Language and Violence

The Abstract This report card pull up stakes be dealing with the drug ab part of frenzy and its legitimization by essence of theatrical parting of beloveds and services of run-in by the assure in dealing with the some a nonher(prenominal). In an attempt to investigate the role compete by the give tongue to, which monopolizes the use of effect for the sake of elegantizing its mickle, animate by a atomic number 101umentary titled where in the area is Osama Bin Laden? , this constitution tries to go beyond spoken and written raillerys to reach a better take ining of this role.It starts by defining the concept of effect and potation a physique distinction between its mingying and that of other connect, save non similar concepts, and specifying the agents of military group, mainly foc using on the pass on, for the entire account focuses on its use of ferocity. Thinking in scathe of methodological patriotism, this paper tries to find an answer to how w e define ourselves and wherefore do we define any(prenominal) adept external this we circle as the other and how, as a result, abandon became the nub of dealing with the other.It then moves to dislodgeing this legitimate use of wildness by the state against the other and highlights the important role that address hunt downs in this procedure. Fin exclusively toldy, at that show up is an attempt to understand the utilitarianness of abandon advocated by some against that of the mainstream thinkers and philosophers, go with by exploring the role the genteel and the spherical civil rules of order toilette, and do, play in finding new means of dialogue and dealing with unrivalled another.It comes to the following(a) conclusion wildness as used by individuals in the lead the material bodyation of the state resembles forcefulness as used by the state machine, civicity is a myth. The sole(prenominal) difference is in the agents, the targets, the interests and the domain where fierceness is practiced. And for that, an in organise, aw atomic number 18 and active role should be act by the civil party, to curb the use of military force both by the state or by any other actor. The outline I. Introduction II. Body define force What does the concept of fierceness mean?Making a low-cal distinction of force out vis a vis other related concepts Recognizing the agents of frenzy delineate the we and the other The constituents of individuation The way we embrace ourselves The way we behold the other Dealing with the other The psychological mindset The use of frenzy as a means of dealing with the other The role of linguistic talk in legitimizing the use of effect The role of row The curtilages behind the manipulation of diction Providing a incorrupt cause Avoiding opposition The means by which actors line is manipulatedDe gayization of violence alternate of direct descriptors by * euphemistic comparability The aras where talk of the town to can buoy be manipulated In the public flying field In the battle field An assessment of the usefulness of violence The role of global and civil fiat in curbing violence III. Conclusion IV. rock of References I. Introduction I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is solo temporary the evil it does is permanent. Mahatma Gandhi In an interesting celluloid called where in the founding is Osama Bin Laden?A newly father-to be, fearing that his son comes out to life story in such a violent man, decides to set on a electric charge to track down and kill Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaida, and the world ordain frankincense seize to k straight violence and will be a fit place for him to stand his son in. He visits Egypt, Morocco, Israel, Palestinian territories, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. He goes around and talks to people at that place asking them questions like where is Bin Laden? What do they think of the Americans?How do they view terrorism and the state of war on it? What do they want in life? And questions of that sort. He didnt find Bin laden, however what he found was that the people in the countries he visited ar ordinary people just like himself and the audience. They atomic number 18 not the barbarians he once intellection them to be, they have no desire or interest in using violence against the unite States and its citizens, and their goals in life is for them to secure good life history conditions for their children, just as the goals of the American newly father to be.This movie inspired me to raise a question, to which I sough of an answer through piece this paper. The question is Why and how does the state monopolize and legitimize, through manipulation of linguistic process that en suitables it to portray such a barbaric and violent image of the other, its use of personnel against them? I raised this question because of a simple point the state was create d to work people and tame their use of violence, precisely