both the initial political uprising and
are supported by secularization of ea
intellectuals take over "the heritag
theodicy becomes a "legitimation of
God."113 Alongside Gnostic elements
evil politics, Christian eschatology "i
also contributes to the eighteenth-ce
plan of redemption is "secularized int
philosophy of history thus carries on
secularization is thus different from,
and, as they emerge from the analyt
with the question of political conflic
the attempts to hide the crisis to its
similarly, the themes of "indirect pol
political," the ostensible "absence" ve
and "open" forms of conflict are esse
in Schmitt's work.117 The emphasis on
a legitimizing tool derives more prom
the unity of mankind and history as
world plurality by subsuming partisa
like "progress," "peace," or "world" ar
Schmitt also critically observes, for i
110. Ibid., 2,6-7, and 9.

111. Ibid., 7.
112. »id., 31.
113. Ibid., 109.
114. Ibid., 108.
115. Ibid., 111.
116. Ibid., 108.
117. See Pankakoski, "Carl Schmitt Versus the 'Intermediate State.'"
118. See, for instance, Carl Schmitt, "Die Einheit der Welt" [1952], in Staat, Großraum, Nomos:
Arbeiten aus den Jahren 1916 bis 1969, ed. Günter Maschke (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1995),
496-512; Schmitt, "Staatsethik," 141-143; Schmitt, Begriff des Politischen (1932), 54-58, 65, and 77.
history of mankind as a history of class struggle to a prog

history and thus gave it "utmost political effectiveness."119
For Koselleck, too, the new future of the Enlightenment
that emerged as a result of contingent strife, but eventually
tation and the conflicts became permanent elements of mo
ies this basic plot in his essays on the temporalization of his
of individual concepts from the 1960s onward. Begriffsgesc
of observing temporal layers and conflict potential inhere
To note and study these connections is not to dishonor or d
Koselleck's work. His brilliant essays published as Vergang
still serve as a methodological baseline for conceptual hist
to the massive dictionary of historical basic concepts in Ge
Grundbegriffe, 1972-1997) hold an iconic status, and his lat
layers have added an important dimension to conceptual an
cisely because of the importance of Koselleck's contribution
genesis merits close attention. I will next scrutinize how "
formalized methodological sense, emerges in Koselleck's m
the section after that, I will show how Koselleck similarly
standing of secularization.
VII. FORMALIZING REOCCUPATION
In a key essay, published originally in a Festschrift for Schmitt, Koselle

returns to the important shift in the genesis of the modern conception of tim
that occurs when earlier religious prophecy turns into political prognosis. Prop
ecy integrates the religious community only insofar as the eschatological threa
remains unspecified and the expectations of what is already known in princip
are constantly disappointed, while rational and pragmatic political progno
unites the political community precisely because it provides means of anticip
ing the immediate future that is now perceived as something not yet known.1
Koselleck emphasizes that the gap between eschatology and the early-modern
political conception of time is narrower than one would expect: although pro
nosis has opened up the future in a novel way, it still relies on the medieval,
static notion of time, based on natural constants and linear interpolation of pa
into future. Koselleck writes: "The reoccupation [Umbesetzung] of prophesize
future into predictable future had not yet in principle mutilated the horizon o
Christian anticipation."121 The usage of "reoccupation" here is odd: in terms
content, semantics, and grammar, one would rather expect to find here the wo
Umsetzung that better captures the idea of translation or transposition and th
Koselleck did not shy away from in his future work. For instance, in his entry
"progress" in the Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, Koselleck perceives "a contin
ous transposition [kontinuierliche Transposition] of the religious advance into
119. Schmitt, Begriff des Politischen (1933), 55.

