In today’s Telegraph Damien Thompson reports on some internet speculation concerning the death of Jett Travolta, the son of John Travolta on early this month (HT Madpriest).
At issue is the suggestion which creepily was speculated upon over a year previous that Jett Travolta would die, allegedly because of his “autism”.
To quote from Thompson’s piece the reason this is pertinent is “They [the anti-scientologists] claim that Jett - who apparently died after hitting his head in the bathroom following a seizure - suffered from autism. The Travoltas have always denied this. The campaigners also note that the Church of Scientology disapproves of psychiatric and drug treatment of autism, just as it rejects all psychiatry as pseudo-science.”
The Travolta’s rather have always claimed that Jett was suffering from Kawasaki disease. In the absence of alternative evidence I see no reason to doubt that, therefore if accepted which is, as i say, my default position then there is no culpability by either Jett’s parents or Scientology for Jett’s death arising from their resisting medical (mental health) treatment for their son. I assume that the autopsy will identify any pertinent medical factors and i prefer to deal in evidence rather than supposition. Granted there are problems categorising Scientology as a religion and as I briefly discussed a couple of years ago I am unconvinced it should be.
The broader point is that of a religion’s conflict with medical expertise with regard to treatment - which raises the very real possibility the fidelity to the religions dictates result in the death of its adherents those under the care of its adherents. In this way the problem stretches far beyond Scientology. For example, Christian Science has a strong anti-medical ethos and and the debates over Jehovah Witnesses and blood transfusions are well known. Christianity too has had its moments of conflict with the state in regard to the non-treatment of ailments. For example, as James Goff (p. 38-39) shows Charles Parham at the close of the nineteenth century disavowed all medical treatment and preached a gospel that called on individuals to trust god entirely for their health even to the point of refusing medical treatment or life insurance. Parham of course was later to become a leading figure in early Pentecostalism. More recently certain strands of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity such as those lined to Word of Faith theology have to different degrees advanced similar theses and, at their worst, these are far more harmful than Scientology’s alleged prohibition of medical treatment in certain circumstances for there is an in toto prohibition where literally to see a doctor is tantamount to losing one’s salvation.
To give a specific example consider the case of Hobart Freeman. Writing in A Different Gospel D R McConnell writes that for “sheer volume of death and tragedy, none can match the record of Hobart Freeman, pastor of Faith Assembly, Wilmot, Indiana. Estimates of the number of preventable deaths associated with Faith Assembly are as high as 90.” (P.79). What made Freeman different from many other Word of faith leaders was a) he held a earned doctorate in Old Testament theology and b) he himself was to succomb to a preventable death following his own refusal to seek medical attention for and ulcerated leg and bronchpneumonia, he was as McConnell notes “[another] victim of his own teaching” (P. 80).
While prompted by news stories about Jett Travolta’s untimely and tragic death I wanted to raise two issues in this post. First, that the issue of not providing medical treatment is a lot larger than Scientology and other minority New Religious Movements. While not representing mainstream Christianity it represents sociologically speaking a sizable minority of Christians in Western and African Christianity (theologically the movement is sub-christian).
The second is what politically speaking should be done about it. This is an area where respect of religion is frequently played out and shown to be at least partially fallacious. If to have a blood transfusion is sinful then I don’t care - if a minor needs one I will impose a sinful act on a JW family with no moral qualms, in defiling religious precept I have saved a life - I have no moral qualm with that (and incidentally, placed in the same situation I am certain the majority of JW’s would do the same). Competency is crucial here. Is the individual capable of an informed decision? Therefore, as a matter of course of child or severely mentally impaired individual can ever, for reasons of faith which, morally speaking we could not satisfactorily assign to the individual be withheld necessary medical treatment.
I do not believe the faith community or parents are capable of determining comptency or medical necessity, although they should of course be given the opportunity to be heard. Whatever their flaws I am thinking along the lines of the Conscientious Objection panels.
