MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414591947 · doi:10.3390/rel16091179

The Friend and the Enemy: Carl Schmitt, Katechon, and the Theological Foundations of the Political

2025· article· en· W4414591947 on OpenAlexaff
Gaoxiang Li, Jing Li

Bibliographic record

VenueReligions · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Theology and Sovereignty
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsPolitical theologyDualismUniversalismScholarshipReading (process)Conviction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores Carl Schmitt’s concepts of the friend and the enemy through the lens of Katechon. Contemporary scholarship often treats Schmitt’s friend–enemy distinction as an occasional decision driven by political contingency. This paper refutes such a purely political reading and instead argues Schmitt’s political enemies have a deeper theological origin—Gnosticism. The Gnostics, emerging from a mistaken rejection of theodicy, developed a cosmological dualism and apocalypticism that, in the 20th century, manifested politically in the forms of liberal universalism and social pluralism. To illuminate the theological depth of Schmitt’s thought, this paper investigates a recurring yet underexplored concept—Katechon, the restrainer who holds back the end times. By linking Katechon to Schmitt’s political projects—the nomos of the earth and the decisionist state—this paper reveals the theological foundation underlying his understanding of the political: enmity is not contingent but theologically predestined by human fallenness and God’s redemptive plan. However, Schmitt’s project of political theology ends in paradox: Katechon, meant to restrain chaos, turns into its opposite owing to its intrinsic logical flaw.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.023
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReligionsSame topicPolitical Theology and SovereigntyFrench-language works237,207