Sunday, November 15, 2015

Devon's Power Post



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paris-attacks-survivors-stories_5647688ce4b06037734952ed?ir=WorldPost&section=world

The article above discusses the bombings in Paris, that occurred late last week. It gives detailed description from a survivor's point of view of how violent the attacks really were and what it felt like to be there and experience an actual terrorist attack. Survivor's go into detail about how their normal Friday activities turned into a violent bloodbath creating mass panic and chaos. It highlights how gruesome and merciless the gunmen were.


After reading this article it greatly reminded me of our discussion about Fanon and the use of violence to gain power. I think this specifically relates to Fanon's idea that power means normalizing violence, which is exhibited in all terrorist organizations. This perpetuation of violence to gain power is not only illustrated from the terrorist's side but from the victim's side as well. The French government's response to the Islamic State's attack on its capital was to have a "merciless" response, showing that France needed to prove it was still a powerful nation through its ability to be even more violent than the attacks on France. It also shows how violence is effective because by creating all this panic and death through violence it brings all this attention to terrorists and gets their message across. I think this shows why violence is such a popular method in asserting power because it creates a statement that is hard to ignore and there are instant results. I think this also plays into Thucydides' discussion on the use of discursive power vs power of persuasion. We now tend to rely on violent discursive power to solve our conflicts instead of use our diplomatic power. This shows why nations across the world are being more militarized and are more likely to use violent action than peaceful inaction.

4 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I definitely agree that it seems today that the world is much more militarized and as a result there is a lot more acts of violence. Although it is very helpful for one to be a good speaker and be able to persuade people, It seems that using discursive power was much more useful in the past than it is today. Today with new weapons and technologies it is easer to fight using those than trying to use the power of speech. This article also reminded me of the Tily reading and how we talked about legitimate versus illegitimate power. I consider ISIS a terrorist organization and as a result see their actions to gain power as illegitimate.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with Hyla. Today having military power seems to be the main factor to consider a nation a world power among others today. This seems to especially be the case when terrorist acts occur. The nations with the most power seems to be the nation who is seen as the greatest physical threat to the other. Even without terrorist attacks, having military power seems to be an essential factor that makes a nation powerful possibly because of the possibility of threats. The ability to defend ones self strongly is seen as a necessity.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe that violence, especially acts like suicide bombings and such, are more a display of weakness than power. ISIS is obviously weaker than the French military, and would not be able to engage in actual combat with them, so they resort to bombings and shootings. I also agree that discursive power is not used as much as it should be nowadays, but at the same time negotiating with terrorists might only bring legitimacy to their movement. It is definitely a complicated situation to deal with because France and the US need to come up with a way to retaliate against ISIS's latest attacks in a way that does not play into ISIS's goal of spreading fear and violence.

    ReplyDelete