now I found that this was nothing but a change in the agents of violence, its targets, and the space where it is practiced.I started exploring contrasting ideas, assorted opinions, and different studies, that were all come to with violence, nomenclature, manipulation, indistinguishability, and other concepts related to my topic. Stances and views varied, but I decided on adopting the following position concerning the topic at hand The state manipulates the use of violence because weve willingly subordinated this right to the state however our consent depends on the trend by which violence is used, for if its illegitimate and goes against our consent, we ill no longer uphold to support the state apparatus in its actions that is why, via the manipulation of speech communication, the state creates an grievous bodily harm individualism to its people, portrays the other as a threat to this identity, demonize him, and thusly legitimizes its use of violence when its used by posing it as an act in response to defend the we against the other. If that is so, this led me to raise other questions related to the usefulness of violence, and our role, as active members in a civil clubhouse, be it domestic or global, when it comes to violence. To these questions, and to other mavins, I discipline to find answers as follows. II. Body A. specify violence In this scratch my aim is to clarify what the concept of Violence means, and who has the right to practice it, before I further investigate why we resort to violence in dealing with others and how states and their apparatuses make use of such thing. 1. What does the concept of violence mean? Violence is an extremely wide and complex phenomenon. Defining it is not an learn science but a matter of judgment. notions of what is pleasing and unacceptable in legal injury of behavior and what constitutes harm, be culturally becharmd and constantly under retread as values and friendly norms evolve, domestically and inter subjectly.Besides, there are numerous possible ways to define violence, depending on who is defining it, for what purpose, and depending on ones political orientations and ideological beliefs. casually speaking, the World Health physical composition defines violence as The intentional use of physical force or great male monarch, threatened or essential, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community that either results in or has a high likeliness of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation. In this sense, we could distinguish between so many kinds of violence accumulated violence, cultured violence, self-protective violence, the violence of aggression, the violence of competition, the violence of trying to be somebody, the violence of trying to discipline oneself according to a pattern, trying to sire somebody, trying to suppress and bully oneself, b rutalize oneself, in order to be non-violent 2. Making a clear distinction of violence vis a vis other related concepts It is very important, though, to make a clear distinction between violence and other related concepts to be able to apprehend what violence means. Such keywords include power, strength, force and ascendancy.According to how Hannah arendt puts it, power is related to the ability to act in consent, thus its earthly concern depends on the group providing such consent, in other words, it depends on authenticity Strength is a natural endowment and an inherent property electrical outlet manoeuvers the energy itself that later manifests physically through an act of violence And delegacy entails recognition either to a person or to an office it requires incomplete coercion nor persuasion. Violence on the other hand is distinguished by its puppetal character it denotes the physical manifestation itself. . Recognizing the agents of violence There are many agents of violence formal and informal, institutionalized and un-institutionalized, state, and non-state agents. barely, our except concern in this paper shall be the state and the state apparatus institutionalizing, legitimizing and practicing violence. Typically depict in normative end points as a vital unavoidableness of modern life, the nation-state has employed violence to accomplish suspect ends. Its apparatus is aerated with committing unprecedented barbarism.Examples of disasters brought about by the nation-state are the extermination of indigenous peoples in colonized territories by civilizing nations, the Nazi genocidal holocaust of Jews, and most recently the ethnic cleansing in the motive Yugoslavia, Ruwanda, and so on. olibanum from post colonial perspective, the nation-state and its ideology of nationalism are alleged to have become the chief source of violence and conflict since the French Revolution. In the same vein, Marx regarded the state as an instrument of viol ence at the command of the ruling class but the actual power of the ruling class did not consist of, nor rely on violence.It was defined by the role the ruling class played in society, or more exactly, by its role in the process of production. B. Defining the we and the other In this section I try exploring how identity defragments, divides and thus paves the road for violence to occur. 