In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

155 Violence and Nonviolence T hefollowingisarevisedversionofanarticlethatwasoriginallymeant to be published in Alternatives non-violentes (ANV). In March 1979, that journal organized a roundtable with René Girard and four activists from the Mouvement alternatives non violentes (MAN) on the possibility of effective nonviolent action in the political arena.1 In July 1979, the editors of the journal asked me to write an article, note, and critical reaction to the roundtable and to a postscript written by another MAN activist, F. X. Verschave . All of these texts were to appear in a special issue on Girard.2 Though the article was written upon request, it was considered by the editors to be too critical, and they refused to publish it. This anecdote would be uninteresting in itself if it were not perfectly consistent with the logic of the discourse of the MAN activists. In effect, when the editors of a journal have a platform that gives them the possibility (and duty) to respond to criticism that they consider unjustified, but they refuse to publish an article that they themselves have requested (whereas a short note would have sufficed to indicate that the views were the author’s responsibility alone), we have to admit that they demonstrate having an unusually open mind. If, moreover, the journal is the mouthpiece of a nonviolent movement, we 156 On Mimetic Theory have the right to ask what meaning they give to the words “violence” and “nonviolence.” However, since at the roundtable in question it was clear that the MAN activists defined nonviolence as all means of fighting and exerting pressure without resorting to open violence, it immediately follows that refusing to give an adversary the right to speak by preventing him from having access to means of expressing himself publicly is a form of nonviolent action that works in the political realm. The MAN activists’ consistency was just as admirable as it was regrettable . Indeed, this was neither a case of nonviolence nor of political action. The MAN activists refused to allow the dispute the only thing that could give it political meaning: the fact of occurring in a public space where it would be made available to the criticism and, in the end, judgment of others, the judgment of those not immediately involved in the conflict. This alone could have prevented the mimetic mechanisms of rivalry from being brought into action and permitted the clash to be resolved in a manner other than by making might right. I am grateful to Esprit for having agreed to publish this article, and thus for allowing the debate to exist. My analysis of nonviolence remains essentially the same as it was in the original text, and my criticism of Girard has been expanded to show why he also fails to take into account the dimension specific to politics. Violence Rooted in Objects? If the fundamental reason for violence were in objects, then good social, economic, and political organization of the world would suffice to eliminate violence: as soon as you say that the true reason is not in objects, that they are merely pretexts, does it not make us despair a little? Does it not mean that violence can never be eliminated, that it is inscribed so deeply in human relationships that we can never go beyond it?3 This question, which was asked by Christian Mellon, can be used as a thread that reveals the meaning and goal of the ANV activists’ shared undertaking . The question is in fact twofold. On the one hand, what is the origin of violence? Is it rooted in objects or in human relationships? On the other Violence and Nonviolence 157 hand, can violence be eliminated? The ANV activists’ answer can inform us about the “effective nonviolent action in the political sphere” to which they have devoted themselves. Yet their convictions are not expressed very openly; they are generally formulated as questions and hypotheses. “If the fundamental reason for violence is related to objects (CM), could conflict not also come from the absence of objects (JS)? Many think that violence results from lack (CM), but we do not agree about the deep void of all conflicts at their point of departure, when they are centered on an object that is of unequal vital importance to both parties (JS).” Or, as F. X. Verschave says, “Non-violence accepts conflict. It agrees to enter into it, because in this violent world the question of how things...

Share