Table of contents

1. Joshua Goldstein, War and Gender, Chapter 1, 3 and 6.......................................................................................5

1.1. What does ‘patriarchy’ mean?............................................................................................................5
1.2. How does Goldstein understand ‘gender’?.........................................................................................5
1.4. Goldstein describes the huge diversity of how and why wars are fought, as well as how they are
experienced. What, then can we say that ‘war’ is?....................................................................................6
1.5. Which conclusions can be drawn from the archaeological research discussed by Goldstein (linked
to the mythological Amazon warriors) in terms of gender and war in pre-historic times and antiquity in
Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, West Asia and North Africa?...................................................................7
1.6. What does the myths about women warrior societies represent in European civilisational and
colonial history, and in late modern culture according to Goldstein?.......................................................7
1.7. Which are the gender differences between ‘peaceful’ and ‘war prone’ societies, in terms of social
organisation of everyday life, and in terms of war?...................................................................................8
1.8. What is so particular about the Dahomey Kingdom, and what does that example demonstrate?....10
1.9. How do liberal, difference and postmodern feminism differ from one another theoretically?........10
1.10. On method: how does Goldstein 1) ask questions, and 2) substantiate his discussion and
arguments in answering the questions he poses?.....................................................................................12
1.11. Which kind of words does Goldstein use generally when discussing that about which we cannot
be scientifically sure?...............................................................................................................................13
1. 12. What is ‘empirical evidence’ and how is it used by Goldstein?....................................................14
2. New and Old Wars (M. Kaldor)............................................................................................................................16
2.1. Mary Kaldor argues that “new wars” have most commonly occurred in which two regions of the
world? Why?............................................................................................................................................16
2.2. Why are new wars most likely to occur in states that have experienced a decrease in sovereignty
(or in states that are weak)?.....................................................................................................................16
2.3. Discuss the differences between new and old wars noted by Mary Kaldor. THEN, apply this
framework to the specific case of Syria / Afghanistan / Bosnia / Iraq....................................................18
2.4. What does Kaldor mean when she talks about the transformation of the “social relations of
warfare”? Why is this significant?...........................................................................................................20
2.5. How were old wars tied up with the emergence of the modern state?.............................................22
2.6. How has the distinction between civilian and combatant changed?.................................................23
2.7. Explain the relationship between globalization and new wars.........................................................25
2.8. In new wars, Kaldor suggests that the relationship between politics and economics cannot be
untangled. Why is this the case?..............................................................................................................25
2.9. Explain the main principles behind Kaldor’s cosmopolitan approach. Discuss whether you think it
1
 is an effective approach? Why?...............................................................................................................27
2.10. Compare / contrast Kaldor and Clausewitz’s approach to warfare.................................................29
2.11. What is the concept of “legitimacy” as used by Kaldor? Why is it important?..............................31
2.12. What does Kaldor mean when she says that it is no longer possible to contain wars
geographically?........................................................................................................................................31
2.13. Explain Kaldor’s understanding of contemporary identity politics................................................33
2.14. How have military forces been privatized in the era of new wars?................................................34
3. Violence in War and Peace (edited by N. Schepher-Hughes & P. Bourgois).....................................................35
3.1. Part II. The Holocaust.......................................................................................................................35
3.2. Part IV: Why do people kill?............................................................................................................54
3.3. Part V: The State Run Amok............................................................................................................61
3.4. Part VI: Violence and Political Resistance.......................................................................................74
3.5. Part VII: Peacetime Crimes: Everyday Violence:............................................................................82
3.6. Part VIII: Gendered Violence...........................................................................................................94
3.7. Part IX: Torture...............................................................................................................................100
3.8. Part XI: Aftermaths.........................................................................................................................103
4. Introduction to Security Studies (edited by P. D. Williams)..............................................................................108
4.1. Small arms and light weapons are the weapons of choice for what kinds of groups. Why?..........108
4.2. How has the arms trade evolved over time?...................................................................................108
4.3. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council account for what percentage
(approximately) of the global arms trade?.............................................................................................109
4.4. Paul D. Williams suggests 4 reasons why the political philosophy of war is less applicable to the
contemporary global environment than in the past. Name them...........................................................110
4.5. There has been sharp decrease in interstate warfare since 1945. Why has this been the case?......111
4.6. Who is the most significant advocate of the “political philosophy of war”? Define the concept.. 112
4.7. Please list and briefly describe the 3 basic approaches to human security?...................................112
4.8. Proponents of globalization argue that globalization minimizes human insecurity. What are the
primary reasons they give in support of this claim?..............................................................................114
4.9. Explain the difference between absolute and relative poverty.......................................................114
4.10. What is the relationship between poverty and conflict?...............................................................114
4.11. How is global health a security issue?..........................................................................................115
4.12. List and discuss the main tools/tactics used in offensive counter-terrorism.................................116
4.13. What are primary differences between classical and contemporary insurgencies?......................117
2
 4.14. Define the term “hearts and minds” as it relates to counterinsurgency campaigns......................118
4.15. Compare / contrast counterinsurgency to post-conflict peacebuilding.........................................119
4.16. In a counterinsurgency campaign what is the relationship between political and military activities.
Which is more valued? Why?................................................................................................................120
4.17. Define the democratic peace.........................................................................................................122
4.19. Compare and contrast the main differences between realist perspectives of security and those who
advocate on behalf of human security...................................................................................................122
4.20. Would a realist be supportive of Kaldor’s new wars thesis? Why?.............................................123
4.21. Given what you know about contemporary conflicts (after the Cold War), do you think a realist
perspective or a human security perspective offers the best approach to issues of global security? Why?
(Note: to best answer this question you will need to be provide specific examples, along with providing
a basic definition of the realist and human security approaches)..........................................................123
4.22. Discuss the ways in which warfare has changed after 1945 – in terms of the role of states, non-
state actors, the question of who fights and dies....................................................................................125
4.23. Define the concept “total war”......................................................................................................126
4.24. Explain the differences between a counterinsurgency and insurgency........................................127
4.25. Why have discussions of human security become increasingly important in recent years?........128
4.26. What are some of the primary critiques of the human security approach?...................................128
4.27. How do scholars define “insecurity”?...........................................................................................130
4.28. Why is income inequality a problem relevant to the study of peace and conflict?......................130
4.29. Define the Washington Consensus...............................................................................................130
4.30. What are the Sustainable (or Millennium) Development Goals? Why were they developed?....131
4.31. In relation to ethnic conflict, discuss the distinction between instrumentalist, primordialist, and
constructivist approaches to identity......................................................................................................132
4.32. What do scholars see as some of the primary causes of ethnic conflicts?....................................132
4.33. Explain the differences between: liberal feminism, radical feminism and feminist critical theory.
................................................................................................................................................................133
4.34. How have feminist approaches contributed to the understanding of international conflict and
security?.................................................................................................................................................134
Old answer:............................................................................................................................................134
4.35. In which ways may women be actors in war?..............................................................................135
5. General Questions for Reflection........................................................................................................................136
5.1. What constitutes the organisation of violence in both peace and war, judging from the different
sections of the course literature you have read? In your consideration of this question, you should
reflect upon the historical sections of Scheper-Hughes & Bourgois’ book as well as the articles dealing
with more recent conflicts in peace and war..........................................................................................136
3
 5.2. Why are men and women affected differently in war and conflicts? Base your discussion of this
question on the various explanations given in the texts. Attempt to identify different types of
explanation and discuss them critically: ask yourself whether they are based on stereotyping (e.g.
women/feminine//men/masculine), and/or on racially-based or class-based notions of people in other
societies, social strata, cultures, countries or parts of the world............................................................137
5.3. What does it imply and what are the conceivable consequences of only focusing on one category
of gender (women or men, for example) in describing and theorizing about conflicts?.......................139
5.4. If one only focuses on one category of person, does this mean that the text lacks a gender
perspective? What other differences, apart from just gender, should one take into consideration in order
to form a picture of how people are variously affected during conflicts, both in exile and in postconflict
situations?..............................................................................................................................................140
5.5. Do different forms of affiliation or identity (social, economic, religious, gender-based, et al.)
combine to influence both how people are affected by conflict and how they perceive it?..................141
5.6. In academic terminology we (for the moment) are speaking here about the intersection between
different factors/categories/identities. It is also possible (though slightly more old- fashioned) to talk
about how different factors/categories/identities interact in different connections or contexts. Think
carefully about these two concepts and how you can use them effectively in different circumstances: in
actual fact, they have different meanings and are both important notions that you should be able to
handle and apply correctly.....................................................................................................................142

4
 1. Joshua Goldstein, War and Gender, Chapter 1, 3 and 6
1.1. What does ‘patriarchy’ mean?

By patriarchy (literally~ rule by father ), I mean social organization based on men's control of power.
Thus, both patriarchy and war are products of economic class relations which changed with the rise of the state, in
this view.
In the context of Joshua Goldstein's book "War and Gender," he discusses the concept of patriarchy in relation to
the influence of gender roles and power dynamics on the war system. While Goldstein's work primarily focuses
on the relationship between war and gender, he does not provide a specific definition of "patriarchy" in his book.
In "War and Gender," Goldstein explores how traditional gender roles, including the patriarchal nature of many
societies, have influenced and shaped the dynamics of warfare and conflict. He examines how the social
construction of gender, including the idea that men are often associated with power, dominance, and aggression,
plays a role in the perpetuation of war.

1.2. How does Goldstein understand ‘gender’?

He uses gender to cover masculine and feminine roles and bodies alike, including the (biological and cultural)
structures, dynamics, roles, and scripts associated with each gender group. The word sex is reserved for sexual
behaviour.
He doesn’t like to refer to sex as smth biological and gender only cultural and he finds this system unworkable.
We are born with sex and we learn gender roles, but gender is predetermined or strongly tied to biological sex.

1.3. Which are the six different hypotheses about gender and war and
which are the main points of each?

1. Gender-linked war roles are not in fact cross-culturally consistent

2. Sexist discrimination despite womens historical success as combatants:

A. In female combat units
B. in mixed gender units
C. as individual women fighters
D. as women military leaders

3. Gender differences in anatomy and physiology

a. Genetics
b. testosterone levels
c. size and strength
d. brains and cognition
e. female sex hormones

4. Innate gender differences in group dynamics

a. male bonding
b. ability to work in hierarchies

5
 c. in-group/out-group psychology
d. childhood gender segregation

5. Cultural construction of tough men and tender women

a. test of manhood as motivation to fight
b. feminine reinforcement of soldiers´ masculinity
c. women's peace activism

6. Men’s sexual and economic domination of women

a. Male sexuality as a cause of aggression
b. feminization of enemies as symbolic domination
c. dependence on exploiting women´s labor

1.4. Goldstein describes the huge diversity of how and why wars are fought, as well as how
they are experienced. What, then can we say that ‘war’ is?

War is a tremendously diverse enterprise, operating in many contexts with many purposes, rules, and meanings
(explain)

 “War” as lethal intergroup violence (so somewhat including “gathering-hunting” societies)

 War is a full spectrum social phenomenon.
 Urban gang violence, organized violence, warfare

I define war broadly, as lethal intergroup violence. If members of a small gathering-hunting society go
out in an organized group to kill members of another community, I call that war. Indeed, warfare
worldwide in recent years seldom has taken the form of pitched battles between state armies. A very
broad definition such as "organized violence" has advantages, and still excludes individual acts of
violence that are not socially sanctioned and organized. However, "organized violence" is not quite
specific enough, since it would include, for example, the death penalty. The difference is that wars
occur between groups (communities, eth nic groups, societies, states). Wars also cross an important
threshold by killing people. Not all intergroup violence has this lethal quality. By my definition, some
urban gang violence (sustained, territorial, lethal) is a form of war, though on a scale closer to
gathering-hunting societies than to modern states.

1.5. Which conclusions can be drawn from the archaeological research discussed by
Goldstein (linked to the mythological Amazon warriors) in terms of gender and war in pre-
historic times and antiquity in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, West Asia and North Africa?

That there were some women who fought and went to battle, but does not indicate that women predominated
either in military or political life. -> coming from the findings shows that about 90% of men but only 15-20% of
women took part in war

6
(But absent any real empirical evidence of a matriarchal society of women warriors, the burden of
proof is on showing it did exist, not that it could never existed)
1.6. What does the myths about women warrior societies represent in European
civilisational and colonial history, and in late modern culture according to Goldstein?

These mythical women warrior societies represent a foreign, topsy-turvy world. Representing women in this way
reinforced men´s construction of their own patriarchal societies as orderly and natural.

Pg.17 Ch.1 Women warriors were imagined as somewhere outside of the civilized world, as a symbolic place to
subdue the barbarians.

although some lesbians and radical feminists embrace Amazon myths, the various representations of Amazons
through history have carried a mixed message because men use those myths to reinforce their own masculinity.

So either it was a sex-symbol, or seen as a feminist symbol.

GPT

In "War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa," Joshua Goldstein
discusses myths about women warrior societies and their representation in European civilizational and
colonial history, as well as their influence on late modern culture. These myths and representations
carry important cultural and historical significance:
1. In European Civilizational and Colonial History:

 Colonial Mythmaking: Goldstein examines how European colonial powers often portrayed
indigenous societies with women warriors as "exotic" or "primitive" in order to justify their own
colonial projects. Such portrayals were used to reinforce colonial hierarchies and emphasize the
need for European "civilizing" missions.

 Justifying Patriarchy: These myths and representations were used to reinforce European ideas of
patriarchal gender norms and traditional gender roles. By depicting women warriors as unusual or
deviant, colonial powers sought to emphasize the superiority of European gender norms.

 Colonial Gender Roles: European colonialism often sought to impose its own gender norms on
colonized societies, undermining or suppressing local gender practices that did not conform to
European ideals. This was a means of exerting cultural control and asserting colonial dominance.

2. In Late Modern Culture:

 Pop Culture and Media: Goldstein discusses how the myths of women warrior societies persist in
late modern culture, particularly in popular media, literature, and film. These myths have been
romanticized and used as a source of inspiration for various forms of entertainment.

 Empowerment Narratives: Late modern culture has embraced women warrior narratives as
7
 symbols of empowerment and resistance. These stories challenge traditional gender norms and
provide representations of strong, independent, and capable female characters.

 Feminist Reinterpretations: Some late modern cultural representations of women warriors are
interpreted through feminist lenses, highlighting the potential for subversion of traditional gender
roles and the promotion of gender equality.

 Cultural Appropriation: There is a complex tension in late modern culture between celebrating
women warrior myths as symbols of empowerment and the potential for cultural appropriation
when these stories are taken out of their original contexts and commercialized.

Overall, Goldstein's discussion of women warrior myths in European civilizational and colonial history and their
representation in late modern culture highlights how these myths have been used to reinforce or challenge gender
norms and serve various cultural, colonial, and feminist purposes. These myths continue to play a role in shaping
our understanding of gender and war.

1.7. Which are the gender differences between ‘peaceful’ and ‘war prone’ societies, in terms
of social organisation of everyday life, and in terms of war?

Pg 57 Males occupy the ongoing role of potential fighters even in relatively peaceful societies. [...]

This regularity in gender roles in war contrasts with the much greater diversity found both in war
itself and in gender roles outside war.

GPT

Joshua Goldstein's book "War and Gender" explores the relationship between gender and war in
various societies and provides insights into the gender differences in "peaceful" and "war-prone"
societies. While Goldstein's work doesn't make sweeping generalizations, it does offer several key
observations:
Social Organization of Everyday Life:

1. Division of Labor: In "war-prone" societies, there is often a more pronounced division of labor along
traditional gender lines. Men are typically associated with combat and physical labor, while women are
primarily responsible for domestic and caregiving roles. In "peaceful" societies, there may be more
flexibility in gender roles, with men and women sharing responsibilities in various areas.

2. Economic Activities: In war-prone societies, the demands of warfare and militarization can lead to men
dominating economic activities, such as farming or trade, while women's economic autonomy may be
restricted. In peaceful societies, women may have more opportunities to engage in trade, craftwork, or
farming.

3. Decision-Making: Gender-based decision-making can differ between these types of societies. In peaceful

8
 societies, there may be more egalitarian power structures and a greater presence of women in leadership
roles. In contrast, war-prone societies may exhibit more patriarchal and male-dominated decision-making
structures.

In Terms of War:

1. Participation in Combat: In war-prone societies, men often assume primary roles as warriors and
fighters. Traditional notions of masculinity are closely associated with these roles, including ideals of
bravery and valor. Women's participation in combat roles may be limited, although there are exceptions
and historical examples of female combatants.

2. Gender-Based Violence: The presence of war in war-prone societies can increase gender-based violence,
including sexual violence against women, as a tactic of war. Women may become particularly vulnerable
to gender-based violence during conflicts.

3. Impact on Women and Children: War has a profound impact on the lives of women and children.
Displacement, loss, and the breakdown of social services can disproportionately affect women and
children. They may experience higher levels of vulnerability during and after conflicts.

4. Post-War Reintegration: After conflicts, women in war-prone societies may face unique challenges
when it comes to social and economic reintegration. The effects of war can disrupt traditional social
structures and lead to shifts in gender roles, which may necessitate adaptations and support for women's
empowerment.

It's important to recognize that these observations are not absolute and do not apply uniformly to all societies and
conflicts. Goldstein's work highlights the complexity of gender dynamics in different settings and emphasizes that
the relationship between gender and war is influenced by a wide range of cultural, historical, and contextual
factors. Understanding these differences is crucial for addressing the unique challenges faced by women and men
in conflict settings and for promoting gender equality in peacetime and post-conflict situations.

1.8. What is so particular about the Dahomey Kingdom, and what does that example
demonstrate?

-> the Dahomey Kingdom is a documented historical case of substantial organized female participation
in combat, it is an important case since it shows the possibility of an effective, permanent, standing
women combat unit making up a substantial minority of the army.

GPT

The Dahomey Kingdom (located in present-day Benin) is particularly noteworthy in the context of Joshua
Goldstein's book "War and Gender" because it provides a unique historical example of a society where women
held prominent roles in military and political leadership.

9
It was founded in the early 17th century and lasted until the late 19th century. The kingdom was known for its
military prowess and its use of female warriors, who were known as the Dahomey Amazons or Mino.

This example demonstrates that traditional gender roles and norms related to warfare can vary significantly across
different cultures and historical contexts.
In the Dahomey Kingdom:

1. Female Warriors: The Dahomey Kingdom had a standing army of female warriors known as the
Dahomey Amazons. These women served as elite soldiers and bodyguards for the king. They were highly
skilled and disciplined fighters.

2. Prominent Military and Political Roles: Women in Dahomey held prominent roles not only as soldiers
but also as leaders in the military and political spheres. The king's council, for example, included
influential women who played a significant role in governance.

3. Gender Role Reversal: The existence of the Dahomey Amazons and women in leadership roles
challenged traditional gender norms that often associate combat and leadership with men. This example
demonstrated that gender roles can be flexible and adaptable to the specific needs and values of a society.

4. Complex Gender Dynamics: The Dahomey Kingdom illustrates the complexity of gender dynamics in
the context of war. While some societies adhere to traditional gender norms, others, like the Dahomey
Kingdom, can adapt to different gender arrangements that challenge conventional expectations.

The example of the Dahomey Kingdom serves to challenge stereotypes and assumptions about the roles of women
in warfare and leadership. It highlights the importance of considering the cultural and historical diversity of
gender dynamics and roles in different societies. This historical case underscores the fact that there is no universal
or one-size-fits-all model for the relationship between gender and war, and that gender roles can be shaped by a
variety of social, political, and economic factors.

1.9. How do liberal, difference and postmodern feminism differ from one another
theoretically?

Pg. 39 Liberal feminism: sexist discrimination - women can be capable warriors, focus on achieving gender
equality through political and legal reform within the framework of liberal democracy

Difference feminism: deep-rooted and partly biological gender differences, there are differences between men and
women but that no value judgment can be placed upon them and both sexes have equal moral status as persons
Postmodern feminism: arbitrary cultural constructions favoring those men in power.
GPT

Joshua Goldstein's book "War and Gender" primarily focuses on the relationship between gender and war,
examining various hypotheses and historical examples. It does not delve deeply into the nuances of different
feminist theories, such as liberal, difference, and postmodern feminism. However, I can provide a brief overview
10
of the theoretical differences between these feminist perspectives:
1. Liberal Feminism:

 Focus: Liberal feminism emphasizes gender equality through legal and policy reforms within
existing social and political structures.
 Theoretical Basis: It is grounded in liberal political philosophy and seeks to challenge and change
discriminatory laws and practices.
 Objectives: Liberal feminists aim to eliminate legal and institutional barriers that restrict women's
rights and opportunities. They advocate for equal pay, reproductive rights, and access to education
and employment.
 Gender Differences: Liberal feminism often acknowledges gender differences but focuses on
equalizing opportunities and rights rather than highlighting the uniqueness of women's experiences.
2. Difference Feminism:

 Focus: Difference feminism acknowledges and celebrates the distinct experiences and perspectives
of women as compared to men.
 Theoretical Basis: It draws on various critical theories and poststructuralist ideas to challenge
normative concepts of gender.
 Objectives: Difference feminists argue that gender differences should be recognized and valued.
They emphasize the importance of giving voice to marginalized and diverse women's experiences.
 Gender Differences: Difference feminism highlights the differences between women and men and
aims to create space for the expression of various gender identities and experiences.
3. Postmodern Feminism:

 Focus: Postmodern feminism critiques grand narratives and challenges traditional power
structures, including those related to gender.
 Theoretical Basis: It is rooted in postmodernism and deconstruction, questioning the very concept
of a stable, fixed identity.
 Objectives: Postmodern feminists are interested in deconstructing traditional notions of gender and
identity, highlighting the performative and fluid nature of these concepts.
 Gender Differences: Postmodern feminism goes further in deconstructing the very idea of gender
itself, suggesting that it is a social construct with no inherent reality.

These are simplified explanations of complex feminist theories. In practice, feminist perspectives often intersect
and overlap, and many feminists draw from multiple theoretical frameworks to address the diverse issues related
to gender, including those explored by Goldstein in his book. While Goldstein primarily focuses on the role of
gender in warfare, understanding these feminist theories can provide a broader context for analyzing the dynamics
of gender and war in different societies and historical periods.

11
 1.10. On method: how does Goldstein 1) ask questions, and 2) substantiate his discussion
and arguments in answering the questions he poses?

Joshua Goldstein, in his book "War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice
Versa," employs a multifaceted approach to ask questions and substantiate his discussions and
arguments related to the topic of gender and war. Here's an overview of his methods:
1. Asking Questions:

a. Hypotheses: Goldstein begins by proposing several hypotheses related to the role of gender in the war
system. These hypotheses serve as the framework for his inquiry. He asks questions about the relationship
between gender and war, such as whether gender norms influence military and political decisions.

b. Historical and Cross-Cultural Analysis: Goldstein explores the historical and cross-cultural
dimensions of the gender-war connection. He raises questions about the roles of women and men in
warfare, how societies perceive and construct gender norms, and the effects of these norms on conflict and
peace.

c. Gender in Conflict: Goldstein asks questions about the experiences of women and men during times of
war, including their roles, vulnerabilities, and the impact of war on gender dynamics.

2. Substantiating Discussions and Arguments:

a. Historical Evidence: Goldstein supports his arguments with historical examples and evidence from
various cultures and time periods. He draws from a wide range of historical sources to demonstrate the
presence of female warriors, women in leadership roles, and the influence of gender norms in different
war-related contexts.

b. Statistical Data: Goldstein includes statistical data and research findings to support his arguments. For
example, he analyzes data on the relationship between the presence of women in government and the
likelihood of interstate conflict.

c. Cultural and Anthropological Research: Goldstein incorporates insights from cultural and
anthropological research to illustrate the diversity of gender roles and norms related to war in different
societies. This allows him to substantiate his arguments about the complex relationship between gender
and warfare.

d. Comparative Analysis: Goldstein engages in comparative analysis, contrasting different societies and
time periods to draw out patterns and differences in how gender and war intersect.

e. Case Studies: Throughout the book, Goldstein includes case studies that provide in-depth examination

12
 of specific historical and contemporary examples to illuminate key points and arguments.

f. Interdisciplinary Approach: Goldstein's approach is interdisciplinary, drawing on fields such as

history, political science, sociology, and anthropology. He incorporates a wide range of research methods
and sources to support his discussions and arguments.

Goldstein's methodology is characterized by a comprehensive and evidence-based exploration of the relationship

between gender and war, emphasizing both historical depth and a cross-cultural perspective. He uses a
combination of historical examples, statistical data, and scholarly research to substantiate his arguments and
address the questions he poses in the book.

1.11. Which kind of words does Goldstein use generally when discussing that about which
we cannot be scientifically sure?

In "War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa," Joshua
Goldstein, when discussing topics about which we cannot be scientifically certain, often
uses words and phrases that convey a degree of uncertainty and caution. These may
include:

1. Hypothesize: Goldstein frequently employs this term when presenting theories and ideas that are not
definitively proven but are based on evidence and analysis.

2. Speculate: He may use this word to acknowledge that certain aspects of his arguments involve speculative
elements or are subject to interpretation.

3. Propose: Goldstein often uses this term to introduce hypotheses or suggestions, indicating that they are
proposed ideas and not absolute conclusions.

4. Suggest: When discussing less certain aspects of the relationship between gender and war, he may use the
word "suggest" to imply that there is evidence pointing in a particular direction but not conclusive proof.

5. Imply: Goldstein might use this term when discussing potential implications or inferences that can be
drawn from the evidence, recognizing that such inferences may vary.

6. Likely: In situations where the evidence indicates a probable outcome, Goldstein may use the word
"likely" to indicate a degree of probability rather than certainty.

7. May: This word is often used when Goldstein discusses possibilities or potential consequences,
highlighting that there are multiple potential interpretations or outcomes.

8. Possibly: Goldstein may employ this term to acknowledge that there is room for multiple interpretations
or explanations for certain phenomena.
13
 9. Could: He uses "could" to indicate that something is within the realm of possibility but not definitively
established.

10. Varies: When discussing differences across societies or time periods, Goldstein may use the word
"varies" to underscore the lack of universal conclusions.

Claims, ideas, widely held notion, estimates

These terms and expressions reflect Goldstein's recognition of the complexities and uncertainties surrounding the
relationship between gender and war. They convey his awareness that the field of gender studies and the impact of
gender on war involve a mix of evidence, interpretation, and the potential for differing perspectives.

1. 12. What is ‘empirical evidence’ and how is it used by Goldstein?

Empirical evidence is the information obtained through observation and documentation of certain behavior and patterns or
through an experiment.

“Only by assembling large bodies of empirical evidence from multiple disciplines can we assess the meaning of a single
event or result in the context of the overall picture.”
Goldstein uses empirical evidence as a means to endorse or refute a concept.

GPT
"Empirical evidence" refers to information or data that is derived from direct observation, experimentation, or
real-world experience. It is evidence that is based on concrete and verifiable facts, rather than theoretical or
abstract reasoning. Empirical evidence is crucial in academic research and scholarly work as it provides a
foundation for drawing conclusions and making arguments based on actual data and observations.
In "War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and Vice Versa," Joshua Goldstein uses empirical
evidence to support and substantiate his arguments and hypotheses about the relationship between gender and
war. Specifically, he employs empirical evidence in the following ways:

1. Historical Examples: Goldstein draws on historical cases and examples from different societies and time
periods to provide concrete evidence of how gender roles, norms, and the experiences of women and men
have intersected with the dynamics of war. These examples offer real-world instances of the principles and
ideas he discusses.

2. Statistical Data: Goldstein incorporates statistical data and quantitative research findings to support his
arguments. For instance, he analyzes data related to the presence of women in government and its impact
on conflict behavior between states.

3. Case Studies: Throughout the book, Goldstein includes case studies that provide detailed and in-depth
analysis of specific historical or contemporary examples. These case studies offer rich empirical evidence
to illustrate and support key points and arguments.

14
 4. Anthropological and Cultural Research: Goldstein incorporates insights from anthropological and
cultural research to showcase the diversity of gender roles and norms across different societies and
regions. This empirical evidence underscores the complexity of the relationship between gender and war.

5. Comparative Analysis: By comparing and contrasting different societies, historical periods, and regions,
Goldstein uses empirical evidence to highlight patterns and differences in how gender and war intersect.
This comparative approach adds depth and nuance to his arguments.

By using empirical evidence, Goldstein seeks to ground his discussions and hypotheses in real-world data and
experiences, demonstrating that the relationship between gender and war is not purely theoretical but has practical
and observable implications. This empirical approach adds rigor and credibility to his analysis of gender dynamics
in the context of warfare.

2. New and Old Wars (M. Kaldor)

2.1. Mary Kaldor argues that “new wars” have most commonly occurred in which two
regions of the world? Why?
Mary Kaldor, a prominent scholar in the field of international relations, is known for her work on
the concept of "new wars." According to her theory, new wars differ from traditional interstate
wars and are typically characterized by several key features, including their occurrence within
states rather than between states, the involvement of non-state actors, and their reliance on
various forms of organized crime, such as illicit trade and resource exploitation. Kaldor argues
that new wars have most commonly occurred in two regions of the world:

1. Sub-Saharan Africa: Many of the conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa during the late 20th and early 21st
centuries have exhibited the characteristics of new wars. These conflicts often involve rebel groups,
militias, and warlords fighting for control of territory and resources within a single state. Factors
contributing to the prevalence of new wars in this region include weak state institutions, ethnic and
religious divisions, and the availability of valuable natural resources, such as oil and diamonds, that can
fund rebel movements.

2. The Balkans: The conflicts in the Balkans during the 1990s, particularly in countries like Bosnia and
Kosovo, also align with Kaldor's concept of new wars. These conflicts involved a complex web of ethnic
and nationalist tensions, the breakdown of multi-ethnic states, and the emergence of paramilitary groups
and militias. The collapse of Yugoslavia and the disintegration of its constituent republics into smaller,
ethnically defined entities contributed to the outbreak of new wars in this region.

Kaldor argues that these regions experienced new wars due to a combination of political, economic, and social
factors, including the erosion of state authority, the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, and the
involvement of external actors who often supported one side or another in these conflicts. Her analysis highlights
how the nature of conflict has evolved in the post-Cold War era, with new wars posing distinct challenges to
traditional models of conflict resolution and peacekeeping. It's important to note that Kaldor's work has influenced
15
the academic debate on conflict, but there are also differing views on the concept of "new wars" and its
applicability to various conflicts around the world.

Old answer:

During the last decades of the twentieth century, a new type of organized violence developed,especially in Africa
and Eastern Europe, which is one aspect of the current globalized era.
Domestic production declines dramatically because of global competition, physical destruction or interruptions to
normal trade, as does tax revenue. In these circumstances, the fighting units finance themselves through plunder,
hostage-taking and the black market or through external assistance.

2.2. Why are new wars most likely to occur in states that have experienced a decrease in
sovereignty (or in states that are weak)?

According to Mary Kaldor's theory of "new wars," these conflicts are more likely to occur in states
that have experienced a decrease in sovereignty or in states that are weak for several interconnected
reasons:
1. Erosion of State Authority: In new wars, there is often a breakdown of central state authority, where the
government loses control over its territory and people. This erosion of state authority can be due to various
factors, including internal conflicts, secessionist movements, or the fragmentation of the state along ethnic
or regional lines. As the state's ability to enforce its laws and provide basic services declines, armed groups
and militias may fill the power vacuum, leading to further instability.

2. Competition for Resources: New wars frequently revolve around the control of valuable resources, such as
minerals, oil, or land. Weak states are often unable to effectively manage and regulate these resources,
making them attractive targets for rebel groups or warlords seeking to exploit and profit from them. The
competition for control of these resources can escalate into violent conflicts.

3. Ethnic and Identity Divisions: Many new wars are driven by ethnic or identity-based divisions within a
society. Weak states may struggle to manage or reconcile these divisions, leading to tensions and violence
between different ethnic or identity groups. These divisions can be exacerbated when external actors
exploit existing fault lines for their own strategic or economic interests.

4. Proliferation of Small Arms: Weak states often lack the capacity to control the flow of small arms and
light weapons, which can easily fall into the hands of non-state actors. The availability of weapons can
empower rebel groups and militias, making it easier for them to challenge the state and wage violent
conflicts.

5. External Involvement: New wars are frequently influenced and exacerbated by external actors, including
neighboring states and international powers. Weak states are more susceptible to external interference and
manipulation, as they may rely on external support for their survival or lack the means to resist external
pressure. External actors may provide funding, weapons, or political backing to various factions involved
16
 in the conflict, prolonging the violence.

6. Economic Factors: Weak states often have struggling economies, which can contribute to the emergence
of new wars. High levels of poverty, unemployment, and economic inequality can create grievances and
motivations for individuals to join armed groups as a means of economic survival or advancement.

In summary, according to Kaldor's analysis, new wars are more likely to occur in states that have experienced a
decrease in sovereignty or are inherently weak because these conditions create a fertile ground for the emergence
of conflicts driven by resource competition, identity divisions, and the involvement of non-state actors. The
erosion of state authority and the inability to address underlying socio-economic issues further contribute to the
likelihood of new wars in such contexts.

Old answer:

a. New wars are associated with state weakness, extremist identity politics and transnational criminality,
and there is a danger that this type of violence will spread as the world faces a growing economic crisis.

b. Yugoslav society – was vulnerable to “new war” due to their struggles, on the part of increasingly
desperate (and corrupt) elites, to control the remnants of the state combined with growing economic insecurity
and the loss of self- worth associated with that insecurity that made people vulnerable to ideas about national
identity.

2.3. Discuss the differences between new and old wars noted by Mary Kaldor. THEN, apply
this framework to the specific case of Syria / Afghanistan / Bosnia / Iraq.

Mary Kaldor's concept of "new wars" represents a departure from traditional or "old wars," and she
identifies several key differences between the two types of conflicts. Below are the main distinctions
between new and old wars:
New Wars:

1. Nature of Actors: New wars involve a mix of state and non-state actors, including rebel groups, militias,
warlords, criminal organizations, and sometimes even multinational corporations. These non-state actors
often play a central role in the conflict, challenging the monopoly of violence traditionally held by the
state.

2. Causes: New wars are driven by a complex set of factors, including competition for resources (such as
minerals or oil), identity-based divisions, and grievances related to economic inequality. Ethnic or
religious identity often plays a significant role in these conflicts.

3. Means of Financing: New wars are often financed through illicit activities, such as smuggling, illegal
resource extraction, and organized crime. These revenue streams can sustain the conflict for extended
periods.

17
 4. Globalization: New wars are influenced by globalization, with the global arms trade, international
criminal networks, and external actors playing significant roles in these conflicts. They are often linked to
transnational issues, such as terrorism and the spread of radical ideologies.

5. Erosion of State Authority: New wars are characterized by the weakening or breakdown of central state
authority. The state may lose control over its territory and struggle to provide basic services to its citizens.

Now, let's apply this framework to the specific cases of Syria, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Iraq:

Syria (New War):

 Syria's conflict fits the new war framework as it involves a mix of state and non-state actors, including the
Assad regime, rebel groups, Kurdish forces, ISIS, and other militias.
 The causes of the Syrian conflict include political repression, economic disparities, and ethnic and
sectarian tensions.
 Illicit activities such as oil smuggling and war profiteering have fueled the war.
 The Syrian conflict has attracted foreign fighters and external powers, contributing to its prolonged nature.
 The Assad regime's loss of control over significant parts of the country exemplifies the erosion of state
authority.

Afghanistan (Blurred Transition from Old to New War):

 Afghanistan's conflict has evolved over time. Initially, it was an old war against Soviet occupation,
followed by a civil war among various factions. After 9/11, it transitioned into a new war with the U.S.
invasion and the rise of the Taliban insurgency.
 The causes of the conflict include both traditional grievances and new factors like foreign intervention and
the drug trade.
 The Taliban finances its activities through illicit means, including the opium trade.
 External actors, including the U.S. and neighboring countries, have been deeply involved, with the U.S.
initially supporting anti-Soviet mujahideen.
 The Afghan state has struggled to establish full authority, especially in rural areas.

Bosnia (Old War to New War Transition):

 The Bosnian conflict began as an old war, marked by ethnic tensions and civil war in the early 1990s.
 Over time, it transitioned into a new war, with the involvement of warlords, organized crime, and the
fragmentation of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
 The causes included ethnic nationalism and the collapse of Yugoslavia, leading to inter-ethnic violence.
 Illicit activities, such as arms smuggling, contributed to the conflict.
 The international community intervened to end the war and establish a peacekeeping mission
(UNPROFOR).

18
Iraq (Old War to New War Transition):

 Iraq's conflicts include both old wars (such as the Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War) and new wars (post-
2003 insurgency, ISIS insurgency).
 Old wars were driven by territorial disputes and regional power struggles.
 The new wars in Iraq involve non-state actors, foreign jihadists, and the exploitation of oil resources.
 The erosion of state authority became evident during the post-2003 period, particularly after the U.S.
invasion.

In these cases, we can see that the distinction between old and new wars is not always clear-cut, as conflicts can
evolve and exhibit characteristics of both types over time. However, Kaldor's framework helps us understand how
various factors contribute to the nature and dynamics of these conflicts, especially when considering the roles of
non-state actors, illicit financing, and external involvement.

Old answer:

- The new wars have to be understood in the context of the process known as globalization. By globalization, I
mean the intensification of global interconnectedness – political, economic, military and cultural – and the
changing character of political authority.

It is often argued that the new wars are a consequence of the end of the Cold War; they reflect a power vacuum
which is typical of transition periods in world affairs.

