28512337

language, Assault

The Abstract: This paper will be dealing with the utilization of Violence as well as legitimization through manipulation of language by the state in dealing with “the other”. In an attempt to check out the position played by state, which monopolizes the use of violence in the interest of civilizing its people, motivated by a documented titled “where in the World can be Osama Bin Laden? “, this conventional paper tries to go above spoken and written terms to reach an improved understanding of this role.

It starts by defining the concept of “violence” and drawing a clear variation between their meaning and this of other related, but not identical concepts, and specifying the agents of violence, generally focusing on the state of hawaii, for the entire paper focuses on their use of violence.

Thinking with regards to methodological nationalism, this paper tries to find an answer to the way we define yourself and why do we define anyone outside this kind of “we” group as “the other” and just how, as a result, physical violence became the means of dealing with “the other”.

It then ways to justifying this kind of “legitimate” utilization of violence by state up against the other and highlights the key role that language takes on in this procedure. Finally, there exists an attempt to comprehend the convenience of assault advocated by simply some against that of the mainstream thinkers and philosophers, accompanied by going through the role the civil as well as the global municipal society can, and do, perform in finding new means of connection and coping with one another.

It comes to the following conclusion: violence because used by people before the formation of the state resembles violence as used by the state apparatus, Civility can be described as myth. The sole difference with the agents, the targets, the interests and the domain wherever violence is practiced. As well as for that, a knowledgeable, aware and active function should be pursued by the municipal society, to curb the application of violence either by the express or simply by any other actor or actress. The summarize: I. Intro II. Human body: Defining physical violence: What does the idea of violence imply?

Making a clear distinction of violence am?iais a` vis other related principles Recognizing the agents of violence Determining the “we” and the “other”: The matters of personality The way all of us perceive themselves The way we all perceive “the other” Coping with the “other”: The emotional mindset The utilization of violence as a means of dealing with the other The function of dialect in legitimizing the use of assault: The treatment of terminology The reasons in back of the treatment of dialect Providing a moral cause Steering clear of opposition The means by which in turn language is definitely manipulated

Dehumanization of assault Replacement of direct descriptors by * euphemistic equivalence The areas where vocabulary can be altered In the open public sphere In the battle field An evaluation of the convenience of physical violence The role of global and civil culture in minimizing violence III. Conclusion 4. List of Referrals I. Advantages: “I target to violence because because it appears to carry out good, the excellent is only temporary, the wicked it does is permanent. ” Mahatma Gandhi Within an interesting motion picture called “where in the world is definitely Osama Rubbish bin Laden”?

A newly father-to be, worrying that his son comes out to your life in such a chaotic world, decides to set on a mission to acquire and kill Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Approach Qaida, and the world can thus grab to know physical violence and will be suitable place to get him to raise his boy in. This individual visits Egypt, Morocco, Israel, Palestinian territories, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. This individual goes around and talks to persons there requesting them questions like: exactly where is Rubbish bin Laden? What do they think of the Americans?

Just how do they look at terrorism plus the war on that? What do they desire in life? And questions of the sort. This individual didn’t find Bin laden, however what he found was that the people in the countries this individual visited will be ordinary people just like himself plus the audience. They are really not “the barbarians” this individual once thought them to end up being, they have no desire or interest in employing violence resistant to the United States as well as its citizens, and the goals in every area of your life is for these to secure good conditions for their children, just as the goals from the American recently father to be.

This video inspired me personally to raise something, to which I sough of an answer through writing this kind of paper. The question is: Why and exactly how does the state monopolize and legitimize, through manipulation of language that enables it to portray this sort of a philistine and violent image of the other, their use of Violence against them? I brought up this query because of a simple fact: the state is made to “civilize” persons and tame their use of violence, great I found that the was only a change inside the agents of violence, its targets, plus the space exactly where it is practiced.

I started out exploring distinct ideas, several opinions, and various studies, that had been all concerned with violence, terminology, manipulation, identity, and other principles related to my own topic. Stances and opinions varied, although I decided in adopting the subsequent position regarding the topic available: The state manipulates the use of assault because coming from willingly subordinated this right to the state, however our permission depends on the manner by which assault is used, pertaining to if it is illegitimate and goes against our approval, we ill no longer continue to support the state apparatus in the actions, for this reason , via the manipulation of language, the state makes an exclusive personality to its people, portrays the other as a threat to this identity, demonize him, and thus legitimizes its use of violence when it’s used by posing it since an act in response to defend the “we” against the “other”. In the event that is therefore , this led me to raise other concerns related to the usefulness of violence, and our function, as active members in a civil society, be it home-based or global, when it comes to physical violence. To these concerns, and to different ones, We try to find answers as follows. II. Body: A.