120. Reinhart Koselleck, "Vergangene Zukunft der frühen Neuzeit" [1968], in Vergangene Zu
nft: Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp 1995), [hereafter VZ], 28-3
121. Koselleck, "Vergangene Zukunft," 33. Emphasis added.
238 timo pankakoski
world-historical progress.'"22 As th
zung are synonyms in the Blumenb
Umsetzung and Umbesetzung interc
fails to account for the distinction
uses the latter in the sense of direct
category of historical continuity.
Whereas Schmitt demarcates betw
Koselleck defends the category of
and progress by cutting the process
not only "secularization," but also "
"temporalization" is a fundamental
future that marks the epochal thre
century, "history" shed its previou
historical narratives and turned into
process of history or "history as suc
than indicating partial advancemen
term and a factor full of temporal
projects.124 History at large can no
distinctively modern usage, history
horizon of future expectations that
future qualitatively different from
this novelty, and philosophy of hist
is proceeding toward better times,
possible but indeed a human task, a
with the argument in Kritik und K
politics emerged—first secretly,
future, based on a bold combinati
prognosis of possible future turns i
the present, and history, Koselleck
could be evoked to legitimize curren
thus, leads to a "reoccupation [Umbe
Again, the usage is atypical, but
tion here is interpreted as reapprop
progress, democracy, and other c
(besetzbar) by various political actor
occupy" these general concepts (Bes
them for their own purposes.129 Si
122. Koselleck, sections I and III-VI in "For

368. Emphasis added.
123. Reinhart Koselleck, "Historia Magistr
neuzeitlich bewegter Geschichte" [1967], in
in "Geschichte, Historie," in GG, Band 2: E-
124. Koselleck, "Fortschritt," 388ff.
125. Koselleck, "Vergangene Zukunft," 22.
126. Ibid., 33.
127. Koselleck, "Geschichte," 675-677.
128. Ibid., 675.
129. Koselleck, "Fortschritt," 414-417; Rei
Bewegungsbegriffe" [1977], in VZ, 346-347
the semantic battle [semantischer Kampf] tor the detinitio

positions, maintaining or achieving these positions by d
tion" has intensified and changed structurally: rather tha
temporary experiences, concepts now reach into the futu
tions must be linguistically prepared so that they can be
history but concepts, too, are thus temporalized.131 In mod
is, time incorporated into concepts—becomes "a legitimat
pation from all sides [allseitig besetzbar]."m In such an
reoccupy the future is to reoccupy the concepts of hist
present one's own concrete aims as legitimized and neces
the core of Koselleck's Schmittian-Löwithian critique of
Begriffsgeschichte is concerned with the conceptual sh
or facilitate occupations, some of them highly partisan.
earlier critical reading of political utilization of the ph
a means of historical observation and reflection on con
"progress," or "emancipation." Just as Koselleck incorpo
distinction of friend and enemy into his methodological
of the asymmetrical counter-concepts, a formal frame
[besetzt] with new names,"133 he also formalizes the me
sitions are enacted: conflict-oriented language and conc
this process, the category of reoccupation is detached fr
cal theology and the associated Schmittian normative co
it still carries an element of conflict, deriving from the
und Krise, where the revolutionaries "occupied" the state
cepts as "dualistic weapons . . . forged in the secret smi
of history."134 To reoccupy a concept is to perform a me
Further, in this formalized sense, Koselleck still uses
Schmittian lines as absorption, reappropriation, and reva
these variants a methodological twist. For instance, the c
ally diffuses into economy, politics, psychology, and his
century, but, echoing its ancestry in medicine and theol
sense of either an iterative period of culmination, like
unique decisive point, similar to the Last Judgment.135
the temporal structure of the apocalyptic scheme, and in
a "transposition [Transposition] of an eschatological c
to the philosophy of history."136 In a later commentary
however, reformulates this as a "reoccupation [Umbeset
130. Koselleck, "Begriffsgeschichte und Sozialgeschichte" [1972], in

131. The temporalization of concepts, thus, is one of the four basic h
Grundbegriffe, alongside "democratization," "politicization," and "th
See Koselleck, "Einleitung," XVI-XVIII.
132. Koselleck, "'Neuzeit'," 339.
133. Reinhart Koselleck, "Feindbegriffe" [1993], in Begriffsgeschi
und Pragmatik der politischen und sozialen Sprache (Frankfurt am M
ter Begriffsgeschichten], 277.
134. Koselleck, Kritik und Krise (1959), 112.
135. Reinhart Koselleck, "Krise," in GG, Band 3: H-Me (Stuttgart: K
136. Koselleck, "Krise," 628.
240 timo pankakoski
dogma."137 In the Blumenbergian f

