Скачать с ютуб "Non-violent resistance works." A Talk Europe! interview with Judith Butler в хорошем качестве

"Non-violent resistance works." A Talk Europe! interview with Judith Butler

Is non-violent resistance able to end aggression and wars? And are there times when violence is, in fact, necessary? The American philosopher and gender theorist Judith Butler believes that non-violent resistance can be a strong and forceful political instrument to undermine sources of state power and bring about change. Is non-violent resistance able to end aggression and wars? JUDITH BUTLER: In my mind, it’s important to keep non-violent resistance alive as a form of political experimentation, as a public statement. There’s always a question for a resistance movement: whether it can contain its violence in such a way that it is just organised for the purposes of bringing down that regime after which they will all become non-violent. Because violence has a way of getting out of control. Once violence is used, it can be replicated and used by others and it produces a licence for the use of violence. The problem, of course, is that many people suspect that non-violence is a very weak political instrument. That it can’t really do the job. But there are militant forms of non-violence. There are aggressive forms of non-violence. So, when human beings produce a barrier, like a human barrier, that stops the police from being able to deport other people, or to protect a strike, it’s physical. It’s… It’s a human obstacle, it’s a human barrier, it’s strong, it’s forceful. It’s just not violent. What is an effective resistance? Activism on social media? Non-violent protests? JUDITH BUTLER: It depends on the topic and it depends on the place. In Erdogan’s Turkey, there are many people who are political dissidents, who don’t feel free to come out into the street or to voice their opposition to the government’s policy of censorship and expulsion. Social media is really important for them, including forms of cell phone communication that are encrypted. You know, they still have networks of communication among themselves. They are just operating in a different way. When are certain forms of violence considered to be part of an admirable struggle for freedom and when are they considered to be terrorism? The line seems to be very thin. JUDITH BUTLER: Antonio Gramsci said that the state always considers its own violence to be justified. It calls it coercion. It’s understandable when you’re being attacked, that you would want to defend yourself physically. The question, of course, is whether in this world, in this global world, getting international support for your cause of freedom or your cause to overcome oppression isn’t even more effective than trying to pursue a military strategy that can only provoke and strengthen the military opposition. I find it amazing sometimes when people at war decide to lay down their guns and just allow the conflict a pause. Like: “Okay, let’s not have war. Do you agree? We won’t have war for three days so these people can move out or we can open a hospital. Okay, that’s fine.” Why can’t they say five days? Ten days, 20? Why not a year? Maybe why not five years? The United States has a very rich history in non-violent resistance. And the movement against the Trump regime, the non-violent movement is getting bigger in shape and in frequency. Do you think this is the right way to go against this regime? JUDITH BUTLER: Let’s think of what that means. When he first proposed the so-called Muslim ban, many people went to the airports and they surrounded the airports. They made the airport dysfunctional. They called for a strike. These were very powerful actions. And they were non-violent. We haven’t been able to stop him. You know, in the last days he’s been responsible for separating children from their parents. We need to think, really clearly: who are our allies, what are our political instruments, how can we use the law? We have to come up with our own candidates and our own plan. We can’t just be opposing him. We have to be developing another future and we have to make that future deeply desirable to the majority of people in the country.