No description available.

In this thesis I shall outline various modernist authors' arguments that collectivities (such as ethnic groups, nations, states and cultures) and subjectivities employ sacrificial violence to establish and assert their identity where identity is inescapably (?) understood in terms of the sovereignty of the collective or the post-Oedipal autonomy of the individual. To this end, violence has been posited as a historical and conceptual inevitability and is set as the default-state of human nature and politics. In recent times, protesting voices (from post-feminist, post-colonial, post-modern and the emerging human rights discourses) have begun to rigorously contest the notion of violence as the default-state. As a result, the legitimacy of sacrifice as the primary modus to an autonomous selfhood has been radically problematised. I believe that a comprehensive understanding of the nature of this crisis of identity formation , and the possibility of transcending it, is to be found in the paradigmatic shift away from Newtonian thought toward a post-Newtonian worldview. In seeking to challenge the assumption of violence-as-default, I shall translate the comprehensive sacrificial nature of collective identity and subjectivity into a complexity-based model that allowed me to make three crucial conceptual moves toward a comprehensive understanding of post-sacrificial identities that occupy an important place in a post-Newtonian world. First, it will allow me to challenge the assumptions that supported the Hobbesian myth of autonomy/sovereignty sacrificially achieved by charting the ontological shift that compels us to understand "entities" (be it a cell, an individual or a state) not in terms of autonomy but interdependence. Secondly, it provides the conceptual tools needed to understand the systemic nature of sacrificial violence by reading subjectivity violence and collectivity violence in terms of their organic self-similarity. This will equip me to comprehensively explore a postsacrificial epistemology valid for both collective identities and subjectivity. Thirdly, I propose a model of post-sacrificial identities that are created and sustained at the edge of chaos through the dynamic interplay of order and disorder that reconciles creative and destructive forces in a generative unity. I believe that this post-Newtonian reading will clear the conceptual space needed to suggest there might yet be hope for a future that does not embrace violence as default-state.

