The Tyrant's Bloody Robe
a term used by Slavoj Žižek to refer to clearly delimited interpersonal violence committed by one subject to another; contrast with objective violence (either symbolic or systemic)
But we should learn to step back, to disentangle ourselves from the fascinating lure of this directly visible 'subjective' violence, violence performed by a clearly identifiable agent.
But we should learn to step back, to disentangle ourselves from the fascinating lure of this directly visible 'subjective' violence, violence performed by a clearly identifiable agent.
a term used by Slavoj Žižek to refer to a form of objective violence that has to do with language
there is a 'symbolic' violence embodied in language and its forms, what Heidegger would call ‘our house of being' [...] there is a more fundamental form of violence still that pertains to language as such, to its imposition of a certain universe of meaning
there is a 'symbolic' violence embodied in language and its forms, what Heidegger would call ‘our house of being' [...] there is a more fundamental form of violence still that pertains to language as such, to its imposition of a certain universe of meaning
a term used by Slavoj Žižek to refer to a form of objective violence that underlies our economic and political systems
there is what I call 'systemic' violence, or the often catastrophic consequences of the smooth functioning of our economic and political systems.
there is what I call 'systemic' violence, or the often catastrophic consequences of the smooth functioning of our economic and political systems.
[...] In a well-known passage from his Existentialism and Humanism, Sartre deployed the dilemma of a young man in France in 1942, torn between the duty to help his lone, ill mother and the duty to enter the Resistance and fight the Germans; Sartre’s point is, of course, that there is no a priori answer to this dilemma. The young man needs to make a decision grounded only in his own abyssal freedom and assume full responsibility for it. [...]
he mentions an "obscene" third way out, which is to do neither
[...] In a well-known passage from his Existentialism and Humanism, Sartre deployed the dilemma of a young man in France in 1942, torn between the duty to help his lone, ill mother and the duty to enter the Resistance and fight the Germans; Sartre’s point is, of course, that there is no a priori answer to this dilemma. The young man needs to make a decision grounded only in his own abyssal freedom and assume full responsibility for it. [...]
he mentions an "obscene" third way out, which is to do neither
[...] To everyone’s surprise, Lenin says, ‘I’d like to have both!’ Why? Is there a hidden stripe of decadent jouisseur behind his austere revolutionary image? No – he explains: ‘So that I can tell my wife that I am going to my mistress, and my mistress that I have to be with my wife …’ ‘And then, what do you do?’ ‘I go to a solitary place to learn, learn and learn!’
Marx chooses a wife, Engels chooses a mistress ... playing on the fact that Lenin's advice to young people under socialism was ‘Learn, learn and learn’
[...] To everyone’s surprise, Lenin says, ‘I’d like to have both!’ Why? Is there a hidden stripe of decadent jouisseur behind his austere revolutionary image? No – he explains: ‘So that I can tell my wife that I am going to my mistress, and my mistress that I have to be with my wife …’ ‘And then, what do you do?’ ‘I go to a solitary place to learn, learn and learn!’
Marx chooses a wife, Engels chooses a mistress ... playing on the fact that Lenin's advice to young people under socialism was ‘Learn, learn and learn’