In last week's episode, we talked about violence
as the removal of choice.
Let's see what you had to say.
So first, I think a big and important thing to talk about--
and we're going to be responding to comments,
but we're going to be doing it a little bit differently.
It's a very big topic.
You know, it's something that's been written about endlessly
by many smart people.
It clearly inspires a lot of conversation.
So as sort of indicated at the end of last week's videos,
we're going to discuss a couple of the bigger things
that we didn't have time to in one video first.
Overall, the conversation that you guys had
was great and largely very respectful, if contentious.
And so, the first thing that I want to say is just thank you.
Thank you for engaging with these ideas
and with each other.
And in the instances where you were
engaging with one another respectfully and thoughtfully,
thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you for doing that.
In the cases where that wasn't happening,
I just want to apologize on behalf of the people who
were not being respectful.
You know, I'm sure they just were having a bad day.
I also just want to stress that this conversation, I think,
is great and important.
And don't consider me an authority on any of this.
This is just how I think about these things.
This is how I find it helpful to think about these things.
So please continue having this conversation with one another.
It's been so enlightening.
And I think very helpful.
It's been something.
It's been-- it's been a really interesting week
to see how everybody talks to one another.
But before we get into the thick of it,
there are just a couple of concerns
that I want to get out in front of right off the bat.
And just know that if you're fixing
to write a comment to the tune of
"I need a content warning for the content warning content
warning," then you're making a joke that's on par with "Hi,
hungry.
I'm Dad."
And I would know because I've made that joke.
So I know what it's like.
Now to get the things that I mentioned specifically-- BDSM,
nature, sports, and illness.
So there are two big points that we sort of skated alongside
but didn't make explicit in last week's episode that
would have probably been helpful to address more directly.
The first is that not all violence is bad.
We did talk about Anne Bogart and her ideas
of artistic violence being necessary to get
creative work done, for actors to reach their goals,
for directors to be able to make decisions.
And so I think that that sort of lays
the groundwork for an idea that violence, inherently, just sort
of as such, is not a thing that is necessarily bad.
Beyond art, though, I do think that it's
necessary to allow that acts of violence
are occasionally not only necessary,
but preferable for just a million different reasons.
For example, the philosopher Georges Sorel
thought that violence was this, like, fundamentally generative
force.
And that it was required for life and freedom and all
this other stuff.
I mean, he was talking about class struggle and labor
strikes and social cohesion.
But also like Walter Benjamin wrote
about the necessary of violence for order, in a sense.
Benjamin was talking about the German word--
he used the German word-- I'm going to just butcher
this-- Gewalt, which is kind of tough to translate
into English.
It kind of means, like, force and power and domination.
But it also has a political aspect to it.
But his-- one of his fundamental points
in his critique of violence was that there
are legitimate uses of a concept of violence
that are law-making, that you sort of need it to make law.
The other big point that we didn't address directly
is that there are many things which, I think,
are evocative of violence, but are not in and of themselves
violent in that they don't necessarily constitute
the whole or partial removal of agency, which is, you know, how
we were sort of building this conception of violence
in this episode.
So, like, for instance, there's a macro view
of mixed martial arts that says that each person is electing
to enter into a competition where they
know physical harm will occur.
And so their agency is not effectively reduced,
that-- that the-- the entrance into such a competition
or into such a context does not constitute
any kind of violence.
They're making informed decisions
within a context that evokes violence.
For most people, I think it's important to realize
that's enough.
For something to evoke violence, whether it
is or is not actually violent, is kind of besides the point.
And I think that that is-- I think
that's a fair thing and something that we have
to accept, that there are things that can be evocative of how we
normally think of violence-- you know, physical harm--
but which by this conception of violence
are not actually violent.
But it kind of-- that's like splitting hairs almost.
The micro view of things like MMA
is that on an action by action basis,
each fighter is attempting to restrict
the agency of their opponent such that they're not
able to win, which is probably what they want to do.
And so, in this case, there is actual arguable violence.
I think that this is also a fair view
and also sort of gets at maybe the complexity
of using this framework in that you can view things
at different scales and in different perspectives.
I think also, just for MMA specifically,
this makes the controversy of rigged games in MMA or boxing
all the more interesting because there
is a-- there's a disappointment or an anger at the lack
of actual violence when a game is rigged
and someone, say, takes a fall.
And not necessarily to compare MMA fighters or boxers
or people-- you know, football players-- to animals,
but I do think that natural violence,
or however you want to call it, the-- the violence
between animals out in nature-- is maybe
a similar situation in that physical harm is inflicted
by animals on other animals, but it is not necessarily violent.
It is more evocative of violence.
I think calling those things violence is a little bit
misguided.
Animals are a part of the food chain.
