Violence, identity and culture. Perspectives and topics in the global scenarios

ABSTRACT

The essay addresses some perspectives of analysis, elaborated and established over the past 30 years, highlighting both the cultural complexity and the multidimensionality of violence in contemporary society. In the age of globalization, the focus of the reflections is found within the relationship between violence and identity and its transformation. Concerning the relationship between violence and identity, the essay addresses the nuclear issue of the similarity between logics and practices of identity construction and logics and practices of violent action against diversity and otherness. Particular attention is given to bodily violence and social realities that are still defined as violent today due to the cultural differences between societies, individuals and groups of individuals. The main references are G. Balandier, P. Bourdieu, J. Galtung, P. Former, M. Wieviorka, R. Collins and A. Appadurai. The different conceptual definitions of violence that is direct or cultural violence, institutional or subjective, structural or symbolic, genocidal or civicidarian violence are therefore addressed in an attempt to use them to re-read phenomena and the socio-cultural dimension of violence.

KEYWORDS:

• Violence and social change
• cultural and social dimensions
• identity and globalization

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributor

Emanuela Ferreri Ph. D and Lecturer in Sapienza University of Rome since 2012 and in Unitelma-Sapienza since 2014, she obtained the National scientific qualification in General Sociology. Expert in Sociology and Anthropology of International Cooperation and Development Processes, she is member of AIS, Italian Sociology Association.

Notes

1 As regard to the study of the interaction between humanitarian interventions, peacekeeping and cultural violence in new guerrilla and armed conflict settings, please refer to: Fassin & Pandolfi, 2010; Maniscalco, 2009; Kaldor, 2005; Duffield, 2001.

2 On the complex intersection of the many definitions of violence existent in the social sciences, with those adapted to particular research interventions applied and those that can be linked to definitions in use in the international environment, in compliance with international law, please refer to: Walby et al., 2017; Jackman, 2002.

3 Worldwide, more than seventy million people are forcibly displaced, including nearly thirty million refugees and more than forty million internally displaced persons (The Economist: Internazionale 1353, April 10th 2020). Some interpretations of the official data of the World Bank and the OECD are available in the text by Tommasoli (2017, p. 59). As regard to the incidence of armed conflicts and organized crime, against all sustainability of world development, please refer to the U.N. and their annual updates: Trasforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2015); Environmental Crime. Tackling the Greatest Threats to Our Planet (2017).

4 The references are: Farmer (2003), Galtung (1969), Gilligan (1997).

5 Wieviorka’s references are: Sorel (1908/1961).

6 A metaphor used by Appadurai in his 2014 text (2013. The Future as Cultural Fact. Essays on the Global Condition). Wieviorka, instead, offers an interesting comparison through the metaphor of ‘a new and hidden God’ in the conclusions of his 2009 text.

7 On the definition of subject, see the texts of Wieviorka (2003, 2009) cited in the bibliography. For other reasoning on the contemporary.

8 Not just violent agency. The viable alternative to global violence, according to Appadurai, lies in the agency from below, in the socio-cultural empowerment of the most vulnerable (2005, 2013/2014). For a comment on identity, agency and network society, see: Ferreri, 2016.

9 On this, Appadurai advises: Balibar and Wallerstein (1991), Anderson (1991/1996).

10 With this regard, Appadurai refers to: Girard (1972/1992), Douglas (1966/2003). On Girard’s hypothesis of the sacrifice of the scapegoat, see: Marci, 2008.

11 For further information on the subject of the anti-subject and the meaning of violent actions, see the essay by Wieviorka M. Impossible Reverse … in this volume.

12 On the so-called ‘civilization process’; there is still ample debate on whether it subtracts violence or increases it, and whether this aspect of social change is deductively or inductively detectable: Norbert 1988; Pinker, 2013; Scheidel 2017; Widerquist & Mac Call Grant, 2017.

13 The reference to H. Arendt's thought (1972, 1996) on the distinction between social action and behavior is important. Violence is conceivable as a social action, aimed and potentially irreversible, a job designed and organized to damage and eliminate something or someone.