Where the withholding of medical treatment results in the early and preventable death of another I do not respect it - I am pro-life for a reason. It should however be tolerated. If there’s doubt about competency, medical treatment takes place. But more than that, to return to the Hobart Freeman. That 90 individuals died represents not just a reprehensible theology but a failure of the surrounding community. That 90 people were allowed to die is also the problem. Mistreatment is still mistreatment, even if done with the best of intentions. Sometimes a nanny state is a social good even though that will mean bluntly imposing one conception of the good over another.
References
James R Goff Jr, Fields White Unto Harvest: Charles F Parham and the Missionary Origins of Pentecostalism, Arkansas UP, 1988.
D R McConnell, A Different Gospel, rev ed, Hendrickson, 1996.
Elsewhere …
Death By A Thousand Papercuts.
Tags: Scientology
I’m a little behind on book reviews at the moment so the perfunctory short reviews to “catch me up” are posted below -
Richard J Evans, Telling Lies About Hitler: The Holocaust, History and the David Irving Trial, Verso, 2002.
This is the first of my Christmas book presents to have read - overall quite an enjoyable book to read although one with more than a hint of self-congratulation in the text. The book revolves around a libel action brought by David Irving the controversial revisionist ‘historian’ David Irving over claims made by Deborah Lipstadt that Irving was a holocaust denier, anti-semite and had falsified evidence in his book Hitler’s War. Richard Evans, a Professor of Modern History at Cambridge was one of the key defence witnesses and produced over a couple of years a 750+ page report on Irving’s work and found it wanting and evidence of Lipstadt’s charge. This book represents a condensed version of this work together with reflection on the trial itself. In the process Evans does a decent job of discussing the role of integrity on academia (i.e, the requirement not to just make things up) and also the state of UK libel law.
Verso, Abe, Amazon (UK)
Raymond Williams, Culture and Materialism: Selected Essays, Verso, 2005.
Prior to reading this book I was only aware of Williams by reputation and, even then, not particularly forcefully. As with so many of the most interesting political writers Williams’ academic specialism appears to be in English literature. This collection of fourteen essays which spans over twenty year (1958 to 1980) is, according to the publisher’s note that prefaces the collection intended to serve as a “compact and representative” guide to his longer works.
I cannot comment on whether the entirety of Williams’ oeuvre is consistent with the wide-ranging and provocative character of this collection, but if it is then Williams deserves to be read a lot more widely. Some essays, and often the one’s one least expects, are an absolute delight to read. Highly recommended.
Verso, Abe, Better World Books, Amazon (UK)
Slavoj Zizek, Violence: Six Sideways Reflections, Picador, 2008.
This is the first Zizek I have read where I actually feel confident in stating I understand his argument. As I have stated before I am not sure this is just that I am getting more accustomed to his style - Violence is also a better written book. Moreover, although I am not convinced by the argument to inactivity, or rather, the call to mere cerebral activity, I do think the objective/subjective distinction that runs through the book is an important one. A book I think I am likely to refer to again.
Interestingly this book and the subject of the first, David Irving, coalesce in this post by Nigel Warburton.
Abe, Better World Books, Amazon (UK)
Ian Williams, The Alms Trade: Charities, Past, Present and Future, Unwin, 1989.
I picked up this book on a whim in a second hand bookstore, it has turned out to be one of the most interesting books I have read this year even if it is now a little dated. Williams offers an ideologically driven (I don’t take that as a bad thing) account of UK Charity Law - it may not sound lije the stuff of political debate but as Williams shows at its heart there lies in the subject the question of what charity, or rather the public recognition of a work as ‘charitable’ confers. As I intimated a couple of weeks ago this is of consequence to contemporary political debates. Charity, which was once concerned with the alleviation of poverty, has now ‘developed’ into a system of intstitutionalised privilege (see, for example, debates over the charitable status of public (fee-paying) schools which still persist albeit slightly curbed after the 2006 Charities Act.
As Ian kindly notified me in a comment to my earlier post this book has been republished so should be in print although I don’t know the extent of the revision. Recommended.
