Final test module 2

What does Foucault mean by normalization?

"A normalizing society is the historical outcome of a technology of power centered on life". He means to make something become a norm....but by the people...and we get played by those who are in control in each state of life.

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?

"we inside and the enemy outside, separated by a sharply defined geographic frontier. The enemy are all around but also inside, so that the "we" lost its limits, which stretched between each of "us" (page 83). - In the end it all comes down to survival and continue living - We maybe need to live with regrets of the horrible things we have done but we also can´t forget that he was a victim.

Please list and briefly describe the 3 basic approaches to human security?

1. Protecting people from critical/severe and widespread threats and situations 2. Using acts that build on peoples strengths and aspirations. This is a humanitarian view 3. creating political, social, enviromental, economic, military and cultural system that together give people the building blocks to survive.(more globalisation)

How has the arms trade evolved over time?

70s. Warfare/diplomacy. Starting as a tool for warfare and diplomacy from the outset of the Cold War. Here for ex. seen as US aid towards Greece and Turkey to fight pro-communist partisans. But the so-called "take off" took place in the 1970s - 80s. In this period the US, the Soviet Union and Western Europe accounted for about one-third each of the global arms trade. Economic incentives to export arms rivalled geopolitical drivers during this period. From a geopolitical side there was president Nixon who used arms trade as a way to promote US interest without resorting to another major military invention. They would arm regional allies to protect their own security interests. This helped smooth out the dip in military spending that came with the end of the Vietnam War. Another key event was the recycle of petrodollars. Recapture additional moines spent to purchase higher priced oil by selling expensive weapons systems to the oil-exporting states. Rise in oil prices created purchasing power from Saudi Arabia and Iran towards fighter planes and combat vehicles from the US, Britain and France. The arms sales increased substantially. (p.445) Mid 70s. Economic motives/US defense. The administration of Jimmy Carter tried to change the dynamics of global trade by promoting a policy of arms sales restraint. The Arms export control act (AECA) gave the policy veto power with the aim to only use US-transferred arms for defensive purposes. The US took on the leadership role in promoting arms sales restraint. Carter later shifted from his restraint of arm trade policy and warmed up for the idea to use arms transfer to reward friends and intimidate adversaries. This led to the US arming the Shah of Iran and providing more supplies to Iran then France, Uk and Germany together did at the same time. The US arms trade continued despite the repressive character of the regime, creating anti-regime activist which were kidnapped, tortured and murder by the SAVAK (secret police, domestic security and intelligence service in Iran) trained by the US. The arms trade became everything but defensive and instead a fuel towards regional conflicts and decreased democracy and human rights. (page 446) Several trades, public such as hidden, later the acts were uncovered by a Congressional committee but the punishments for the participants were low and actions towards preventing similar operations again in the future were low. (p.447) Post Cold War. US. Economic interests/job opportunities. There was a continued arms sale by the US and the Clinton administration arms sales policy who highlighted the importance of weapons exports in supporting the US defense industrial base. One argument for arms sales was the job opportunities it was creating for americans. (p.448) Gulf War. High arms sale towards Iraq. Post Gulf War. Reducing it. UN Arms Register. The US and Brittain pledged to act on the weapon trade towards the Middle East by reducing the levels of sales toward regions of tension and curbing the burgeoning sale of ballistic missiles. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council were involved, all five previously arming Iraq in the run up to the Gulf War, but China withdrew due to the US and French sale of combat aircraft to Taiwan. In the post-Gulf War the UN Arms Register was established. A voluntary system reporting arms exports and information not always available from existing governmental and non-governmental sources. (p.448) 9/11. Another shift in arms sales policy. The number of states receiving US military aid doubled from 2001 to 2005 but only towards states viewed as potential allies towards fighting terrorist networks. This resulted in nearly three quarters of the US arms recipients being undemocratic regimes or major human rights abusers. By 2006 the US sales had doubled, being the highest level since the wake of the 1991 Gulf War. (p.449)

Define Violence

it is close to strength, violence is often used in domestic affairs as a last resort to keep the power structure intact against individual challenges. In the text Arendt describes violence as "nature instrumental: like all means, it always stands in need of guidance and justification by something else cannot be the essence of anything." Physical force that is used to harm people or damage property

Define physical power/coercion/force -

many of us use it as a word for violence, but it should really describe the action when energy is released by any physical or social movements

How does Kaldor define Cosmopolitanism?

(POV Kaldor): "Combines respect for universal human principles with a commitment to non-sectarianism and even more strongly a celebration of cultural diversity, and appreciation and pride in the different ways of being human" (p 123). Its what a lot of places in the south are thinking and focusing on right now. The facts about what happens after destruction -liberty, archive, culture, genocides regulation of law is always post-action

How does Foucault describe the changing relationship of the state and power?

- Biopower- Going from the state being the one that can execute people to controlling people. It has changed from taking lives to controlling life. Bio-power. It means that the power is over life, how people live their lives. You could then say that the state control the population through institutions like school and so on.

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)

- The pressure of doing horrific deeds for a higher power/authorities can lead to mental destruction. - Brainwashed - But because the willingness to survive makes it almost impossible to give up, there will always be a thought or focus to know or try to figure out what is on the other side. -but also the threat of the authorities are always hanging over you so they want to show you that if you don´t do a good job they will/can find someone else

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?

- They believed that the knowledge that would be drawn from this experience would be impactful and used for "good", so they automatically felt like they had the obligation to obey the authorities/scientists because they are respected and hold power. They felt the threat of the power hanging over them and I think that a lot of them acted it out not because they wanted to or were mean but because they were scared what would happened to them if they did not do it. This is the type of manipulation people in power or higher up the staircase have on the rest who are "followers". He also wanted us to think that people need to think before acting...and ask questions and ask why...just because you are listening to the power you should always be critical.

How can you apply new and old wars to the specific cases of Syria/Afghanistan/Bosnia/Iraq?

-Technology has had a huge impact on new wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Always getting faster in destroying bigger spaces in shorter time. But thats when you kill civilians more often -Bosnia was more of a genocide where one group went against another

What is the difference between new and old wars noted by Mary Karldor ?

-new wars are distinct from ´old wars´in terms of their goals, methods and systems of finance. The goals can be understood in the context of a struggle between cosmopolitan and exclusivist identity group. -New war is group vs group and a goal in the end. Criminalized activities and civilians being killed -Old war was state vs state and no idea of what would happen in the end. War fought with the money made from colonization, state wars...more about the economy and less about hate -The political goals of the new wars are about the claim to power on the basis of seemingly traditional identities - nation, tribe, religion.

Define the Gray Zone

. Its the unboxed, unclear zone in a state or in an area, for example, the Nazis concentration camps, where you could be a prisoner but still at kinda the same level as the guards, but the rules were not so clear about what benefits those different groups had. One can describe it as a thin line between too far and "just good". We can also put this term as a uncomfortable situation when there is not a clear situation of war or peace...like during the cold war...the whole cold war was a gray zone because there were never 100% sure about what was gonna happen today...the same day. 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 Gray zone - whose components are bonded together by the wish to preserve and consolidate established pribilege vis-a-vis those without privilege.

