On Violence: A Reply

5/6/2020

Issue 14, Volume 17

ANONYMOUS

This article is a response to a piece entitled “On Violence,” which appeared in Issue 14, Volume 17 of De Minimis. The author of that piece warned against the use of violence as a form of protest; they express concern that people who see violence as a legitimate form of process “celebrate the destruction and damage visited on communities and norms of social cohesion.”

This is not the case.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

People who look upon the looting and damage that has been caused by the protests against the murder of George Floyd and see that damage as legitimate recognise that the “virtues of civil discourse,” and “norms of social cohesion,” which the original author exalted so highly are the very same virtues which perpetuate a culture of repression. Therefore, violent disruption of the status quo is the only effective response to the violent repression of people of colour by law enforcement.

To that end, I put forward 2 theses in reply.

The murder of George Floyd was the product of a system which is systemically violent towards oppressed minorities.

Let’s be clear, these protests – or “riots” if you insist upon that term – are not an isolated incident, and there is a reason they have spread across multiple major U.S. cities and across the world. On Saturday, there will be a Black Lives Matter protest right here in Melbourne on the steps of Parliament House, a protest against the murder of Indigenous Australians in police custody.

The Washington Post reports that 1,023 people have been shot and killed by police in the past 12 months in the United States. Black Americans account for just 13% of the United States population but are killed at twice the rate of White Americans. These shootings have taken place in every single U.S. state. More alarming however, is that these shootings are continuing to increase on a steady trajectory.

It is not to be disputed that these shootings in the United States are emblematic of a system in which the police are given legal immunities in respect of the use of militarised force to keep racialised communities ‘under control.’ The United States is systemically violent towards people of colour.

Violence operates on both an ideological/symbolic and overt/repressive level. Overt violence expresses the ugly truth that passive ideological/symbolic forms of protest are not working.

The police embody the state apparatus of the law, as do judges, and lawyers, and every other person you encounter in an institution of law or law enforcement. Embody is the key term here: the law works in and through actual human beings, people who err, who are biased, and whose actions sometimes produce horrifically unjust results.
Which one of us hasn’t read a judgement and thought “this isn’t a just outcome.” The recognition of the simple fact that people err is the reason we have an appellate court system. Similarly, the original author acknowledges that the murder of George Floyd was “horrific and grotesquely wasteful,” of human life.

To be clear, I am not saying we should throw the law out entirely – that would put the lot of us out of business. But we must recognise that sometimes the law fails people – more than this, the law can be an instrument of violence, both repressive and ideological. The repressive aspect of the law is obvious to anyone – it inheres in law enforcement, the Police and, even potentially the Army. The ideological functioning of law may be less clear, and legal scholars have written entire books on this complex point, but suffice it to say that the law expresses a certain set of values about how our society should be. To quote Louis Althusser as an example, “the distinction between the public and the private is a distinction internal to bourgeois law.” That is to say, this distinction is internal to the institution of the Law as it functions in a western, capitalist democracy, and is not to be taken as a universal given. This is one simple way in which the law expresses an ideology. Legal ideology is perpetuated in judge-made and statutory law; it imposes itself with the repressive authority of the Law upon the whole of society. To avoid getting too Foucauldian about it, this is a form of ideological violence which has the potential to repress minority voices.

Ideological struggle is a legitimate form of protest. Symbolic gestures like peaceful protest express that one does not consent to the current politico-legal discourse. But when these forms of protest are met with repressive violence by the police, people begin to realise that ideological resistance is only one element in fighting back against a system that is violently repressive.

To summarize the gist of my response; violent protest is the only way to counteract a violent system. It is not enough to resist symbolically a system which uses repressive violence to silence minority voices. Yes, violence disrupts the norms of social cohesion, but this is precisely the point. Stonewall was a riot which paved the way for LGBTQ rights. The 1968 DC riots led to the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Real change starts when ‘business as usual’ stops.

Anonymous is a group of first year JD students.

