Philosophy Comparison With Politics and Violence, Essay Example

Introduction

Every violent act is deeply rooted in all liberal-democratic countries throughout the world.  Violence does not always have a deep-rooted cause that is a causing factor; sometimes it is irrational and spontaneous.  With this in mind psychoanalysis and symbolic interpretation has to accompany arguments of classical political theory or moral philosophy.

Walter Benjamin’s Philosophy

Benjamin’s theory of law and justice should be understood not as a revolutionary, anti-republican text, as has been generally accepted, but as a secularized conservative orthodox one. His view ignored the Jewish orthodox political theology.[1] (MiBartanura,O. 2007). In the Critique of Violence develops his concept of argument against Kantian view of the crossover between the theory of experience and the theory of freedom in which theory of freedom consist of autonomy and self-legislation. It emerges from a truce rather than a condition of violence initiated by political wars between nations. Administrative or police violence required to sustain the original truce erodes the law by substituting for the line of truce or decision to cease hostilities which sustains the law outside of it.  A system of laws must gain legitimation unaided while claiming to be autonomous. [2](Caygill, H., 1998).

Benjamin rejected the Schmittian scenario of lawmaking and lawmaking violence.  His beliefs are that the state has a monopoly on violence and lawmaking violence. e.g. revolutions.  He fears that lawmaking violence will dominate A.V. Dicey’s Rule of Law.

Positive optimistic utopianism has contributed to Benjamin’s viewpoint in several of his political writings thought it is suggested through the motives of his political writings that he favours a negative utopian pessimism. [3](Gur-ze-ev, 1998). He addresses violence as systematic violence using arguments of classical political theory or moral philosophy.  He analyzes violence from a perspective of symbolic and systematic character instead of focusing only on visible acts.

Terrorism is a form of violence used to inspire fear and dominate. Violence is seen as a pure means to an end. This is based on the notion that violence is a natural force capacity that can be put to either a just or unjust ends. The state attempts to develop a monopoly over violence by not permitting it. Terroristic violence it out of the order of state accepted violence, hence it is not allowed Lawmaking violence is violence against existing laws with the desire to make new laws

Police violence preserves the existence of laws Police intervene for security reasons in an arbitrary fashion Police violence enters a ‘no mans land’ or a space of exception between legality and illegality.  Benjamin focuses on state violence that of police violence and militarism.  Violence is characterized by its lawmaking and law preserving function.

Hannah Arendt’s critique of violence with relation to politics

A central element in Arendt’s argument against theorists like Georges Sorel and Frantz Fanon in On Violence is the distinction between instrumental justifications and approaches emphasizing the `legitimacy’ of violence or its intrinsic value. The true distinctiveness of Arendt’s view is seen when we turn to On Revolution and resituate the later arguments of On Violence in the context of her ideas about the separation between revolution and liberation. Arendt’s commitment to the American discovery in revolutionary politics of a means that needs no further ends to justify it permits a rereading of her conception of liberation as an attempt to envisage a violence that, while tactically instrumental, is at the same time politically non-instrumental. But while Arendt’s view is distinct, the article also highlights important thematic continuities with the writings of Sorel and Walter Benjamin. [4](Finlay, C., 2009). It is suggested that biopolitcal violence has become the common factor underlying our contemporary political system.

Ardent has little to contribute on violence and politics because she defines violence as non-political.  Her view on violence and politics is rather outdated to other philosophical theories.

Slavoj Žižek Philosophy Behind Politics and Violence

“Benjamin is pretty precise. An example he gives of divine violence is a mob lynching a corrupt ruler! That’s pretty concrete. In a new book I’m writing on violence, I’m going to address this issue. Franz Fanon has suffered a similar fate. He was very clear about the role of violence, and he certainly wasn’t speaking of some “transcendental” violence. He meant killing, he meant terror. But this dimension of their work is not present in contemporary commentators. We have a softened, “decaffeinated” Fanon and Benjamin. [5](Zizek, S.&Targets, S., 2007).

Zizek present the philosophy of non-functional violence which is not grounded by any utilitarian or ideological reasoning. “Zizek’s perspective is that violence is a complex phenomenon, and several things have to be taken into account.” [6](Zizek, S.&Targets, S., 2007). His solution to ending and defending violence is with a passive aggressive behaviour type of personality and behaviour. It is the only viable solution on how to react in a contemporary world. He speaks against large political interventions where such violence is born due to the fact it has not been finished as of yet, violence is better than charity because it openly confesses itself.  Excessive illegitimate violence should not be tolerated not even through police powers.

“We should also remember that violence is not necessarily activity, action. It is not always the case that social functions run by themselves and that it takes a lot of energy, a lot of violence to transform them. To the contrary, it often takes a lot of violence to make sure things stay the way they are. Sometimes, then, the truly violent act is doing nothing, a refusal to act.” [7](Zizek, S.&Targets, S., 2007).

