Because I am reading Iain McGilchrist's 'The Matter with Things' and my head is full of it I cannot help but see this analysis of violence in terms of the left hemisphere of the brain and its narrow focus on 'things' rather than the whole and its ability to instigate acquisition without really understanding the wider implications of its strategy. This comment section is nowhere near sufficient to expand on that and nor more is my head!
The stories or imaginings of how things could be different sound like a much more productive avenue in any case and I wonder, Rachel, whether it would be useful to run a series of episodes or even posts on these different visions. I am rapidly seeing the distinction between the old political left and right fade away and I feel the more meaningful discussion is about individualism and the embracing of humanity as a group and as an idea that represents life. Nor is this a battle between the two with a view to one being victorious over the other but an internal battle that seeks to unite both.
Snap! Also reading The Matter With Things and was thinking along very similar lines. An awareness of hemisphere theory I think is an essential component to almost any social-political analysis of why humans behave the way we do. It really is one of the most important books ever written (not my words, but I share the sentiment).
The elephant in this very interesting conversation about words, violence and nature is surely monotheism? Tragically it is still the biggest story going and at the heart of 2,500 years of violence against nature, all the way down to the twisted dictionary definition of ‘nature’ as everything not human. I’m surprised this didn’t really come up at all.
Here I would highly recommend The Emerald podcast episode ‘Animism is Normative Consciousness’ is immense, as is John Lash Lambs book ‘Not in His Image: Gnostic Vision, Sacred Ecology and the Future of Belief’, which I wish had been available to me while writing my history dissertation on blasphemy, irreligion and the enlightenment.
There are two reasons for human violence on WWI, WWII, WW III (?) scales and ALL wars/genocides: massive human overpopulation and our ancestors' escape from the territorial limits naturally imposed by the preceding migratory Hunter-Gatherer/pastoralist lifestyle, where territorial competitions controlled the limits of population growth. With the discovery of the increased energy supplied by cultivated field crops, ever larger groups could be supported and the military strength supported by these crop surpluses led to ever greater urbanization and armies and so on, and on, and on. So, here we are, with 200,000 new humans daily and WWIII knocking at the door, while the 170,000 new meat animals being born today will feed the armies of tomorrow, if there is a tomorrow.
Rachel does it again, an epic quote about "We took the womb of life, ripped it apart and then built a very small a steel box where only some people have the code. There, that'll do." There is a reason why Guns Germs and Steel , by Jared Diamond, won the Pulitzer, cuz it explains the fate of 10,000+ years of human history. In the US, pound for pound, Steel is cheaper than pork, and pork is sometimes cheaper than vegetables.R.O.N.G. rong! Thermodynamics of the the earth dont operate that way.
At some point Rachel, you say that there's really no other solution than to harness human goodwill get folks to realize that the earth is a being and trashing it is morally wrong. I would add, what about all of us who act in immediate self interest? There's the key... timeframe. Short term that sports car looks really hot, especially for me as a single middle-aged white male. Long term? Stepping on my own ahem... foot. "Humble thyself" comes to mind. From an addiction's point of view, short term gain is just a childish decision. Exciting, sexy, marvelous! And tragically self-defeating. I predict that nothing will change until, like the addict (of which I'm a recovering member), the pain is great enough. Only thennnnnn... a majority of humans within industrialized countries will be open to hearing about the alternative governance models that the two of you talk about for which we have a playbook. Actually, Rachel, can you remind us of who those societies are? I suppose I could find it within your essays.
Synthesizing this deeply provocative conversation brings me to a conclusion that progress (defined by the neocolonial capitalists) now assumes, even requires human sacrifice. Human sacrifice on the altar of progress is an inescapable (and growing) principle of the human operating system.
A really great talk. I especially liked how you were dialectically unpacking the nature of violence, as it's always valuable to see the process of ideas being developed and nurtured in potentially new directions. The differences and interconnections between discursive and bodily violence, the speed of violence (from Nixon's slow environmental violence to immediate [and perhaps too fast to register harms too]), systemic and invisible violence, extractive, externalized and collateral violence, all require further thought and development. I've had some similar discussions in NVDA contexts, as I tend to consider violence as something that is not simply or purely interpersonal and bodily but as encompassing damage to objects, property plus discursive forms too. Not that I rule these forms of action out, but the attempt to put a safe border around non-violent action vs violent action doesn't seem that straight forwards. Harm and violence can manifest in a plurality of ways and across a range of ontological types. A taxonomy of violence seems necessary, if only to adequately grasp and catalogue the damage being done.
