This is a blog for the community of Geography 170: "Geographies of Violence in the Age of Empire" in the Department of Geography at the University of California, Berkeley. This course explores a range of answers to the question: How might geographical thinking be used to critically explore new forms of violence and empire?
Reflections on theories of violence
4 comments:
Fanon: for me it's as if he is arguing that violence necessitates further violence, so in order to overturn such system and rule, one must act in accordance with the system of violence. to counter such rule, one must use the method in which it was enforced. (i think fanon talks about two forms of violence: symbolic and physical).
Arendt: very interesting, my understanding is that violence is institutionalized and because of that, it fosters other forms of violence as well (symbolic, physical, and structural).
Gandhi: interesting take on using non-violence as a "weapon" to counter an oppressive rule...
*in all of these, i think that there are individual factors that may necessitate various forms or methods.there is no one way in solving any issues.
This is a great summing up of the different perspectives. I guess my question is are these different theories mututally exclusive ? It seems like Fanon is at odds with Gandhi since he does talk about a necessity of violence (whether symbolic or physical). But it seems like Arendt's ideas could go in line with Gandhi's. For example, since violence is institutionalized and evil is "banal", then we must look to other means besides physical violence to transform the violent structure. However, I wonder where Arendt would think this would have been possible with a totalitarian regime such as the Nazis.
Justine, that is an interesting question that you raise. I guess maybe we can step back a little and reach a consensus on what they (Arendt, Gandhi, and Fanon) mean by "violence".
Like what you have pointed out, there might be parallelisms and contrasting ideas in each of their works. The other night I was reading "Good Muslim, Bad Muslim" by Mamdani, and he uses Arendt and Fanon in his analysis (i forgot if he used Gandhi).
(I may be wrong on this one) I think it would be harder to transform that violent structure if the subjects that it acts against with are stripped-off of their juridical and moral persons--total demoralization and dehumanization, as Arendt would say and also because the symbolic, physical, and structural violence are all in full force. To transform such insidious structure we would have to address the center or the force that sustains the system (can be the mentality behind it and the people). --i don't know if this made any sense.
This is a very interesting question. Can these theories of violence find some common ground…I think Tiffany’s last paragraph on individual factors explores this. The formation of a liberation struggle is unique in place and time (as well as the conditions that lead to its formation) and that will dictate the methods to achieve that liberation.
Yeah, I agree that Gandhi and Arendt are very similar thinkers of nonviolence. She was highly critical of Fanon’s writings. It is interesting that she wrote a brilliant analysis of totalitarianism – how it came to be, how it managed to proliferate – yet she came to speak against violence even in times of genocide. So they share a similar ideology but from different places. Her advocacy for nonviolence comes from the belief that it will only desensitize society and continue the cycle. And Gandhi espouses a philosophy deeply rooted in Hinduism and his belief in a compassionate humanity. Or, maybe it is the same…?
I think Fanon was courageous in that he wrote what others could not – that in certain conditions violence becomes the only means for someone who has been dehumanized to regain the self. But I don’t believe that Wretched of the Earth was an advocacy of violence. His intimate and compassionate work with the mentally ill, along with Algerian and French victims and perpetrators of violence, enabled him to understand and analyze the effects it had on the individual.
In the first paragraph of our reading he beings with the statement “de-colonization is always a violent event” (I may have a different translation). Decolonization for Fanon is not just the physical act of the colonist departure. The mind had been colonized in a violent manner and it too had to be de-colonized. For Fanon this in itself was a violent event.
Gandhi and Fanon both saw the liberation struggle as the only way for the de-humanized self to regain his/her humanity. In this way they were similar thinkers.
It would be very interesting to hear the interpretations and reading into Fanon that others may have.
The question that I am left with from these readings is what is it that keeps society “intact” so to speak. Arendt speaks of the breakdown of the universities in the period leading to the rise of Nazi totalitarianism. Is there some “moral order” that keeps us in check?
Thanks for the insightful conversation. :=)
Post a Comment