Indeed, the wars epitomize a new kind of global/local divide between those members of a global class who can
speak English, have access to the Internet and satellite television, who use dollars or euros or credit cards, and
who can travel freely, and those who are excluded from global processes, who live off what they can sell or barter
or what they receive in humanitarian aid, whose movement is restricted by roadblocks, visas and the cost of
travel, and who are prey to sieges, forced displacement, famines, landmines, etc.

The new wars arise in the context of the erosion of the autonomy of the state and, in some extreme cases, the
disintegration of the state.

The new wars can be contrasted with earlier wars in terms of their goals, the methods of warfare and how they are
financed. The goals of the new wars are about identity politics in contrast to the geo-political or ideological goals
of earlier wars.

-> The war in Bosnia– Herzegovina shares many of the characteristics of wars in other places. But in one sense it
is exceptional; it became the focus of global and European attention during the 1990s. More resources –
governmental and non-governmental – have been concentrated there than in any other new war up until the
current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

19
 2.4. What does Kaldor mean when she talks about the transformation of the “social relations
of warfare”? Why is this significant?

When Mary Kaldor discusses the transformation of the "social relations of warfare," she is referring to
a fundamental shift in how wars are conducted and the social dynamics that surround them. This
transformation is a central aspect of her theory of "new wars." Here's what she means and why it is
significant:
1. Shift in Actors: In traditional or "old wars," the primary actors were typically states or state-sponsored
armies. These wars were often characterized by clear lines of authority and centralized command
structures. In contrast, new wars involve a mix of state and non-state actors, including rebel groups,
militias, warlords, and criminal organizations. These non-state actors often have fluid and decentralized
structures.

2. Social Fragmentation: New wars are often characterized by deep social fragmentation, where ethnic,
religious, or identity-based divisions play a significant role. These divisions can be exacerbated by the
involvement of various armed groups representing different social or ethnic groups within a single state. In
some cases, the war itself may be driven by these social divisions.

3. War Economies: In new wars, there is a strong connection between the conflict and economic interests.
Illicit activities such as smuggling, drug trafficking, and resource exploitation often fund the war efforts.
This creates a war economy that involves various actors, including warlords and criminal networks, who
profit from the conflict.

4. Impact on Civilians: The transformation of the social relations of warfare has significant consequences
for civilians caught in the conflict. In new wars, civilians are often targeted deliberately, and they may
become victims of atrocities, displacement, and sexual violence. The breakdown of traditional rules of
warfare and the involvement of non-state actors can lead to a disregard for the laws of armed conflict.

The significance of this transformation lies in several key aspects:

a. Complexity: New wars are more complex and less predictable than traditional wars. The involvement of
multiple actors with varying interests and motivations can make conflict resolution and peacebuilding more
challenging.

b. International Implications: The globalization of new wars means that they often spill across borders and have
international implications. These conflicts can attract foreign fighters, involve regional powers, and contribute to
regional instability.
20
c. Humanitarian Concerns: The transformation of the social relations of warfare has dire humanitarian
consequences. Civilians, especially women and children, bear the brunt of the violence, displacement, and
suffering associated with new wars.

d. Security Threats: The involvement of non-state actors in new wars can lead to security threats beyond the
conflict zones, including terrorism and the spread of extremist ideologies.

In summary, Kaldor's concept of the transformation of the social relations of warfare highlights the profound
changes in the nature of armed conflicts, moving away from traditional state-centric warfare to more complex and
fragmented forms of violence. This shift has significant implications for how conflicts are understood, managed,
and ultimately resolved, as well as for the well-being of civilians affected by these conflicts. Understanding these
changes is crucial for policymakers, scholars, and practitioners working in the field of conflict and peacebuilding.

Old answer:

It’s a revolution in military affairs. Even though the changes in social relations are influenced by the new
technology and make use of it, it is the military revolution that she meant.

[Kaldor pg.10-11 War logic is built into the functioning of the economy. This retrograde set of social
relationships, which is entrenched by war, has a tendency to spread across borders through refu- gees or organized
crime or ethnic minorities. …

Often, among the first civilians to be targeted are those who espouse a different politics, those who try to
maintain inclusive social relations and some sense of public morality. Thus, although the new wars appear to
be between different linguis- tic, religious or tribal groups, they can also be presented as wars in which those
who represent particularistic identity politics cooperate in suppressing the values of civility and multicultur-
alism. In other words, they can be understood as wars between exclusivism and cosmopolitanism.

2.5. How were old wars tied up with the emergence of the modern state?

Old wars characteristics:

Inter-State Conflicts: Old wars were primarily conflicts between nation-states or state-sponsored actors. They
were characterized by a clear distinction between the state and non-state actors involved in the conflict.
1. Regular Armies: In old wars, the warring parties typically consisted of regular, uniformed military forces.
Combatants often had clear hierarchical structures and followed rules of engagement.

2. Political Objectives: Old wars were often motivated by political or territorial objectives. They were seen
as a means to resolve disputes between states, often with well-defined and achievable goals.

3. Large-Scale Battles: Traditional warfare was characterized by large-scale battles and set-piece
engagements, often fought on clearly defined battlefields.

4. Clear Frontlines: Old wars often had well-defined frontlines, and the combatants attempted to maintain
21
 territorial control. The distinction between the frontlines and civilian areas was relatively clear.

5. State-Centric Conflicts: Old wars revolved around the interests and power of nation-states. The conflict's
resolution often involved negotiations or diplomacy between states.

6. Limited Warfare: Conflicts were relatively limited in scope and scale, with clear boundaries on the use of
force. There was a certain degree of predictability in how wars were conducted.

Mary Kaldor's analysis of old wars, as tied up with the emergence of the modern state, underscores the historical
and structural connections between the concept of the modern state and the nature of traditional or "old wars."
Here's how old wars were linked to the emergence of the modern state, according to Kaldor:
1. Formation of the Modern State: Kaldor argues that the emergence of the modern state, particularly in
Europe during the early modern period (16th to 18th centuries), was closely connected to the development
of the concept of sovereignty and the consolidation of centralized political authority. The modern state,
characterized by defined borders, a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within those borders, and the
ability to raise and command standing armies, represented a significant departure from the fragmented and
feudal systems of the past.

2. Centralization of Power: The modern state involved the centralization of power in the hands of a single
authority, usually a monarch or a central government. This centralization allowed states to establish more
effective control over their territories, resources, and populations. It also laid the foundation for the
development of standing armies, which were critical for waging large-scale wars.

3. Wars as State-Centric Conflicts: Old wars were often state-centric conflicts, where the primary actors
were states or state-sponsored armies. These wars were typically fought for reasons related to state
interests, such as territorial expansion, defense of borders, or the pursuit of political and economic
objectives. States had the ability to mobilize significant resources, including manpower and finances, to
wage these wars.

4. State as the Ultimate Arbiter of Conflict: With the emergence of the modern state, conflicts were
increasingly resolved through state-led diplomacy and negotiations. Diplomacy and the signing of treaties
became the accepted means for resolving interstate disputes and conflicts.

5. Controlled Violence: Old wars, while often brutal and destructive, were subject to certain norms and
rules, as states sought to maintain legitimacy and avoid the total chaos associated with medieval warfare.
Codes of conduct, such as the laws of war and chivalry, evolved to govern the behavior of armies and
combatants.

6. State Building and Nationhood: Old wars, particularly in Europe, played a role in shaping the modern
nation-state system. Wars were instrumental in delineating borders, defining national identities, and
consolidating the power of centralized governments. They contributed to the process of state building and
the formation of modern nation-states.

22
Old answer:

The new type of military organization was to become typical of the emerging administrative arrangements that
were associated with modernity.

The soldier was the agent of what Max Weber called rational-legal authority. The establishment of standing
armies under the control of the state was an integral part of the monopolization of legitimate violence which was
intrinsic to the modern state. State interest became the legitimate justification for war, supplanting concepts of
justice, jus bellum, drawn from theology. […] Once state interest had become the dominant legitimation of war,
then claims of just cause by non-state actors could no longer be pursued through violent means. (p.19)

Kaldor pg. 6 Introduction

The rise of the modern state was intimately connected to war. In order to fight wars, rulers needed to increase
taxation and borrowing, to eliminate ‘wastage’ as a result of crime, corruption and inefficiency, to regularize
armed forces and police and to eliminate private armies, and to mobilize popular support in order to raise money
and men. As war became the exclusive province of the state, so the growing destructiveness of war against other
states was paralleled by a process of growing security at home; hence the way in which the term ‘civil’ came to
mean internal. The modern European state was reproduced elsewhere.

2.6. How has the distinction between civilian and combatant changed?
According to Kaldor, this distinction has become increasingly blurred and complex in new wars. Here's how the
distinction between civilian and combatant has changed, as discussed by Kaldor:
1. Shift from Traditional Battlefield to Civilian Space: In old wars, there was often a clear distinction
between the battlefield, where combatants engaged in hostilities, and civilian spaces, where non-
combatants lived their lives. Traditional warfare was largely confined to military engagements on
recognized battlefields. However, in new wars, conflict can spill into civilian areas, making it difficult to
distinguish between combatants and non-combatants.

2. Involvement of Non-State Actors: New wars involve a multitude of non-state actors, including rebel
groups, militias, and criminal organizations. These groups often do not adhere to the traditional laws of
war and may not have a clear chain of command or uniformed soldiers. This ambiguity makes it
challenging to identify who qualifies as a combatant.

3. Use of Irregular Warfare Tactics: In new wars, irregular warfare tactics, such as guerrilla warfare,
terrorism, and insurgency, are prevalent. These tactics often involve combatants blending into civilian
populations, making it difficult to differentiate between fighters and civilians.

4. Weaponry and Tactics: New wars often feature the use of asymmetric tactics and small arms, which can
be easily concealed or carried by non-combatants. This blurs the line between combatants and civilians, as
civilians may take up arms or participate in the conflict in various ways.

5. Child Soldiers: The use of child soldiers is a disturbing feature of many new wars. Children, who are
23
 clearly non-combatants under international law, are often recruited and forced to participate in hostilities,
further complicating the distinction between combatants and civilians.

6. Gender Dynamics: Gender dynamics in new wars also challenge the traditional distinction. Women may
play various roles in these conflicts, including combatants, caregivers, and victims of sexual violence.
Traditional definitions of combatants often do not account for the complex roles women play in these
conflicts.

7. Targeting of Civilians: In new wars, civilian populations are frequently targeted intentionally. This
includes acts of terrorism, ethnic cleansing, and other forms of violence directed at civilians. Such
deliberate targeting blurs the line between combatants and non-combatants.

8. War Economies: The involvement of various actors in the war economy, including warlords and criminal
networks, means that individuals who may not be directly involved in combat can still benefit financially
from the conflict.

The changing distinction between civilian and combatant in new wars has significant humanitarian implications.
It has led to increased vulnerability for civilians, who may find themselves at risk of violence and displacement. It
also challenges the application of international humanitarian law and the protection of civilians in conflict zones.
Efforts to address this issue include strengthening the legal framework for protecting civilians and promoting
norms that discourage the intentional targeting of non-combatants.

Old answer:

With a standing army, uniforms had become a thing. Combatants were supposed to fight only when in uniform,
carrying their arms ‘openly’ and obeying a commander who could be held responsible for their actions. They were not
supposed to resort to ‘dastardly’ methods such as violating truces, taking up arms again after they had been taken prisoner,
and the like. The civilian population was supposed to be left alone, ‘military necessity’ permitting between the combatant as
the legitimate bearer of arms and the non-combatant
2.7. Explain the relationship between globalization and new wars.

(Kaldor, intro, pg.4-5)

The new wars have to be understood in the context of the process known as globalization. By globalization, I
mean the intensification of global interconnectedness – political, economic, military and cultural – and the
changing character of political authority.

The impact of globalization is visible in many of the new wars. The global presence in these wars can include
international reporters, mercenary troops and military advisers, and diaspora volunteers as well as a veritable
‘army’ of international agencies ranging from non-governmental organizations. Indeed, the wars epitomize a new
kind of global/local divide between those members of a global class who can speak English, have access to the
Internet and satellite television, who use dollars or euros or credit cards, and who can travel freely, and those who
are excluded from global processes, who live off what they can sell or barter or what they receive in humanitarian
24
aid, whose movement is restricted by roadblocks, visas and the cost of travel, and who are prey to sieges, forced
displacement, famines, landmines,

Williams - War chapter

Kaldor’s new wars is that they are financed through a globalized war economy that is decentralized and
increasingly transnational and in which the fighting units are often self-funding through plunder, the black market
or external assistance.

2.8. In new wars, Kaldor suggests that the relationship between politics and economics
cannot be untangled. Why is this the case?

Mary Kaldor's argument that in new wars, the relationship between politics and economics cannot be
untangled is based on the observation that these two aspects are intricately linked and mutually
reinforcing within the dynamics of contemporary conflicts. Several key factors contribute to this
interconnection:
1. Resource Competition: New wars are often driven by competition for valuable resources such as oil,
minerals, drugs, or land. The control and exploitation of these resources are inherently political and
economic objectives. Armed groups and factions involved in new wars may seek control over resources
both for political power and to finance their activities. The economic stakes in resource-rich areas are
intimately tied to political control and influence.

2. War Economies: Many new wars give rise to war economies, where various actors, including warlords,
militias, and criminal networks, benefit financially from the conflict. These war economies are deeply
intertwined with both the political and economic aspects of the conflict. The pursuit of economic gains
becomes a driving force for continued violence, as actors have vested interests in maintaining the status
quo of conflict and instability.

3. Illicit Activities: New wars often involve illicit activities such as smuggling, arms trafficking, drug
production, and human trafficking. These activities generate significant economic resources that are used
to sustain the conflict. These illicit economies operate outside the bounds of legal and regulatory systems,
blurring the lines between legal and illegal economic pursuits and highlighting the interconnectedness of
politics and economics in new wars.

4. External Involvement: External actors, including states and multinational corporations, often become
entangled in new wars for political and economic reasons. They may support one faction or another in
pursuit of their own strategic interests, access to resources, or economic opportunities. This external
involvement further underscores the fusion of political and economic motives in new wars.

5. War Profiteering: Individuals and groups involved in new wars may engage in various forms of war
profiteering, including extortion, taxation of local populations, and control over trade routes. These
activities serve both political and economic objectives, as they generate revenue and enhance the power
and influence of the groups involved.
25
 6. Socioeconomic Impacts: New wars can have profound socioeconomic impacts on affected populations.
Displacement, destruction of infrastructure, and the disruption of livelihoods create economic hardships
for civilians. The resulting economic vulnerabilities can, in turn, have political consequences, including
the recruitment of fighters, support for armed groups, or shifts in allegiances based on economic
incentives.

Given these complex interdependencies, Kaldor argues that in new wars, it is virtually impossible to separate the
political and economic dimensions of the conflict. They are deeply intertwined, and attempts to address one aspect
without considering the other are likely to be ineffective. This recognition underscores the need for holistic
approaches to conflict resolution and peacebuilding that address both the political and economic drivers of new
wars.

Old answer:

Kaldor pg. 113 A new retrograde set of social relationships is being established in which economics and violence are deeply
intertwined within the shared framework of identity politics. …

- Foreign governments offer financial help

- No doubt some (groups) join the fighting as a way of legitimizing criminal activi- ties, providing a political
justification for what they do and socially sanctioning otherwise illegal methods of financial gain
- (New) wars displace populations = > Not only are these huge concentrations of refugees an immense economic
burden on countries that are already poor, but they represent a permanent source of tension between the refugees
and the host populations – for economic reasons, since they are competing for resources; for political reasons, since
they constitute a permanent pressure on host governments to take action in order that they can return;

Pg 117

The various political/military factions plunder the assets of ordinary people as well as the remnants of the state, and cream
off external assistance destined for the victims, in a way that is only possible in conditions of war or near war. In other
words, war provides a legitimation for various criminal forms of private aggrandizement while at the same time these are
necessary sources of revenue in order to sustain the war. The warring parties need more or less permanent conflict both to
reproduce their positions of power and for access to resources.

While this predatory set of social relationships is most preva- lent in the war zones, it also characterizes the surrounding
regions.

Pg.118. the new wars are a social condition that arises as the formal political economy withers

Pg. 198. A cosmopolitan approach to security encompasses political and economic approaches to security

2.9. Explain the main principles behind Kaldor’s cosmopolitan approach. Discuss whether
you think it is an effective approach? Why?

Mary Kaldor's cosmopolitan approach is a perspective in international relations and conflict

resolution that emphasizes several key principles. While Kaldor's ideas have evolved over time, her
26
cosmopolitan approach is characterized by the following main principles:
1. Human Security: Kaldor advocates for a shift in focus from state security to human security. She argues
that the well-being and safety of individuals should be at the center of international policy and conflict
resolution efforts. Human security encompasses protection from violence, access to basic needs, and the
promotion of human rights.

2. Multilateralism: Kaldor supports multilateral approaches to addressing global challenges and conflicts.
She emphasizes the importance of international institutions and cooperation among states to manage
conflicts and promote peace. This includes the United Nations and regional organizations playing a central
role in conflict prevention and resolution.

3. Civil Society Engagement: Kaldor emphasizes the role of civil society organizations, including NGOs, in
shaping international policies and fostering peace. She believes that these organizations play a critical role
in advocating for human rights, monitoring conflicts, and holding states and non-state actors accountable
for their actions.

4. Conflict Prevention and Transformation: Kaldor places a strong emphasis on conflict prevention and
transformation as opposed to militarized responses. She advocates for addressing the root causes of
conflicts, such as economic inequality, social divisions, and political grievances, rather than relying solely
on military interventions.

5. Global Justice: Kaldor's cosmopolitan approach is grounded in principles of global justice. She argues for
the promotion of fairness, equity, and accountability in international relations. This includes addressing
issues of economic inequality, environmental sustainability, and the responsibility to protect vulnerable
populations from violence and abuse.

Now, regarding whether Kaldor's cosmopolitan approach is effective, opinions may vary, and its effectiveness
depends on various factors and contexts:

Pros of Kaldor's Cosmopolitan Approach:

1. Human-Centered: The emphasis on human security places the well-being of individuals at the forefront
of international policy, which resonates with humanitarian values and concerns.

2. Conflict Prevention: Prioritizing conflict prevention and addressing root causes can help reduce the
occurrence and severity of conflicts, potentially saving lives and resources.

3. Multilateralism: Collaborative and multilateral approaches are often seen as more legitimate and
sustainable in addressing global issues and conflicts.

4. Civil Society Engagement: Civil society organizations can provide valuable insights, advocacy, and
monitoring in conflict zones, contributing to transparency and accountability.

27
Challenges and Criticisms:

1. Implementation Challenges: The cosmopolitan approach's ideals may face difficulties in practice,
particularly when powerful states prioritize national interests over cosmopolitan principles.

2. Complexity: Conflicts are often deeply rooted and multifaceted, making conflict prevention and
resolution a complex and challenging endeavor.

3. Resistance to Change: The shift from state-centric to human-centric approaches may face resistance from
traditional power structures and geopolitical realities.

4. Resource Constraints: Effectively addressing human security and global justice often requires significant
resources, which can be a limiting factor in implementation.

In conclusion, Kaldor's cosmopolitan approach offers a compelling vision for addressing global challenges and
conflicts by prioritizing human security, multilateralism, and global justice. Its effectiveness depends on the
willingness of states and international actors to embrace these principles and overcome the challenges and
complexities inherent in global conflict resolution. While it may face practical challenges, the emphasis on human
well-being and cooperation remains relevant in efforts to build a more just and peaceful world.

Old answer:

Pg. 123 ‘Cosmopolitanism’, used in a Kantian sense, implies the existence of a human community with certain
shared rights and obligations. …

Kaldor uses the term more extensively to refer both to a positive political vision, embracing tolerance,
multiculturalism, civility and democracy, and to a more legalistic respect for certain overriding universal
principles which should guide political communities at various levels, including the global level. In other words,
cosmopolitanism combines respect for universal human principles with a commitment to non-sectarianism and
even more strongly a celebration of cultural diversity, an appreciation and a pride in the different ways of being
human.

2.10. Compare / contrast Kaldor and Clausewitz’s approach to warfare.

Mary Kaldor and Carl von Clausewitz offer contrasting approaches to the understanding of warfare, reflecting
different eras, perspectives, and paradigms in the study of conflict and security. Here's a comparison and contrast
of their approaches:
1. Historical Context:

 Kaldor: Mary Kaldor's work, particularly on "new wars," is rooted in the late 20th and early 21st
centuries, a period marked by the end of the Cold War, the proliferation of non-state armed groups, and the
emergence of conflicts characterized by complex, fragmented, and transnational dynamics.

28
  Clausewitz: Carl von Clausewitz's theories, particularly in his work "On War," were developed in the 19th
century and reflect the context of his time, which included the Napoleonic Wars and the emerging
industrialization of warfare.

2. Nature of Conflict:

 Kaldor: Kaldor's approach focuses on contemporary conflicts, which she categorizes as "new wars."
These conflicts often involve non-state actors, resource competition, and complex social and economic
factors. Kaldor emphasizes the changing nature of warfare and the erosion of state authority.

 Clausewitz: Clausewitz's theories are more rooted in conventional, state-centric warfare. He emphasized
the importance of the "trinity" of the government, the military, and the people in the prosecution of war by
nation-states.

3. Actors in Conflict:

 Kaldor: Kaldor's analysis recognizes a wide range of actors in contemporary conflicts, including non-state
armed groups, warlords, criminal networks, and humanitarian organizations. She highlights the diversity of
actors and their complex motivations.

 Clausewitz: Clausewitz primarily focused on the actions and strategies of nation-states and their armies.
He emphasized the rationality of state actors in pursuing political objectives through the use of military
force.

4. Political and Economic Factors:

 Kaldor: Kaldor's approach emphasizes the interconnection between political and economic factors in
contemporary conflicts. She argues that these aspects cannot be separated, as conflicts often revolve
around resource competition, economic interests, and grievances related to economic inequality.

 Clausewitz: Clausewitz also recognized the political nature of war, famously defining it as "the
continuation of politics by other means." While he acknowledged economic factors, his focus was
primarily on the political objectives and strategies of states in warfare.

5. Evolution of Conflict:

 Kaldor: Kaldor's approach highlights the evolution of conflict in the post-Cold War era, with the
emergence of new forms of warfare that challenge traditional models. She emphasizes the need for new
paradigms and responses to address these changes.

 Clausewitz: Clausewitz's theories remain influential in the study of warfare and the development of
military strategy, with a focus on the enduring principles of war such as the fog of war, friction, and the
29
 importance of the "center of gravity."

6. Perspectives on Warfare:

 Kaldor: Kaldor's perspective is critical of contemporary conflicts and emphasizes the importance of
addressing root causes, promoting human security, and finding peaceful resolutions. Her approach is
rooted in a humanitarian and cosmopolitan worldview.

 Clausewitz: Clausewitz's perspective on war is more realist and accepts the inevitability of conflict among
nation-states. He views war as a rational instrument of policy and recognizes its violent and chaotic nature.

In summary, Kaldor and Clausewitz represent distinct approaches to the study of warfare, with Kaldor's work
focusing on the evolving nature of contemporary conflicts, while Clausewitz's theories are grounded in classical
understandings of state-centric warfare. Their approaches reflect the changing dynamics of conflict across
different historical periods and offer valuable insights for understanding conflict in their respective contexts.

Old answer:

(Clausewitz - Prussian soldier & scholar wrote in 1832 // Kaldor scholar wrote in 1988)

Clausewitz - old wars: warfare is defined as “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our
will. Old wars were essentially a rational, national and instrumental activity. The political challenge of warfare
was how to achieve such rationality given the fluctuating relationships between the central trinity of actors - the
people, the government and the military - given their principal characteristics - passion, reason and chance,
respectively.

 Clausewitz defined war as “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will”

*”we” & “our opponent” are states & the “will” of one state was easily identified

 State interest & States arm control became the legitimate justification for war (or the continuation of politics by other
means)


Kaldor argues that the traditional distinctions between war, organized crime and large-scale violations of human
rights have become increasingly blurred, partly due to the rise of globalization and have given rise to what she
calls “new wars”.

The new wars can be contrasted with earlier wars in terms of their goals, the methods of warfare and how they are
financed.

- Goals: the new wars are about identity politics in contrast to the geopolitical or ideological goals of old
wars

30
 - Modes of warfare: the strategies of new warfare draw on the experience of both guerilla warfare and
counter-insurgency, yet they are quite distinctive. In conventional or old wars, the goal is the capture of
territory by military means, battles are the decisive encounters of the war.
- War economy: The new globalized war economy is almost exactly the opposite of the war economies of
the two world wars. The old war economies were centralized, totalizing and autocratic. The new war
economies are decentralized. Participation in the war is low and unemployment is extremely high. Their
economies are heavily dependent on external sources.

2.11. What is the concept of “legitimacy” as used by Kaldor? Why is it important?

Pg. 187Legitimacy is where the power to govern is based

Pg.122 The key to the control of violence is the reconstruction of legitimacy. I agree with Hannah Arendt when
she says that power rests on legitimacy and not on violence. By legitimacy, I mean both consent and even support
for political institutions, as well as the notion that these institutions acquire their authority on the basis of
operating within an agreed set of rules – the rule of law. …

In the new wars, the monopoly of legitimate violence has broken down. And what is crucial is not the
privatization of violence, as such, but the breakdown of legitimacy.

Pg 199Cosmopolitan governance: the source of legitimacy is humanism

Legitimacy leads to security and cosmopolitan (collective) security leads to conflict solution

2.12. What does Kaldor mean when she says that it is no longer possible to contain wars
geographically?

When Mary Kaldor states that it is no longer possible to contain wars geographically, she is
referring to the changing nature of conflicts in the contemporary world, particularly in the context
of what she calls "new wars." Here's an explanation of what she means by this statement:
1. Transnational Nature of Conflicts: In traditional warfare, conflicts were often contained within the
borders of nation-states. Geographical boundaries defined the scope of the conflict, and wars were
typically fought between states or within the territory of a single state. These conflicts were more
contained and localized in nature.

2. New Wars and Their Characteristics: Kaldor's concept of "new wars" highlights a shift in the nature of
conflicts. In new wars, the boundaries of the conflict are no longer limited to a specific geographic area or
state. These conflicts often involve a mix of state and non-state actors, including rebel groups, militias,
warlords, and criminal organizations. They frequently spill across borders and involve multiple actors with
transnational interests.

3. Globalization and Interconnectedness: The contemporary world is marked by globalization, which has
31
 increased the interconnectedness of societies, economies, and information systems. This
interconnectedness means that events and conflicts in one part of the world can have far-reaching
consequences and can quickly spread to other regions. Economic interests, political affiliations, and the
flow of information transcend traditional geographic boundaries.

4. External Involvement: New wars often attract external actors, including states, multinational
corporations, and foreign fighters, who become involved for various reasons, such as strategic interests,
resource exploitation, or ideological motivations. These external actors can further internationalize and
globalize the conflicts.

5. Impact on Neighboring Countries: New wars frequently lead to refugee flows and the displacement of
populations, affecting neighboring countries and sometimes drawing them into the conflict. The spillover
effect means that the consequences of the war are not confined to a single geographic area.

6. Complex Social Dynamics: In new wars, conflicts are often driven by complex social dynamics,
including ethnic or religious divisions, grievances related to economic inequality, and competition for
valuable resources. These social factors can transcend geographic boundaries and contribute to the
widespread nature of the conflict.

Kaldor's assertion that it is no longer possible to contain wars geographically reflects the idea that conflicts today
are more fluid, transnational, and interconnected. They defy traditional notions of containment within state
borders and can have far-reaching and global implications. This recognition of the changing nature of conflict is
important for understanding and addressing contemporary security challenges and the need for more holistic and
international approaches to conflict resolution.

Old answer:

(Kaldor, p.185) Zones of peace and zones of war exist side by side in the same territorial space. The characteristics of the
new wars I have described – the politics of identity, the decentralization of violence, the globalized war economy – can be
found in greater or lesser degree all over the world. Moreover, through transnational criminal networks, diaspora
networks based on identity, the explosive growth of refugees and asylum-seekers, as well as the global media, these
characteristics have a tendency to spread.

2.13. Explain Kaldor’s understanding of contemporary identity politics.

Shift from Geopolitical/Ideological Goals to Identity Politics: Kaldor argues that the goals of new wars are
fundamentally about identity politics. Unlike earlier wars, which often revolved around geopolitical rivalries (e.g.,
British vs. French) or ideological conflicts (e.g., communists vs. democrats), contemporary conflicts are primarily
driven by claims to power based on specific identity markers, such as nationality, ethnicity, clan, religion, or
language.
1. Cosmopolitanism vs. Particularist Identities: Kaldor identifies a growing political cleavage between
what she terms "cosmopolitanism" and the "politics of particularist identities." Cosmopolitanism
32
 represents inclusive, universalist, and multicultural values that transcend narrow identity boundaries. In
contrast, the politics of particularist identities are based on the assertion of power and influence rooted in
specific, exclusive identity labels.

2. Relationship with Globalization: Kaldor suggests that contemporary identity politics has a complex
relationship with globalization. On one hand, there is a global class of individuals who are part of
transnational networks based on exclusivist identity. On the other hand, at the local level, there are
individuals who resist the politics of particularism and embrace more inclusive values.

3. Exclusive and Fragmentary Nature: Identity politics, as described by Kaldor, is inherently exclusive and
tends toward fragmentation. It often emphasizes traditional or nostalgic representations of the past rather
than forward-looking projects. While earlier identities were linked to ideas about state interests or societal
organization, contemporary identity politics often relies on labels and relies on a romanticized view of the
past.

4. Transnational and Technological Aspects: Identity politics in the contemporary era is both local and
global. Advances in communication technology and ease of travel have allowed diaspora communities to
play significant roles in conflicts, providing ideas, funds, and techniques. The use of electronic media,
including television, radio, videos, mobile phones, and the internet, has accelerated political mobilization
and enabled the construction of transnational political networks.

In summary, Kaldor's understanding of contemporary identity politics highlights the significance of identity-based
conflicts in the modern era, with a focus on the local and global dimensions, the influence of diaspora
communities, and the role of technology in shaping and accelerating these dynamics. She argues that these
conflicts are often rooted in the absence of forward-looking projects and arise in a vacuum created by the erosion
of other sources of political legitimacy.

Old answer:

Kaldor’s definition of identity politics means the movements which mobilize around ethnic, racial, or
religious identity for the purpose of claiming state power. Identity politics can also be seen as a form of
communitarianism that is distinct from and may conflict with individual political rights.

b. In contrast, contemporary identity politics tends to be fragmentative, backward-looking and exclusive,

political groupings based on exclusive identity tend to be movements of nostalgia, based on the reconstruction of
an heroic past, the memory of injustices, real or imagined, and of famous battles, won or lost.

“Identity” is used narrowly to mean a form of labeling.

2.14. How have military forces been privatized in the era of new wars?
In the era of new wars, military forces have been privatized and fragmented, leading to a complex landscape of
armed actors. Mary Kaldor's analysis, as presented in the passage you provided, sheds light on how this
privatization and fragmentation occur:
33
 1. Loss of State Control and Fragmentation: In regions characterized by weak or failing states, central
authorities often lose control over their military forces. This results in the fragmentation of the instruments
of physical coercion, which is one of the key characteristics of failing states. Instead of having a unified
and disciplined military, these states often experience a breakdown in the military hierarchy, with local
army commanders acting as local warlords. Soldiers may seek alternative sources of funding due to unpaid
salaries, contributing to indiscipline and further fragmentation.

2. Proliferation of Armed Groups: The breakdown of regular armed forces is often accompanied by the
proliferation of various types of armed groups. Kaldor identifies five main types of such groups:

 Regular Armed Forces or Remnants Thereof: These forces may exist but are often in a state of
decay due to cuts in military spending, shortages of equipment and supplies, and inadequate
training. Soldiers in such forces may become indistinguishable from private paramilitary groups.

 Paramilitary Groups: Autonomous groups of armed individuals, often centered around an

individual leader, are established by governments to distance themselves from extreme violence.
These groups can include former soldiers, common criminals, or volunteers and may have political
or extremist affiliations.

 Self-Defense Units: Local volunteers form self-defense units to protect their localities. These units
often lack adequate resources and may cooperate with other armed groups over time.

 Foreign Mercenaries: Individuals or private security companies, often staffed by retired soldiers
from various countries, are contracted to participate in conflicts. They are hired by governments,
multinational companies, or other entities.

 Foreign Fighters: Motivated by various factors, including ideology and monetary incentives,
foreign fighters join conflicts in regions such as the Middle East, often opposing Western powers.

3. Use of Child Soldiers: Some armed groups, particularly in Africa, recruit and use child soldiers who are
often forced into combat, contributing to the overall fragmentation of forces.

4. Influence of Private Security Companies: Private security companies, staffed by retired soldiers, play an
increasingly significant role in providing security services, both for governments and multinational
corporations.

5. Involvement of International Troops: International organizations, such as the UN or NATO, deploy

troops to conflict zones. While not directly involved in the fighting, these troops play important roles in
peacekeeping and stabilization efforts.

Overall, the privatization and fragmentation of military forces in the era of new wars have created a complex and
fluid landscape of armed actors, often with overlapping interests and affiliations. This fragmentation complicates
34
efforts to achieve stability and resolution in conflict-affected regions.

Old answer:

In the new war the distinction between war and organized crime, between what is private and what is public are
blurred. Organized crime (violence undertaken by privately organized groups for private purposes, usually
financial gain)

Pg. 96 One of the key characteristics of failing states is the loss of control over and fragmentation of the
instruments of physical coercion

→ Military forces are not state’s monopoly but an expression of identity politics so they are more like militias
coming from sub-state groups

Kaldor, p.108 ..privatized military groups, need to seek alternative sources of funding in order to sustain their
violent activities. Given the collapse of productive activity, the main sources of funding are either what Mark
Duffield calls ‘asset transfer’,14 i.e. the redistribution of existing assets so as to favour the fighting units, or
external assistance. The simplest forms of asset transfer are looting, robbery, extortion, pillage and hostage-
taking. This is widespread in all contemporary wars.

Security companies
Leaders of paramilitary groups are civilians (e.g. Osama bin Laden)

3. Violence in War and Peace (edited by N. Schepher-Hughes & P. Bourgois)

3.1. Part II. The Holocaust

3.1.1. How does Levi (2004) describe existence for the victim who became a perpetrator in this
type of intermediary position? What is it that makes him/her accept being a part of the
oppression?
Primo Levi, an Italian Jewish chemist and writer who survived the Holocaust and wrote extensively
about his experiences, including in his book "The Grey Zone" (originally published in 1986),
explores the complex moral and psychological dilemmas faced by those who found themselves in
what he referred to as the "grey zone" during the Holocaust. In this context, the "grey zone"
represents a morally ambiguous and ethically challenging space occupied by certain prisoners in
Nazi concentration camps.
Levi's description of existence for those who became perpetrators or cooperated with the oppressors while being
victims themselves is a central theme in his work. These individuals were often fellow prisoners, usually selected
for specific tasks or roles by the SS guards, such as serving as Kapos or performing other functions within the
camp hierarchy. These prisoners were subjected to the same harsh conditions and dehumanizing treatment as the
rest of the inmates but were given slightly better rations and conditions in exchange for their collaboration with
the Nazis.
35
Levi's exploration of why some victims chose to cooperate with their oppressors can be summarized as follows:

1. Survival Instinct: The primary motivation for many individuals in the grey zone was the instinct for self-
preservation. They believed that by cooperating with the SS or camp authorities, they might secure slightly
better living conditions, access to food, and protection from some of the worst abuses. In the brutal and
inhumane environment of the concentration camps, many felt they had no other option but to do whatever
it took to survive.

2. Moral Ambiguity: Levi highlights the moral complexity of the grey zone, where the line between victim
and perpetrator became blurred. In this environment, some prisoners were forced to make impossible
choices, and their actions were often driven by desperation rather than a genuine desire to collaborate with
the oppressors.

3. Dehumanization: The dehumanization of both victims and perpetrators played a significant role. Levi
argues that the concentration camp environment was so degrading that it could lead individuals to lose
their sense of self and moral bearings. In this dehumanizing context, some prisoners may have rationalized
their actions as necessary for their own survival.

4. Psychological Coping Mechanisms: Levi suggests that some prisoners in the grey zone might have
engaged in acts of collaboration as a coping mechanism to distance themselves from the horror of their
situation. By becoming, to some extent, complicit in the system, they may have been attempting to
psychologically shield themselves from the full reality of their suffering.

Levi's exploration of the grey zone raises profound questions about human nature, morality, and the capacity for
individuals to make choices in extreme and dehumanizing circumstances. He does not excuse or condone the
actions of those who became perpetrators, but he provides a nuanced and empathetic understanding of the moral
complexities that arose within the context of the Holocaust.

Old answer:

Obtaining extra nourishment required a privilege, whatever it took to lift oneself above the norm. The harsher the
oppression, the more widespread among the oppressed is the willingness to collaborate: terror, ideological
seduction, servile imitation of the victor, myopic desire for any power whatsoever, even though ridiculously
circumscribed in space and time, cowardice, and, finally, lucid calculation aimed at eluding the imposed order.
All these motives, singly or combined, have come into play in the creation of this gray zone, whose components
are bonded together by the wish to preserve and consolidate established privilege vis-à-vis those without
privilege.

The Lager context facilitated it. Without regard to ability and merit, power was generously granted to those
willing to pay homage to hierarchic authority, thus attaining an otherwise unattainable social elevation.