Under the state of emergency, why does the state choose to use violence?

A management of efficient and effective control. Easiest and fastest way...quick fix if i ever saw one "Violence is usually the only tactic the military has at its disposal to control citizens, even during peacetime"

Compare and contrast the ghetto and the prison. How do the ghetto and the prison affect one another? 79) According to Wacquant, what are the main functions of the ghetto and the prison?

According to Loïc Wacquant, the United States has institutionalized some social ways to regulate and restrict descendents of slaves during its history, in order to segregate even more the black community. One of these ways is known as Ghetto, and as Wacquant describes, it is a "conjoint urbanization and proletarianization of African-Americans from the Great Migration [...]" (2004:318). The ghetto does not have real grids, but similarly to American prisons where most of the population are people of colour and belonging to the lower-class, it also has the capacity of maintaining these certain individuals trapped, "protecting" the white society, and trying to neutralize the threat coming from them. As Wacquant stresses (2004:318), "the ghetto is a manner of social prison, while the prison functions as a judicial ghetto". As prisons, the ghetto also appropriates the use of black bodies, incorporating a "city within a city" (Wacquant, 2004:320), new rules, new social norms, there is a barrier between what is achievable for these individuals. The lack of opportunities and human rights is a huge characteristic. Besides the "four fundamental constituents: stigma, coercion, physical enclosure and organizational parallelism and insulation" (2004:321) of which the ghetto is based, the ghetto and the prison system need an external force to be controlled.

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?

According to Nancy Scheper-Hughes (2004:280) the Brazilian state is completely responsible for the normalization of infant mortality, being indifferent when dealing with deaths of children. Nancy highlights that the lack of responsibility with the bureaucratic part demonstrates how careless the state acts, not to mention that the rapid dispatch of the victims also contributes with the level of normalizations of the deaths: "Two or three minutes to process each dead infant or child should suffice"

Who is Adolf Eichmann?

Adolf Eichmann was one of the major organisers of the Holocaust. He was a nazi and logisitc to mass deportation of jews to the ghettos. He was convicted for war crimes in Jerusalem and killed.

Define symbolic violence. Give an example.

As described by Pierre Bourdieu and Loïc Wacquant, Symbolic Violence is the "violence which is exercised upon a social agent with his or her complicity" (p. 272). In other words, the process of non-physical violence in the divdance of power between two different social groups with the. Examples: The yellow star badges that the Jews were forced to wear during some periods in the middle ages by some caliphates and some European powers. Also during World War 2 by the Nazi's. The star represented the identification of a 'inferior' or 'outsider'. It was also known as the 'badge of shame'. European Colonial violence Countless forms of racism and representations of symbolic violence. Ex: People from Africa were labeled as 'orientals'.

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council account for what percentage (approximately) of the global arms trade?

Approximately 80 %. Last analysis was made in 2009 and resulted in 76 % while the procent was 82 % in 2003. (p.443)

Compare/contrast Arendt's understanding of violence and power and discuss Arendt's conceptualization of the relationship between the state, violence and power.

Arendt says that the relationship between violence and power is clear, violence appears where power is in jeopardy, violence can destroy power but violence can not create power. Power can therefore use violence but not vice versa. One can also add that violence appears when power is being lost. Power is also the main key to all governments to function but violence is not. One could say that "violence were the prerequisite of power and power is nothing but a facade, the velvet glove which either conceals the iron hand or will turn out to belong to a paper tiger."(page 239). Power is also the main key to all governments to function but violence is not. The states can use violence to hold on to power but soon after they use violence they see that there is nothing backing them up and therefore the power is gone.

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

Because of technopoles, new era of development process and how the multi-trillion dollar companies create an influence on todays politics. Its all about the moneyyyyy. Resources flow through and to people/groups/organisations/states etc

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

Because the world has become the battlefield and everyone is connected. Everything can be found everywhere in the world. Drug wars, shootings, refugees, global media, terrorist attacks etc. is all around the world

How does symbolic violence compare/relate to Galtung's notions of violence?

Bourdieu portrays symbolic violence as a non-physical form of violence while Galtung's definition of violence has numerous varieties. According to Galtung, "violence occurs when human beings' potential, either somatic or mental, are not realised" (Galtung, 1969:168). There are some similarities between both definitions. Galtung's violence examines the depths of human mental capabilities, such as Bourdieu's meaning of Violence; like in societal structures. People who a mentally affected by opposing social communities can draw similar conclusions to the way violence is portrayed in Galtung's definition. Symbolic violence however focuses more on the non-physical form of violence, shedding light on just the mental capabilities societal communities can create against one another.

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

Foucault sees power as the enabling or taking of life, whereas Arendt perceives power as an enabler for authorities.

Who is the most significant advocate of the "political philosophy of war"? Define the concept.

Carl Von Clausewitz. There were three labelled philosophies. 1. Political 2. Eschatological 3. Cataclysmic. Clausewitz was the most important proponent and philosopher of the political philosophy of war. The philosophy and Clausewitz defined warfare as `an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will´. p.188. It was 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. In his framework the political challenge of warfare was how to achieve such rationality given the fluctuating relationships between his central trinity of actors: the people, the government and the military - given their principal characteristics: passion, reason and technique, respectively. During his lifetime war was widely viewed as a legitimate instrument of state policy albeit one that should be used only with a clear purpose in mind. Victory in battle was the goal and it usually went to the side most accomplished in the arts of attrition and manoeuvre. p. 189.

Compare/contrast Kaldor and Clausewitz approach to warfare

Clausewitz argued that a war meant the act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will. Kaldor argued that the very fact that warfare is a socially sanctioned activity, that it has to be organized and justified, requires rules.There is a thin dividing line between socially acceptable killing and what is criticised by society.But that dividing line is defined differently in different periods." (p;19)

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.)?

Cultural anesthesia is a term which Allen Feldman uses to describe and define a reflexive passageway into historical consciousness and representation. This has a huge effect on human beings as they depersonalize things that they should have some feelings towards. It also is based on making violence an everyday or a normal thing. For example when mass media shows homeless people all of the time it becomes a norm and creates no feelings in the end for other human beings. One can also say that society/authorities/states sometimes controls what the observer sees and have that silent effect on people and use them as they want. He links it from being the thing that makes them aggressive and able to kill and think there is nothing wrong with killing, and that is because they jump from one reality, which is not a reality, to another and their mind is clogged up and doesn't connect with what is normal any longer because their reality has become bizarre. They get connected by being controlling and the ones with all the power so when they go up and fly they feel like they are unstoppable and that it is ok to kill or harm another person.

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?

He means that the European walked in on a fully dressed area and made it undress until it was naked. They wanted the natives to take everything that they had and knew and start from the beginning and say goodbye to their own culture and take what they believed was right and do it their own European way. They wanted to stuff them with some fancy words, phrases and become white-washed. The consequences are basically colonization and to torture people as well as set everyone apart and to dehumanize the natives; make them forget their traditions, destroy their culture and only have the strongest one left. Jean-Paul says that the white men wanted to get their behavior as animal-like as they could, to hold the power over them(chapter 27, page 229).

