Vägivallast mõtlemine viib lähemale selle tähendusvarjunditele. Siinviidatu leidiski oma koha peamiselt põhjusel, et vägivald on ühiskondliku elu kõiki tahke läbiv nähtus, mille uue ehk seni vähese vähese tähelepanu või tähelepanuta aspektid ennast ikka ja jälle ilmutavad.

Teksti lugemiseks oleks kasulik veidi aega planeerida, sest lugemisel tekkivaid n-ö intertekstuaalseid nihestusi tekib nii suurel hulgal, et nendega tegelemine võtab eraldi aega.

Kontekstiks:

The stunning resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in the summer of 2020 in the wake of the lynching of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer quickly became a galvanizing force for movements around the world reckoning with histories and enduring legacies of colonialism, empire, and racism. […] But if these movements are themselves opposing the inherent violence of colonial-racial capitalism4 , a question arises about the difference between non-violence and anti-violence. Is the use of physical force against everyday violence merely meeting violence with violence in kind?

Legitiimsusest:

As a result, the legitimacy of violence within liberalism is fundamentally aligned with property: Those who have property have access to the only legitimate form of violence – the entire machinery of the state – while those without property are merely subjected to the state’s violence without any recourse to (legitimate) violence of their own.

Autorid seavad sihte:

In this essay, we want to challenge the incoherence of liberalism’s central assumption that we can grapple, politically or philosophically, with something like ‘violence’ as opposed to ‘non-violence’. What this metaphysical dichotomy does is create a moral distinction between Good (‘non-violent’) and Bad (‘violent’) political struggles, where especially since the so-called War on Terror the ‘Bad’ is conflated with ‘terrorism’.

… ja väidavad:

we argue that we need a new conceptual vocabulary, which we will introduce here – one that dispenses with the limited and untenable juxtaposition of ‘violence’ and ‘non-violence’ in favor of a spectrum of anti-violent action.

Selgub, et kõik ei olegi selge …

This brings us to the limits of a Eurocentric analysis of violence such as Arendt’s in which action and instrumentality, power and violence, can be separated, even theoretically. […] In reality, then, the colonial-racial capitalist state should not be understood as the institutionalization of the collective power of the people, but a violent ad hoc conglomerate of military and militarized police forces, parastatal mercenaries, mafias, cartels, and corporations working to protect the interests of the tiny ruling class.

Dualismi probleem:

By replacing the ontological dualism of violence/non-violence with this range of revolutionary action – different degrees of organization in setting the atmosphere of violence in motion –we are no longer bound to distort or erase history in order to fetishize good ‘non-violent’ movements while demonizing other movements as ‘terrorist’.

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

The idealization of ‘non-violence’ and the contrast between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ movements at least implicitly assumes that all political violence is guided by instrumental rationality rather than ethical ideals. […] But, on the other hand, white liberals who stand up and decry the destruction of property, armed self-defense, or even armed struggles to seize the state, in the name of ‘non-violence’ fail to understand how these struggles are collective efforts to move forward toward a new beginning.

Cornell, D., & Seely, S. D. (2022). Setting struggle in motion: From ‘non-violence’ to revolutionary anti-violence. Philosophy & Social Criticism. https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537221093725