The victim is degraded, made to resemble the system. Privileged prisoners were a minority within the Lager
population but a majority among survivors.
36
-apart from the hard labor, the beatings, the cold, and the illness, the food rations were insufficient. Obtaining the
extra nourishment required a privilege.

The functionary prisoner wants to extinguish any spark of dignity that he has lost and perhaps the new prisoner
still preserves.

Privilege defends privilege.

An extreme case of collaboration is represented by the Sonderkommandos of Auschwitz and the other
extermination camps.

¨We are the same as you, only much more unhappy.¨

Camps: the prisoners were in a condition of pure survival in which the room for choices (especially moral ones)
was reduced to zero - Sonderkommandos (the “privileged prisoners) acted in a state of coercion. They were
obscene or pathetic figures, in a frightful situation. They were chosen upon arrival (disoriented, desperate, on the
threshold of darkness). One extra ration of food meant survival.
The harsher the oppression, the more widespread among the oppressed is the willingness, with all its
infinite nuances and motivations, to collaborate. Rather than wearing one down, power corrupts. The
sonderkommandos were punished or deposed if they did not prove to be sufficiently harsh.

3.1.2. Compare Levi’s account (2004) of the role of the victim as perpetrator during the Holocaust
with Eichman’s argument that he never actively committed any of the deeds he was engaged in
planning (Arendt 2004). In what way does Arendt (ibid.) find Eichman’s manner of argument
interesting?

Primo Levi's account in "The Grey Zone" and Hannah Arendt's examination of Adolf Eichmann's
arguments in "Eichmann in Jerusalem" both explore the roles and responsibilities of individuals
involved in the Holocaust, but they provide different perspectives on these issues. Let's compare Levi's
account with Eichmann's argument and highlight how Arendt found Eichmann's manner of argument
interesting:
Primo Levi's Account (The Grey Zone):

 In "The Grey Zone," Primo Levi reflects on the moral dilemmas faced by Jewish inmates who worked as
part of the Sonderkommando in Auschwitz. These inmates were forced to assist in the operation of the gas
chambers, disposal of bodies, and other tasks within the camp.
 Levi describes the moral ambiguity and the ethical challenges faced by the Sonderkommando members,
who were themselves victims of the Holocaust. They were trapped in a morally "grey zone," as they were
both oppressed and complicit in the brutal machinery of the camp.
 Levi's account emphasizes the complexity of the victims' roles as they were forced into positions where
they had to make impossible choices between survival and moral integrity. He explores the psychological
37
 and emotional toll on these individuals.

Hannah Arendt's Account (Eichmann's Argument):

 In "Eichmann in Jerusalem," Arendt examines the trial of Adolf Eichmann, who was a high-ranking Nazi
official responsible for organizing the logistics of the Holocaust. Eichmann famously argued that he was
merely following orders and did not actively commit the deeds he was engaged in planning.
 Arendt found Eichmann's manner of argument interesting in that he portrayed himself as a bureaucrat who
carried out his duties without personal malice or moral reflection. Eichmann presented himself as an
ordinary, conformist individual who was merely following the legal and administrative orders of the Nazi
regime.
 Arendt's interest in Eichmann's case lay in her exploration of the "banality of evil." She observed that
Eichmann's compliance with authority and his inability to think critically or question the morality of his
actions were indicative of how ordinary individuals could become agents of mass atrocities when they
abdicate their personal responsibility and moral judgment to a higher authority.

In summary, Primo Levi's account in "The Grey Zone" highlights the moral dilemmas faced by victims forced
into complicity in the Holocaust's horrors. On the other hand, Hannah Arendt's examination of Eichmann's
arguments in "Eichmann in Jerusalem" focuses on the bureaucratic and morally detached nature of some
perpetrators. Arendt's interest in Eichmann's case lies in its illustration of how seemingly ordinary individuals can
become complicit in heinous acts when they relinquish personal moral responsibility to the authority of the state.
Both perspectives shed light on the complex moral landscape of the Holocaust and the range of responses and
actions taken by individuals involved.

Old answer:

Levi calls it the gray zone, a zone where the oppressed becomes the oppressor and the executioner in turn appears as a
victim. This infamous zone of irresponsibility is our First Circle, from which no confession of responsibility will remove us-
the lesson of the terrifying and unimaginable banality of evil.

Eichmann argued that his guilt and responsibility was before God, not the law, and therefore could not be legally prosecuted.

(The explanation for the insistence is that whereas the assumption of moral guilt seemed ethically noble to the defendant, he
was unwilling to assume any legal guilt.-although from an ethical point of view, legal guilt should have been less serious
than moral guilt)

It must be recalled that the assumption of moral responsibility has value only if one is ready to assume the relevant legal
consequences.

 Judgement stated that the degree of responsibility increases as we draw further away from the man who
uses the fatal instrument with his own hands

38
 3.1.3. Discuss/reflect upon the meaning of the following quotation taken from Maus (Spiegelman
2004:120): ’They wanted everything neat and in good order.’ Think about this particularly in
relation to Levi’s account (2004).

Hierarchy

Levi pg.85-86
Prisoners who acted as “low-ranking functionaries” were not as cruel as the sonderkommandos but their
“privilege” granted them an extra food portion - better chance at survival, and they tended to develop a
typically corporate mentality and energetically defend their “job”.

3.1.4. Define the Gray Zone.

In the context of the Holocaust and Primo Levi's account, the "Gray Zone" refers to a morally ambiguous and
ethically complex situation that Jewish inmates found themselves in while working as members of the
Sonderkommando in concentration camps, particularly Auschwitz.
The Gray Zone represents the blurred boundary between victims and perpetrators. Members of the
Sonderkommando were Jewish prisoners who were forced by the Nazis to assist in various aspects of the
Holocaust, including the operation of gas chambers, the disposal of bodies, and other gruesome tasks within the
camp. These individuals were themselves victims of the Holocaust, yet they were compelled to participate in the
machinery of mass murder.

The moral dilemmas faced by those in the Gray Zone were agonizing. They had to make impossible choices
between survival and moral integrity. Their actions were driven by a desperate desire to survive within the horrors
of the concentration camp, even if it meant collaborating in the genocide of their fellow inmates. This moral
complexity and the harsh reality of their situation are what Primo Levi explores in his writings about the Gray
Zone. It highlights the extreme moral challenges and ethical ambiguities that emerged in the most horrific
circumstances of the Holocaust.

Old answer:

Levi calls the gray zone a zone where the oppressed becomes the oppressor and the executioner in turn appears as victim.

It's a zone poorly defined, where the two camps of masters and servants both diverge and converge.

Because of the harsh and extreme conditions, it’s imprudent to issue hasty immoral judgments between what’s good and
what’s evil.

P 85 The Gray zone possesses an incredibly complicated internal structure and contains within itself enough to confuse our
need to judge.

In this zone the gray person owns a quota of guilt, but besides this, it is a vector and an instrument of the system’s guilt.

39
It’s a judgment that we would like to entrust only to those who found themselves in similar circumstances and had the
opportunity to test for themselves what it means to act in a state of coercion.
Levi says that he doesn’t know any human tribunal to which delegate the judgment.

3.1.5. How does the idea of the Gray Zone apply to the issues brought up in the article “US Inner
City Apartheid”?

The concept of the "Gray Zone," as articulated by Primo Levi, is primarily associated with the moral
ambiguities and complexities that arose within the context of the Holocaust and Nazi concentration
camps. It pertains to situations where individuals, often victims themselves, found themselves in
morally challenging positions due to extreme circumstances. The key features of the Gray Zone are a
blurring of lines between victim and perpetrator and the difficulty of passing quick moral judgments in
such situations.
The application of this concept to an article like "US Inner City Apartheid" would involve drawing parallels or
analogies to situations where individuals or groups in the inner city context are faced with morally complex
decisions or positions due to social, economic, or political factors. The key issues brought up in the article may
include racial segregation, socioeconomic disparities, discrimination, and systemic inequalities in urban areas.

Here's how you might draw a parallel:

1. Moral Ambiguity: In the context of "US Inner City Apartheid," individuals or communities living in
segregated and economically disadvantaged neighborhoods may find themselves in morally ambiguous
positions. For example, some residents may engage in illegal activities as a means of survival, or they may
feel compelled to cooperate with systems that perpetuate inequality in order to secure basic needs.

2. Blurring of Roles: The concept of the Gray Zone suggests that roles and moral lines can become blurred.
In the context of urban apartheid, this may involve individuals who, while being oppressed by systemic
racism and economic inequality, might, under certain circumstances, contribute to the perpetuation of
these systems or even engage in criminal activities.

3. Avoiding Hasty Judgments: Just as Levi argued against hasty and overly simplistic moral judgments in
the context of the Holocaust, the idea of the Gray Zone could encourage us to avoid quick, black-and-
white judgments when examining the complex issues raised in the article. It calls for a nuanced
understanding of the factors that lead individuals and communities to make certain choices or engage in
certain behaviors.

It's important to note that applying the concept of the Gray Zone to issues like "US Inner City Apartheid" is an
analogy, and the historical, political, and social contexts are significantly different. The purpose is to highlight the
moral complexities and dilemmas that can arise in situations of extreme inequality and oppression. However, it's
crucial to approach such comparisons with sensitivity and an understanding of the unique aspects of each
situation.

40
Old answer:

->”Gray Zone” is a space where moral distinctions between victims and perpetrators lose their
meaning under the not necessarily logical practices of everyday violence that have been
institutionalized by an oppressive enemy, so while the US Inner City is oppressed by state violence
they end up in their own Gray zone that blinds them to the racism, economic exploitation amd
iatrogenic public policy and leads to violence within their minority as well as unconscious self
destructivism

3.1.6. What does the Gray Zone tell us about responsibility and why people collaborate?
The concept of the "Gray Zone," as articulated by Primo Levi in the context of the Holocaust, offers insights into
the complex nature of responsibility and why people collaborate in morally challenging and extreme
circumstances. Here's what the Gray Zone can tell us about these issues:
1. Complex Moral Responsibility:

 The Gray Zone challenges traditional notions of moral responsibility. In the extreme conditions of
concentration camps, individuals were often faced with impossible choices. They might have had
to compromise their own principles to ensure their survival or alleviate suffering.
 Responsibility in the Gray Zone is multifaceted. While there were genuine victims among the
prisoners, some also assumed roles or engaged in activities that had a direct or indirect impact on
the suffering of others. This blurring of lines complicates the assessment of moral responsibility.
2. Survival Instinct:

 One of the primary reasons people collaborate in the Gray Zone is the instinct for self-preservation.
The harsh and dehumanizing conditions in the concentration camps left many prisoners feeling
they had no choice but to cooperate with their oppressors to secure even the most basic necessities,
such as food and shelter.
 Collaboration, in some cases, was perceived as the only way to ensure personal survival, and
individuals rationalized their actions as a means of protecting themselves or their families.
3. Moral Ambiguity and Rationalization:

 The Gray Zone reveals the human capacity to rationalize actions that might be seen as
collaboration with oppressors. In such dire circumstances, individuals might convince themselves
that they are only following orders or that their actions are a form of self-defense, rather than
collaboration.
 People in the Gray Zone often engage in acts they would consider morally reprehensible in normal
circumstances, but they may rationalize these actions as necessary for their own survival or the
greater good of protecting others.

4. Coercion and Lack of Alternatives:

41
  The Gray Zone underscores the fact that those who collaborate may do so because they see no
viable alternatives. The oppressive environment may leave individuals feeling trapped, coerced, or
without the agency to resist the demands of their oppressors.
 Under such conditions, the responsibility for collaboration is shared between the perpetrators who
impose the coercive environment and those who, out of desperation, submit to it.
5. Judgment and Empathy:

 Levi's exploration of the Gray Zone encourages us to approach the judgment of those who
collaborated in extreme situations with empathy and an understanding of the complex
circumstances they faced.
 It highlights the limitations of passing simplistic moral judgments when we haven't personally
experienced the extreme coercion and dehumanization characteristic of the Holocaust and similar
contexts.

In essence, the Gray Zone challenges our understanding of responsibility and collaboration by revealing the
intricate moral dilemmas that individuals faced in the context of extreme oppression. It underscores the need for a
nuanced and empathetic perspective when assessing the actions of people who found themselves in such morally
challenging situations.

Old answer:

P 85 The Gray Zone is a zone of ¨protekja¨(privilege) and collaboration which springs from multiple roots.

1 The more the sphere of power is restricted, the more it needs external auxiliaries, who are binded by complicity, so
that they can no longer turn back.(The best way to bind them is to burden them with guilt, cover them with blood,
compromise them as much as possible)
2 The harsher the oppression, the more widespread among the oppressed is the willingness to collaborate(terror,
ideological seduction, servile imitation of the victor, myopic desire for power, cowardice, lucid calculation)
The greatest responsibility lies with the system, people act in a state of coercion. In situation that the system
creates gray zones the degree of responsibility increases as we draw further away from the man who uses the fatal
instrument with his own hands.

3.1.7. Who is Adolf Eichmann?

Adolf Eichmann was one of the major organizers of Holocaust. He was in charge of facilitating and managing the
logistics involved in the mass deportation of millions of Jews to ghettos and concentration camps.
Adolf Eichmann was a high-ranking Nazi official who played a key role in organizing and implementing the
systematic deportation and extermination of Jews during the Holocaust, which was the genocide of six million
Jews and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II.
Eichmann's primary role was in the logistical aspects of the Holocaust, specifically in organizing the
transportation of Jews to concentration camps and extermination camps. He worked for the SS (Schutzstaffel) and
played a crucial part in the administration of the "Final Solution" – the Nazi plan to annihilate the Jewish
population of Europe.
42
After World War II, Eichmann managed to escape capture and went into hiding. He lived under various aliases in
different countries, including Argentina. In 1960, he was captured by Israeli agents in Argentina and brought to
trial in Israel. His trial, known as the Eichmann Trial, was a landmark event in the history of the Holocaust and
international justice.

Eichmann was found guilty of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes against the Jewish people. He was
sentenced to death and executed by hanging in 1962. His trial brought international attention to the atrocities of
the Holocaust and the complicity of many individuals in the Nazi regime. Eichmann's case serves as a significant
historical example of the pursuit of justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

3.1.8. Define the idea of the banality of evil.

Arendt found Eichmann an ordinary, rather bland, bureaucrat, who in her words, was ‘neither perverted nor sadistic’, but
‘terrifyingly normal’. He acted without any motive other than to diligently advance his career in the Nazi bureaucracy.
Eichmann was not an amoral monster, she concluded in her study of the case, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the
Banality of Evil (1963). Instead, he performed evil deeds without evil intentions, a fact connected to his ‘thoughtlessness’, a
disengagement from the reality of his evil acts.
Arendt’s fundamental thesis is that ghastly crimes like the Holocaust are not necessarily committed by
psychopaths and sadists, but, often, by normal, sane and ordinary human beings who perform their tasks with a
bureaucratic diligence.
3.1.9. Arendt points out that states can do as they please with stateless peoples. What does this
mean? Why is that the case?

Stateless people are defenseless in a judicial sense. They cannot acquire the protection that states can offer to their citizens
abroad.

This case is exemplified in Eichmann's case where he could neither claim to be Argentinian nor German any longer.

Another example, I believe, is that the jews and the Romans first had to become stateless, and then be persecuted.
(From google, it isn’t in the book but it gives an additional explanation) The reduction of ‘German
Jews to a non-recognized minority in Germany’, the subsequent expulsions of the Jews as ‘stateless
people across the borders’, and the gathering of them ‘back from everywhere in order to ship them
to extermination camps was an eloquent demonstration to the rest of the world how really to
‘liquidate’ all problems concerning minorities and the stateless.”

GPT
Hannah Arendt, a political theorist and philosopher, made the statement that "states can do as they
please with stateless peoples" as a way of highlighting the vulnerable and marginalized position of
stateless individuals in the international legal and political system. This statement reflects the fact
that stateless people, those who do not have the legal status of citizenship in any country, often face
significant challenges and are subject to various forms of discrimination and abuse. Here's what this
means and why it is the case:
1. Absence of Legal Protections: Stateless individuals lack the legal protections and rights that citizens of a
43
 state typically enjoy. This means they are not entitled to the same legal safeguards, social services, and
fundamental rights as citizens.

2. No Legal Recourse: Because they do not belong to any state, stateless people often have no legal recourse
when their rights are violated. They may lack the ability to access the justice system or seek protection
from government authorities.

3. Vulnerability to Exploitation: Stateless individuals are vulnerable to exploitation and abuse, as they may
be forced to live on the margins of society. They may be subjected to human trafficking, forced labor, and
other forms of exploitation, and their lack of legal status makes it difficult for them to seek help or report
abuse.

4. Limited Access to Education and Healthcare: Stateless children may have limited or no access to
education and healthcare, further perpetuating cycles of poverty and vulnerability.

5. Barriers to Mobility: Stateless people often face restrictions on their ability to move freely, which can
lead to their confinement in specific areas or even detention.

6. Lack of Identity Documents: Stateless individuals may lack identity documents, making it difficult for
them to prove their identity, access services, travel, or even open a bank account.

7. Marginalization: Stateless individuals are often marginalized and excluded from political and social life.
They may be treated as outsiders or be subjected to discrimination based on their lack of nationality.

The reason why states can do as they please with stateless people is rooted in the fact that the international legal
system is primarily built around the concept of state sovereignty. States have the authority to define who their
citizens are and to govern their internal affairs. Stateless individuals fall outside this framework, and there is no
international body with the authority to enforce the rights of stateless people or to compel states to grant them
citizenship or protection.

Efforts have been made to address the rights and protection of stateless individuals through international
conventions and agreements, such as the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. However, statelessness remains a significant issue, and many
stateless people continue to face challenges in asserting their rights and gaining citizenship.

3.1.10. Apply the concept of the banality of evil in the context of Browning’s “Initiation to Mass
Murder.”
The soldiers are random people who used to have ordinary jobs. Major Trapp, the one who
communicated the order to his battalion, was later complaining about the order and blaming the
higher authorities. Some men were offered the possibility to step out before the killing began. Some
of them stepped away after they recognized in the future victims, germans from the same city.The
44
others took turns or dragged the time. While others did not mind that much. The idea behind it
presents how the soldiers without having a necessarily evil intetion are ordered to commit a mass
murder. However it can be argued that even though Major Trapp did not agree with the orders and
did not find them dignified, he still obeyed.

GPT
Christopher Browning's "Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in
Poland" explores the behavior and actions of the men of Reserve Police Battalion 101 during their
participation in the Holocaust in Poland. In the specific context of the passage you provided,
Browning describes how the men of this unit were given orders to round up and murder Jews in the
village of Jozefow. These orders were given without explicit explanations to most of the men,
creating an environment where they had limited time to react to the gruesome task they were
assigned.
Several key points related to the concept of the banality of evil can be observed in this passage:

1. Bureaucratic Language: The orders given to the policemen by their superiors were devoid of moral
language and couched in bureaucratic terms, such as "work Jews," which helped distance the individuals
from the brutal reality of their actions. This reflects the banal nature of the evil, as the perpetrators
followed orders and rarely questioned the morality of their actions.

2. Individual Responses: The passage highlights that not all of the men in the unit were willing participants.
Some struggled with the task and found it repugnant. They requested alternative assignments or withdrew
from the executions when confronted with the horrific scenes. This shows that while the unit as a whole
followed orders, there was still some variation in individual responses, indicating that evil can be banal but
not universal.

3. Reluctant Perpetrators: The section suggests that a significant number of these policemen were not eager
killers. Some were unable to continue shooting, while others found the process distressing. This
exemplifies how ordinary individuals, when placed in specific circumstances and following orders, could
become perpetrators of evil deeds without having inherently evil intentions.

4. Distancing Mechanisms: The use of alcohol and the avoidance of discussing the actions taken further
illustrate the mechanisms used by the men to distance themselves from the moral implications of their
actions. These mechanisms allowed them to cope with the cognitive dissonance generated by their
participation in mass murder.

In this passage, Browning provides a nuanced view of the individuals in Reserve Police Battalion 101,
highlighting the complex responses to their role in the Holocaust, which aligns with the concept of the banality of
evil as outlined by political theorist Hannah Arendt.

45
 3.1.11. What is obedience? How does obedience function in the examples given by Browning,
Eichmann (Arendt) and Levi?

Obedience, in human behavior, is a form of "social influence in which a person yields to explicit instructions or orders from
an authority figure". Obedience is generally distinguished from compliance, which is behavior influenced by peers, and from
conformity, which is behavior intended to match that of the majority.

Eichman’s obedience: His guilt came from his obedience, and obedience is praised as a virtue had been abused by the Nazi
leaders and only them deserved punishment.

Browning: obedience of the firing squad - military obedience

Levi: Sonderkommandos - obedience through coercion

Obedience makes people commit atrocities.
GPT
Obedience is the act of complying with an order, request, or command from a person or authority
figure, typically without questioning or resisting. It is the submission to authority and following
instructions even if they might conflict with one's own personal beliefs or moral values. Obedience
can manifest in various contexts, such as in the military, law enforcement, social hierarchies, and
even everyday life.
In the examples provided by Browning, Eichmann (Arendt), and Levi, we can see how obedience functions
differently in various historical and moral contexts:

1. Browning's "Ordinary Men": Christopher Browning's study of Reserve Police Battalion 101 during the
Holocaust illustrates how ordinary men, under the influence of authority figures and peer pressure, became
obedient executioners. These police officers were given orders to massacre Jews, and many of them
complied despite their initial reluctance. Obedience in this context was driven by a combination of social
conformity, situational pressure, and the dehumanization of the victims, allowing them to carry out
heinous acts.

2. Eichmann in Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem": Hannah Arendt's exploration of Adolf Eichmann's

trial sheds light on the nature of obedience within a bureaucratic and legal framework. Eichmann was a
high-ranking Nazi official responsible for organizing the logistics of the Holocaust. He famously claimed
that he was merely following orders and acting in a subordinate, obedient role. Arendt argued that
Eichmann's obedience stemmed from his inability or refusal to think critically about the morality of his
actions. She coined the term "the banality of evil" to describe how seemingly ordinary individuals can
commit horrific acts when they blindly follow orders without questioning their implications.

3. Levi's "Survival in Auschwitz": Primo Levi, a Holocaust survivor, provided a personal account of life in
a concentration camp. Levi and others in the camps faced extreme conditions and the constant threat of
death. The function of obedience in this context was survival itself. Levi described how the prisoners

46
 adapted to camp life by following rules, hierarchies, and routines imposed by both Nazi authorities and
fellow inmates. Obedience to these rules, even if they meant betraying others, was often a means of self-
preservation in a brutal environment.

In each of these cases, obedience played a crucial role in perpetuating or resisting acts of extreme cruelty. The
complex interplay of social pressure, authority figures, dehumanization, and individual morality shaped the degree
to which individuals obeyed orders. The study of obedience helps us better understand how ordinary people can
become complicit in or resist horrific actions under the influence of authority and social dynamics.

3.1.12. Foucault draws a distinction between regulatory and disciplinary power. Compare and
contrast them.

- procedures of power are characterized by:

-> the disciplines: an anatomo-politics of the human body

- centered on the body as a machine: its disciplining, the optimization of its capabilities, the extortion of its forces, the
parallel increase of its usefulness and its docility, its integration into systems of efficient and economic controls

-> regulatory controls: a biopolitics of the population

- formed somewhat later; focused on the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of life and serving as the basis
of the biological processes: propagation, births and mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity, with all the
conditions that can cause these to vary.
Regulatory power → bring death into play in the field of sovereignty. Focus on death: threat, punishment, till the death
penalty.
Disciplinary power→ matter of distributing the living in the domain of value and utility.
Mechanism of power which regulates the behaviour of individuals in the social body. Discipline is a way of controlling
the movement and operations of the body in a constant way. It is a type of power that coerces the body by regulating and
dividing up its movement, and the space and time in which it moves.

GPT
Michel Foucault, a

47
French philosopher and social theorist, indeed makes a distinction between regulatory power and
disciplinary power. These concepts are central to his analysis of how power operates within
society, particularly in his work on the nature of institutions and social control. Let's compare and
contrast regulatory power and disciplinary power:
Regulatory Power:

1. Regulating Norms: Regulatory power involves the creation and enforcement of norms, rules, and
regulations that govern behavior in a society or within a specific institution. It seeks to maintain order and
ensure compliance with established norms.

2. External Oversight: Regulatory power often operates through external oversight bodies or mechanisms,
such as governments, legal systems, or regulatory agencies. These entities set the rules and oversee their
enforcement.

3. Individual Focus: It tends to focus on individuals' actions and behaviors, punishing those who deviate
from established norms. Sanctions or penalties are typically applied to those who violate regulations.

4. Explicit Rules: Regulatory power relies on explicit and codified rules and laws. Violations are often
adjudicated through formal legal processes.

5. Examples: Government regulations, legal systems, traffic laws, and public policies are examples of
regulatory power. It maintains societal order through external control mechanisms.

Disciplinary Power:

1. Internal Discipline: Disciplinary power operates through internal mechanisms of control within
institutions or social settings, such as schools, prisons, hospitals, and workplaces. It shapes individuals'
behaviors and identities from within these settings.

2. Normalization: Unlike regulatory power, disciplinary power is concerned with molding individuals to
conform to desired norms and values. It aims to create "docile bodies" that naturally adhere to established
norms.

3. Panopticism: Foucault introduced the concept of the Panopticon, a metaphorical prison design, as a model
for disciplinary power. In this model, individuals are constantly aware of potential surveillance, leading
them to self-regulate their behavior.

4. Subtle and Ongoing: Disciplinary power operates more subtly and continuously. It's not solely about
punishing violations but about shaping individuals' identities, knowledge, and behaviors over time.

5. Examples: Disciplinary power is exemplified in the educational system, where students are disciplined to
obey rules and conform to the expectations of teachers and administrators. Prisons, with their focus on
rehabilitation, also represent a form of disciplinary power.
48
Comparison:

 Focus on Compliance: Both regulatory and disciplinary power aim to achieve a form of compliance with
established norms and expectations. However, they do so through different means and in different
contexts.

 External vs. Internal: Regulatory power comes from external authorities (e.g., the government), while
disciplinary power is often wielded within institutions by supervisors, teachers, or other figures of
authority.

 Punishment vs. Conformity: Regulatory power relies on punishment or penalties to maintain compliance,
while disciplinary power seeks to instill conformity through subtle techniques of surveillance and control.

 Explicit vs. Implicit Rules: Regulatory power relies on explicit, codified rules and laws, whereas
disciplinary power often operates based on implicit or unspoken norms and practices.

 Temporal Difference: Regulatory power is often invoked when rules are broken or norms are violated,
while disciplinary power is more of an ongoing and continuous process, shaping individuals' identities and
behaviors over time.

In Foucault's analysis, both forms of power play important roles in maintaining social order and control, but they
operate differently and within distinct contexts. Understanding these concepts helps shed light on the complex
dynamics of power and control in various societal institutions.

3.1.13. What does Foucault mean by normalization?

“Normalization” with the meaning of “based on norms” is our phase, in which the law operates more and more as a norm, with
the juridical regression.

A normalizing society is the historical outcome of a technology of power centered on life.

Normalization involves the construction of an idealized norm of conduct – for example, the way a proper soldier
ideally should stand, march, present arms, and so on, as defined in minute detail – and then rewarding or
punishing individuals for conforming to or deviating from this ideal.

GPT

Michel Foucault's concept of "normalization" is a central idea in his work on power, knowledge, and social
control. Normalization, in Foucault's framework, refers to the process through which societies establish and
enforce norms, standards, and expectations for behavior, thought, and identity. It is the means by which societies
define what is considered "normal" or "deviant" within a given cultural and historical context. Here's a more
detailed explanation of what Foucault means by normalization:
1. Creation of Norms: Normalization involves the creation and enforcement of norms or standards that are
specific to a particular social, cultural, or historical context. These norms can pertain to various aspects of
49
 life, including behavior, morality, appearance, gender roles, sexuality, and more.

2. Power and Knowledge: Normalization is closely tied to Foucault's broader concept of the relationship
between power and knowledge. The authorities or institutions that have the power to define what is normal
also shape knowledge, beliefs, and practices within society. Those who control knowledge, such as
experts, professionals, or institutions, play a significant role in defining and promoting norms.

3. Social Control: Normalization is a mechanism of social control. It involves influencing individuals to

conform to established norms through various means, including education, media, family, religion, and
other social institutions. People are encouraged to adopt "normal" behaviors and attitudes and to distance
themselves from what is deemed "abnormal" or "deviant."

4. Historical and Contextual: What is considered normal varies across different times and places. Foucault
emphasizes the historical and contextual nature of normalization. What is "normal" in one society or era
may be considered "deviant" in another.

5. Power of Classification: Foucault also explores how the act of classifying and categorizing individuals
based on their adherence or non-adherence to norms is a form of power. Those who have the authority to
label something or someone as "normal" or "abnormal" exercise a significant influence over individuals'
identities and self-perception.

6. Disciplinary Techniques: Normalization is closely related to Foucault's ideas about disciplinary power.
Institutions like schools, prisons, hospitals, and the military utilize normalization techniques to shape
individuals' behaviors and identities. For example, schools work to normalize students by teaching them
not just academic subjects but also the norms and values expected of them.

7. Resistance and Rebellion: Foucault's work also acknowledges that normalization is not a one-sided
process. It can lead to resistance and rebellion as individuals or groups challenge and contest the
established norms, seeking to redefine what is considered normal.

In summary, Foucault's concept of normalization highlights the role of power, knowledge, and social institutions
in defining and enforcing societal norms. It underscores the dynamic and often oppressive nature of these norms,
as well as the potential for resistance and change. Normalization is a key concept in understanding how societies
maintain social order, regulate behavior, and influence individual and collective identities.

Normalization and Norms: Foucault emphasizes the role of norms in biopower. Rather than relying on arbitrary
decisions or violence, power operates through the establishment of norms and standards. These norms define what
is considered "normal" within a society, and individuals and populations are evaluated based on how closely they
conform to these norms.
Transition to a Normalizing Society: Foucault suggests that contemporary societies are marked by a shift
towards "normalization." In such societies, power operates through a system of normative standards and
regulatory mechanisms. The law continues to exist but increasingly functions as a norm rather than a punitive

50
force. Legal institutions become integrated into a broader network of apparatuses designed to shape and manage
the behavior and conditions of life.
Threshold of Modernity: Foucault introduces the idea that societies reach a "threshold of modernity" when they
adopt political strategies that involve managing life, addressing biological risks, and ensuring the survival and
productivity of populations. This suggests that modern societies are characterized by their ability to use
knowledge, institutions, and practices to control and shape the life of the species.

3.1.14. How does Foucault describe the changing relationship of the state and power?
Foucault was a French philosopher and social theorist known for his exploration of the dynamics of power and knowledge in
society. In this article, he discusses the transformation of power over time, particularly in relation to life and death.

Power held by the sovereign → he could decide life and death, the right to life was not a privilege.
The power became control and regulation of lives → It bent on generating forces, making them grow and ordering them.
Power now exercised at the level of life.

Foucault argues that the historical evolution of power can be understood by examining the shifting relationship between
sovereign power and life and death. In pre-modern societies, sovereign rulers, such as kings or emperors, wielded absolute
power, including the right to decide over life and death. They had the authority to execute individuals or pardon them based
on their will.

3.1.15. Foucault identifies a difference in the exercise of sovereign power before the 17th century
and afterwards. The modern exercise of power can now be described, simply, as being about the
ability to “foster life or disallow it to the point of death.” What does this mean?

Thus, as sovereign power became bio-power, power over life, by means of an anatomo-politics of the
human body and a bio-politics of the population, which consisted in producing and adding to the
lifeblood of the nation, the “right of death” manifested itself “as simply the reverse of the right of the
social body to ensure, maintain or develop its life.”
So much so that this “power of life and death” has perhaps to be determined not as power to take life or
let live, but precisely as power not to kill; to the point where its essence would culminate in the
suspension of the capacity to kill.

GPT

Michel Foucault's distinction between the exercise of sovereign power before the 17th century and the
modern exercise of power as the ability to "foster life or disallow it to the point of death" is a
fundamental concept in his later works, particularly his exploration of biopower and biopolitics. This
statement underscores a profound transformation in the way power operates in modern societies, and it
can be understood as follows:
1. Pre-17th Century Sovereign Power: Before the 17th century, power, particularly sovereign power, was
often understood in terms of the ruler's authority over life and death. Sovereigns and monarchs exercised
their authority by having the power to take life (through practices like capital punishment) and by

51
 declaring war. The sovereign held the ultimate power over life and death, often in a very visible and direct
manner.

2. Modern Exercise of Power: In modern societies, especially since the 17th century, there has been a
significant shift in the way power is exercised. Foucault argues that power is no longer primarily
concerned with taking life but has shifted to the ability to "foster life or disallow it to the point of death."
This means that contemporary power operates through more subtle and pervasive mechanisms that aim to
regulate and manage life rather than merely end it.

 Fostering Life: Modern power is concerned with promoting and managing life. This involves not
only maintaining the biological existence of individuals but also regulating their health, well-being,
and productivity. Techniques like public health policies, education, social welfare, and biopolitical
strategies are employed to enhance and prolong life.

 Disallowing Life to the Point of Death: While modern power fosters life, it also has the capability
to disallow life to the point of death. This does not necessarily involve direct violence but can be
more insidious. It encompasses various forms of control, exclusion, and repression that can lead to
marginalization, suffering, and even death for certain groups or individuals. For instance,
withholding access to healthcare, discrimination, or exclusion from social and economic
opportunities can lead to a decline in well-being and life expectancy.

In essence, Foucault's point is that modern power operates through a different logic. It is less concerned with the
spectacular, overt acts of violence characteristic of sovereign power and more focused on the regulation and
management of life in subtle, systematic ways. It includes both the positive aspects of promoting life and the
negative aspects of disallowing or restricting life. This concept is crucial to Foucault's understanding of how
contemporary societies govern populations and individuals through various institutions and practices aimed at
managing life and bodies.

3.1.16. Both Arendt (in her article “On Violence”) and Foucault offer theories explaining the
relationship between the state, violence and power. Compare and contrast their approaches.
Which do you find most convincing? Why?

Hannah Arendt and Michel Foucault are both influential thinkers who have offered theories on the relationship
between the state, violence, and power. While they share some commonalities, there are also notable differences
in their approaches. Let's compare and contrast their views:
Hannah Arendt:

1. Violence as a Distinctive Element: Arendt distinguishes between power and violence. She argues that
power is a legitimate and necessary aspect of politics, based on consensus and authority. Violence, on the
other hand, is disruptive and illegitimate. Arendt sees violence as a breakdown of the political order.

2. State Monopoly on Violence: Arendt acknowledges that the state holds a monopoly on violence and is
52
 the only entity authorized to use violence legitimately. This is what distinguishes state power from other
forms of power.

3. Critique of Coercion: She is critical of the reliance on coercion and violence by the state, as she believes
it undermines the political realm. According to Arendt, the state's excessive use of violence can lead to the
erosion of power, which is rooted in consent and legitimacy.

Michel Foucault:

1. Discursive Power: Foucault's approach to power is more complex and focuses on the discursive nature of
power. He looks at how power operates through various institutions, knowledge systems, and practices in
society.

2. Biopower and Governmentality: Foucault introduces the concepts of biopower and governmentality to
describe how modern states manage populations. Biopower involves the regulation of individuals and
populations through mechanisms like healthcare, education, and social policies. Governmentality refers to
the rationalization and management of conduct through various institutions.

3. Power is Everywhere: Foucault's view suggests that power is not solely concentrated in the state but is
dispersed throughout society. He challenges the notion of a clear separation between legitimate state
violence and other forms of power.

Comparison:

 Both Arendt and Foucault are concerned with the relationship between power and violence. Arendt
emphasizes the need for a clear distinction between the legitimate use of state violence and illegitimate
forms of violence. Foucault, on the other hand, blurs this line by showing how power operates in multiple
institutions.

 Arendt's focus is on the state's use of violence, which she sees as a deviation from the political realm.
Foucault, however, emphasizes the ways in which power permeates everyday life through disciplinary and
regulatory mechanisms.

Contrast:

 Arendt provides a more normative framework by advocating for the preservation of a distinct political
space separate from violence. Foucault's approach is more descriptive and doesn't provide clear normative
guidance.

 Foucault's notion of power as ubiquitous and dispersed challenges traditional views of power, while
Arendt's focus is on the state's role in maintaining order.

53
Which Approach is More Convincing:

The preference for one approach over the other largely depends on one's theoretical and ethical standpoint.
Arendt's approach provides a clear moral framework for evaluating violence and power in politics. Foucault's
approach is more descriptive and doesn't offer a normative stance.

However, Foucault's analysis of the complex and multifaceted nature of power is highly influential, especially in
contemporary political and social theory. It underscores the need to look beyond the state as the sole locus of
power and to consider the diverse ways power is exercised in society. Ultimately, the choice between the two
approaches depends on the questions one seeks to address and the theoretical perspective one finds most
compelling.

3.2. Part IV: Why do people kill?

3.2.1. Reflect upon the reasons behind the actions of the individuals who took part in the the
experiment conducted by Stanley Milgram (2004) concerning the infliction of pain on others. Why
did they do what they were told despite actually considering it to be morally wrong? What
conclusions does Milgram draw from this?
Stanley Milgram's famous 1961 experiment on obedience to authority sheds light on the complex factors that
influence human behavior and decision-making, particularly in situations that involve inflicting pain on others.
The study, often referred to as the Milgram Experiment, aimed to understand why people obeyed authority
figures, even when they believed their actions were morally wrong. Here are some insights into the reasons
behind the actions of the participants and the conclusions drawn by Milgram:

1. Obedience to Authority: The most prominent factor behind the participants' actions was obedience to
authority. Milgram designed the experiment to create a situation where an authority figure (the
experimenter) instructed the participants to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to another
person (the learner). The participants, being conditioned to respect authority figures, felt compelled to
comply with these commands.