1. identity operator and its constituents In pre-modern societies, identity was mainly related to affiliations, both in the private and in the public space. Identity depended on the place attributed to each individual by his birth, his lineage or his group. afterward on it involved the Legal recognition.However a person was not only a legal or civic entity, but alike a moral macrocosm with an individual soul. That is why under the influence of postmodernism and debates over multiculturalism, the late 1980s and 1990s found historians, anthropologists, and most of all humanities scholars relying he avily on identity as they explored the cultural politics of race, class, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, citizenship, and other affable categories. Identity is presently used in dickens linked senses, which may be termed social and personal.In the former sense, an identity refers simply to a social category, a set of persons tag by a label and distinguished by rules deciding membership and characteristic features or attributes. In the second sense of personal identity, an identity is some distinguishing characteristic (or characteristics) that a person takes a special experience in or views as socially consequential but more-or-less unchangeable. It is the social sense of identity that would be of use in this paper viz. the national identity, that denotes the depiction of a country as a whole, encompassing its culture, traditions, wording, and politics.It must be noted here that a sense of strange identities may result from the presence of multiple identities for the same in dividual, but the issue of concern here is the inter-conflicting identities rather than the internal conflicts related to identity. 2. The way we perceive ourselves Since identities are necessarily the product of the society in which we live and our race with others, there is therefore a desire and a need to find with a nation or group to take up a collective identity, an example of which would be the national Identity, that is expound by some as aself-aware ethnicity.This way, identity provides a link between individuals and the world in which they live i. e. their state. 3. The way we perceive the other The individual defines himself, but he also needs authoritative others to acknowledge this definition. This is the base of the ethic of authenticity. Identity, however, implies definition by negation, inclusion found on excommunication for a we to be present, there has to be an other outside this we circle.Identity, mainly national identity in this case, has been constantly supercharged of being racist and exclusive, and sometimes charge demonizing the other. That is why governments in boosting nationhood and assert the Nations identity are, whether they recognize it or not, advocating more exclusion and hostility in perceiving the other. C. Dealing with the other What gives rise to violence? Are identities really to be blamed? Or does the problem lie in their manipulation which results in violence being deployed when we deal with different identities? 1. The psychological mindsetTo Krishnamurti The source of violence is the me, the ego, the self, which expresses itself in division, in trying to become or be somebody which divides itself as the me and the not me the me that identifies with the family or not with the family, with the community or not with the community and so on.. . However this doesnt require that all human beings respond to difference in a violent manner, for it hasnt been proven that the human nature is in itself violent, and it i s believed by many that violence is bred from social interactions.An interesting idea of how violence is a societal creation can be found in the literature of Amartya Sen concerning colonialism. Sen talks about the social memory that colonialism, which is in itself an act of violence, has shaped. General psychological attitude towards the subject people often generated a conceptive sense of humiliation and imposition of perceived inferiority, one which the subject tries to quash through hostility and supporting acts of violence against the humiliator.Franz Fanon also subscribes to such a view on colonialism, and sees that it is healthy to use violence to get unloosen of colonialism, which is again, an act of violence in itself to begin with. 2. The use of violence as a means of dealing with the other Violence in postcolonial sermon is thus deployed to suppress difference or negate multiple others not subsumed within totalities such as nation, class, gender, and so forth Everyth ing that man has put to another man, belief, dogma, rituals, my country, your