Explore the vast range of titles available.

This paper juxtaposes the katechontic political theology of modern sovereignty that sacrifices life in the name of its protection with a paradigm of mystical sovereignty whose purpose is to serve the power of life. Reclaiming the power and politicality not only of theology but also of an overlooked and denigrated discourse, such as mysticism, serves two purposes: it restores the true content of mystery and elucidates the political dimension of theology. Mysticism has been either unduly dismissed in secular modernity as obscurantist, or its meaning has been abused by modern sovereignty for the purpose of investing power with an air of transcendent legitimacy. The proper restoration of the meaning of mysticism may eventually help us reconstruct an alternative conception of sovereignty, one that inverses the attributes Schmitt associates with sovereign power: mastery, supreme potency, legitimate exercise of arbitrary violence. Such an alternative conception of sovereignty, as vulnerability, sacrifice, service, and potent powerlessness may then enable us to appreciate the resources mystical theology can contribute to rethinking the nature of the political and the political nature of theology.

Purpose Ethnography produces accounts; the critical reflection of accounts produces accountability. Ethnography requires accountability if meaningful conclusions and/or observations are to be made. Accountability requires ethnography if is to address lived experiences. Virno argues that the principles of “languaging” make ethnographies and accountability possible. This papers aims to describe an instance of the circularity of accountability and use this to explore Virno’s insights. Doing this helps us to see the connections between accountability and ethnography, and reflect on the nature of these interconnections. Design/methodology/approach Inspired by Paulo Virno’s philosophy, the authors assert that an ethnographer typically produces an account of a chosen “Other” in which this “Other” is held to account. But at the same time, the ethnographer needs to be held to account by the very same “Other” and by the “Other” of the (research) community. Furthermore, ethnographers are accountable to themselves. All these moments of accountability can endlessly circle, as responsibilization of the researchers by their Other(s) continues. For ethnography to function, this must be tamed as a (research) account ultimately has to be produced for an academic project to be considered complete. Drawing on Virno’s principle of the “negation of the negation” by the “katechon,” by the “katechon,” the authors propose a potentially valuable intervention that would enable ethnography – and by extension, ethnographers – to prosper. Findings The authors apply Virno’s philosophical reflections to propose a positive feedback cycle between ethnography and accountability. Virno’s ideation centers on two key concepts: (i) the multitude of social relatedness and (ii) the ontology of the languaging of individuation. Hereby, a positive circle of causality between ethnography and accountability can be realized, whereby the authors can respect but also break the causal circle(s) of ethnography and accountability. This might be achieved via a reflection on Virno’s concept of the “katechon.” Originality/value The authors illuminate the accountability–ethnography dynamic, providing an illustration of the circularity of ethnography and accountability and showing how Virno provides us with tools to help us deal with it. Hence, ultimately, the paper focuses on the accountability as ethnographers.

The paper addresses the theology of Carl Schmitt. Schmitt often stresses his ‘natural born Catholicism.’ At the same time he also claims repeatedly not to be a theologian in the professional sense. On the other hand, his main ideas like the concept of the political (Der Begriff des Politischen), the public character of the church (Römischer Katholizimus und politische Form), and finally, his Politische Theologie II in reaction to Erik Peterson’s refutation of Politische Theologie I show that Schmitt’s ideas imply deep and problematic theological positions. The role of the katechon, or the Grand Inquisitor and his criticism of Peterson’s patristic arguments, especially the rejection of the anti-Arian reasoning of Gregory Nazianzen show a markedly unorthodox theological stance reminiscent of Charles Maurras’ political Catholicism. Schmitt’s transcends patristic orthodoxy in order to apply his historically conditioned 19th-century theology to sacralizing his idea of the political.

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.

The Mandate of the XXV World Russian People’s Council of 27 March 2024 framed the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine as a “holy war”. This paper presents an in-depth textual analysis of the Mandate followed by an extended thematic and contextual analysis. The findings indicate that the Mandate’s mainstream discourses of eschatological–apocalyptic holy war and katechon state were not previously expressed at the level of official church leadership. They contribute to the ideological escalation of the Russian confrontation with Ukraine and the West around declared traditional values and the holy mission of the Russian people, while the involvement of Orthodoxy in the Russian ‘holy war’ narrative is neither exclusive of other religious referents nor of disbelief in ecclesial doctrine. The main referent of the Self (and correspondingly, of the sacred) is the (Russian) ‘nation’ or ‘people’, for which ‘spiritual’ and ‘civilizational’ are comprehensive religious markers of cultural identity. While two religious adversaries of the Russian geopolitical agenda of Ukraine—the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Ukrainian Orthodoxy—are not directly mentioned in the Mandate, it nevertheless attempts to re-formulate an Orthodox ‘just war’ theory, intensifies antagonistic inter-Orthodox relations in the Russia–Ukraine dimension and strengthens the resolve of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and the Russian Federation to retain Ukraine’s Orthodox Church as an exclusively Russian space.

