Violence

Konfrontasi: Jurnal Kultural, Ekonomi dan Perubahan Sosial, 2021

I. Introduction Towards an Unlikely Definition of Political Violence In this article we will approach the phenomena of political violence with an inclusive criterion, preventing moralizing criterion as a unique reference, we will observe different actors (individual and collective even States), and philosophical, psychological, and symbolic implications, inextricable part of the concept of violence. First, a remark about political violence shows and advantage and a disadvantage. The advantage for the creation of this concept is a necessary and a healthy mixture of approaches. Indeed, a multidisciplinary topic, violence meets scientific aspirations: of combining sociological, political, historical, philosophical, and psychological even law perspectives. Regarding the disadvantage, the existence of multiple violence reflections and uniformity what is at stake is not only the difference between the intensity of the practices but also its purpose and nature. In addition, how to measure violence before mentioned is complicated. Though is odd to say, political violence is relative and its perception changes depending on time, social means, and cultural universes. This shows how violence shall be quoted to exist, it could not exist as such, therefore is the result of a context a struggle of power. Furthermore, extreme violence, which expression is tough and equal comes from the logic of the concept. Violence cannot be objectified.

This essay will attempt to (re)define the terms of violence in order to produce a useful terminology for the politics of resistance. This will be achieved in three main stages: 1. The proposal of the problem of violence; 2. Investigation of the problem of violence; 3. Solution proposal to the problem of violence. 1. The proposal of the problem of violence In the section The Problem of Violence I will introduce Žižek's distinction of subjective and objective forms of violence. Here I will characterize the main problem that burdens the philosophy of violence, namely, the glossary of violence suffers from inherently partisan and equivocal definitions of terms. In view of that, I will introduce Hobbe's and Freud's descriptions of violence as examples of analytical misrecognition of de facto violence. By discussing W. Benjamin's concept of divine violence I will then stress the philosophical requirement-and difficulty of describing a purely ontological form of violence, which is motivated neither culturally nor politically. 2. Investigation of the problem of violence In the section The Graph of Violence I will introduce a graph, which will allow me to superimpose Žižek's distinction of subjective and objective forms of violence onto Schmitt's distinction of the friend and enemy. This graph will maintain that the scholarly interpretations of violence are often very predictable and conceptually one-dimensional. The brief exploration of Fanon's and Arendt's descriptions of violence will further justify the architecture and terminology of the graph of violence. 3. Solution proposal to the problem of violence In the section The Graph of Affect I will introduce a contrasting graph, which will restructure the terms of violence by way of affect theory. Here I will show how Žižek's distinction between objective and subjective forms of violence utterly dissolves during major political events-effective circulations of affect. The term 'violence' will henceforth be exchanged for the term 'affect' as this will allow me to interpret violence as a form of affect, which is neither superior nor inferior to other forms of political affect-production. I will achieve this by following Massumi's, Bertelsen's and Murphie's descriptions of affect in politics. By focusing on the affect-rather than on violence-I will emphasize the necessity of managing tactical circulation of diverse sets of violent and nonviolent affects within the politics of resistance. The Problem of Violence When analyzing the issue of violence we are struck by the enormous misunderstanding as to what violence is. That is to say, the philosophy of violence lacks clear-cut systematization of specific

Every scholar who intends to study in a coherent and academically acceptable manner a world simultaneously extremely diverse and inter-connected faces a difficult choice. On the one hand, the researcher needs the clarity of the abstract intellectual frameworks in order to conceptualize the reality, and on the other hand to avoid becoming their prisoner, by preserving the empirical accuracy of the concepts and theories involved. The aim of this paper is to discuss some epistemological and methodological aspects of a research still in progress which intends to investigate the social legitimization of the use of violence. The basic assumptions of the research can be summarized as it follows: 1. the members of the epistemic community of the Social Sciences share a universally recognized set of concepts, methods, and principles, but the social phenomena conceptualized by the same terms have various, local explanations and meanings; 2. the dominant perspectives of the Social Sciences tend to simply replicate the Western-based, hegemonic knowledge and convictions and attitudes; 3. any political event, process or phenomenon can be studied only in its own terms; 4. in order to be understood, the social realm should be investigated by researchers who are part of it, members of the very society that is questioned. The research discussed here thus consider, as premises, that a political community is, first of all, a moral community, which can be defined through the socially acceptable attitudes towards violence, as is (or can be) used both inside and outside the group. Researchers who are members of a moral community are regarded as its ‘legitimate interprets’: they are considered to be at once members of the universal epistemic community and of the moral community to which they belong as individuals. The present article tries to discuss the logic and the design of a quantitative research still in progress, to critically assess its epistemological and methodological tenets, but also its risks and failures. By doing this, its authors hope to raise some questions concerning the knowledge of the social realm, how is it achieved, how accurate is it, what does it represent, how relevant, in intellectual and even political terms, is it, and so forth. The authors would highly appreciate the comments and observations, considering them of great value for refining the research. Keywords: community, morality, violence, survey methods.

