WHY STUDY VIOLENCE IN A POLITICS CLASS?

1. WHY STUDY VIOLENCE IN A POLITICS CLASS? • The paradox of Veterans Day (we believe that we are a peaceful nation, but this is the only profession whose victims we celebrate) • How is violence different than other forms of politics? Dominance and coercion vs. other, more consensual (on either processes or outcomes) means of decision-making • What are some of the main forms of violent politics? • Internal: Political repression (civil liberties, voting, labor organization, opposition targeting), revolution, civil wars, coups, totalitarianism, terrorism, genocide, insurgency; crime, punishment, and abuse as social policy • External: War, state-building and counter-insurgency, coercive diplomacy, “off-shore balancing,” deterrence strategies and mutually assured destruction, proxy conflicts, demonstration effects, humanitarian intervention, robust peacekeeping, economic sanctions

2. WHY IS THERE POLITICAL VIOLENCE? • Steven Pinker, other “social constructivists,” and liberals: It is a biological, psychological, and historical artifact • Mao and Ginsberg: Violence is and will remain the primary agent of macropolitical change because of its destructive and transformative capacities • Where is violence still is the primary form of politics? • It instantly drives the agenda and frequently is the only means of mobilization and coercion available to the weak (which is why NVDA is so powerful). • State and nation building: Other politics only can take place after force has destroyed or decisively reshaped things (Indigenous Americans, Civil War, WW2, Mexican territory, & the Civil Rights Movement as examples) • Interstate rivalry and systemic power (the theory of “realism”) • Violence is the historical norm because its alternatives are difficult (but appealing argues Ginsberg b/c states & elites can control more cheaply). • The security dilemma: even states and individuals that reject violence as a legitimate mode of politics retain the capacity to use it… and do preemptively