Hence, the acceptance of non-violence at the individual level, constitutes in fact an adoption on the part of the dominated of the aims, aspirations and normative framework of the realization of politics as shaped by capitalist domination as an ejection of the historical correlation of power, which is logically concealed by Butler, as he prefers to interpret politics in the field of a molecular competition, concluding almost teleologically in a moralistic moralism, no matter how persistently he exorcises it.įurthermore, the exercise of violence on the part of capitalist domination does not constitute a wrong moral choice, or a conjunctural practice that arises as an open moment of the regime, as essentially state violence constitutes an inclusive expression of capitalist domination and its aggregate component, which ensures its maintenance and perpetuation as a perpetual self-fulfilment. Non-violence in the first place in no way constitutes a practice of crystallizing a radical critique of individualism, precisely because non-violence as an individual choice, as it can only be seen as such, flows from the resources of capitalist domination which promotes the platform of non-violence for the dominated while retaining the right to exercise legitimate violence for itself, since the exercise of violence or the threat of violence by sovereignty does not constitute an anomaly artificially hooked into the regulation of its realization, but, conversely, is an inevitable as well as organic function of it. This is, as already said, an attempt that is quite interesting in order to define non-violence in opposition to state-dominant violence, while remaining an attempt that politically moves within the limits of an immature social democracy, while at the level of political theory it is presumed to be a perspective, manifestly erroneous and deafeningly ungrounded, the result of Butler’s manifest failure to understand the threads that link capitalist domination to violence and violence to the zones of regime power.
It is admittedly a laborious attempt to define non-violence as that practice which, stemming from a set of values and perceptions, escapes the established order while at the same time constituting the means for the projection into the field of reality of an experiential experience that brings within it the potentiality of a different/antagonistic world. Judith Butler, in her book “The Force of Nonviolence-An Ethico-Political Bind”, attempts to show that the practice of non-violence, less as a moral practice and more as a political practice, does not imply a passive attitude towards the violence of capitalist domination, but, on the contrary, constitutes a form of aggressive resistance, which, while not taking on violent characteristics, is at the same time a critique in itself of individualism as it results from the practices of capitalist domination.
0 kommentar(er)
