Yes. All in all, violence (negatively understood) is not determined through theories and definitions.
It is about the set of political decisions and social practices, approved by a broad communal support. In Germany, there was not public consensus of Final Solution, since it was never publicly discussed there. Yet, the majority of population approved the complex of gradual steps, depriving
jews of their civil and political rights. For most Germans it was quite natural. Agamben as well as Deleuze and Guattari tried to explain how it was possible. — Number2018
Do you mind expanding on the underlined bit? — TheMadFool
Agamben, in "Homo Safer", has developed a theory of sovereign power based on dialectics of
inclusion/exclusion. Starting from ancient Rome, juridical subjects were included in the judicial order
while a sovereign kept the ultimate right over excluded 'bare life'. Later, this mode of power was realized within the Nazi concentrated camps. Agamben asserts that today power is realized through
bio - politics, the control over life in various situations.
For Deleuze and Guattari, the Nazi regime was primarily produced by the investments of the collective subconscious desire, beyond ideology or political programs. Therefore, violent and coercive modes of power become effects of more fundamental processes. — Number2018
You could read Weibel's essay mentioned in OP of this thread.You seem to delve into some aspects of violence in certain settings and that's alright by me. What would be interesting is a theory that explains the cause of violent actions. — TheMadFool
What would be interesting is a theory that explains the cause of violent actions. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.