Towards a Pragmatic Sociology of Violence, 2015

This thesis explores how a pragmatic theory of violence can be developed within Luc Boltanski’s sociology of regimes of action positioned in the overall framework of French pragmatic sociology. The thesis takes its outset in Boltanski’s approximate outline of a regime of violence presented in Love and Justice as Competences (2012) and points out a number of conceptual ambiguities in Boltanski’s regime of violence. The conceptual ambiguities are then discussed and clarified through an integration of Jan Philip Reemtsma’s phenomenological distinction between locative-, raptive-, and autotelic violence. This distinction denotes violence as a non-consensual, primarily, physical assault on another’s body (2012). Overall, the thesis combines French pragmatic sociology with German sociology of violence in order to emphasize our shared understandings and ways of evaluating forms, things and persons in violence. In this relation, the thesis introduces two basic human competences of violence: ‘the competence of evaluating force potentials’ and ‘the competence of evaluating vulnerability of the body’. Methodologically, the thesis mirrors elements of Boltanski’s methodological strategies used to develop the regime of justice and love in order to formalize the principles that can be said to structure a model of a regime of violence based on the distinction between locative-, raptive-, and autotelic violence. The thesis then centers on the important twilight between violence and justice by emphasizing an understanding of different forms, elements and zones of violence in relation to Boltanski’s theoretical model in On Justification and to the concept of the state monopoly on violence. Finally, the thesis presents four empirical case studies of violence as presented in different records of judgement from recent Danish trials, which are then “confronted” with the (extended) regime of violence, after which the “fitness” of the theory and the ambiguity of some of the concepts are discussed.

Ánfora, 2021

Objective: despite the plentiful academic discussion about violence, forms of violence, actors, effects, among other things, a question emerges almost permanently: what do we talk about when we talk about violence? This article makes a reflection on the definition and analysis of the concept of violence from different disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches in order to answer the question: what is meant by violence? Methodology:some approaches from Anthropology, Political Science, Philosophy, Sociology, Research for Peace, Criminology and Public Health were considered. Results: it was found that most of the research considers violence as an element that delimits social interactions rather than an irrational or instinctive act. And, these studies establish the degree of cultural, symbolic, institutional influences and the normative in its management and reasoning, depending on the perspective of analysis. Conclusions: a review of advantages and disadvantages of the analytical expediency of the transition from the term violence into the expression of violences was concluded. It considers an interdisciplinary approach that not only focuses on physical manifestations, but addresses the multidimensionality of violence and the matter created by different scales of interaction and affectation by making the violence a changeable and complex social phenomenon.

Violence: A Reader, 2002

Politics, 2002

The recent interest in the sociology of violence has arisen at the same time that western societies are being urged to consider the profound social crisis provoked by global financial turmoil. Social changes demand the evolution of sociological practices. The analysis herein proposed, based on the studies of M. Wieviorka, La Violence (2005), and of R. Collins, Violence: A Micro-sociological Theory (2008), concludes that violence is subject to sociological treatments centered on the aggressors, on the struggles for power and on male gender. There is a lack of connection between practical proposals for violence prevention and the sociology of violence. It is accepted that violence as a subject of study has the potential, as well as the theoretical and social centrality, to promote the debate necessary to bring social theory up to date. This process is more likely to occur in periods of social transformation, when sociology is open to considering subjects that are still taboo in its study of violence, such as the female gender and the state. The rise of the sociology of violence confronts us with a dilemma. We can either collaborate with the construction of a sub discipline that reproduces the limitations and taboos of current social theory, or we can use the fact that violence has become a “hot topic” as an opportunity to open sociology to themes that are taboo in social theory (such as the vital and harmonious character of the biological aspects of social mechanisms or the normative aspects of social settings).