[...]ar?
(Keenan > Weizman:) we need to understand war as discourse --> *war = a threatened discourse*
-The language component of war exists in the gap between the level of destruction which is “possible” and the level of destruction which is “actually applied” in every given situation.

when war is no longer a means but an end in itself(?) -->? Hezbollah

deterrence: a means of controlling a person's behavior through negative motivational influences

“We are law-abiding, and we go wild.”


violence stripped of semiotics

The logic, the reason, of conflict is thus political ... for Clausewitz, politics is essentially logic, logos, discourse, people reasoning with one another, thinking and speaking, exchanging


@Luis, why conflict could be my concern? because it marks the breakdown of politics, when we can no longer have a conversation, engage in the game, where there is no possibility of further exchange, there is fighting

failure ==> use of force

Saskia Sassen called the attacks of September 11 “A Message From the Global South”
she wrote that the attacks bore witness to a failure in communication or to a “translation problem”
for her the language of September 11 attacks was clear
Sassen's dangerous and depraved rationalization of September 11: south is speaking in a language that needs no translation



the word ‘conflict’ (is coined as a discoursive necessity and) bears with itself an analysis of politics which sees it as a rational enterprise, a structured confrontation or conversation aimed at compromise or reconciliation, the exchange of demands and the negotiation of outcomes --> a Greek tradition : to protect politics from irrationality and persuasion, and that State's monopoly of law enforcement is the only legitimate violence --> (as a term) ‘conflict’ carries with itself a telos of consensus (etefagh-e ara اتفاق آرا Übereinstimmung), agreement ==> perfect understanding ~~--> (Greek -->) democracy's dream of overcoming internal opacities of mediation or signification, dream of a final unification, dream of a clear universal language

(Barthes’ fable of) the woodcutter[~= an agent of change] ==> language = act (without mediation or image, operating *an immediate transformation* ==> politic) :
If I am a woodcutter and I am led to name the tree which I am cutting down [j'abats], whatever the form of my sentence, I speak the tree, I do not speak about it. This means that my language is operative, linked to its object in a transitive way; between the tree and myself, there is nothing but my labor, that is to say, an act. This is a political language: it presents nature to me only to the extent that I am going to transform it, it is a language by which I act the object; the tree is not an image for me, it is simply the meaning of my action. But if I am not a woodcutter, I can no longer speak the tree, I can only speak of it, about it.
@apass @Femke

(Barthes:) political = operative (~ active, transformative, destructive) --> this is an important fable for artists

talking about ‘conflict’ is also like this, is a “political” speech, an “operative” language, it “presents” the object of my action to me, which is democracy, and not Colombia

(some figurative ‘violence of language’ =/= [Austin, Derrida, Butler ==>] i am talking about paying attention to) the language used in a certain manner by certain agents --> studying in KHM media school teaches me to be careful with the erasure of distance, mediation, reference, representation, to be careful with the collapse of hermeneutic (in any discourse) --> the labor of transparency [@Mona @Ali ]



(the very strange claim [made by political leaders] that) force is a kind of language, and not just any language. It is one which solves the problem that seems endemic to all things linguistic, namely: failure, indirection, misunderstanding, drift. [...]that the language of force actively and successfully delivers its message --> a fable: “everybody understands the language of force” (unlike ordinary, diplomatic, political language) --> the readability or communicative power of the utterance, violence is seen as continuous with discourse --@Mona
[*]violence: “speaking the (only) language of the other” --> (very strange fable:) that violence is noninterpretive direct(~ umediated) and nonanalytic, that it is unmisunderstandable, that it takes hold and transforms its listener [--> fantasy of affective communication], hermeneutic and cognitive of the language is effaced and what is left is only *delivery* itself [@Ali's way of talking has a hint of this (a self-erasing speech,) he “delivers” his (political) message to me #tattooing me }--> the silencing/elimination of his interlocutor, **the little annihilatory gestures** of my friends], that it [violence] aspires to a *pure present*

•this is a translational problem? Keenan
•how do we know when things cannot get any worse?
•when/where the translation should stop? @Ali @Sina --> this is about the ethical risks (we are making all the time) in mistaking an annihilatory gesture for a discursive or political one


there is no language which needs no translation (not even violence)

*translation: an active relation between and within languages =/= to overcome language --> is exaclty where the name politics ought to be reserve (Ranciere) (--> that is why i am doing political work [my work on: discordant objects of reference, misunderstanding, active deconstruction, etc. my ‘personal responsibility’ to insist on space of difficult translation])


unilateralism of an imposition: universality of human rights
(Keenan:) human rights = standardization of the rhetorics of claims we make on each other --therefore--> an open and undefined field of operation (and not some essence about humanity, nor law. Keenan is helping me not to think of human rights as an old fashioned, transcendental, essentialist, ontological discourse, grounding definitional basis, categorically an enemy's discourse)



military urban research (employing critical theory) --> use of theory as the ultimate ‘smart weapon’
-Deleuzian theory influences military tactics and manoeuvres --> a form of discourse between enemies
contemporary military theorists (in US TV series, re-conceptualizing the urban domain)
...military with the spatial and organizational models and modes of operation advanced by Artificial Intelligence, swarm intelligence, Deleuze and Guattari, Gregory Bateson, Foucault, Guy Debord, Bataille,


conflicted peace and peaceful conflict
competitive military buildup

...................................

Keenan on working with images politically --> *politics of exposure (or revelation ~-> forensic)*
(increasingly important dimension of political) *image-making*:
--more--> the event takes place in order to be photographed and reproduced and rebroadcast, transmitted and distributed, copied and viewed --> dissolution of the obvious political spaces =/=
--less--> making visible something that is otherwise hard to see (~= converting observation or visualization into knowledge in hopes that some kind of action will come about, based on the rational, reasonable, deliberate interpretation of those images) (<-- a lot of social justice activists, human rights organizations, and civil society practitioners are still working within this realm of the traditional image)

a bad (revelatory) theory of the (rational democratic) public sphere : “visual representation of things ==> known to a wider public ==> knowledge properly considered ==> wise decisions ==> actions”
=/= (a more properly) political moment of: inscribe images --within--> a narrative or a persuasive project --within--> a campaign that actually narrates them (captions them, makes them more available for some kind of political action) and doesn't just take for granted that their meaning follows automatically

the way performative dimension involves a kind of action that doesn't pass through the same cognitive circuits or the same process of knowing (in images)

•living by the image
•vulnerable to the exposure of the distortion or falseness of the image

to get a rich sense of the political context in which you operate (knowing about the history, knowing what the local forces are, who the actors are, and so on) =/=  ethically-self-confident political movement reassured by the quality of their own good intentions ==> skip over a lot of local analysis, research, or inter[...]