It is a common misconception that sustainability is a brand-new topic. Since the beginning, since the construction of the first house, sustainability has been a central component of the architectural concept. With industrial production and mass production, however, modernity has excluded the concept of sustainability from the consciousness of architecture. In the context of post-industrial society, the climate, resource, and migration issues, sustainability is now returning at a new conceptual level. In practice, however, materialistic, technical, and instrumental reasons prevail. What is missing, however, is a critical theory of sustainability that conceives of sustainability organically, from within architecture. The essay sketches out the foundations for such a critical theory of architecture, which focuses on the unity of human and non-human authors or, in other words, of humans, materials, and the system of earth.

Recent scholarship on Pier Paolo Pasolini has put into focus many of the Italian intellectual’s lesser-known works. Among these is his screenplay for an unrealized film on the topic of the apostle Paul, San Paolo. Analyses of the film address Pasolini’s portrayal of Paul as dichotomic, as a representation of both revolutionary and conformist. In examining the criticism that addresses the duality of Saint Paul’s, this representation proves essential to understanding the role Pasolini intended the apostle to play. Paul, one of the architects of the Christian religion, is in fact the katechon that he names in 2 Thessalonians. Paul as the katechon is thus the force that holds back evil and annihilation. In doing so, however, he also prevents Man’s final redemption. As such, his portrayal of Paul is blasphemy, and Pasolini sent this screenplay to Don Emilio Cordero, head of Sampaolo Films, a Catholic film company charged with making religious movies in line with Church doctrine. This depiction of Paul proves one reason the film remains unmade and not solely the astronomical costs evident from the screenplay, as has been generally accepted until now.

The author proposes an imperial genealogy of Schmitt's concept of the katechon. Engaging debates about the role of the concept in Schmitt's political theology, the author reads the katechon as a scenario of imperial ruin gazing, tracing its emergence in essays about World War II, which focused on the theme of imperial rise and decline. With the katechon, Schmitt re-conceptualized Reich/empire/nomos as the inextricable link between beginning and end.

The essay aims to prospect an original understanding of Equity Jurisdiction at the intersection of Law, Literature and Theology, theoretically based on a critical reassessment of E. Kantorowicz’s and E.L. Santner’s arguments. In this perspective, the Author uncovers the tensional metamorphoses, which ontologically affected and transmuted Equity from Medieval foundations to Renaissance reformed settlement, in order to fulfil a process of mystical secularization. Moving from a deeper appreciation of Chancellor’s figure and institutional role, the new intellectual vision here proposed brings to the light the historical and symbolical relevance of the Chancellor’s two bodies, which mimically reflected the dualities embedded in the normative figure of the King. The main purpose is to demonstrate how Equity Jurisdiction was charged with an eschatological significance and was attracted into millenaristic visions and narratives. Equity definitely constituted the salvific seam between Theological Order and Legal Faith. Meaningful arguments, in order to support the main thesis, comes from Medieval Literature, and especially from the spectacularized allegorical representation enacted by verses of Piers Plowman, where the contending claims of Common Law and Equity are christologically reinterpreted. Other foundative elements emerge from the valorization of the connection between Equity’s strategies and Elizabethan Apocalypticism. The Equity jurisdiction was a powerful device in order to gives voice and expression to the mission embodied by Queen Elizabeth I. The bond between Sovereignty and Equity was newly attracted into an eschatological plan.

This article compares a discursive analysis of 2 Thess 2 and Giorgio Agamben's use of the same passage in his political philosophy (in at least three of his books). On the one hand, 2 Thess 2 is a complex and detailed eschatological scenario, but ultimately elliptical – with a self-referential enunciative device centred on a ‘super blank’, the κατέχον/κατέχων, which it is preferable not to identify. On the other hand, despite some shortcuts, Agamben aligns with the main intuitions of 2 Thess 2, which finally returns the reader to his/her own present where a conflict is played out between, on one front, the Messiah and his community, and, on the other front, the anti-messiah and his anti-messianic community. According to Agamben, the κατέχον/κατέχων is a negative figure, the legal facade that prevents unmasking the anomie of current political systems and delays the establishment of a messianic community beyond the law.