Foucault draws a distinction between regulatory and disciplinary power. Please compare/contrast them.

Disciplinary power centers as the body of the machine: its integration into systems of efficient and economic controls. The disciplines: an anatomo-politics of the human body Regulatory control: focuses on the species of the body and what he can do. Regulatory controls: a biopolitics of the population.

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)?

Donaldson's explanation of masculinity has evolved into a much more intense form of dominance. Donaldson writes and describes the relationships between men in American Prisons, how rape and gang violence has become the norm and part of the confinement system. Masculinity is seen as a widespread role in how the prisoners act among themselves. Portraying how in young men, hormones make them sexually aroused much quicker and more often, in confinement the idea of having sex with anyone no matter what gender is totally let go of. The role of feminism plays part of the system as well, for such prisoners who are heterosexual and want to have sex as it is illustrated in the chapter, with a "jocker" they often force the jock to act female like, or tell the jock such frases a male would tell a women while sexual interactions. Yet, the idea of female submissiveness is again displayed since in the system, the jock's are seen as inferior and must act submissive to the "protectors". Such as vice versa with male masculine dominance. Hence, the idea of symbolic violence plays a significant role in these situations.

How have military forces been privatized in the er a of new wars?

Due to globalisation within new wars it is not necessarily state against state. This means that military force is being used by paramilitary (not state owned) and therefore privatized. - Different ideologies - Religious reasons - multi dollar companies protection - Due to Economic reasons % Erosion of the tax + Privatized military groups need to seek alternative sources of funding in order to sustain their violent activities. + Asset transfer as Mark Duffield calls it ++ Redistribution of existing assets so as to favour the fighting units or external assistance.

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?

During her narration, Veena Das stresses that even the day India finally became free from its colonial domination, violence against women was still present (2004:327). The daily-life normalized violence, and the way nationalists slogans (Victory to India, Long Live Pakistan) were connected to female bodies, highlighted the connection between "colonial subjugation and sexual violation" (Das, 2004:328). According to Das, "in the mythic imagination in India, victory or defeat in war was ultimately inscribed on the bodies of women" (2004:330), the appropriation of the women's bodies symbolized the appropriation of the territory, that is the way modern nations were built (p. 328). When men marked the female bodies of the other territory, they were stressing that as the women, the area "had already been claimed and occupied [...] icons of the new nations" (2004:331) Veena (2004:329) presents the story about Sakina, a young girl who was raped during the Partition of India in 1986. Differently from the majority of families, her father felt relieved when he found out that Sakina was alive, the fact that her intimacy has been violated was not the main point. "To be masculine when death was all around was to be able to hand death to your violated daughter without flinching" (Das, 2004:329). The power of men against women is revealed when girls are being raped and men's main concern is about their families honor. The assaults can be linked to this symbolisation of the nation in the female body when Veena describes the powerful meaning of getting pregnant: "When Tagore's Bimala said that she wondered if Sandip could see the power of the nation in her, she seems to have prefigured Manto's women in whom one could see the completion of that project of making the nation visible by a surrealist juxtaposition of images" (2004:331).

What is 'empirical evidence' and how is it used by Goldstein?

Empirical evidence is information gained from scientific experiments or observations. It is part of the foundation in the scientific method. These empirical evidence can be used as a foundation to build an argument on so they have to be well researched.

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 second chapter in Part VII? How can this be construed as a conflict suitable for study within the field of peace and conflict studies?

Eric Klinenberg (2004) stresses that the unusually large number of deaths in Chicago, USA owing to heat-waves is not a global warming issue, but socioeconomic related. The most affected individuals were those of lower social class located in the city's most violent areas. The concept of symbolic violence described by Pierre Bourdieu (2004, chap. 32) can be approached to understand the U.S. government role when dealing with the heat-wave in 1995. Symbolic violence is this internalization and acceptance of some kind of violence against individuals as natural, people believe that this is the way things work and will always be like that. When poverty was one of the main causes of death during the heatwave, and nobody seems to notice that it should not be like that, symbolic violence is present. According to Bourdieu (2004:309), "the state is not merely the holder of a monopoly on legitimate physical violence, but over legitimate symbolic violence as well"

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

Essentially, prior to the industrial revolution, the means of the state to extract resources and manpower through taxation and conscription were limited. In the 19th century however, with the emergence/development of technologies such as railways and long-range communications, the means of waging war improved. War could be situated in the context of a whole series of new distinctions which were characteristic of the evolving state. These included: • the distinction between public and private, between the sphere of state activity and non-state activity; • the distinction between internal and external, between what took place within the clearly defined territory of the state and what took place outside; • the distinction between the economic and the political which was associated with the rise of capitalism, the separation of private economic activity from public state activities, and the removal of physical coercion from economic activities; • the distinction between the civil and the military, between domestic non-violent legal intercourse and external violent struggle, between civil society and barbarism; • the distinction between the legitimate bearer of arms and the non-combatant or the criminal.

How does Goldtein understand ´gender´?

Gender refers to what is cultural. It is arbitrary, flexible and based on culture. He uses it to cover masculine and femine roles and bodies alike, in all their aspects, including the biological and cultural structures, dynamics, roles and scripts associated with each gender group and how it effects them from a gender perspective

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 stresses that the "lower upper-middle class" (2004:297) knew everything about servants, horses, shooting, good clothes, etc (2004:298), however they could not afford any of these perks. Owing to this situation, instead of pretending to be rich, these people started developing an attraction for India, a British colony. India could be the place where the working-class would become the upper-class, they finally would be able to have horses, clothes, black servants... (2004:298). From the moment that the British started "colonizing" India, a movement was also initiated in order to erase the settlers' culture. The "lower upper-middle class" described by Orwell, understood the "colonization" process as an opportunity to achieve everything it would not be possible to have in their home land, and when this happened, the settlers' lives were not considered a concern, they did not matter.

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

Goldstein tends to use a more careful and slower process of writing. As if he is really trying to process his thoughts before writing them down. He does however exemplify the importance of how complex and vibrant the discipline of gender studies really is.

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?

He explains it as something good. He ways that they are just more open and publicly celebrating the grief rather than holding it all in and explode. Yes, we can use it to see that we need to listen to people who have experienced things because they have another part of insight rather than just us making guesses. His mind opened up when he experienced grief himself. One can also use this and other traditions from other culture to help make the best version of themselves.

