Search results

Résumé Cet article s'attache à l'émergence du mouvement « Sauvons la recherche » à travers l'histoire du collectif, de la phase de mobilisation qui débute en janvier 2004 à son autodissolution en mars 2006. Écrit à la première personne – l'auteur ayant la particularité d'en avoir été acteur tout en étant sociologue des mouvements sociaux – il s'interroge sur le processus d'engagement et de désengagement, mais aussi, et plus profondément, sur le difficile équilibre de la position du chercheur et de la militante.

This article defends the idea that terrorism, to which the term 'total violence' will be preferred, namely a deliberate strategy of blind violence against the civilian population accord‐ing to the principle of disjunction between victims ('non‐combatants', 'the innocent') and target (a government or other authority), is the civilian version of the extreme violence that is in most cases used by states. It identifies three processes that go to explain the emergence of this new form of violence. First, the historical process of the ideologisation and mythification of warfare, which permitted a substantial unleashing of state violence during the twentieth century and its civil society counterpart, arbi‐trary murder. Second, due prominence must be given in the analysis of violence to the purely technological factor, namely the new military and communication resources that hugely increase human capacity for destruction and its resultant terror effects. Lastly, there is an anthropological dimension, which, in the aggressor's relationship with the victim, places total violence in the category of extreme violence, as the conclusion of an a priori paradoxical linkage between the terrifying instrumentalisation of victims and the near mystical exaltation of their sacrifice.

This article defends the idea that terrorism, to which the term "total violence" will be preferred, namely a deliberate strategy of blind violence against the civilian population according to the principle of disjunction between victims ("non-combatants," "the innocent") & target (a government or other authority), is the civilian version of the extreme violence that is in most cases used by states. It identifies three processes that go to explain the emergence of this new form of violence. First, the historical process of the ideologization & mythification of warfare, which permitted a substantial unleashing of state violence during the 20th century & its civil society counterpart, arbitrary murder. Second, due prominence must be given in the analysis of violence to the purely technological factor, namely the new military & communication resources that hugely increases the human capacity for destruction & its resultant terror effects. Lastly, there is an anthropological dimension, which, in the aggressor's relationship with the victim, places total violence in the category of extreme violence, as the conclusion of an a priori paradoxical linkage between the terrifying instrumentalization of victims & the near mystical exaltation of their sacrifice. 1 Photograph, 15 References. Adapted from the source document.

This article defends the idea that terrorism, to which the term 'total violence' will be preferred, namely a deliberate strategy of blind violence against the civilian population according to the principle of disjunction between victims ('non-combatants,' 'the innocent') and target (a government or other authority), is the civilian version of the extreme violence that is in most cases used by states. It identifies three processes that go to explain the emergence of this new form of violence. First, the historical process of the ideologization and mythification of warfare, which permitted a substantial unleashing of state violence during the 20th century and its civil society counterpart, arbitrary murder. Second, due prominence must be given in the analysis of violence to the purely technological factor, namely the new military and communication resources that hugely increases the human capacity for destruction and its resultant terror effects. Lastly, there is an anthropological dimension, which, in the aggressor's relationship with the victim, places total violence in the category of extreme violence, as the conclusion of an a priori paradoxical linkage between the terrifying instrumentalization of victims and the near mystical exaltation of their sacrifice. 1 Photograph, 15 References. (Original abstract - amended)