I have discussed violence-narratives in a variety of settings, from posts at Trek Ethicist to inlaid through my initial essay for this project “Labors of Freedom: God and Overcoming Violence-Societies.” These narratives that motivate and stir social norms towards the presence of abrupt anxiety and maintain them is not without violence-customs. Violence-customs, on the surface would seem to be circulated by the populace, but this is not so direct. Political infrastructures seek out, either directly or indirectly, ways to nurture violence-customs through the appearance of disinterestedness. As previously stated here, violence-narratives of those maintaining power imitate disinterestedness as the fashioning of structural presence. Through that presence violence-customs are nurtured as is the reluctance to initiate a dialogue on aggregating towards a society post-violence.
One thing I am convinced of is that sociological epidemiology is not without integrated, various resources of mercy. Various subgroups function to stricten and tighten where that mercy is dispersed in a psycho-social combat that does nothing further than make greater the verses of division. However, that mercy is still there, in all of us. The structural education system fails to teether it outward and outbound away from self-interests and self-serving harps of discord. Make no mistake, if the potential for mercy is there – ready to be enriched towards collective prosperity – than so, too, is the potential to override violence-customs and the seemingly hearts-in-lockets that maintain violence discourse.
Consider the pentameter and metre; the non-metrical intonation that has sharpened and swayed the motion of voices through ages is a poetical discourse. The matter of substance is intertwined in the detonation of reason; abstract patterns made logical through practical affairs. Romance is common; metre more than a dalliance of human affairs, but, instead, a science of discourse. So, too, does the chained reason for our meted out mercies seem opaque and non-controversial. As those acquainted with discourse theory know, the phenomenology of discourse is the study of dominance. John Guillory states simply in Cultural Capital that “[t]he movement to open the canon to noncanonical authors submits the syllabus to a kind of demographic oversight” (1994, 7). The canon of the discourse of mercy also derides the white-washed syllabus as an “oversight” to say the least. Guillory later turns his reader to scholar and critic, Erich Auerbach’s, functional definition of “literary language,” – what he condensed under the triumvirate diatribe of “selectivity, homogeneity, and conservatism,” or what Auerbach referred to as Hochsprache (1994, 71). With a selective, homogeneous, and conservative canon, Hochsprache is little more than maintenance of quasi-scholarship or from a sociopolitical discourse or dominance, it is the continuation of dedicated voices to a standard of reason that does not serve in the interest of all, but the few. It is well-reasoned neglect. So, too, is the perpetuation of violence-narratives that incubate and tolerate violence-societies.
Political withdrawal is a diminutive form of violence-customs. What gets missed is that structural power can, in its entirety, be diminutive in form and solidity. If structural political exchange is itself diminutive, how much more so congregated and integrated sources of violence-customs that keep post-violence realism out of reach? The force-formed canon of structural neglect, maintained by ages of reasoned custom denotes that those with the dominant authority to preserve the canon also preserve the appearance of political disinterestedness; a withdrawal of tides of overt inter-dwelling in the affairs of self-replicating violence-customs. At this granular of an intrigue, stronger attention should be given to Canadian indigenous writer and scholar, Leanna Simpson’s notion of presencing as a means of “engagement and visibility.”
Painting: Adrenaline by Claus Bertermann