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 Chap. 32 again (Bourdieu & Wacquant) and see how your understanding of the one text affects your understanding of the other. How would you explain the assaults described in Bourgois' chapter (43) on gang violence inHarlem, if you were to use Bourdieu & Wacquant's treatment (Chap. 32) and Bourdieu's treatment (Chap. 42) of symbolic violence? Can East Harlem be regarded as a conflict zone

He explains that societal norms play an important role in this particular decision. Bourdieu looks at the philosophy of domination in a relationship, how individuals tend to be more submissive against one another, but how come men don't prefer to look for women who are taller than them? Bourdieu writes that it is part of masculinity and how the dominance in a male can speak its mind. How it is their dignity to protect in the relationship.Bourdieu was very interested in the way society bonds together, how everyone feels free however still is constrained by societal norms and regulations. He exemplifies the same with relationships, how come two individuals are able to bond together and feel so free. Why people act a certain way is because these particular individuals are dependent on what others think and react to them. Hence, this becomes a huge spider web in a society, with individuals reacting, thinking, and taking actions because of one another. "The masculinization of male bodies and feminization of female bodies effects a somatization of the cultural arbitrary which is the durable construction of the unconscious" (Bourdieu 1982, in Scheper & Hughes, p.273) Where does this rationality originate? One could say it is part of the habitus, reasons why individuals react and think certain ways dependent on others. Bourdieu does not really mention anything about rationality, he describes these phenomenons more as a normality of society. How does Bourdieu link this rationality to violence? He mentions the idea of societal masculinity and femininity and how individuals may be stuck in such ideologies. How men must feel dominance and act as the protector and how women must feel submissive and should be seen as the caretaker figure in the relationship. He connects this to symbolic violence, how in these situations, this automation of thought and societal pressure can affect individuals through feeling more constrained in certain relationships. He mentions that it is important to recognize the "the social construction of the cognitive structures which organize acts of construction of the world and its power" (p. 341). Essentially, exemplifying the power of these pre-set societal mindsets and beliefs. How would you explain the assaults described in Bourgois' chapter (43) on gang violence in East Harlem, if you were to use Bourdieu & Wacquant's treatment (Chap. 32) and Bourdieu's treatment (Chap. 42) of symbolic violence? Sexual Violence. Chapter 42 describes the horrific acts occurred in a crack house in East Harlem. Bourgeois portrays the essence of the mentality inside the gang rape. With an interview structure he clearly captures the significant details of these gruesome events. Bourgois' chapter captures how innocent and oblivious young girls and women are forced into sex with multiple men at the same time. Focusing on Bourdieu's symbolic violence, the chapter describes how the men kept on claiming that the women "liked" or "enjoyed" it and that the women kept on coming back, as if they were asking for more. bourgois does not essentially analyse his ideas and thoughts about it but does introduce the readers to a setting where in streets of East Harlem, gang rape has been normalized. Since the girls in this chapter are clueless and unaware, yet still in pain and desperate to escape the events they are forced upon, they are met with the reality of social disingenuity and symbolic violence. Because the society the girls are apart from, they are in a way brainwashed to simply force themselves to come back to the crack house. As if it has become a way of pleasing the "dominant men" that run that block. Looking back at Bourdiue explanation of gender and violence, stating how symbolic violence is intertwined with societal norms when it comes to relationships, Bourgeois symbolises how these men feel an absolute form of power through sexual violence, hence dominance. While the girls are left in a submissive mentality, which is exactly portrayed in Bourdiue's chapter of Gender and Symbolic Violence (Chapter 42).

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?

He felt that this was quite a striking form of political action where emotional reaction was surprisingly strong and where gendered character could be seen. He also liked it because it was a good case from an approach that combines a Foucadian critique of power and anthropology to the table. It transforms human beings into dependent infantilized subjects through physical pain and humiliating practices.This transformation or identities are created by a term that Goffman called "total institutions"(bls246-7). After all the assaults the individuals return to the only thing that they have left which is their body but humiliation is the biggest weapon in this case to get these identities made. Most prisoners took this time extremely hard and they began to form a huge amount of hate, fear and anger that none of them wanted(pages 248). Prisoners' dignity was extremely violated. And because of the differences in the livelihood of the then 2 sexes one can say that these identities can be linked to gender in a way, where the men and women got beaten up but the women, kinda had menstrual blood reflect on the gender identity and the uncleaningness that followed their protest made it be seen as a social transformation and as a symbol of sexual difference. So they fought the same fight but experienced it differently because of the identity that they had. But women were also looked at as gender neutral but yet they got to keep their uniform so they were not in as bad conditions as the men were. This can be said was on one hand desexualization and on other personal defeminization.(pages 246-251)

The article "Living in the State ofFear" discusses the socialization of violence. What does this mean? How does it happen?

Its when violence is beautylised and glorified by and to the public. ex. The use of camouflage cloth for clothing and small items sold at the market is a subtle and insidious militarization of daily life. Wallets, key chains, belts, caps and toy helicopters are disconcerting in this context. In this way they normalize the extent to which civilian and the military life have commingled in the altiplano

Elaine Scarry (Chap. 46) reflects upon the inadequacy of language to describe pain, while Judith Herman (Chap. 47) 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 the case?

Herman touches base on "post traumatic stress disorder", she defines it differently then societal terms. She believes that in torture, victems endure far more complex and prolonged repeated trauma, hence having a much more intense impact on the victims. This is different then the victims that endure a fight, rape, or a conflict once. "Survivors of abuse in childhood develop similar problems with relationship and identity; in addition, they are particularly vulnerable to repeated harm, both self inflicted and at the hands of others" (Herman, 369). Herman wants to change PTSD for victims of torture into "complex post-traumatic stress disorder".

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

Hypothesis 1: Gender linked war roles are not in fact cross-culturally consistent. Hypothesis 2: Sexist discrimination despite women´s historical success at combats. -main: female combats units, mixed-gender units, individual women fighters, women military leaders Hypothesis 3: Gender differences in anatomy and physiology. -main genetics, testosterone levels, size and strenght, brains and cognition, female sex hormones Hypothesis 4: Innate gender differences in group dynamics. -main male bonding, ability to work in hierarchis, in/out group psychology, early on gender segregation Hypothesis 5: Cultural construction of tough men and tender women - test of manhood, women peace activism, femininity in men... Hypothesis 6: Men's sexual and economic domination of women -main thing: male sexuality as a cause of aggression, feminization as symbolic domination and dependence on womens labor

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?

I would not agree with him entirely. I think we, Europeans have a long way to go to say that we have become decolonized because we have still not faced the truth or begged for forgiveness or tried to make good with so many areas in the world. There is still so much power europeans hold everywhere in the world and not until we give that all up and move forward with the world we cannot fully state that we are decolonized. The ideology has also not left all of us and the idea or theories that some Europeans have in terms of greed, racism, need for power etc. is still fully alive. How our world system works and the power that only the biggest 5 states hold over the world also goes against this belief because the West is playing with other countries and their resources like a baby plays with its toys. Until we lose and break all ties to the economic business everywhere we can start saying that we are on a way of becoming decolonized. It also can´t be said that it is being savagely rooted out of Europeans because there is no physical or mentally violence being used that can be put on the same page as when we, the Europeans, savagely rooted out the culture and human side of the colonies

Explain Kaldors understanding of contemporary identity politics

Identity politics - BASICALLY support to the new wars in the process of globalization, multiculturalism, different types of grouping. Different cultures.Firstly, identity politics are both 'local and global, national, as well as transnational'. They are based on that fighting people want to claim power on the basis of a particular identity. Not like the old wars

Explain the concept of the state of emergency as discussed by Taussig and Scheper-Hughes).