There’s so much to talk about from this excellent discussion, but just to pick up a couple of things:
Rachel points out that the capacity for significant violence, in service to deeply unethical ends, is not in all cultures and it’s not a uniquely male capacity within any culture. Indeed, 'might makes right' is an ethical stance that almost every child passes through, but some get stuck there. I would argue that the single idea that underpins much of what goes on to be discussed is not religion, per se, but a particular way of either internalizing or coming to the same conclusions as monotheism; a form of collective narcissism.
On Sunil’s note about the Conquistadores and the Iberian “conquering” of the Americas, it’s probably worth noting that the Conquistadores also took with them the first real racism, and this is what enabled them to also be the leaders of the trans-Atlantic Slave trade for the first century or so (before being taken over by England a few decades after the establishment of the Church of England). Religious persecution has, of course, been around for a long time, but the idea of Limpieza de Sangre (pureness of blood) was unique to the Iberian Peninsula (and practised in both Portugal and Spain, having arisen in the latter). This was the idea that not only could you, as a Jew or Muslim, not hold a position of administrative power, but you couldn’t if your grandparents, before converting to Christianity, had been Jewish (conversos) or Muslim (moriscos). This takes religion and embodies it, makes it something passed on in a way that is no longer purely social when, of course, the transmission of religion is intensely social.
The idea of carrying the outcomes of violence in our bodies reminds me of the idea of ‘weathering.’ The fact that so-called micro-aggressions and re-traumatizations are so built into the culture that the targets of the original violence, both women and blacks and thus especially black women, surface as the death of a thousand cuts or, rather, the death of the constant drip-feeding of cortisol; a premature death due to semi-permanent stress. It also surfaces as a body less able to deal with major trauma due to that lifetime of stress. And that’s before we even look at the significantly inflated rates of death of black women in childbirth due to not being listened to (which, of course, is a problem for all women in a medical setting).
When Sunil said, “not even memorable villains,” reminded me very much of Hannah Arendt’s “the banality of evil.”
This episode is called ‘Language and Violence,’ but in a way, it’s about the ‘Language OF Violence,’ as per the title of one of Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy’s most excellent singles (from one of the most lyrically dense albums of the early 90s, 'Hypocrisy is the Greatest Luxury'): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J_qadIwM60
So many good quips and soundbites shared between two articulate thinkers: "collectively imagine ways out" (Amrith), "diversity demands complexity" (Donald), "complex interrelated systems where no one is in control" (Amrith). . . .
Among many other things, this interchange brings to my mind, on the more abstract or theoretical level, Antonio Negri's (and Deleuze and Guattari's) notion of multitude and, more concretely, fifty or so years ago the worldwide collective (populist) segue of the environmental movement from the anti-war movement, a process that happened (and in some respects is still happening) in clear recognition of the ubiquity of violence, the interrelationships between human and environmental rights/justice, and the necessity (perhaps even inevitability) of collective decentralized action.
Thank you for another thought- and memory-provoking interview.
I hope, Rachel, that you may find time sometime to make easily-accessible indices to all your interviews and essays, as well as a list of suggested readings.
Or perhaps rebalance in response to the tension. I'm suggesting this to avoid seeking the 'right' answer and recognize the value in both whilst recognizing that this we're falling off this bike having if we don't pay attention to the warning signs
Yes, Richard, I see the sort of individualism rampant in the US as a collective wound of colonisation. Like tempered glass shattered, breaking communities apart, removing their spiritual grounding in their connection with the land their ancestors' bones compose, killing their relational indigenous languages, removing any say in what shapes their daily lives, it all fosters individualism removed from its communal context.