2. Incremental Commitment: Milgram's study employed a gradual escalation of shocks. This incremental
approach allowed participants to become gradually desensitized to the moral implications of their actions.
At each step, the shock level increased slightly, which made it easier for participants to rationalize their
continued participation.

3. Bureaucratic Responsibility: Participants often deferred their responsibility for the consequences of their
actions to the experimenter. They believed that the experimenter bore ultimate responsibility for the well-
being of the learner, thus reducing their personal sense of guilt.

4. Social Conformity: In group settings, people tend to conform to the behavior of the majority. The
presence of other participants who were also following the experimenter's instructions served as a form of
54
 social validation, reinforcing the belief that this behavior was acceptable.

5. Lack of Personal Accountability: Participants had limited personal accountability. They believed they
were part of a scientific experiment and were following orders, which provided them with a sense of
detachment from the pain they were inflicting.

6. Information Asymmetry: Participants lacked complete information about the experiment's setup, and the
learner's responses were scripted. This informational asymmetry made it difficult for participants to
accurately gauge the learner's distress, allowing them to maintain obedience.

Milgram's conclusions from this experiment were profound:

1. Obedience to Authority: Milgram's study highlighted the potent influence of authority figures on
individuals' behavior, even in situations where their actions conflicted with their personal moral values.

2. Situational Factors: The results emphasized the importance of situational factors in shaping behavior.
Milgram argued that it was the situational context, not the personality of the participants, that led to the
obedience observed.

3. Ethical Considerations: The study raised ethical concerns about conducting experiments that might cause
psychological distress to participants. Milgram's research influenced changes in ethical guidelines for
psychological experiments to ensure the protection and informed consent of participants.

In summary, the Milgram Experiment revealed that obedience to authority, incremental commitment, social
conformity, and a sense of diminished personal accountability can lead individuals to act in ways that go against
their moral values. This study continues to be a seminal work in psychology and social sciences, offering valuable
insights into the complex interplay of situational and psychological factors that shape human behavior.

Old answer:

They did it because the situation they were in influenced them and caused them to behave in the way that they did.
He comes to a conclusion: under the right circumstances people are willing to follow orders from people in authority
without even questioning the ethical implications of their actions.
Obedience to authority is ingrained in us all from the way we are brought up.
3.2.2. Describe the Milgram experiment. What are the two primary conclusions Milgram drew
from his work?
The Milgram Experiment, conducted by Stanley Milgram in 1961, was a psychological study designed to
investigate the extent to which individuals would obey authority figures, even if it meant causing harm to another
person. Here's a brief description of the experiment:

Setup:

55
 1. Participants: The study involved volunteers who believed they were participating in a memory and
learning experiment.

2. Roles: There were three key roles: the experimenter (the authority figure), the "teacher" (the participant),
and the "learner" (an actor pretending to be another participant).

Procedure:

1. The "teacher" was instructed to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to the "learner" whenever
they answered a question incorrectly. The shocks were not real, but the "teacher" believed they were.

2. The shocks were labeled with voltage levels, starting from "Slight Shock" and increasing to "Danger:
Severe Shock."

3. The "learner" (actor) provided scripted incorrect answers and reacted with vocal protests and signs of pain
as the shock levels increased. They even mentioned having a heart condition.

4. The "teacher" was directed by the experimenter to continue giving shocks, even when the "learner"
expressed distress or refused to participate. The experimenter used verbal prompts (prods) to encourage
the "teacher" to continue.

5. The experiment continued until the "teacher" reached the highest shock level or chose to stop the
experiment.

Findings: The shocking result was that many participants, under the pressure of authority and the incremental
escalation of shocks, continued to administer what they believed to be highly painful and potentially dangerous
shocks to the "learner." A significant portion of participants showed a willingness to obey authority figures, even
when they had moral objections to their actions.

The Milgram Experiment became a landmark study in psychology, highlighting the power of obedience to
authority and ethical considerations in conducting psychological research.

Stanley Milgram drew two primary conclusions from his work in the Milgram Experiment:

1. Obedience to Authority: Milgram's foremost conclusion was that people have a strong inclination to
obey authority figures, even when the commands conflict with their own moral values and principles. The
study demonstrated the extent to which individuals could be influenced by authority, leading them to
perform actions they considered morally wrong.

2. Situational Factors Over Personality: Milgram emphasized that the situational context and the
environment played a more significant role in shaping behavior than individual personality traits. The
results of the experiment suggested that the majority of participants, when placed in the specific situational
conditions created by the experiment, were willing to act in ways that contradicted their personal beliefs.
56
These conclusions shed light on the complexities of human behavior and the powerful impact that authority and
situational factors can have on decision-making, highlighting the importance of understanding the interplay
between personal morality and external influences.

Old answer:

The behavioral study of obedience were a social psychological experiment which measured the willingness of study
participants, to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience.
Participants were led to believe that they were assisting an unrelated experiment, in which they had to administer electric
shocks to a "learner". These fake electric shocks gradually increased to levels (15-450 volts) that would have been fatal had
they been real.The crux of the study is to systematically vary the factors believed to alter the degree of obedience to the
experimental commands

First → gap between prediction in the questionnaire and reality. That may be because of the remoteness of the respondents
from the actual situation.

Second → Tension generated by the procedures. One might suppose that a subj. would simply break off or continue as his
consciousness dictates. But this did not happen.

3.2.3. How does Renato Rosaldo explain Ilongot violence? What connections does he make to his
own experiences of sorrow and anger? Can we make use of his experiences of unexpectedly
obtaining an insight, through personal grief, into how anger and sorrow shape ritualised violence
in wars and conflicts?

Summary of the article

In the text, Renato Rosaldo explores the Ilongot people's practice of headhunting and how it is shaped by intense
emotions, particularly anger born out of grief. He argues that Ilongot violence is a way for individuals to vent
their profound anger following significant losses, such as the death of loved ones or abandonment. Rosaldo draws
connections to his own experiences of grief and anger, particularly after the death of his wife, Michelle Rosaldo,
to better understand the emotions driving the Ilongot's violent rituals. He highlights the universal nature of
emotions like anger and sorrow, suggesting that personal grief gave him insight into how these emotions shape
ritualized violence in wars and conflicts. In summary, Rosaldo's personal experiences allowed him to gain a
deeper understanding of the emotional forces that underlie acts of violence and revenge among the Ilongot and in
human conflicts more broadly.

Answer: Renato Rosaldo explains Ilongot violence, particularly their practice of headhunting, by emphasizing the
role of grief and anger in shaping this behavior. He argues that Ilongot violence is driven by the intense emotions
of rage born out of grief. According to his research, Ilongot men who have experienced significant losses, such as
the death of loved ones or the abandonment by their wives, are motivated to seek vengeance through headhunting
as a way to vent and, in their belief, throw away their anger. Rosaldo's main point is that the practice of
headhunting cannot be adequately understood without recognizing the profound emotional force behind it, which
is the deep-seated anger resulting from bereavement and loss.
57
Rosaldo makes connections to his own experiences of sorrow and anger, particularly through the death of his
wife, Michelle Rosaldo. After Michelle's tragic death, he personally experienced profound grief, rage, and sorrow.
He describes how his anger at her loss manifested as he grappled with feelings of abandonment, questioning why
she had left him and how he was left to cope with her absence.

By drawing parallels between his personal experience and the Ilongot's emotions, Rosaldo highlights the
universality of emotions like anger and sorrow, especially in the context of grief. He suggests that understanding
his own deep emotions in response to personal loss allowed him to appreciate and interpret the emotions of the
Ilongot people better. This personal experience gave him insight into how anger and sorrow could shape ritualized
violence in wars and conflicts, offering a richer and more empathetic perspective on the emotions that drive such
behaviors.

Renato Rosaldo explains Ilongot violence by emphasizing the role of intense emotions, particularly anger born out
of grief. He connects his own experiences of anger and sorrow following personal loss to better understand and
appreciate the emotions that drive ritualized violence in the Ilongot culture and, by extension, in wars and
conflicts more broadly. His personal grief allowed him to gain insight into the powerful emotional forces that
underlie acts of violence and revenge.

3.2.4. ’Culture does not “cause” genocide; neither do historical events, sociopolitical
transformations, or ideology. A complete understanding of genocide requires a nuanced analysis
of how all of these factors interact to generate genocidal behaviours,’ writes Alexander Hinton
(2004:166). What is his direct reason for writing this? How does he explain events in Cambodia?
Why do members of the Khmer Rouge whom he interviewed not admit to murder?

Summary
excerpt from Alexander Laban Hinton's book, "Why Did You Kill? The Cambodian Genocide and the Dark Side
of Face and Honor." This excerpt explores the author's fieldwork in Cambodia, particularly his interviews with
former Khmer Rouge members, and his analysis of the cultural and sociopolitical factors that contributed to the
Cambodian Genocide during the Khmer Rouge regime (April 1975 to January 1979).
Hinton reflects on the difficulty of getting Khmer Rouge members to admit to their roles in killing people during
the genocide, attributing it to the cultural importance of "face" and "honor" in Cambodian society. The text
discusses the hierarchical and face-saving aspects of Cambodian culture and how these cultural elements
interacted with the ideology and policies of the Khmer Rouge during the genocide.

The text also touches on the transformation of Cambodian society under the Khmer Rouge, as they sought to
create an egalitarian, peasant-based communist state by suppressing linguistic registers, undermining traditional
hierarchies, and favoring groups such as rural peasants and the young.

In summary, the text is about the complex interplay of cultural, ideological, and historical factors that contributed
to the Cambodian Genocide, as well as the challenges faced by researchers in understanding the motivations and
actions of those involved in such violence. It provides insights into the role of culture, face, and honor in the
context of mass violence and genocide in Cambodia.
58
discusses the cultural models of "face" and "honor" within the context of Democratic Kampuchea (DK), which
was ruled by the Khmer Rouge regime led by Pol Pot. These cultural models are discussed in relation to the
behavior and actions of individuals during that time. Here's a summary of the key points in the passage:
1. Face in Democratic Kampuchea: The passage mentions that the cultural models associated with "face"
continued to exist in DK. Face is a concept that involves maintaining one's reputation, dignity, and social
standing in the eyes of others.

2. Highly Public Atmosphere: Life in DK is described as extremely public, with people rarely being alone
due to long work hours, communal living, public meetings, and pervasive surveillance.

3. Consequences of Failing to Perform: Failing to meet the expectations or norms during DK had serious
consequences. It could result in the loss of face, imprisonment, or execution. Positive evaluations, on the
other hand, could lead to better positions and advantages for one's family.

4. The Shield: People were constantly evaluated in this highly public atmosphere, and they had to maintain
what is referred to as "the shield" to protect their reputation and social standing. This was particularly
important during public meetings, where unqualified praise for the revolution was expected.

5. Anomic Interactions with Sociopolitical Enemies: Within the context of interactions with perceived
sociopolitical enemies, the usual cultural models of face and honor didn't apply. Khmer Rouge ideology
promoted the metaphor of society being like an army at war, justifying violence against enemies.

6. Violent Ethic: The passage refers to the "violent ethic," which was legitimized in everyday communal
interactions. People were encouraged to cut off their feelings and even kill their own family members if
they were labeled as enemies.

7. Honor in Democratic Kampuchea: Despite the harsh conditions of DK, honor remained an important
motivator for individuals. Rising in political rank was a primary way of gaining honor. People were
motivated to achieve praise and honor by demonstrating their loyalty to the Party and fulfilling their
duties.

8. Honor Competition: Honor competitions existed, both defensive (protecting one's honor) and offensive
(seizing honor from others). Such competitions were part of the struggle for power within the Khmer
Rouge hierarchy.

9. Culture and Genocide: The passage concludes by discussing the relationship between culture and
genocide. It emphasizes that culture alone does not cause genocide. Instead, a combination of
sociopolitical changes, a violent ideology, and cultural models can lead to mass violence.

Answer
In the quote you provided from Alexander Hinton, he is emphasizing that culture alone does not "cause" genocide,
nor do historical events, sociopolitical transformations, or ideology operate in isolation. Rather, a comprehensive

59
understanding of genocide requires a nuanced analysis that considers how all of these factors interact and
contribute to the emergence of genocidal behaviors. This statement underscores the complexity of understanding
and explaining the reasons behind genocides like the Cambodian Genocide.

Hinton's work seeks to provide a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the events in Cambodia,
particularly during the Khmer Rouge regime and the Cambodian Genocide. He argues that multiple factors,
including cultural elements, historical context, ideological influences, and sociopolitical dynamics, played a role
in the perpetration of mass violence during this period.

Regarding his interviews with members of the Khmer Rouge who did not admit to murder, this is a reflection of
the challenging nature of interviewing individuals involved in genocidal actions. Genocides often involve a
diffusion of responsibility, in which individuals may have participated in brutal acts as part of a larger system, but
they may not accept individual responsibility or admit to their actions. This can be influenced by fear, the desire
to avoid punishment, and the collective nature of genocidal violence, where individuals may feel they were acting
under orders or within a larger ideological framework.

Hinton's research likely aimed to shed light on the complex psychology and sociocultural dynamics at play among
Khmer Rouge members, which can help us better understand why individuals participated in such atrocities while
sometimes denying their roles in the violence. His work underscores the need for a nuanced and multifaceted
approach to understanding the Cambodian Genocide and similar genocidal events.

Old answer:
Alexander states that even tho they are influential factors, these cultural models have not caused genocide in other
historical periods.

His fieldwork goal: to learn how perpetrators could participate in such mass violence.

Society during the Khmer Rouge regime was “a prison without walls”

To generate genocidal behaviors, sociopolitical changes must be accompanied by a violent ideology which adapts
traditional cultural knowledge to its lethal purposes.

The member of the Khmer Rouge were just obeying orders, and due to the state of terror of the regime they also
operated in the gray zone (?). They have to save “face” in front of their superiors and peers.

3.3. Part V: The State Run Amok

3.3.1. Can the state engage in repression? When? Why? Please give examples.
Yes, states can engage in repression, and they often do so for various reasons. Repression by the state can occur to
maintain political control, suppress dissent, and preserve the existing power structure. The specific reasons and
examples can vary based on historical and political contexts. While I can't provide direct quotes from the
mentioned texts, I can offer some insights on state repression based on the topics and authors you provided:
60
 1. Political Control: States may engage in repression to maintain political control, particularly when they
feel threatened by opposition movements, social unrest, or political challenges. Repressive measures can
include censorship, mass arrests, and limiting civil liberties. For instance, Noam Chomsky in "The New
War Against Terror" might discuss how the U.S. government used measures like the USA PATRIOT Act
after 9/11 to expand surveillance and suppress perceived threats.

2. Human Rights Violations: Repression can involve human rights abuses such as extrajudicial killings,
torture, or forced disappearances. Jean Franco's work "Killing Priests, Nuns, Women, Children" could
potentially provide examples related to such violations.

3. Fear and Silence: Nancy Scheper-Hughes, in texts like "Bodies, Death, and Silence," might discuss how
state repression can lead to fear and silence among the population. When people are afraid to speak out
due to state intimidation or violence, it can reinforce state control.

4. Conflict and Warfare: Repression often occurs during times of conflict, such as war or civil unrest. State
actors may engage in acts of violence or oppression against perceived enemies. Antonius Robben's text on
Argentina's Dirty War might provide insights into state repression during such periods.

5. Cultural and Political Anesthesia: Allen Feldman's work "On Cultural Anesthesia" may discuss how
state-sponsored violence and repression can lead to a state of cultural numbness or anesthesia, where
people become desensitized to violence or normalized oppression.

In these texts, the authors likely provide detailed examples and analyses of state repression in various contexts.
State repression is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, and understanding its causes and consequences is a
central concern in the field of anthropology and political science. The specific examples and reasons for state
repression may vary depending on the historical and cultural contexts examined in these texts.

Old answer:

Ch.20: “the fear of subversion or simply criminal activity can become obsessional and torture may be used in an attempt to
assert the “incontestable reality” of a particular state’s control over the population.

When state’s power declines or does not have legitimacy the state resorts to violence.

Or a regime already engaging in excess violence they continue the repression to ensure that they will remain in power so
that they’ll avoid punishment for the crimes they commited.

Corrupt regimes, totalitarianism. The Khmer Rouge regime turned society in a prison without walls.

3.3.2. Explain the concept of the state of emergency as discussed by Taussig and Scheper-Hughes.
Both Michael Taussig and Nancy Scheper-Hughes, in their respective works, discuss the concept of the "state of
emergency" in the context of political violence, social upheaval, and repression. This concept refers to a period or
61
condition in which a government or state suspends or bypasses its normal legal and political procedures, often in
response to a perceived crisis or threat to its authority. Here's how Taussig and Scheper-Hughes address this
concept:

Michael Taussig: In his work "Talking Terror," Taussig discusses the state of emergency in the context of
political violence and terror in Colombia. He emphasizes how, in such a state, the government uses fear and
violence to maintain control and suppress dissent. This can lead to a suspension of legal and human rights norms,
as the state seeks to consolidate its authority. Taussig's focus is on the effects of this state of emergency on the
population, as people live in constant fear and insecurity. He also highlights the role of the state in creating a
sense of dread and powerlessness among the people.

Nancy Scheper-Hughes: Scheper-Hughes, in her work "Bodies, Death, and Silence," discusses the state of
emergency in the context of Brazil's political violence during the military dictatorship. She addresses how the
government engaged in repressive measures, including censorship, torture, and killings, to maintain its grip on
power. During this state of emergency, human rights abuses became widespread, and there was a culture of
silence and fear among the population. Scheper-Hughes examines the impact of this state of emergency on
individuals and communities, emphasizing the psychological and social trauma inflicted on those living under
such conditions.

In both cases, Taussig and Scheper-Hughes highlight how the state of emergency is used as a tool by governments
to suppress dissent, instill fear, and maintain political control. They shed light on the profound effects of such
states on individuals and communities, emphasizing the erosion of civil liberties, human rights violations, and the
culture of silence that often accompanies these repressive periods. The state of emergency is a concept that
reflects a suspension of normal legal and political norms, often to the detriment of those living under such
conditions.

Old answer:

- Taussig: In the state of emergency which is not the exception but the rule, every possibility is a fact
- Paranoia was present due to the fact of his background and constant state of fear,

3.3.3. Under the state of emergency why does the state choose to use violence?
Under a state of emergency, governments or states may choose to use violence for several reasons, often related to
maintaining or consolidating their authority and control during perceived crises or threats. Here are some of the
key reasons why violence is employed during a state of emergency:
1. Repression of Dissent: One of the primary reasons for using violence during a state of emergency is the
suppression of political dissent or opposition. Governments may target political activists, opposition
leaders, and protestors to prevent them from challenging the state's authority or policies.

2. Maintaining Order: States may resort to violence as a means of restoring or maintaining order during
times of unrest or chaos. This may involve using force to disperse protests, strikes, or demonstrations that
are perceived as threats to public order.
62
 3. Political Control: Violence can be employed to exert control over the population and to discourage any
form of resistance or rebellion. It sends a message that disobedience will not be tolerated.

4. Creating Fear: Governments may use violence to instill fear in the population, discouraging individuals
from participating in acts of civil disobedience or opposition. The fear of violence can lead to self-
censorship and compliance.

5. Preventing Uprisings: In some cases, states may use preemptive violence to prevent potential uprisings or
revolutions. They may target individuals or groups that they believe could lead or support such
movements.

6. Retaliation: Violence can also be retaliatory, aimed at punishing individuals or communities that are
perceived as threats or enemies of the state. This could include mass arrests, torture, or extrajudicial
killings.

7. Securing Political Power: Violence may be used as a means of securing or consolidating political power.
Governments may use it to suppress opposition parties, independent media, and civil society organizations
to ensure their continued rule.

8. Distracting from Other Issues: Governments might use violence during a state of emergency to divert
attention from other pressing issues, such as economic problems or corruption scandals. By creating a
perceived external threat or crisis, they can shift the focus away from their own shortcomings.

Examples from the texts you mentioned earlier include the state violence and repression in Colombia discussed by
Taussig and the human rights abuses committed by the Brazilian military dictatorship, as discussed by Scheper-
Hughes. In both cases, violence was used as a means of maintaining control, suppressing dissent, and instilling
fear within the population during states of emergency.

Old answer:

Violence is used where power is in jeopardy. States want to maintain control over the population. They use the
military to do it and the army is a violent institution.

3.3.4. How does the story of normalization unfold in the article “Bodies, Death and Silence”?

The concept of "normalization" in Nancy Scheper-Hughes' article, "Bodies, Death, and Silence," refers to how
extreme violence and human rights abuses can become normalized within a society over time. The unfolding of
normalization in the article relates to her fieldwork in Brazil, where she studied the phenomenon of violence,
particularly murders, and how it was perceived and accepted within certain communities.

1. Emergence of Violence: Scheper-Hughes documents how violence, particularly the murder of young men
in impoverished communities, began to occur with increasing frequency. She observed that this violence
63
 often had complex social, economic, and political factors underlying it, including drug trafficking and
gang-related conflicts.

2. The Normalization Process: Over time, Scheper-Hughes observed that the shock and horror associated
with these murders began to wane among local residents. As the murders became more frequent, people
began to accept them as a grim part of everyday life.

3. Social Desensitization: The normalization process involved desensitization to violence. The initial shock
of such acts started to diminish as more and more people became either directly or indirectly affected by
the violence. The community members, while not necessarily condoning the violence, no longer expressed
the same levels of outrage and condemnation.

4. Silence and Fear: Scheper-Hughes notes that many residents, especially mothers who lost sons, remained
silent due to fear. Speaking out against the violence could make them targets themselves. Fear of the
perpetrators and mistrust of the authorities contributed to the culture of silence.

5. Cultural Shift: The normalization of violence marked a profound cultural shift in these communities. As
these acts of violence became more commonplace, they began to lose some of their shock value, making it
difficult for external actors, including the state and law enforcement, to address the issue effectively.

Scheper-Hughes highlights the process through which the normalization of violence in these communities was not
solely a result of individuals' moral degradation but was rooted in complex structural and systemic issues. Her
work underscores the importance of understanding how violence can become a normalized part of daily life in
certain contexts and the challenges this presents for addressing human rights abuses.

Old answer:

The existence of paramilitary 'death squads' with close ties to the local police force, but people are silent on this topic.

Throughout all the disappearances and the found bodies, Bom Jesus de Mata continued to perceive itself as a quiet,
peaceable interior town in the zona de mata, far from the violence and chaos of the large cities.

The tradition of the oppressed teaches us that the 'state of emergency' in which we live is not the exception but the rule.

The public routinization of daily mortifications and little abominations.

Violence taken for granted and routinized.

The various mundane and everyday tactics of disappearance are practiced perversely and strategically against people who
express their own political goals.

The sharing of the symbols between the torturer and the tortured makes the terror effective. The police oppressors
mutilate the bodies of the poor, for whom a whole body is important even in death.

64
 3.3.5. The article “Living in the State of Fear” discusses the socialization of violence. What does
this mean? How does it happen?
In "Living in the State of Fear" by Linda Green, the concept of the socialization of violence refers to the process
through which individuals and communities become accustomed to, and often accept as normal, the presence and
impact of violence in their lives. This socialization of violence can occur in various contexts, often due to ongoing
conflict, political repression, or structural inequalities. Here's how it happens:
1. Normalization of Violence: The socialization of violence involves the normalization of violent acts.
Initially shocking or horrifying events, such as murders, disappearances, or human rights abuses, become
so common that people begin to view them as routine occurrences.

2. Desensitization: People in these environments can become desensitized to violence. They may witness or
hear about violent incidents so frequently that they no longer react with the same level of shock or outrage.
This desensitization can lead to an emotional numbing to the suffering of others.

3. Adaptation to Fear: In states of fear, individuals adapt to living under the constant threat of violence.
Fear becomes a part of daily life, and people modify their behavior, routines, and social interactions to
minimize the risks. Fear can lead to self-censorship and avoidance of any activities or behaviors that may
attract attention from those responsible for violence.

4. Self-Censorship: People may self-censor, refraining from openly discussing political or sensitive topics
out of fear of repercussions. This fear of speaking out is a common outcome of living in a state of fear, as
vocal opposition can lead to violence or persecution.

5. Acceptance of Authoritarian Measures: Governments or authorities may exploit the fear of violence to
justify the implementation of authoritarian measures or curtailment of civil liberties. These measures can
further normalize the presence of state-sponsored violence.

6. Coping Mechanisms: Communities and individuals develop coping mechanisms to survive and endure
life under these conditions. This may involve forming close-knit support networks, engaging in
underground or covert activities, or using other strategies to navigate the environment of fear.

Living in a state of fear not only impacts individuals psychologically but also has profound social and political
implications. It can erode trust in institutions, limit the ability to engage in peaceful political processes, and lead
to a culture of silence and self-preservation. These dynamics are often prevalent in societies characterized by
political repression, conflict, or extreme insecurity.

The article "Living in the State of Fear" likely delves into these aspects, exploring how communities and
individuals adapt and cope with pervasive violence and fear, and how this socialization of violence affects their
daily lives and relationships with those in power.

Old answer:
- the presence of camouflage clothes in the markets, of key chains, toys.
65
 - In Guatemala language and symbols are utilized to normalize a continual army presence.
- mixing so-called benevolent help(US national guard doctors or dentists present in villages for a few days)
with military actions
- militarization of the mind by subjective internalization of war and militarization
- routinization of terror through the constant presence of soldiers and ex soldiers.
- the soldiers have their assignments changed to prevent them from getting to know the people.
- silencing controlled through fear
- the disappeared and the killed and the act of unearthing the bodies from clandestine graves and mass
graves represents a powerful statement that reveals the magnitude of political repressions, as they are not
solely the work of individuals, they are public crimes that have deeply penetrated the social body
- division among the population is created
3.3.6. Explain what Green means by the militarization of everyday life?
In the context of Linda Green's "Living in a State of Fear," the term "militarization of everyday life" refers to the
pervasive presence and influence of the military and security forces in the daily lives of individuals and
communities. It signifies a state of affairs where military or paramilitary elements extend their reach and control
beyond traditional battlefields and into civil society. Here's what Green means by the militarization of everyday
life:
1. Increased Military Presence: In a society where everyday life is militarized, military and security forces
are highly visible and present in public spaces, neighborhoods, and institutions. This can include frequent
military patrols, checkpoints, and a strong military presence in cities and towns.

2. Normalization of Military Symbols: Symbols of the military, such as soldiers in uniform, weapons, and
military vehicles, become commonplace and no longer raise eyebrows. They are part of the regular
landscape and daily routines.

3. Use of Military Language and Symbols: Military terminology and symbols become part of everyday
communication and discourse. This can include militaristic language, slogans, and imagery that permeate
public spaces and media.

4. Expanded Security Apparatus: The security apparatus expands its control over various aspects of life.
This includes surveillance, identity checks, and restrictions on movement, which can impact how
individuals go about their daily activities.

5. Restrictions on Civil Liberties: In a militarized environment, civil liberties may be curtailed, and people
may face limitations on their freedom of expression, assembly, and movement. This is often justified by
the state as necessary for security.

6. Fear and Anxiety: People live in a state of fear and anxiety due to the constant presence and influence of
the military and security apparatus. This pervasive fear can result in self-censorship, limited public
discourse, and a climate of distrust and suspicion.

7. Erosion of Civil Society: The militarization of everyday life can erode civil society and social trust.
66
 People may become reluctant to engage in civic activities or organize for fear of reprisals from the military
or security forces.

8. Economic Impact: The military-industrial complex can exert a significant influence on the economy. This
can include diverting resources toward the military at the expense of social services and infrastructure.

9. Impact on Daily Routines: Individuals and communities may need to adapt their daily routines, behavior,
and social interactions to navigate the militarized environment. For example, they may avoid certain areas
or activities to minimize contact with the military and associated risks.

Green's work likely examines how the militarization of everyday life affects the people living under such
conditions, including its psychological and social impacts, as well as the ways in which individuals and
communities adapt to this environment of pervasive militarization. It also raises important questions about the
balance between national security and civil liberties in societies where everyday life is heavily militarized.

Old answer:
-people live under constant military surveillance
-it's a free country provided that permission from the military is obtained.
-again language is used to normalize the military presence
-the use of camouflage cloth for clothing and small items sold at the market is a subtle and insidious militarization
of daily life.
3.3.7. Taussig (2004) writes about silence in his article on terror during the Columbian dictatorship
in the 1970s. How was he, as a researcher, affected by what he calls ’the war of silence’ (ibid: 173),
and how was his friend affected?
In his work on terror during the Colombian dictatorship in the 1970s, Michael Taussig experienced and observed
the profound impact of what he refers to as "the war of silence." This war of silence pertains to the atmosphere of
fear, intimidation, and enforced silence that characterized that era. It was a result of both state repression and the
strategies of terror employed by the regime. Taussig, as a researcher and ethnographer, and his friend were
significantly affected by this war of silence in the following ways:

1. Suppression of Information and Testimonies: The war of silence made it extremely difficult for Taussig
to collect information and testimonies from the local population. People were understandably reluctant to
speak openly about their experiences, especially those related to state violence and repression. Fear of
reprisals and the ever-present threat of surveillance and informants silenced many potential sources of
information.

2. Dangers of Fieldwork: Taussig and his friend faced personal risks when conducting fieldwork. In an
environment of fear and silence, asking sensitive questions or engaging in research activities could draw
unwanted attention from the authorities. Researchers like Taussig and his friend had to be cautious about
their inquiries and actions.

3. Loss of Trust and Isolation: The war of silence led to a climate of mistrust and suspicion. People did not
67
 know who they could confide in, and this made it challenging for Taussig to build trusting relationships
with informants. His friend, as he recounts, experienced this isolation and loss of trust deeply, which could
be emotionally taxing.

4. Emotional Impact: The pervasive climate of silence and fear took a toll on the emotional well-being of
both Taussig and his friend. The constant awareness of state surveillance and the inability to engage
openly with local communities created a sense of unease and vulnerability.

5. Challenges in Documenting the Truth: Taussig and other researchers faced significant challenges in
documenting the truth and the stories of those affected by the dictatorship. The fear-induced silence
created a significant barrier to uncovering the extent of human rights abuses and state repression.

6. Moral Dilemmas: Researchers and their friends often found themselves grappling with moral dilemmas in
this environment. They had to weigh the importance of bearing witness to the suffering of the population
against the risks posed to themselves and the people they engaged with.

The war of silence described by Taussig underscores the immense power of silence as a tool of control and
repression. It highlights the challenges faced by researchers, activists, and the local population in oppressive
environments where fear and silence dominate. Taussig's work sheds light on the complex dynamics between
researchers, the researched, and the oppressive state apparatus in such contexts.

Old answer:
Situations of terror, being searched unexpectedltly or being dissapeared in Roberto's case.
It is called "the situation"
It was not uncommon for victims of the police or army brutality to become informers.
Taussig considered himself in some cases an active agent in the war of silencing. As becoming part of the process
that made his friend paranoid and a pariah as the author is also afraid of the powers read and imagined that
tortured his friend.
Being victimized by the authorities doesn't stop with actual physical torture or the end of detention. In Roberto's
case, that is only the beginning, as in a way Roberto didn't come back to life, he is still disappeared, and maybe
only a case.

3.3.8. Scheper-Hughes (2004) discusses that which she defines as state terror in Brazil. She links
this to several different types of silence and hierarchy in Brazilian society. What examples of
silences and hierarchies can you find in her article? Do they combine to some extent, or are they
independent of each other?
Nancy Scheper-Hughes' work on state terror in Brazil explores the dynamics of silence and hierarchy in Brazilian
society. She identifies several examples of silences and hierarchies, which are often interconnected rather than
entirely independent. These examples contribute to the complex web of power relations in Brazil during the
period of state terror. Here are some of the key examples:

68
 1. Silence of the Poor: Scheper-Hughes highlights the silence of impoverished and marginalized
communities in the face of state violence and oppression. The poor often endured the brunt of state-
sponsored violence, but their lack of political and social agency meant that their suffering often went
unnoticed or unreported.

2. Silence of the Middle Class: There was a degree of silence among the middle class as well. Many
individuals from this group chose to remain quiet out of fear, self-interest, or a sense of detachment from
the plight of the poor. This silence contributed to the perpetuation of state terror.

3. Silence of the Bureaucracy: The Brazilian state's bureaucracy often operated in a manner that enabled
state terror to continue. Bureaucrats, including doctors and social workers, were complicit in the
repression. Scheper-Hughes points to the complicity of health professionals and social workers in covering
up abuses, conducting medical examinations of torture victims without reporting their findings, and
indirectly supporting the state's oppressive agenda.

4. Hierarchy in Medical Practices: Scheper-Hughes highlights the hierarchy within medical practices,
where some doctors actively participated in state-sponsored violence while others maintained silence out
of fear or compliance. Those who spoke out risked their careers, illustrating the hierarchies within the
medical profession.

5. Hierarchy in the Church: The Catholic Church in Brazil displayed a hierarchical structure in which some
clergy openly supported the state's repressive regime, while others, particularly liberation theologians,
opposed it. This division within the church reflected broader societal hierarchies and tensions.

These different types of silences and hierarchies in Brazilian society were not entirely independent of one another.
They intersected and overlapped in various ways. For example, the silence of the middle class could be linked to
the silence of the poor in that both groups often refrained from speaking out for fear of repercussions.
Bureaucrats, medical professionals, and religious figures were embedded in these hierarchies, with some actively
participating in state terror and others indirectly supporting it through their silence or complicity.

In Scheper-Hughes' analysis, these multiple forms of silence and hierarchies, while distinct in their
manifestations, collectively played a role in perpetuating state terror and sustaining oppressive systems of power.
The interplay between these different elements contributes to her understanding of the complex social and
political dynamics during the period of state terror in Brazil.

Old answer:
The police know what they are doing. It is best to keep one's mouth shut.
Violence is taken for granted and routinized.
The catholic church is an important hierarchical structure in Brazil
The semifeudal organization of contemporary Northeast Brazil is compared to the state terrorism in Sicilly
State power is mediated through a class of landholding intermediaries and their hired guns(the coroneis and their
capangas.
69
The health and social welfare agencies are not yet completely in place. Clinical medicine is fairly brutal.
In the interior of the north east there are only police, prison, a broken judiciary system, federal reform schools all
of them being violent institutions.
The chief of police is appointed by the mayor and dependent financially on him

3.3.9. Linda Green (2004:193) writes the following about members of the aboriginal population of
Guatemala who have been subjected to state violence: ’Using vivid detail, they would tell of the
events surrounding the deaths or disappearances of their husbands, fathers, sons, brothers as if
they had happened the previous week or month rather than six or eight years before.’ What other
case can you find described in your course literature of acts of cruelty that are remembered and
mythologised in detail? The converse of this inclination to remember and relate is silence. Can you
explain what this silence is like?
In Michael Taussig's article "Bodies, Death, and Silence," he explores the concept of "silence" in the context of
state violence during the Colombian dictatorship in the 1970s. Taussig discusses how the local people, who were
victims of violence or witnesses to atrocities, often remained silent about their experiences out of fear or the belief
that speaking out would only lead to more suffering. This silence was a defense mechanism and a form of self-
preservation. The fear of repercussions from the state, including further violence or death, kept many individuals
from sharing their stories, even with close friends and family.

This silence, as described by Taussig, was a way of coping with the traumatic events they had witnessed or
experienced. It created a sense of isolation and prevented a collective, public acknowledgment of the violence
perpetrated by the state. Taussig himself, as a researcher, was affected by this "war of silence" as he struggled to
access the stories and experiences of those impacted by the violence. This silence served to protect the
perpetrators and maintain the status quo of state terror.

Summary:

Michael Taussig's article "Bodies, Death, and Silence" delves into the impact of silence in the context of state
violence during the Colombian dictatorship in the 1970s. Taussig explores how individuals affected by or
witnesses to these acts of violence often choose to remain silent, fearing further retribution from the state. This
silence serves as a coping mechanism and a form of self-preservation, preventing many from sharing their
traumatic experiences with others. Taussig, as a researcher, grapples with the challenge of accessing these untold
stories due to this pervasive silence, ultimately protecting the perpetrators and maintaining the state's reign of
terror.

3.3.10. Jean Franco (2004:196) describes, briefly and by way of introduction, a large number of
examples of acts of cruelty that took place during the 1970s and 80s in Latin and South America.
She concludes this compilation by stating that ’all appear more and more to be the well-
thoughtout atrocities of a concerted effort.’ What does she mean by this?
Jean Franco is referring to a compilation of numerous acts of cruelty and violence that occurred during the 1970s

70
and 80s in Latin and South America. She suggests that these acts of violence, which include the murder of
American nuns, priests, pregnant women, displacement of indigenous communities, and rape, all seem to be part
of a well-planned and coordinated effort. In other words, these acts were not isolated or random events, but rather
they appeared to be part of a larger strategy or offensive orchestrated by certain actors.

Franco's statement highlights that these acts of cruelty were not independent incidents but were interconnected
and had a common purpose. They were not merely the result of individual actions, but rather they were part of a
deliberate campaign aimed at achieving specific objectives. This campaign involved state actors, particularly
right-wing military regimes, and aimed to suppress dissent, opposition, and resistance to the prevailing political
and economic order.

