USA 2020. Violence and the Technological Impasse. Part 2.
This is the second half of PhD researcher, Andrew P. Keltner, and Research fellow, Andreas Wilmes, on the collection of events surrounding the protests of police violence.
APK:
I'll take two points you make. One, understanding the 'soldier' ethic; and two, the division of Republican and Democrat definition of violence. What do you have to say about this 'systematization' against black people while two of the cops who were present with George Floyd? Both minorities, one Asian man and one African American man.
To elaborate: were the minority race cops who watched George Floyd die victims of a system where they had to be complicit or did they choose to be complicit?
Further, based on your answer, what would you venture to say this exposes about the 'american experience'?
AW:
People working in the armed forces must develop virtues such as selfless service, loyalty, honor, respect and so on. Only bad soldiers’ behavior rests on a mindless application of techniques. I believe this important nuance is not sufficiently taken into consideration when it comes to the debates about the ‘soldier mentality’ in US law enforcement officers. We are dealing with human beings here. One cannot reduce everything to the question of the techniques that are used. That is not to say that I idealize military virtues. The esprit de corps, for instance, can be very problematic. In his book Ordinary Men, Christopher Browning shows that the spirit of solidarity in the German Ordnungspolizei was one of the most important factors regarding the passivity and complicity of most men in the face of the massacres perpetrated in Poland in 1942. I do not want to put those massacres and the killing of George Floyd on the same level of course. I am just implying that a similar spirit of solidarity between the police officers might have been at play.
Your questions entail assumptions that are inherent to the ‘viewer experience’ I mentioned earlier. Although it is difficult, we must distance ourselves from the narrative that the footage of the killing so violently suggests us. What was Chauvin’s motive for killing Floyd? We know that several years ago both worked security at the same nightclub. Philonise Floyd (i.e., George Floyd’s brother) stated he believes Chauvin’s motivation was “personal.” I am intrigued by this and wonder whether it will cast light on the complicity of the two other cops. I am not ruling out that Chauvin’s crime may involve racist motivation. However, we must ask : Since when can we take a footage of interracial violence as proof for racist intent? I have been doing academic research on extreme killings (i.e., sexual homicide, serial and mass murder) for many years. One thing any scholar in this field knows is that we readily project our own interpretations and sensitivities on most shocking crimes. It is pivotal to go beyond the aesthetic call of the crime scene.
Having said that, I am aware that you will tell me I am circumventing your questions which are about systemic racism. It is important to draw a distinction, at least in outline, between anti-racism in its traditional sense and the current ’systemic racism’ rhetoric. In a traditional sense, racism is understood as pseudo-science (e.g., Nazi biology). It is further understood as immoral. Finally, the traditional view takes racism as something psychological. It is about the fear of the other, biases, narcissism and so forth. Of course, these features of racism may go hand in hand with a system of domination. However, the pivotal matter is that racism is an illness of the soul and that fighting against the system entails changing the soul of men. As shown by Martin Luther King, the true revolutionary way is always that of religion and values. Since racism is an illness of the soul, you cannot turn it into an object with precise contours. On the one hand, there are many and many clearly identifiable racist acts. On the other hand, you cannot simply write a list of behaviors, then show it to someone and tell him : ‘Here is everything you need to know about racism.’
In contrast to the traditional view, today’s anti-racism claims that you must change the system. It is not even about changing the system to change the soul of men because the system in itself, regardless of any other considerations, is racist. But what exactly is this system? Can we talk about racism when there are no overt acts of racism and/or when there is no racist intent? This is reminiscent of an issue pertaining to Galtung’s notion of structural violence, that is violence embedded in a structure regardless of whether people are committing direct violence. Galtung’s notion is based on the following definition: “Violence is present when human beings are being influenced so that their actual somatic and mental realizations are below their potential realizations.” (10) The very problem of this definition is that it is based on a figurative meaning of violence (e.g. “The violent motion of the ship upset his stomach”) which bears some resemblance to how violence per se manifests itself. (11) I contend there is a similar issue with the idea of ‘systemic racism.’ This idea seems to make sense to some because it points to phenomena (e.g. harm, injustice, humiliation experienced by a community) having some affinities with how genuine racism manifests itself. Contemporary anti-racists turned a linguistic confusion into a system. Also, note here that we are radically moving from the idea of racism as an illness of the soul to that of the manifestation of racism. For the new anti-racists, racism has no longer anything to do with what is inside man’s mind. Racism is something purely external, something that can be analyzed and dealt with like an object. Our judgements and speeches about racism are now highly dependent on the organ of sight. There is no appeal to religion, spirituality, or psychology in a movement like Black Lives Matter.