Cosimo, Better World Books, Amazon (UK)
Geoffrey Robertson (Introduction / Editor), The Levellers: The Putney Debates, Verso, 2007.
The Putney Debates were a key moment in the history of English democracy; whereas so often where the army is the tool of repression of debate and demonstration here the Levellers, in large part an movement with the (New Model) Army, were its main protagonists. The Putney debates in 1647 come during the hiatus after the arrest of Charles I and before his escape and renewal of hostilities and therefore come at a time when the political settlement was very much in flux.
The book begins with a very good historical overview by Geoffrey Robertson better known as a QC before offering some of the key documents around the debate, including tracts by John Lilburne. An enjoyable read.
Verso, Abe, Better World Books, Amazon (UK)
G Elijah Dann, Leaving Fundamentalism: Personal Stories, Wilfrid Laurier UP, 2008.
This collection of essays of former fundamentalists was a little bit of a disappointment. In its favour I think the format is good in that it is very appropriate since the testimony is such an integral part of evangelicalism that this book is likewise one of personal narrative. As such I can see this book serving a purpose for those in the early stages of coming to terms with their doubts about conservative christianity. However, beyond that as an intellectual endeavour and, given that this is published by a university press I take it that it is intended to have at least something of an academic focus then this is limited. What counts as fundamentalist christianity is very wide-ranging to the point I don’t think it has any real meaning - hell, even the SCM is fundamentalist (apparently). However, if this book is intended as a sui generis work on fundamentalism as the introduction seems to indicate then the exclusively Christian focus is a serious weakness.
On a related note please see the similarly named Leaving Fundamentalism website created by one of the book’s contributors and an old college friend.
Also, I’m selling my copy on Amazon (UK) for £9.75 but if anyone reading wants it email or leave a message I’ll be able to sell if a couple of quid cheaper if you buy direct off me.
Wilfrid Laurier UP, Abe, Better World Books, Amazon (UK)
I have a pretty dreadful record of finishing blog series but I’m going to try to take an attempt at another one. In this series I will analyse the current Israeli military offensive in Gaza in terms of Just War Theory (JWT).Well, here’s the first instalment …
**********************
Yesterday it was reported that the Israel Defence Forces’ retaliation against Hamas rocket attacks had resulted in the death of 5 children.1 It appears this was a direct and foreseeable consequence of the IDF’s actions, even though the Balousha family were not the direct targets. Although figures of over 300 civilian dead are being reported by the media the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) have offered a more conservative estimate of 51 casualties.2
In this brief essay I want to examine such actions within the context of Just War Theory, in particular I will focus on three issues. First, the issue of so-called collateral damage. It is the duty of the military to take every reasonable effort to minimise and eliminate all civilian casualties. Nonetheless, sometimes mistakes happen. Can the civilian casualties be explained by such rationale and, if so, what are the Israeli Government’s responsibilities after the fact? If this first category may be considered the ideal theory there are two caveats used within Just War apologists. I will delineate and consider both. First, there is the idea of a Supreme Emergency popularised by Michael Walzer whereby the exigencies of the case necessitate decisive action to prevent defeat of the victim of aggression. Second, there is the application of the Doctrine of Double Effect as a philosophical tool for legitimising civilian deaths.
But first it is prudent to offer some a more contextual reflection. This essay was prompted by the tragic events relayed in the opening paragraph – although I will not spend a great deal of time focusing on the specifics of the conflict in Gaza this essay is a response to Israel’s actions, and like many people worldwide I consider Israel’s actions immoral. However, this essay is not intended as a evaluation of the motives and legitimacy of the conflict itself. In short, it is not concerned with the justification or otherwise of going to war (jus ad bellum) but with its execution (jus in bello); a war entered into legitimately can still be executed illegitimately and by its process be immoral.