Reggie banks

5/6/2020 06:41:58 pm

Hey, original author of On Violence here. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your response, however I believe it may miss my concern. To clarify and hopefully explain myself a bit better then, we’re in absolute lockstep on your first thesis, and the claim that we all face an unequivocal moral obligation to combat the injustices levelled against minorities in America and other nations around the world by racialised policing. On those instances of isolated violence in the present protests, I can only plead genuine uncertainty; the ultimate justification will be in the outcomes which I’m not in a position to know or evaluate. I hope my point is understood as a more cautionary concern over misreading the underlying legitimacy of a social struggle as an imprimatur to normalise violence as a political tool in general. Irrespective of one’s evaluation of violence in the present protests, I’m concerned that otherwise well-meaning people have taken away the wrong message, that a general commitment to non-violence is always just a tool to distract from legitimate struggle or maintain structures of power. I think there are real and obvious concerns, historically political violence has rarely achieved long term justice, has degraded the internal cohesion and trust in societies, and in an urgency to grapple with an apparatus of power has often mis-targeted otherwise innocent people. I’ll be glad if I’m mistaken about how widespread this attitude is, and am merely preaching to the choir on these points. If I’m not however, we need to recognise that any violence, even when born from necessity, is a tragedy, rather than just the new cost of doing business.

Means do not justify ends

5/6/2020 06:56:52 pm

"the ultimate justification will be in the outcomes" is surely not the basis of a stable system of law or morality... Violence must be a last resort, after all other means of peaceful change have failed.

Still Reggie

5/6/2020 07:27:58 pm

Eh - I mean it depends, no? Think of war by analogy - it makes absolute sense to treat it as a last resort and a tragedy whenever it occurs, but to still accept that it can be morally justified in extreme cases. That’s my thesis re. violence, but I’m placing a very heavy reminder on the ‘last resort’ part that I think a lot of people want to forget about.

Lost the plot

5/6/2020 06:48:51 pm

These lame academic justifications for the wanton mob violence occurring in the US invariably come from those insulated from the consequences: middle class, university-educated whites living in safe and isolated suburbs. They cheer on the burning of urban social housing and the looting of minority-owned businesses. They clap seeing innocent bystanders viciously attacked. Then they argue it's OK because "the system is bad".

Should the threshold for violence be set so low? All sides must agree that violence is the last resort only when every other peaceful option has been exhausted, or we risk internecine political conflict in the streets, the worst victims of which would be the poor and disadvantaged. Half of African Americans don't vote, despite voting being the primary mechanism for influencing political change, so how can anyone argue peaceful action is exhausted?

Did those writing this article fail to consider that their justification for violence can and will be used by others who disagree with them? Or is violence only OK to achieve your aims because your political aims are "correct" and "moral" and "true" while everyone else is "wrong".

What a low bar is being set. Clearly MLC is failing to teach the consequences of a society that falls into lawlessness and mob rule.

ANONYMOUS

5/6/2020 08:01:58 pm

I don't feel the need to use big words or legal jargon but WHAT are you saying. Peaceful action has not been exhausted but African Americans are. The reason African Americans don't vote is systemic racism. They have been red-lined into communities without local economies, have been denied the loans that help build inter generational wealth, have poorly funded school systems because of property taxes and have job opportunities a fraction of those of their white counterparts with equivalent education and accomplishments in the next neighborhood. Many of the people in the communities created by red lining are underemployed or unemployed, they don't have childcare services and aren't given time off to vote. Some of the poorest communities don't even have voting stations. Additionally, many don't have a drivers licenses because they a) don't have a car or b) can't afford a license. Drivers license requirements are one of many tools that has been used to turn people away from voting since African Americans were given the right to vote. For some voting it is simply not an option. I understand the people writing these articles condemning violence have never seen an American slum like skid row in Los Angeles, the mission district in San Francisco or the ones that exist just behind Capitol Hill. I wouldn't even be surprised if none of them have been to America. Nor can the authors of these articles understand what it feels like to see the violence perpetuated against people who look like them when they turn on the news. Particularly when their brethren are murdered and abused by the people who are supposed to uphold the law. Whoever wrote the original article and this response should think beyong the theory of non violence and look at the reality. Do some investigations into the metrics and demographics of the 42 million Americans living below the poverty line IN THE WORLD'S RICHEST country. Consider the options you feel like you would have in that situation. Consider why they don't vote. Do some research to try and empathize with the plight of the people who are protesting just to feel like they are heard. Read Colony in a Nation by Chris Hayes. Read about qualified immunity and why it is near impossible for a victim of police brutality to achieve justice in the legal system. Watch Just Mercy. Listen to the voices of black activists who are constantly having to justify their existence and actions in a system which continues to oppress them.