Contemporary ideas on racism rely on a technological mindset. There are currently discussions about removing discriminatory words like ‘master’ and ‘slave’ from computer codes. To me, this sheds light on the strange times we are living. Once racism is turned into an object, the idea of removing it from the surface of the planet by purely technical and practical (rather than religious, moral, or psychological) become possible. Remove tweets, remove statues reminiscent of colonial history, remove the western philosophical xenophobic canon from university programs, remove Gone with the Wind from HBO… It is always the same story. Today's anti-racists look like engineers, foremen, or interior designers. Racism today is primarily understood in terms of visual signals (e.g., words taken out of their spoken context) and numbers (i.e., computer language or statistics taken as evidence of ‘systemic racism’). The era of civil right activists like Martin Luther King is over. Technology deeply permeated anti-racism and this can only fuel conflict and violence. The increasing objectification of racial issues may ultimately lead to racism itself (differences in skin color do not matter to me, but they are objective from a strictly technological point of view). But the current problem with technologized anti-racism is that it can only bring people together by dividing them. How far does one need to go to remove racism from the matrix? For remember what I mentioned earlier about the list... At the time of speaking, statues of Christ are supposed to be symbols of white supremacy. What will be next? What is more, as soon as people embrace the idea of systemic racism, conflicting and contradictory requests arise. For instance, white people are encouraged to follow the movement, but are at the same time encouraged to feel guilty about their complicity with the system and their privileges. In other words : ‘Identify yourself with the movement but do not identify with it.’ This is what Gregory Bateson referred to as double bind. As shown by René Girard, double bind nurtures a vivid oscillation between fascination and repulsion. It further nurtures mimetic rivalry. Double bind proves very efficient on social media in that it draws attention and generates comments, debates, ‘likes,’ 'dislikes,’ smileys and hashtag parades. However, when debates no longer take place on Tweeter but in the streets, the potentially violent and devastating effects of double bind become very real.
With regards to racism today, I notice that the circle of technology and that of violence are becoming identical. Moving out from this circle will be the only way to promote a genuine and healthy anti-racism. Does it expose something specific about the ‘american experience’? Maybe, but I am not sure.
APK:
Being that you find this problem of the “technologization” of the new anti-racists, how does one even remove it from that place? The circle, as you describe it. Because, it seems that your answer is to go along the lines of religion. Changing the soul. However, given the materialist understanding of the world, not to mention the atrocities that have happened in the name of religion, how can this answer be sufficient?
AW:
Religion, of course, is not immune to violence. However, it is already implied by your question that a strong come back of religion is unlikely to happen. It would require further discussion but, as a Christian, I take religion as a necessary component of non-violent resistance. At any rate, I am the first to acknowledge that it is quite easy to make conflict resolution projects on paper. Yet, this certainly does not mean that those projects are not worth trying. ‘Political correctness,’ ‘woke,’ ‘identity politics,’ are words that turned into stumbling blocks. Perhaps refocusing political debates on technology may change attitudes and ways of thinking on both sides of the spectrum. Men of strong and good will may also act on a more local level by implementing anti-racist associations that would not be meant to become lobbies, work with modest financial means, be less dependent on modern communication technologies, and, last but not least, reconnect with a more traditional anti-racism. Finally, do not forget that, along with religion, I also mentioned values and psychology (the notion of ‘systemic racism’ mainly pertains to sociology and philosophy…. little is heard from psychologists on that topic). Now this is certainly easier said than done… But what other options do we have at hand?
APK:
Well, I am not sure what other options we have. At first my mind thinks of humanism, or humanitarianism, something along these lines. But these as well draw on ideas from religion, value, psychology, as well as being virtuous, could be one. Of course, technology seems to make this ‘humanization’ of the future less and less likely. Could this be something along the lines of what you see as being the other options?