Although the focus is on Israel it is right at the outset to highlight at the outset the nefarious nature of the Hamas terrorist offensive on Israel.3 Historically terrorism has often, by definition, been exercised by non-state actors – the ascendancy of Hamas in the 2006 elections is therefore problematic in this regard. However, if there is one defining feature of terrorism to differentiate it from other forms of political violence such as guerrilla warfare or assassination it is, to quote Robert Keohane in its intent to “intimidate an audience rather than eliminate an enemy”.4 In short, in an inversion of the oft-cited goal of ethical war-mongering it’s aim is not to eliminate ‘collateral damage’ the intended target are the non-combatants. It is noteworthy then that rather than targeting military bases as it first had in November 2000 Hamas began targeting “Israel proper”.5 As Laquer note the “ military effect of these attacks was negligible, but the psychological impact was considerable. It created a climate of insecurity among the civilian population in Israel”.6 In a news story in the midst of Israel’s reprisals against hamas’ rocket attacks Afer Bavly, the Israeli Consul General in Miami responded to a question regarding the proportionality of Israel’s response that “Yes, we have not had hundreds killed by their missiles. But we have had a quarter million living with terrorism. … When you are faced with 60 or 80 missiles a day, the fact that they are not accurate does not mean there is less terror effect.”7 What makes Hamas’ actions all the more loathsome is how they go about their most recent terrorist activities. In launching their random acts of violence on Israeli soil ensconced in Palestinian homes Hamas shares a significant measure of culpability in the deaths of Palestinian civilians; by deliberately using Palestinians as a human shield against Israeli reprisal they have shown a recklessness toward the lives of those they purport to fight for.
None the less, irrespective of Hamas’ actions by turns reckless, immoral and evil it is the ethics of Israel’s response and its relation to Just War Theory that concerns us here, and this is where the ethical import of of the debate and the moral integrity of the State of Israel is pertinent. While the debates concerning who or what a terrorist is will no doubt continue the above discussion raises the issue of reciprocity. Noam Chomsky writes concerning the reciprocity in the use of political violence by political actors and terrorists in relation to the question ‘what is the proper response to the crime[of terrorism]?’
Whatever the answer, it must at least satisfy a moral truism: if we propose some principle that is to be applied to antagonists, then we must agree – in fact, strenuously insist – that the principle apply to us as well. Those who do not rise even to this minimal level of integrity plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of right or wrong, good and evil.8
If Chomsky is to followed here, as I believe he should, then the question posed by some that Israel is targeting civilians, and in doing so imitating the strategy of indiscriminate violence of terrorism, becomes one of utmost seriousness. It is to that question that I now turn.
References
3For a brief history of Hamas operations see Walter Laquer, No End to War: Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, London: Continuum, 2004, 104-114.
4Robert O Keohane, The Public Delegitimation of Terrorism, in Ken booth and Tim Dunne (Eds.), Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002, 142.
5Laquer, 108-109. In this case the modus operandi of Hamas terrorism was by suicide terrorism – the more recent rocket attacks are in continuity with this policy of indiscriminate terror, however.
6Laquer, 109.
7http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2008/12/30/a8a_israel_leadedit_1230.html
8Noam Chomsky, Who are the Global Terrorists? in Ken booth and Tim Dunne (Eds.), Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002, 128.
Incoming
Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society, Vintage, 1964.
Jacques Ellul & Patrick Troude-Chastnet, Jacques Ellul on Politics, Technology, and Christianity, Wipf & Stock, 2005.
Roy Hattersley, John Wesley: A Brand from the Burning, Abacus, 2002.
Lorrie Moore, Who Will Run the Frog Hospital, Faber & Faber, 1994.
David Halbersham, War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton and the Generals, Bloomsbury, 2001.
Angus Wilson, Anglo-Saxon Attitudes, Penguin, 1958.
Outgoing
Ernest A Payne, The Anabaptists of the 16th Century and their influence in the modern world, 1949.
Raymond Williams, Culture and Materialism: Selected Essays, Verso, 2005.
Zygmunt Bauman, The Art of Life, Polity, 2008.
Slavoj Zizek, Violence: Six Sideways Reflections, Picador, 2008.
Geoffrey Robertson, The Levellers: The Putney Debates, Verso, 2007.
