★Translation rights sold: English, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Korean, Japanese, and Romanian!

This essay has brought back to public attention a concept long deemed unacceptable by modern political philosophy: civil war, which the ancient Greeks called stasis and regarded as a fundamental aspect of life in the polis.

War and game are antithetical paradigms that immediately evoke their respective theorists—Carl Schmitt and Johan Huizinga—and in the 20th century, they became criteria for political access. For Schmitt, danger is inherent in human nature, exposing humans to the threat of violent death: in a peaceful world, there would be no distinction between friends and enemies, and since politics depends on this distinction, it would cease to exist.

To the opposite side of the tragic paradigm lies the playful one described by Huizinga, which places all wars that are not “proper wars” within the realm of play—such as agonistic wars, primary forms of ritualized or initiatory fighting that evolved into bloody affairs over time. Originally, fights that did not aim for the annihilation of the adversary were actually a way to forge relationships (Plato mentions this in The Republic when he writes that the Greeks fight among themselves with the intention of reconciling). This “serious game,” notes Giorgio Agamben, was then appropriated by the State, which deploys the agonistic function in various ways: this is when the enemy is stripped of human characteristics to justify their killing.

Giorgio Agamben

Giorgio Agamben is one of the most hotly debated political philosophers today. His works on the political and legal paradigm of the West have caught the attention of philosophers, sociologists, political scientists and jurists alike, but his significance has been obscured by myths and misunderstandings. His works have been translated into more than 15 languages.