Event and Structure: A Phenomenological Approach of Irreducible Violence

Abstract

Violence is signaled by a mark of discontinuity, interruption, rupture. The tripartite temporality of violence, with its strong focus on the present, points to the originary violence. Moreover, the violent event is structuring the order of the action sequences in an actual violent (embodied) interaction. The interactional dynamics in violent encounters between co-present actors shapes the specific forms of the experiencing in (and of) the violent interaction. Based on how violence is experienced in an interactive situation, the phenomenon of violence articulates itself according to three coordinates: directedness, co-performativity and de-capabilisation. The outlining of the structure of the lived experience of violence is revealing something irreducible in it. To understand the experience of violence as such, I propose that we accept the idea of violence per se and depart from the idea that the acts of violence are essentially moral actions. The core of the ethical-moral discussion concerning violence should be grounded instead on the moment of conversion identifiable when we take into account the reaction to violence.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Other divides refer to normative vs. non-normative, micro vs. macro approaches on violence (see Hartmann 2017: 5f.).

  2. 2.

    Two thematic dossiers, edited by Endress and Rampp in Human Studies (Springer) in 2013 and respectively Ciocan and Marinescu in Studia Phaenomenologica in 2019, deserve special mention here, as well as the contributions of Staudigl (2013a), Waldenfels (2003), Dodd (2017), Mensch (2008, 2017) and Lawlor (2016). A remarkable collection of phenomenological studies can be found in Staudigl (2014).

  3. 3.

    This is an attempt to provide some conceptual tools that might capture the act itself of violence, the unbearable moment of present violence and its unfolding, which will make it, in certain aspects, more bearable. This dynamics should not be seen as normative, although it might be seen as a proto-normativity.

  4. 4.

    Dennen (2005) shows that in the poetic tradition of ancient Greeks we can find a distinction between force and violence, personificated as Kratos (Might) and Bia (Violence), servants of divine power. In Hesiod’s Theogony, Kratos and Bia dwell only in the house of Zeus and go only where he directs them. In Prometheus Bound of Aeschylus, they are the first to appear on stage. While Kratos is the first to speak in the play, Bia remains silent throughout the entire play.

  5. 5.

    Salice (2020) speaks of “a commitment for the subject to stick to the hostile attitude”. In describing hate, he insists that it consists primarily in aversively targeting (the other qua this individual person), “where the adverb ‘aversively’ expresses the subject’s desire for the target to be annihilated”.

  6. 6.

    This is obvious in the case of the victim, but, since violence consists in a loss of control (see supra), it is noticeable also in the case of the perpetrator. The witness, in her/his turn, usually finds herself/himselfin the impossibility to act.

  7. 7.

    Staudigl takes the expression from Lorenz (2004).

  8. 8.

    The term “worst violence,” as well as “transcendental violence” or “fundamental violence,” has been introduced by Derrida in his famous paper on Levinas see Derrida (1968), in Derrida (1978/1992).

  9. 9.

    For the relationship between violence and affectivity, see Ciocan (2019). Ciocan underlines that “the affectivity constitutes itself each time differently, depending on the various situations of the symmetrical and asymmetrical violence to which the third assists”.

  10. 10.

    Additionally, the type of phenomenological approach that I drafted above will help us to move away from the idea that the subject and subjective experience have to be at the centre of a theory of violence (or, in general, at the centre of any theory).

References

  1. Abu-Zeid, H. Y. R., & Al-zu’be, A. F. M. (2012). The effect of domestic violence on speech and pronunciation disorders concerning children at the basic stage of education at Ajloun Governorate in Jordan. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSRJHSS), 3, 50–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bramsen, I. (2017). How violence breeds biolence: Micro-dynamics and reciprocity of violent interaction in the Arab Uprisings. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 11, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bufacchi, V. (2005). Two concepts of violence. Political Studies Review,3, 193–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bufacchi, V. (Ed.). (2011). Rethinking violence. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Carpenter, J. L., & Drabick, D. A. G. (2011). Co-occurrence of linguistic and behavioral difficulties in early childhood: A developmental psychopathology perspective. Early Child Development and Care, 181(8), 1021–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ciocan, C. (2019). Violence and affectivity. Human Studies, published online 23 May 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-019-09507-5.

  7. Ciocan, C., & Marinescu, P. (2019). Introduction. On conflict and violence. Studia Phænomenologica,19(1–4), 11–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Collins, R. (2009). Micro and macro theories of violence. International Journal of Conflict and Violence,3(1), 9–22.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Collins, R. (2008). Violence: A micro-sociological theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Dastur, F. (2000). Phenomenology of the event: Waiting and surprise. Hypatia,15(4), 178–189/Contemporary French Women Philosophers (autumn 2000). Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Hypatia, Inc. Stable. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3810684

  11. Dennen, J. M. G. V. D. (2005). Problems in the concepts and definitions of aggression, violence, and some related terms: Pt 2. Default Journal. https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/publications/problems-in-the-concepts-and-definitions-of-aggression-violence-and-some-related-terms.