The New York Times reports that Samuel Huntington has died at the age of 81 (HT Steve).
Huntingdon, until 2007 a Professor of Political Science at Harvard, is best known for his Clash of Civilizations thesis he first put forward in 1993 and later expanded into the book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. This thesis has come to prominence as a philosophy undergirding the ‘war on terror’ even though Huntingdon himself expressed regret at how his work had been adopted. Nonetheless, I consider Huntingdon’s flawed and dangerous, I briefly expressed my own criticisms in this 2003 essay where I suggest that formally Huntingdon’s thesis is Seligerian but, when applied, becomes marxist in its approach to ideology (PDF file). For a popular critique of Huntingdon the best account I have come across is Amartya Sen’s Identity and Violence. In terms of online sources the late Edward Said has a good article in The Nation written in the weeks following 9/11.
Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations is the work that he will be remembered for, this is a shame for whatever its intent (Huntington places emphasis in the book on the need for dialogue). However, the work will I suspect forever be tied to the ‘war on terror’. Huntington in his 1957 book The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations
The Soldier and the State represents the most widely accepted paradigm of American military professionalism during the cold war (Rockwood, p. 102).
In his elaboration of the military professional Huntington moved away from the citizen-soldier / draft and emphasised the importance of a voluntary professional military. The book became - and I believe still is - the standard reference work in its field and has been a key component in the military officer training across the globe. As such, Huntington laid the foundation for not only a more efficient military but crucially a more accountable one. Clearly recent experiences show this is far from perfect but nonetheless, this was a crucial contribution not only to military ethics but also humanitarianism.
Samuel Huntington, RIP.
References
Lawrence P Rockwood, Walking Away from Nuremberg: Just War and the Doctrine of Command Responsibility, Massachusetts University Press, 2007.
Now is has good a time as any to recap on this year’s books a single some out for special mention. So, as I did last year I will separate into two categories. Religion/Theology and Politics/Philosophy. I will also add a worth a mention comment (the nearly rans) and maintain the dud of the year category.
Theology / Religion
Runner-up …
Timothy Gorringe, God’s Just Vengeance: Crime, Violence and the Rhetoric of Salvation (Cambridge Studies in Ideology and Religion)
I reviewed this here. Gorringe offerssince a historical study of the theology of the atonement in mainly British theologians the seventeenth century and how these have directly influenced penal policy.
Winner …
William Cavanaugh, Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire, Eerdmans, 2008.
I reviewed this here. This very short book, particularly in view of the global economic situation, is one of the small number of books I would describe as being must-reads. In a highly cogent and tightly argued book Cavanaugh lays ot the theological implications and problems of capitalism.
Special mention should also be made to the late David Dungan’s Contantine’s Bible which addresses the political implications of the formation of the canon.
Politics / Philosophy
Runner Up …
Albert Camus, THE MYTH OF SISYPHUS (GREAT IDEAS S.)
I reviewed this here. It is strange difficult to pin down what it is I liked so much about this book. It is hard work to get through but underlying this there is a great deal of integrity in the text. If I were an atheist, Camus would be my model.
Winner …
Emma Haddad, The Refugee in International Society: Between Sovereigns (Cambridge Studies in International Relations), Cambridge UP, 2008.
Strangely I didn’t offer much of a review after reading this. Haddad offers a survey of the political problem of the refugee in international law first by analysing the idea of state sovereignty as it pertains to the refugee which, by definition, is the result of a break-down of the soveriegn state and secondly through a historical analysis of the political application of the refugee convention in, for example the cold war. My own understanding of refugee issues has been affected by the argument.
Special mention should also be made of one book that has not yet been reviewed on the site, Ian Williams’ THE ALMS TRADE: Charities, Past, Present and Future
Duds of the Year.
No explanation necessary:
Following on from my last dose of Zizek on Humanitarian Intervention I read a section of Violence yesterday that made me literally want to exclaim out in appreciation, which, bearing in mind I was in a service station on the M5 may not have been a good idea.