They don't have nearly the same social or cultural meanings
associated with killing and, you know,
maiming, et cetera, et cetera.
But still.
For most people.
It's enough that seeing a lion or a tiger,
you know, eat a-- you know, eat some prey, that's
evocative of violence.
And to see extreme physical harm,
people think of that as violent.
And whether or not it's actually violent by this conception
of violence is beside the point.
All of this is summed up really greatly by a comment
that Stephen Leotti left on the Idea Channel Facebook
where he talks about sort of the sense of expectation
in certain contexts, and how that relates
to this idea of violence.
And he also writes about these situations
and our entering into them willingly
also being a kind of catharsis.
And that's something that we're going to get to,
I think, a little bit-- we're going to get
to more a little bit later.
As for BDSM, I kind of just want to defer
to a comment that was left on the subreddit
by [INAUDIBLE] which I'm just going
to read a part of because I want to make sure
that I get it right.
And I think it's really good.
They write that BDSM is the sexual exploration
of the thrill of having one's agency removed.
During BDSM, you offer yourself to be
the subject of "violence," in quotes--
which I think is very effective.
That is, you offer your agency, usually
by being physically restrained, although humiliation,
a kind of mental restraint, is common with BDMS.
However, it's not necessary.
This is stimulating in the broad sense of stimulating.
That is, it engages our attention.
And those who engage in BDSM channel the stimulation
into sexual stimulation.
And I think that this is-- this is--
there's a really interesting nuance here because you can
talk about how those things are, by our conception,
actually violent because there is truly a removal of agency.
Or you can talk about how they are evocative of violence
in a way that allows stimulation because ideally, in a safe BDSM
environment, the person who is having their agency removed
always has a way out.
There's always-- it's always very safe and managed
and respectful beyond what is agreed beforehand.
And so I think that this is-- you know,
[INAUDIBLE] does a really great job
of sort of appraising that situation
and then inspired an awesome conversation afterwards
that I would highly recommend you go and read and check out.
It was-- it's very interesting and, I
think, a really great way to think about this.
On Facebook, Jen O'Neal talks about her experience
receiving health care and how that experience
is one that often feels violent for a multitude of reasons.
She links to a really incredible NPR interview on the subject
that is so worth your time.
You know, I just-- I would highly
encourage you to check it out.
She also talks about this really important concept
of slow violence, which I think is very much related
to this conversation, that, you know, we-- we
think-- we tend to think of violence as being
fast and active.
We talked about-- talked about that in last week's episode.
But that there is another kind of pervasive and-- and--
and much more situational violence
that could be classified as a type of slow violence
that is maybe very, very present in,
you know, these kinds of infrastructural violence
in America, in the health care system especially.
There is also a lot of talk about how
this concept of violence is so broad that it becomes unusable.
And I think that this is a very fair criticism, though,
of course, one that I disagree with.
I think a big part of this is that the dictionary definition
of violence, which, you know, includes things
like harm and physical and material damage,
include words that we have a direct and nuanced
understanding of.
You know, we know when a feeling becomes hurt or harm.
We know when material change can reasonably
be considered damage.
Whereas this more broad concept of violence
includes things like agency, force, and negation, which
are words that are much more abstract
and which we don't have to-- don't have
to deal with in a similar way.
We don't have as-- as nuanced an understanding of them.
And I think that that's-- you know, I accept this charge.
I think that that is absolutely true
and a shortcoming of this idea.
But I saw some people saying that the idea, as a whole,
is nonsense because it means that telling your kids to eat
their broccoli is violence, that doing certain kinds of math
or using certain types of materials
or even resisting an assault are all, in fact, violent.
And so then, you know, the idea sort of falls apart
and becomes unusable.
I may ask you to consider how your children might
see broccoli as a legitimate tool of oppression,
and then appreciate the fact that, you
know, what's best for them.
And that maybe as children, their sense
of what is just and fair is maybe not
so finely attuned as yours.
Second, if you want to claim that objects or materials
or transcendental others or, you know,
other things that or not, people have agency,
I'm going to let you.
I mean, this week's episode was about object-oriented ontology.
But this seems like a real edge case to me
given that the episode was clearly
about people and social issues.
To me, this is kind of like complaining
that your lasagna turned out weird after I gave you, like,
a recipe for chicken mole.
Like, it's-- it's just a completely different use.
And I'm not saying that it's wrong or bad.
I'm just saying that-- that it's not a logical conclusion
as it seems to have been advertised in certain comments.
And third, I mean, as far as, like, stopping
an assault being an act of violence itself, sure.
I mean, why not?
Like, I think I'm fine with this.
We've already talked about the necessity of violence
for freedom and safety, which I will 100% agree
is-- it's a slippery slope.