  12. Derrida, J. (Ed.). (1978/1992). Violence and metaphysics. In Writing and difference (pp. 79–102; trans. A. Bass). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

  13. Dodd, J. (2017). Phenomenological reflections on violence. A skeptical approach. New York/London: Taylor & Francis.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Eisner, M. (2009). The uses of violence: An examination of some cross-cutting issues. International Journal of Conflict and Violence,3(1), 40–59.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Endress, M. (2004). Entgrenzung des Menschlichen. Zur Transformation der Strukturen menschlichen Weltbezuges durch Gewalt. In W. Heitmeyer & H. G. Soeffner (Eds.), Gewalt (pp. 174–201). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Endress, M., & Rampp, B. (Eds.). (2013). Introduction. Special issue on Violence:Phenomenological Contributions, Human Studie36(1), 3–5.

  17. Gumbrecht, H. U. (2003). The production of presence: What meaning cannot convey. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hamby, S. (2017). On defining violence, and why it matters. Psychology of Violence, 7(2), 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hartmann, E. (2017). Violence: Constructing an emerging field of sociology. International Journal of Conflict and Violence,11, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kelly, M. (2020). The temporal structure of patience. PhænEx, 13(2) (Winter 2020), 86–102.

  21. Koloma Beck, T. (2011). The eye of the beholder: Violence as a social process. International Journal of Conflict and Violence,5(2), 345–356.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lawlor, L. (2016). From violence to speaking out. Apocalypse and expression in foucault, derrida and deleuze, series: Incitements. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lawlor, L. (2008). A new possibility of life. The experience of powerlessness as a solution to the problem of worst. Studia UBB. Philosophia, 53(1–2), 17–28.

  24. Lorenz, M. (2004). Physische Gewalt—ewig gleich? Historische Körperkontexte contra absolute Theorien. Wiener Zeitschrift zur Geschichte der Neuzeit,4(2), 9–24.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Manning, R. J. S. (2017). Emmanuel Levinas and René Girard: Religious prophets of non-violence. Philosophical Journal of Conflict and Violence,1(1), 22–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mensch, J. (2008). Violence and embodiment. Symposium,12(1), 4–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mensch, J. (2017). Senseless violence: Liminality and intertwining. The European Legacy. https://doi.org/10.1080/10848770.2017.1333312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Morin, M.-E. (2013). Nancy, violence and the world. Parrhesia,16, 61–72.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Posada Varela, P. (2015). Sublime, trauma, malédiction. Passages et entraves entre sens et expression. Acta Universitatis Carolinae,2, 114–140.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Salice, A. (2020). I hate you. On hatred and its paradigmatic forms. Phenom Cogn Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-020-09668-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Schinkel, W. (2010). Aspects of violence: A critical theory. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Staudigl, M. (Ed.). (2013a). Phenomenologies of violence. Series: Studies in contemporary phenomenology (Vol. 9), E-Book, Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004259782.

  33. Staudigl, M. (2013b). Towards a relational phenomenology of violence. Human Studies,36(1), 43–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Staudigl, M. (Ed.). (2014). Phenomenologies of Violence. Brill (Studies in Contemporary Phenomenology: 9). Leiden & Boston.

  35. Tengelyi, L. (2005). L’Histoire d’une vie et sa région sauvage. Grenoble: Jerome Million.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Thornton, R. (1995). The peculiar temporality of violence. Paper presented at the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, Seminar No. 1, 29 March.https://www.csvr.org.za/publications/1786-the-peculiar-temporality-of-violence

  37. Waldenfels, B. (2003). From intentionality to responsivity. In R. Bernet & D. J. Martino (Eds.), Phenomenology today: The SchuwerSpep Lectures, 1998–2002 (pp. 23–35). Pittsburg: Duquesne University. https://learningspaces.org/files/Waldenfels_1999.pdf

  38. Wikström, P. O., & Treiber, K. (2009). Violence as situational action. International Journal of Conflict and Violence,3(1), 75–96.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by UEFISCDI (Grant No. PN-III-P4-ID-PCE-2016–0273).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ion Copoeru.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Copoeru, I. Event and Structure: A Phenomenological Approach of Irreducible Violence. Hum Stud 43, 257–268 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-020-09550-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Violence
  • Temporality
  • Event
  • Structure
  • Experience
  • The worst violence
  • Moral acts