AW:
Humanism (broadly construed) is liable to devolve into the “humanization of nothingness.” (12) As shown by the characters of Dostoevsky’s novel Demons, there is a very morbid side to humanism. Besides, I agree with Girard’s contention that our modern concern for victims has its roots in the Christian revelation. When these roots are ignored, concern for victims becomes ambivalent to say the least. On the one hand, it involves the best things today’s humanitarianism has to offer. On the other hand, our concern for victims often involves a competitive mindset and bad faith. As Girard puts it:
“The victims most interesting to us are always those who allow us to condemn our neighbours. And our neighbours do the same. They always think about victims for whom they hold us responsible… In our world … we are all bombarding each other with victims…” (13)
Or, to put it in more contemporary words: we are all bombarding each other, as it were, with tweets and snuff movies. Needless to say, virtue signaling, and all the more so on social media, is a moral contest very liable to turn concern for victims into a competitive matter. Besides, since the beginning of the protests, the incredible amount of video footage of violence is beyond comprehension. I already explained why such footage impedes thought and nurtures negative feelings. On top of that, there is technologized anti-racism with its rather ambiguous slogans such as ‘White Silence is Violence.’ Strong factors are fueling a conflict-ridden mindset with regards to the concern for victims. Who is defending the real victims? The protesters who want to defund the police? Those who aim to protect the law-abiding citizens against the looters ? Those who warn that people should observe the COVID-19 health and safety measures? Those who want to defend the good cops in the midst of the current concerns for police brutality? There are obviously irreconcilable positions here. This conflict-ridden concern for victims leads us to a worrisome impasse. All of this could be the subject of a wide-ranging and detailed study.
On a more general note, you must understand that the current events in the US changed my thought pattern in many respects. My reflections are now more or less at the crossroads of Girard’s anthropology and Ellul’s critique of technology. Except for a short interview (14), Girard’s works never really engaged with Ellul's thought. Ellul, however, experienced a kind of intellectual epiphany after reading Girard’s book on Dostoyevsky, Resurrection from the Underground. In Theology and Technology, Ellul aims to show how Girard’s thoughts on mimetic rivalry, underground psychology, and pride point to something deeply embedded in the technological system. In Girard, mimetic rivalry can never lead to a Hegelian-like overcoming and reconciliation of opposites. Mimetic rivalry is not dialectical. For Ellul, there is a profound commonality between this non-dialectic feature of mimetic rivalry and the technological system itself. As he puts it : “Technology juxtaposes opposites without any possible fusion, [it is a] ‘union without reconciliation’ … [It] encompasses everything, but without any synthesis, without any reconciliation.” (15) To me, this offers a new way to analyze issues of violence today. But I have only recently been exploring this new perspective. There is a lot to think anew. The ideas I am outlining in this conversation are mainly the starting point of a venture that will require much time, efforts, and discussion.
APK:
So, if I get this right: our addiction to communication technologies, among other things, diverts us from a healthy concern for victims. And the more our minds are permeated with technology, the less we are able to think dialectically. What would be a path towards dialectics then?
AW:
That is part of what I have been trying to say indeed. But I must insist again that technology is non-dialectic in essence. Technological solutions are mechanical, never dialectic. To me, this is something important to bear in mind if we want to understand conflict and violence nowadays. The new anti-racists, for instance, are somewhat reminiscent of the unhappy consciousness in Hegel’s Phenomenology. With the best of intentions, they strive to achieve absolute, almost divine-like diversity, but their efforts constantly bounce back in the form of (inner) conflict and disunity. Their technological mindset and tactics give rise and foster this contradiction. They offer no mediation to overcome it.
Besides, given that "politics have been overtaken by technology," (16) a path towards dialectics can hardly be expected in this area. Since the very beginning of the protests, the left has been highly effective in its use of communication technologies strategies. And I surmise that now the right will more than ever aim at matching the technological efficiency of their political opponents. But this will not help fostering a reconciliation under the national flag.