By characterizing these acts as "well-thoughtout atrocities of a concerted effort," Franco underscores the
systematic and organized nature of the violence in the region during that period. It reflects the idea that these
atrocities were not spontaneous but were part of a broader political and ideological conflict, involving the erasure
of traditional sanctuaries and the stripping away of immunities held by the Church, family, and other institutions.

Overall, Franco's statement emphasizes the deliberate and strategic nature of the violence in Latin America during
the 1970s and 80s, and the need to understand these acts as part of a broader political and ideological context.

Summary
In her article "Killing Priests, Nuns, Women, Children," Jean Franco discusses the pervasive violence and cruelty
that occurred in Latin and South America during the 1970s and 80s. She begins by listing a series of horrific
events, including the murder of American nuns, priests, and pregnant women, as well as the displacement of
indigenous communities. These acts of violence are part of a broader pattern that Franco suggests is well-thought-
out and part of a concerted effort.
Franco highlights that these acts of cruelty were not isolated incidents but rather part of a deliberate campaign
orchestrated by state actors, particularly right-wing military regimes. This campaign aimed to suppress dissent,
opposition, and resistance to the prevailing political and economic order. As part of this violence, traditional
sanctuaries such as the Church, family, and the home lost their immunity and became targets of the military's
repression.

Franco points out that the destruction of these sanctuaries was carried out by right-wing military forces that
sought to maintain control and silence any opposition. This systematic and organized violence was a central
element of the political and ideological conflict taking place in the region during that period.

Overall, Jean Franco's article sheds light on the intentional and strategic nature of the violence in Latin America
during the 1970s and 80s and its role in suppressing dissent and maintaining political power.

71
 3.3.11. Allen Feldman writes about ‘cultural anesthesia’ (2004:207). What does he mean by this
expression? How does he link this ‘cultural anesthesia’ to ’the combat crews who played with
aggressive drives by watching pornographic videos prior to flying missions’ (ibid:209) during the
first Iraq war? What does he mean when he states that watching pornographic films
‘demonstrated the uniform sensorium between viewing and violence as they up-shifted from one
virtual reality to another’ (ibid.)?
Allen Feldman's concept of "cultural anesthesia" refers to a state in which individuals or society as a whole
become desensitized or numbed to violence, suffering, and social injustices through various cultural,
technological, and media means. It involves the idea that modern culture, media, and technology can serve as a
form of anesthesia, dulling people's sensitivity to the harsh realities of violence and conflict. Let's break down
how he links this concept to the combat crews watching pornographic videos before their missions during the first
Iraq war:

1. Link to Combat Crews Watching Pornographic Videos: In the context of the first Iraq war, Feldman
points out that combat crews engaged in a practice of watching pornographic videos before their missions.
This act of watching pornographic content serves as an example of how individuals involved in a highly
intense and violent situation used a form of cultural anesthesia to prepare for combat. Feldman suggests
that these crews used pornographic content to distract themselves and shift their focus away from the
imminent violence and danger of their missions. In this way, they used sexualized imagery as a means of
numbing or desensitizing themselves to the violence they were about to engage in.

2. Uniform Sensorium Between Viewing and Violence: When Feldman mentions that watching
pornographic films "demonstrated the uniform sensorium between viewing and violence as they up-shifted
from one virtual reality to another," he is highlighting the blurring of lines between different forms of
media consumption and real-life experiences. In this case, the crews transitioned from the virtual reality of
watching pornography to the virtual reality of engaging in combat. The term "uniform sensorium" suggests
that the sensory experiences of these different activities became intertwined or indistinguishable.
Essentially, they used the sensory engagement with pornography to prepare themselves for the sensory
experiences of violence, creating a seamless transition between these virtual realities.

Feldman's point is that the consumption of cultural content, like pornography, can serve as a form of escape and
distraction from the impending violence and can help individuals psychologically prepare for their roles in violent
situations. This illustrates how cultural anesthesia operates by using cultural and media elements to numb
individuals to the realities of violence, making it more bearable or even exciting in some cases. It's essential to
understand that Feldman is not endorsing or approving of this behavior but rather using it as an example to
highlight the broader concept of cultural anesthesia in modern society.

3.4. Part VI: Violence and Political Resistance

72
 3.4.1. Jean-Paul Sartre writes of the colonial period that ’the European elite undertook to
manufacture a native elite’ (Sartre 2004:229). What does he mean by this and what does he
consider to be the consequences?
Jean-Paul Sartre writes of the colonial period that ’the European elite undertook to manufacture a
native elite’ (Sartre 2004:229). What does he mean by this and what does he consider to be the
consequences?
Jean-Paul Sartre's statement that "the European elite undertook to manufacture a native elite" refers to a process
that occurred during the colonial period, where European colonial powers actively selected and groomed a group
of indigenous individuals to serve as a local ruling class or elite. This practice had significant implications and
consequences:

1. Manufacturing a Native Elite: European colonial powers often recognized the need for a local
administration to facilitate their rule over colonized territories. However, they preferred to do so through
the co-option and manipulation of a small segment of the indigenous population. They would identify and
nurture individuals who were willing to collaborate with the colonial authorities. These individuals were
provided with education, resources, and positions of power within the colonial administration.

2. Cultural Hegemony: Sartre's statement also implies that this manufactured native elite was often
indoctrinated with European values, culture, and ideologies. They would be educated in the ways and
beliefs of the colonizers, adopting European languages, customs, and worldviews. This process aimed to
create a cultural hegemony that reinforced European dominance.

3. Divide and Rule: The existence of a native elite, loyal to the colonial powers, served the purpose of
maintaining control and suppressing resistance. By elevating a select group of indigenous people to
positions of power, the colonial authorities could perpetuate divisions within the colonized population.
This "divide and rule" strategy was an effective means of control.

4. Alienation and Betrayal: Sartre is critical of this process because it resulted in a sense of alienation and
betrayal among the colonized population. Those elevated to the native elite often had to distance
themselves from their own cultural and ethnic roots to align with the colonizers. This created a significant
gap between the elite and the broader indigenous population, leading to resentment and mistrust.

5. Long-Term Consequences: Sartre's perspective suggests that this manufacturing of a native elite had
long-term consequences. It left a legacy of inequality and social fragmentation in many post-colonial
nations. The tension between the elite and the masses, as well as the lasting impact of European cultural
hegemony, contributed to post-colonial struggles for identity, independence, and social justice.

Sartre's critique of the manufacturing of a native elite reflects his broader philosophical and political views. He
was a prominent existentialist philosopher and an advocate for decolonization and self-determination. His
perspective highlights the moral and ethical complexities of colonialism, emphasizing how the colonial powers
73
manipulated and co-opted indigenous populations to maintain their dominance, often at the expense of cultural
integrity and self-determination.

Old answer:

->meaning that the colonizers picked out “promising adolescents” and branded those ones with the
principles of western culture

3.4.2. Do you agree with Sartre when he states that ’we in Europe too are being decolonized: that is to say
that the settler, which is in every one of us is being savagely rooted out’ (2004:234)? Are there any other
articles in the course literature, which contradict this view?
Sartre's statement that "we in Europe too are being decolonized: that is to say that the settler, which is in every
one of us is being savagely rooted out" is a complex and metaphorical way of expressing the idea that colonialism
has had a profound and dehumanizing impact not only on the colonized but also on the colonizers themselves. He
suggests that the colonizers carry within them a "settler" mentality that is a product of colonialism, and this
mentality is being challenged and dismantled by the decolonization process.
Sartre's assertion can be understood in the context of his existentialist philosophy, which emphasizes individual
freedom, responsibility, and the idea that people are defined by their actions and choices. He is arguing that the
colonial project and its inherent oppression dehumanized not only the colonized but also the colonizers, as they
were forced to adopt roles of oppressors and exploiters. The process of decolonization, in this view, involves a
reawakening of individual and collective responsibility and a rejection of the dehumanizing aspects of
colonialism.

However, it's essential to recognize that not everyone may agree with Sartre's perspective. Critics might argue that
Sartre's metaphorical language and sweeping generalizations oversimplify the complex realities of colonialism
and its legacies. Some might contend that the process of decolonization in Europe and among Europeans is more
nuanced and varies from person to person.

In the context of academic discourse, you can find various articles and texts that both support and challenge
Sartre's view. Different scholars have different interpretations of the impact of colonialism and the process of
decolonization on both the colonized and the colonizers. It's important to engage with a range of perspectives and
consider the historical, social, and political context in which these arguments are made. Reading and discussing
contrasting viewpoints can lead to a more comprehensive and critical understanding of the complex issues
surrounding colonialism and decolonization.

Old answer:

->meaning that the colonizers picked out “promising adolescents” and branded those ones with the principles of western
culture

74
3.4.3. Hannah Arendt theorizes about five concepts: political power, strength, physical power/coercion,
authority and violence (2004:236ff). How does she define these five concepts? In what way does she consider
that they are related to each other?
Hannah Arendt's thoughts on these five concepts—political power, strength, physical power/coercion, authority,
and violence—are primarily articulated in her essay "On Violence," which was first published in 1970. Arendt's
ideas are quite complex, but I'll do my best to provide an overview of her definitions and how she sees them as
related to each other.
1. Political Power: For Arendt, political power is the ability to act in concert with others to achieve common
goals and is distinct from other forms of power, such as violence or coercion. It is a collective, human
phenomenon that emerges in the public realm, where people engage in dialogue, persuasion, and
negotiation to influence the course of events.

2. Strength: Strength, as Arendt defines it, is an individual's physical or mental capacity. It is a characteristic
of the individual and doesn't inherently have political significance. She distinguishes between strength and
power, emphasizing that power is a social and political phenomenon that arises from collective action.

3. Physical Power/Coercion: Physical power or coercion involves the use of force to compel others to obey.
It is different from power because it relies on the threat or use of violence to enforce compliance. Arendt is
critical of coercion as a means of governance because it tends to stifle freedom and lacks the persuasive,
participatory nature of true political power.

4. Authority: Authority, according to Arendt, is a form of power that is based on legitimacy and the consent
of the governed. It arises when people voluntarily recognize and follow the decisions and rules made by a
governing body. Authority is a more stable and long-lasting form of power compared to coercion or
violence, as it rests on the willing compliance of the people.

5. Violence: Arendt distinguishes between power and violence by emphasizing that violence is a means to
achieve an end, not an end in itself. She categorizes violence as "instrumental," a brute force that destroys
power and authority. She is concerned that the use of violence can have devastating consequences for the
political realm, as it can undermine the foundations of power and authority and lead to chaos.

Arendt's analysis of these concepts also involves examining their relationships:

 She argues that the use of violence (coercion) can destroy power and authority, as it does not generate
consent or agreement but relies on force and fear.
 Authority, in her view, is the most desirable form of power because it is based on the consent of the
governed and can maintain order without resorting to violence.
 Arendt criticizes the over-reliance on violence in modern society, particularly in the form of warfare and
revolutions, as she sees it as detrimental to the stability of political institutions and the human condition.

In summary, Arendt's analysis of these concepts is deeply rooted in her concern for the preservation of political
power and the avoidance of violence. She argues for the importance of power derived from collective action,
75
persuasion, and authority, while cautioning against the excessive use of coercion and violence as means of
governance.

3.4.4. Compare/contrast Arendt’s understanding of violence and power.

Arendt distinguishes between power and violence. Power, in her view, is a collective and
cooperative human capacity that is fundamental to politics. It arises from people coming together
and reaching agreements through discourse and negotiation.

Violence, on the other hand, is a means of imposing one's will on others through force or
coercion. It is inherently destructive and disruptive to the political order.
Power as a Positive Force:
Arendt emphasizes that power is a positive force and is essential for the functioning of political
communities. It enables people to work together, make decisions, and govern themselves.
True power, according to Arendt, is a non-coercive force that emerges from the consent and
agreement of individuals in a political community.

The Relationship Between Violence and Power:

Arendt argues that violence is often mistakenly equated with power. When political power is
absent or ineffective, violence can fill the void, but this is not a form of genuine power.
She contends that violence is a result of a failure of politics and the breakdown of legitimate
authority. It arises when individuals or groups resort to force due to the inability to achieve their
goals through persuasion and negotiation.
The Destructive Nature of Violence:
Arendt highlights the destructive nature of violence and its tendency to escalate. Once violence is
unleashed, it often leads to more violence, making it difficult to control or restrain.
She points out that violence can undermine the very foundations of political communities, eroding
the trust and cooperation that sustain them.
The Paradox of Revolutionary Violence:
Arendt also examines the paradox of revolutionary violence. She acknowledges that many
revolutionary movements have used violence as a means of achieving political change, but she
cautions that such violence can ultimately undermine the ideals of the revolution.

Revolutionary violence, according to Arendt, often replaces one form of oppression with another,
and it can lead to the consolidation of authoritarian power.

3.4.5. Discuss Arendt’s conceptualization of the relationship between the state, violence and
power.
Hannah Arendt's conceptualization of the relationship between the state, violence, and power is a central theme in
her political philosophy. In her work, she offers a nuanced perspective on how these elements interact:

1. State: Arendt sees the state as a necessary political institution responsible for maintaining order, protecting
76
 the rights of citizens, and creating a framework for collective action. The state represents the
institutionalization of authority and the rule of law.

2. Power: Arendt defines power as a collective, participatory force that arises from human interaction and
agreement. Power is generated in the public realm when people engage in political action, dialogue, and
persuasion. It is rooted in the consent and collaboration of individuals.

3. Violence: Violence, according to Arendt, is a force that is fundamentally different from power. It relies on
coercion, the threat of force, or physical means to achieve objectives. Violence is an instrumental use of
force, often employed as a means to an end and is not rooted in consent or agreement.

The relationship between these elements in Arendt's thought can be summarized as follows:

 Power and the State: Arendt believes that power is essential for the functioning of the state. Political
power is the force that allows the state to govern, make decisions, and maintain order. It is generated when
citizens participate in the public sphere and engage in the political process. Power, when rooted in
collective action, can legitimize the state and its authority.

 Violence and the State: Arendt is critical of violence's role in the state. While the state has a legitimate
monopoly on the use of force, the excessive or illegitimate use of violence by the state can be dangerous
and undermine its authority. She warns against the state's reliance on violence as a means of governance,
as it can lead to the erosion of power and consent.

 Power and Violence: Arendt emphasizes the fundamental distinction between power and violence. Power
is a stabilizing and positive force, whereas violence disrupts political order. The use of violence can
destroy power and erode the foundations of the state.

In Arendt's view, the state should ideally rely on power, derived from collective action, dialogue, and consent,
rather than resorting to violence as a means of control. She cautions against the excessive use of violence by the
state and the potential consequences it can have for political stability and legitimacy.

3.4.6. How does Arendt understand legitimacy in the context of violence and power?
Hannah Arendt's understanding of legitimacy in the context of violence and power is a crucial aspect of her
political philosophy. She explores the concept of legitimacy as it pertains to the exercise of power and its
relationship with violence. Here's how Arendt conceptualizes legitimacy:

1. Legitimacy of Power:

 For Arendt, legitimacy is closely tied to the concept of political authority. Legitimate power is that
which is based on the consent and recognition of those over whom it is exercised. It arises when
individuals voluntarily obey the decisions, rules, and commands of those in power.
 Legitimacy, in Arendt's view, is associated with the state's ability to maintain order and create a
77
 stable political environment. When power is legitimate, it represents a collective will that has been
formed through participation and agreement in the public sphere.
2. Illegitimate Power and Violence:

 Arendt is critical of the use of violence to maintain or gain power, as it often undermines the
legitimacy of those in power. Violence, in her perspective, is a form of coercion that does not rely
on consent or agreement. When those in authority resort to violence, it erodes the legitimacy of
their rule.
 Illegitimate power, often backed by violence, can lead to a breakdown of the social contract and
political order. It can generate resistance and opposition, and may even result in the loss of power
for those in authority.
3. The Role of Consent:

 Arendt emphasizes the importance of the consent of the governed in legitimizing political power.
When individuals participate in the political process, engage in dialogue, and have a say in the
decisions that affect their lives, the power that emerges is more likely to be legitimate.
 Consent is rooted in the idea of freedom, and the legitimacy of power is closely connected to the
preservation of individual freedoms within the political community.

In summary, Hannah Arendt's understanding of legitimacy in the context of violence and power is deeply tied to
the idea of political authority and consent. Legitimate power, in her view, is based on the voluntary compliance
and recognition of those governed, which is achieved through collective action and participation. Illegitimate
power, particularly when backed by violence, threatens the stability and legitimacy of the political order.

3.4.7. What is it about the so-called ‘Dirty Protest’ amongst prisoners convicted of terrorist
activities in Northern Ireland that fascinates Aretxaga (2004:244ff)? The ‘Dirty Protest’ is a
response to interrogation methods during imprisonment. How are identities created by
interrogation methods and by protests against these? Are these identities linked to gender in any
way?

Begoña Aretxaga's article explores the "Dirty Protest" conducted by prisoners convicted of terrorism in Northern
Ireland. Aretxaga is fascinated by this protest because it symbolizes resistance not only to harsh prison conditions
but also to British colonialism. Interrogation methods used on these prisoners shape their identities as political
activists and reinforce their resistance to the state. The protest itself reshapes their identity as resisters.
Additionally, gender plays a role as the protest reveals gender-specific experiences, particularly through the
portrayal of menstrual blood in the women's protest. In summary, the "Dirty Protest" serves as both a form of
resistance and a tool for redefining identities, with gender also influencing these processes.
In her analysis of the "Dirty Protest" among prisoners convicted of terrorist activities in Northern Ireland,
Aretxaga (2004) finds several fascinating aspects that revolve around the creation of identities through
interrogation methods and protests. Here's an overview of her findings in response to your questions:

1. Fascination with the 'Dirty Protest': Aretxaga is intrigued by the 'Dirty Protest' because it is not just a
78
 form of resistance against harsh prison conditions and interrogation methods, but it also serves as a
symbolic response to the broader context of political conflict in Northern Ireland. The 'Dirty Protest' isn't
just about filth and squalor; it symbolizes the rejection of the civilizing mission of British colonialism and
the reclaiming of an identity that is distinct from the oppressors.

2. Creation of Identities by Interrogation Methods: The interrogation methods used by the authorities play
a significant role in shaping the identities of the prisoners. Aretxaga suggests that the violent and
degrading tactics used during interrogations reinforce the prisoners' identity as political activists and
contribute to the resistance movement. These methods portray the prisoners as 'enemies of the state' and
thus strengthen their sense of identity as political dissidents.

3. Protests Against Interrogation Methods: The 'Dirty Protest' is, in itself, a form of protest against the
dehumanizing conditions imposed by the authorities. Through this protest, prisoners not only resist the
prison system but also reshape their identities. The prisoners collectively redefine themselves as resisters
who refuse to conform to the dominant narrative, which further strengthens their commitment to their
political cause.

4. Gender and Identity: Aretxaga acknowledges the role of gender in these processes. While the Dirty
Protest is primarily a response to dehumanizing conditions, it inadvertently exposes the differences in the
experiences of male and female prisoners. The portrayal of menstrual blood in the women's protest
highlights the vulnerability and gender-specific experiences of women, which contrasts with the male
prisoners' experience. This brings to the fore a more complex understanding of gendered identities and
resistance within the context of the Dirty Protest.

3.4.8. Included in Shepher-Hughes’ article about gang violence in South African townships is a
reference to a court case in which a number of youths laughed and cheered as the witnesses
recounted a violent assault (Scheper-Hughes 2004:256). How does she explain their behaviour?
How does she explain the other types of violence and acts of cruelty she describes? How are state
violence and local violence connected?
Nancy Scheper-Hughes' article discusses the prevalence of gang violence and vigilantism in South African
townships. She explores the complexities of these issues in the context of extreme poverty, inequality, and social
disintegration, with particular attention to the legacy of apartheid. The article describes how endemic violence has
led to a desensitization to brutality among the youth and a sense of defiance against an often corrupt and
unresponsive justice system.

Scheper-Hughes examines various forms of violence and acts of cruelty in these communities, highlighting the
role of poverty, social breakdown, and the lack of access to state institutions, like the police and formal legal
systems. She also underscores the interconnection between state violence, particularly from the apartheid era, and
local violence, as state actions have contributed to cycles of violence and vigilante justice.

79
Overall, the article sheds light on the profound impact of historical and ongoing social, economic, and political
factors on the dynamics of violence and justice in South African townships.

Answer:
In Nancy Scheper-Hughes' article, she discusses the behavior of the youths who laughed and cheered during a
court case where witnesses recounted a violent assault. She explains their behavior as a manifestation of the
desensitization to violence that can occur in communities characterized by endemic violence. In such
environments, violence becomes normalized, and individuals may become desensitized to its horror. Additionally,
the act of cheering and laughing during such a court case can be seen as a form of resistance or defiance against a
system of justice that many in these communities perceive as corrupt, unresponsive, or biased.
Scheper-Hughes also explores other types of violence and acts of cruelty in the context of South African
townships. She explains these acts as a result of a range of factors, including poverty, inequality, social
disintegration, and the legacy of apartheid. These acts often emerge in situations where there is limited access to
state institutions, such as the police or formal legal systems, and communities may take justice into their own
hands due to a lack of trust in these institutions.

The connection between state violence and local violence is complex. Scheper-Hughes highlights that state
violence, particularly during the apartheid era, has left a lasting legacy of trauma and violence within these
communities. The state's use of violence and its neglect of marginalized communities have contributed to cycles
of violence and vigilantism. State violence and local violence are interconnected, with state actions often
exacerbating the conditions that lead to local violence, and local violence being a response to perceived injustices
and insecurity.

Scheper-Hughes' article underscores the importance of understanding the broader social, economic, and political
context in which violence occurs and how state actions or inactions can significantly impact the dynamics of
violence within marginalized communities.

3.5. Part VII: Peacetime Crimes: Everyday Violence:

3.5.1. Define symbolic violence. Give an example.
Symbolic violence is a concept developed by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and further explored by
sociologist Loïc Wacquant. It refers to a form of power that operates subtly and indirectly through cultural, social,
or symbolic means. Symbolic violence involves the imposition and acceptance of a dominant group's worldview,
norms, and values as legitimate, even when they may be contrary to the interests of subordinate groups. It can
reinforce and perpetuate social hierarchies and inequalities without the need for physical coercion.

An example of symbolic violence can be found in the realm of education. In many societies, the dominant
culture's knowledge and norms are often ingrained in the curriculum, textbooks, and teaching methods. Students
from marginalized or minority backgrounds may be exposed to this dominant culture, which can devalue or
exclude their own cultural knowledge. Symbolic violence, in this case, occurs when students are made to feel that
their cultural practices, language, or history are inferior or not worthy of recognition within the educational
system. This can have long-lasting effects on their self-esteem, identity, and educational opportunities,

80
perpetuating social inequalities.

Old answer:

>Symbolic Violence is the violence which is exercised upon a social agent with his or her complicity. It
accomplished itself through an act of cognition and of misrecognition that lies beyond the controls of
consciousness and will (Misrecognition as the fact of recognising a violence which is wielded precisely inasmuch
as one does not perceive it as such)
->Example: Gender domination (as the paradigmatic form of symbolic violence) since male order is so deeply
grounded as to need no justification and gender domination consists in “contrainte par corps” (an imprisonment
effected via the body)

3.5.2. How does symbolic violence compare/relate to Galtung’s notions of violence?

Self cultural violence

3.5.3. How does Scheper-Hughes explain what might sometimes be seen as a conflict between, on
the one hand, ‘allowing’ one’s own infants to die and, on the other hand, then calling them to
mind later just as strongly as the children who survived? How does she consider that the state is
involved in the normalisation of the deaths of these children?
Nancy Scheper-Hughes' work, describing child mortality and how it is dealt with in a town in Brazil, specifically
focusing on the Alto do Cruzeiro. It highlights the bureaucratic and indifferent handling of child deaths and
registration. The text showcases the challenges in recording child deaths accurately and the bureaucratic opacity
that contributes to the normalization of child deaths.

Answer: Nancy Scheper-Hughes discusses the apparent contradiction in the way child deaths are treated in the
Alto do Cruzeiro. On one hand, parents sometimes appear to allow their infants to die without much visible
resistance, and on the other hand, they remember and mourn these children as strongly as those who survive. She
suggests that this paradox can be understood within the context of the culture and local beliefs.

The culture and religiosity in the area lead to the idea that child deaths are not the end but a transformation of the
child into a guardian angel. This belief might contribute to the lack of proactive resistance when faced with child
mortality, as parents may view it as a part of a larger cosmic plan. The apparent indifference or acceptance of
child deaths is a complex response to the harsh reality of infant mortality in a resource-poor setting.

Scheper-Hughes also criticizes the state's role in normalizing child deaths. The bureaucratic machinery, as
represented by minor civil servants like Moacir and Dona Leona, exhibits a sense of indifference, deafness, and
opacity to the suffering caused by child mortality. This bureaucratic indifference serves to downplay the
significance of these deaths, treating them as routine and unworthy of investigation or intervention. The state's
failure to act responsively contributes to the normalization of child deaths within the community.

81
In summary, the apparent conflict between "allowing" infant deaths and mourning them is rooted in cultural
beliefs, while the state's bureaucratic indifference reinforces the normalization of child deaths. This complex
interplay between cultural beliefs and the bureaucratic machinery of the state shapes the community's response to
child mortality.

Nancy Scheper-Hughes' article, "Two Feet Under and a Cardboard Coffin: The Social Production of Indifference
to Child Death," explores the social and cultural aspects of child mortality in a town in Brazil, particularly
focusing on the Alto do Cruzeiro. The article delves into how child deaths are recorded and perceived within this
community, highlighting the bureaucratic and social processes that shape people's responses to these tragic events.

One example from the article is the interaction between a bereaved family and Dona Leona, who manages the
local cartério civil (civil registry office). In this interaction, a family arrives to register the death of a newborn
child, but they lack certain essential details needed for the official record, such as the complete names of the
child's parents. Dona Leona, who maintains a strict and often gruff demeanor, insists that these details are
necessary. She demands the names of the deceased child's mother and father and their places of birth. The family
struggles to provide these specifics, and in some cases, family members are uncertain or unprepared to give these
bureaucratic answers.

This example highlights how the state, as represented by Dona Leona and the civil registry office, places an
emphasis on official documentation and procedures when it comes to registering child deaths. While the family is
dealing with the emotional pain of losing a child, they are also expected to comply with bureaucratic
requirements. The state's bureaucratic machinery often shows little sympathy or flexibility in dealing with
grieving families, which contributes to the impression of indifference in the face of child mortality.

Scheper-Hughes uses this and similar interactions to demonstrate how the bureaucratic process treats child deaths
as routine and unworthy of additional care or attention. She emphasizes that such interactions reflect the state's
role in normalizing child deaths within the community. The article, therefore, underscores the cultural and
bureaucratic factors that shape people's responses to child mortality, and the ways in which deaths of infants are
both accepted and grieved within this context.

3.5.4. Paul Farmer shows in his two accounts of suffering that such suffering is not a ‘cultural
phenomenon’ but the result of structural violence. What is it that he is criticising in his narration
of the two life stories in his article (Chap. 34)?
Paul Farmer's article "On Suffering and Structural Violence: A View from Below":

In this essay, Paul Farmer explores the nature of suffering in impoverished and marginalized communities,
emphasizing that it is not solely a "cultural phenomenon" but is primarily the result of structural violence. Farmer
uses two real-life accounts of suffering to illustrate his points. He critiques the tendency to blame individuals for
their own suffering and highlights the concept of structural violence, which refers to how social, economic, and
political systems perpetuate harm and inequality. Farmer argues that suffering is deeply connected to social
determinants of health, such as poverty and lack of access to healthcare. He underscores the ethical imperative to
address these structural issues, challenging reductionist and culturally deterministic explanations for suffering.
82
Overall, Farmer's work calls for a comprehensive understanding of suffering that considers systemic and
structural factors and advocates for social justice and equity to alleviate this suffering.

Paul Farmer uses two accounts of suffering to illustrate that the suffering experienced by individuals in
impoverished and marginalized communities is not merely a "cultural phenomenon" but, rather, a result of
structural violence. The two life stories Farmer narrates in his article are used to critique several aspects of the
way suffering is often understood and addressed:

1. Blaming the Victim: Farmer criticizes the tendency to blame individuals for their own suffering. He argues
that cultural or individual explanations for suffering often ignore the broader structural factors that
contribute to it. By presenting real-life stories of individuals who endure suffering due to systemic
inequalities, Farmer challenges the notion that their plight is solely a result of personal failings.

2. Structural Violence: Farmer emphasizes that suffering is not a random or isolated occurrence but is deeply
connected to structural violence. Structural violence refers to the ways in which social, economic, and
political systems and structures perpetuate harm and inequality. In the narratives, Farmer demonstrates
how the characters' suffering is a consequence of broader structural issues such as poverty, lack of access
to healthcare, and unequal distribution of resources.

3. Social Determinants of Health: Farmer's accounts of suffering highlight the social determinants of health,
which are the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age. These determinants, such as
income, education, housing, and access to healthcare, play a significant role in shaping health outcomes.
Farmer argues that suffering is intimately linked to these social determinants, and addressing these
structural issues is essential to alleviate the suffering.

4. Ethical Implications: By illustrating the human impact of structural violence, Farmer underscores the
ethical imperative to address these structural issues and work towards social justice. He critiques
approaches that solely focus on individual responsibility or attribute suffering to cultural differences
without considering the underlying inequalities that perpetuate it.

Overall, Paul Farmer's narratives of suffering serve as a powerful critique of reductionist or culturally
deterministic explanations for suffering. Instead, he advocates for a comprehensive understanding of suffering as
a result of systemic and structural factors, which requires addressing social and economic inequalities to bring
about meaningful change.

83
 3.5.6. According to James Quesada, Daniel (and many other Nicaraguans with him) had ‘directly
experienced the material and social consequences of political conflict and economic
warfare’(Quesada 2004:292). What were these consequences? What does economic
warfare involve? How are political conflict and economic warfare related? In what
way are children’s experiences of war and its consequences a ’direct mortal threat’
(ibid: 295)?
James Quesada's article, "Suffering Child: An Embodiment of War and Its Aftermath in Post-Sandinista
Nicaragua," delves into the life of a young boy named Daniel and his family in post-Sandinista Nicaragua. The
article highlights the profound impact of political conflict and economic warfare on their lives. It explores how
Daniel's family, once involved in the Sandinista revolution, faced upheaval, property disputes, unemployment,
and homelessness. The article illuminates the dire living conditions, instability, and chronic stress experienced by
this family and, by extension, many Nicaraguans.

Furthermore, the article emphasizes how children like Daniel endure the consequences of war and its aftermath,
which extend beyond physical threats to include chronic stress, deprivation, and emotional distress. Quesada's
work underscores the high human cost of political and economic turmoil and the vulnerability of children in such
contexts.

Answer:
The consequences of political conflict and economic warfare described by James Quesada in the context of
Daniel's experience in post-Sandinista Nicaragua are as follows:
1. Economic Deprivation: Economic warfare involves actions that disrupt or damage a country's economy.
In the case of Nicaragua, it included measures like international embargoes, trade restrictions, and IMF-
induced shock therapy. These economic policies led to a severe economic downturn, high inflation, and
unemployment. As a result, many families, including Daniel's, faced extreme poverty and a lack of basic
necessities like food, housing, and employment.

2. Political Conflict: Political conflict in this context refers to the struggle for political power and control in
the aftermath of the Sandinista revolution. The shift in political power from the Sandinistas to other groups
and parties, such as the administration of President Violeta Chamorro, led to significant changes in
property rights and social policies. This political turmoil created a climate of instability and uncertainty.

3. Scarcity: Economic warfare and political conflict contributed to scarcity in the country. Basic resources
like food, housing, and employment opportunities became scarce, making it difficult for families to meet
their daily needs. Scarcity, in this context, is not just about the availability of goods but also about the
limited access to basic services and opportunities.

4. Social and Family Disruption: Families like Daniel's experienced significant disruption due to the
economic and political changes. Evictions, unemployment, and homelessness were common outcomes.
These disruptions led to unstable family life, with family members living separately and struggling to
provide for each other.
84
 5. Chronic Stress and Uncertainty: Children like Daniel faced chronic stress and uncertainty because their
families were exposed to ongoing hardships. The chronic stressors included hunger, inadequate living
conditions, economic instability, and a lack of access to essential services. This stress and uncertainty took
a toll on their well-being and development.

Children's experiences of war and its consequences are considered a "direct mortal threat" because they face not
only the immediate risks of violence but also the long-term consequences of deprivation and disruption. Economic
warfare and political conflict can lead to severe poverty, lack of access to healthcare and education, and a
breakdown of social support systems. Children are particularly vulnerable to these conditions, which can lead to
physical and emotional distress, developmental issues, and, in extreme cases, even death due to malnutrition or
lack of healthcare.

In essence, the combination of political conflict and economic warfare in post-Sandinista Nicaragua created a
challenging environment for families, particularly children, who endured the direct and indirect consequences of
these conditions, which threatened their well-being and survival.

3.5.7. Many Britons who travelled abroad as colonisers belonged to the poorer levels of what
George Orwell called ‘the lower upper-middle class’ (Orwell 2004:297). What do you think was the
outcome of this regarding the form colonisation took in British colonies?
George Orwell's essay, "The Lower Classes Smell," explores the deep-rooted class prejudices and biases prevalent
in English society during his time. Orwell discusses how individuals from the middle and upper classes often
perceived the working class as physically unclean or "dirty." This perception created a significant barrier to social
equality and understanding.

The article suggests that the biases and discomfort people from the middle and upper classes had towards the
working class extended to a perception of them as unclean. It also speculates on how these class-based biases
might have influenced the behavior of British colonizers in the colonies. Colonizers from the "lower upper-middle
class" could have brought their class-based biases with them, leading to paternalistic attitudes, cultural
insensitivity, class-based discrimination, and economic exploitation of indigenous populations in the colonies.
These biases were a part of the broader historical context that shaped British colonialism.

Answer:
George Orwell's essay, "The Lower Classes Smell," from "The Road to Wigan Pier," delves into the complex
class distinctions and biases in English society during his time. Orwell discusses the deep-seated prejudices and
discomfort that people from the middle and upper classes often had towards the working class, which extended to
a perception of them as physically unclean or "dirty." This perception was a significant barrier to social equality
and understanding.
As for the question of how this class perception may have influenced the form of colonization in British colonies,
one could argue that these ingrained class prejudices played a role in shaping the behavior of British colonizers.
When individuals from the "lower upper-middle class" embarked on colonial missions, they may have brought
their class-based biases with them.

85
This could have manifested in several ways:

1. Paternalistic Attitudes: British colonizers from the lower upper-middle class may have viewed the
indigenous populations in colonies with a condescending and paternalistic attitude, mirroring the disdain
and discomfort they had towards working-class people at home.

2. Cultural Insensitivity: The class-based biases could have contributed to a lack of cultural sensitivity and
understanding among colonizers. This could have led to the imposition of British norms and values
without regard for the local cultures and traditions, as colonizers might have seen their own culture as
superior and cleaner.

3. Class-Based Discrimination: The lower upper-middle class colonizers might have discriminated against
the indigenous populations based on their own class biases. They may have viewed the locals as inferior,
unclean, or in need of "civilizing."

4. Economic Exploitation: The British colonial system was, in many cases, driven by economic interests.
Colonizers from this class background may have been more inclined to exploit local resources and labor,
viewing the colonies primarily as sources of wealth rather than as places with their own social and cultural
complexities.

It's important to note that this is a speculative connection, as Orwell's essay doesn't directly address the issue of
colonization. However, it's reasonable to assume that the class-based biases prevalent in British society at the time
could have influenced the attitudes and behaviors of colonizers. British colonial history is marked by a range of
complex factors, including economic interests, political strategies, and cultural perceptions, and class prejudices
could have been one of those contributing factors.

3.5.8. What does it mean to say that the “lower classes smell”?
The statement that the "lower classes smell" is an expression of a deeply ingrained class prejudice and stereotype
that existed during George Orwell's time, particularly in English society. This statement suggests that people from
the lower socioeconomic classes, often associated with manual labor and modest means, were perceived as
unclean or physically dirty by those in the middle or upper classes. In essence, it implies that individuals in the
lower classes were not as hygienic or well-kept as their more affluent counterparts.

This perception was based on various biases and generalizations about working-class people, including
assumptions about their living conditions, clothing, and personal hygiene. Orwell discusses how these biases
contributed to a significant social and cultural divide, making it difficult for individuals from different class
backgrounds to relate to or understand one another. Ultimately, it highlights the prejudiced and discriminatory
attitudes that were prevalent in society at the time.

86
 3.5.9. What does Philippe Bourgois mean when he states that violence is ‘good public relations’
and ‘crucial to … professional credibility’ (Bougois 2004:302) in the area of New York where he
conducted his field study? How does he link violence to masculinity and social development?
Philippe Bourgois's article discusses his ethnographic study of an inner-city neighborhood in New York, where he
explores the relationship between violence, masculinity, and professional credibility within the context of the
illegal drug trade. He observes that in this neighborhood, violence serves as a means of establishing one's
reputation and maintaining job security in the drug economy. It is perceived as valuable symbolic and cultural
capital, contributing to an individual's standing within the underground drug culture. Bourgois points out that
periodic displays of aggression are crucial to one's credibility, ensuring their long-term employment as well as the
ability to maintain order at their workplace. Furthermore, he reveals that violence is intertwined with a culture of
resistance against economic exploitation, racial and gender humiliation, and social marginalization, making it a
means of asserting one's dignity and resisting oppression.

