Jan Assmann and the deification of the political matter

Studies in the field of political theology are becoming more and more widespread, and the question of the nature and essence of this branch, as well as the process of historical developments and the genealogy of the works that the central thoughts of this issue leave in different societies, remains one of the key issues. Therefore, analyzing the different perspectives of scholars in the field of political theology and recognizing the dimensions and angles of the theories proposed in this field is of great importance and necessity. Accordingly, this article examines the perspective of "Jan Assmann", a German thinker in the field of political theology, and his thesis of "the deification of the political". Assmann takes a position against the perspective of modern secularization of Carl Schmitt, proposing Mousavi's monotheism and with the aim of establishing a revolution in political theology. Based on a brief analysis of Asman's interpretation of Egyptian religion, it becomes clear that he has a special understanding of political affairs that he considers separate from theology.

Introduction

The study of political theology has long been concerned with the relationship between religion and politics, specifically addressing questions about the source, legitimacy, and exercise of political power. Throughout history, political authority has often drawn on religious justification, while religious institutions have simultaneously sought political influence. The modern conceptualization of “political theology” was initially introduced not as a reaffirmation of religion’s political role but as a critique of its influence on politics. In this regard, Carl Schmitt, the influential German jurist, played a central role in shaping modern debates through his theory of secularization, claiming that core political concepts are secularized theological concepts. Schmitt’s work has been highly controversial, sparking significant scholarly debate within political theology.
Jan Assmann, a contemporary German scholar of Egyptology and religious studies, emerges as one of Schmitt’s most prominent critics. Assmann challenges Schmitt’s notion of secularization and instead proposes the concept of “theologization of the political.” He argues that theology is not the foundation from which politics derives but rather a secondary phenomenon shaped by political needs. Drawing on his studies of ancient Egyptian religion, Assmann distinguishes between “primary religion” and “secondary religion.” In doing so, he emphasizes the role of religion as a structural response to political and social order rather than as the original source of sovereignty. His alternative interpretation suggests that political legitimacy and structural transformation are deeply influenced by shifts in theological meaning rather than by secularization in the Schmittian sense.This article critically examines Assmann’s theoretical position in contrast to Schmitt’s secularization thesis. By analyzing Assmann’s reflections on ancient Egyptian religion, the study highlights how the conceptual separation between theology and politics generates a new perspective on legitimacy, structural transformation, and the friend–enemy distinction. Furthermore, the article discusses the implications of Assmann’s theory, explores its critical reception, and evaluates the broader significance of his approach within contemporary debates on political theology.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical foundation of this article rests on two major contributions to political theology: Carl Schmitt’s secularization thesis and Jan Assmann’s theologization of politics. Schmitt argued that the political concepts underpinning modern statehood are derived from secularized theological notions, such as sovereignty reflecting divine omnipotence. For Schmitt, the friend–enemy distinction is the defining characteristic of the political, rooted in theological metaphors and legitimized through sovereign decisionism. In contrast, Assmann situates religion as a construct that emerges in response to political necessity, rather than its foundation. He introduces the distinction between primary religion (the embedded, mythological, and ritual practices tied to collective identity) and secondary religion (the reflective, normative, and universalizing dimensions tied to governance and political authority). This framework reverses Schmitt’s model by proposing that political structures generate theological formulations, leading to the “theologization of the political.”By applying this theoretical framework, the article explores how Assmann reinterprets political legitimacy and structural transformation, particularly in his analysis of ancient Egyptian religion. The comparative tension between Schmitt and Assmann serves as the analytical lens for evaluating contemporary debates about sovereignty, legitimacy, and the interdependence of religion and politics.

Methodology

This study employs a qualitative, interpretive methodology based on textual and comparative analysis. Primary sources include Jan Assmann’s writings on religion, monotheism, and political theology, as well as Carl Schmitt’s seminal works Political Theology and Political Theology II. Secondary sources consist of critical commentaries and scholarly debates addressing the theological-political nexus. By conducting a conceptual comparison of Schmitt’s secularization thesis and Assmann’s theologization of the political, the article identifies key points of convergence, divergence, and reinterpretation. This hermeneutic approach facilitates a contextualized understanding of how political and religious categories interact across historical and philosophical frameworks.

Results and Discussion

The comparative analysis of Schmitt and Assmann underscores two fundamentally different trajectories in understanding the political-theological nexus. Schmitt views theology as the historical foundation of political thought, arguing that the core concepts of sovereignty and state authority are transpositions of divine attributes into secular political order. In this sense, the political domain is permanently marked by theological residues. His theory of secularization has become a central reference point in debates on modernity, sovereignty, and the limits of political authority. Assmann, however, contests this paradigm by introducing the theologization thesis. His research on ancient Egypt reveals that politics and religion were initially distinct but interconnected domains. Political structures did not emerge out of theology; instead, theology was developed as a tool to sustain political order. This reinterpretation problematizes Schmitt’s assumption that theological origins underpin all modern political categories. For Assmann, political legitimacy derives from differentiation, particularly the distinction between primary and secondary religion, which reflects shifts in how societies codify authority and transcendence. A critical dimension of this debate concerns the concept of the friend–enemy distinction. Whereas Schmitt posits it as the defining feature of political identity, Assmann reinterprets it through the lens of ancient Egyptian structures, suggesting that the construction of political legitimacy was more concerned with structural transformation and symbolic codification than with antagonism. This divergence highlights the implications of moving beyond Schmitt’s Eurocentric and juridical framework toward a historically grounded, cross-cultural approach to political theology. Furthermore, Assmann’s proposal of Mosaic monotheism as a revolutionary model offers a significant departure from Schmitt’s secularization thesis. By emphasizing how monotheism reshaped both religious and political orders, Assmann argues for a new theological-political framework capable of redefining legitimacy and authority. Nevertheless, his position has faced criticism for oversimplifying the relationship between religion and politics, and for underestimating the enduring entanglement between the sacred and the political. Ultimately, this discussion illuminates a broader tension within political theology: whether politics secularizes theological concepts, as Schmitt claims, or whether theology emerges as a political construction, as Assmann suggests.

Conclusions and Suggestions.

This article concludes that Jan Assmann’s theory of the theologization of the political provides a compelling alternative to Carl Schmitt’s secularization thesis. Whereas Schmitt argued that political concepts are derivative of secularized theological notions, Assmann reverses this logic, suggesting that theology is itself a political invention designed to stabilize and legitimize authority. His distinction between primary and secondary religion illustrates how shifts in religious meaning correspond to political restructuring, particularly in the context of ancient Egyptian governance. The implications of Assmann’s argument are significant for contemporary political theology. By decentering Schmitt’s Eurocentric framework and emphasizing the historical variability of political-religious relations, Assmann opens new pathways for analyzing legitimacy and sovereignty beyond the confines of secularization theory. His emphasis on Mosaic monotheism as a revolutionary theological-political paradigm challenges conventional interpretations and underscores the transformative potential of religious frameworks in shaping political order. Nevertheless, Assmann’s perspective is not without limitations. Critics argue that his analysis risks underestimating the enduring theological dimensions of politics and overlooks the ways in which religious concepts continue to permeate modern political structures. The tension between Schmitt and Assmann thus remains unresolved, but their dialogue enriches the field by expanding the conceptual boundaries of political theology. In conclusion, the study affirms that Assmann’s reinterpretation of political theology does not merely reject Schmitt’s thesis but reconstructs the debate around the relationship between politics and religion. By situating theology as a secondary but formative response to political necessity, Assmann redefines the scope of political theology and invites renewed reflection on how legitimacy, sovereignty, and authority are constructed across historical and cultural contexts.
...