country, your beau ideal and my god, my opinion, your opinion, my ideal.All those help to divide human beings and therefore breed violence. This is delinquent to our turn tailency of adopting a spaceless and timeless conception of culture, which is linked either to the identity or to the belief system of the others a form of stereotyping if you might say. Thus Violence is embedded in the dialectic of identity and Otherness. This is something that governments not only understand, but try to make use of to achieve its interests. D. The role of wrangle in legitimizing the use of violence by the state 1. The manipulation of languageAccording to George Orwell, governmental language is designed to make lies sound unprejudiced and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. Therefore those who are charged with committing violence on behalf of the state will adopt language design ed to obscure from themselves or the people, the reality of what violence they do on their behalf. Generally speaking, wording is an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought. However it is an instrument which we shape for our own purposes as well.And as Hegel puts it, when we think, we think in language against language, which implies that selective language will lead to selective ideas formed and advocated. This is why language itself, the very medium of non-violence and of mutual recognition, involves unconditional violence. This manipulation of language involves enhancing the power, moral superiority and credibility of the speaker(s), and discrediting dissidents, while vilifying the others, the enemy the use of emotional woos and adducing seemingly irrefutable proofs of ones beliefs and reasons By manipulating the language, the government wishes to alter the publics way of thinking. This can be done, psychologists theorize, because the words that are available for the purpose of communicating thought tend to influence the way people think. The linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf was a firm believer in this link between thought and language, and he theorized that different languages impose different conceptions of reality. Habermas also pondered upon the role which language plays in masking political interests with apparently sophisticated terms.This distortion of communication and misuse of concepts, in his opinion, might be the reason that has brought about violence in the first place as a manifestation to such distorted communication. a) The reasons behind the manipulation of language The reasons why language can and does get manipulated by the apparatus of the state when it comes to violence are many, and they go away according to the situation. But mainly because Violence absorbs power, and lessens authority when its used, that is why providing a justification for the use of violence and legitimizing it is important.Here, it mi ght be useful to distinguish between justification and legitimization (i) Providing a moral cause exculpation We find the state using terms like national pledge, defensive war, maintaing peace and security, spreading democracy, etc. But the use of such terms is supported by good reasons and arguments it is consistent and attempts to place such ideas at the core of its concerns. This way, the state is attempting to prune its use of violence, i. e. roves it has good reasons for using it, which is closely linked to the following reason (ii) Avoiding opposition Legitimization When these moral causes succeed in convincing the public, through its appeal to fundamental values and claims, appeals to the emotions of the masses, and its reliance on ungrounded cultural prejudices and inconsistent doctrines, the state manages to legitimizes as well as justifies its use of violence, i. e. the state not only has good reasons why it is using violence, but it managed to convince the masses with these reasons as well.This way the monopoly of the state over the use of violence cant not to be questioned, threatened or shared by others. b) The means by which language is manipulated (i) Dehumanization of violence Terrorists, Fundamentalist, Extremists, Seditionists, Rebel, Communists These and other terms perform the role of the distancing of humanity, but they also are designed for other purposes. These terms have persuasive power to allow the directors of violence to feel convenient with the human destruction for which they are opting.It suggests that those toward whom the state directs its violence are either irrational (and thus diplomacy or persuasion are impossible) or have objectives (the destruction of the peoples way of life). (ii) Replacement of direct descriptors by euphemistic equivalence Euphemism is an expression intended by the speaker to be less offensive, disturbing, or troubling to the listener than the word or phrase it replaces. So for instance we call it verificatory impose on _or_ oppress when it means