Very much like Ellul, I regard Christianity as a path towards dialectics. Violence is part of our natural condition. As such, it is inescapable and belongs to the order of necessity. The dialectic is that of the inner struggle of the Christian who aims to introduce ways of freedom by overcoming this order of necessity. This may be referred to as non-violent resistance which, as shown by Ellul, is an exceedingly difficult thing. It requires a concrete siding with victims while, at the same time, acting like their critical eye (insofar as victims are liable to exercise violence as well). It further requires that one’s commitment to peaceful action does not turn into an instrument of propaganda. Lastly, one must recognize that victims do not always draw media attention, and accept changing sides given that today’s victims are not necessarily tomorrow’s victims. Spiritual and ethical aspects aside, non-violence is far from being rewarding. Those who truthfully defend non-violence not only tend to avoid the spotlights but also risk being regarded like cowards, wet blankets, and traitors. This makes non-violence, whose ideal is the “nonuse of power,” all the more unattractive in technological societies where everything is based on immediacy, catchy slogans, sensationalism, concern for public image, conflict-ridden concern for victims and, of course, propaganda.
Much has been said on Donald Trump’s law and order rhetoric and on the ‘making of’ of his bible photo-op. Much has been written on those police officers who fueled the violence of the protests or were unable to de-escalate it. But I also see many Americans who quickly noticed how insincere most, if not all, appeals to peace currently are.
The most obvious example that comes to mind is that of the Black Lives Matter hashtags and appeals to social justice publicized by big corporations such as L’Oréal, Amazon, Nike, Netflix, and so forth. For obvious reasons, it is not in those corporations’ interests to publicize slogans which would be even remotely reminiscent of class struggle (just imagine how counterproductive it would be for Amazon to support the yellow vests movement in France…). The constraints of branding leave them with no other choice than to limit the current issues to vague claims about identity politics and diversity – which is, in passing, not quite a good approach towards conflict resolution. Here, as shown by Sam Ashworth-Hayes, claims of tolerance and non-violence turn out to be nothing but a blatant lie:
“Disney… is devoted to “fostering a culture that acknowledges our people’s feelings and their pain.” This is the same company that hyped the Chinese release of The Force Awakens with materials that minimized the presence of black actor John Boyega, and dutifully edited out a same-sex kiss for the Singapore market… [Apple’s CEO] Tim Cook, told employees that while people “may want nothing more than a return to normalcy, [but that] desire is itself a sign of privilege.” This is the company that dutifully pulled an app used by Hong Kong protesters to track Chinese police. Activision Blizzard, similarly, was very public with its support for “all those who stand against racism and inequality,” while quietly suspending players who support protests in Hong Kong.” (17)
We are witnessing an incredible debasement of non-violence. And I cannot help the pessimistic thought that we, westerners, may no longer be up to this task of non-violent resistance… But we must keep hope alive.
APK:
What are your thoughts on the Black Lives Matter movement?
AW:
Criticizing the current ‘systemic racism’ rhetoric does not amount to denying the existence of social injustice and the burden of history. Everybody knows that the history of the struggle against police violence in the US began long before the shooting of Trayvon Martin and the acquittal of George Zimmerman in 2013. This history is that of an asymmetric conflict which goes back a long way. Now, asymmetry certainly does not prevent an “escalation to extremes,” (18) and this is part of what we are witnessing in the US today. It is well-known that the Black Lives Matter movement turned its back on religious militants like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. And it does not need a careful look at their website and the documentaries covering their movement to realize that their approach is revolutionary in a (rather non-classical) Marxist sense. Strictly from the point of view of appealing to mobilizing myths, of rejecting (at least prima facie) traditional political parties, and of refusing any compromise with the enemy, the Black Lives Matter movement is reminiscent of what Georges Sorel wrote about the “general strike.” (19) A major difference, however, is that BLM benefits from financial support that is in no way comparable to the syndicates that Sorel had in mind. In addition, the BLM movement aligns with the trend of technologized anti-racism and I am not quite sure whether their protests really reflect a class struggle (the identity politics approach usually impedes the proper dynamics of class struggle). For further research, comprehensive sociological data on the protesters will be needed. But for now, we are still in the midst of the “fog of war,” so to speak…
I have been mentioning an “escalation to extremes.” Now it is worth noting that in such an escalation imitation and identification with the enemy is likely to be strong and unwitting on both sides. For instance, Blue Lives Matter has been an utterly mimetic response to Black Lives Matter. In the last years, the fight against police violence has obviously become more radical. In a conflict of this intensity the conscious aim may very well be to force the enemy to retreat. However, a less conscious aim is to become like the enemy, that is to acquire the power he possesses or seems to possess. Isn't what some protesters are currently doing a mimetic and anti-racist response to the broken windows theory? Doesn't the idea to turn social media into a panopticon reveal a desire to be the police of the police? And what about Hawk Newsome (i.e., chairman of the Black Lives Matter chapter of New York) who lately said on Fox Nation that African Americans shall implement armed patrols of “peace officers” to defend their communities? (20)
The Black Lives Matter movement and that of the French yellow vests are quite different. I do not have time to dwell on this but there is, at least according to me, little point in comparing them. One commonality, however, is that both movements have a loose structure. There are advantages to this, but there is also a downside in that it makes it difficult to convince others that acts of violence have nothing to do with your movement.