Because I am reading Iain McGilchrist's 'The Matter with Things' and my head is full of it I cannot help but see this analysis of violence in terms of the left hemisphere of the brain and its narrow focus on 'things' rather than the whole and its ability to instigate acquisition without really understanding the wider implications of its strategy. This comment section is nowhere near sufficient to expand on that and nor more is my head!
The stories or imaginings of how things could be different sound like a much more productive avenue in any case and I wonder, Rachel, whether it would be useful to run a series of episodes or even posts on these different visions. I am rapidly seeing the distinction between the old political left and right fade away and I feel the more meaningful discussion is about individualism and the embracing of humanity as a group and as an idea that represents life. Nor is this a battle between the two with a view to one being victorious over the other but an internal battle that seeks to unite both.
Snap! Also reading The Matter With Things and was thinking along very similar lines. An awareness of hemisphere theory I think is an essential component to almost any social-political analysis of why humans behave the way we do. It really is one of the most important books ever written (not my words, but I share the sentiment).
The elephant in this very interesting conversation about words, violence and nature is surely monotheism? Tragically it is still the biggest story going and at the heart of 2,500 years of violence against nature, all the way down to the twisted dictionary definition of ‘nature’ as everything not human. I’m surprised this didn’t really come up at all.
Here I would highly recommend The Emerald podcast episode ‘Animism is Normative Consciousness’ is immense, as is John Lash Lambs book ‘Not in His Image: Gnostic Vision, Sacred Ecology and the Future of Belief’, which I wish had been available to me while writing my history dissertation on blasphemy, irreligion and the enlightenment.
I just commented much the same about monotheism.
Thank you for those suggestions, I'll check them out.
There are two reasons for human violence on WWI, WWII, WW III (?) scales and ALL wars/genocides: massive human overpopulation and our ancestors' escape from the territorial limits naturally imposed by the preceding migratory Hunter-Gatherer/pastoralist lifestyle, where territorial competitions controlled the limits of population growth. With the discovery of the increased energy supplied by cultivated field crops, ever larger groups could be supported and the military strength supported by these crop surpluses led to ever greater urbanization and armies and so on, and on, and on. So, here we are, with 200,000 new humans daily and WWIII knocking at the door, while the 170,000 new meat animals being born today will feed the armies of tomorrow, if there is a tomorrow.
Though not to forget that those armies were justified by the "need" to guard the fields as possessed territory.
What is pièce you referenced by Carl Safina?
Rachel does it again, an epic quote about "We took the womb of life, ripped it apart and then built a very small a steel box where only some people have the code. There, that'll do." There is a reason why Guns Germs and Steel , by Jared Diamond, won the Pulitzer, cuz it explains the fate of 10,000+ years of human history. In the US, pound for pound, Steel is cheaper than pork, and pork is sometimes cheaper than vegetables.R.O.N.G. rong! Thermodynamics of the the earth dont operate that way.
At some point Rachel, you say that there's really no other solution than to harness human goodwill get folks to realize that the earth is a being and trashing it is morally wrong. I would add, what about all of us who act in immediate self interest? There's the key... timeframe. Short term that sports car looks really hot, especially for me as a single middle-aged white male. Long term? Stepping on my own ahem... foot. "Humble thyself" comes to mind. From an addiction's point of view, short term gain is just a childish decision. Exciting, sexy, marvelous! And tragically self-defeating. I predict that nothing will change until, like the addict (of which I'm a recovering member), the pain is great enough. Only thennnnnn... a majority of humans within industrialized countries will be open to hearing about the alternative governance models that the two of you talk about for which we have a playbook. Actually, Rachel, can you remind us of who those societies are? I suppose I could find it within your essays.
k, thanks again!
Synthesizing this deeply provocative conversation brings me to a conclusion that progress (defined by the neocolonial capitalists) now assumes, even requires human sacrifice. Human sacrifice on the altar of progress is an inescapable (and growing) principle of the human operating system.