Its where the status quo is threatened. When the violence that is normally contained to the public has now exploded into an open violence to the less dangerous social class.....its when those who are usually shielded from the state are turned against by.

Arendt points out that states can do as they please with stateless peoples. What does this mean? Why is that the case?

If you are stateless you don´t belong to nothing or no one so you are kinda "up for grab", like in Eichman case...he was deported to/from Argentina but he was stateless so there is nowhere he can go....anybody has almost the right to do whatever to him.

Mary Kaldor argues that ´new wars´ have most commonly occurred in which two regions of the world ? why ?

In Africa & Eastern Europe - The politics of identity - The decentralisation of violence - the gloabalized war economy - both inner state wars and classic civil wars unstable authorities, often in Africa due to post-colonialism

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?

In both cases, both perpetrators attempt to hide themselves in the crowd, and tries to disperse the guilt in different ways, and for different reasons. As for Lohr, a simple guard, he hides, perhaps unconsciously, behind his face and when he does admit to violence, he only recognizes that he killed 'one or two' in order to prove himself, and not become a victim, both fearing his face and his life. Mr. Breytenbach, who managed to avoid the TRC, still has doubts about its usefulness, as it singles out individuals acting as a collective, stating that it creates bigger divisions among the people. While Lohr hid behind and within the company of his comrades, Breytenbach hides behind the bureaucracy and the widespread politics associated with apartheid. He blames the atrocity on the breakdown of discipline among his subordinates, to a few individuals, undermining his own argument on the effectivity of the TRC.

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?

In the old days you would use your power to kill people but now it is more about owning the people and their lifes and get something valuable from their work and dedication to you...like from school, work etc. They contribute to you(the power)

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 presented several consequences of political conflict and economic warfare. During his narrative, the impacts of warfare are highlighted, and some of them are reported as mental disorders, alcoholism, separations between families, and destruction of homes and lives. According to Quesada, an anti-Sandinista military force in 1988 "initiated a devastating economic blockade against Nicaragua", and this example can be used to explain economic warfare, when economic strategies are used to weaken the economy of other states. When economic wars happen claiming to damage the enemy's capacity to fight, consequences such as rampant inflation, changes in property rights and shortages of food and goods are possible. In political conflicts the aim of the state/group is to weaken its opponent, and one possible way to do that is causing an economic warfare. James Quesada describes the effects of warfares on children, these consequences can be prolonged reactions to war, sleep problems, lack of trust, stress disorders...

What is the concept of "legitimacy" as used by Kaldor? Why is it important?

Is basically the trust and consent for the political power and institutions. And that they need to work in a form of agreed set of rules-rules of law. In the new wars the concept of legitimacy has fallen and broken down. It is important because power is based on followers and "unity" and if you don´t have that you don't have the foundation of security(police, law, rules, army etc.)hat is crucial is not the privatization of violence, as such, but the breakdown of legitimacy.

How does the story of normalization unfold in the article "Bodies, Death and Silence"?

It puts in the light the deeply rooted problems in the area which has become deeply affected by oppression and injustice that the normal reality is in fact the bizarre situation where your society is corrupted and the authorities use unlawful ways against the public. "Increasingly today race and racial hatred have emerged as subliminal subtext in the popular discourses that justify violent and illegal police actions in shantytown communities"(180, c.20) The poor are perceived as renegades, that have crime in their nature, although these crimes are of absolute need, they are not excused or understood in social terms. (180) "Even our president has turned against us. He wants to set all the criminals free so that they can kill and steal and rape us at will"(181). This has become a huge problem for communities that do not have a stable authorities(people in power) or have class division that ends up in revolutions or rebellion from the people.

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

Its mostly used by gangs and cartels, due to its easy access, especially in america. In guerilla warfare, the use of small arms have multiple advantages, there is a great surplus, both in the legal way to acquire it (from the US market for example), as well as from abandoned weapon depots following the fall of the soviet union. The easy access and the laws help you.

What does the Gray Zone tell us about responsibility and why people collaborate?

Its the hope to one day becoming free, that was what gave them strenght and willingness to follow orders that were given by higher power

Define the idea of the banality of evil

Its the thinking that "you can do bad stuff but that does not mean you are a bad person". Adolf E ichmann wanted to argue that evil acts are not necessarily played out by evil people...some are just obeying orders and think that they have some sort of duty to the higher honour. One can also say that it is something that has become such a norm that the person doing it sees that they can do it without any consequences.

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

Liberal feminism; they reject that there is a impactful difference between the sexes Difference feminism; women are smarter but not stronger and should be used in the best way for them and society not holden down. They say that women are peaceful and good in relations with others while men are aggressive and harsh Postmodern feminism; you don´t need to put people in any box at any point. Everything should be open for everyone.

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 talk about violence in this way, i.e. to describe it realistically and in a concrete way?

Of course you get the sense of horror and disgust in your body. I think he wants the reader or the world citizens to get a better and clear idea of what can actually happen in this world. I have that opinion that it is really important to read about this and talk about violence this way because it is such a big and a deep rooted issue not only in society but the effects that it has on people who are the victims of it, is significant. So I thing that it is important to not hide things in this ****ed up world because then we can never solve the real problem and we are always going around the issue.

'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?Part V: The State Run Amok

One should look at the side of the political relationships with the tribes and families and social grops and how they impact the genocide. For example, if a social group does not like each other, the genocide would be greater in a sense...like a causation of genocide. Hinton is just describing how Cambodia was this structure of social relations, that led to killings,

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 stresses (2004:286) that in both of his narratives "structural violence" is present. Farmer criticises the impact of human decisions, and social and economic forces (2004:286) on people's lives, on Acéphie and Chouchou's lives. He highlights that the "difference" between structural violence and cultural beliefs must be looked at. Cultural relativism continually used to explain suffering owing to the lack of human rights, should "have an increasingly limited role in explaining the distribution of misery" (Farmer, 2004:287). Culture is presented as an excuse, justifying suffering, and this statement is rarely questioned.

What does Philippe Bourgois mean when he states that violence is 'good public relations' and 'crucial to ... professional credibility' (Bourgois 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 describes Caesar's work as a drug-dealer in a Puerto Rican neighborhood in New York, and how it is to be inside a marginalized and poor world as a man of color. When Bourgois declares that "violence is good public relations" and "crucial to... professional credibility" (2004:302), he admittes that when Caesar deal with his purchasers he must show who has the power, he must show "his capacity for maintaining order at his work site" (Bourgois, 2004:302). It is not about the violence itself, but about comprehending the institutionalized violence of his surroundings, and finding a way to survive it. "Caesar's reputation for violence ensures his long-term job security" (Bourgois, 2004:302). Philippe stresses that this institutionalized world of terror, this complete feeling of helplessness, brings other paths for individuals who do not have the same privilege as the upper-class. When your environment does not provide access to basic human rights, you must find another way to survive, and being a drug-dealer can be one of the possible ways, "the state of poverty and social marginalization research in any given country emerges almost as a litmus for gauging contemporary social attitudes towards inequality and social warfare" (Bourgois, 2004:303).