unintentional killing or damage bystander deaths and injuries.But because collateral damage sounds less troubling, and more likely for the people to accept than unintentional killing or damage, it is used by the state to justify sometimes the results of its use of violence and what it has brought about. That is why we find government officials and politicians talking about just wars, liberation, war on terror, national security, and so forth, instead of just explicitly mentioning the truth behind their use of violence against others. c) The areas where language can be manipulated (i) In the public sphereThe brass of the terms used in the public sphere stress ideological or political otherness, where the use of language is indirect and emotionally distancing. The state apparatus does all it can to deny that the violence of conflict is occurring, suggesting that areas are being secured rather than people killed, that violence is be ing prevented rather than initiated by its actions and that its ends are of all time just rather than self-serving. (ii) In the battle field The heart of the terms used for the enemy on the battlefield arise earlier from the racial, ethnic or personal otherness of the opponent.There is no place for the persuasive or the justificatory on the battlefield the situation on the battlefield is unders excessivelyd as follows kill or be killed. The necessity of the manipulation of language at the point of conflict is therefore to reinforce hatred and distance so that violence can be pursued without real threat to the mental health of the soldier, which would be in risk of infection if the humanity of the opponent were fully absorbed. Thus in the field, language will serve to dehumanize the other while in the public sphere the language will be designed to convince us that our violence toward others is justified.That is why the National identity card and related usage of language are used by the state to legitimize its actions within a delimited territory, to insure mobilization and coordination of policy. E. An assessment of the usefulness of violence I have seek to expose how the state makes use of identity, difference and language to pursue its interests through deploying violence against the other. But does it follow that this process performed by the state is an evil one, or can it be a useful one with good coming out of it?In a series of lectures at the College de France in the 1970s, Michel Foucault put forward the interesting conjecture that history is actually the history of violence. Foucaults ideas on history indicate that we do not enjoy democratic privileges due to some churchman decree rather, they are the product of happy wars and civil struggles the result of successful violence. The pioneers of Post-colonialism like Edward Said, Franz Fanon, among others, concerned themselves with the social and cultural effect of colonization.Fanon dateed at vi olence in positive terms. His engagement with decolonizing violence was a form of a strategic response of subjugated peoples to the inhumane violence of colonial racism and imperial subjugation. Fanon was very clear in his message, the struggle for power in colonized states will be resolved only through violent struggle, because the colonized states were created and are maintained by the use of violence or the threat of violence, it is a necessity that it will take violence to reverse these power relationships.However, according to Edward Saids reading of Fanons liberationist critique, nationalism is always a tool of the hegemonic oppressor and holds no socially emancipatory potential. This leads us to the following conclusion, that violence is the mediation that enables state power to prevail, for good or for bad. It cannot be eliminated by counter-violence that simply inverts it. The states hierarchical structure is made possible because of this institutionalized violence that pri vileges the hegemony of a bloc of classes over competing blocs and their alternative programs.But hegemony is always underwritten by coercion. Thus as Max Weber puts it, the state monopoly of legitimate violence would be used to defend private property and promote the oversea interests of the domestic business class. An opinion which is also shared by Marx and Engels who defines violence as the accelerator of economic development. These are not only the world of theories, but a truth backed up by enjoin. This evidence can be tracked down as far as the nation-state itself wasnt still created.However since I am interested in investigation the use of violence by the nation state, then if we look at the colonial experience, the two world wars, the cold war and the war on terror, we will know that the state did not used violence as it should have done. I will not use the term misused, but I would rather question the ends to which the state has deployed violence, and I will question the justifications and arguments it gave