Elementary, communitarian democracy does not suffer from budget constraints or amoral, substrate alliances with terror. Neoliberal doctrines and passive communities ally against a world post-violence. It is not that I am saying we are just failing the text of being a superpower. We are failing the test of being an independent country. Money is violence. Money is ownership, directly to possessiveness which was the fruit Adam and Eve ate that led to them being expelled. The apple in the Garden of Eden represents possessiveness. I have always ascribed to this from the time when I was young until now; possessiveness over others, over emotions, over land, over resources, over dispersions of equality and parity of thought. There is a difference between being gifted and receiving a gift. Someone who is gifted, but never receives the gift of the opportunity to express that gift is just another voiceless soul. Receiving the means to live is a gift that being gifted alone does not functionally will towards, not always.
If you have been following this argument, by now you must be asking: Am I saying violence is an aberration of humanity, or, will be like and can be like an aberration of humanity. Clearly, it has not been an aberration, nor the exception, but a fundamental practice. However, I do think we can get to a point in our psychosocial elementary political, emotional, and characteristic employment to where it would be as if violence were an aberration. It is a necessary collaborative goal. In “‘Presencing’ and Praxis” I briefly mention Steve Pile, in his work, The Body and the City: Psychoanalysis, Space, and Subjectivity, who writes that
[T]here are no accepted psychoanalytic concepts which can be easily transposed into, superimposed onto, or mapped alongside geography – regardless of the kind of geography […] It is easy to claim that psychoanalysis has been systematically misrepresented, but I would prefer to suggest that particular aspects of psychoanalysis have been selected and presented as if they were symptomatic of the whole approach. (1996, 61)
Psychoanalysis has always been a critical framework from which we draw distinction and elaboration of problem-solving divergent thinking. Pile further states,
An account of space must take […] questions about the relationship between the body and space, subjectivity and space, society and space further; but in directions which do not melancholically presume some ideal past, or presume that there is nowhere to go, or offer false promises, or victimise people – and which allow for the possibility that people make history, though not in circumstances of their own choosing. (1996, 166).
The distribution of intellectual idea-history can counter any thought on the desire of easily assumed spaces and withholds our environmental projects and creations as institutes of established power created and implemented by force and the violence of law.
I will further argue that from psycho-schematic contributions to the landscape of violence, it can be argued that violence is as the space and place of a culture attempting to dispute the monothesistic and, certainly, proto-monothesitic renunciation of incest. In The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism, Regina M. Schwartz posits that “[s]exual practices might seem a rather unusual justification for conquest until we delve deeper into the logic that binds sexuality and the land together in both biblical law and narrative, a logic committed to erecting carefully drawn boundaries of identity” (1997, 65). Through Steven Pile’s psychoanalytic framework of the geography of a place and Schwartz’s asuste intuitive stance that sexuality bonds violence to land we can begin to see a pattern where it can rightly be argued that those who are violent wish to engage in and are, in fact, rebelling against the ancient prohibition against incest. This rebelling against prohibition is a violence of that specified land. I remark in my book, Provoking God, how sexual violence and violence of the land are, frankly, clear and evident in the sexual violence and disappearances of Indigenous women across North America and the accompanying silence and forgetfulness of those crimes against humanity in First-World culture.
In the tradition of violence against the land and a sexualized monotheism, parashat Matot in the Torah initiates itself as making voiceless the vows of women over the protests of their fathers and husbands (Numbers 30:1-17). A proper Torah reading should always place special attention to what comes before and what comes after a verse, paragraph, and chapter. Immediately following this prohibition against the will of vows of women under the proscribed influence of men comes a declaration of war in which all men are to be slaughtered including male boys. However, young women and girls deemed to be virgins (by the tribes own inspections and calculations) are captured as sex slaves and servants and distributed among the community of conquerors (Numbers 31:17-18).
Again, returning to possessiveness as a center of outlandish “sin” as it were, a marked trait so worthy of being expelled from paradise. That trait is framed in time and historical explication just as Ernest Becker’s brilliant explication in The Denial of Death. An anthropology of a denial of incest just may withstand the scrutiny of open and matrical scholars and tinkerers of thought to rightly expose a human want that triggers and continues the maintenance of violence discourse and practices. Being too much to bear, we preserve this denial through functionary programs like Hannah Arendt’s insistence of a power-sharing elite to distribute law and order. Within this violence-regression comes the trauma of a society that is masked in theatre, culture, and familial personalities as a vacuum of trauma. And those without this pressing need or accompanying denial are pressed together into a violence-like, violence-neighbored conflict with those that do harbor this denial; such as the current Trump-era protests in Portland; a violence-neighbored conflict between the protesters (those without the denial or motivations of incest) and the secret police (guards of the partition of the maintenance of denial of incest motivations and desire).
Elizabeth Frazer and Kimberly Hutchings write in their case study of Simone de Beauvoir in Violence and Political Theory (2020) that “a democracy that defends itself through acts of oppression denies its own values and destroys itself as a democracy” (2020, 31). Through the onto-political problem of deciphering how one group is granted attained freedoms while another group must necessarily be dejected, we see that violence presumes inequality as a state of line and a premise for a conclusion to the maintenance of the law of violence and violence-customs – that which when violated or threatened is seen to be an act that weakens state power and stimulates a violence-response. Violence recession cannot become a neutral olive branch without coming together out of denial of our proto-sexual impulses. We frame our nations and borders on the illusion of denial of arcane sexuality, though a thoughtful consideration of historical god-reference and elite position of traditionalists, as well as traditional share-holders of power, bequeath an exuberance of demarcated rhythms of clear and tolerant rejection of the prohibition against incest and incest-borne distribution of resources and power. Through productive conflict resolution the offending party must make restitution to those they had victimized in a personal and sacrificial manner on their way to rejecting the thoughts and interpersonal motivations of violence; first through act, then behavior, and finally in thought and emotional release and the catharsis of wayward entry into the banal discovery of selfhood.
Painting by Raquel Díaz