In answer to the specific question:

1. Bourgois means that in the area he studied, violence is a means of achieving respect and credibility in the
drug trade subculture, which operates outside the boundaries of conventional society.
2. Violence is linked to masculinity in the sense that it is seen as a way for men to assert their dominance and
protect their social status in this specific subculture.
3. Violence is connected to social development in the sense that for some individuals, particularly young
men, the ability to display aggression and violence is essential for them to gain a foothold in the
underground drug economy, providing them with economic opportunities that are otherwise limited by
structural inequality.

So, in summary, Bourgois argues that in the studied New York neighborhood, violence is an essential part of
professional credibility within the drug trade subculture, closely linked to masculinity and used as a way to assert
one's social standing in response to structural challenges and discrimination.

3.5.10. How does symbolic violence apply to the article by Phillipe Bourgois? Why?
The concept of "symbolic violence" as introduced by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu can be applied to
Philippe Bourgois's article on inner-city violence and the drug trade in several ways. Symbolic violence refers to
the subtle, often unconscious forms of power and domination that are exerted through culture, symbols, and social
practices. In Bourgois's study, the concept of symbolic violence is relevant for several reasons:

1. Structural Inequality: Symbolic violence is closely related to structural inequality, and Bourgois's
research context is characterized by significant social and economic disparities. The residents of the
neighborhood he studies face systemic discrimination, poverty, and limited access to resources and
opportunities. The drug trade emerges as a response to these structural inequalities, and the power
dynamics within it can be seen as a form of symbolic violence perpetuating these inequalities.

2. Cultural Capital: Bourdieu's theory includes the idea of "cultural capital," which encompasses the

87
 knowledge, skills, and cultural practices that provide social advantage. In Bourgois's article, the
participants in the drug trade accumulate a distinct form of cultural capital linked to violence, aggression,
and street credibility. This cultural capital is essential for them to navigate the subculture, maintain their
positions, and gain respect within their community.

3. Social Reproduction: Bourdieu's theory also deals with the idea of social reproduction, wherein existing
power structures and inequalities are perpetuated across generations. In the context of Bourgois's study, the
symbolic violence enacted through the drug trade contributes to the cycle of social reproduction. Young
men, in particular, learn that violence and aggression are the keys to gaining respect and economic
success, thereby perpetuating these practices in the community.

4. Legitimation of Violence: Symbolic violence can involve the legitimation of unequal power relations and
the acceptance of oppressive practices as normal. In the studied community, violence is not only accepted
but also perceived as a means of resisting larger social forces and asserting dignity. It is legitimized within
the specific context of the drug trade, even though, from an external perspective, it is a harmful and
dangerous practice.

In essence, symbolic violence, as conceptualized by Bourdieu, is relevant to Bourgois's article because it helps us
understand how the symbolic and cultural capital associated with violence perpetuates social hierarchies,
contributes to the normalization of violent behavior, and is deeply intertwined with the larger structural
inequalities and power dynamics in the neighborhood he studied.

3.5.11. What does Eric Klinenberg (Chap. 38) mean to say when he states that we ought to analyse
such things as heat-waves that cause an unusually large number of deaths? Can you see any links
to the “Symbolic Violence” by Pierre Bourdieu and Loic Wacquant ? How can this be construed as
a conflict suitable for study within the field of peace and conflict studies?

Eric Klinenberg's article "Denaturalizing Disaster: A Social Autopsy of the 1995 Chicago Heat Wave" delves into
the 1995 Chicago heat wave, emphasizing that disasters, even those seemingly caused by natural factors like
extreme heat, are not purely natural occurrences. Klinenberg argues that they are significantly influenced by
social, economic, and political factors. The vulnerability of certain communities to extreme heat is not solely due
to climate conditions but is also connected to issues like poverty, social isolation, and inadequate urban planning.
Klinenberg's main message is that we should analyze disasters such as heat waves from a social perspective to
better understand their root causes and consequences.
When Eric Klinenberg states that we should analyze phenomena like heat waves that cause an unusually large
number of deaths, he is emphasizing the need to approach disasters and their impacts from a sociological
perspective. Rather than viewing these events as purely natural occurrences, Klinenberg suggests that we should
examine the social, economic, and political factors that contribute to the severity of such disasters. In the context
of a heat wave, he argues that factors such as poverty, social isolation, and inadequate urban planning can
significantly increase the vulnerability of certain populations, leading to a higher death toll.
In relation to "Symbolic Violence" by Pierre Bourdieu and Loic Wacquant, the concept of symbolic violence is
centered on the ways in which power and social structures can shape individuals' perceptions, beliefs, and
88
behaviors. It's about the subtle and often unnoticed ways in which dominant cultural norms and structures can
exert control and influence over people.

There can be a connection between Klinenberg's perspective and the concept of symbolic violence. Klinenberg's
argument implies that the way disasters like heat waves are framed and understood can be influenced by societal
structures and power dynamics. The response to such disasters, as well as who is most affected by them, can be
influenced by symbolic violence, with marginalized or vulnerable groups bearing a disproportionate burden.

From the perspective of peace and conflict studies, the study of disasters like heat waves can be seen as relevant
because they have the potential to create or exacerbate conflicts. Vulnerable populations may experience greater
suffering during and after such events, and these disparities can lead to social and political conflicts. Additionally,
issues related to disaster preparedness, response, and recovery can themselves become sources of conflict,
particularly if they are perceived as unfair or inequitable. Therefore, understanding the social dimensions of
disasters and their potential to create or exacerbate conflicts is crucial within the field of peace and conflict
studies, as it can inform strategies for conflict prevention, resolution, and peace-building in the aftermath of such
events.

3.5.12. In the US people tend to minimize structural violence. Why?

The concept of minimizing or downplaying structural violence and its connections to the literature we've been
discussing (specifically, the works of sociologists like Pierre Bourdieu and Loic Wacquant) can be examined from
a sociological perspective.

Pierre Bourdieu's concept of symbolic violence, for instance, is relevant here. Symbolic violence refers to the
subtle, often unnoticed ways in which dominant cultural norms and structures can maintain and reproduce social
inequalities. In the context of structural violence, this can be seen in how societal norms and narratives downplay
or normalize systemic inequalities, making them seem natural and inevitable.

Loic Wacquant's work, particularly his studies on urban poverty and the social mechanisms that perpetuate it, can
provide insights into how structural violence operates in marginalized communities and how these issues may be
overlooked or minimized by society at large.

So, while the specific concept of minimizing structural violence may not be a central focus in the literature, the
ideas presented by Bourdieu and Wacquant can certainly inform our understanding of why structural violence
might be minimized or overlooked in society, especially in a country like the United States with its unique
cultural and political characteristics.

The minimization of structural violence in the United States can be attributed to several factors:

1. Individualism: The United States has a strong cultural emphasis on individualism and personal
responsibility. This cultural narrative often leads to a focus on individual actions and choices, rather than
systemic and structural factors. It can make it difficult for people to see how structural violence, which
operates at a societal level, affects individuals and communities.
89
 2. Ideological Beliefs: Ideological beliefs, such as the American Dream, can foster the notion that success or
failure is solely determined by individual effort and merit. This can lead to a reluctance to acknowledge
the impact of structural inequalities and violence on people's life chances.

3. Lack of Awareness: Many individuals may simply be unaware of the concept of structural violence and its
pervasive influence. Structural violence operates insidiously, making it less visible than direct, physical
violence.

4. Denial and Avoidance: Confronting structural violence can be uncomfortable and challenging because it
involves acknowledging societal injustices. Some people may deny or avoid discussing these issues to
protect their worldview or sense of identity.

5. Political and Economic Interests: Powerful interests may benefit from maintaining the status quo and
resisting structural changes. Political and economic factors can perpetuate inequalities and suppress
acknowledgment of structural violence.

6. Media Framing: Media coverage and framing can influence public perceptions. Media may focus on
individual actions or incidents, diverting attention away from the systemic issues that underlie them.

7. Cognitive Bias: Cognitive biases, such as the fundamental attribution error, lead people to attribute others'
suffering to their personal failings rather than systemic factors. This bias can reinforce the minimization of
structural violence.

8. Fear of Social Change: Recognizing and addressing structural violence often entails systemic change,
which can be met with resistance or fear of instability by some segments of the population.

Overcoming the minimization of structural violence requires education, open dialogue, and a willingness to
confront uncomfortable truths about societal inequalities. Addressing these issues at both an individual and
systemic level is essential for creating a more equitable and just society.

3.5.13. What is meant by ‘“carceral affirmative action” towards African-Americans’ and

‘“socialghetto”’ in Wacquant’s article (Wacquant 2004: 318)? How are these phenomena linked to
American politics and the American economy?
In "The New 'Peculiar Institution': On the Prison as Surrogate Ghetto," Loïc Wacquant examines the relationship
between the American prison system and marginalized urban ghettos. He argues that the prison system functions
as a surrogate ghetto, managing and controlling a surplus population that has been excluded from economic and
social life. The key points in this text are as follows:

1. Carceral Affirmative Action towards African-Americans: Wacquant uses the term "carceral
affirmative action" to describe the disproportionate impact of the American penal system on African
Americans. This term suggests that policies and practices within the criminal justice system have resulted
in a higher rate of imprisonment for African Americans, reflecting a systemic bias in the application of
90
 criminal laws. It points to the overrepresentation of African Americans in prisons, reflecting structural
racism within the criminal justice system.

2. Social Ghetto: Wacquant introduces the concept of a "social ghetto" to describe the conditions of extreme
poverty and social exclusion experienced by many African American communities in the United States.
These areas, characterized by high unemployment, limited access to quality education, and inadequate
social services, create a cycle of marginalization and disempowerment.

These phenomena are linked to American politics and the American economy in the following ways:

 Racial Disparities: The concept of "carceral affirmative action" reflects how racial disparities in the
American penal system are influenced by political decisions, such as the formulation of drug policies and
sentencing guidelines. These disparities are related to policies that disproportionately affect African
American communities and contribute to their overrepresentation in the prison system.

 Economic Factors: The "social ghetto" concept highlights the economic dimension of this issue.
Economic policies and historical factors, including deindustrialization and job scarcity in many urban
areas, have contributed to the social and economic challenges faced by these communities. The economic
context is linked to political decisions, as policies can exacerbate or ameliorate economic disparities.

 Structural Racism: Both phenomena are deeply intertwined with the broader issue of structural racism,
which encompasses not only the criminal justice system but also economic opportunities and political
decisions. The text illustrates how systemic and historical factors have created and perpetuated social and
economic inequality for African Americans, with the prison system being one aspect of this larger
structural problem.

Wacquant's work highlights the intricate web of factors that link the penal system, social exclusion, economic
policies, and racial disparities, providing a comprehensive sociological analysis of these complex issues.

3.5.14. Compare and contrast the ghetto and the prison. How do the ghetto and the prison affect
one another?
Comparisons:

 Social Isolation: Both the ghetto and the prison involve social isolation.
 Racial Disparities: Both reflect and perpetuate racial disparities.

Contrasts:

 Freedom vs. Confinement: The key distinction is freedom vs. confinement.

 Intent and Purpose: Ghettos are unintentional, while prisons are designed for incarceration.
 Social vs. Penal Control: Ghettos represent social control, while prisons represent penal control.

91
Mutual Influence:

 Prisons serve as a "surrogate ghetto" to control the marginalized population.

 "Carceral affirmative action" perpetuates racial disparities, leading to a cycle of incarceration and social
exclusion in marginalized communities.

3.5.15. According to Wacquant, what are the main functions of the ghetto and the prison?
According to Loïc Wacquant, in his analysis of the ghetto and the prison, the main functions of these two
institutions are as follows:

1. Ghetto:

 Social Control: The ghetto functions as a site of social control, where marginalized and
impoverished populations are contained and managed. It enforces social and economic isolation on
its residents.
 Concentration of Disadvantage: It serves as a spatial concentration of poverty and social
disadvantage, with limited access to quality education, employment opportunities, and social
services.
 Racial and Economic Segregation: Ghettos perpetuate racial and economic segregation, often
affecting African American communities disproportionately.
2. Prison:

 Penal Control: The prison is designed to exercise penal control over individuals who have
committed crimes. It involves the physical confinement of these individuals as punishment.
 Surrogate Ghetto: Wacquant argues that the prison system serves as a "surrogate ghetto," taking on
functions that resemble those of the ghetto, including managing and controlling marginalized
populations.
 Racial Disparities: The prison system reinforces racial disparities and social exclusion, particularly
among African Americans, who are overrepresented within the system.

3.6. Part VIII: Gendered Violence

3.6.1. Veena Das (Chap. 40) writes and theorizes about the sexual assaults that were carried out against
women during the partition of India and Pakistan. In what way does she think that the female body had come
to symbolise the nation? How does she think that the assaults can be linked to this symbolisation of the
nation in the female body?
In her work, Veena Das examines the sexual violence and assaults carried out against women during the partition
of India and Pakistan. She suggests that the female body came to symbolize the nation in the following ways:

1. Embodiment of National Honor: Das argues that during the partition, women's bodies became
emblematic of the honor and integrity of the nation. The violation or assault on women was seen as an
affront to the honor and dignity of the community and the nation as a whole. In this sense, the female body
92
 came to represent the honor and reputation of the nation.

2. Metaphorical Association: The violation of women was symbolically linked to the violation of the
nation. Sexual assaults were viewed as attacks on the very essence and identity of the nation, reinforcing
the metaphorical connection between the female body and the nation.

3. Stigmatization and Social Control: The sexual assaults were used as a means of stigmatizing and
controlling communities. Women who were victims of sexual violence often faced social ostracism, which
further reinforced the idea that the female body was the repository of community and national honor.

In this context, Das believes that the assaults can be linked to the symbolization of the nation in the female body
in the following ways:

1. Pervasiveness of Violence: The widespread sexual violence was not just an expression of individual
aggression but a manifestation of communal and national conflict. It demonstrated how conflicts at the
national level were enacted on the bodies of women at the local level.

2. Control and Subjugation: By targeting women, the perpetrators aimed to exert control over communities
and sow fear, ensuring their submission. This reinforced the link between women's bodies and the
collective identity of the nation.

3. Reconstruction of Memory: The sexual assaults have left a lasting impact on the collective memory of
the partition. The connection between the female body and the nation endures as these traumatic events are
remembered and passed down through generations.

In summary, Veena Das argues that during the partition of India and Pakistan, the female body became symbolic
of the nation, with sexual assaults seen as attacks on the honor and integrity of the nation. The violations of
women were deeply intertwined with the broader conflicts and divisions between communities, making them a
crucial aspect of the partition's history and its ongoing legacy.

3.6.2. How do you react when you read Mark Danner’s description of what happened in El Mozote? What do
you think he wishes to achieve through his account? Is it important to tell about violence in this way, i.e. to
describe it realistically and in a concrete way?
Danner's work meticulously details the events surrounding the massacre, where hundreds of unarmed civilians,
including women and children, were killed by Salvadoran military forces. The article explores the political and
historical context of the massacre, its implications for U.S. foreign policy, and the broader Cold War dynamics in
Central America.

"The Massacre at El Mozote" is known for its in-depth reporting, compelling storytelling, and its examination of
the moral and political complexities of the Cold War era. It has been recognized for its impact on public
awareness and policy debates surrounding U.S. involvement in conflicts in Central America during that period.

93
When readers encounter Mark Danner's description of the events in El Mozote, the reaction can be profound. His
account is vivid and unflinching, detailing the horrific violence inflicted on innocent civilians. Readers may feel a
range of emotions, including shock, sadness, anger, and empathy for the victims.

Mark Danner's primary objective in providing this detailed and realistic account is to bear witness to the events
and expose the truth. He aims to document the brutality of the massacre and the suffering of its victims, ensuring
that these events are not forgotten or ignored.

Danner also seeks to achieve several broader goals through his account:

1. Accountability: By documenting the atrocities and the role of different actors, including Salvadoran
military forces and U.S. policy-makers, Danner contributes to the pursuit of accountability for human
rights abuses. He underscores the responsibility of individuals and nations for their actions.

2. Historical Understanding: Danner's account serves as a historical record, helping to contextualize the
Salvadoran Civil War and its impact on the people of El Mozote. It provides insights into the dynamics of
the Cold War and U.S. foreign policy in the region.

3. Prevention: By exposing the realities of violence and its consequences, Danner's account can serve as a
deterrent against future atrocities. It highlights the human cost of conflict and the importance of peaceful
resolutions.

4. Empathy and Solidarity: Danner's writing encourages readers to empathize with the victims and their
families. It fosters a sense of solidarity and highlights the shared humanity of people affected by violence.

The realistic and concrete description of violence is important for several reasons:

 Moral Imperative: Realistic descriptions of violence confront readers with the moral imperative to
prevent such acts and to work toward justice.

 Historical Accuracy: To understand the full impact of violence, it is essential to describe it accurately and
concretely. This helps ensure that the historical record is complete.

 Policy and Social Change: Detailed accounts of violence can motivate policy changes, international
interventions, and social movements aimed at preventing similar atrocities in the future.

94
3.6.3. What does Bourdieu think steers a woman’s choice of partner (boyfriend, lover, or husband)? In other
words, is falling in love purely romantic, or is there and element of (subconscious) rationality involved? Where
does this rationality originate? How does Bourdieu link this rationality to violence? Read “Symbolic Violence”
by Pierre Bourdieu and Loic Wacquant and see how your understanding of the one text affects your
understanding of the other.

Article titled "Gender and Symbolic Violence" by Bourdieu, the concept of symbolic violence is central to his
broader sociological theories and can be applied to the analysis of gender relations and power dynamics.
Symbolic violence, as developed by Bourdieu, refers to the ways in which dominant cultural norms and structures
maintain and reproduce social inequalities. It operates through the acceptance of these norms and structures as
legitimate, natural, and taken for granted. In the context of gender, symbolic violence can encompass the ways in
which societal norms and expectations enforce and reinforce gender roles and hierarchies.

Bourdieu's ideas on symbolic violence and its application to gender relations have been influential in the field of
sociology, particularly in understanding how gender inequalities are not just physical or overt, but also deeply
embedded in our social structures, practices, and perceptions. Bourdieu's work helps shed light on how individuals
and societies unknowingly perpetuate and normalize gender-based inequalities.

Pierre Bourdieu's ideas about gender, choice of partner, and symbolic violence can shed light on these questions.
Bourdieu suggests that individuals' choices of partners, including boyfriends, lovers, or spouses, are influenced by
both emotional and rational factors, and these choices are embedded in the social and cultural structures of their
society. Here's how his ideas can be related to these questions:
1. Emotional and Rational Factors: Bourdieu's theory acknowledges that the choice of a partner involves
both emotional and rational elements. People may feel love and attraction, which are emotional, but their
choices are also guided by social norms, values, and expectations, which are rational. For example,
individuals may be influenced by social pressure to select a partner who aligns with certain socio-
economic, educational, or cultural attributes.

2. Social Origin of Rationality: Bourdieu's work highlights that the rationality behind partner choice
originates from an individual's social background and habitus. Habitus refers to the set of dispositions,
beliefs, and values that individuals acquire through socialization and that shape their preferences and
choices. Thus, what one considers a suitable or attractive partner is shaped by their social class, cultural
background, and life experiences.

3. Symbolic Violence: Bourdieu's concept of symbolic violence is relevant here. Symbolic violence refers to
the subtle ways in which power structures and cultural norms maintain social hierarchies. In the context of
partner choice, individuals may be subjected to symbolic violence when they unconsciously internalize
and reproduce gendered norms, such as expectations regarding masculinity and femininity, which can
influence their choice of partner.

Bourdieu's work can help us understand that partner choice is not solely based on pure romance but is also
95
influenced by social and cultural factors. People may perceive their choices as romantic, but these choices are
often framed and limited by underlying societal structures and norms.

When linking this understanding to Loic Wacquant's concept of symbolic violence, it becomes clear how
symbolic violence can operate in the realm of partner choice. The perpetuation of gender norms and hierarchies
can lead to violence in relationships when those norms are transgressed or when unequal power dynamics are
reproduced.

Both Bourdieu and Wacquant emphasize the importance of recognizing the subtle ways in which social structures
and norms shape our behavior and choices. These concepts are essential in understanding how seemingly personal
decisions like choosing a partner are deeply embedded in broader social and cultural contexts, and how these
choices can be related to violence when they reinforce unequal power dynamics.

3.6.4. How would you explain the assaults described in “The Everyday Violence of Gang Rape” by
Philippe Bourgois on gang violence in Harlem, if you were to use Symbolic Violence Pierre
Bourdieu and Loic Wacquant’s treatment and “Gender and Symbolic Violence” Pierre Bourdieu’s
treatment of symbolic violence? Can East Harlem be regarded as a conflict zone?
Symbolic Violence (Bourdieu and Wacquant):
 Symbolic violence, as conceived by Bourdieu and Wacquant, refers to the subtle ways in which dominant
cultural norms and structures maintain and perpetuate social inequalities and hierarchies. It operates
through the acceptance of these norms as legitimate, natural, and taken for granted.
 In the context of gang violence, symbolic violence can manifest in the normalization and acceptance of
violent behaviors within certain communities. It's not just about physical violence but also about the
cultural acceptance and justification of such actions within specific contexts.

Gender and Symbolic Violence (Pierre Bourdieu):

 In "Gender and Symbolic Violence," Pierre Bourdieu explores how gender-based symbolic violence
operates by reinforcing and naturalizing gender roles and inequalities. This can include the acceptance of
violence against women or the normalization of particular expressions of masculinity and femininity.
 Applying this concept to gang violence, one might consider how gendered norms within certain gangs or
communities can perpetuate and justify violence as a means of asserting dominance, control, or status. The
normalization of these behaviors, even when they involve gender-based violence, can be a form of
symbolic violence.

Conflict Zone in East Harlem:

 Whether East Harlem can be regarded as a conflict zone depends on various factors, including the
prevalence of violence, the nature of the violence, and its impact on the community.
 If gang violence, including gang rape, is pervasive and disrupts the daily lives of residents, leading to fear,
harm, and a breakdown of social order, it may be considered a conflict zone in the sense that it's an area

96
 marked by ongoing violence and instability.
 Symbolic violence may be at play in the normalization and acceptance of this violence, which can
perpetuate a cycle of conflict, as it becomes part of the social fabric of the community.

3.6.5. Stephen Donaldson (Chap. 44) draws quite far-reaching conclusions from his discussion of
masculinity/femininity in relation to sexuality in American prisons. What does masculinity involve,
according to Donaldson, and what are the markers (signs or essence) of femininity? Are there any
similarities in Donaldson with the way in which Bourdieu & Wacquant (Chap. 32), Bourdieu (Chap.
42) and Bourgois (Chap. 43) discuss masculinity and femininity, violence, and sexuality? Are there
similarities with how you yourself understand and experience masculinity and femininity (aside,
perhaps, from sexual assault)?
Stephen Donaldson's work, as outlined in "Hooking Up: Protective Pairing for Punks," focuses on the dynamics of
masculinity and femininity within the context of American prisons. While I don't have specific information on this
particular work, I can provide a general understanding of how masculinity and femininity are often discussed in
the context of prison and draw parallels with the concepts of symbolic violence and gender-based symbolic
violence as discussed by Bourdieu and Wacquant.

Masculinity and Femininity in the Context of American Prisons:

 In the prison context, masculinity is often associated with traits like physical strength, dominance,
aggression, and the ability to assert power over others. Conforming to these stereotypes can be seen as a
way for inmates to establish themselves within the prison hierarchy and gain protection.
 On the other hand, femininity in this context is often associated with vulnerability, submission, and being
targeted for sexual exploitation or abuse.

Similarities with Bourdieu, Wacquant, and Bourgois:

 Bourdieu's concept of symbolic violence and Wacquant's application of it to violence in marginalized

communities can be relevant to understanding how gender norms and hierarchies play out in prison
environments. Symbolic violence operates through the acceptance of certain behaviors and norms, and this
may be particularly pertinent in the prison context.
 Philippe Bourgois's work on violence in communities can provide insights into the ways that gender-based
violence, including sexual violence, is normalized within certain subcultures, including prison subcultures.

Personal Experience:

It's important to recognize that discussions of masculinity and femininity in the context of prison, as well as the
associated violence and sexuality, are complex and multifaceted. These discussions often involve issues of power,
hierarchy, and the impact of societal norms and expectations on individual behavior.

97
 3.7. Part IX: Torture
3.7.1. Elaine Scarry (From The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World, Elaine Scarry)
reflects upon the inadequacy of language to describe pain, while Judith Herman (From Trauma
and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence - From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror, Judith
Herman) describes how chronically traumatized people are perceived by those around them.
Consider how the inadequacy of language and the experience of (literally) indescribable pain
combine in the social isolation of torture victims that Herman discusses. Herman writes that
people who have been subjected to torture (among whom she includes children who have been
maltreated) are ’vulnerable to repeated harm’ (Herman 2004:369). Why is this case?
Elaine Scarry and Judith Herman both provide important insights into the experiences of pain and trauma, and
their works can be related to understand why individuals who have been subjected to torture or chronic trauma are
vulnerable to repeated harm.

Inadequacy of Language and Pain (Scarry):

 Elaine Scarry's work, "The Body in Pain," delves into the idea that pain is difficult to describe adequately
in language. She argues that pain is an inherently isolating experience because it is so deeply personal, and
the sufferer often finds it challenging to convey the full extent of their agony.

Social Isolation of Torture Victims (Herman):

 Judith Herman, in "Trauma and Recovery," discusses the experiences of individuals who have been
subjected to trauma, including torture. She emphasizes how these traumatic experiences can lead to social
isolation, as those who have not experienced such trauma often struggle to comprehend or empathize with
the victims.

Vulnerability to Repeated Harm:

 Herman notes that individuals who have been subjected to torture or chronic trauma are "vulnerable to
repeated harm" (Herman 2004:369). This vulnerability can be understood through several factors:
 Social Stigma: Survivors of torture and trauma may face social stigma or discrimination due to the
negative perceptions held by others. This can result in isolation and further harm.
 Lack of Understanding: As Scarry points out, the inadequacy of language to describe pain can
create a gap in understanding between survivors and those who have not experienced similar
trauma. This lack of understanding can hinder support and empathy.
 Complex PTSD: Chronic trauma often leads to Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-
PTSD), which includes symptoms like emotional dysregulation and difficulty with trust. These
98
 symptoms make individuals more vulnerable to exploitation or further harm.
 Lack of Support: Survivors of torture and chronic trauma may lack the support systems necessary
for recovery. Without a strong support network, they are more vulnerable to continued harm.

The inadequacy of language to convey the depth of pain and the social isolation resulting from trauma create a
challenging environment for survivors. Their vulnerability to repeated harm stems from a combination of external
factors like social stigma and internal factors related to the emotional and psychological consequences of trauma.
Understanding and addressing this vulnerability is essential for the recovery and well-being of survivors of torture
and chronic trauma.

3.7.2. What different dynamics are in play during the interrogations described in Antjie Krog’s
article (Chap. 48)? The contours of victim and perpetrator are not at all clear in this article. How
do you perceive them? Where does torture start: with the torturer’s own experiences of acts of
cruelty or when the torture of a prisoner is begun?
Antjie Krog's article "The Wet Bag and Other Phantoms" discusses the dynamics of interrogations, particularly in
the context of South Africa during the apartheid era. In this context, the dynamics between victim and perpetrator
are complex and not always clear-cut.

Different Dynamics in Play during Interrogations:

1. Power Imbalance: The interrogations are characterized by a significant power imbalance between the
interrogator (perpetrator) and the detainee (victim). The interrogator wields authority and control over the
detainee, making the victim vulnerable to abuse and coercion.

2. Fear and Intimidation: Fear is a central element in these interrogations. Detainees are subjected to
various forms of physical and psychological abuse to induce fear, which can lead to compliance and the
extraction of information.

3. Dehumanization: Interrogators often dehumanize detainees, referring to them as "commodities" and

treating them as subhuman. This dehumanization is a crucial aspect of the dynamics at play during these
interrogations.

4. Deniability: Perpetrators may engage in tactics that allow them to maintain plausible deniability, making
it challenging to attribute responsibility. The use of "wet bags" is an example of such a tactic, as it leaves
no physical marks but is deeply traumatic.

Ambiguity of Victim and Perpetrator: In Krog's account, the line between victim and perpetrator is often
blurred or questioned. This ambiguity arises from several factors:

 Some detainees may be coerced into participating in the torture or interrogation of fellow detainees,
making them both victims and perpetrators under duress.
 Interrogators themselves may have been influenced or coerced by higher authorities or may have their own
99
 complex motivations, adding layers of ambiguity to their roles.

Where Does Torture Start?: The question of where torture begins is complex. It can be traced to the intent and
actions of the person carrying out the torture, as they initiate and perpetrate the abusive practices. However, it's
also important to recognize that some perpetrators themselves may have experienced cruelty or coercion, which
can contribute to the cycle of violence. The factors leading to torture can include political ideology, a culture of
impunity, and orders from higher authorities.

In such settings, it's challenging to pinpoint a single origin of torture. It often emerges from a combination of
systemic factors, the intent of those carrying out the acts, and the wider political and social context.

Krog's account highlights the moral ambiguity and complexity of these situations, as well as the lasting
psychological impact on both victims and perpetrators.

3.7.3. How much importance should peace and conflict researchers place on the fact that children
are subject to torture, either as witnesses of torture to their parents or other close relatives,
and/or through being actual victims themselves? Take as your starting point the articles by
Quesada and Suarez-Orozco (Chaps. 35 and 49).
The importance of considering children as subjects of torture, either as witnesses or victims, is significant for
peace and conflict researchers, as it sheds light on the long-term impacts of conflict on individuals and societies.
The articles by Quesada and Suarez-Orozco provide valuable insights into this issue:

1. Understanding the Full Scope of Conflict's Impact:

 Children, as both witnesses and victims of torture, are profoundly affected by conflict. Their experiences
have long-lasting physical, psychological, and social consequences.
 Recognizing children's experiences broadens our understanding of the full scope of conflict's impact,
moving beyond traditional perspectives that often focus on adult combatants.

2. Identifying Root Causes and Preventing Recurrence:

 The experiences of children in conflict can help researchers identify root causes of violence and injustice.
Understanding how children become entangled in the cycle of conflict can inform prevention efforts.
 By recognizing the abuse of children in wartime, researchers can contribute to preventing the recurrence of
such abuses in future conflicts.

3. Promoting Rehabilitation and Healing:

 The experiences of child witnesses and victims of torture highlight the urgent need for rehabilitation and
psychosocial support. Researchers can advocate for these vital services and study their effectiveness.

4. Shaping Policy and Advocacy:

10
0
  Research on child victims and witnesses of torture can inform policy development and advocacy efforts,
emphasizing the protection of children in conflict zones.
 This research can also contribute to international legal frameworks and standards aimed at protecting
children in times of war.

5. Amplifying Voices of Vulnerable Populations:

 Children often have little agency and voice in conflict situations. Research that highlights their experiences
empowers them and provides a platform to advocate for their rights and protection.

In summary, peace and conflict researchers should place great importance on studying the experiences of children
subjected to torture, as it deepens our understanding of the human cost of conflict, helps prevent future abuses,
and informs efforts to rehabilitate and support affected children. The work of scholars like Quesada and Suarez-
Orozco contributes significantly to these goals and underscores the need to prioritize children's well-being in
conflict-affected regions.

3.8. Part XI: Aftermaths

3.8.1. Agamben (Chap. 57) discusses various aspects of the consequences of having belonged to
what Levi terms the ‘Gray Zone’ during a war or conflict. What different perspectives does he
discuss? What is your interpretation of the different ways of putting the gray zone in perspective
(i.e. the various ways of looking at the relation between the individual and his/her
role in the gray zone, both during the war or conflict and afterwards)?
In "The Witness" by Giorgio Agamben, the concept of the "Gray Zone" is central to his discussion of the
consequences of individuals' roles during war or conflict. Agamben explores various perspectives and
interpretations regarding the Gray Zone, which refers to individuals who were neither entirely victims nor
perpetrators but occupied a morally ambiguous space. Here are some different perspectives and interpretations
Agamben discusses:

1. Ambiguity and Moral Complexity:

 Agamben highlights the moral ambiguity and complexity faced by individuals in the Gray Zone. They are
neither wholly innocent nor entirely guilty, leading to a profound moral dilemma.

2. Complicity and Survival:

 From one perspective, individuals in the Gray Zone may have cooperated with the oppressors or
perpetrators to survive. Agamben raises questions about the choices made under extreme duress and
whether survival strategies can be morally condemned.

3. Moral Responsibility:

10
1
  Agamben delves into the moral responsibility of those in the Gray Zone. Did they have a duty to resist, or
were their actions driven by self-preservation? This perspective raises questions about the ethics of
individual choices during conflict.

4. Postwar Reckoning and Judgment:

 Agamben considers the challenges individuals in the Gray Zone face after the conflict ends. They may
encounter suspicion and judgment from both victims and victors. The postwar period is marked by the
need for accountability and justice.

5. Ethical Judgment and Forgiveness:

 Agamben raises questions about whether individuals in the Gray Zone should be judged based on the
specific circumstances of their actions or whether forgiveness and reconciliation are possible.

6. Impact on Individual Identity:

 Agamben also discusses how the experiences in the Gray Zone can profoundly affect individual identity.
Survivors may carry the burden of their wartime actions for the rest of their lives.

7. Conceptualization of Evil:

 Agamben's work challenges traditional notions of evil and the nature of moral choices during conflict. It
raises questions about the extent to which individuals should be held accountable.

In my interpretation, the Gray Zone serves as a powerful lens through which Agamben explores the complexities
of individual and collective morality during conflict. It forces us to grapple with the difficult choices people make
in extreme circumstances and the ethical challenges that emerge from these choices. Agamben's work underscores
the need for a nuanced understanding of the human experience during times of war and conflict, emphasizing the
moral intricacies that often elude simplistic categorizations of hero or villain.

3.8.2. Taking as his starting point the experience of surviving a car bomb, Albie Sachs (Chap. 59)
writes about the feeling of ‘afterwards.’ His ‘afterwards’ is both after the bomb – the very fact of
surviving premeditated violence – and after the culmination in free elections of the struggle for
democracy. What is it that he feels such a need to talk about in relation to ‘after’ the abolishment
of apartheid? When he voted for the first time, was he frustrated (e.g. that there are always those
who, given the choice, prefer chocolate to human rights: see pp. 456- 7), or was he satisfied (e.g.
when he refers to the feeling of ’banal goodness’ on p. 458)?
Albie Sachs, in "The Soft Vengeance of a Freedom Fighter," writes about the concept of "afterwards" in the
context of surviving a car bomb and the transition to democracy in post-apartheid South Africa. The feeling of
"afterwards" encompasses both the aftermath of personal trauma and the broader societal transformation. There
10
2
are several key aspects of "afterwards" that Albie Sachs feels the need to discuss:

1. Surviving Violence:

 Sachs survived a car bomb attack by the apartheid regime, which was a traumatic and life-altering
experience. He discusses the physical and emotional aftermath of this personal trauma and the
resilience required to heal and rebuild his life.
2. Transition to Democracy:

 "Afterwards" also signifies the period following the culmination of the struggle for democracy in
South Africa. Sachs reflects on the transition from apartheid to a democratic nation, a transition
marked by hope, reconciliation, and the challenges of rebuilding a society after years of racial
segregation and violence.
3. Need to Reflect and Share:

 Sachs feels a need to talk about "afterwards" to reflect on the profound changes in his life and
society. He uses his personal experiences as a vehicle to convey the broader emotional and societal
transformations.
4. Complex Emotions:

 Sachs's discussions about "afterwards" capture complex and mixed emotions. On one hand, there
may be frustration or disappointment in recognizing that not everyone values the hard-fought
principles of democracy. On the other hand, there's a sense of satisfaction and "banal goodness"
when witnessing the positive changes in society and the realization of a more just and inclusive
nation.
5. Reconciliation and Healing:

 Part of what Sachs wants to convey is the power of reconciliation and the potential for healing,
both personally and societally. "Afterwards" signifies the opportunity for forgiveness, growth, and
the pursuit of a better future.

In summary, Albie Sachs discusses "afterwards" to convey the multifaceted nature of surviving violence and
witnessing the transformation to democracy. His narrative is marked by a range of emotions, from frustration to
satisfaction, as he grapples with personal healing and the broader journey toward a more just and democratic
society. The concept of "afterwards" serves as a reflection on the complexities and challenges of transition and
healing in the post-apartheid era.

3.8.3. The problems involved in admitting guilt are, in a way, the same in Chap. 60 (Scheper-
Hughes) as in Chap. 18 (Hinton). Why is it so difficult afterwards to admit one’s guilt and one’s
participation in violence?
Admitting guilt and acknowledging one's participation in violence, particularly in the context of significant
historical atrocities or human rights abuses, is an inherently complex and difficult process. The reluctance to
10
3
admit guilt can be attributed to various interrelated factors:

1. Moral and Psychological Burden:

 Guilt is a powerful and distressing emotion. Admitting one's participation in violence means
confronting a deep moral and psychological burden, which can be overwhelming.
2. Fear of Consequences:

 Perpetrators often fear legal consequences, including arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment, if they
admit their guilt. The fear of facing justice can deter individuals from confessing.
3. Social and Cultural Pressures:

 Societal and cultural norms often stigmatize those who admit guilt for heinous acts. There may be
intense social pressure to maintain silence and protect one's reputation or the reputation of one's
community.
4. Collective Denial:

 In some cases, entire communities or nations may engage in collective denial, refusing to
acknowledge their role in violence or genocide. Admitting guilt can disrupt the collective denial
and the shared narrative of victimhood or innocence.
5. Shame and Self-Preservation:

 Shame is a powerful motivator in preventing the admission of guilt. Perpetrators may struggle with
feelings of self-revulsion and opt to protect their self-esteem by denying their actions.
6. Psychological Defense Mechanisms:

 Psychological defense mechanisms, such as repression and denial, can play a role in suppressing
memories and guilt. These mechanisms allow individuals to avoid confronting their actions.
7. Pressure to Conform:

 In environments where violence is systematic or ideologically driven, individuals may feel intense
pressure to conform and participate in violent acts. Admitting guilt can be seen as a betrayal of the
group, ideology, or authority figures.
8. Lack of Safe Spaces for Disclosure:

 Many individuals who participated in violence lack safe and supportive spaces in which to disclose
their guilt, seek rehabilitation, and receive forgiveness or reconciliation.