Defining physical violence: In this section my purpose is to simplify what the notion of Violence means, and that has the right to practice it, before I further more investigate why we resort to violence in dealing with others and exactly how states and the apparatuses employ such thing. 1 . What does the concept of violence mean? Assault is an extremely extensive and complicated phenomenon. Identifying it is not a precise science nevertheless a matter of judgment. Thoughts of what is acceptable and unacceptable when it comes to behavior and what comprises harm, will be culturally influenced and regularly under review as beliefs and cultural norms develop, domestically and internationally.

Besides, there are many conceivable ways to determine violence, according to who is defining it, for what purpose, and depending on their political orientations and ideological beliefs. Generally speaking, the World Well being Organization defines violence while: “The deliberate use of physical force or power, insecure or actual, against yourself, another person, or perhaps against an organization or community that both results in or perhaps has a excessive likelihood of causing injury, death, psychological damage, maldevelopment or perhaps deprivation. ” In this feeling, we could distinguish between so many kinds of violence, …accumulated violence, cultured violence, self-protective violence, the violence of aggression, the violence of competition, the violence of trying to end up being somebody, the violence of trying to discipline oneself relating to a design, trying to become somebody, aiming to suppress and bully one self, brutalize oneself, in order to be nonviolent , ” 2 . Making a clear distinction of physical violence vis a` vis similar concepts: It is very important, though, to generate a clear variation between physical violence and other related concepts to be able to apprehend what violence means. Such keywords include electrical power, strength, power and authority.

According to how Hannah Arendt describes, power is related to the “ability” to act “in consent”, thus its presence depends on the group providing this kind of consent, put simply, it depends on legitimacy, Power is a normal endowment and an inherent real estate, Force implies the energy alone that later on manifests physically through an act of assault, And authority entails identification either into a person as well as to an office, it takes neither intimidation nor persuasion. Violence alternatively is distinguished by it is “instrumental” persona, it denotes the physical manifestation on its own.. Recognizing the agents of violence: There are plenty of agents of violence, formal and casual, institutionalized and un-institutionalized, condition, and non-state agents. However , our simply concern with this paper will be the state plus the state device institutionalizing, legitimizing and training violence. Commonly described in normative conditions as a vital necessity of modern life, the nation-state has applied violence to perform questionable ends. Its equipment is recharged with doing unprecedented barbarism.

Examples of problems brought about by the nation-state are the extermination of indigenous people in colonized territories simply by “civilizing” countries, the Nazi genocidal “holocaust” of Jews, and most lately the “ethnic cleansing” inside the former Yugoslavia, Ruwanda, and so on. Thus coming from postcolonial point of view, the nation-state and its ideology of nationalism are purported to have become the chief source of physical violence and conflict since the The french language Revolution. In the same line of thinking, Marx considered the state while an instrument of violence in the command in the ruling school, but the actual power of the ruling category did not incorporate, nor depend on violence.

It absolutely was defined by role the ruling category played in society, or even more exactly, by simply its role in the process of production. B. Defining the “we” as well as the “other”: In this section I actually try checking out how identity defragments, divides and thus paves the road to get violence to occur. 1 . Identification and its constituents: In pre-modern societies, id was generally related to association, both in the private in addition to the public space. Identity counted on the place attributed to each individual by simply his delivery, his lineage or his group. Later on it engaged the Legal recognition.

Nevertheless a person was not just a legal or civic organization, but the moral backed by an individual soul. That is why intoxicated by postmodernism and debates above multiculturalism, the late 1980s and nineties found historians, anthropologists, and the most of all humanities scholars depending heavily about “identity” because they explored the cultural politics of competition, class, racial, gender, libido, citizenship, and also other social groups. “Identity” is presently used in two linked senses, that could be termed “social” and personal”.

In the former sense, a great “identity” pertains simply to a social category, a set of people marked by a label and distinguished simply by rules selecting membership and characteristic features or qualities. In the second sense of private identity, a great identity is definitely some distinguishing characteristic (or characteristics) that the person uses a special pride in or perhaps views since socially consequential but more-or-less unchangeable. It is the social sense of identification that would be of usage in this daily news, namely the national personality, that indicates the depiction of a country as a whole, covering its culture, traditions, language, and national politics.