Zizek writes (he is writing agains the backdrop of the Mellilla Immigration clamp-down):
If one were to open the borders, the first to rebel would be the local working classes. It is thus becoming clear that the solution is not “tear down the walls and let them in” the easy demand of the soft-hearted liberal “radicals”. The only true solution is to tear down the true wall, not the Immigration Department one, but the socio-economic one: to change society so that people will no longer desperately try to escape their own world (P. 103-104).
Of course, the irony is that this way of thinking can so easily lead to rationalising humanitarian intervention, or even nation building.
Francis Davis, Elizabeth Paulhus & Andrew Bradstock, Moral, But No Compass: Government, Church and the Future of Welfare, Matthew James, 2008. ISBN: 9781898366911.
Moral, But no Compass is the culmination of research undertaken by the authors having been commissioned by Stephen Lowe, Bishop of Hulme and Bishop for Urban Life and Faith. The study is lauded as being the result of extensive research and interviews with ecclesiastics, politicians and government officials but I must admit I was underwhelmed with the book.
Prior to its publication the report was the subject of a lot of media interest such as this report by the BBC. The claims that the report pleads discrimination, while not wholly misplaced, is overblown. However, the gist of the report’s argument is the religious charities, by which this report refers almost exclusively to Christian charities offer an invaluable and formally unappreciated role in public welfare provision and the Government should be more accommodating and cognisant of the particularities of the Church’s position in society and its theological self-understanding.
There are huge theological issues at play in the report which aside from a few references prophetic religion are bypassed - it is taken as a given that the CofE should remain as chaplain to society, hence where disestablishment is pivotal to the debate it is entirely ignored. Writing of the report Simon Barrow of the Ekklesia think tank writes
On specifically Christian grounds, we have opposed particular privileges for church people (for example, the ability to select and employ according to faith affiliation in publicly funded schools). We have urged the churches to grasp the comprehensive equalities agenda fully in public life, again from a theological starting point. We have also sent out a series of warning signals about the emerging ‘new deal’ between religious and state interests — of which what is being discussed here may or may not be the latest example (you can read it in a number of ways).
The point of this is not to recommend isolationism or a ‘prophetic stance’ disconnected from a proper understanding of the shape and limits of the environment we live in, but to recall the Christian community to a renewed sense of its primary vocation as an exemplary agent of change rather than a collusive cementer of the social order.
He is right but the issue really is not at all addressed instead the message of the report can be summed up in eight words to the government: please listen to us, we really are important. A profoundly disappointing piece of work, there is indication that more reports will follow, they can only get better.
Elsewhere …
Ekklesia’s articles on the subject.
A set of links to media reactions of the report.
My previous post on the report.
Tags: ekklesia, Moral But no Compass, Politics
The so-called responsibility to protect or idea of humanitarian intervention is something i continue to reflect upon and, notwithstanding some trends such as CPT it is something the church largely ignores. However, the more I reflect the more I find myself rationalising two kingdom approaches and, in some sense, compromising my own commitment to non-violence - all in the name of human rights.
All this is by way of preamble to Zizek’s discussion of humanitarian intervention in Violence. And, as an aside, this is now the third book I have tried to read of Zizek’s the first (The Metastases of Enjoyment) was simply unintelligible, the second (The Fragile Absolute) was not that much better but this book, while still meandering, is far superior and I don’t think this is due to me beginning to come to terms with his writing, I do think this is stylistically speaking a much better book.
In any case, Zizek describes humanitarian intervention as SOS violence. It is not actually the theory of humanitarian intervention the idea that there is a pure theory of humanitarian intervention devoid of politics that Zizek disputes. Humanitarian crises, that is the reception from those not suffering, are mediated crises. Humanitarian crises and one can immediately think of Zimbabwe and the DRC as current examples demand urgent action (think Bsp Sentamu’s call that Mugabe is removed) but Zizek makes a call for inaction. Why?