only be contradictory, but the lat
secularization. The totality makes se
simultaneously connoting both the r
creative moment of reappropriation
The elements of reappropriation an
the concept of "interest," which is "
ways [verschieden besetzbar]," has s
touchstone for all parties struggling
the particular and has thus gone thr
to content" (inhaltliche Neubesetzun
is "occupiable [besetzbar] in politi
ways.'"39 In such partisan utilizatio
loads, and this analytically separate
only interpreted as revaluation or r
Socialists turn "revolution" into
"negatively loaded [negativ besetzt]"
tive occupation [Besetzung]" of the
in the late eighteenth century when
emerging from self-inflicted matur
into a process concept at the dispos
singularized into an inevitable cour
ated, the counter-concept "reaction
"reloading" (Umbesetzung), whereby
marily "negatively loaded [negativ b
concept [Kampfoegriff]"w In these
the one hand, and its revaluation or
a single process. Conceptual history
ally and diachronically.
VIII. RELATIVIZING SECULARIZATION
How committed, then, is Koselleck to the category of secularization? Ha

has recently criticized Koselleck for assuming secularization as an unpro
premise for his conceptual-historical studies: Koselleck comes close to
invoking secularization as a historical necessity and a hypostatized hi
philosophical force of precisely the kind that he was criticizing in his enc
137. Reinhart Koselleck, "Einige Fragen an die Begriffsgeschichte von 'Krise'" [1985], in B
geschichten, 212.
138. Reinhart Koselleck, section VI in "Interesse," in GG, Band 3: H-Me (Stuttgart: Kle
1982), 359 and 349.
139. Reinhart Koselleck, sections I and IV-VII in "Revolution, Rebellion, Aufruhr, Bürg
in GG, Band 5: Pro-Soz (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1984), 749.
140. Koselleck, "Revolution," 785.
141. Karl Martin Grass and Reinhart Koselleck, "Emanzipation," in GG, Band 2: E-G (St
Klett-Cotta, 1975), 163-166.
142. Koselleck, "Revolution," 756,758, and 760.
with utopianism and the philosophy of history—and th

contingency he set out to defend.143 The young Koselleck
treat secularization as an empirical fait accompli rather t
with its own dynamic potential.144 Further, the links b
anticipation and the philosophy of history, on the one
losophy of history and concrete political-ideological aim
in Koselleck's work in the 1970s too: this framework underlies the Koselleckian
basic narrative of temporalization of concepts in the Sattelzeit period.

However, when scrutinizing the matter on the level of individual concepts in
Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, Koselleck consciously relativizes the seculariza
tion thesis into one possibility among others. He notes that the philosophy of
history had a feedback effect on political planning and produced several concepts
of expectation; but to what extent this is "secularization" of religious meanings
is to be studied case by case.145 When we perceive ideological matters formally
from the point of view of individual concepts, we attain an additional degree of
freedom. Koselleck's adherence to secularization as a historical hypothesis and a
metatheoretical assumption does not preclude occasional opposite developments.
In the Reformation, the concept of Bund (association, league), for instance, goes
through a process of "theological reoccupation [theologische JJmbesetzung]" in
which it is depoliticized and spiritualized, until later secularized again.146 Simi
larly, "Hellene," although earlier a secular counter-concept to "Barbarian," is in
early Christianity "theologized" into a counter-concept for "Christian"—some
thing Koselleck calls the "reoccupation [Umbesetzung] of the word."147 Again,
the notions of "secularization" and "reoccupation" are intimately connected; but
for Koselleck, reoccupation as reappropriation is not only compatible with secu
larization interpreted in terms of continuity, but also with the opposite process of
desecularization or retheologization. On this level, "reoccupation" for Koselleck
truly is a formal category, utilizable to record historical changes to whichever
direction. The opposition between Christians and heathens and other such "lin
guistic empty positions" or "empty forms that always necessitate new concrete
occupation [Besetzung]"148 may persist as formal structures of historical experi
ence and political argumentation beyond their original context—and precisely
because of this formality, Koselleck notes explicitly, no "secularization thesis"
needs to be assumed.149
143. Joas, "Die Kontingenz der Säkularisierung."