It must be known here which a sense of conflicting details may result in the presence of multiple details for the same specific, but the concern of concern here is the “inter-conflicting identities” rather than the inner conflicts associated with identity. installment payments on your The way all of us perceive themselves: Since identities are necessarily the product with the society by which we live and us with others, there is consequently a desire and a need to identify using a nation or perhaps group, to take up a “collective identity”, a good example of which is the “national Identity”, that is explained by a lot of as a”self-aware” ethnicity.

That way, identity gives a link between individuals and the world through which they live i. elizabeth. their state. three or more. The way we perceive “the other”: The consumer defines himself, but he also demands “significant others” to acknowledge this definition. This is the bottom of the ethic of “authenticity. ” Identification, however , indicates definition simply by negation, inclusion based on exemption for a “we” to be present, there has to be an “other” outside this “we” circle.

Identification, mainly nationwide identity in this case, has been regularly charged to be racist and exclusive, and sometimes even demonizing the other. For this reason , governments in boosting nationhood and asserting the Nation’s identity are, whether they recognize this or not, advocating more exclusion and hostility in perceiving the other. C. Dealing with the “other”: What gives rise to violence? Are details really to be blamed? Or does the trouble lie in their manipulation which results in violence becoming deployed once we deal with distinct identities? 1 . The internal mindset:

To Krishnamurti “…The source of assault is the ‘me’, the spirit, the home, which conveys itself in division, in trying to become or be somebody which will divides itself as the ‘me’ plus the ‘not me’, the ‘me’ that pinpoints with the friends and family or not with the family members, with the community or avoid the community etc.. “. Nevertheless this doesn’t require that all human beings respond to difference in a chaotic manner, because of it hasn’t been confirmed that the human nature is in alone violent, and it is believed by many people that assault is carefully bred from sociable interactions.

An interesting idea of just how violence is actually a societal creation can be found in the writings of Amartya Sen concerning colonialism. Sen covers the cultural memory that colonialism, which can be in itself a great act of violence, features shaped. General psychological frame of mind towards the subject people often generated a powerful sense of humiliation and imposition of perceived inferiority, one which the subject tries to defeat through hostility and supporting acts of violence against the humiliator.

Franz Fanon as well subscribes to such some on colonialism, and perceives that it is healthy and balanced to use violence to get rid of colonialism, which is once again, an act of physical violence in itself to begin with. 2 . The usage of violence as a way of coping with the different: “… Assault in postcolonial discourse is usually thus implemented to suppress difference or perhaps negate multiple “others” not really subsumed inside totalities just like nation, course, gender, etc…” Everything that man has offer another gentleman, belief, proposici�n, rituals, my personal country, the country, your god and my our god, my opinion, your opinion, my personal ideal.

Those help to divide human beings and therefore breed physical violence. This is due to our tendency of adopting a spaceless and timeless conception of lifestyle, which is connected either for the identity as well as to the belief approach to the others, a sort of stereotyping should you might claim. Thus Physical violence is inlayed in the dialectic of identity and Distinctness. This is something which governments not merely understand, yet try to use to achieve it is interests. G. The function of vocabulary in legitimizing the use of violence by the point out: 1 . The manipulation of language:

According to George Orwell, “Political language is made to make is situated sound sincere and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure breeze. ” As a result those who are charged with assigning violence on behalf of the state will adopt language designed to imprecise from themselves or the persons, the reality of what violence they do on their behalf. Generally speaking, Vocabulary is a musical instrument for expressing and not for concealing or perhaps preventing thought. However it is usually an instrument which we form for our purposes as well.

And as Hegel puts it, once we think, we believe in dialect against language, which means that selective dialect will result in selective ideas formed and advocated. This is exactly why language alone, the very moderate of nonviolence and of common recognition, involves unconditional assault. This treatment of vocabulary involves: “… enhancing the strength, moral brilliance and believability of the speaker(s), and discrediting dissidents, while vilifying different ones, the enemy, the use of emotional appeals, and adducing relatively irrefutable evidence of one’s values and reasons, By manipulating the language, the government wishes to change the public’s way of thinking. This can be done, psychologists theorize, as the words that exist for the purpose of communicating thought often influence just how people think. The linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf was a firm believer in this hyperlink between thought and vocabulary, and this individual theorized that “different different languages impose diverse conceptions of reality”. Habermas also thought about upon the role which will language performs in masking political hobbies with seemingly sophisticated terms.