Thesis (MA (Philosophy))--University of Stellenbosch, 2010. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This thesis is a philosophical exposition of violence informed by two theoretical positions which confront complexity as a phenomenon. These positions are complexity theory and deconstruction. Both develop systemsbased understandings of complex phenomena in which relations of difference are constitutive of the meaning of those phenomena. There has been no focused investigation of the implications of complexity for the conceptualisation of violence thus far. In response to this theoretical gap, this thesis begins by distinguishing complexity theory as a general, trans-disciplinary field of study from critical complexity theory. The latter is used to develop a critique and criticism of epistemological foundationalism, emphasising the limits to knowledge and the normative and ethical dimension of knowledge and understanding. The epistemological break implied by this critique reiterates the epistemological shift permeating the work of, among others, Friedrich Nietzsche and Jacques Derrida. In this context, critical complexity theory begins to articulate the idea of violence on two levels: first, as an empirical, ethical problem in the system; and, secondly, as asymmetry and antagonism. Violence in this second sense is implicated in the dynamic relations of difference through which structure and meaning are generated in complex organisation. The sensitivity to difference and violence shared by critical complexity theory and deconstruction allows for the parallel reading of these philosophical perspectives; and for the supplementation and opening of critical complexity theory by deconstruction within the architecture of this thesis. This supplementation seeks to preserve the singularity of each perspective, while exploring the potential of their points of affinity and tension in the production of a coherent philosophical analysis of violence. Deconstruction offers a more developed understanding of violence and a wealth of related motifs: différance, framing, law, singularity, aesthetics and others. These motifs necessitate the inclusion of other philosophical voices, notably, that of Nietzsche, Arendt, Kant, Levinas, and Benjamin. In conversation with these authors, this thesis links violence to meaning, to its possibility, to its production and to the process by which meaning comes to change. Given these links, violence is conceptualised in relation to the notion of difference on three distinct levels. The first is the difference between elements in a complex system of meaning; the second is the notion of difference between systems or texts around which boundaries or frames can be drawn; and the third is the notion of difference between meaning and the absence of meaning. This discussion examines the relationship between this violence implicated in the constitution of meaning and the more colloquial understanding of violence as atrocity, as rape, murder and other socially, politically and ethically problematic expressions thereof. It is to empirical violence, following Derrida and Levinas, that we are called to respond and to intervene in the suffering of the other. The ethical and political necessity of response anchors this discussion of violence. And, it is towards the possibility of an adequate response – the possibility of an ethics sensitive to its own violence and a politics that is directed at the eradication of empirical violence – which this discussion navigates. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie tesis is ’n filosofiese uiteensetting van geweld wat deur twee denkwyses ingelig word wat kompleksiteit as fenomeen konfronteer. Hierdie denkwyses is kompleksiteitsteorie en dekonstruksie. Altwee ontwikkel sisteemgebaseerde verduidelikings van komplekse fenomene waar verhoudings van verskille die betekenis van hierdie fenomene beslaan. Daar is tot dusver nog geen gefokusde ondersoek na die implikasies van kompleksiteit vir die konsepsualisering van geweld nie. As antwoord op hierdie teoretiese leemte, begin hierdie tesis deur kompleksiteitsteorie as ’n algemene, trans-dissiplinêre studierigting van kritiese kompleksiteitsteorie te onderskei. Laasgenoemde word gebruik om kritiese denke van epistemologiese grondslae te ontwikkel, en beklemtoon die perke op kennis en die normatiewe en etiese aspek van kennis en verstaan. Die epistemologiese verwydering wat deur hierdie kritiek geïmpliseer word, herhaal die epistemologiese verskuiwing wat die werk van onder andere Friedrich Nietzsche en Jacques Derrida, deurdring. In hierdie konteks begin kritiese kompleksiteitsteorie om die konsep van geweld op twee vlakke te verwoord: eerstens as ’n empiriese, etiese probleem in die stelsel en tweedens as asimmetrie en antagonisme. Geweld in die tweede opsig word in die dinamiese verhoudings van verskil geïmpliseer, waar struktuur en betekenis in komplekse organisasie gegenereer word. Die sensitiwiteit vir verskil en geweld wat deur kritiese kompleksiteitsteorie en dekonstruksie gedeel word neem parallelle lesings van hierdie filosofiese perspektiewe in ag; sowel as die aanvulling en oopmaak van kritiese kompleksiteitsteorie deur dekonstruksie binne die struktuur van hierdie tesis. Hierdie aanvulling wil die enkelvoudigheid van elke perspektief bewaar, terwyl dit die potensiaal van hul punte van verwantskap en spanning in die produksie van ’n koherente filosofiese analise van geweld verken. Dekonstruksie bied ’n meer ontwikkelde verstaan van geweld en ’n rykdom van verwante motiewe: différance, beraming, wet, enkelvoudigheid, estetika en ander. Hierdie motiewe noodsaak die insluiting van ander filosofiese stemme, soos Nietzsche, Arendt, Kant, Levinas en Benjamin. Hierdie tesis tree in gesprek met hierdie skrywers en skakel geweld aan betekenis, aan die moontlikheid, aan die produksie en aan die proses waardeur betekenis na verandering lei. Gegewe hierdie skakels, word geweld in verhouding tot die begrip van verskil op drie spesifieke vlakke gekonsepsualiseer. Die eerste is die verskil tussen elemente in ’n komplekse stelstel van betekenis; die tweede is die begrip van verskil tussen stelsels of tekste waar grense of rame om getrek kan word; en die derde is die begrip van verskil tussen betekenis en die afwesigheid van betekenis. Hierdie bespreking stel ondersoek in na die verhouding tussen hierdie geweld wat in die samestelling van betekenis geïmpliseer word en die meer alledaagse verstaan van geweld as wreedardigheid, as verkragting, moord en ander maatskaplike, politiese en etiese problematiese uitdrukkings daarvan. Ons word geroep om op empiriese geweld, in navolging van Derrida en Levinas, te reageer en in te gryp om die lyding van ander te keer. Die etiese en politiese noodsaaklikheid van reaksie dien as grondslag vir hierdie bespreking van geweld. Uiteindelik beweeg hierdie bespreking nader aan die moontlikheid van ’n voldoende reaksie – die moontlikheid van ’n etiek wat sensitief vir sy eie geweld is en ’n politiek wat op die uitwis van empiriese geweld gerig is.