In the aftermath of the George Floyd protests, an anonymous letter, allegedly written by a historian at Berkeley, has been sent to Wilfred Reilly and Thomas Sowell. The text of the letter has been issued by The American Conservative. I encourage anyone who has not read it yet to read it. The letter offers a quite compelling critique of BLM and indicates that freedom of thought and expression regarding any possible criticism of this movement is at serious jeopardy in American universities. It further makes the following and quite serious allegation: “All donations to the official BLM website are immediately redirected to ActBlue Charities, an organization primarily concerned with bankrolling election campaigns for Democrat candidates. Donating to BLM today is to indirectly donate to Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign.” (21) I am aware that this allegation is now disputed. However, a detailed and comprehensive inquiry into the financial structure of this global organization has yet to be carried out.
Every time a social issue is brought under the spotlights (in this particular case, police brutality), it is pivotal to consider the claim-makers. Sometimes profoundly serious issues (e.g., child pornography) do not trigger a panic. It is common knowledge in sociology and criminology that it always needs a certain degree of social construction for a given issue to launch a panic. (22) Understanding the BLM movement will therefore be just as important as understanding the problem of police violence.
APK:
Do you have anything to add in closing?
AW:
During our conversation, I tried to make the following point. When it comes to violence, ideologies today are no longer strictly pertaining to traditional political categories or to social class. Rather, our positioning in the technological system determines the way we think and argue about violence. People always-already consider violence through a technological mindset, and I believe we must refocus our research on this to understand some of our most contemporary ideologies.
I offered an overview of different ideologies depending on specific techniques: the panoptic-like ideology of the fight against police violence; the ideology of the medicalization of violence; the ideology of technologized anti-racism. And I shall further add the military-like ideology which is the backbone of the model of the night-watch state (very broadly construed). My only reason for not putting more emphasis on the latter ideology is that it is now at the center of most debates. A more detailed account of the clash between those different ideologies might be of particular interest for further analyses of the current US crisis. At any rate, note that I regard my interpretation grid as a work in progress and acknowledge that there are several limitations to it (the most important one is the lack of a genuine historical perspective). However, if my working hypotheses are overall correct, they may lead us to the conclusion that the American crisis we are witnessing today is technological in essence. Thank you very much for this interview. Que Dieu vous protège.
Upon considering Dr. Wilmes’s analyses and thoughts concerning the Black Lives Matter movement, technology and morality, and the present question we all seem to have, which is: ‘what is going to happen in the weeks, months, days, years, to come?’ I am vaguely, eerily, and sadly reminiscent of the book Imperial America: Reflections on the United States of Amnesia by author Gore Vidal. Briefly, it is a book about how easily Americans forget the history of the US and how this contributes to the brutishness of politics, the imperialist tactics internationally, and the abandonment of creating a civil society. For this reason, I wonder when there will be a new set of protests that remind us of the 2020 protests and we remember that not a lot was accomplished other than division of the classes and citizens.
I wonder about 2020 not actualizing any real changes in legislation, function of the courts, or change in handling police abuse. Surely, we can say that this might seem like a big moment, all the major companies are involved, everyone is in the same boat. But this is just great advertising, certainly they will do nothing to change the economic system to benefit those they seem to side with. Will fashion and clothing industries stop exploiting cheap overseas labor? Will the companies pay their employees fair living ages? Will companies stop contributing to politics affairs? The answer is no. Perhaps there can be some change, a move away from more right-wing establishment politics, and towards a more moderate Democratic party center, but does this seem reasonable? We remember the March on Wall Street protests, did that change the banks and government relationship? Further, with regard to natural resources, what about corporate sponsorship of the North Dakota Pipeline protests?
