Introduction | 3introduced a hitherto-unknown religious phenomenon to Western readers. Even
when Buber is recognized as having a politics, it is usually characterized as a
subdivision of his philosophy: the political utopia Buber sought logically ensues
from his existential meditations on the I-Thou relation.^8 This stance makes sense
if we treat ontology (the study of Being) as the most fundamental branch of phi-
losophy, and if we also read Buber’s “philosophy of dialogue” as his version of
an ontology. From the perspective of the philosophy of dialogue, utopia is that
configuration of society with the fewest possible obstacles to the fundamental
human desire for a community based on recognition and mutual concern. Social
structures that discourage such regard, and demand subservience to laws of in-
strumentality, such as the state and the market, obstruct I-Thou encounters. Such
social structures would be transformed in utopia, constituting a direct connec-
tion between Buber’s philosophy and his politics. Bernard Susser sums up this
approach: “Federalism as Buber understands it is the principle of dialogue writ
large and socialized.”^9
In this book, however, I “bracket” ontology and Hasidism, the most familiar
aspects of Buber’s thought, to focus on Buber’s biblical writings as a key source
of his political thought. By “bracket,” I do not mean to downplay the importance
of Buber’s philosophical anthropology or the inspiration he took from his inter-
pretation of the Hasidic movement. I simply mean to set them to the side for the
moment, as if in parentheses, to focus on more neglected aspects of his work. My
bracketing of Buber’s most famous writings thus should not be read as an argu-
ment for replacing them with the biblical and political writings. I simply choose
to turn the prism one more time, to look at Buber through different lenses, and
to reveal other colors.^10
The past few decades have seen a resurgence of interest in the idea of political
theology, usually in the sense given to that term by the German Catholic jurist
and erstwhile Nazi Party member Carl Schmitt (1888–1985).^11 For Schmitt, “politi-
cal theology” meant that no matter how modern and secular a political concept
might seem, if we analyze its intellectual history and trajectory, we will discover
that it is a transformed version of a theological concept. Schmitt thought this
was especially true of concepts related to the legitimation of authority. He fur-
ther characterized “the political” as defined by the decision between friend and
enemy, and he derided liberalism as an attempt to evade politics and decision
making by indulging in endless, indecisive discussion. Buber rarely uses the term
“political theology,” but he frequently uses the term Theopolitik (theopolitics), a
word that seems at first as though it might mean the same thing. However, I fol-
low Christoph Schmidt’s belief that for Buber, the term “theopolitics” is intended
to function as a deep inversion of “political theology,” a conceptual attack on
Schmitt and what he stands for.^12 There are many potential angles from which to
oppose Schmitt. The German-Jewish historian and intellectual Leo Strauss coun-
terposed his own concept of political philosophy to Schmitt’s political theology,