Violence Flashcards
What is ARENDT’s conception of violence?
Violence is inherently and fundamentally anti-democratic.
Politics is defined by collective, concerted actions and words (discussions, debates, voting, etc.) — never violence, coercion, etc because power is based on consent.
There is no room for domination, oppression, and violence in democracies because that would be a means to force consent. Forcing consent is automatically outside the scope of politics and democracy.
Legitimacy = x Power = y
x = consent y = quantity of supporters
Violence can be x but never y.
x = justified (against extreme injustice, or to reopen political space of appearance) y = legitimate
How can non-violence be interpreted?
Non-violence is a political strategy and tactic for social change, it is not a moral obligation.
What is a key problem with the use of violence in politics?
It is unpredictable if the desired outcome will be achieved.
It is not possible to know that the use of violence will not be met with compliance or with equal violence. The latter would increasingly reduce space for politics as a cycle is set off.
Politics based on friendship
Idea that politics and the boundaries of democracy is rooted in sameness and the reciprocated perception of said similarity.
Homogeneity defines community of friends and citizens, there is constant exclusion of those who don’t belong.
The excluded are still subject to laws / rules that are made without their consent.
Politics based on radical hospitality, radical plurality (ARENDT)
Politics and the boundaries of democracy should be based on inclusivity for all, even if identities are different and unfamiliar.
Further, politics should be detached from identities as a whole. Basic social facts should not determine political action.
Politics based on affected interests (DEWEY)
Boundaries of democracy should be at point where those concerned are the ones who are affected by a certain issue.
How is violence towards minorities avoided in a tyranny of the majority?
Liberal democracies have constraints on this through the protection of natural rights.
Disentangle liberalism from democracy.
Liberalism:
- the protection of individual rights
- limits to state power and protection from totalitarianism
Democracy:
- power to the people, popular sovereignty
- self-determination
Is there a tension between liberalism and democracy? Why might one think either yes or no?
Yes: liberalism limits true democracy — majority will should be able to violate natural rights, impose totalitarianism.
No: universal rights which are only able to have substance if there is a democratic support for them are what make integration into demos possible. This integration is what keeps democratic contestation alive.
How can defining violence be political?
There are political interests in wherever the line is drawn between violent / non-violent. The boundaries are based on time, space, culture, context, etc.
What is symbolic violence?
BOURDIEU’s idea of how the majority, dominant group is always imposing their set of norms on minorities. The symbolically oppressed are dictated by disciplinary power to participate in self-censorship and internalized oppression.
