Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Violence: Creative or Destructive?

Strange Machine Vs The Virus with Shoes

22:41 / 08.02.03

Can violence be creative?
Violence is often seen as destructive, but in relation to identity, can it ever be creative? The industrial revolution may be seen as a brutalising experience for the working classes. But in the long term, “we”, in the western world, may have internalised the traits needed for the success of the economic liberal model of society, prevalent in western culture. The process of industrialisation was not easy or natural; did a fundamental shift in identity occur in this period? Many people fulfil their economic potential in relation to their social status. We in the west (to a greater extent) no longer live in the squalor of our ancestors or so called “un-civilised” societies. Our “natural” state of savagery or laziness has been vanquished and we enjoy a level of opulence never seen before. Hobbes puts forward the notion that our natural state is one of savagery. Another idea is that people work until they meet their subsistence level, then pursues leisure activities.
Can the violence, which seems to be fundamental in the forming of modern western states, be justified when exported to other cultures (now and then)? Is the arrogance of imperialism based not on peace and democracy, but on a replication of the violence visited on the subjects of “western states”, in order to meet the needs of the liberal economic imperatives of certain elites?
On a more personal note, are we comfortable with the violence inflicted by or upon our forefathers, to produce the people we are today? Do we feel guilty when we hear of the same industrial brutality occurring in the sweatshops of China, the Philippines and Latin America? Or do we see this as a hard necessity, ultimately producing civil societies like our own?

pointless and uncalled for

10:39 / 09.02.03

I view violence like a gun. It is neither good nor bad, neither creative or destructive. It's character is determined by the intent and methodology of the perpetrator.

However, you could view violence based on the mean collection of the end results, which precludes an entirely new set of value asessments.
As a very simplistic example (presented in shallow interpretation). The violence that saw the destruction of the WTC and >3000 lives can also be seen to be a determining factor in creation of a new format of national identitiy amongst Americans and creating a new wave of jingoism amongst other things. It also created a series of pretexts for war that then swings back to a destructive element but then in turn results in the creation of a new direction for a national administration.

On reading that I can see that it doesn't really answer any questions but maybe illuminates certain considerations.

no the above is not complete in detailing what I see as the results of 911

11:18 / 09.02.03

civil societies like our own

WTF?!

Um, briefly, my ten pence worth. The modernist sociological answer might be that there is a simple law, such as 'violence breeds violence' or violence increases exponentially, whatever. The more postmodern answer would be that the world's too chaotic and unpredicable and, indeed, immesurable a place for the answer to the question to be anything other than contextual. Dunno which is right though.

11:28 / 09.02.03

Panarchy: Its unusual to have this experience, but I disagree with almost every point you've made. I think you grossly overstate the success of liberal economics and erroneously tie in social advances with a particular flavour of capitalism, without pausing to consider or even dismiss alternatives. As a result, the analysis is far too uncritical of our current economic practices, in both its effects and its implementation.

Also, despite some admission in your post that your generalisations aren't universal - focusing on western democracies - I still think that your points apply only to a minority. I think that serves to undermine the whole thrust of your point.

On top of that, I don't buy your usuage of words like "natural", "savage" and "(un)civilised". I think they are based on false, idealised models that bear little relation to history or politics.

To answer your question a little more directly, I'd say that I agree with potus that violence is like a gun. From there, potus and I part company, as I think this is far from being morally neutral. Violence is destructive and though may be required at certain times, when all else fails, always demands thorough justification. Imperialism need not, on the other hand, be as suspect as that - at least if one interprets it broadly to mean cultural exchange that is largely in one direction due to some imbalance. It still deserves caution, however.

17:31 / 10.02.03

I agree, Lurid, though I couldn't tell whether Pan was trying to be deliberately provocative with that post...

ONLY NICE THINGS

20:36 / 10.02.03

If in doubt, attack the balls, not the man...

It's an interesting question. The assumption of empire was that whatever violence took place was necessary in terms of the white man's duty, his "burden", to civilise the world. Of course, we can now look at the structures of power erected by empire and in the post-colonial world and wonder if it could not all have been done better, for example by providing technology without power structures. The simple fact is, we will never know how the days of empire could have played out differently, because they didn't. What we do know is that they have resulted in some very odd systems, in which, for example, the legal system or the political structure may have resonances with the colonial power, the rulers may have been educated by the former colonial power, but the attitude to the former colonial power may be highly antagonistic. Especially since, as is wrily observed of the Commonwealth, the wealth is in no sense common.

The assumption that humans reach subsistence level tben pursue leisure is clearly disproved by circumstance; I suspect that many people on Barbelith have already eaten, in terms of pure calories, as much as they would have in the entire lives if they were raised elsewhere. The fact that people exist *above* subsistence level renders the contention largely incoherent. The suggestion of the "pyramid of needs" has previously been used to justify the etiolation of native cultures, and is continuing, in a fashion, to do so now; the argument for many of the industries currently taking advantage of the cheap labour offered by the developing world is that the cash, although a fraction of the equivalent wage in the West, is still a very good wage by the standards of other possible occupations in the area - that is, they offer a better shot at subsistence and the pursuit of luxuries...

21:11 / 10.02.03

The simple fact is, we will never know how the days of empire could have played out differently, because they didn't. - Haus

But surely that isn't entirely the point? Doesn't ethics, if not rigour, demand that we not equate results with methods. At not least without careful consideration. If the process of empire and the rise of our current political and economic systems were violent, aren't we forced to consider if not try alternatives? To do any less, to unthinkingly accept violence as inevitable as we inflict it on others, seems plain wrong to me.

And I think we all know the problems with cheap labour as seen in the developing world.

Bill: I couldn't tell, to be honest, but it seemed like a fair response either way. If you are going to be provocative...

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:49 / 10.02.03

And I think we all know the problems with cheap labour as seen in the developing world.

But do we? In that casem what are they? If Nike is offering four times the equivalent wage of a farm labourer to make shoes, which is perhaps a fiftieth of the equivalent wage for a shoemaker in New York, where is the violence being committed? And what change is potentially being impelled by it?

22:29 / 10.02.03

Off the top of my head, and at a risk of rehearsing Naomi Klein's arguments...

Global capitalism has been good at improving the lot of the wealthy, less good for others. I consistently read in studies of global wealth that the gap between rich and poor is widening and the lot of the poorest isn't improving.

Protectionism forms a bedrock of our (us rich bastards) economic policy and Nike's jobs in developing nations contribute little, if anything, to the economies of those countries. In fact, the combination of protectionism, denial of labour rights and edifices such as the WTO serve to increase poverty. How much credit should be given to processes which then marginally improve wages but contribute nothing to development.

To make a bad analogy, if the mafia make sure that they are the only people you can work for, do you thank them for saving you from unemployment?

You might see this as an overly pessimistic appraisal, but trends in the distribution of global wealth do not support an optimistic model of growth. I haven't got figures to hand, however.

BTW - I hate it when you play devil's advocate, especially when I rise to it. grrrrrr.

Strange Machine Vs The Virus with Shoes

02:30 / 22.02.03

Does partaking in a middle class way of life deter physical violence? Do we accept a certain level of personal violence (directed against ourselves) in order to maintain our status? Does this account for the differences in violence between the classes? Do the under classes engage in more violent activity because they don’t have access to the inherently violent disciplines needed to keep the middle class in place?