This distortion of interaction and wrong use of ideas, in his opinion, might be the main reason that has caused violence to begin with as a symptoms to this kind of distorted connection. a) The reason why behind the manipulation of language: The reasons why language may and does acquire manipulated by the apparatus with the state with regards to violence are many, and they change according to the scenario. But due to the fact Violence absorbs power, and lessens specialist when it’s employed, that is why offering a justification for the use of violence and legitimizing it is important.

Here, it may be useful to separate “justification” and “legitimization”, (i) Providing a moral cause, Reason: We find the state of hawaii using terms like “national security”, “defensive war”, “maintaing peace and security”, “spreading democracy”, etc . But the use of such conditions is maintained good reasons and arguments, it can be consistent and attempts to set such suggestions at the core of its issues. This way, the state is seeking to “justify” its use of physical violence, i. e. roves they have good reasons to get using it, which is closely linked to the following cause, (ii) Staying away from opposition, Legitimization: When these moral triggers succeed in persuasive the public, through its appeal to critical values and claims, interests the emotions of the masses, and its reliability on ungrounded cultural bias and sporadic doctrines, the state of hawaii manages to “legitimizes” along with “justifies” it is use of violence, i. e. the state not merely has reasons why it truly is using assault, but it managed to convince the masses with these causes as well.

In this way the monopoly of the condition over the usage of violence cant not to be questioned, endangered or shared by other folks. b) The means by which in turn language can be manipulated: (i) Dehumanization of violence: “Terrorists, Fundamentalist, Extremists, Seditionists, Rebel, Communists…” These kinds of and other conditions perform the role from the “distancing of humanity”, but they also are designed for various other purposes. These kinds of terms have got persuasive power to allow the company directors of physical violence to be pleased with the human break down for which they are opting.

That suggests that all those toward which the state blows its violence are possibly irrational (and thus diplomacy or marketing are impossible) or have aims (“the damage of the peoples’ way of life”). (ii) Replacement of direct descriptors by “euphemistic equivalence”: Euphemism is an expression intended by speaker being less unpleasant, disturbing, or perhaps troubling for the listener compared to the word or perhaps phrase it replaces. So for instance all of us call it “collateral damage” when it means unintentional killing or perhaps damage, bystander deaths and injuries.

Yet because guarantee damage appears less unpleasant, and more probably for those to accept than “unintentional getting rid of or damage”, it is used by the state to justify occasionally the benefits of their use of physical violence and what it has brought regarding. That is why we discover government officials and politicians talking about simply wars, liberation, war on fear, national secureness, and so forth, rather than explicitly mentioning the truth in back of their use of violence against others. c) The areas where language may be manipulated: (i) In the general public sphere:

The heart in the terms employed in the public ball stress ideological or political otherness, in which the use of language is indirect and psychologically distancing. The state of hawaii apparatus will all it could to reject that the assault of discord is occurring, indicating that “areas” are being secured instead of people slain, that violence is being avoided rather than initiated by it is actions and that its ends are always just rather than self-serving. (ii) In the battle discipline: The center of the conditions used for the “enemy” around the battlefield arise primarily in the racial, cultural or personal otherness of the opponent.

You cannot find any place to get the influential or the justificatory on the battlefield, the situation within the battlefield is definitely understood the following: “kill or perhaps be killed”. The requirement of the manipulation of language on the point of conflict can be therefore to reinforce hatred and distance in order that violence could be pursued with no real threat to the mental health of the soldier, which will would be in danger if the mankind of the opposition were totally absorbed. Therefore in the field, terminology will in order to dehumanize the other whilst in the public ball the language will be designed to influence us our violence toward others is definitely justified.

For this reason , the “National identity” cards and related usage of language are used by state to legitimize it is actions within a delimited territory, to guarantee mobilization and coordination of policy. E. An analysis of the convenience of physical violence: I have attempted to expose the way the state makes use of identity, big difference and dialect to go after its passions through implementing violence against “the other”. But can it follow this process performed by the state is an evil a single, or could it be a useful one particular with great coming out of it?

In a number of lectures with the College de France in the 1970s, Michel Foucault put forward the interesting speculation that background is actually the of physical violence. Foucault’s concepts on background indicate that individuals do not appreciate democratic liberties due to a lot of divine decree: rather, they are the product of successful wars and municipal struggles, the result of “successful violence”. The innovators of Post-colonialism like Edward cullen Said, Franz Fanon, and others, concerned themselves with the interpersonal and social effect of colonization.

