Saturday, June 4th, 9.30 – 11.15, at Università di Verona, Room 1.1
Abstract:
Violence is traditionally a mode of action, refers, in the public sphere, to the dyad Friend/Foe (Schmitt 1927). Today it is instead an ever more worrisome in the dynamics of inner life and redefines the boundaries of each other’s identity and the weights that social actors have in their private life.
It 's just dyad inimicus / hostis to have been turned upside down as unexpected effect of a global culture that is also marked by an increase in violence in the private sphere. The more the hostis (political enemy) refers to a symbolic enemy, the inimicus (the personnel enemy) delays the proximity of the 'other person who is a dangerous polarity within relationship. This polarity threatens the same boundaries of my individuality that is defined through the marks of sex, gender, age, status and role. The relationship with the private enemy - husband, companion, partner - regress into a barbarism aim at restoring the contour of identity of those who, through violence on the other, demands a ransom that unfolds within an intimate relationship, in a violence performance. Violence becomes a category of the relationship but the same matter of relationship (Corradi 2008), in which to do and to suffer the violence are two sides of one relation.
Paradoxically, however, the violent action cannot be fully realized without the non violent acceptance of those who suffer the violence of other. However, you can question the very possibility that non violet action cannot not more and not only a master key, but a detonator of violence against the other? And what are the cases where it occurs?. Question on these issues involves an analysis of the possibilities through which to translate the subordination and liabilities of those who suffer violence in autenthic non-violent effective actvism.