How does symbolic violence apply to the article by Phillipe Bourgois? Why? How does he link violence to masculinity?

Pierre Bourdieu presents the term symbolic violence as a non-physical type of violence evidenced inside the difference of power between different social groups. The deconstruction processes of symbolic violence also "can not be reduced to a simple conversion of consciousnesses and wills, because the foundation of symbolic violence lies not in mystified consciousness that only need to be enlightened but in dispositions attuned to the structure of domination of which they are the product" (Bourdieu, 2004:342) Phillipe Bourgois describes the story about Leroy, a man of color and a crack dealer, during his process to "quit his formal job as a messenger, after he was humiliated by a white woman" (2004:305) . The woman felt terrified when using the same elevator as Leroy. As he did not press a floor, she simply thought that Leroy was following her, a highlighted case of racism and symbolic violence. When the woman thinks that she has greater social power than those of the subordinate group, when she thinks that her white classe is more intelligent, more capable or better, Bourdieu classifies it as symbolic violence. Another situation stressed by Bourgois is what he called a "tense gender dynamic" (2004:306). It is known that women tend to be serving the lowest levels in the labor market, but when they are the highest authority, men normally refer to them by making use of sexist insults, besides "street slang's sexualized curses" (2004:306). Symbolic violence admits that gender relations are part of the suffering, when it is naturalized by the society that women should be paid less than men or when both sexes agree that females are weaker, less intelligent and unreliable compared to men.

Define political power -

Power is held when a group is together, and it can only be a property of a group not one human being. Power is not only an act but its the way people act together. Therefore, when someone is "in power" we mean that there are people under him that hold him up and empower him and if they leave..he loses his power. Power is in the same category as peace....whereas it can be the end in itself(page 241)

Explain the difference between absolute and relative poverty

Relative poverty is when you miss certain achievements to reach basic capabilities but you can still live your life but kinda excluded from the full participation in your own society. Like you maybe do not have extra money to go and see a movie at the cinema or theatre but you can afford to rent or buy an apartment. Absolute poverty is where you everything is non-secured; your life, routinely lacking voice, basic needs, work and opportunity. Its where you are much lower than relative poverty....and the difference between you and the riches is much longer than the relatives.

Taking as his starting point the experience of surviving a car bomb, Albie Sachs 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, or was he satisfied ?

Sachs continuously remarks, that while what they had achieved was a success, the feeling of usefulness and pride during the journey, was replaced by a feeling of uselessness and superficiality. "What mattered was no longer the intrinsic quality of the things we did, but the excellence of the way we presented ourselves (Sachs 2004:457)". The pride and joy felt prior, was replaces with the underwhelming banality of democratic bureaucracy.

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

Sexism and war are products of certain stages of human history. /page 23 Early humans were peaceful and egalitarian. But because of property and economic transformations war started to play a role. Gender and war are linked. He talks about how men have "easier way" of becoming aggressive. They did a study where they tested it on mice and on females they became more aggressive and it was much easier for them to go and fight (in the 3rd hypothesis).

Explain the main priciplnes behind Kaldor´s cosmopolitan approach. Discuss whether you think it is an effective approach ? why?

She describes cosmopolitan approach to be more about unity, hospitality, people working together, the left wing, multiculturalism, global relations, the existence of a human community with certain shared rights and obligation. She uses it to refer to a positive political vision, embracing tolerance, civility and democracy. So both the state and also the global field. An appreciation and a pride in the different ways of being human

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-thought out atrocities of a concerted effort.' What does she mean by this?

She means that all of the murders and torture of pregnant women, the rapes, the farming out of children and attack on unarmed males and females students etc. is all part of a bigger plan and one part of the overarmed military to implicate capitalism in their state and for people they want to "continue disappeared(dissappearing)"(page199).

Included in Shepherd-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?

She talks about how the apartheid must have affected them, most of them came from broken houses, deprived families where no one is working, no education, no childhood, they were robbed everything. She justifies their behavior by talking about what they have gone through and with everything that they have seen, her friend says that these kids/young boys have seen everything. Her friend, Nona Goso said she hated how they acted but that she wasn't surprised because of these kids and their circumstances. She says that the apartheid "has murdered human feelings" so they kinda don´t know how to act because they have not learn it or gotten the opportunity to learn how to express their feelings or how "the normal" people act or live. She also said that "the history of apartheid is etched on their very bodies, their social skin". The boys also had some marks and wounds of old tortures so one can only think what they have been through and how that has affected their brain function and their perspective on things and other human beings.(chapter 30) In the beginning of her article she talks about Foucault's "everyday violence", the little routines and enactments of violence practiced normatively on vulnerable bodies in families, schools, hospitals, medical clinics, in various administrative and bureaucratic settings(from mayor's office to the public morgue), that are all, in Franco Basaglia´s sense "institutions of violence"(Chapter 30, 253). So that is the base of state violence. Township/local violence: stab wounds, brick bashing, machete chops, second degree burns, scars from untreated infections and botched, discriminatory medical care. She then describes how youths are burning their books in school, chanting for the death of the "settlers" and "torching" the cars of suspected government "agents". They would also torch their shacks or set their bodies on fire with "necklaces" of gasoline-filled tires wrapped around their necks, Burning of bodies. Throwing stones, stabbing, stealing... She really focuses on the unbalanced society and state that South Africa is/was and how nothing is stable for the individuals that live there, the hurt, the pain, the anger etc. between blacks and whites is extreme and the inequality that lives in the state, school, medicare, job opportunities, human rights over all etc. are so different between these two groups that in the end there is always gonna be some tension between them that will come out in matter of time. She also goes on how the law and justice work, where the non-blacks can life their life, not be afraid if they get arrested and barely get any jail time, while blacks can be put away for life. She also describes that the violence that black people form is called "senseless violence"/wild/asocial(apolitical(255) and the violence of the police(whites) is considered sensible, which makes the balance halt in a way that won´t help anybody. . State violence and local violence are connected because one is based on the other and vice versa. "South Africa has been and remains a violent state"(263) but she says that on "the contrary, however, civil society in the new South Africa will depend on using the local democratic structure that are already in place, including the popular tribunals, civis association and security and discipline committees that have been struggling with questions of law and order, justice and fairness, discipline and punishment for over 20 years as poor and marginalized people struggle to find their way to create some balance and orderly social life under inhumane conditions. But that won't change if the state violence won't change either. The grassroot legal system is so outdated but that does not help the local violence or the people themselves because when one aspect of society is holding a group down...most all other parts of society follow in some kind of way.

What does Kaldor mean when she talkes about the transformation of the "social relations of warfare?" Why is this significant ?

