The goal of this chapter is to examine the justification of the State through a philosophical analysis of Carl Schmitt’s conception of it, alongside a comparative reading of the German jurist’s political thought with Aeschylus’ play Prometheus Bound.
The State, as presented in Schmitt’s works, is tightly bound to the concepts of sovereignty, decisionism, violence, and the reestablishment of order. Drawing on Political Theology, The Concept of the Political, and his infamous text The Führer Protects the Law, I argue that to understand how the existence of the State is justified in Schmitt’s thought, we must first understand his very particular conception of it; one that resists reduction to a mere administrative apparatus or abstract political form.
To further explore this, I compare Schmitt’s idea of the State with Prometheus Bound, in which Prometheus defies the divine order of Zeus by stealing fire -a primordial symbol of sovereignty- and giving it to humans to aid their survival. As punishment for this transgression, or act of hubris, Zeus sends Bia (violence) and Kratos (power and, in modern Greek, State) to bind Prometheus to a mountain, where he suffers eternal torment at the claws of an eagle: another emblem of royal sovereignty.
Read through a Schmittian lens, the myth dramatizes how the State’s justification is rooted in its capacity to impose order through violence and authority. From this perspective, the State, as both power and violence, is justified by its fundamental role in reestablishing order and setting limits. The State in Aeschylus’ work thus emerges as a divine force that tolerates no defiance or challenger to its authority. Hence, drawing on my interpretation of the play and Carl Schmitt’s writings, I aim to show that the State as violence and exercise of sovereignty has always been justified as the force that preserves the status quo: the power that shields authority from its defiers and opponents.
The justification of the State thus, following Schmitt, lies at the core of every group, society, and community that seeks to defend itself from radical change that might undo the established order. Whenever a Prometheus arises to kindle the fire of rebellion, the State responds, and it is precisely this act of defiance that, consciously or unconsciously, leads us to accept the State’s response as justified: a justification grounded in our (un)conscious conviction that order must not be shaken, and boundaries must not be crossed.