Thesis (MA)--University of Stellenbosch, 2002. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: What does it mean that the violence of aggression could justify the violence of resistance? What does such justification accomplish, and when, and how? What underlies the conditions and limitations of justified violence, as, for example, these have been formulated in western doctrines of "just war"? Most critically, how could one think about the possibility of a resistance to evil that would be effective without itself instituting further violence? The theoretical ground of this investigation is found in a close reading of the work of Emmanuel Levinas, specifically the section of his Otheruiise than Being, or Beyond Essence in which human consciousness is shown to be, from the first, called to justice in responsibility for others. For Levinas, to be a subject is to be always already for-the-other as a substitute or hostage. This is both a persecution and the "glory" of human being. Thus Levinas introduces an enigmatic "good violence" prior to any distinction between aggressive and just violences. The idea of an originary good violence opens up a reconsideration of the evil of aggression and the joyfulness of resistance. This in turn shows the instability or equivocation of just violence: even if it is inspired by goodness - by one's responsibility for the useless suffering of others - it is never finally good enough, and always at risk of slipping into injustice. The responsibility of a "just warrior" is thus not cancelled by the justness of the cause. The justness of the cause indeed demands ever greater responsibility, even for and before one's enemy. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Wat sou dit kon beteken dat die geweld van aggressie die geweld van verset regverdig? Wat word bewerkstellig deur sodanige regverdiging, en wanneer, en . hoe? Waarop berus die voorwaardes en beperkinge van geregverdigde geweld, soos dit byvoorbeeld geformuleer is in Westerse leerstellings oor "regverdige oorlog"? Nog belangriker: hoe kan 'n mens dink oor die moontlikheid van verset teen die bose wat effektief is, maar sonder om self verdere geweld daar te stel? Die teoretiese grondslag van hierdie ondersoek is 'n nougesette bestudering van die werk van Emmanuel Levinas, meer spesifiek die afdeling van sy Otherwise than Being, or Beyond Essence, waarin hy argumenteer dat die menslike bewussyn van meet af aan tot geregtigheid opgeroep word in verantwoordelikheid vir andere. Om 'n subjek te wees is vir Levinas om altyd alreeds vir-dié-ander te wees as 'n plaasvervanger of gyselaar. Dit is sowel 'n vervolging as die "heerlikheid" van menswees. Levinas argumenteer dus ten gunste van 'n "goeie geweld" voorafgaande aan enige onderskeidinge tussen aggressiewe en geregverdigde geweld. Die idee van 'n oorspronklike goeie geweld maak 'n herdenking van die boosheid van agressie en die vreugdevolheid van verset moontlik. Op sy beurt toon dit die onstabiliteit of dubbelsinnigheid van geregverdigde geweld: selfs al word dit geïnspireer deur goedheid - deur 'n mens se verantwoordelikheid vir die nuttelose lyding van ander - is dit nooit goed genoeg nie en loop dit altyd die gevaar om om te slaan in onreg. Die verantwoordelikheid van 'n "regverdige vegter" word daarom nie uitgekanselleer deur die regverdigheid van sy saak nie. Die regverdigheid van die saak eis trouens nog groter verantwoordelikheid, selfs vir en vóór jou vyand.

No description available.

No description available.

Thesis (PhD)--Macquarie University, Division of Society, Culture, Media & Philosophy, Department of Critical and Cultural Studies, 2004. / Bibliography: leaves 310-325. / Introduction -- School violence: a brief overview -- What's in a name?: constructing an institutional identity in an educational market -- The discipline of gentlemen -- Parent consumers: tactical manoeuvres and institutional strategies -- Making the papers: Trinity in the news -- Games of truth: "everyone has their spin" -- Conclusions. / This study integrates sociological theories of social class with poststructuralist theories of subjectivity, representation and consumption, to consider the complex ways in which the representational practices of institutions and individuals are implicated in the production of violence in schools. This work draws particularly on a case study of incidents of sexual violence which occurred at an elite private school in Sydney during 2000, in which four students were charged with a range of offences committed against younger peers over a period of months. The assault incidents received widespread media coverage and sparked intense public debate, in response to which a media strategies consultant was engaged by the school to liaise with members of the press. This study demonstrates the extent to which the interrelationships between systems of signification (in particular, written and visual texts) and other social systems, (for example, families, schools, and political economy) function in the constitution of subjectivities and the production of meaning, and takes as its focus the interrelationship and functioning of texts, discursive practices and social practices which pertain specifically to the assault incidents described above. Data are derived from a range of sources and genres, including promotional materials, personal and general correspondence, media reports, and interviews, necessitating a variety of qualitative analytic methods. Informed by critical post-structuralist theory, in particular the work of Bourdieu, Foucault, and de Certeau, this work considers questions pertaining to the operation of power within social institutions, with particular emphasis on the constitutive function of discourse. The analysis extends current conceptualisations of school violence through a post-structuralist interrogation of, and linking of violence to, educational consumption, which has predominantly been theorised according to sociological or economic models. The argument is made that the market ideologies which pervade contemporary social and educative practice, together with the representational practices and disciplinary regimes of schools, function in the constitution of social subjects who occupy multiple ambiguous subject positions in the patriarchal hierarchies which characterise the power relations and institutions under consideration, thus implicating institutions in the production of violence. / Mode of access: World Wide Web. / vii, 325 leaves