And for whoever wrote this response, yes the original authors of this article did consider that their justification of violence can be used by others to disagree with them, that is exactly what the police and the national guard under President Trump are doing. They are under orders to stifle protests, be they violent or peaceful, and respond to police brutality with... tear gas and rubber bullets. They have militarized on their own citizens, how is that more lawful?

This conception of lawlessness is exclusive, you imply people who are protesting are not for law and order. And you're right many of them are not and that is because of the system they grew up in. Police officers are rarely held accountable for the acts of violence they commit. That is their version of law and order. And if you can't see why people dare to challenge that then you need to do more research.

Before I see anymore uninformed 'opinion pieces' on the theoretical exploration of why violence is wrong or even consider their validity. I need to see some semblance of research by these authors that indicate they understand the reality of the situation, the causes and the conditions which contributed to the situation you see today. It isn't hard. In fact it's a lot easier than jumping to a conclusion with no legs to stand on.

What a low bar is being set by the people who fail to understand African Americans are burning down a country they built for free.

thoughtful

5/6/2020 09:16:53 pm

I appreciate your thoughtful reply - I am sorry if it seemed that I was making too generalist statements without acknowledging the systemic factors that have led to where we are now.

I agree that there are many historical and current issues, such as voter suppression, which limit the power of these disadvantaged communities. And I am fully aware of issues like redlining which scar cities to this day, not to mention mass incarceration. Voting is not perfect, nor is it accessible.

But that's not an excuse for those who have the supreme privilege of voting and choose not to. Those who feel anger and frustration at any policy - regardless of race - have no right to turn to street violence if they were able to vote freely and chose not to. And sadly, many African Americans choose not to vote. Many states have none of the restrictions you speak of and yet people still choose not to vote.

As voting is one of the central levers of political power, it's too important to dismiss and ignore. And if too many blacks are disenfranchised, it's up to those who do vote to elect candidates who are in favour of enfranchisement.

I acknowledge violence can be justified - but my point is that the avenues of peaceful change have been ignored in favour of violence. Yes, Trump's response inflamed tensions, but this is not the first time in history peaceful protesters have been set upon by police or the army. It is more important to maintain the moral high ground by refusing to sink to their level, as it denies them ammunition for their rhetoric and it brings others into the cause who might otherwise have been silent.

A movement that riots uncontrollably at the slightest provocation is going to lead to more suffering than success.

voting: necessary but not sufficient

5/6/2020 08:10:58 pm

Voting is super important indeed but issues of entrenched racism go beyond a President (or PM) or even an entire administration. A Democratic black President couldn't solve the issues. Leadership can definitely help or wildly hinder (Trump) but if voting is your only example of "peaceful protest" then I am unpersuaded by your argument. The electoral system as it stands doesn't lead to accurate representation.

Systemic oppression, voting, and why MLS is indeed failing.

5/6/2020 09:29:02 pm

wow MLS is definitely failing to teach the consequences of ad hom argumentation when students are stating assumptions like "...invariably come from those insulated from the consequences: middle class, university-educated whites living in safe and isolated suburbs".
This was also covered in the LSAT.

Now to the meat of your issues:
1) 'All sides must agree that violence is the last resort'- I believe the author has made it very clear that violence has been disproportionately displayed by the state and state actors have been using violence as a means for control of racialized peoples for a very long time. They simply use legal mechanisms to justify this force (made by political bodies--another first day of law school thing we learned)--now there's a whole sleuth of research and information out there for why the legal system--from the ones making the laws, to the court systems with racial biases of judges (just to name two of many issues) that exist so feel free to look it up because I don't have the time to publish a thesis while studying for finals rn.
But the point is that violence instigated by the state resulting in peaceful protests for reform mute a long time ago. there was no mutual agreement needed when the most powerful entity in a state is the one that refuses to change.