Both Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Alexander Laban Hinton explore the challenges of admitting guilt in different
contexts, such as post-apartheid South Africa and the Cambodian genocide. Their works shed light on the
multifaceted nature of these challenges, emphasizing the deep societal, cultural, and psychological factors that
make it difficult for individuals to acknowledge their participation in violence. Overcoming these obstacles often
10
4
requires a combination of truth and reconciliation processes, legal accountability, and support for psychological
healing and reintegration.

4. Introduction to Security Studies (edited by P. D. Williams)

4.1. Small arms and light weapons are the weapons of choice for what kinds of groups. Why?

SALW are easy to maintain and transport, cheap to purchase, and very hard to track. For all of these reasons they
are the weapons of choice for terrorists, separatist movements, militias, warlords and other non state groups. Also
thats the reason that in the new wars the difference between combatants and civilians gets blurred

4.2. How has the arms trade evolved over time?

The evolution of the arms trade over time is a complex and multifaceted process, and it has been discussed in
various academic works, including "Introduction to Security Studies" edited by P. D. Williams. While I don't have
access to the specific content of this book, I can provide a general overview of how the arms trade has evolved
historically:
1. Pre-Modern Period:

 In pre-modern times, arms trade primarily involved the exchange of weapons and military
technologies through direct bilateral agreements or the use of intermediaries.
 It was often closely tied to military conquest, colonization, and the quest for territorial expansion.
2. Colonial Era and 19th Century:

 The colonial era saw the global expansion of European empires, which significantly increased the
arms trade as colonial powers supplied weapons to their colonies.
 The 19th century witnessed advancements in military technology, including the industrial
production of firearms.
3. World Wars and Post-World War II:

 The two World Wars led to a substantial increase in arms production and trade. Many countries
industrialized their defense sectors.
 The post-World War II period saw the establishment of international institutions, such as the
United Nations, with a focus on limiting arms proliferation and regulating the arms trade.
4. Cold War Era:

 The Cold War intensified the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union, resulting
in significant arms production and exports.
 Proxy wars in various regions contributed to the spread of weapons.
5. Post-Cold War Era:

 The end of the Cold War brought some reductions in arms production and trade.
10
5
  However, the arms trade continued, often with the surplus of weapons from the Cold War finding
new markets.
6. Contemporary Period:

 In the contemporary period, the arms trade has become increasingly globalized, with a wide range
of suppliers and buyers.
 The arms trade includes not only conventional weapons but also items like cybersecurity tools,
drones, and other advanced technologies.
7. Regulation and Control:

 There have been various international efforts to regulate and control the arms trade, including the
Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and national export controls.
 Issues related to human rights, conflicts, and regional security have shaped debates on arms trade
regulation.

The evolution of the arms trade is marked by technological advancements, shifts in global power dynamics, and
attempts to regulate and control the trade. It continues to be a subject of significant concern and debate in the field
of security studies.

After 9/11, there was an increased focus on counterterrorism efforts and arms control. Security measures were
enhanced, especially concerning weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). International treaties and agreements
were reevaluated, and efforts were made to prevent the spread of weapons technology and materials. The cyber
threat and securing critical infrastructure also gained attention. Arms sales and transfers continued but with
greater scrutiny to prevent weapons from reaching terrorists or rogue states.

Old answer:

The global arms trade changed substantially from the end of the Cold War to the new era marked by the 9/11
terror attacks. Sales of major combat equipment continue to pose the greatest challenge in managing relations
between states. But as the proportion of wars carried on within states rather than between states has accelerated,
small arms and light weapons (SALW) have become the tools of choice in most of the world’s conflicts.

4.3. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council account for what percentage
(approximately) of the global arms trade?
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council, often referred to as the P5, are the United States, Russia, China,
the United Kingdom, and France. Collectively, they account for a significant portion of the global arms trade. While the
exact percentage may vary from year to year, as of my last knowledge update in September 2021, these five countries were
estimated to be responsible for approximately 75-80% of the global arms trade. Please note that these figures can change
over time based on various geopolitical and economic factors.

1. United States: The United States is often the world's largest arms exporter and has accounted for around
35-40% of the global arms trade.
10
6
 2. Russia: Russia is another major arms exporter and has historically accounted for approximately 20-25% of
the global arms trade.

3. China: China has been increasing its arms exports in recent years and is estimated to have a share of
around 5-10% of the global arms trade.

4. United Kingdom: The United Kingdom is a significant arms exporter and usually accounts for
approximately 4-6% of the global arms trade.

5. France: France is also a notable arms exporter and typically has a share of around 4-6% of the global arms
trade.

4.4. Paul D. Williams suggests 4 reasons why the political philosophy of war is less
applicable to the contemporary global environment than in the past. Name them.
Paul D. Williams discusses four reasons why the political philosophy of war is less applicable to the
contemporary global environment than in the past:

1. Changing Nature of Conflict:

 Traditional political philosophy of war often centered on interstate conflicts and conventional
warfare. In the contemporary global environment, conflicts have evolved to include a wider range
of actors, such as non-state actors, insurgent groups, and transnational organizations. The
distinction between war and non-war has become less clear.

2. Complexity of Contemporary Conflicts:

 Today's conflicts are often characterized by complexity, involving multiple actors, various issues,
and non-linear dynamics. These conflicts can encompass political, economic, social, and cultural
dimensions, making them less amenable to traditional war philosophy.
3. Influence of Globalization:

 Globalization has interconnected nations and societies, blurring the boundaries between domestic
and international affairs. Contemporary conflicts are influenced by transnational forces, global
economic interdependence, and the rapid dissemination of information. These factors challenge the
traditional concepts of war and state sovereignty.
4. Emphasis on Peace and Conflict Prevention:

 The contemporary global environment places a stronger emphasis on conflict prevention and
peacebuilding. Diplomacy, negotiations, and international cooperation are seen as essential tools to
address conflicts before they escalate to full-scale war. The goal is to prevent conflicts rather than
engage in war.
10
7
These reasons collectively suggest that the traditional political philosophy of war, which often focused on
interstate warfare and notions of state sovereignty, is less applicable to the complex and interconnected
contemporary global environment. Williams argues for a need to adapt political philosophy and international
relations theory to better address the unique characteristics of modern conflicts and the pursuit of peace and
security.

4.5. There has been sharp decrease in interstate warfare since 1945. Why has this been the
case?

Paul D. Williams, in the context of decreasing interstate warfare since 1945, has identified several factors
contributing to this trend. While the specific reasons may vary, Williams points to the following key factors that
help explain the decline in interstate warfare:

1. Norms and International Law:

 The establishment of international norms and laws, including the United Nations Charter, has
emphasized the peaceful resolution of disputes and the prohibition of aggression. States are held
accountable for violating these norms, which has acted as a deterrent to interstate warfare.
2. Collective Security Arrangements:

 The growth of collective security arrangements, such as military alliances and international
organizations (e.g., NATO, the European Union), has created a web of interlinked states committed
to mutual defense and security cooperation. These arrangements discourage aggression against
member states.
3. Nuclear Deterrence:

 The possession of nuclear weapons by major powers has created a significant deterrent to interstate
war. The fear of catastrophic consequences has made states more cautious in engaging in large-
scale military conflicts.
4. Economic Interdependence:

 Global economic interdependence, characterized by trade, investment, and supply chain networks,
has created incentives for states to avoid warfare. War disrupts economic stability, and many states
have a vested interest in maintaining peaceful relations for economic growth.
5. Costs of Modern Warfare:

 The costs, in terms of both resources and human lives, associated with modern warfare have
increased significantly. The destructiveness of modern weapons and the difficulty of achieving
decisive military victories have made states more reluctant to engage in interstate conflicts.
6. Regional Conflict Management:

 Many regions have developed mechanisms for managing conflicts and disputes through diplomacy
10
8
 and negotiations. These regional organizations and conflict-resolution processes have been
instrumental in preventing interstate warfare.
7. Shifting Priorities:

 The post-World War II era has seen a shift in state priorities, with an increasing emphasis on socio-
economic development, human rights, and political stability. States have recognized that violence
and warfare hinder these objectives.
8. Global Governance:

 The growth of global governance institutions and mechanisms, such as the United Nations and its
peacekeeping operations, has provided alternatives to war for addressing international conflicts and
crises.

Williams' analysis underscores the multifaceted nature of the decline in interstate warfare, which is influenced by
a combination of legal, political, military, economic, and diplomatic factors. The post-World War II international
order has been shaped by a commitment to preventing large-scale interstate conflicts and fostering mechanisms
for peaceful dispute resolution.

4.6. Who is the most significant advocate of the “political philosophy of war”? Define the
concept.

The "political philosophy of war" refers to the set of ideas and principles that govern how states and actors engage
in the use of military force as a tool of foreign policy. It involves the examination of the moral, legal, and ethical
aspects of warfare, the role of states and sovereignty, the concept of just war, the balance of power, and the
relationship between war and politics.
Carl von Clausewitz is indeed a significant figure often associated with the study of war and military strategy.
While he is not typically considered an advocate of the "political philosophy of war" in the sense of promoting
war as a desirable course of action, his work has had a profound influence on the understanding of war and its
relationship with politics.
Clausewitz is best known for his work "On War" (published posthumously in the 19th century), in which he
explores the nature of war and its connection to politics. He famously described war as "the continuation of
politics by other means," emphasizing that warfare is an instrument of state policy. His work delves into the
strategic, operational, and tactical aspects of warfare and how they relate to political objectives.

While Clausewitz's ideas emphasize the political dimensions of war and the idea that military actions should be
aligned with political goals, his work is often studied and cited in the context of understanding the complexities
and realities of war. His insights have been influential in shaping the field of military strategy and the broader
study of international relations. Clausewitz is an important figure in the study of war, but it's essential to recognize
that his work is not a direct advocacy for the use of military force but rather a nuanced analysis of the role of war
in politics.

Old answer:

10
9
Clausewitz was arguably the most important proponent of the political philosophy of war. This defined warfare as ‘an act of
violence intended to compel our opponent to “fulfil our will’. It was essentially a rational, national and instrumental activity:
the decision to employ the military instrument ought to be made on the basis of a rational calculation taken by the political
authority concerned in order to achieve some specified goal.

4.7. Please list and briefly describe the 3 basic approaches to human security?
What is security?
The alleviation of threats to cherished values
2 philosophies:

1) Commoodity. Power is the route to security: the more power (especially military power) actors can accumulate, the more
secure they will be.

2) Relationship between different actors. Security as being based on emancipation. Sharing certain commitments with other
actors provides a degree of reassurance and predictability.

GPT:

Paul D. Williams, in his book "Security Studies: An Introduction," discusses three basic approaches to human security:
1. Comprehensive Human Security:

 The comprehensive human security approach is the broadest perspective. It emphasizes the holistic
well-being of individuals and communities, taking into account not only physical security but also
social, economic, and environmental aspects of security.
 This approach is concerned with safeguarding individuals from a wide range of threats, including
poverty, disease, environmental degradation, and human rights abuses.
 It calls for an expansive view of security that addresses the underlying causes of insecurity and
seeks to promote human development and dignity.
2. Critical Human Security:

 The critical human security approach is rooted in critical theory and emphasizes power relations
and structural factors that contribute to insecurity.
 It focuses on how states, international organizations, and other actors can reinforce or challenge
existing power structures that perpetuate insecurity, inequality, and vulnerabilities.
 This approach is critical of the status quo and aims to challenge dominant paradigms of security.
3. Popular Human Security:

 Popular human security is a people-centered approach that empowers individuals and communities
to address their security needs.
 It emphasizes the role of local actors, civil society, and grassroots movements in defining and
implementing security measures.
 This approach highlights the agency of individuals and communities in shaping their own security

11
0
 and resilience.

These three approaches to human security offer different perspectives on how to conceptualize and address
security concerns. They reflect the evolving understanding of security in the contemporary world, which extends
beyond traditional military and state-centric views of security to consider the well-being and empowerment of
individuals and communities.

Old answer:

Human security is not a concern with weapons. It is a concern with human dignity.

The first is what might be termed the natural rights/rule of law conception of human security, anchored in the fundamental
liberal assumption of basic individual rights to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’, and of the international obligation
of states to protect and promote these rights.

A second view of human security is humanitarian. This is this view of human security that, for example, informs
international efforts to deepen and strengthen international law, particularly regarding genocide and war crimes, and to
abolish weapons that are especially harmful to civilians and noncombatants.
These two views of human security, which focus on basic human rights and their deprivation, stand in sharp contrast to a
broader view, which suggests that human security should be widely constructed to include economic, environmental, social,
and other forms of harm to the overall livelihood and wellbeing of individuals. There is a strong social justice component in
this broader conception of human security, as well as a wider consideration of threats (real and potential) to the survival and
health of individuals.

4.8. Proponents of globalization argue that globalization minimizes human insecurity. What
are the primary reasons they give in support of this claim?
Old answer:
The forces of economic globalization are transforming international politics and recasting relationships between states and
peoples with important implications for human security: globalization is not only intensifying trade and economic
connections, but also accelerating the pace of economic and social change. Further, it is not just goods and capital that are
exchanged across borders, but ideas, information and people. The breakdown of national barriers to trade and the spread of
global markets are processes that help to raise world incomes and contribute to the spread of wealth.

Proponents of globalization argue that it minimizes human insecurity by promoting economic growth, reducing poverty, and
enhancing access to information, education, and healthcare. Globalization is seen as a driver of improved living standards
and opportunities for many people around the world.

4.9. Explain the difference between absolute and relative poverty.

Absolute poverty refers to people who barely afford food and who live day by day. Their main focus is to procure a
minimum amount of food to survive.

Relative poverty refers to people who, when comparing themselves to their environment, friends, or circle, are poor. They
do not have the latest gadgets, or furniture and cannot afford to dine out.

11
1
 4.10. What is the relationship between poverty and conflict?
Old answer:

- low per capita income and slow economic growth drastically increase the chances that a country will experience violence.
- variety of economic motivations for conflict, born out of poverty, including economic grievance,greed and even opportunity.
Pg 306

The relationship between poverty and conflict is complex. Poverty can contribute to conflict by creating resource scarcity and
grievances. Conflict, in turn, can worsen poverty by disrupting economies. Weak states with high poverty levels are often more prone
to conflict. Resolving conflicts is essential for poverty reduction and sustainable development.

4.11. How is global health a security issue?

Global health is a security issue because the spread of infectious diseases, health crises, and pandemics can have far-
reaching consequences, destabilizing societies, economies, and international relations. Addressing global health threats is
essential for overall security and stability.

Old answer:
2 factors facilitating it as a security issue:
1 Broadening of the security agenda
2 Individual agency
3 substantive health issues contributed:
- Spread of infectious disease (that’s potentially global in nature): how it triggered concerns? 1)
threatens the health of a state’s people, including the western states. 2) a pandemic may cause a
disruption and threatens the stability of a state → confidence decreased along with the inability to
protect against disease, social inequalities in obtaining better healthcare which could lead to public
disorder, large number of death/people unable to work may affect the state function, violence and
disorder if authorities can't cope and groups feels they have nothing to lose. 3) A big epidemic may
end up in an economic decline by: forcing increased government spending on health as a GDP
percentage, reduced productivity out of workers' absence, reduced investment due to business
confidence lacking, and high health insurance cost.
- HIV/AIDS pandemic: poses a risk to stability, militaries, peacekeepers. Severe economic problems
due to the long term effects (unproductive workers). Social and political problems (infecting
professionals, democratic development harmed if societies become polarized, AIDS stigma leading
to anger then violence). High infection rates among security forces affecting their performances
(morale deteriorates to cover for the ill). Peacekeepers may be at increased risk from HIV since
many of the world’s conflicts are in infectious regions, may act as disease spread vectors. Sexual
violence, poor healthcare, disease as disincentive to end conflcit due to assumptions.
- Bioterrorism (use of biological agents to cause disease as a war weapon): became a thing post 11/9
attacks in the western security analysts minds, affecting public health and national security.
Relation between states and such.

4.12. List and discuss the main tools/tactics used in offensive counter-terrorism.
11
2
Offensive counter-terrorism involves a range of tools and tactics to disrupt and prevent terrorist activities. In his
book "Security Studies: An Introduction," Paul D. Williams discusses various methods used in offensive counter-
terrorism. Here are some of the main tools and tactics:

1. Covert Operations:

 Covert operations involve intelligence agencies and special forces conducting secret missions to
identify, target, and eliminate terrorist threats. These operations may include reconnaissance,
surveillance, and direct action against terrorist leaders or cells.
2. Drone Strikes:

 Unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) are used for targeted strikes against high-value terrorist targets.
Drones provide precision and reduced risk to personnel but have also raised legal and ethical
concerns.
3. Infiltration and Informants:

 Intelligence agencies often use informants and undercover agents to infiltrate terrorist
organizations, gather information, and disrupt plots from within. This tactic can provide critical
insights into terrorist networks.
4. Financial Measures:

 Cutting off the financial resources of terrorist groups is a common tactic. This includes tracking
and freezing assets, disrupting money laundering, and monitoring financial transactions to limit
their operational capabilities.
5. Cyber Operations:

 Offensive cyber operations are used to disrupt terrorist communications, recruitment efforts, and
online propaganda. These measures can target terrorist websites, social media accounts, and
communication channels.
6. Law Enforcement Actions:

 Law enforcement agencies play a crucial role in offensive counter-terrorism. They may conduct
raids, arrests, and investigations to apprehend individuals involved in terrorist activities.
7. Targeted Killings:

 Targeted killings, including drone strikes, are used to eliminate high-profile terrorists and disrupt
their leadership. These actions are often carried out with precision and intelligence.
8. Military Operations:

 Military forces are deployed to engage terrorist groups in conflict zones. These operations aim to
degrade the capabilities of terrorist organizations and create conditions for stability.
9. International Cooperation:
11
3
  Offensive counter-terrorism often involves international collaboration, where states work together
to share intelligence, conduct joint operations, and track and apprehend terrorists across borders.
10. Diplomatic Measures:

 Diplomacy can be used to negotiate with or pressure states that may support or harbor terrorist
organizations. International diplomacy can lead to the extradition of terrorists or the cessation of
state support for such groups.

These tools and tactics are part of a comprehensive strategy to prevent and respond to terrorist threats. The choice
of tactics depends on the specific circumstances, the nature of the terrorist group, and the legal and ethical
considerations associated with each approach.

4.13. What are primary differences between classical and contemporary insurgencies?
1. Nature of Insurgent Groups:

 Classical: In classical insurgencies, insurgent groups were often organized, hierarchical, and driven
by clear political ideologies. They had defined command structures.
 Contemporary: Contemporary insurgencies may involve a mix of organized groups, loosely
affiliated networks, and ideologically diverse actors, including non-state and transnational actors.
2. Motivations and Objectives:

 Classical: Classical insurgencies were often motivated by clear political goals, such as
independence, self-determination, or ideology.
 Contemporary: Contemporary insurgencies can have a wider range of motivations, including
criminal interests, power struggles, and religious extremism. Objectives may be less clearly
defined.
3. Funding and Resources:

 Classical: Classical insurgencies were often funded by external state sponsors or ideological
supporters, and they relied on traditional sources of income like taxation.
 Contemporary: Contemporary insurgencies often involve diverse sources of funding, including
criminal activities such as drug trafficking, kidnapping, and extortion, as well as transnational
financing networks.
4. Technology and Communication:

 Classical: Classical insurgencies relied on traditional communication methods and were limited by
the technology of their time.
 Contemporary: Contemporary insurgencies benefit from advances in technology, including the
internet and social media, which enable global recruitment, propaganda, and coordination.
5. Globalization:

 Classical: Classical insurgencies were often regionally or locally focused, with limited global
11
4
 reach.
 Contemporary: Contemporary insurgencies can have a global impact, with the potential for
international recruitment, networking, and support.
6. Urbanization:

 Classical: Classical insurgencies often occurred in rural or remote areas.

 Contemporary: Contemporary insurgencies may be urban-centric, taking place in densely
populated urban environments.
7. Counterinsurgency Strategies:

 Classical: Classical counterinsurgency strategies focused on defeating or subduing insurgent

groups through military means.
 Contemporary: Contemporary counterinsurgency strategies emphasize a more comprehensive
approach, including addressing root causes, winning hearts and minds, and integrating development
efforts.
8. Complexity and Hybrid Warfare:

 Classical: Classical insurgencies were generally characterized by straightforward military

engagements.
 Contemporary: Contemporary insurgencies often involve complex hybrid warfare tactics,
blending guerrilla warfare, terrorism, criminal activities, and information warfare.

4.14. Define the term “hearts and minds” as it relates to counterinsurgency campaigns.
In the context of counterinsurgency campaigns, the term "hearts and minds" refers to a strategic approach aimed
at winning the support and loyalty of the local population in conflict-affected areas. This approach recognizes that
in an insurgency, the population is often caught in the middle, and their perceptions, attitudes, and allegiances can
play a decisive role in the outcome of the conflict.

Key elements of the "hearts and minds" approach include:

1. Gaining Trust: Counterinsurgency forces seek to build trust and credibility with the local population. This
involves showing respect for the people, their culture, and their rights.

2. Providing Security: Ensuring the physical security of the population is a priority. This includes protection
from insurgent threats and violence.

3. Delivering Essential Services: Counterinsurgency efforts often involve providing basic services such as
healthcare, education, clean water, and infrastructure development to improve the quality of life for the
local population.

4. Engaging in Dialogue: Establishing open communication and engaging in dialogue with the local
community to understand their concerns, grievances, and needs is crucial.
11
5
 5. Counter-Propaganda: Countering insurgent propaganda and disinformation to prevent radicalization and
recruitment within the population.

6. Economic Development: Promoting economic opportunities, job creation, and sustainable livelihoods to
address underlying socio-economic factors that can fuel support for insurgents.

The "hearts and minds" strategy recognizes that winning the support and cooperation of the local population can
be more effective in countering an insurgency than purely military tactics. It seeks to create an environment where
the local population feels that their interests are aligned with the government or counterinsurgency forces, and
they are less likely to provide support to or tolerate the insurgents.

Old answer:

It is now a truism that successful counterinsurgency involves winning the ‘hearts and minds’ of the local
population.

Strategy involved listening and responding to some of the insurgents’ demands – therefore taking away from their
cause and source of popularity

Many insurgent groups have ultimately triumphed not because they won but because the counterinsurgents lacked
the will to carry on, having lost the ‘hearts and minds’ of their constituents.

4.15. Compare / contrast counterinsurgency to post-conflict peacebuilding.

Counterinsurgency and post-conflict peacebuilding are distinct yet interrelated concepts within the field of
conflict management and resolution. Here's a comparison and contrast of these two approaches as discussed by
Paul D. Williams in his book "Security Studies: An Introduction":

Counterinsurgency:

1. Focus: Counterinsurgency primarily focuses on addressing an ongoing insurgency. It involves a range of

military and civilian tactics aimed at defeating or neutralizing the insurgent threat and restoring
government control over the affected area.

2. Timing: Counterinsurgency occurs during the active phase of conflict when the insurgency is still
operational. It is often characterized by military operations, intelligence gathering, and security measures.

3. Main Goals: The main goals of counterinsurgency are to defeat the insurgents, establish security, and
restore government authority. It may involve a combination of military operations, intelligence, and law
enforcement actions.

4. Approach: Counterinsurgency often includes military actions such as targeted strikes, raids, and counter-
terror operations. It may also involve efforts to win the hearts and minds of the local population to isolate
the insurgents.
11
6
Post-Conflict Peacebuilding:

1. Focus: Post-conflict peacebuilding takes place after the cessation of hostilities, with a focus on building
lasting peace and stability in the aftermath of conflict. It encompasses a broader range of activities to
rebuild societies and prevent a return to violence.

2. Timing: Post-conflict peacebuilding occurs after the active phase of conflict. It aims to address the root
causes of the conflict, rebuild infrastructure, and establish governance structures that promote peace and
reconciliation.

3. Main Goals: The main goals of peacebuilding are to establish lasting peace, rebuild institutions, promote
reconciliation, and address the underlying grievances that contributed to the conflict. This involves social,
economic, and political reconstruction.

4. Approach: Peacebuilding includes activities such as demobilizing combatants, reintegrating ex-

combatants into society, promoting truth and reconciliation processes, and fostering economic
development. It often requires international support and cooperation.

Comparison:

 Both counterinsurgency and post-conflict peacebuilding aim to restore stability and prevent a return to
violence.
 Both approaches may involve security sector reform, justice and reconciliation efforts, and addressing
socio-economic disparities.

Contrast:

 Counterinsurgency primarily focuses on defeating insurgents and restoring government control during an
ongoing conflict, whereas post-conflict peacebuilding operates in the aftermath of conflict to build lasting
peace and stability.
 Counterinsurgency often includes military tactics and intelligence operations, while peacebuilding focuses
on socio-political and economic reconstruction.
 Counterinsurgency may prioritize short-term security, while peacebuilding is concerned with long-term
peace and development.
 Counterinsurgency can involve military force, while peacebuilding emphasizes non-coercive measures and
political reconciliation.

In summary, while counterinsurgency and post-conflict peacebuilding share the ultimate goal of achieving peace
and stability, they differ in their timing, main goals, and approaches. Counterinsurgency is concerned with
addressing an active insurgency, while peacebuilding operates after the conflict has ended to address its root
causes and promote lasting peace.

11
7
 4.16. In a counterinsurgency campaign what is the relationship between political and
military activities. Which is more valued? Why?
In a counterinsurgency campaign, there is a close and interdependent relationship between political and military
activities. Both components are essential to the success of the campaign. Paul D. Williams, in his book "Security
Studies: An Introduction," discusses the dynamics of this relationship.
Political Activities:

1. Legitimacy: Political activities aim to establish the legitimacy and credibility of the government or the
authority that counterinsurgency forces represent. This involves building trust and support among the local
population.

2. Addressing Grievances: Political efforts seek to address the underlying grievances and root causes that
may have contributed to the insurgency. This can involve political reforms, social justice initiatives, and
efforts to reduce corruption.

3. Reconciliation: Political activities often include reconciliation efforts to bring former insurgents and their
communities back into the political and social fold. Truth and reconciliation processes may be used to heal
divisions.

4. Local Governance: Strengthening local governance and empowering communities can be part of political
activities. Local leaders and institutions play a key role in maintaining security and providing essential
services.

Military Activities:

1. Security: Military activities are crucial for providing security and stability. Counterinsurgency forces
work to disrupt insurgent operations, protect the population, and establish a safe environment.

2. Counter-Terrorism: The military component often includes counter-terrorism operations to target high-
value insurgents and disrupt their networks.

3. Control: Military forces aim to regain and maintain control over territory and deny insurgents safe havens.
This can involve offensive operations to clear and hold areas.

4. Protection: Military units may provide protection for development and humanitarian efforts, ensuring that
they can be carried out safely.

The relative value of political and military activities in a counterinsurgency campaign can vary depending on the
specific context and strategic goals. However, in contemporary counterinsurgency doctrine, there is a recognition
that political activities are often more valued for several reasons:

1. Population-Centric Approach: Contemporary counterinsurgency doctrine emphasizes a population-

centric approach, where winning the support and cooperation of the local population is central. Political
11
8
 activities are key to achieving this goal.

2. Addressing Root Causes: To achieve lasting peace, it is essential to address the root causes of the
insurgency. Political activities are critical for addressing grievances and promoting reconciliation.

3. Legitimacy and Trust: Legitimacy and trust with the local population are essential. If military activities
do not go hand in hand with political efforts, the risk of alienating the population and inadvertently fueling
the insurgency increases.

4. Global Norms and Ethics: There is a growing recognition of the importance of adhering to global norms
and ethical standards in counterinsurgency campaigns. Political activities align with these norms and
emphasize a more ethical approach.

In summary, while both political and military activities are integral to counterinsurgency campaigns, political
activities are often more valued in contemporary doctrine due to their emphasis on winning the support of the
population, addressing grievances, and promoting legitimacy and trust. The population-centric approach
recognizes that the support of the local population is critical to the success of counterinsurgency efforts.

Old answer:

In terms of tactics, an important part of counter-insurgency is actually NOT using force. The point of the military
power is to create the space for political progress.
The ideal ration between force (kinetic) and non-violent (non-kinetic) activities is the same: 20% military to 80%
non-military. Given the centrality of “hearts and minds” this makes perfect sence: a counter-insurgency campaing
should involve politics, economics, psychology and, as necessary, military force. In modern counter-insurgency
the non-military elements of power remain decisive, though less well resourced than military elements. In
situations where authorities are trying to win the support of the local population, the heavy-handed use of military
power is likely to be counterproductive. When force is used it was to be discriminating and precise.
4.17. Define the democratic peace.
The democratic peace is a theory in international relations that suggests that democracies are less likely to go to war with
one another. In other words, it posits that there is a positive relationship between democracy and peace. This theory proposes
that democratic states tend to resolve their disputes through peaceful means, such as diplomacy and negotiation, rather than
resorting to armed conflict when dealing with other democratic nations.
Old answer:
Democracies do not go to war with each other.
Integration of military forces on a transactional basis which provides a practical constraint against war.

4.18. Define Kant’s idea of the “perpetual peace.”

Immanuel Kant's idea of "perpetual peace" is a concept outlined in his essay "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical
Sketch." It envisions a world order characterized by lasting peace and the absence of war. Kant suggests that such
a state of perpetual peace can be achieved through the spread of republican or democratic governance, the
establishment of international laws and institutions, and the principles of respect for individual rights and non-
11
9
interference in the affairs of other nations. It represents a vision of a world where nations coexist peacefully
through a framework of shared values, international cooperation, and the rule of law.

4.19. Compare and contrast the main differences between realist perspectives of security
and those who advocate on behalf of human security.
Realist Perspectives of Security:

1. State-Centric Focus: Realist perspectives of security are state-centric and prioritize the security and
interests of individual nation-states.

2. Anarchy and Self-Help: Realists view the international system as anarchic, where states must rely on
self-help to ensure their security. This often leads to a focus on military power and deterrence.

3. Zero-Sum Competition: Realists often see international relations as a zero-sum game, where one state's
gain is another's loss. Security is primarily about relative power.

4. National Interest: Realists prioritize national interest, including territorial integrity, sovereignty, and the
pursuit of power and influence.

Advocates of Human Security:

1. Human-Centered Approach: Human security advocates prioritize the security and well-being of
individuals and communities, emphasizing the protection of human lives and dignity.

2. Comprehensive Security: Human security extends beyond military considerations to encompass

economic, social, health, and environmental dimensions of security.

3. Non-Traditional Threats: Human security recognizes non-traditional threats, such as poverty, disease,
environmental degradation, and human rights abuses, as central to security concerns.

4. Global Cooperation: Human security advocates call for international cooperation, diplomacy, and the
protection of human rights as essential components of security.

In summary, realist perspectives of security focus on state interests, power, and military security within the
context of an anarchic international system, while human security prioritizes the well-being of individuals,
communities, and non-traditional security threats, emphasizing global cooperation and the protection of human
rights.

4.20. Would a realist be supportive of Kaldor’s new wars thesis? Why?

Realists, who emphasize state power and traditional state-centric conflicts, are generally not supportive of Kaldor's "new
wars" thesis. This thesis suggests that contemporary conflicts involve non-state actors, identity politics, and globalization,
which diverges from traditional realist views. Realists tend to be skeptical of ideas that challenge the state-centric paradigm
12
0
and emphasize the role of non-state actors, localized conflicts, and identity-driven politics in the international system.

4.21. Given what you know about contemporary conflicts (after the Cold War), do you think
a realist perspective or a human security perspective offers the best approach to issues of
global security? Why? (Note: to best answer this question you will need to be provide
specific examples, along with providing a basic definition of the realist and human security
approaches)

The choice between a realist perspective and a human security perspective for addressing issues of global security
depends on the specific context and the nature of the security challenge. Here's a brief overview of both
approaches along with their strengths and weaknesses, along with examples to illustrate their application:

Realist Perspective:

 Definition: Realism is an international relations theory that emphasizes the pursuit of state interests, the
anarchic nature of the international system, and the centrality of power politics. Realists argue that states
are rational actors primarily motivated by self-interest and security.

Strengths of Realism:

1. Pragmatism: Realism's focus on state power and national interests can provide a practical framework for
understanding and managing state-to-state conflicts.
2. Predictive Power: It often accurately predicts how major powers may behave and compete on the global
stage.
3. Stability: Realist strategies can help maintain stability in international relations by acknowledging the
competitive nature of states.

Weaknesses of Realism:

1. Neglect of Non-State Actors: Realism tends to overlook non-state actors and global issues that extend
beyond the interests of individual states.
2. Limited in Addressing Humanitarian Crises: Realism may not provide adequate guidance for dealing
with transnational threats, such as climate change or humanitarian crises.

Example: In the context of great power competition between the United States and China, a realist perspective
may emphasize the importance of maintaining a balance of power and safeguarding national interests.

Human Security Perspective:

 Definition: Human security is a concept that shifts the focus from state security to the protection of
individuals from a wide range of threats, including poverty, disease, environmental degradation, and
political violence. It emphasizes the well-being of people as the ultimate goal of security.
12
1
Strengths of Human Security:

1. Holistic Approach: Human security takes into account a broad range of threats to individuals, including
non-traditional security concerns like health, environment, and economic stability.
2. Human-Centric: It places people at the center of security policies, promoting the well-being and dignity
of individuals.

Weaknesses of Human Security:

1. Vague and Subjective: The concept of human security can be vague and subject to interpretation, making
it challenging to formulate concrete policies.
2. Potential for Overreach: Prioritizing human security over state security may risk undermining the
defense of vital national interests.

Example: When addressing global issues like climate change, the human security perspective emphasizes the
need to protect vulnerable populations from the adverse effects of environmental degradation, ensuring access to
clean water, food, and shelter.

In conclusion, neither the realist perspective nor the human security perspective is universally superior. The
choice between the two depends on the specific security challenge. Realism is better suited for understanding and
managing traditional state-to-state conflicts, while the human security perspective is more applicable to non-
traditional security issues that affect individuals on a global scale. An effective global security strategy may
involve elements of both approaches, tailored to the nature of the threats and the context in which they occur.

4.22. Discuss the ways in which warfare has changed after 1945 – in terms of the role of
states, non-state actors, the question of who fights and dies.

Warfare has undergone significant changes after 1945, with notable shifts in the roles of states and non-state
actors, as well as in the demographics of those who participate and suffer the consequences. These changes reflect
the evolving nature of conflicts in the post-World War II era. Here are some key points on how warfare has
transformed:

1. Role of States:

 Superpower Rivalry: The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union marked a
shift from traditional state-on-state warfare to a competition of ideology and influence. While these
superpowers did not directly engage in a full-scale war, they engaged in proxy conflicts worldwide.
 Globalization: The increasing interconnectedness of states through trade, communication, and
technology has made it more challenging for states to isolate themselves during conflicts.
Economic and political consequences of war can now have far-reaching global impacts.
2. Non-State Actors:

12
2
  Rise of Non-State Actors: The post-1945 era witnessed the increasing prominence of non-state
actors, such as insurgent groups, terrorist organizations, and militias, in shaping global conflicts.
These groups often challenge the traditional state-centric view of warfare.
 Hybrid Warfare: Non-state actors frequently use a combination of conventional and
unconventional tactics, including guerrilla warfare, terrorism, and cyber warfare, blurring the lines
between military and civilian domains.
3. Who Fights and Dies:

 Shift in Combatants: Traditional wars mainly involved uniformed soldiers representing nation-
states. In contrast, contemporary conflicts often feature a mix of state military forces, irregular
militias, and non-state actors, creating a complex battlefield.
 Civilian Casualties: Modern warfare has seen a significant increase in civilian casualties due to
the tactics used by both state and non-state actors. Civilian populations are frequently caught in the
crossfire or deliberately targeted, leading to a humanitarian crisis.
 New Battlefronts: Cyber warfare and information warfare have emerged as additional battlefronts,
where states, non-state actors, and even individuals can engage in hostilities. This can result in less
direct physical harm but significant disruptions in the digital realm.
4. Technological Advancements:

 Technological Revolution: Advances in technology, particularly in the fields of surveillance,

communication, and weaponry, have transformed the way wars are fought. Drones, precision-
guided munitions, and cyber tools have become integral to modern conflicts.
 Nuclear Deterrence: The development of nuclear weapons has fundamentally altered the calculus
of war, as the destructive power of these weapons poses an existential threat to both combatants
and non-combatants.
5. Global Governance and Humanitarian Concerns:

 Humanitarian Intervention: The post-1945 era has seen an increased emphasis on international
norms and institutions aimed at preventing or mitigating human suffering in conflict zones.
Humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine reflect these concerns.
 International Law: The post-World War II period has witnessed the development and
strengthening of international laws and conventions, such as the Geneva Conventions, designed to
regulate the conduct of warfare and protect civilians and combatants who are no longer taking part
in hostilities.