She wants to argue that the transformation is more on the social side rather than technological because of how different people can be or want but still fight together for the same team. In the old wars there was more unity, you would only hang out with people with exactly the same ideas as you but now it is much more open. This is significant because its easier to get people to fight now

What does it mean to say that the "lower classes smell"?

The "lower classes smell" (2004:299) statement has been described and used to increase the disgusting feeling people had when talking about different social classes, their repulse of the working-class body. According to Orwell (2004:299), hearing that the working-class was "lazy, drunken, boorish, and dishonest" was better than being called dirty, that is when the real harm was made. This sentence was taught in order to diminish working-class people, "In the West, we are divided from our fellows by our sense of smell" (Orwell, 2004:300).

Taussig (2004) writes about silence in his article on terror during the Columbian dictatorship of 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?

Taussig saw first hand how authorities could treat a person who hasn't yet been found guilty, but of suspicions he is taken in and physically tortured for a couple of days. He feels ashamed that he won't help his friend, because he doesn't want to endanger his family and those who live around him. Taussig says in his writings that he feels "terrible and less than human"(page 173) and that he is taking part in the silence himself instead of rising up against the power and being loud. His friend is brutally affected, physically tortured by the army for two days, shot but was quite lucky or was he ?, because it was not a kill shot. Because now and forever he needs to be running and "disappear" from everything in fear of being found and tormented. Both of them are haunted by endless nights of terror´s talk and terror´s silence.(Chapter 19, pages 171-174)

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

The Dahomey Kingdom of west africa is one of the 2 only states worldwide that has documented participation of women in war as a part of the states army (in the 18th and 19th century). Women made up one wing of the standing army, the "Amazon corps". At some point female combatants made up ⅓ of the army. Their participation increased the the kingdoms military power and they were excellent soldiers. The case is so important, because it shows the possibility of an effective permanent standing female combat unit. It is the only case of its kind.

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?

The Indifference of a child's death - The women have lost so many children that they relay on the formula "X children, Y living"(chapter 33, page 276). They clang the bells of Nossa Senhora das Dores Church to let others know that "another angel (has) gone to heaven"(276). They also color the children's coffins, until the age of 7, sky blue, because it is the favorite color of the Virgin and they also to ensure their children will be free so they don't have any fasteners. They believe to do this and more for closure but also in remembrance of the children that left too soon. (chapter 33). The silence has serious consequences for the mothers and their bodies, mental health and their well being. Everything in their religion, community and the state talks about childbearing and the expectation, values and rules. But the effect is indescribable for what these people go through, also considering how their society functions during those times(around 1965) in Colombia, South America. The deliveries and miscarriages were not even taken seriously by the state, sometimes they would count and sometimes not, but the mothers always kept track on all the lives that they had carried.

Apply the concept of the banality of evil in the context of Browning's "Initiation to Mass Murder."

The banality of evil can be applied to the mass murders in the forest because it was so mean and evil that some people even denied doing it and going though with it. But the main problem is always that you are obeying the higher power. And it has become this everyday evilness so you don´t really question it any longer

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. Ch. 13 War

The concept of the battlefield. The definition of battlefields within political philosophy has dissolved and is now spanning the entire globe. Battles are unlikely to be confined to planet earth as the US in particular will be forced to militarize space in an effort to protect the satellites upon which its communication and information system depend. (p. 190) Former US president George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden have both rejected political narratives of warfare and instead adopted their respective rallying cries in eschatological philosophies and a just war against evildoers. (p.190) The third reason involves the exchange of nuclear weapons. As the technology to make nuclear weapons continues to diffuse, the world is entering the most dangerous phase of nuclear confrontation since the Cold War. (p.190) In addition, the potential of nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of groups committed to carrying out terrorist spectaculars is a worrying break from Clausewitzean tradition (the political philosophy). (p.192) Last one has to do with the confronting of revolutionary wars which often cry out for a counter revolutionary response. The philosophie´s (Clausewitz) injunction to destroy the military forces of the adversary is problematic not just because such military forces are often indistinguishable from the local populace but also because one can never be sure they have been eliminated unless one is ready to destroy a large portion of the population. The problem is that this usually conflicts with the political aim of the war, to insure the irrelevance of the revolutionary ideology in question. (p.192)

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?

The different dynamics that are in play during the interrogations differ per section and perspective. I believe there is a lot of organizational pressure described throughout the dialogue that Krog writes. A quote could be "I will be stigmatized as a traitor because I have named every individual who worked with me - and when you fight like that, the only thing you have is trust. You trust on each other for your life. And I have betrayed them - all of them . . . but I beg you for forgiveness and peace" (Krog, 373). I can't find any other dynamics just that of societal pressure and disbelief. Personally I believe and like how Herman has noted it, torture can be mental. I believe that the moment a victim is taken into capturement or even if it is far from physical contact one can still be tortured mentally, hence I believe that the cruelty starts from whenever the victim is affected by it mentally.

Describe the Milgram experiment. What are the two primary conclusions Milgram drew from his work?

The experiment was made after WW2 to understand what happened in Nazi Germany, why so many obeyed orders. The experiment was for a subject to deliver an electric shock to a victim and they wanted to see how far the subject would go, how strong of electric shock it would be able to give the victim just because one of authority told it to (ch 16, p.145-147). The two primary conclusions to the experiment was firstly; that even if it went against their values and there would not be any punishment if they disobeyed the majority was willing to obey authority. Secondly the experiment generated "extra-ordanary tension". The subjects was stressed and nervous, it wasn't as simple as just to obey or disobey (p.148-149)

Proponents of globalization argue that globalization minimizes human security. What are the primary reasons they give in support of this claim?

The human security paradigm assumes, that the safety of the individuals is the key to global security: by implication, when the safety of individuals is threatened so too in a fundamental sense is international security In this view, global challenges have to be assessed in terms of how they affect the safety of people, and not just of states. Proponents also argue that these threats arise not only from military sources. Non-military causes, such as worsening environmental conditions and economic inequalities can exacerbate conflict processes.

What do the myths about women warrior societies represent in European civilisational and colonial history, and in late modern culture according to Goldstein?

They are a mix of a sex-obejct and a power figure He takes the fictional character Lara Croft as an example. She is supposed to be a strong female character, but by wearing short and tight clothes she is being sexualised and seen as a sex-object instead of a fighter/woman in war.

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)?

The most striking consequence, I believe, is the feeling of moral responsibility that would emerge, without being able (either for not wanting, or being offered) to be legally tried for one's actions. "Assumption of moral responsibility has value only if one is ready to assume the relevant legal consequences (Agamben 2004:440". It must have been, and still is, extremely fatiguing to carry with oneself the burden of guilt, and not be tried for it. "To assume guilt and responsibility - which can, at times, be necessary - is to leave the territory of ethics and enter that of law. Whoever has made this difficult step cannot presume to return through the door he just closed behind him (Agamben 2004:441)".

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

The unity is not to be found, neither in the public or state. Unbalance. No long-term solution

What is meant by '"carceral affirmative action" towards African-Americans' and '"social ghetto"' in Wacquant's article (Wacquant 2004: 318)? How are these phenomena linked to American politics and the American economy?