No corporation, or bank, or media outlet, among others, will do what is good for the benefit of a civil society if the civil societies conditions are causally related to the immediate monetary success and benefit of that corporation organization. And in a country wherein wealth is the biggest indicator of a person’s value, we can see why it is more important to create and maintain a society of a material value over virtue or egalitarian values. This materialism is so embedded in the American psyche, such a part of the modes we speak and live, that it is easy to see why Black Lives Matter has essentially become a brand. It is the consumerism of political awareness. Just like Nike may make me believe that I should ‘Just Do It’, so can BLM make me feel like I am part of the solution — as we saw in the Hollywood viral video of celebrities all collectively ‘taking responsibility’ for the conditions of race. An empty gesture.
This amnesia in US politics, these empty gestures, the structure of really powerful organizations just all show us what one of the more quiet killers of a civil society. We are complete consumers — we all want more and more, and in some cases this makes sense, the whole reason BLM exists in the first place. This is not to say that BLM are explicitly only consumer based, but the connection to corporation support, the media dividing intellectual debate, all point towards advertisement. My worry is that soon anything doing with practical and real changes in race relations in the US will be forgotten, there will be rupture, the fragmentation in any decent groups, and the US will collectively move onto a new issue most likely to be the new outbreak of coronavirus, followed by the Presidential elections — which most certainly will be partly tied to women’s rights given Trump and Biden’s past.
That being said, the practical move to do now is to combat material consumerism society and to create an intellectual society that discusses together issues towards values and virtues. One thing then, is to abandon the idea that material possession is the sign of a smart and caring person. Second, we need to stop believing that our protests, our debates, the arguments we follow and support are going to have a material change that lasts forever and changes the landscape of American history, this seems far too optimistic (another American burden) and, really, only creates an impotent relation to political change. It is that asking of questions, not knowing, critiquing to learn, are all signs of a healthy mind — these are not moral distinguishers. Listening to others, changing your mind, doing what is best for the whole does not make you weak, as in the US can sometimes be hard to remember. Finally, this understanding of intellectual dialogue should not be seen as a means to an end where we all get what we want. We will always have something to deal with, but we can make what we deal with pale in comparison to what we deal with now.
Endnotes
10. Johan Galtung, “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research,” Journal of Peace Research 6/3 (1969): 168.
11. It is worth noting that this critique of the notion of structural violence is not new. See C.A.J. Coady, “The Idea of Violence”: 3-19. Further arguments in Coady’s paper may be applied to current debates on systemic racism.
12. See Andreas Wilmes, “Demystifying the Negative. René Girard’s Critique of the "Humanization of Nothingness",” Forum Philosophicum 23/1 (2018) : 91-126.
13. René Girard, I See Satan Fall Like Lightning (New York: Orbis Books, 2001), 164. My emphasis.
14. René Girard, David W. Gill, “A Conversation with René Girard about Jacques Ellul,” The Ellul Forum 35 (2005): 19-20.
15. Jacques Ellul, Théologie et Technique (Geneva : Labor et Fides, 2014), 33. My translation.
16. René Girard, Battling to the End (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2010), 40.
17. Sam Ashworth-Hayes, “As America Simmers, Corporate America Racks Up the Retweets,” Quillette, June 6, 2020.
18. See René Girard, Battling to the End: Conversations with Benoît Chantre (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2010).
19. Georges Sorel, Reflections on Violence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
20. Matt London, “Tomi Lahren spoke to Black Lives Matter leader calling for armed patrols to counter police brutality,” Fox News, June 4, 2020.
21. “Black Lives Only Matter When Whites Take Them,” The American Conservative, June 12, 2020.
22. See for instance Philip Jenkins, “Failure to Launch: Why Do Some Social Issues Fail to Detonate Moral Panics?,” The British Journal of Criminology 49/1 (2009): 35-47.
Photo Credit to Maxim Hopman