144. In Kritik und Krise, Koselleck follows Löwith in accepting as common knowledge the process
of secularization "by which eschatology was transposed [transponiert] into a progressive history"
(Koselleck, Kritik und Krise [1959], 7). Blumenberg cites this passage among others in his brief
critique of the book (Blumenberg, Legitimität [1996], 40-41).
145. Reinhart Koselleck, "Einleitung," in GG, Band 1: A-D (Stuttgart: Klett, 1972), XIII-XXVII,
XVIII.
146. Reinhart Koselleck, "Diesseits des Nationalstaates: Föderale Strukturen der deutschen
Geschichte" [1994], in Begriffsgeschichten, 492 and 494.
147. Reinhart Koselleck, "Zur Historisch-politischen Semantik asymmetrischer Gegenbegriffe"
[1975], In VZ, 233.
148. Koselleck, "Zur Historisch-politischen Semantik," 253 and 257.
149. Ibid., 243.
242 timo pankakoski
Even in the cases in which seculariza

Koselleck reflects on whether we can
larisat) of eschatological anticipation
the possibility of historical progno
accelerate the revolution. Stein's argu
ical context of the Prussian constitut
political aims, whereas Robespierre's
by technological development, the po
we may add: autonomous and secular
of history.150 Although initially secu
modern experience of increased haste
related to concrete political projects,
developments, on the other.
This is the way Koselleck sees the
and secularization. From Thucydide
nected to political crises, instabilit
and the telegraph demarcate human ti
"secularization" ( Verweltlichung), th
factors, Koselleck posits, should be c
There is thus, first, a political exper
French Revolution, in which the orig
by utopianism"; and, second, a non
technological and economical progress
intact, and the apocalypse can therefo
era.154 In another context, Koselleck
and prophetic interpretations of tim
gence of the new temporal horizon, a
reoccupation [metaphorische Umbese
needs further research."155 As close
language, "reoccupation" here refers
term does not invoke the Blumenberg
In fact, while making sporadic refer
threshold,"156 Koselleck still rejects t
essays: the "reoccupation [Umbesetzu
into one within history," he posits,
150. Koselleck, "Geschichtliche Prognose in Lo

[1965], in VZ, 87; Reinhart Koselleck, "Histori
[1969], in VZ, 77.
151. Reinhart Koselleck, "Gibt es eine Beschl
Studien zur Historik (Frankfurt am Main: Su
167.
152. Reinhart Koselleck, "Zeitverkürzung u

[1985], in Zeitschichten, 183.
153. Koselleck, "Gibt es eine Beschleunigung
154. Koselleck, "Gibt es eine Beschleunigung
155. Koselleck, "'Neuzeit'," 338.
156. Ibid., 317.
menberg's criticism.157 Three points merit attention in

First, Koselleck denies the critical force of Blumenberg
difference between transcendental and immanent expect
ference does not discredit the notion of secularization, bu
is a process in which precisely such a change from tran
takes place, as was also argued by Löwith in his reply.15
conceptual historian, this immanentization is primarily
and takes place by means of them. For instance, the Bib
ing God's ability to accelerate time are later interpreted
ability to accelerate historical progress, and in this sense
speak of the "secularization" (Verweltlichung) of Christ
tion is here a historical hypothesis regarding the origins
analogies" such as that between eschatology and the task
as spelled out by Robespierre.160 In this relativized sen
niable, as far as some concepts and analogies are concern
Second, the wording, again, suggests the interpretatio
reappropriation of categories, on the one hand, and as a
ity, on the other. Interpreted in this way, "reoccupation
general understanding of secularization as continuous inf
of a tradition. The "reoccupation [Umbesetzung] of the
history into one within history" is here, pace Blumenber
"transformation [Transformation] of immediate apocaly
accelerated hope of the future."161 The modern experie
ever, is a product of secularization only in the limited se
Christian heritage."162
Third, like Schmitt, Koselleck also speaks as if Blum
reoccupations—a telling mistake that Löwith never mad
clearly demarcates "reoccupation" from "transpositi
pleads for the interpretive power of the former, it is unl
have simply missed or misunderstood the opposition. N
a hostile attempt to counter the supposed ideological-po
menberg's thought, as was the case in Schmitt's reply.
tian—in the intellectual, not the pejorative political
it is simply natural to interpret the category in this w
reoccupation and secularization are no longer counter-co
categories. Although ostensibly holding onto the Blu
Koselleck thus in fact "reoccupies" the notion of reoccu
the service of the defense of a secularization hypothesis,
tentative, and formal.
157. Koselleck, "Zeitverkürzung," 193, n. 28.