I’ll let Zizek explain, well kind of! First Zizek highlight the hypocrisy of the “liberal humanitarian”
Let’s think about the fake sense of urgency that pervades the left-liberal humanitarian discourse on violence: in it, abstraction and graphic (pseudo)concreteness coexist in the staging of the scene of violence against women, blacks, the homeless, gays … “A woman is raped every six seconds in this country” and “In the time it will takes to read this paragraph, ten children will die of hunger” are just two examples. Underlying all this is a hypocritical sentiment of moral outrage. Just this kind of pseudo-urgency was exploited by Starbucks a couple of years ago when, at store entrances, posters greeting customers pointed out that a portion of the chain’s profits went into health-care for the children of Guatemala, the source of their coffee, the inference being that with every cup you drink, you save a child’s life.
There is a fundamental anti-theoretical edge to these urgent injunctions. There is no time to reflect: we have to act now. (P. 6).
Against this manufactured urgency, this focus on anti-theory, Zizek in typically contrarian style suggests that the only practical response is “to resist the temptation to engage immediately and to “wait and see” by means of a patient, critical analysis”. (P. 7).
To understand the counterintuitive nature of the argument requires us to recognise that violence seen is the simplest but also the most transparent of the systemic violence of social relations, it is not however synonymous with violence itself; Zizek differentiates subjective from objective violence. Subjective violence is the language we have come across already in this post, it is the (sometimes) visible suffering of genocide victims for example. It is the sort of violence that evokes calls for humanitarian interventions, that demands urgent action. Objective (systemic) violence however is unseen and refers to the often “catastrophic consequences of the smooth functioning of our economic and political systems” (P. 2). In short, it is the violence of normalcy.
In a key text Zizek expands on the divergent critical standpoints required to address these two manifestations of violence and the parasitic nature of the one on the other:
The catch is that subjective and objective violence cannot be perceived from the same standpoint: subjective violence is experienced as such against the background of a non-violent zero level. It is seen as a perturbation of the ‘normal’ peaceful state of things. However, objective violence is precisely the violence inherent to this ‘normal’ state of things. Objective violence is invisible since it sustains the very zero-level standard against which we perceive something as subjectively violent. (P. 2).
It’s difficult to get to what Zizek precisely means regarding call to do nothing, to rebel against the anti-theory of interventionism with disengaged reflection apart from the experience of subjective violence. To put it bluntly I would have a little bit more time for Zizek’s reflective approach if he were to move to Zimbabwe’s Cholera ridden streets to do his philosophising. But that is not to say that Zizek’s diagnosis of relatedness of subjective and objective violence is not important.
Jean Bricmont has forthrightly charged that the need to act that Zizek refers to amounts to using human rights to sell wars. Elsewhere in a book I am hoping to read over the coming weeks Naomi Klein has introduced the idea of disaster capitalism. This is the real benefit of Zizek’s argument, there is no neutrality in the call to action elicited by portrayals of mass subjective violence. Any humanitarian intervention is but a plastering over of the cracks. Perhaps such actions return life to a status qua but that is nothing to be proud of. And this is perhaps my gripe with Zizek’s argument, the subjective/objective distinction is ultimately meaningless - it is media manufacturing and popular perception that sees one form of violence and does not even see the other, even if it sees its effects. Is this not reason for the academic, rock star or not, to disavow disengaged pholosophy and actually get embedded, to become partial to suffering subjective or otherwise.
Elsewhere …
Halden discusses the same passages as i have above a lot better than me.
Liberated Noise does the same. Finally, A C Grayling reviews the book in The Australian.
Tags: humanitarian intervention, Philosophy, war, Zizek
There’s a lot of comment regarding Obama’s choice for Rick Warren to offer the invocation in his inauguration, I really have nothing to add to what’s been said, I itimimated my initial thought in a comment to Drew’s post.
One of the better posts around the subject, specifically Warren’s view of marriage can be seen on Talking Philosophy, the specific post Rick Warren & Same Sex Marriage is one of the more reasonable I’ve come across. It’s worth reading through.
Tags: Marriage, Rick Warren