2) "Half of African Americans don't vote, despite voting being the primary mechanism for influencing political change"
You stat is not factual ( you're right again on blaming MLS here, they is really letting anyone in these days).
there's a great article on this issue that speaks about the numbers with more credibility than whatever you presented but let me summarize--SYSTEMIC efforts to stop racialized peoples from voting range from deliberate gerrymandering on both State and Federal level and not to mention changes in registration requirements and accessibility issues.
here' the article---before you shit on the fact that it's from the Guardian, the author is credible and so is the analysis (atleast he doesn't loosely throw stats out there right)
Article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/19/myth-black-people-dont-vote-harmful-stereotype

and finally:
3) 'violence only OK to achieve your aims because your political aims are "correct" and "moral" and "true" while everyone else is "wrong". '
Since we are talking about morality here, let me be clear this is about centuries of unfair killings and SYSTEMIC RACISM against Black people. This is about intergenerational trauma, this is about a system that refuses to let people have a decent life without for themselves or their children because of the COLOUR OF THEIR SKIN. why? because we live in a world where the powerful want to maintain their status quo, they do not wish to let go of the arbitrary security that power allows them to have. So yes, there is moral authority here.

I am incredibly disappointed by this community.
I am tired of having to present justifications year after year to people who make arguments like you just did not because i don't want to engage in a meaningful conversation where you're willing to engage without your own inherent biases and I am able to also learn more of your perspective but because you never will stop being defensive of your own privilege. You don't want to see why someone would want to shake up your status quo.

Plot Still Lost

5/6/2020 10:03:48 pm

Incredible that you slam the above as "ad hominem" and then weave smug attacks into your reply. Another example of how when the left does it, it's "educating" and when anyone else does it, it's "bigoted lecturing" - so tiresome.

It is actually a useful thing to discuss the character and situation of people making arguments. Not every exchange can be a dissertation, as you yourself make clear. While character examination can't tell you about the facts or logic behind someone's position, it can give you insight into their biases.

Much like you'd dismiss me for being "defensive of [my] own privilege", I will point out that the people cheering the rioting and violence are mostly unaffected by the looting of local stores and burning of social housing because they're wealthy, university educated whites living in the suburbs.

1. Experiencing violence (yes, even "state violence") does not give a license for a violent response if peaceful alternatives are still available. Or (to repeat myself) that argument would just give license for every other political group (not to mention the state) to embark on endless street warfare. Do you think the public was more or less supportive of army/police intervention before or after the rioting and wanton violence?

Trust me, the right wing nutjobs have more guns and more police/army support. Don't start a fight that can't be won.

Also, the implication that the state has stood steadfast against progressive reforms is ludicrous. It has literally never been a better time for anyone to be alive in America - black or white. The country as a whole and almost all states have become radically less racist over time.

2. A genuinely interesting article, except that the benchmark is that blacks vote (in a sample of states) at roughly the same level as everyone else. The difference is that whites aren't a minority (yet), and aren't on the streets rioting and looting for allegedly political goals. So while I accept voter suppression exists and impacts voter turnout, it's only one explanation. The truth is that many people choose to not vote because they do not value the privilege. As I said above, if you have the option to vote, free of restriction, and choose not to, you cannot then justify violent rioting.

3. Again, all you're doing is giving license to everyone else who feels oppressed (rightly or wrongly) to pillage and riot. And the victims of that will be the most disadvantaged.

4. You will feel less exhausted when you realise people can disagree with you for decent reasons and not just because they're huge racists whose vision is clouded by privilege and biases.

What a time to be alive!

5/6/2020 10:58:02 pm

LOL I died at this:

'It has literally never been a better time for anyone to be alive in America - black or white.'

thanks! I'm glad that the alternative i.e slavery, Jim Crow laws/segregation aren't around anymore--WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE you guys!

CINA BB

6/6/2020 12:54:34 am

"To summarize the gist of my response; violent protest is the only way to counteract a violent system."
Protest again whom? How to use this to differentially justify violent attack to Police station, LV and Chinese restaurant?
When we consider how to win the battle to defeat and reform the systematic violent system for minority. Violence is the only way? Who has the gun? Who controls the gun factory? Who has the army? Who has the nuclear weapon?
The French revolution and? White terror.
Glorious Revolution and? Bill of rights
Just saying.

Comments are closed.

On Violence: A Reply

Archives