Liberalism in Dialogue: Carl Schmitts Critique and Masao Maruyamas Defense

Abstract: Carl Schmitt criticized liberalism by asserting that it negates politics and leads to a crisis of parliamentary democracy. Through his theories on the concept of the political and sovereign decision-making, Schmitt provided a deep analysis of these issues. Masao Maruyama not only highly valued Schmitts work but also theoretically borrowed from his ideas. However, Maruyama placed individual subjectivity at the core of his analysis, using Japans traditional culture and unique historical and social context as his focus. In doing so, Masao Maruyama both supplemented and, in some aspects, refuted Schmitts critique of liberalism. For Schmitt, the survival and integrity of the political entity are paramount, necessitating a clear distinction between friends and enemies. His critique of liberalism centers not only on its moral neutrality but also on its perceived incapacity to make sovereign decisions that guarantee the preservation of the political entity. In contrast, Maruyama contended that Japanese imperialism elevated the state as the embodiment of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful, thereby positioning it as a value-laden entity, creating a metaphysical order seemingly justified by the imperative of national survival. Although this might initially appear to align with Schmitts notion of the states primacy, Maruyama ultimately critiques this belief as an ideological facade, which devolved into a mere instrument of totalitarian rule.