Zizek suggests that ‘extreme violence’ erupted from the terror of the French Revolution.   Žižek’s work entirely oblivious to these characteristics of it’s tacitly Lacanian field. Žižek’s work consists of serial violence against the conventions of the academy, violence that arises out of a Lacanian dialectical materialist commitment. His strategy depends upon the juxtaposition of borrowings from popular and classical cultures.[8](Leggett, A., 2008). In Žižek’s taxonomy, directly visible violence is labelled ‘subjective’ and contrasted with ‘objective’ violence, including the symbolic violence embedded in language and the systemic violence that he posits as ‘consequences of the smooth functioning of our economic systems. Žižek’s critique is not one that universally condemns violence. He argues for the necessity of the revolutionary violence that arises when ‘individuals no longer fully identify the kernel of their being with their particular social situation instead experiencing themselves as ‘forever “out of joint” with regard to this situation.

’ He condemns the new language of human rights as an unacceptable brake on reconstructing Leninism. When asked about Stalin, he says, “My big worry is not being ignored but to be accepted. People still have this idea that this guy did some bad crimes… Of course it’s not as simple as that, that I am simply a Stalinist that would be crazy, tasteless and so on. But obviously there is something in it, that it’s not simply a joke.”.[9](Hari, J., 2007).

Conclusion

All three political philosophers share similar and contrasting views of how violence and politics go hand in hand and the effects of each on one another.  Of the three philosophers analyzed above perhaps the philosopher with the strongest supporting evidence to my viewpoint with damming evidence to support a rational view is Zuzek because of his ability to foresee that violence is an easily identifiable agent functioning in society today-with that posing a structural problem in relation in today’s overall society.

Societies seek to promote social and political change through violent means because of deep rooted fear and uncertainty of basic economic desires. The absence of sufficient law enforcement and law regulations including legislation and statutes continue to allow infringement of human rights which probes more violence. Let’s face it sometimes militaries have to deploy for reasons and intrude with violence. Situations ever so present as in South Africa represent ‘unorganized’ attempts to promote human rights.  These types of violent actions do not promote social and political blessings rather cause rising that is struck down rather quickly by the government. The key to successful violent submissions are through organized stances for purposes that can be achieved through assertive forms of violent measures rather than forms of severe aggression.

References

MiBartanura,O. (2007) Orthodox violence: “Critique of Violence” and Walter Benjamin’s Jewish political theology.Retrieved 19 August 2009, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9C-4PGPKMM-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=985392751&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b7bceb0ed96a6c265e553cd16b0a8971.

Caygill, H.(1998). Walter Benjamin: the colour of experienceLondon, UK:RougledgeCavendish

Gur-ze-ev (1998) Beyond the Destruction of the Others Collective Memory.Retrieved 19 August 2009,fromhttp://tcs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/20/1/93.

Finlay, C. (2009). Hannah Ardent’s critique of violence.Sage Journals Online Vol. 97, No. 1, 26-45

Zizek, S. & Targets, S. (2007) Divine Targets and Liberated Territories.Soft Targets

Leggett, A. (2008) Philosophy: Violence by Slavoj Žižek., Retrieved on 20 August 2009, fromhttp://reviews.media-culture.org.au/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2696.

Hari, J. (2007)Slajov Zikek’s Intellectual Suicide Retrieved on 20 August 2009, fromhttp://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=1104.

[1] MiBartanura,O. (2007) Orthodox violence: “Critique of Violence” and Walter Benjamin’s Jewish political theology.Retrieved 19 August 2009, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9C-4PGPKMM-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=985392751&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b7bceb0ed96a6c265e553cd16b0a8971.

[2] Caygill, H.(1998). Walter Benjamin: the colour of experienceLondon, UK:RougledgeCavendish

[3] Gur-ze-ev (1998) Beyond the Destruction of the Others Collective Memory.Retrieved 19 August 2009,fromhttp://tcs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/20/1/93.

[4] Finlay, C. (2009). Hannah Ardent’s critique of violence.Sage Journals Online Vol. 97, No. 1, 26-45

[5] Zizek, S. & Targets, S. (2007) Divine Targets and Liberated Territories.Soft Targets

[6] Zizek, S. & Targets, S. (2007) Divine Targets and Liberated Territories.Soft Targets

[7] Zizek, S. & Targets, S. (2007) Divine Targets and Liberated Territories.Soft Targets

[8] Leggett, A. (2008) Philosophy: Violence by Slavoj Žižek., Retrieved on 20 August 2009, fromhttp://reviews.media-culture.org.au/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2696.

[9] Hari, J. (2007)Slajov Zikek’s Intellectual Suicide Retrieved on 20 August 2009, fromhttp://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=1104.