International violence and its control: study of symbolic violence

Résumé du document

The third big debate in International Relations situates positivism (in its neo-realist variant) in opposition to poststructuralism. The concept of symbolic violence borrowed from Bourdieusian sociology and adapted by Philippe Braud, can be considered as a useful tool in understanding the formation of violence from a reflexive perspective. The following paper will initially define the concept, highlight the necessary inclusion of the notion of victim in order to adapt it to the International framework and propose some modalities of the subsequent creation of physic violence. The final part will address an attempt to define the new concept of global hegemonic identity as the contemporaneous application of the symbolic violence within the global order and its implication on the recent development of terrorism.

Extraits

[...] When the corporal violence usually engenders both, the symbolic one only vitiates the symbolic self-representation that an agent or a group has of itself. This particular alteration of the self-regard thus constitutes the basis for a hypothetical response from the dominated and therefore opposes the stabilizing quality foreseen by Pierre Bourdieu. Furthermore, by considering the alteration of a symbolic identity by the victim (group or individual), Braud offers a framework able to transcend the infra-state structure in which the symbolic violence had first been envisaged. [...]

[...] First, it appears important to define the general concept of Habitus[2], axiomatically used in the definition of symbolic violence. The social agent for Bourdieu, acts under the unperceived influence of a “habitus system” present in each individual as a result of an unconscious assimilation during history. This system predisposes his agents to act, perceive, feel and think in a certain way according to their environment (culture, social position, etc The unconsciousness of the process is fundamental in the concept of habitus, in the sense that it permits the explanation of regularly followed rules that are not intentionally defined. [...]

[...] Philippe Braud will later redefine the concept and show that the use of that symbolic violence can also engender a violent reaction from the victim, considering therefore emotional and psychological parameters. b. Philippe Braud: a redefinition of the concept allowing a broadening towards an application in international relations Political scientist Philippe Braud follows the French tradition of a sociologic approach when he redefines and applies the concept of symbolic violence to international relations[7]. In order to do so, he considers the psychological effects of violence highlighted before by Marcel Mauss[8], as well as the notion of structural violence developed by Joan Galtung[9]. [...]

[...] Goffman, La mise en scène de la vie quotidienne 5DEFMNOïÞÐÞ»¥'¥}gSA-'hŽz›h³(®6?CJOJ[18]QJ[19]^J[20]mH sH #hŽz›h³(®6?OJ[21]QJ[22]^J[23]mH sH Paris, Editions de Minuit Michel Baudrillard, “L'esprit du terrorisme” in Le Monde, November 3rd 2001 Here an analogy can be made with the state of crisis developed by Kuhn in his epistemological paradigm shifts theory where the absence of dominant paradigm favors the creation of new paradigms. In T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1st. ed., Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr The group of the non-aligned countries formed after the Bandung conference of April 1955 can be considered as a manifestation of that available space. [...]

[...] Also, Braud tells us that the latest are the most dangerous, because they are unrestricted (he notes the mission of civilization during the colonization, but the promotion of the western-styled democracy constitutes another one). Secondly, the “tremor of references” (or the disruption of the symbolic order in other words) creates a feeling of incertitude, previously appeased by the stability of the symbolic framework. This happens following two different dynamics. The first one sees the modification of the global environment, which consequently will differ from the symbolic universe of reference. It is unintentional and can be considered systemic in most of the cases. [...]