31/10/2016
Ivor Baatjes on 'violence':
I can’t speak for others, but I personally denounce and condemn all forms of violence and injustice – in all its forms be it subjective/visible or objective/structural.
At the same time, I have learnt, like many others, to resist a fascination with visible ‘subjective’ violence – the horror and pain of violent acts that we witness daily. I believe that it is important for us to extricate ourselves from the captivating attraction of violent acts so that the constellation of violence could be better understood and become the focus of much deeper engagement, analysis and a programme for action.
I’m afraid that the preoccupation with subjective violence is a great limitation and yet it is the daily loaf of bread fed to the public by the media. Perhaps, and I don’t know how true this is, it partly explains why the condemnation and denouncement of violence by critical scholars and activists appears ‘silent’ because their preoccupation is the dialectical relationships and complex interaction between and of modes of violence, i.e. the visible and the invisible; the violence behind the violence.
This preoccupation has great value because it refuses a distraction from the nucleus of the problem.
Many scholars in South Africa have focused on the structural violence that plays itself out and yet their work goes unnoticed.
Jane Duncan’s new book, in which she aptly refers to us as the protest nation, goes a long way in expanding analysis on student protest so desperately needed.
The lack of a focus on structural violence is deeply worrying and which is glaringly absent from the daily loaf of bread. I concur with many others who argue for making the invisible violence more visible and not to close down debate, critique and analysis through a focus on visible violence only.
I think we need to keep our eye on the topic, and not to change it.