Fanon looked at violence in positive conditions. His involvement with decolonizing violence was a form of a strategic response of subjugated individuals to the inhumane violence of colonial racism and imperial subjugation. Fanon was clear in his meaning, the have difficulties for power in colonized states will be resolved just through chaotic struggle, because the colonized claims were developed and are taken care of by the use of violence or the risk of violence, it is a necessity that it will have violence to reverse these kinds of power relationships.

However , in respect to Edward Said’s examining of Fanon’s “liberationist” analyze, nationalism is usually a tool from the hegemonic oppressor and holds no socially emancipatory potential. This leads us towards the following realization, that physical violence is the mediation that enables express power to prevail, for good or perhaps for negative. It can not be eliminated simply by counter-violence that simply inverts it. The state’s hierarchical structure is made possible because of this institutionalized violence that privileges the hegemony of any bloc of classes over competing blocs and their alternative programs.

Nevertheless hegemony is always underwritten by simply coercion. Therefore as Maximum Weber puts it, the state monopoly of genuine violence will be used to guard private property and showcase the international interests with the domestic organization class. An impression which is also shared by Marx and Engels who identifies violence because the fender of monetary development. These are generally not only the field of theories, nevertheless a truth backed up by evidence. This evidence may be tracked down so far as the nation-state itself wasn’t still produced.

However as I are interested in analysis the use of physical violence by the country state, in that case if we look at the colonial experience, the two world wars, the cold conflict and the war on terror, we will know the fact that state did not used violence as it needs to have done. I will not utilize the term “misused”, but I might rather question the ends to which the state of hawaii has implemented violence, and I will issue the justifications and disputes it gave to legitimize its actions.

And if the state of hawaii is such a sketchy agent of violence, of course, if already their monopoly than it has been breached by simple, outlawed or perhaps legitimate non-state actors, therefore we are within a serious need of not simply questioning, although reviewing the concept of violence, it is use as well as agents. Just for this, scholars like Heba Raouf and Mary Kaldor feel that there is a strong case for asking the state’s monopoly of “legitimate” violence, and advise placing the make use of force by the state under greater limitations, not only that, but to take over the “civilizing role” that the express has failed to achieve. F.

The role of worldwide and municipal society in curbing physical violence: The potential customers of peacefulness are based mostly on the institutionalization of traditions of dialogue. And it is specifically here that civil world agents can easily play a vital role by getting people together and invoking understandings which have been common across difference. Essentially, humankind have been rendered “civil” because physical violence was tamed. And assault was tamed because says had attained, as Utmost Weber asserted, a monopoly of violence, the modern condition replaces violence by order and specialist and firmly controlled the availability and imitation of physical violence.

But it had been fundamentally questioned by the pervasive violence that infiltrates every corners of any globalised globe, all settings and all rules that prescribe when the utilization of violence can be permitted and then for what factors have been raised. “.. The employment of violence anytime and at any place sends a powerful message, nobody agent howsoever powerful this kind of agent may be, can control the use of assault, or penalize the criminal of violence.

Violence features escaped all restraints, every monitors, and everything notions of where the use of physical violence is legit and exactly where it is illegitimate, where it is sanctioned and where it is far from sanctioned. Today there is no recognized owner of violence, the adversary can be unrecognizable, the goals will be unclear, plus the site exactly where violence will probably be consumed is usually unknown, ” Therefore , detrimental societies will be caught between two varieties of violence, that employed by trans-state and sub-state agents, as well as the violence in the state.

A way to get rid of it and a means to counter these kinds of violence seems to be in the progress a lifestyle of civility. This occurs members with the civil culture address the phenomenon of violence, intolerance and even hate, as the notion of civil society relies upon a peaceful community which is proclaimed by the soul of conversation, negotiation, compromise, and dexterity. This discussion means recognizing the “other” in a conversation, and validating his meaning standing. Therefore civil world is important since the values of civil contemporary society encourage conversation.

But the restrictions of municipal society need to be understood. And one of these restrictions is institutionalized violence in the state that has resulted in the break down of conversation, thus making civility and toleration pure dreams. On a wider level, the Global Municipal Society could have the mission of recapturing the power of language, regaining their “civilizing” role, providing a forum for deliberative democracy, re-rooting legitimacy in civil society, and showcasing the importance with the “politics of presence” rather than the “politics of representation”.

