Theoretical Trauma?

In Agamben’s analysis, he heavily uses the Schmitian theory of the state of exception, which is the suspension of law which the sovereign is within the law, but that simultaneously exists outside of it. The state of exception, according to Schmidt and later Agamben, is that the exception defines the rule. In Homo Sacer,  Agamben heavily relies on the Schmidtian theory of the political as well as Arent’s analysis of the status of the human in the modern nation-state. I was talking to a respected Africana studies professor earlier this semester and after mentioning the ways in which Arendt has been taken up in contemporary theory, I proceeded to mention the ways in which Schmidt had been taken up by writers like Agamben, particularly concerning the state of exception.  This professor responded in way that refused to acknowledge the productive ways that Schmidt could be used, based on Schmidt’s historical appropriation to Nazism and how it became an ideology that supported the mass extermination of people. Thinking of the ways in which Arendt has been reappropriated in contemporary theory, what is at stake in the reappropriation of Schmidt and to a certain extent Heidegger? This is perhaps a somewhat simple question and one that has come up in relation to Heidegger, but what are the stakes of Schmidt’s reappropriation and does it remain completely unproblematic. It would seem that the importance of Agamben’s discussion of Schmidt’s theory on the state of exception lies in the stakes that it has for those whom the state of exception most affects – marginalized people of the State. Although I understand the history of Schmidt’s theoretical application in the Nazi regime, it would seem that Agamben is pushing Schmidt’s argument as far as it can go and by doing so, showing the ultimate and most dire implications and effects that such a state can have. However, one must consider the level of historical trauma that such theories are tied to.   When theory becomes tied to a certain trauma like the Holocaust, what are the terms through which it is appropriated and how can such an appropriation still be responsible? Since Agamben makes great use of it, what are the implications for the claims that he makes? I do think that Agamben’s use of Schmidt and the references to the biopolitical techniques deployed by are productive when thinking about the dangerous stakes that such formations have. However, when such examples are tied to such heavy levels of trauma and taboo, what does it mean to compare the modern Nation-State to such examples? Does it lose some of its effectiveness or become easy to write off? 

I will (hopefully) be able to post my project proposal on Saturday. This weeks reading has compelled me to rethink some of my ideas slightly.