158. Karl Löwith, "Besprechung des Buches Die Legitimität der Ne
[1968], in Sämtliche Schriften 2: Weltgeschichte und Heilsgeschehen: Z
osophie (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1983), 456.
159. Koselleck, "Zeitverkürzung," 190.
160. Koselleck, "Gibt es eine Beschleunigung," 173.
244 timo pankakoski
IX. CONCLUSION
The category of secularization encapsulates some of the most persistent prob

of the modern understanding of history and politics. Utilizing its elucidat
force, combined with that of "reoccupation," the present article suggests a
marily political-theoretical and conflict-oriented reading of Schmitt's resp
to Blumenberg. The two philosophers speak largely past each other, but in
illuminating way. Blumenberg attempts to catch Schmitt assuming substan
continuities, but instead finds himself faced with the counter-charge of pol
hypocrisy. Schmitt's answer to Blumenberg's question of whether mere str
tural analogies justify the notion of "political theology" is affirmative.163 In
defense of the doctrine, Schmitt seizes Blumenberg's technical term of "re
cupation" and reinterprets it alternately as "absorption," "reappropriation,
"revaluation."
Koselleck never employs the term "political theology," but he considers the
"formal analogy'"54 between eschatology and progress enough to justify the
notion of "secularization," regardless of Blumenberg's criticism. Koselleck
adheres to the secularization thesis largely under the influence of Löwith and
quite independently of the Schmittian polemics. However, in doing this, he
engages with the particular concept of reoccupation in the manner of Schmitt:
by reinterpreting it as continuous "absorption" of elements, "reappropriation" of
categories, and their "revaluation" or "reloading." The analysis of "reoccupation"
thus highlights a Schmittian residue in Koselleck's thought. Further, the parallel
reading of Schmitt's and Koselleck's narratives indicates that the compound of
secularization and reoccupation has a systematic role for both thinkers. Secular
ization is intimately connected to the original political act of pacification and to
its reversal in modernity as secular conflict potential is unleashed. Secularization
thus has an intrinsic relation to conflict.
In contrast to his early work, where, following Löwith, Koselleck assumes

secularization as common knowledge, he later relativizes it into a more restricted
research hypothesis. In the late essays on secularization, Koselleck primarily
discusses scientific and technical progress and neglects moral, social, and politi
cal progress that are paradigmatic for the original idea of the temporalization of
history and concepts as it unfolds from the Schmittian narrative. Thereby the
connection between secularization and conflict is loosened. To the extent that
he abandons his early pessimism in the Bundesrepublik, Koselleck can afford to

move beyond the crisis orientation inherent in his understanding of conceptual
contestation. In his theorizing on history and time, he takes the distant observa
tional position of a historian by engaging with criticism of ideologies and the
formal analysis of temporal structures. Crisis and eschatology become objects
163. Blumenberg, Legitimität (1996), 105; Schmitt to Blumenberg, October 20, 1974, in Blumen
berg-Schmitt, Briefwechsel, 120.
164. Koselleck, "Gibt es eine Beschleunigung," 173.
of conceptual research, while conflict, together with the

and enemy, turns into a permanent metahistorical categor
structural.
One more such formal means of analysis is the idea of c

able and reloadable carriers for heterogeneous intellectual
however, too quickly assume that by formalizing Schmittia
gains distance from his early Schmittianism: several of Sch
self-declaredly formal to begin with, and even formalized
Schmittianism, as long as the term is understood as describ
tion and mode of analysis rather than as a reproach regardi
implications. I believe the Schmittian residue in Koselleck'
ization and reoccupation effectively prevents him from a
model of the reoccupation of functional positions that, aft
rately with Koselleck's basic intention of showing the sig
the modern experience of time and politics. This implicit t
potential factor behind Koselleck's reserved attitude towar
ects despite a significant overlap between conceptual histor
University of Helsinki, Finland