It's super duper easy to abuse.
And we do abuse it.
It is abused always.
It always has been.
It always will be.
I wish that such a concept of violence
could work against those things, but I
think it is-- it is sort of just part
of the nature of the concept and how it exists in the world.
Someone also asked if I realized that this means that bigots
can be told that it is an act of violence to silence
their-- silence their speech.
And I-- I do realize that.
There was also a lot of discomfort and concern
that calling speech violence, as [INAUDIBLE] does,
is just like a hop, skip and a jump from legalized censorship.
And it's not.
The point of this concept is not that it only works for people
that I like or agree with.
It's that it provides a way to appreciate
the experiences of people, all people,
in many different situations, many
of them seemingly inconsequential,
who feel like an act of violence-- [COUGH]
excuse me-- an act of violence, even a minuscule one,
is being perpetrated.
And that-- that happens to people
who I don't like all the time.
A big sticking point here-- and it took me a while
to figure out what this was-- is that people seemed
to assume that I'm trying to redefine violence
in a sort of legal way, in a-- a definitional sense.
And that I want you to use this word.
And when-- when-- to use this word this way.
And that when you say violence, I want you to mean this thing.
And that was maybe my bad in starting the episode
off talking about how law thinks about violence.
Because I want to be super clear that I haven't, and I wouldn't,
and I don't know how to call all of the dictionary
publishers and lawyers and judges
to get the official and legal definition of violence changed.
What I'm trying to do is provide a tool
to think about the experiences of others, which
I know can often be very scary, especially if they're
people you disagree with or don't like.
But it seems like, in the wake of this episode,
that it's almost like by suggesting that there's
another way to consider violence, a lot of commenters
felt as though I was actively restricting their options,
that I was keeping them from acting and speaking the way
that they want to in the world.
And I can absolutely appreciate that.
And I want to apologize for that.
I'm sorry.
But I just want to be clear that stepping
into this theoretical framework doesn't
mean that hate speech is now legal violence
and will be outlawed and punishable by jail time
or whatever.
The framework helps us appreciate
how bigots can treasure the right to share
their terrible opinions.
And it gives us a technique to appreciate them
as human beings with agency.
I like to think of this as a way for us
to be more compassionate for them
than they ever are for the group of people who they judge.
But I think it also means-- and I think much, much, much,
more importantly-- that we can understand
the experiences of people who are the subjects of that hate
speech and how along with physical harm,
these things pair up to create that constant state
and fact of violence, that lived experience of violence
that we spoke about.
And just to this point, I want to just talk
about two specific comments.
The first was Brandon O'Brien's post
from his blog "The Rising Tides" on Tumblr
that we've talked about several times
before-- that is just constantly really great
and I would highly recommend you just
go follow Brandon-- where he talks about his experience
living in a place where it-- it feels like there is often
almost state-sponsored violence of the social and symbolic
kind.
And just getting this kind of insight
and-- and Brandon's willingness to share his experience
with these things is just I-- so incredibly meaningful.
And I feel incredibly lucky to have Brandon as an audience
member, and that he would be willing to share this with us.
The second is a comment that was left on the subreddit
by [INAUDIBLE] whose flair says something like insufficiently
read to comment.
Which I just want to say, [INAUDIBLE], one, this comment
indicates that you are, in fact, well read.
Two, it doesn't really matter.
You don't have to be well read.
You just have to, you know, sort of be in touch
with your subjectivity and know how to compose it
into something that gets your meaning across,
which you do consistently.
And three, you do do it consistently.
Your comments are always really great.
And in this comment, [INAUDIBLE] talks about the Ta-Nehisi
Coates sort of explanation of what it's
like to be of an oppressed class in the United States,
specifically, and how there is a relationship
between that symbolic violence, that systemic violence,
and physical violence, violence as we normally think about it.
And I think that this is a really deeply
affecting and affective look at that kind of experience,
and I think is one that-- that won't help you appreciate it
as a firsthand experience, but will maybe
allow you to think about these ideas more
compassionately if you do, in fact, need that inspiration.
I'm going to stop talking because if this is not
already longer than the original video,
it's probably getting there.
If I didn't get to your concern or your question
or your comment, I'm sorry.
I tried to get to the sort of like broader strokes
and-- and pull in comments that I thought
were related to those things that I thought
it was important to cover that I mentioned
at the end of the episode itself.
So, you know, this is clearly a huge topic.
Maybe this is something we can revisit
in a "Furthermore" video, respond to more comments,
or just do a second part in the near future.
Or you and I can just go and get coffee sometime,
talk about violence, talk about how
we feel about how it acts in the world, just hang out.
You know, I'm down.
I'm with it.
All right.
We'll see you.
See you soon.