A really great talk. I especially liked how you were dialectically unpacking the nature of violence, as it's always valuable to see the process of ideas being developed and nurtured in potentially new directions. The differences and interconnections between discursive and bodily violence, the speed of violence (from Nixon's slow environmental violence to immediate [and perhaps too fast to register harms too]), systemic and invisible violence, extractive, externalized and collateral violence, all require further thought and development. I've had some similar discussions in NVDA contexts, as I tend to consider violence as something that is not simply or purely interpersonal and bodily but as encompassing damage to objects, property plus discursive forms too. Not that I rule these forms of action out, but the attempt to put a safe border around non-violent action vs violent action doesn't seem that straight forwards. Harm and violence can manifest in a plurality of ways and across a range of ontological types. A taxonomy of violence seems necessary, if only to adequately grasp and catalogue the damage being done.
There’s so much to talk about from this excellent discussion, but just to pick up a couple of things:
Rachel points out that the capacity for significant violence, in service to deeply unethical ends, is not in all cultures and it’s not a uniquely male capacity within any culture. Indeed, 'might makes right' is an ethical stance that almost every child passes through, but some get stuck there. I would argue that the single idea that underpins much of what goes on to be discussed is not religion, per se, but a particular way of either internalizing or coming to the same conclusions as monotheism; a form of collective narcissism.
On Sunil’s note about the Conquistadores and the Iberian “conquering” of the Americas, it’s probably worth noting that the Conquistadores also took with them the first real racism, and this is what enabled them to also be the leaders of the trans-Atlantic Slave trade for the first century or so (before being taken over by England a few decades after the establishment of the Church of England). Religious persecution has, of course, been around for a long time, but the idea of Limpieza de Sangre (pureness of blood) was unique to the Iberian Peninsula (and practised in both Portugal and Spain, having arisen in the latter). This was the idea that not only could you, as a Jew or Muslim, not hold a position of administrative power, but you couldn’t if your grandparents, before converting to Christianity, had been Jewish (conversos) or Muslim (moriscos). This takes religion and embodies it, makes it something passed on in a way that is no longer purely social when, of course, the transmission of religion is intensely social.
The idea of carrying the outcomes of violence in our bodies reminds me of the idea of ‘weathering.’ The fact that so-called micro-aggressions and re-traumatizations are so built into the culture that the targets of the original violence, both women and blacks and thus especially black women, surface as the death of a thousand cuts or, rather, the death of the constant drip-feeding of cortisol; a premature death due to semi-permanent stress. It also surfaces as a body less able to deal with major trauma due to that lifetime of stress. And that’s before we even look at the significantly inflated rates of death of black women in childbirth due to not being listened to (which, of course, is a problem for all women in a medical setting).
When Sunil said, “not even memorable villains,” reminded me very much of Hannah Arendt’s “the banality of evil.”
This episode is called ‘Language and Violence,’ but in a way, it’s about the ‘Language OF Violence,’ as per the title of one of Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy’s most excellent singles (from one of the most lyrically dense albums of the early 90s, 'Hypocrisy is the Greatest Luxury'): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J_qadIwM60
Could we have a book reading list, like the book referenced of French empire
So many good quips and soundbites shared between two articulate thinkers: "collectively imagine ways out" (Amrith), "diversity demands complexity" (Donald), "complex interrelated systems where no one is in control" (Amrith). . . .
Among many other things, this interchange brings to my mind, on the more abstract or theoretical level, Antonio Negri's (and Deleuze and Guattari's) notion of multitude and, more concretely, fifty or so years ago the worldwide collective (populist) segue of the environmental movement from the anti-war movement, a process that happened (and in some respects is still happening) in clear recognition of the ubiquity of violence, the interrelationships between human and environmental rights/justice, and the necessity (perhaps even inevitability) of collective decentralized action.
Thank you for another thought- and memory-provoking interview.
I hope, Rachel, that you may find time sometime to make easily-accessible indices to all your interviews and essays, as well as a list of suggested readings.
Or perhaps rebalance in response to the tension. I'm suggesting this to avoid seeking the 'right' answer and recognize the value in both whilst recognizing that this we're falling off this bike having if we don't pay attention to the warning signs
Yes, Richard, I see the sort of individualism rampant in the US as a collective wound of colonisation. Like tempered glass shattered, breaking communities apart, removing their spiritual grounding in their connection with the land their ancestors' bones compose, killing their relational indigenous languages, removing any say in what shapes their daily lives, it all fosters individualism removed from its communal context.