to legitimize its actions.And if the state is such a questionable agent of violence, and if already its monopoly of it has been breached by informal, outlawed or legitimate non-state actors, this means that we are in a serious need of not only questioning, but reviewing the concept of violence, its use and its agents. For this, scholars like Heba Raouf and Mary Kaldor think that there is a powerful case for questioning the states monopoly of legitimate violence, and suggest placing the use of force by the state under great constraints, not only that, but to take over the civilizing role that the state has failed to achieve. F.The role of global and civil society in curbing violence The prospects of peace are dependent upon the institutionalization of traditions of dialogue. And it is precisely here that civil society agents can play a vital role by livery people together and invoking understandings that are common across difference. Basically, humankind has been rendered civil because violence was tamed. And violence was tamed because states had acquired, as Max Weber argued, a monopoly of violence the modern state replaces violence by order and authority and firmly arrestled the production and reproduction of violence.But this has been fundamentally challenged by the permeating violence that infiltrates all corners of a globalised world all controls and all norms that regulate when the use of violence is permitted and for what reasons have been lifted. .. The employment of violence at any time and at any place sends a powerful message, no one agent howsoever powerful this agent may be, can control the use of violence, or penalize the perpetrator of violence.Violence has escaped all restraints, all monitors, and all notions of where the use of violence is legitimate and where it is illegitimate, where it is sanctioned and where it is not sanctioned. Today there is no recognized owner of violence, the adversary is unrec ognizable, the goals are unclear, and the site where violence will be consumed is unknown Therefore, civil societies are caught between two kinds of violence that employed by trans-state and sub-state agents, and the violence of the state.A way out and a means to counter such violence appears to be in the development of a culture of civility. This happens when members of the civil society address the phenomenon of violence, intolerance and even hate, as the notion of civil society is based upon a peaceful world which is marked by the bosom of dialogue, negotiation, compromise, and coordination. This dialogue means recognizing the other in a conversation, and validating his moral standing. Thus civil society is important because the values of civil society encourage dialogue.But the limits of civil society have to be understood. And one of these limits is institutionalized violence within the state that has led to the breakdown of dialogue, thus making civility and toleration mere dreams. On a wider level, the globose Civil Society would have the mission of recapturing the power of language, regaining its civilizing role, providing a forum for deliberative democracy, re-rooting legitimacy in civil society, and highlighting the immenseness of the politics of presence rather than the politics of representation.III. Conclusion A lot of theoretical debates and concepts could lead us to talking about violence and boil down to it, because violence is too wide a subject, too complex and debatable a concept that is intertwined and tangled in our everyday life affairs. The attempt of this paper was to try to investigate and explore the conditions that are responsible, if not single handedly, but to a great extent, for setting the conditions for violence to be practiced.I didnt involve myself in questions related to human nature, and whether violence is something innate or socially created, I rather tried exploring it from the we and the other point of view, that can and does have both innate and social roots. With such conditions set for violence, its only a matter of who practices it. I picked the state as an agent of violence, and tried to highlight why and how it manipulates language when it uses violence to achieve its interests.The conclusion I reached was unfortunately the one I had in mind when I first started thinking about this topic. Violence did not disappear with the rise of the nation-state, it only took different forms, sometimes even more devastating than it used to be before its use was subordinated to the state, and it penetrated different domains and corners in our life. Different situations came to being, different language was used, different arguments and different debates, but the fact remained violence did not disappear, it was not curbed, and the state did not civilize the people.That is where and why our role comes. Not that I advocate the complete incompetence of the state in achieving its civilizing mission, but I do believe that