{"title":"一种非暴力的暴力","authors":"Luhuna Carvalho","doi":"10.1215/00382876-10242658","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article looks at several attempts to conceptualize a legitimate use of revolutionary violence in the anti-authoritarian revolutionary movements of the 1960s and 1970s. The central problem confronting the repertoire of action in this period lay in understanding how a violence deployed to fight power could avoid reproducing instances of this same power. Some, like Guy Debord, proposed a framework in which the revolutionary subject employs violence without becoming subject to such violence itself. Others, like Antonio Negri, sought to distinguish among various regimes of violence, arguing that true state violence was modally distinct from revolutionary violence, or the concrete materialization of a proletarian potentiality. Although opposed, both of these perspectives strive to mitigate or restrain the brutal subjectivation attending the exercise of violence. Placing this debate against the background of Walter Benjamin's claim, in his “Critique of Violence,” that a “divine violence” that would neither sustain nor uphold law is “undisclosed to human beings,” this article argues that the Autonomia movement in 1970s Italy reveals how such undisclosedness, such invisibility, becomes incarnated in a social form. If it is only by abandoning a concept of sovereign victory that a form of divine violence can appear, this is because its appearance coincides with the destitution of the cohesion of the social body upholding state sovereignty. Revolutionary violence is not nonviolence but, rather, a violence other than violence, a form of power whose content is a subjectivation beyond the problematic of sovereignty.","PeriodicalId":21946,"journal":{"name":"South Atlantic Quarterly","volume":"72 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Violence Other than Violence\",\"authors\":\"Luhuna Carvalho\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/00382876-10242658\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article looks at several attempts to conceptualize a legitimate use of revolutionary violence in the anti-authoritarian revolutionary movements of the 1960s and 1970s. The central problem confronting the repertoire of action in this period lay in understanding how a violence deployed to fight power could avoid reproducing instances of this same power. Some, like Guy Debord, proposed a framework in which the revolutionary subject employs violence without becoming subject to such violence itself. Others, like Antonio Negri, sought to distinguish among various regimes of violence, arguing that true state violence was modally distinct from revolutionary violence, or the concrete materialization of a proletarian potentiality. Although opposed, both of these perspectives strive to mitigate or restrain the brutal subjectivation attending the exercise of violence. Placing this debate against the background of Walter Benjamin's claim, in his “Critique of Violence,” that a “divine violence” that would neither sustain nor uphold law is “undisclosed to human beings,” this article argues that the Autonomia movement in 1970s Italy reveals how such undisclosedness, such invisibility, becomes incarnated in a social form. If it is only by abandoning a concept of sovereign victory that a form of divine violence can appear, this is because its appearance coincides with the destitution of the cohesion of the social body upholding state sovereignty. Revolutionary violence is not nonviolence but, rather, a violence other than violence, a form of power whose content is a subjectivation beyond the problematic of sovereignty.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21946,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"South Atlantic Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"72 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"South Atlantic Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-10242658\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CULTURAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South Atlantic Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-10242658","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文考察了在20世纪60年代和70年代的反专制革命运动中,对革命暴力的合法使用进行概念化的几次尝试。这一时期各种行动所面临的中心问题是,如何理解一种用来对抗权力的暴力能够避免这种权力的重演。一些人,如居伊·德波,提出了一个框架,在这个框架中,革命主体使用暴力,而不受制于这种暴力。其他人,如安东尼奥·内格里(Antonio Negri),试图区分各种暴力制度,认为真正的国家暴力在形态上不同于革命暴力,或者是无产阶级潜力的具体具体化。尽管是对立的,但这两种观点都力求减轻或抑制暴力行为所带来的残酷主体化。本雅明(Walter Benjamin)在其《暴力批判》(Critique of Violence)一书中主张,一种既不能维持也不能维护法律的“神圣的暴力”是“对人类不公开的”。本文将这一争论置于这一主张的背景之下,认为20世纪70年代意大利的自治运动揭示了这种不公开性、不可见性是如何在一种社会形式中体现出来的。如果只有放弃主权胜利的概念,一种形式的神圣暴力才会出现,这是因为它的出现与维护国家主权的社会体凝聚力的缺失是一致的。革命暴力不是非暴力,而是一种暴力之外的暴力,一种权力形式,其内容是超越主权问题的主体化。
This article looks at several attempts to conceptualize a legitimate use of revolutionary violence in the anti-authoritarian revolutionary movements of the 1960s and 1970s. The central problem confronting the repertoire of action in this period lay in understanding how a violence deployed to fight power could avoid reproducing instances of this same power. Some, like Guy Debord, proposed a framework in which the revolutionary subject employs violence without becoming subject to such violence itself. Others, like Antonio Negri, sought to distinguish among various regimes of violence, arguing that true state violence was modally distinct from revolutionary violence, or the concrete materialization of a proletarian potentiality. Although opposed, both of these perspectives strive to mitigate or restrain the brutal subjectivation attending the exercise of violence. Placing this debate against the background of Walter Benjamin's claim, in his “Critique of Violence,” that a “divine violence” that would neither sustain nor uphold law is “undisclosed to human beings,” this article argues that the Autonomia movement in 1970s Italy reveals how such undisclosedness, such invisibility, becomes incarnated in a social form. If it is only by abandoning a concept of sovereign victory that a form of divine violence can appear, this is because its appearance coincides with the destitution of the cohesion of the social body upholding state sovereignty. Revolutionary violence is not nonviolence but, rather, a violence other than violence, a form of power whose content is a subjectivation beyond the problematic of sovereignty.
期刊介绍:
Individual subscribers and institutions with electronic access can view issues of the South Atlantic Quarterly online. If you have not signed up, review the first-time access instructions. Founded amid controversy in 1901, the South Atlantic Quarterly continues to cover the beat, center and fringe, with bold analyses of the current scene—national, cultural, intellectual—worldwide. Now published exclusively in special issues, this vanguard centenarian journal is tackling embattled states, evaluating postmodernity"s influential writers and intellectuals, and examining a wide range of cultural phenomena.