The words "affirmative action" can be used in situations when decisions regarding allocations of public benefits englobe minority groups. In this case, however, "carceral affirmative action towards African-Americans" highlights cases of mass incarceration of black people, stressing that as the lack of "marketable cultural capital, and which the most deprived among them resist by escaping into the illegal street economy" (Wacquant, 2004:318), individuals of colour will be more likely to be in jail, they are chosen, the prison system was constructed in order to arrest these minority groups. The United States history can explain the institutionalized racism, since African-Americans arrived as slaves having their bodies used for forced labour. Everything has a root, and some roots were responsible for segregating groups of people in the worst possible way. "Countries regions of the United States in the seventeenth century served to recruit and regulate the unfree workforce forcibly imported from Africa and the West Indies to cater to their tobacco, rice, and mixed-farming economy" (Wacquant, 2004:319) Loïc admittes (2004:319) that slavary caused racial segregation, and once rooted in society, it became grounded to its own strengh. The Jim Crow regime, enunciating social rules to increase even more the racial segregation, had a direct impact on how the "carceral affirmative action towards African-Americans" was established. Different schools, different places, and different opportunities were settled depending on which colour your skin looked like. "An unforeseen byproduct of the systematic enslavement and dehumanization of Africans and their creation of a racial caste line separating what would later become labeled "blacks'' and "whites"" (Wacquant, 2004:319).

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?

There are examples of a lot of silences and hierarchies in her article. She talks about the disappearances of children and young black men who are then either never found or found and their bodies have been slashed, mutilated and later dumped. This is used to scare the population and to make people afraid and build fear in them. The trust in the state is almost non-existent, and nobody, not even the police, follows the law of the state. Scheper-Hughes says that "only fools would obey the stop sign". So the power is no ones and everyone is defending themselves. They are silent for each other but also against each other. She also mentions kidnaps and ransoms, bribes, and lies "are part of the "game" of power(page 180). And we can see that as the rich class is given chance after chance and never touches the floor in the courtroom. The government bends the truth and rather than facing the problem it blames the mentality of the individuals and their problems but not the state's problems(178). Favors and privileges are used as tool to bend human rights and get individuals in on all kinds of deals. The existence of paramilitary "death squads" with close ties to the local police force is suspected, but on this topic people are generally silent; if and when they do speak, it is in a rapid and complicated form of sign language. No one else wants to be marked. As a woman said about the police and silence "the police know what they're doing. Its best to keep your mouth shut."(page 176). The author also takes the statement that the Brazilian National Bishop conference released that implicated that not only landowners hired thugs, and professional gunmen but also the police, judges, and officers of the judiciary. Which makes everything corrupt and untrustful.(178). Examples of the killings of lawyers that were fighting for peasant families, hired gunmen were freed, some cases for robbery never went to trial. The direct attack on citizend from the police: arrest and interrogation, imprisonment, disappearance, and finally torture, mutilation and killing. (page 179) Violence is usually the only tactic the military has at its disposal to control citizens even during peacetime(page 179) I would argue that they all intervene together and connect to one in the sense that a lot of this violence and silence is based on the authorities and the oppression and corruption that can both be linked to the state but also the gangs, mafia, drug lords etc. and you find these examples in the regions that can be manipulated and used.

There has been a sharp decrease in interstate warfare(between the government of a state and internal opposition groups) since 1945. Why has this been the case? Ch 13. War.

There are several reasons for this -The decline of the vast majority of the organized violence to make a conflict. -the end of colonialism, the end of cold war, the international activism, global norms became popular -decline in battle-deaths -the shift of regional spread of armed conflicts. some regions have experienced far more wars than others.

How has the distinction between civilian and combatant change ?

There is no clear distinction anymore, paramilitary rarely wear uniforms, you can´t really see any longer who is fighting and who is just a civilian. The civilians are also almost in the same danger as the combatants: mass shottings, bombs, ethnic cleansing etc. -using civilians as a source of power or movements -mass rapes -mass shootings -torture

How does the idea of the Gray Zone apply to the issues brought up in the article "US Inner City Apartheid"?

We can say that it connects because its where moral distinction between victims and perpetrators lose their meaning under the not necessarily logical practices of everyday violence that have been institutionalised by an oppressive enemy. As a result, on the intimate level the violence is administered as much by the victims as it is by the powerful. inhabitants are condemned to a dehuminizing stuggle for personal advantage

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

We can say that war is lethal intergroup violence. When members of states/organized groups go or want to go out and kill members of another state/organized groups. war occurs between groups, communities, ethnic groups, societies, states

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?

We can see that the use of women can be exacly the same as with men and that they are often better...and think more clearly...if they are in leadership we see that they often rescue the state, we think of them as soldiers as if they are forced but many times they are not and if you get to see that then they get villainized. Its the women as an exceptionalist

Explain the relationship between globalisation and new wars

Well we would not have the term new wars if it wasn´t for globalisation. The global interconnectedness has become huge and its changing the character of political authority. Military alliances, international arms production and trade, various forms of military cooperations and exchanges, arms control agreements etc have created a form of global military integration The wars are different due to this global connection and talks

Can the state engage in repression? When? Why? Please give examples.

Yes. Often repression is a known fact in developing countries or un-egalitarian states. It is used to gain power, maintain power, get more income, threats, through either revision or preserving the status quo Ex: post emancipation, the states still repressed the black community to preserve the status quo. Ex of revision: State sanctioned revolution

What does patriarchy mean?

a hierarchical system of social organization in which cultural, political, and economic structures are controlled by men (male hegemony). Literally rule by father. Its that males have dominance and the strong hand in everything; from social life, to economy, in the state and in international relations. Society is built around men for men

What is obedience?

changing one's behavior at the command of an authority figure. Obedience is behavior or act that's mindful of rules and laws. Like "Do what you are told to do" - follow instructions. For example civilians have obedience to cops, the government, teachers and so on... Military service demands obedience to their members. Following the set rules of that context(state, tribe, religion, countries etc).

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

every system everything lifestyles stereotypical lives US economic class systems Everything in the US is a mess <3 Because then they can depress a class that they want to hold down and not glow So they can hold multiple groups represse while they dance on their glory and money

Define strength

is more of the individual entity. But one can always lose its strength to the other. Strength belongs to the character. But Hannah´s definition focuses on the nature of a group and its power to turn against independence, the property of individual strength.

Explain what Green means by the militarization of everyday life?

super-maximum-security prisons, capital punishment; the technologies of heightened personal security, including the house gun and gated communities; and reversed feelings of victimization

Define authority

that can both be a group or a person, but to remain in authority one needs the respect from the people. You have some kind of power when you hold the authority. Power is in the same category as peace....whereas it can be the end in itself(page 241)

Can East Harlem be regarded as a conflict zone?

the chapter did mention multiple gunshots and screams throughout their dialogue plus more importantly, the extensive horrific sexual violence that is described makes it seem like, yes East Harlem is indeed a conflict zone.