How do we define and explain the term “symbolic violence?” When members of the Westboro Baptist Church and Fred Phelps decide to protest the funeral of Matthew Snyder with signs reading, “God Hates Fags,” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” do we consider their actions to be a form of symbolic violence? To answer the question, I suggest we consider the term symbolic violence more closely.
The meaning and definition of the term symbolic violence is highly debatable in the social sciences. One viewpoint on the term comes from the work of Randall Collins who argues that, “symbolic violence is mere theoretical word play and to take it literally would grossly misunderstand the nature of real violence.”[1] For Collins, “symbolic violence” is a “rhetorical complaint” and has no real value in explaining what really happens in life. Collins takes a perspective on violence that argues people are not inherently violent, rather, situations produce moments of violence.
In contrast, the work of Slavoj Zizek and Pierre Bourdieu point out the potential danger of symbolic violence. Zizek warns against accepting violence without critical thought and considers the objective and subjective forms of violence. For Zizek, objective violence is “invisible” and is found in the “normal” state of things.[2] Subjective violence is visible, and performed by an identifiable agent, and includes “symbolic” and “systemic” forms of violence. According to Zizek, symbolic and systemic violence is embedded in language, which is evident in cases of incitement and free speech.[3] Moreover, Bourdieu considers the symbolic power of language to construct reality and power relations. The term “symbolic violence” is defined by the power relations that form between individuals (and/or institutions), which are situated in systems/structures of power that become instruments to help insure that one class dominates another.[4] Thus, one possible viewpoint on symbolic violence is that it involves a visible form of systemic/power relations. In other words, symbolic violence is not necessarily the power of language to injure, but rather, a hidden form of power relations that exist in society through language.
From this viewpoint, we need to revisit the question of whether Fred Phelps actions demonstrate a form of symbolic violence. My answer is NO.
Although, many Americans may find the viewpoint and messages of the Westboro to be “distasteful,” I argue that we need to critically examine the power of Supreme Court to decide what speech the First Amendment protects. In determining what speech is protected or unprotected by First Amendment liberties, the Supreme Court is participating in the power construction of symbolic violence. In this case, the Supreme Court is an identifiable agent that uses a “visible” and systemic form of power to determine the relations between individuals in American society. These power relations are defined by the institutional and structural power invested in the Supreme Court to create law. Simply put, when the Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision upholds the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church to be constitutional, they have demonstrated the power of symbolic violence.
This is a really interesting topic, and the case and theorists you've chosen here are useful for thinking about what symbolic violence means. I, too, buy the ideas that systemic and symbolic violence can be embedded in language, which certainly shapes power relations. I'm also on board with you when you write that "one possible viewpoint on symbolic violence is that it involves a visible form of systemic/power relations." However, we diverge when you state that "symbolic violence is not necessarily the power of language to injure, but rather, a hidden form of power relations that exist in society through language." By marrying symbolic violence only to power relations, and thus for example, placing the responsibility of Fred Phelp's speech with the Supreme Court, I worry that we lose the ability to indict both agents of the symbolic violence. In other words, an analysis of symbolic violence should yield not only the hidden forms of power through language (the SC in this case), but also the primary agents (Westboro Baptist Church members, in this case) of the language that is meant to injure, whether they are in positions of power (or lack thereof). Alternatively, is there another term we might apply to describe Phelp's speech as violent?
ReplyDeleteCheck out the flyer that went around today, announcing Texas Aggie Conservatives "Social Justice Program" featuring Star Parker, Monday 27 February, Rudder Theatre 6 pm: "A Discussion about poverty, race and social justice. To liberals, compassion seems to be defined by how many people are dependent on the government; to conservatives, it's defined by how many people no longer need help. One promotes dependence, the other freedom, responsib- ility, and achievement" What happened to It Takes A Village?
ReplyDelete