In conclusion, warfare after 1945 has evolved significantly, with a greater prominence of non-state actors, a
broader array of participants, and shifts in the conduct of warfare due to technological advancements. This has led
to a more complex and multifaceted global security landscape, emphasizing the need for innovative strategies and
international cooperation to address the challenges posed by modern conflicts.

Old answer:

12
3
Since 1945: fewer interstate wars, and these were largely restrained by superpower intervention (exception: Iran-
Iraq).

Civil war has become the most widespread form of warfare.

MAD, UN
Globalization has given rise to a distinctive form of organized violence, commonly labeled “new wars”. They
reflect the ongoing erosion of the state's monopoly of legitimate organized violence. The goals of combatants can
be understood in the context of a struggle between cosmopolitan and exclusivist identity groups. The latter are
understood to be seeking control of a particular territory by ethnically cleansing different identity groups or
people who espouse cosmopolitan opinions (civilians die too). They are fought through a novel “mode of
warfare” that draws on both guerilla techniques and counter-insurgency. Yet this mode of warfare is distinctive
inasmuch as decisive engagements are avoided and territory is controlled through political manipulation of a
population by sowing “fear and hatred” rather than winning “hearts and minds”. Paramilitaries and groups of
hired thugs are hence a common feature of these war zones as they can spread fear among the civilian population
more effectively than professional armed forces. Paramilitary forces are also useful because it can be difficult to
trace back responsibility for their actions to political leaders. The new wars are financed through a globalized war
economy that is decentralized and increasingly transnational and in which the fighting units are often self-funding
through plunder, the black market or external assistance.

4.23. Define the concept “total war”.

The concept of "total war," as developed by historian John Keegan rather than Williams, refers to a type of
warfare in which all aspects of a society and its resources are mobilized and directed toward the war effort. In
total war, the distinction between military and civilian targets often becomes blurred, and the entire society
becomes involved in or affected by the conflict. Key characteristics of total war include:
1. Mobilization of Resources: In total war, a nation's entire industrial, economic, and human resources are
geared towards supporting the war effort. This can include conscription of the population, the mass
production of weapons, and the allocation of resources to the military.

2. Civilian Involvement: Civilian populations are actively engaged in the war effort, whether through
working in war-related industries, contributing to propaganda and morale-boosting efforts, or participating
in civil defense measures.

3. Intensive Propaganda: Total war often involves intense propaganda efforts to build and maintain public
support for the war, shape public opinion, and encourage a sense of collective national identity.

4. Economic Sacrifice: The economy is restructured to prioritize military production, sometimes at the
expense of civilian needs. Rationing and price controls may be implemented to ensure resources are
available for the military.

5. Strategic Bombing: In total war, strategic bombing of enemy cities and infrastructure becomes a common
tactic, aiming to disrupt the enemy's capacity to wage war by targeting industrial and civilian centers.

12
4
 6. Scorched Earth Tactics: Total war may involve the use of scorched earth tactics, where retreating forces
destroy infrastructure and resources to deny them to the enemy.

7. Civilian Casualties: The distinction between combatants and non-combatants often becomes blurred,
resulting in higher civilian casualties.

Historically, examples of total war include World War I and World War II, particularly during the latter conflict
when nations like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union fully mobilized their societies for war, resulting in
immense destruction and loss of life.

Old answer:

At its heart, the idea of total war revolved around the notions of escalation and participation. Blur in the
distinction between the civilian and military spheres.

First, technological and industrial advances during this period permitted the methods of warfare to become more
destructive.

Second, governments were creasingly able to mobilize national resources.

A third tendency was the expanding scope of war aims, defeat of an enemy’s armed forces, but also the
replacement of its political regime.

Fourth, the war’s increasingly global scope.

4.24. Explain the differences between a counterinsurgency and insurgency.

Insurgency: Non-state actors (e.g., rebel groups) challenge and seek to overthrow a government through armed
conflict.
Counterinsurgency: Government or controlling forces use a combination of military and non-military strategies
to suppress or defeat insurgencies, often by winning local support and addressing root causes.

Old answer:

NATO doctrine defines counterinsurgency as compre- hensive civilian and military efforts made to defeat an
insurgency and to address any core grievances. Insur- gents seek to compel or coerce political change on those in
power, often through the use or threat of force by irregular forces, groups, or individuals.

4.25. Why have discussions of human security become increasingly important in recent
years?

Discussions of human security have become increasingly important in recent years due to several factors:

1. Complex Threats: The world faces a growing array of complex and interconnected threats, including
12
5
 terrorism, pandemics, climate change, and economic disparities. These threats often have a direct impact
on the well-being and safety of individuals, emphasizing the need to focus on human security.

2. Globalization: In an interconnected world, crises in one region can have far-reaching effects on global
stability and human lives. This interconnectedness underscores the importance of addressing human
security concerns that transcend national borders.

3. Changing Nature of Conflict: Modern conflicts often result in significant harm to civilian populations.
Human security recognizes the importance of protecting individuals from the direct and indirect
consequences of violence, making it a crucial consideration in contemporary conflict resolution.

4. Advancements in Communication: The ease of communication and information sharing has made global
audiences more aware of humanitarian crises and human rights violations. This increased awareness has
spurred greater international attention to human security concerns.

5. Humanitarian Imperative: There is a growing recognition that addressing human security issues is not
just a matter of politics or strategy but a moral and humanitarian imperative. Protecting individuals from
harm and ensuring their well-being is seen as a fundamental global responsibility.

Overall, the increasing importance of human security discussions reflects a growing understanding that the well-
being and safety of individuals should be at the center of international and national policies and efforts.

4.26. What are some of the primary critiques of the human security approach?

The human security approach has received both praise and criticism. Some of the primary critiques of the human
security approach include:

1. Lack of Clarity and Consistency: Critics argue that human security lacks a clear and universally
accepted definition, making it difficult to implement in practice. The broad and evolving nature of the
concept makes it challenging to develop concrete policies.

2. Potential for Interventionism: Some view human security as a justification for humanitarian
intervention, and critics argue that it can be used to legitimize military interventions by powerful states in
the name of protecting human security, potentially violating state sovereignty.

3. Resource Allocation: Critics argue that a focus on human security may divert resources away from
traditional security concerns, such as defense and national security, potentially leaving states vulnerable to
external threats.

4. Western Bias: Some critics contend that the concept of human security reflects Western values and
priorities, which may not necessarily align with the concerns and perspectives of non-Western states and
cultures.

12
6
 5. Instrumentalization: Human security can be instrumentalized for political purposes, and its rhetoric may
be used selectively to serve the interests of particular actors rather than genuinely addressing the security
needs of vulnerable populations.

6. Inclusivity and Exclusivity: Critics suggest that the emphasis on human security might inadvertently
exclude certain marginalized groups or concerns. There can be a risk of overlooking issues that do not fit
neatly within the human security framework.

7. Overreach: There are concerns that an overly expansive interpretation of human security might dilute the
concept's effectiveness by including too many issues under its umbrella, making it difficult to prioritize
and address key security concerns.

8. Feasibility: Some critics question the feasibility of effectively addressing complex, multifaceted human
security issues, especially in regions with limited resources and institutional capacity.

9. Inadequate State Focus: Critics argue that the emphasis on individuals' well-being may undermine state
capacity and stability by diverting attention away from maintaining law and order.

These critiques reflect the ongoing debates surrounding the human security approach, with some arguing for a
more precise definition and a careful consideration of its potential implications for state sovereignty, resource
allocation, and international interventions.

Old answer:

a. Lack of a universally recognized definition.

b. It is not clear how the provision of security is operationalized. How are freedom from fear and freedom from
want secured, and by whom?
c. The human security approach is nothing more than a tool to further state and international agendas. The co-
option of human security for state security purposes has turned into a sort of “virtuous imperialism”, whereby
states in the Global North engage in humanitarian interventions or other proclaimed human security measures for
the purposes of ensuring that unrest in the Global South does not extend to northern states through migration or
terrorism. The state security orientation and implementation of human security has often rendered non-state actors
passive and made invisible any human insecurities and vulnerabilities not identified by states.

4.27. How do scholars define “insecurity”?

In spite of our individual concerns and anxieties, most of life’s insecurities are shared by other individuals and
groups. This means that when studying security it is important to pay attention to how representatives of particular
groups and organizations construct threat agendas.

P120 Security is thus conceived as a process of (in)securitization, which is centrally driven by competition among
multiple actors to police the line between security and insecurity. This is done to create obedience among
12
7
populations and legitimize their practices of coercion, surveillance, information gathering and the drawing up of
personal profiles. This process of (in)securitization is a mixture of discursive and nondiscursive practices, which
operates at different scales.

Most scholars see security in positive terms as the opposite of insecurity.

4.28. Why is income inequality a problem relevant to the study of peace and conflict?

The persistence of poverty is attributed to a series of traps affecting countries. These include the “conflict trap”
whereby poor countries experience increased likelihood of civil war and the natural resource and poor governance
traps, which can fuel corruption and failure of governments to meet citizen expectations.
4.29. Define the Washington Consensus.
The Washington Consensus is a set of ten economic policy principles that were broadly promoted by prominent
international financial institutions, particularly the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, in the
late 20th century. These principles were seen as a one-size-fits-all approach to economic policy, emphasizing
market-oriented reforms and fiscal discipline. The term "Washington Consensus" was coined by economist John
Williamson in 1989.
The ten policy recommendations typically associated with the Washington Consensus include:

1. Fiscal Discipline: Maintain a low budget deficit to avoid excessive government borrowing and inflation.

2. Reordering Public Expenditure: Redirect government spending from subsidies and non-essential services
toward key areas like education and healthcare.

3. Tax Reform: Broaden the tax base and lower marginal tax rates to promote economic growth.

4. Deregulation: Reduce government regulations to encourage competition and economic efficiency.

5. Liberalization of Trade: Remove trade barriers and open up the economy to international trade and foreign
investment.

6. Market-Oriented Exchange Rates: Allow market forces to determine exchange rates rather than relying on
fixed or heavily managed rates.

7. Financial Liberalization: Open financial markets to foreign investment, encourage domestic financial
sector development, and deregulate interest rates.

8. Privatization: Transfer state-owned enterprises to the private sector to increase efficiency and competition.

9. Legal and Property Rights: Strengthen the protection of property rights and create a stable legal framework
12
8
 for businesses.

10. Secure Contracts: Ensure the enforcement of contracts and the rule of law to provide a secure
environment for business.

The Washington Consensus was influential in shaping economic policy in many developing countries during the
1980s and 1990s. However, it also generated considerable debate and criticism. Critics argued that it often led to
social and economic inequalities and failed to address the specific needs and circumstances of individual
countries. In the following years, there was a shift towards more context-specific and inclusive development
policies.

Old answer:

The ‘Washington Consensus’ as it came to be known was promoted as a universal blueprint for development by
an increasingly coordinated set of actors – public and private international financial institutions.

The causes of poverty and underdevelopment were identified as internal to the state, rather than external/structural
or a combination of both. Export-led growth would generate foreign exchange necessary for debt repayment, and
benefits would occur throughout society by the ‘trickle down’ effect. The role of the state was redefined as the
enabler of the private sector, facilitating privatization, liberalization and deregulation.

It was supposed to give aid to third world countries with their debts, but it failed because the west still had a
colonizer mentality

4.30. What are the Sustainable (or Millennium) Development Goals? Why were they
developed?
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), formerly known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),
are a set of global goals and targets established by the United Nations to address various social, economic, and
environmental challenges. They were developed to:
1. End Poverty: To eradicate extreme poverty and hunger by improving living standards and ensuring access
to basic needs.

2. Achieve Quality Education: Ensure access to quality education for all, promoting lifelong learning
opportunities.

3. Promote Gender Equality: Achieve gender equality and empower women and girls in all aspects of life.

4. Reduce Child Mortality: Improve child health and reduce child mortality rates.

5. Improve Maternal Health: Enhance maternal health and reduce maternal mortality.

6. Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Other Diseases: Address major diseases and work towards their
prevention and treatment.
12
9
 7. Ensure Environmental Sustainability: Promote environmental sustainability by addressing climate
change, conserving natural resources, and ensuring access to clean water and sanitation.

8. Global Partnership for Development: Develop a global partnership for development, including trade,
aid, debt relief, and access to affordable essential drugs.

The Millennium Development Goals were established in 2000 and were intended to be achieved by 2015. While
not all goals were met by the target date, they brought significant global attention to critical development issues.
In 2015, the United Nations adopted the Sustainable Development Goals, which expanded on the MDGs and set
new targets to be achieved by 2030. These goals provide a framework for global cooperation and action to address
pressing global challenges, including poverty, inequality, environmental sustainability, and access to healthcare
and education.

4.31. In relation to ethnic conflict, discuss the distinction between instrumentalist,

primordialist, and constructivist approaches to identity.

Ethnicity is a primordial identity: essentially unchangeable → ethnic conflicts based on “ancient hatreds” that are
impossible to eradicate and nearly impossible to manage

Ethnic identity is instrumental: people have multiple identities and identities change, people can shift their
political identity based on the situation → ethnic conflict can be blamed primarily on selfish leaders who mislead
their followers in pursuit of their own power, by creating ethnic solidarity when it works for them.

The constructivist approach mixes the two views and emphasizes the degree to which people create their
identities. Ethnic identities are “socially constructed”: they are not “natural” in the sense that a simple
primordialist view would assume. They are just a matter of customs, and the source of these customs are
“invented traditions”, “myth-symbol complexes” which in ethnic conflicts identifies heroes and enemies.

4.32. What do scholars see as some of the primary causes of ethnic conflicts?

Williams Ch.25 pg 386-387

Explanations of ethnic conflicts divide along

Instrumental approaches start with what creates the opportunity for rebels to act: weak governments, large
populations and inaccessible terrain create the opening extremists need to act. Also important in many
instrumentalists arguments are extremist leaders seeking to grab or hold onto power, who stir up ethnic
disagreements and provoke violence to create a “rally around the flag” effect, uniting their group around their own
leadership.

Social mobilization approaches consider both opportunity and leadership, but they are also interested in how
ethnic groups mobilize. People's social networks tend to be mostly within their ethnic group, barrier of language
or religion typically separate them from members of other groups.
13
0
Social psychological approaches focus on why followers follow these extremist leaders. Symbolic politics
theory suggests that, when the group's myth-symbol complex points to the other group as the enemy, prejudice is
a likely result and group members will for that reason be predisposed to be hostile to the other group. Politicians
will then be able to appeal to symbols of past hostility to rouse people's emotions against the enemy that symbol
brings to mind. If the group is at the same time convinced that they are in danger they can be persuaded to back
extreme measures that are then justified as “self defense”.
4.33. Explain the differences between: liberal feminism, radical feminism and feminist
critical theory.
Liberal feminism, radical feminism, and feminist critical theory are distinct branches of feminist thought, each
with its own perspective on the root causes of gender inequality and strategies for achieving gender equity. Here
are the key differences between them:
1. Liberal Feminism:

 Focus: Liberal feminism primarily concentrates on achieving gender equality within existing social
and political structures. It aims to reform laws and institutions to ensure women's rights and equal
opportunities.
 Key Beliefs: Liberal feminists argue that gender inequality primarily results from legal and
structural discrimination. They advocate for equal pay for equal work, women's political
representation, and the removal of legal barriers to women's advancement.
 Methods: Liberal feminists work within the system to change laws and policies through advocacy,
lobbying, and legal reform. They often pursue a more incremental approach to social change.
2. Radical Feminism:

 Focus: Radical feminism seeks to identify and challenge the fundamental roots of patriarchy and
male domination in society. It considers gender inequality as deeply ingrained in the fabric of
culture, institutions, and interpersonal relationships.
 Key Beliefs: Radical feminists argue that patriarchy is the main cause of gender oppression. They
emphasize the need to challenge and transform the entire societal structure, including gender roles,
family structures, and norms that perpetuate male dominance.
 Methods: Radical feminists often use more confrontational and revolutionary methods to address
gender inequality. They may engage in consciousness-raising, protests, and activism that
challenges traditional gender roles and systems.
3. Feminist Critical Theory (or Intersectional Feminism):

 Focus: Feminist critical theory is a broad framework that encompasses various feminist
perspectives, with a particular emphasis on analyzing how different forms of oppression (such as
gender, race, class, and sexuality) intersect and interact. It seeks to understand the complexities of
inequality.
 Key Beliefs: Feminist critical theory acknowledges that gender inequality cannot be examined in
isolation and must be understood within the context of multiple intersecting oppressions. It
examines how race, class, and other factors compound gender-based discrimination.

13
1
  Methods: Feminist critical theorists engage in critical analysis of culture, politics, and society,
emphasizing the importance of acknowledging and addressing intersecting forms of oppression.
They often use interdisciplinary approaches and prioritize the voices and experiences of
marginalized groups.

4.34. How have feminist approaches contributed to the understanding of international

conflict and security?

Old answer:
International security is infused with gendered assumptions and representations.
The effects of presenting international security as though it is gender-neutral are numerous, and not least that it
makes invisible the gender-differentiated understandings and impacts of security on women and men and the
ways in which security is constituted in part through gender – the prevailing ideas and meanings associated
with masculinity and femininity rather than the facts of biological differences between men and women.
The manifestations of relations of power will emerge in a variety of ways, and in the case of questions of security,
can inform how we understand what security means and how it (and insecurity) is experienced by women and
men. Many feminists focus on the ways in which gender is constructed through security (and insecurity) and on
the ways in which security is constructed through gender.
The UN Security Council, for example, adopted Resolution 1325 in October 2000 on ‘Women, Peace and
Security’ – a resolution which noted both that women and girls are affected by armed conflict in ways that differ
from the impact on men and boys, and the importance of incorporating a ‘gender perspective’ into peace
operations
greater attention to gender enriches our understanding and expectations associated with international security.

Women are targeted specifically, and in specifically gendered ways. Studies by scholars, human rights
organizations and international institutions began to focus on the impact of armed conflict on women. Much of
this work focuses on the ways in which, most commonly, women and girls are subjected to heightened levels of
sexual violence during wartime, including sexual torture, enforced prostitution, sexual slavery and mutilations,
and sexual trafficking. In some conflicts, acts of sexual violence have been so widespread, and so widely and
clearly documented, that international protective measures have been developed which acknowledge the
systematic use of sexual violence as a weapon of war.
These other impacts can include being targeted for acts of violence – women are not only sexually assaulted
during wartime, but they are also regularly killed and maimed.
Women are also affected by the economic impact of armed conflict – they struggle with the loss of economic
livelihoods and the inflation that normally accompanies conflict, making the cost of basic items or foodstuffs
prohibitively high.
During conflict, women also struggle for continued access to health care or other social services such as
educational facilities, after these have been destroyed or are simply unavailable to internally displaced people and
refugees

13
2
Reminder: Men are also the targets of sexual violence during war time. (Undermining of manlihood).
Interogations often fail to include this problem.

Consideration of the works of Carol Cohn for example: For feminists, this kind of masculinist frame can lead
decision-makers down paths that could be avoided, and predisposes decision-makers to naturalize highly
militarized and violent responses. In turn, it likely forecloses other policy options precisely because they are not
deemed to be ‘manly’ enough.

Misogyny is inherent in fundamentalisms and the kinds of violence which erupt from them. The group Women
Against Fundamentalisms (2007) writes that: ‘Fundamentalism appears in different and changing forms in
religions throughout the world, sometimes as a state project, sometimes in opposition to the state. But at the heart
of all fundamentalist agendas is the control of women’s minds and bodies’.

4.35. In which ways may women be actors in war?

Women also regularly take up arms and commit acts of violence in war. In some cases it is because they are
forced to do so, but in others it is because they are committed to the goals of the conflict, they choose to become
combatants themselves. Women have also been documented as serving as messengers for combatants, as spies, as
suicide bombers and as providing assistance through smuggling weapons and providing intelligence.
As women are seldom viewed as having served as combatants they may experience greater freedom in organizing
informal peace campaigns. Some women peace activists have used prevailing assumptions about their roles as
‘mothers’ to protect themselves against state and non-state authorities who would otherwise prohibit public
criticisms of local and foreign policies concerning a conflict.

Limitations: Women are rarely invited to formal ‘peace tables’ and are normally excluded from DDR programmes
which give former combatants access to educational, training and employment opportunities.

5. General Questions for Reflection

5.1. What constitutes the organisation of violence in both peace and war, judging from the
different sections of the course literature you have read? In your consideration of this
question, you should reflect upon the historical sections of Scheper-Hughes & Bourgois’
book as well as the articles dealing with more recent conflicts in peace and war.

The organization of violence, whether in times of peace or war, is a complex and multifaceted subject that can be
explored through various sections of course literature, including political science, international relations,
sociology, and history. Here are some key elements and insights that can be derived from such literature:
1. State and Non-State Actors: The literature often distinguishes between state actors (governments and
their military forces) and non-state actors (rebel groups, militias, terrorist organizations) as key players in
organizing violence. States typically have formal structures, while non-state actors often rely on
decentralized networks.

2. Institutionalization of Violence in Peace:

13
3
  Military Institutions: In times of peace, states maintain standing armies and security forces that
are responsible for maintaining order and protecting the state's interests. The literature delves into
the organization and control of these institutions, including recruitment, training, and the
development of doctrines.
 Law Enforcement: Policing and law enforcement agencies play a critical role in maintaining
domestic peace. Course literature may explore their organization, legal frameworks, and use of
force guidelines.
3. War and Conflict:

 Causes of War: The literature often delves into the causes of war, such as territorial disputes,
resource scarcity, ideological conflicts, and power struggles among states.
 Military Strategies and Tactics: In wartime, military organizations develop and implement
strategies, tactics, and operational plans to achieve their objectives. Course materials may discuss
concepts like maneuver warfare, attrition warfare, and the impact of technology on military
operations.
 Civil Conflict and Insurgency: Non-state actors, such as insurgent groups, are often examined in
the context of civil conflicts. The literature may explore their organizational structures,
motivations, and strategies.
4. Conflict Resolution and Peacekeeping:

 Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution: Courses may cover diplomatic efforts and negotiations to
prevent or end conflicts, including the role of international organizations, treaties, and peace
agreements.
 Peacekeeping Operations: Peacekeeping missions, often led by international organizations like
the United Nations, are examined in the literature. This includes the organization, composition, and
challenges faced by peacekeeping forces.
5. Civil-Military Relations: The interaction and balance of power between civilian authorities and the
military are vital for maintaining both peace and control over the military in democratic societies.

6. Humanitarian Aspects:

 Humanitarian law and the protection of civilians during armed conflicts are critical topics covered
in the literature. This includes examining the role of international humanitarian organizations.
7. Economic and Social Dimensions:

 Economic factors, such as the arms trade and resource exploitation, are often discussed in the
context of violence and conflict.
 Social factors, including the impact of conflict on civilian populations, refugees, and internally
displaced people, are explored in the literature.
8. Psychological and Ethical Aspects: The psychological impact of violence on individuals and societies, as
well as the ethical considerations surrounding the use of violence, are subjects that may be addressed in the

13
4
 literature.

9. Technological Advances: The role of technology in warfare, including cyber warfare, drones, and other
advanced weaponry, is a subject of increasing importance and scrutiny in modern conflict.

10. Gender and Conflict: The literature may also touch on the gendered aspects of violence, including
the roles of women in conflict and the gender-specific impact of war on societies.

Understanding the organization of violence in both peace and war requires a multidisciplinary approach, drawing
from various fields of study to analyze the different dimensions and dynamics involved in these complex
processes. Course literature can offer valuable insights into the historical, political, sociological, and ethical
aspects of organized violence.

5.2. Why are men and women affected differently in war and conflicts? Base your discussion
of this question on the various explanations given in the texts. Attempt to identify different
types of explanation and discuss them critically: ask yourself whether they are based on
stereotyping (e.g. women/feminine//men/masculine), and/or on racially-based or class-
based notions of people in other societies, social strata, cultures, countries or parts of the
world.

The differential impact of war and conflict on men and women has been a subject of study in various disciplines,
including gender studies, sociology, and international relations. Different explanations have been put forth to
understand these disparities, and it's essential to critically evaluate these explanations, considering whether they
are based on stereotypes, race, or class-based notions. Here are some of the key explanations:
1. Gender Roles and Stereotypes:

 Traditional Gender Roles: One of the most common explanations is that men and women have
historically occupied different roles in society. Men have often been associated with the role of
protector and warrior, while women have been associated with nurturing and caregiving. In times
of conflict, these traditional roles can lead to differences in how men and women are affected.
 Stereotypes: Some explanations are rooted in stereotypes about men and women. For example, the
idea that men are naturally more resilient or better suited for combat, while women are seen as
more vulnerable, can influence the ways in which their experiences in conflict are perceived.
2. Violence and Physical Impact:

 Direct Combat Roles: In many societies, men have traditionally been the primary participants in
direct combat roles, which often exposes them to more intense physical violence and risk of injury
or death.
 Psychological Impact: While both men and women may suffer from trauma, some argue that
men's exposure to direct combat may result in different types of psychological impacts, such as
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
3. Socioeconomic Factors:
13
5
  Economic Impact: In many societies, the disruption caused by war can have different economic
consequences for men and women. Men may be conscripted into military service or forced to leave
their jobs, affecting family income. Women may experience economic hardship and may take on
additional responsibilities in the absence of men.
 Displacement: Women and children often constitute the majority of internally displaced persons
and refugees. Their displacement can result in different socioeconomic challenges and
vulnerabilities.
4. Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (SGBV):

 Rape and Sexual Violence: Women and girls are disproportionately affected by sexual violence
during conflicts. This is a deeply concerning aspect of gender-based violence, and it has long-
lasting physical and psychological consequences.
 Stigmatization and Shaming: Victims of SGBV may face social stigma and shaming, making it
difficult for them to reintegrate into their communities.
5. Legal and Human Rights Issues:

 Discrimination and Legal Protections: Discrimination against women in conflict situations can
limit their access to legal protections and support. This includes issues related to property rights,
inheritance, and access to justice.
 Human Rights Violations: Violations of human rights can have distinct gender dimensions. For
example, forced marriage, human trafficking, and sexual exploitation can disproportionately affect
women and girls.
6. Intersectionality:

 It's important to recognize that the impact of conflict on individuals is shaped by multiple
intersecting factors, including gender, race, class, ethnicity, and age. These factors can compound
the challenges faced by different groups, making some more vulnerable than others.

It is critical to approach the study of gendered impacts of war and conflict with a nuanced and critical perspective.
While some explanations are rooted in stereotypes and may perpetuate gender norms, others are based on
empirical evidence of how conflict affects different individuals and groups. Recognizing that not all men or
women experience conflict in the same way and that gender intersects with various identities and experiences is
essential for a more comprehensive understanding. Additionally, it is crucial to address these issues without
reinforcing harmful stereotypes or ethnocentric views about other societies and cultures.

5.3. What does it imply and what are the conceivable consequences of only focusing on one
category of gender (women or men, for example) in describing and theorizing about
conflicts?
Focusing exclusively on one category of gender (whether women or men) in describing and theorizing about
conflicts can lead to a range of implications and consequences, many of which are incomplete or biased in their
understanding of the complex dynamics of conflict and its impact on societies. Here are some of the implications

13
6
and consequences of such one-sided focus:
1. Incomplete Understanding: By only focusing on one gender, a significant portion of the experiences,
roles, and perspectives of the other gender is neglected. This results in an incomplete understanding of the
multifaceted nature of conflicts.

2. Reinforcement of Stereotypes: Exclusive focus on one gender can perpetuate gender stereotypes. For
example, if only women are considered as victims and only men as perpetrators, it reinforces binary and
simplistic views of gender roles.

3. Overlooking Men's Vulnerabilities: Ignoring the impact of conflict on men may lead to overlooking their
vulnerabilities and needs. Men can also be subjected to violence, trauma, and displacement during
conflicts.

4. Policy Gaps: If conflict theories and policies are designed based on a single-gender perspective, they may
fail to address the diverse needs and vulnerabilities of the entire population, leading to ineffective and
incomplete policies.

5. Neglecting Intersectionality: Conflict experiences are shaped by multiple intersecting factors, including
gender, race, class, ethnicity, and more. Focusing on one gender in isolation can disregard the complex
interplay of these factors.

6. Human Rights and Equality: An exclusive focus on one gender can hinder the promotion of gender
equality and human rights. Both women's and men's rights should be recognized and protected in conflict
settings.

7. Missed Opportunities for Peacebuilding: Women have played crucial roles in peacebuilding and conflict
resolution. Ignoring women's experiences and contributions in conflict settings can lead to missed
opportunities for building sustainable peace.

8. Inadequate Analysis of Root Causes: Conflict analysis that only considers the impact on one gender may
neglect the root causes of conflicts, such as gender-based discrimination, unequal power dynamics, and
cultural norms that perpetuate violence.

9. Marginalization of Non-Binary and Transgender Individuals: Exclusive focus on a binary

understanding of gender (men and women) can marginalize non-binary and transgender individuals, whose
experiences may differ from those of cisgender individuals.

10. Ethnocentrism: Focusing solely on the experiences of one gender may result in ethnocentric
views when applied to societies with different cultural norms, where gender roles and expectations may
differ.

To address these issues, it is essential to adopt an inclusive and intersectional approach to the study of conflicts.

13
7
This means considering how gender intersects with other factors, and recognizing that people's experiences and
roles are diverse and multifaceted. Such an approach provides a more holistic and nuanced understanding of the
impact of conflicts and helps in developing more effective and equitable policies and interventions. Ultimately, it
promotes a broader commitment to human rights, social justice, and gender equality.

5.4. If one only focuses on one category of person, does this mean that the text lacks a gender
perspective? What other differences, apart from just gender, should one take into
consideration in order to form a picture of how people are variously affected during
conflicts, both in exile and in postconflict situations?
Yes, if a text or analysis solely focuses on one category of person, it can be said to lack a comprehensive gender
perspective. A gender perspective involves recognizing and analyzing the roles, experiences, and impacts of both
men and women, as well as individuals with diverse gender identities, in various situations, including conflicts,
exile, and post-conflict settings.
Apart from gender, it's essential to consider a range of other differences to form a more comprehensive picture of
how people are variously affected during conflicts and in post-conflict situations. These differences may include:

1. Age: Different age groups may experience conflict differently. Children, for instance, may be particularly
vulnerable to trauma and displacement, while the elderly may face specific health and care challenges.

2. Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity: LGBTQ+ individuals often face unique challenges and
vulnerabilities, including discrimination and violence in conflict settings.

3. Race and Ethnicity: Ethnic and racial minorities may face discrimination and persecution during
conflicts, and these dynamics can continue in post-conflict situations.

4. Social Class and Economic Status: Economic disparities can affect how individuals experience conflict
and post-conflict recovery. Those in poverty may face more significant challenges in accessing resources
and opportunities.

5. Disability: People with disabilities can have specific needs and vulnerabilities during conflicts and in post-
conflict contexts, particularly related to accessibility, healthcare, and support.

6. Geographic Location: Conflict impacts can vary based on one's geographic location. Rural and urban
areas may experience conflicts differently, with varying access to services and resources.

7. Religion and Belief: Religious and belief-based differences can play a role in conflict dynamics, affecting
people's safety, rights, and identity.

8. Language and Cultural Identity: Language barriers and cultural differences can influence access to
information, services, and participation in post-conflict recovery processes.

13
8
 9. Nationality and Immigration Status: Migrants, refugees, and internally displaced individuals may face
legal and social challenges related to their nationality and immigration status.

10. Family and Caregiver Roles: Family structures and caregiving responsibilities can impact how
individuals are affected by conflicts. Women, in particular, may take on additional caregiving roles during
and after conflicts.

11. Education and Literacy: Access to education and literacy levels can affect an individual's
capacity to navigate conflict situations and participate in post-conflict recovery.

12. Health and Health Care: Individuals with pre-existing health conditions may require specialized
care, and access to healthcare can be disrupted during conflicts.

13. Legal Status and Human Rights: Legal protections and human rights violations can differ based
on an individual's legal status and the respect for human rights in a particular context.

14. Cultural and Societal Norms: Cultural norms and societal expectations can shape how
individuals respond to and cope with conflicts.

An inclusive perspective acknowledges the intersection of these various factors and recognizes that individuals'
experiences and vulnerabilities are shaped by a combination of these elements. This approach helps in developing
more effective policies, interventions, and post-conflict reconstruction efforts that address the diverse needs and
challenges faced by different groups in society.

5.5. Do different forms of affiliation or identity (social, economic, religious, gender-based, et

al.) combine to influence both how people are affected by conflict and how they perceive it?
Yes, different forms of affiliation or identity, including social, economic, religious, gender-based, and others,
significantly influence both how people are affected by conflict and how they perceive it. These various identities
intersect and interact to shape an individual's experiences, perspectives, and responses to conflict. Here's how
different affiliations and identities can combine to influence people's experiences and perceptions during conflicts:
1. Gender and Social Identity:

 Gender identity intersects with social identity, affecting roles, expectations, and vulnerabilities. For
example, women from marginalized social groups may experience conflict differently from men in
the same groups, as they may face both gender-based and socio-economic disparities.
2. Religious and Ethnic Identity:

 Conflicts often have religious and ethnic dimensions. Individuals from specific religious or ethnic
backgrounds may be targeted or marginalized, affecting their experiences. Additionally, religious
beliefs can provide a source of resilience and coping strategies during times of conflict.
3. Economic Status and Social Identity:

13
9
  Economic disparities can be intertwined with social identity. Lower socio-economic status can
make individuals more vulnerable to the economic shocks of conflict, including loss of livelihoods
and displacement.
4. Gender and Religious Identity:

 Gendered expectations within religious communities can affect the roles and treatment of
individuals during conflicts. For example, women's religious and spiritual leadership may not be
recognized in certain contexts, impacting their agency in peacebuilding.
5. Race and Gender Identity:

 Racial and gender identities intersect to shape experiences during conflict. For example, women of
color may face different forms of discrimination and violence compared to white women.
6. Sexual Orientation and Economic Status:

 Individuals from the LGBTQ+ community who are also economically disadvantaged may
experience heightened vulnerability and discrimination in conflict settings.
7. Cultural Norms and Gender Identity:

 Cultural norms often reinforce traditional gender roles and expectations. These norms can affect
how individuals are perceived and treated during conflicts, especially concerning issues like honor-
based violence.
8. Nationality and Social Identity:

 Nationality can be a crucial factor in determining access to resources, rights, and protection during
conflict and displacement. Refugees and migrants often experience unique challenges related to
their nationality and social identity.
9. Family Structure and Economic Identity:

 Family structures, such as single-parent households, can intersect with economic identity. Single
mothers may face distinct economic and caregiving challenges during conflict.
10. Age and Gender Identity:

 Adolescents and older individuals experience conflicts differently. For example, young girls and boys may
be vulnerable to different forms of exploitation, while elderly women and men may face unique health and
care challenges.

Understanding these intersections is essential for creating targeted and effective policies and interventions. It
helps policymakers, humanitarian organizations, and peacebuilders to address the specific needs and
vulnerabilities of different groups within a society. It also contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the root
causes and dynamics of conflicts, allowing for more comprehensive and inclusive strategies for conflict
prevention, mitigation, and post-conflict recovery.

14
0
 5.6. In academic terminology we (for the moment) are speaking here about the intersection
between different factors/categories/identities. It is also possible (though slightly more old-
fashioned) to talk about how different factors/categories/identities interact in different
connections or contexts. Think carefully about these two concepts and how you can use
them effectively in different circumstances: in actual fact, they have different meanings and
are both important notions that you should be able to handle and apply correctly.
Indeed, the concepts of "intersection" and "interaction" are distinct in academic terminology, and understanding
the nuances between them is essential for precise and effective communication in scholarly discussions and
research. Here's how these concepts differ and how they can be effectively used in various circumstances:
1. Intersection:

 Meaning: "Intersection" refers to the point at which two or more factors, categories, or identities
overlap or cross paths. It emphasizes the simultaneous presence and interaction of multiple
dimensions or characteristics in a single context or individual.
 Usage:
 In discussions of intersectionality, which is a framework for understanding how multiple
social identities intersect and influence a person's experiences and opportunities. For
example, the intersection of gender and race highlights how experiences may differ for
women of different racial backgrounds.
 In sociological and gender studies research to analyze how social categories like race,
gender, class, and sexuality intersect to shape individuals' life experiences.
2. Interaction:

 Meaning: "Interaction" refers to the process of individuals or elements affecting each other by
coming into contact or engaging in some form of dynamic exchange. It emphasizes the dynamic
relationship or mutual influence between two or more factors, categories, or identities.
 Usage:
 In studies of social dynamics to examine how different groups or categories interact with
each other and the resulting consequences. For example, how economic and social classes
interact in shaping access to educational opportunities.
 In research on conflict and peace studies, to explore how various actors, including states,
non-state actors, and international organizations, interact in the context of peace
negotiations or conflict resolution.

It's important to choose the appropriate term based on the specific context and what you aim to convey.
"Intersection" focuses on the coexistence of multiple identities or factors within an individual or situation,
highlighting how they overlap and affect one another. "Interaction," on the other hand, emphasizes the dynamic
14
1
processes through which various factors, categories, or identities influence and shape each other. The choice
between these terms depends on the emphasis and scope of your research or discussion, and using them correctly
enhances clarity and precision in academic writing and discourse.

14
2