Pankakoski (2013) Reocupying Secularization Schmitt and Koselleck On Blumenberg S Challenge

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pankakoski (2013) Reocupying Secularization Schmitt and Koselleck On Blumenberg S Challenge

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wesleyan University

REOCCUPYING SECULARIZATION: SCHMITT AND KOSELLECK ON BLUMENBERG'S

Keywords', secularization, reoccupation, Reinhart Koselleck, Carl Schmitt, Hans Bl

In a global era, when religion and politics repeatedly intertwine, secularizat

worldly sphere, whereby some of its transcendental elem

2. The range of participants, particularly in the German context, is

The essay consists of two main p

ed. Riccardo Pozzo and Marco Sgarbi (Hamb

nexus for the mostly tacit dialogue between Blumenberg

II. REOCCUPATION AND THE DYNAMICS OF EPOCHAL CHANGE

Hans Blumenberg is known primarily for four major contributions. First, in

6. Timo Pankakoski, "Conflict, Context, Concreteness: Koselleck and Schmitt on Concepts,

his earlier theory, now giving it a mo

9. Hans Blumenberg, Theorie der Unbegriff

berg's thought manifests a consistent opposition to absolu

17. See Brad Tabas, "Blumenberg, Politics, Anthropology," Telos 158

20. Blumenberg, Legitimität (1966), 72; Blumenberg. Legitimität (1996), 129.

To capture the interplay of contin

Already these principal differences

21. See Benjamin Lazier, "Overcoming G

For Blumenberg, the historical identity implied by the sec

29. Blumenberg, "'Säkularisation'," 249-250; Blumenberg, Legitimität (1

needed to facilitate the substitution

III. SECULARIZATION AND THE TAMING OF CONFLICT

Even if the criticism of secularization was largely directed against Löwit

35. Blumenberg, "'Säkularisation'," 257.

sovereign decision, rather than a norm as the legal positivi

altered environment of the Federal R

48. Hans Blumenberg and Carl Schmitt, Bri

elements still have "contemporary significance" for us.52 Se

praises as the true epochal threshold o

56. Schmitt, Politische Theologie II, 86.

point that analogies are not transformations63 is trivia

IV. NEUTRALIZATION AND THE RETURN OF CONFESSIONAL CONFLICT

If political theology consisted merely of studying structural analogies, Sc

63. Blumenberg, Legitimität (1996), 103.

intensifies the original conflict into t

68. Schmitt, Nomos der Erde, 91-96, 132, 23

cal killing—and for purely secular reasons. Commenting

V. SCHMITT'S REACTION: ABSORPTION, REAPPROPRIATION, AND REVALUATION

ond, Schmitt claims that he was alwa

dispute warrants. See Carl Schmitt, Politica

until then had been occupied [besetzt] by theologians."81

81. Schmitt, Ex Captivitate Salus, 70.

paradigm, as advancement in the the

87. In Politische Theologie II Schmitt goes so

his earlier criticism of the just war tradition: bringing in m

93. Ibid., 56.

attempting to pull off a reoccupatio

VI. KOSELLECK ON SECULARIZATION AND CONFLICT

100. Schmitt to Blumenberg on March 31, 1971, in Blumenberg-Schmitt, Briefivechsel, 111

Krise (1954, published 1959). Although his ultimate aims

sees Koselleck as "depoliticizing" Schmittian categories before applyi

What thus returns is the rigidity of

110. Ibid., 2,6-7, and 9.

history of mankind as a history of class struggle to a prog

VII. FORMALIZING REOCCUPATION

In a key essay, published originally in a Festschrift for Schmitt, Koselle

119. Schmitt, Begriff des Politischen (1933), 55.

122. Koselleck, sections I and III-VI in "For

the semantic battle [semantischer Kampf] tor the detinitio

130. Koselleck, "Begriffsgeschichte und Sozialgeschichte" [1972], in

dogma."137 In the Blumenbergian f