3. Conclusion: A whole lot of theoretical debates and concepts can lead all of us to discussing violence and boil down to it, since violence is too wide an interest, too intricate and controversial a concept that is certainly intertwined and tangled in our everyday life affairs. The attempt of this daily news was to make an effort to investigate and explore situations that are liable, if not single handedly, but to a great extent, intended for setting the conditions for violence to be applied.

I failed to involve me in questions related to human nature, and whether violence can be something innate or socially created, I rather attempted exploring it from the “we” and the “other” point of view, that may and does include both inborn and social roots. With such conditions set for violence, it can only an issue of who practices that. I chosen the state while an agent of violence, and tried to focus on why and exactly how it manipulates language in order to uses physical violence to achieve their interests.

The conclusion I reached was regrettably the one I had formed in mind initially when i first started contemplating this matter. Violence would not disappear together with the rise of the nation-state, it only required different varieties, sometimes even more devastating than it used to be ahead of its make use of was subordinated to the state, and this penetrated distinct domains and corners in our life. Different circumstances came to becoming, different terminology was used, diverse arguments and different debates, nevertheless the fact remained: violence did not disappear, it was not eliminated, and the point out did not “civilize” the people.

That is where and why our role comes. Not that we advocate the complete incompetence in the state in achieving their “civilizing” objective, but I really do believe that we all, as individuals, as persons and as people, should take part in this process too, not since we are destined by a sociable contract to accomplish this, but because we are a part of this process, we could stop, modify, change, immediate and correct their path whenever we feel it has gone out of the lane. Each of our engagement is going to take different forms and be upon different amounts.

On one level and in 1 form it is usually through monitoring the treatment of terminology conducted by the state equipment, on another it can protesting against it when it falls flat in curbing the use of assault, it can be inside the form or raising awareness and dispersing a traditions of negotiation, communication and tolerance, looking to understand one other, instead of dealing with those outside the designated “acceptable” identities, while the other, and the list can go on and forever. That is our mission since citizens of the nation-state, so that as citizens worldwide.

Because all things considered, as Spurlock concluded in his movie “where in the world is definitely Osama Bin Laden? “, we are not so different after all, and each of our similarities are usually more than each of our differences. All of us just have to understand and tolerate both. 4. List of Sources: Books: 2. Arendt, Hannah. On Violence. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, INC., 1969. * Edwards, David. Language and identity. United Kingdom: Cambridge University or college Press, 2009. * Gaus, Gerald Farrenheit. Political Principles and Personal Theories. Usa: WestView Press, 2000. * Sen, Amartya. Identity and violence, the illusion of destiny. Nyc: W. T.

Norton & Company, 06\. Books on the net: * Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched with the Earth. Trans. Constance Farrington. New York: Grove, 1963. http://ls. poly. edu/~jbain/socphil/socphillectures/F. Fanon. pdf (19th of May, 2010) * Krishnamurti, Jiddu. Beyond Violence. India: Krishnamurti Foundation, 2002. http://www. scribd. com/doc/6568712/Beyond-Violence-Violence-Chapter6 (19th of May, 2010) * R. P. Lorin. “History of violence” in International Encyclopedia of the Social and Bhavioral Sciences. ELscier Science limited., 2001. http://www. scribd. com/doc/12497335/Violence-History-Of (19th of May, 2010)

