فهم بنیان‌های «اُدیپی» سیاست: الهیات سیاسی یا الهیات فرهنگی؟

Introduction
In modern political discourse, from Hobbes to Schmitt, the underlying premise has often rested on the theological concept of “God.” Thomas Hobbes, in his seminal work *Leviathan*, articulates the authority of the ruler by asserting that “the natural right of God to rule over men and to punish them for breaking the laws... does not arise from the need for obedience and gratitude of men for the benefit of his creation, but that right must be considered the result of the irresistible power of God” (Hobbes, 2005: 317). This assertion establishes that the ruler’s authority is fundamentally rooted in a theological understanding of God’s omnipotence, rendering the ruler’s power indestructible by divine supremacy. Carl Schmitt, in his twentieth-century reflection on Hobbesian thought in *Political Theology*, further elaborates on this idea, famously stating, “The ruler decides on exceptions... The concept that has become commonplace is theological, that is, the transfer of these concepts from theology to the theory of the state, through which, for example, omnipotence has emerged in the form of an absolute legislator” (Schmitt, 2015: 29 and 61).
The commonalities in the propositions presented by both thinkers encapsulate several foundational assumptions. Firstly, political theology inherently implicates the notion of sovereignty. Secondly, there exists a “structural/formal similarity” between legal and theological constructs, such as the parallels drawn between the divine order and societal organization, as well as between the ruler and God (Taubs, 1399). Thirdly, both perspectives delineate an antagonistic distinction between friend and enemy within theological and political domains (Schmidt, 1393b: 35). Fourthly, the framework of political theology is predicated upon an intrinsic faith in obedience (Mayer, 1393: 193). Lastly, the theological-type ruler possesses the ultimate right to life and death over subjects, grounded in the assertion that “the omnipotence of the state... is a kind of omnipotence of God” (Schmidt, 1393b: 45), thus framing political authority as a derivative of the theological conception of divinity.  Conversely, the twentieth century witnessed efforts to extricate the concept of God from political thought, endeavoring to divest it of its theological dimensions. Notably, Hans Kelsen, in his article “the Concept of the State and Social Psychology with Special Reference to Freud” (Kelsen, 1924) sought to reconceptualize the state through the lens of Freudian mass psychology, positing a connection between the empirical realities of statecraft and its intrinsic nature. This analytical approach signifies a paradigm shift where a scientific worldview supplants the theological framework governing political relationships. In his later works, such as “The Form of the State and the Worldview” (Kelsen, 1973b) and “God and the State” (Kelsen, 1973a), Kelsen further elaborates on the absence of the divine image in the realm of politics, rendering the omnipotent ruler as a mere observer. Through Kelsen's transformation of theological concepts into a form of “natural theology,” he illustrates how scientific rationality undermines the structural analogies between legal and theological ideations, effectively obscuring the notion of God from political discourse. 
In this transitional framework, the “transcendental” ruler—initially endowed with the right to determine life and death within society—emerges as an “internally permanent” power, stripped of the transcendental authority once attributed to it (Kelsen, 20007: 527). Consequently, the law is reduced to an “absolute command,” devoid of intrinsic values and emotions, and is recast solely as a construct of human reason (Kant, 1381: 40-44). As a result, the traditional understanding of the law, grounded in fundamental order (*Recht*), is replaced by a legal system defined by mere rules (*Gesetz*). This shift signifies a profound transformation in the relationship between theology and politics, reflecting the broader secularization of political discourse in the modern era.
 
Method
In Hans Kelsen's reductionist view, while certain elements of Freud's mass theory were acknowledged, much of his thought was overlooked, particularly regarding the father-child relationship and the role of instincts. Furthermore, the omission of God's name in Kelsen's theology suggests a cosmological perspective that excludes “God as an alien” (Tillich, 1997: 18) from the state. However, this alienation of the state from God can be reconsidered by adopting an ontological approach inspired by Paul Tillich's cultural theology. Such a reexamination emphasizes the significance of the father-son relationship and the interplay of libido and ego instincts in analyzing the patricidal drive in politics, particularly within fantasy contexts. This approach opens new avenues for understanding the concept of sovereignty in political theology and addresses a fundamental question: Does political collapse stem from theological factors or cultural-psychological dynamics?
Furthermore, what are the underlying foundations of this collapse? Generally, this article aims to explore an alternative path by reintegrating the idea of the father into political discourse and addressing the aforementioned fundamental issue. A cultural-psychological approach will be employed to tackle this topic by drawing on the insights of Tillich and Freud. Consequently, the discussion will examine whether patricide is fundamentally a psychological or legal issue. Additionally, three aspects of the father figure, God, and the king, will be analyzed. In conclusion, a summary of findings and references will be provided.
 
Results
The findings suggest that analyzing politics through the lens of paternal figures—specifically concepts such as the Oedipus complex and the notion of castration, ideas not commonly explored in political analyses—reveals significant insights. When considering figures like Hans Kelsen, it becomes evident that this perspective is largely shaped by the masses’ identification with political rulers. By retaining the idea of “God” as central to politics, we can more effectively understand the metaphorical “murder” of the three fantasies of the father: the father as parent, the father as God, and the father as king.
The first observation is that within the home environment, a child's initial fantasy regarding the political ruler closely mirrors their perception of the father as the parent. This recognition forms the foundation for the child's earliest political feelings toward the father, particularly the notion of “patricide,” as the father is perceived as an obstacle to the child's sexual desires.
The second observation suggests that as the child matures, they encounter the concept of God in their cultural surroundings. While named God, this figure reflects their understanding of the father from the home environment. Here, God embodies a fantasy of the father, imposing taboos and limitations on desires through commandments and prohibitions, prompting the child to mentally “overcome” this figure as well.
Lastly, as the political ruler, the father seeks to restrict the child's desires and aspirations through societal laws, positioning himself as an adversary in the child’s mind, much like the father figure. Consequently, the child harbors an unconscious desire to “eliminate” this ruler, though such impulses seldom materialize in reality.
 
Discussion and Conclusion
Contrary to the prevailing view in political theology, the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” in politics has psychological foundations. Particularly when the collapse of power is at stake, this issue is more closely tied to the subjective, or mental, aspect of politics than to the objective, concrete structures of political institutions. Thus, if politics is viewed through the lens of the natural, the idea of the father comes into focus. At this point, the fantasy of the father-parent extends into the political realm, and the ruler is perceived through the lens of the natural father. The political subject, in turn, forms reciprocal and transitory feelings toward the ruler. Consequently, politics becomes a subject of negative and positive passions and emotions, such as hate and love. When politics obstructs the expression of the subject's desires, it leads to the repression of those frustrated desires while simultaneously fostering feelings of resentment and fear within the subject. However, when politics is shaken by natural or political crises, subjects alleviate the psychological burden of suppressed desires by expressing happiness, even as they continue to adhere to the survival of the political order. When politics is viewed through a cultural lens, the fantasy of a sovereign God emerges in political relations. This subjective God stands in contrast to the theological God, whose existence does not depend on the thoughts and beliefs of the subjects. Like the natural father, this subjective God undergoes death and decay, particularly when individuals experience, associate, or imagine painful and tragic events in their personal lives. In these moments of terror, the agent responsible for the failure of desires and wishes is perceived as the mental God. Even in dire circumstances, when individuals appeal to this idea but receive no response, the psychological outcome is the death of the mental God. For the subjects, the death of the mental God signifies the death of its associated figure—the ruler. It is under these conditions that the political ruler reaches the peak of mental death and collapse within the political community, paving the way for natural collapse and objective death.