A lecture hall. A PROFESSOR stands at a podium. Behind him, a blackboard reads: "SCHMITT: FRIEND OR ENEMY? (A METHODOLOGICAL INQUIRY INTO WHETHER WE MAY PROCEED)" He adjusts his notes for forty-five seconds in silence.
PROFESSOR: I should like to begin, if I may, and I think you'll agree that I may, by saying, in the clearest possible terms, that I do not endorse what I am about to say.
STUDENT: What are you about to say?
PROFESSOR: I haven't decided yet. But whatever it is, I wish to distance myself from it preemptively.
He writes "DISAVOWAL" on the blackboard, underlines it three times.
PROFESSOR: Now. Carl Schmitt. (long pause) Brilliant. (shorter pause) Appalling. (pause) Brilliant. I think we can all agree on the sequence.
STUDENT: Can we use him or not?
PROFESSOR: (visibly relieved someone asked) Excellent question. The answer is yes, provided one has first said no. You say no in the footnote. A short no. Firm but not aggressive. Then you proceed as if the no had resolved everything.
STUDENT: But does the no actually resolve anything?
PROFESSOR: It resolves your position within this institution. Which is, I would argue, the more pressing concern.
A second PROFESSOR enters, slightly out of breath.
SECOND PROFESSOR: I've just written a paper using Schmitt.
PROFESSOR: Did you disavow?
SECOND PROFESSOR: Extensively.
PROFESSOR: How many words?
SECOND PROFESSOR: A hundred and twelve.
PROFESSOR: (impressed) Per footnote?
SECOND PROFESSOR: Total.
PROFESSOR: (sucking through teeth) Cutting it fine. What was the paper on?
SECOND PROFESSOR: The exception as a structural feature of constitutional order and its implications for contemporary democratic theory.
PROFESSOR: And you managed that with a hundred and twelve words of disavowal?
SECOND PROFESSOR: I said "deeply problematic" twice.
PROFESSOR: (relaxing) That's the equivalent of roughly forty words each. You're probably fine.
A STUDENT in the front row raises her hand.
STUDENT: If Schmitt's theory of the exception describes how a community defines itself against an enemy, and we define ourselves against Schmitt, doesn't that mean Schmitt's theory is correct and we are merely demonstrating it?
Long silence.
PROFESSOR: (carefully) That observation, while interesting, is itself somewhat problematic.
STUDENT: Are you disavowing my question?
PROFESSOR: I am contextualizing it within a framework that preserves our ability to continue.
STUDENT: Continue what?
PROFESSOR: The seminar. (beat) The department. (longer beat) The postwar liberal consensus.
A THIRD PROFESSOR bursts in carrying a large stack of papers.
THIRD PROFESSOR: Chantal Mouffe is here!
PROFESSOR: (standing straighter) Has she disavowed?
THIRD PROFESSOR: She's thinking with him against him.
PROFESSOR: That's the advanced technique. You need at least fifteen years in the field before attempting that.
THIRD PROFESSOR: She says the enemy becomes an adversary.
PROFESSOR: (nodding slowly) So she's kept the structure but changed the wallpaper.
THIRD PROFESSOR: That's roughly what Giorgio Agamben did too, except he made Schmitt the villain of his own theory.
PROFESSOR: Elegant. That way you get to use the knife while blaming the knife for cutting.
The STUDENT raises her hand again.
STUDENT: None of this seems to be about Schmitt anymore. It seems to be about whether we're allowed to talk about Schmitt.
PROFESSOR: Correct. That is political theory.
STUDENT: What about the actual argument? About sovereignty? About the exception?
PROFESSOR: (pause) That comes in week nine.
STUDENT: What happens in weeks one through eight?
PROFESSOR: Disavowal technique. (He turns back to the board) Now. Who can tell me the difference between a firm disavowal and a performative one?
Nobody raises their hand.
PROFESSOR: (writing on the board) A firm disavowal says: I reject this. A performative disavowal says: I reject this, and by saying so I am the kind of person who rejects this, which is the kind of person who can now safely use this. The second is considerably more useful.
SECOND PROFESSOR: What if someone doesn't disavow at all?
The room goes very quiet.
PROFESSOR: (in a low voice) Then we do not speak of them.
SECOND PROFESSOR: Not at all?
PROFESSOR: We cite them in order to note that they have not disavowed. That is the correct procedure.
STUDENT: So you cite them to exclude them.
PROFESSOR: We cite them to mark the boundary of the acceptable, yes.
STUDENT: Isn't that exactly what Schmitt said sovereignty does?
The PROFESSOR looks at her for a long moment.
PROFESSOR: (very quietly) I'm going to need you to write a disavowal of that question before next Tuesday.
BLACKOUT.