Reports: * Ezzat, Heba Raouf, and Mary Klador. “Not even a tree: delegitimizing violence plus the prospects pertaining to pre-emptive civility”. Global Civil Society. Reports – On the net: * “World Report on Violence and Health: Summary”, World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, 2002, p. 5, http://www. who have. int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/summary_en. pdf file (18th of May, 2010) Articles in Journals , Online: 5. Ashley, Lewis. “The terminology of violence”. Peace Studies Journal (Vol. 1 Issue 1) The fall of 2008. www. peacestudiesjournal. org/archive/Ashley. doctor (19th of May, 2010) * Fairchild, Halford H. Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth in Modern-day Perspective”. Record of Dark-colored Studies (Vol. 25, No . 2) 12 , 1994. http://www. jstor. org/pss/2784461 (19th of May, 2010) * Orwell, George. “Politics and the English language”. The journal Horizon (Vol. 13, Issue 76) (1946): 252-265. http://www. scribd. com/doc/65590/Politics-English-language (19th of May possibly, 2010) 2. Zizek, slavoj. “Language assault and non-violence “. Intercontinental Journal of Zizek Research (Vol. two, Issue 3) http://www. scribd. com/doc/12605279/language-violnce-and-non-violence (18th of May possibly, 2010) On the web Publications: Chandhoke, Neera. Can be violence disposition of civil society?. The London school of Economics and Political Science (NGPA) Program, thirteenth July, 3 years ago. http://www. lse. ac. uk/collections/NGPA/publications/WP_Violence_Civil_Society_Web. pdf (18th of May, 2010) 2. Fearon, David D. “What is Id? “. Office of Politics Science, Stanford University, November 3rd, 1999. http://www. stanford. edu/~jfearon/papers/iden1v2. pdf (18th of May, 2010) * Juan, E. San Jr. “Nationalism, the postcolonial state, and violence”, Center for the Humanities, Wesleyan University. http://www. leftcurve. rg/LC26WebPages/Nationalism. html (18th of Might, 2010) * Manjula, B. “Identity and Culture”. Centre for Multimedia and Social Studies, http://www. scribd. com/doc/4119098/Identity-and-Culture (19th of May, 2010) * Truck Dijk, Teun A. “Discourse and manipulation”, Discourse and society, Sage publications, 2006. http://das. sagepub. com/cgi/content/short/17/3/359 (19th of May possibly, 2010) Internet sites: * Berkes, Jem, “Language as the “Ultimate Weapon” in 19 Eighty-Four”, May well 9, 2000, http://www. sysdesign. ca/archive/berkes_1984_language. code (19th of May, 2010) * Sobre Benoist, Alain, “On Identity”, ttp: //www. scribd. com/doc/3323754/On-Identity-Alain-de-Benoist (18th of May, 2010) * “A History of Violence”, http://www. scribd. com/doc/937601/Foucault-and-Pinker-on-Violence (19th of May possibly, 2010) 2. “Questions of identity: Precisely what is identity? “, the Open up University, http://openlearn. open. ac. uk/mod/resource/view. php? id=176757 (18th of May possibly, 2010) 5. “Questions of Identity: who have am I? “, the Available University, http://openlearn. open. air conditioner. uk/mod/resource/view. php? id=176759 (18th of May, 2010) 2. http://dictionary. research. com/browse/national+identity (20th of Might, 2010) 5. http://jcomm. uoregon. du/~tbivins/J496/readings/LANGUAGE/euphemism_defandlist. pdf file (19th of May, 2010) , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , [ 1 ]. “World Report about Violence and Health: Summary”, World Overall health Organization (WHO), Geneva, 2002, p. four, http://www. who have. int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/summary_en. pdf file (18th of May, 2010) [ 2 ]. ibid. [ a few ]. Jiddu Krishnamurti, Further than Violence (India: Krishnamurti Foundation, 2002), pp. 3-4 http://www. scribd. com/doc/6568712/Beyond-Violence-Violence-Chapter6 (19th of May, 2010) [ 4 ]. Hannah Arendt, On Assault (New York: Harcourt, Support , Community, INC., 1969), pp 43-46. 