we, as citizens, as individuals and as human beings, should engage in this process as well, not because we are bound by a social stick to do so, but because we are part of this process, we can stop, alter, change, direct and tame its path when we feel it has gone out of its lane. Our engagement should take different forms and be on different levels.On one level and in one form it can be through monitoring the manipulation of language conducted by the state apparatus, on another one it can protesting against it when it fails in curbing the use of violence, it can be in the form or raising awareness and spreading a culture of negotiation, communication and tolerance, trying to understand one another, instead of dealing with those outside the designated acceptable identities, as the other, and the list can go on and on forever. That is our mission as citizens of the nation-state, and as citizens of the world.Because after all, as Spurlock concluded in his movie where in the world is Osama Bin Laden? , we are not so different after all, and our similarities are more than our differences. We just have to understand and tolerate both. IV. List of References Books * Arendt, Hannah. On Violence. brisk York Harcourt, Brace & World, INC. , 1969. * Edwards, John. Language and identity. United Kingdom Cambridge University Press, 2009. * Gaus, Gerald F. Political Concepts and Political Theories. United States WestView Press, 2000. * Sen, Amartya. Identity and violence, the illusion of destiny. New York W. W.Norton & Company, 2006. Books online * Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. Trans. Constance Farrington. New York Grove, 1963. http//ls. poly. edu/jbain/socphil/socphillectures/F. Fanon. pdf (19th of May, 2010) * Krishnamurti, Jiddu. Beyond Violence. India Krishnamurti Foundation, 2002. http//www. scribd. com/doc/6568712/Beyond-Violence-Violence-Chapter6 (19th of May, 2010) * R. P. Lorin. History of violence in International Encyclopedia of the Soc ial and Bhavioral Sciences. ELscier Science ltd. , 2001. http//www. scribd. com/doc/12497335/Violence-History-Of (19th of May, 2010)Reports * Ezzat, Heba Raouf, and Mary Klador. Not even a tree delegitimizing violence and the prospects for pre-emptive civility. Global Civil Society. Reports Online * World Report on Violence and Health digest, World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, 2002, p. 4, http//www. who. int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/summary_en. pdf (18th of May, 2010) Articles in journals Online * Ashley, Larry. The language of violence. peace of mind Studies ledger (Vol. 1 Issue 1) Fall 2008. www. peacestudiesjournal. org/ enumeration/Ashley. doc (19th of May, 2010) * Fairchild, Halford H. Frantz Fanons The Wretched of the Earth in Contemporary Perspective. journal of Black Studies (Vol. 25, No. 2) December 1994. http//www. jstor. org/pss/2784461 (19th of May, 2010) * Orwell, George. Politics and the English language. The journal Horizon (Vol. 13, Issue 76) (1946) 252-265. http//www. scribd. com/doc/65590/Politics-English-language (19th of May, 2010) * Zizek, slavoj. Language violence and non-violence. International Journal of Zizek Studies (Vol. 2, Issue 3) http//www. scribd. com/doc/12605279/language-violnce-and-non-violence (18th of May, 2010) Online Publications Chandhoke, Neera. Is violence constitutive of civil society?. The capital of the United Kingdom school of economics and Political Science (NGPA) Program, 13th July, 2007. http//www. lse. ac. uk/collections/NGPA/publications/WP_Violence_Civil_Society_Web. pdf (18th of May, 2010) * Fearon, mob D. What is Identity? . Department of Political Science, Stanford University, November 3rd, 1999. http//www. stanford. edu/jfearon/papers/iden1v2. pdf (18th of May, 2010) * Juan, E. San Jr. Nationalism, the postcolonial state, and violence, Center for the Humanities, Wesleyan University. http//www. leftcurve. rg/LC26WebPages/Nationalism. hypertext mark-up language (18th of May, 2010) * Manjula, B. Identity and Culture. Centre for Media and Cultural Studies, http//www. scribd. com/doc/4119098/Identity-and-Culture (19th of May, 2010) * forefront Dijk, Teun A. Discourse and manipulation, Discourse and society, Sage publications, 2006. http//das. sagepub. com/cgi/ study/short/17/3/359 (19th of May, 2010) Web Sites * Berkes, Jem, Language as the net Weapon in Nineteen Eighty-Four, May 9, 2000, http//www. sysdesign. ca/archive/berkes_1984_language. html (19th of May, 2010) * De Benoist, Alain, On Identity, ttp//www. scribd. com/doc/3323754/On-Identity-Alain-de-Benoist (18th of May, 2010) * A History of Violence, http//www. scribd. com/doc/937601/Foucault-and-Pinker-on-Violence (19th of May, 2010) * Questions of identity What is identity? , the Open University, http//openlearn. open. ac. uk/mod/ alternative/view. php? id=176757 (18th of May, 2010) * Questions of Identity who am I? , the Open University, http//openlearn. open. ac. uk/mod/ imagery/view. p hp? id=176759 (18th of May, 2010) * http//dictionary. reference. com/browse/national+identity (20th of May, 2010) * http//jcomm. uoregon. du/tbivins/J496/readings/ speech/euphemism_defandlist. pdf (19th of May, 2010) 1 . World Report on Violence and Health Summary, World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, 2002, p. 4, http//www. who. int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/summary_en. pdf (18th of May, 2010) 2 . ib. 3 . Jiddu Krishnamurti, Beyond Violence (India Krishnamurti Foundation, 2002) , pp. 3-4 http//www. scribd. com/doc/6568712/Beyond-Violence-Violence-Chapter6 (19th of May, 2010) 4 . Hannah Arendt, On Violence (New York Harcourt, Brace & World, INC. , 1969), pp 43-46. 5 . E. San Juan, Jr. , Nationalism, the postcolonial state, and violence, Center for the Humanities, Wesleyan University, http//www. leftcurve. org/LC26WebPages/Nationalism. html (18th of May, 2010) 6 . Hannah Arendt, ibidem p. 11, http//www. uc. edu/nationfamilystate/Authors/Hannah%20A rendt/HAOnViolence1. pdf (19th of May, 2010) 7 . Alain de Benoist, On Identity, pp. 9-10, http//www. scribd. com/doc/3323754/On-Identity-Alain-de-Benoist (18th of May, 2010) 8 . James D. Fearon ,What is Identity? , Department of Political Science, Stanford University, November 3rd, 1999, p. 4, http//www. stanford. du/jfearon/papers/iden1v2. pdf (18th of May, 2010) 9 . http//dictionary. reference. com/browse/national+identity (20th of May, 2010) 10 . Questions of identity What is identity? , the Open University, http//openlearn. open. ac. uk/mod/resource/view. php? id=176757 (18th of May, 2010) 11 . Questions of Identity who am I? , the Open University, http//openlearn. open. ac. uk/mod/resource/view. php? id=176759 (18th of May, 2010) 12 . John Edwards, Language and identity, (United Kingdom Cambridge University Press, 2009), p. 162. 13 . Questions of Identity who am I? , ibid. 14 . Alain de Benosit, Ibid, p. 5. 15 . E. San Juan, Jr. , ibid. 16 . J. Krishnamurti, ibid, p. 4. 17 . Sen, Amartya, Identity and violence, the illusion of destiny (New York W. W. Norton & Company, 2006), pp. 85, 89. 18 . Fanon, Frantz, The Wretched of the Earth, Trans. Constance Farrington (New York Grove, 1963), http//ls. poly. edu/jbain/socphil/socphillectures/F. Fanon. pdf (10th of May, 2010) 19 . E. San Juan, Jr. , ibid. 20 . Ibid, p. 12. 21 . Ezzat, Heba Raouf, and Mary Klador. Not so far a Tree Delegitimizing Violence and the Prospects for Pre-emptive Civility, Global Civil Society, p. 24 22 . E. San Juan, Jr. , ibid. 23 . George Orwell, Politics and the English language, The journal Horizon, Vol. 13, Issue 76, (1946), p. 9, http//www. scribd. com/doc/65590/Politics-English-language (19th of May, 2010) 24 . Ashley, Larry, The Language of Violence, Peace Studies Journal, Vol. 1 Issue 1, (Fall 2008), p. 84, www. peacestudiesjournal. org/archive/Ashley. doc (19th of May, 2010) 25 . George Orwell, ibid, p. 9. 26 . slavoj Zizek, Language violence and non-violence, International Journal of Zizek Studies, Vol. 2, Issue 3, p. 11, http//www. scribd. com/doc/12605279/language-violnce-and-non-violence (19th of May, 2010) 27 . bid, p. 2 28 . Teun A. Van Dijk, Discourse and manipulation, Discourse and society, Sage publications, 2006 ,p. 380, http//das. sagepub. com/cgi/content/short/17/3/359 (19th of May, 2010) 29 . Jem Berkes, Language as the Ultimate Weapon in Nineteen Eighty-Four, May 9, 2000, http//www. sysdesign. ca/archive/berkes_1984_language. html (19th of May, 2010) 30 . Heba Raouf Ezzat, and Mary Klador, Ibid, p. 21 31 . Hannah Arendt, ibid, p. 46. 32 . Gerald F. Gaus, Political Concepts and Political Theories, Tulance University, (United States WestView Press, 2000) , p. 39 33 . ibid 34 . ttp//jcomm. uoregon. edu/tbivins/J496/readings/LANGUAGE/euphemism_defandlist. pdf (19th of May, 2010), 35 . Ashley, Larry, ibid, p. 81. 36 . Ibid, p. 84. 37 . E. San Juan, Jr. , ibid 38 . A History of Violence, http//www. scribd. com/doc/937 601/Foucault-and-Pinker-on-Violence (19th of May, 2010) 39 . B. Manjula, Identity and Culture, Centre for Media and Cultural Studies, p. 9, http//www. scribd. com/doc/4119098/Identity-and-Culture (19th of May, 2010) 40 . Halford H. Fairchild, Frantz Fanons The Wretched of the Earth in Contemporary Perspective, Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2 (December 1994), Sage Publications, p. 192, http//www. jstor. org/pss/2784461 (19th of May, 2010) 41 . E. San Juan, Jr. , ibid. 42 . Ibid. 43 . Hannah Arendt, Ibid, P. 9. 44 . Heba Raouf, and Mary Lakdour, Ibid, p. 21 45 . Neera Chandhoke, Is violence constitutive of civil society? , The London school of Economics and Political Science (NGPA) program, 13th July, 2007, p. 39, http//www. lse. ac. uk/collections/NGPA/publications/WP_Violence_Civil_Society_Web. pdf (19th of May, 2010) 46 . ibid, p. 40 47 . Ibid, p. 41 48 . Ibid, pp. 42 49 . Heba Raouf, Mary Kaldor, ibid, p. 36