5 ]. E. San Juan, Junior., “Nationalism, the postcolonial point out, and violence”, Center intended for the Humanities, Wesleyan University, http://www. leftcurve. org/LC26WebPages/Nationalism. html code (18th of May, 2010) [ 6 ]. Hannah Arendt, ibid, g. 11, http://www. uc. edu/nationfamilystate/Authors/Hannah%20Arendt/HAOnViolence1. pdf (19th of May, 2010) [ several ]. Alain de Benoist, “On Identity”, pp. 9-10, http://www. scribd. com/doc/3323754/On-Identity-Alain-de-Benoist (18th of May, 2010) [ almost eight ]. David D. Fearon, “What can be Identity? “, Department of Political Science, Stanford School, November 3rd, 1999, g. 4, http://www. stanford. du/~jfearon/papers/iden1v2. pdf (18th of May, 2010) [ on the lookout for ]. http://dictionary. reference. com/browse/national+identity (20th of May, 2010) [ 10 ]. “Questions of identity: What is identity? “, the Available University, http://openlearn. open. alternating current. uk/mod/resource/view. php? id=176757 (18th of Might, 2010) [ eleven ]. “Questions of Id: who am i not? “, the Open University or college, http://openlearn. open up. ac. uk/mod/resource/view. php? id=176759 (18th of May, 2010) [ 12 ]. John Edwards, Language and identity, (United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 162. [ 13 ]. “Questions of Personality: who am i not? “, ibid. [ 14 ]. Alain de Benosit, Ibid, p. five. [ 15 ]. E. San Juan, Junior., ibid. [ of sixteen ]. T. Krishnamurti, ibid, p. four. [ 17 ]. Sen, Amartya, Identity and violence, the illusion of destiny (New York: T. W. Norton , Business, 2006), pp. 85, 89. [ 18 ]. Fanon, Frantz, The Wretched of the The planet, Trans. Constance Farrington (New York: Grove, 1963), http://ls. poly. edu/~jbain/socphil/socphillectures/F. Fanon. pdf format (10th of May, 2010) [ 19 ]. E. San Juan, Junior., ibid. [ twenty ]. Ibid, p. 12. [ 21 ]. Ezzat, Heba Raouf, and Mary Klador. “Not Even a Tree: Delegitimizing Violence and the Prospects to get Pre-emptive Civility”, Global Municipal Society, l. 24 [ twenty-two ]. Elizabeth. San Juan, Jr., ibid. 23 ]. George Orwell, “Politics plus the English language”, The record Horizon, Vol. 13, Issue 76, (1946), p. on the lookout for, http://www. scribd. com/doc/65590/Politics-English-language (19th of Might, 2010) [ twenty four ]. Ashley, Larry, “The Language of Violence”, Tranquility Studies Journal, Vol. one particular Issue one particular, (Fall 2008), p. 84, www. peacestudiesjournal. org/archive/Ashley. doctor (19th of May, 2010) [ 25 ]. George Orwell, ibid, p. 9. [ dua puluh enam ]. slavoj Zizek, “Language violence and non-violence “, International Journal of Zizek Studies, Volume. 2, Issue 3, l. 11, http://www. scribd. com/doc/12605279/language-violnce-and-non-violence (19th of May, 2010) [ 27 ]. bid, g. 2 [ twenty-eight ]. Teun A. Van Dijk, “Discourse and manipulation”, Discourse and society, Sage publications, 06\, p. 380, http://das. sagepub. com/cgi/content/short/17/3/359 (19th of May possibly, 2010) [ twenty nine ]. Jem Berkes, “Language as the “Ultimate Weapon” in 19 Eighty-Four”, May well 9, 2150, http://www. sysdesign. ca/archive/berkes_1984_language. code (19th of May, 2010) [ 30 ]. Heba Raouf Ezzat, and Mary Klador, Ibid, p. 21 [ 23 ]. Hannah Arendt, ibid, p. 46. [ 32 ]. Gerald N. Gaus, Personal Concepts and Political Hypotheses, Tulance University or college, (United States: WestView Press, 2000), l. 39 [ 33 ]. ibid [ 34 ]. ttp: //jcomm. uoregon. edu/~tbivins/J496/readings/LANGUAGE/euphemism_defandlist. pdf (19th of May, 2010), [ thirty five ]. Ashley, Larry, ibid, p. seventy eight. [ 36 ]. Ibid, s. 84. [ thirty seven ]. At the. San Juan, Jr., ibid [ 38 ]. “A Good Violence”, http://www. scribd. com/doc/937601/Foucault-and-Pinker-on-Violence (19th of May, 2010) [ 39 ]. B. Manjula, “Identity and Culture”, Middle for Media and Cultural Studies, l. 9, http://www. scribd. com/doc/4119098/Identity-and-Culture (19th of May, 2010) [ 40 ]. Halford They would. Fairchild, “Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched with the Earth in Contemporary Perspective”, Journal of Black Research, Vol. 5, No . a couple of (December 1994), Sage Guides, p. 192, http://www. jstor. org/pss/2784461 (19th of May, 2010) [ 41 ]. E. San Juan, Jr., ibid. [ 42 ]. Ibid. [ 43 ]. Hannah Arendt, Ibid, P. 9. [ 44 ]. Heba Raouf, and Mary Lakdour, Ibid, p. twenty-one [ 45 ]. Neera Chandhoke, “Is assault constitutive of civil culture? “, The London institution of Economics and Personal Science (NGPA) program, 13th July, 3 years ago, p. 39, http://www. lse. ac. uk/collections/NGPA/publications/WP_Violence_Civil_Society_Web. pdf (19th of May possibly, 2010) [ 46 ]. ibid, p. forty [ 47 ]. Ibid, l. 41 [ twenty four ]. Ibid, pp. 42 [ 49 ]. Heba Raouf, Mary Kaldor, ibid, p. 36

Related essay