Extreme violence: can we
understand it?
Jacques Sémelin
Introduction What do we call “extreme
violence”?
On 29 and 30 November 2001 a symposium The symposium did not seek to lock the phrase
was held in Paris on the theme of “Extreme into a prior definition, but rather to query its
violence”, attended by historians, political scien- validity. One aspect of the problem, not dealt
tists, anthropologists, sociologists, and psychol- with here, is the very meaning of the word
ogists.1 This indeed seemed a unifying notion “violence”. It is often taken as self-evident
for researchers who, in their respective disci- whereas its use as a “scientific” concept is in
plines, seek to understand “unruly” instances of fact deeply problematic. This has been dis-
violence. What they share, for example, is con- cussed in earlier issues of this journal;2 let us
cern with the devastatingly banal. Why are so concentrate here rather on what seems to be the
many civilians killed in contemporary conflicts? most curious aspect – the use of the qualifier
Why the indiscriminate killing of women and “extreme”.
children perceived as innocent? Is “extreme” violence meant to bring under
Needless to say, that scientific gathering – the same heading such different phenomena as
which had long been in preparation – became acts of “terrorism”, torture and rape, various
highly topical after the suicide attacks of 11 forms of ethnic cleansing, cases of genocide,
September 2001 in the United States. Beyond and other mass killings? In any case, we do
that event, the entire tragic history of the twenti- not use the term for the violence of a political
eth century attests to the importance of the system, which might for instance be called “tot-
theme. While the figures may be disputed, we alitarian” in Hannah Arendt’s language. Nor
should keep in mind the estimation of Rudolf does it mean “structural violence” in the sense
Rummel that 169 million people were killed in made familiar by the work of the Norwegian
the last century by their own governments as political scientist Johan Galtung.
against 34 million in wars, including the two The notion of “extreme violence” tends
World Wars (Rummel 1994: 15). rather to denote a specific form of action, a
The aim of the symposium was not so particular social phenomenon, which seems to
much to discuss any specific historical case but be “beyond” violence as it can be grasped by
much more to develop a transdisciplinary and other available concepts and paradigms. The
comparative approach. To that end, two lines qualifier “extreme”, placed before the noun, is
of inquiry were selected: precisely intended to denote excessiveness – an
unbounded radicalness of violence. Thus, the
• the relevance of the notion of “extreme viol- notion of “extreme violence” distinctively
ence”; refers to:
• the position of the academic researcher faced • a qualitative phenomenon, such as the atroci-
with such a topic. ties that may be associated with the act of
ISSJ 174/2002 UNESCO 2002. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
430 Jacques Sémelin
A decapitated statue of Czar Alexander III in Moscow, 1918, Musée d’Histoire Contemporaine/BDIC
violence, which some authors have called undertaking embarked upon by a state to achi-
“cruelty”; eve a specific political objective. Clausewitz
• a quantitative phenomenon, i.e., the mass nevertheless clearly showed that war tends nat-
destruction of civilian populations not directly urally to escalate, which requires it to be subject
involved in armed conflict. to political control. But in the view of some
authors, modern tendencies towards the “bar-
But from what threshold do we tend to barisation” of conflicts have challenged this
speak of “extreme violence”? Whatever the classical concept of war. This evolution is seen
degree of its excessiveness, it is seen as the as one of the consequences of a post-bipolar
prototypical expression of the negation of any world where “barbarians” and “bourgeois” inter-
kind of humanity since its victims are often mingle, where the traditional allegiances of indi-
“animalised” or treated as “things” before being viduals to states that are taken to act rationally
annihilated. Any moral judgement aside, we are widely reappraised.
should look into the political, economic, and Should we then agree with the German
cultural circumstances that are liable to give sociologist Wolfgang Sofsky (1993) that
rise to such collective behaviour. This is just extreme violence has no goal outside itself since
where the social sciences come in. it lacks any strategic purpose? Or can we after
In fact, the notion of “extreme violence” all identify one or more “meanings” for such
hinges on reappraising the criteria of rationality practices, which, despite appearances, reflect
and irrationality in political action. Since Clau- certain forms of political and economic ration-
sewitz, war has mainly been analysed as an ality (Sémelin 2000)?
UNESCO 2002.
Extreme violence: can we understand it? 431
A subject like any other? offensive to our modern outlook in relation to
a universal concept of “humanity”. Hence again
A second source of concern is the very stance this questioning of the cultural and historical
of the researcher with respect to such a topic. representations of violence, which was a con-
The closeness of this matter with death draws stant line of inquiry for the symposium.
very different reactions, which may range from However one views these debates, I should
legitimate revulsion to ambivalent fascination. like to express my own belief as regards the
It is difficult for researchers to distance them- position of the researcher studying these
selves and display “scientific neutrality”. The phenomena of extreme violence: working on
subject of extreme violence raises the problem them primarily involves concern with the
of how the researcher relates to values. Can moment of violence, i.e. setting out to under-
we separate moral judgement and the scientific stand more fully the processes whereby the deed
approach? In this respect, what critical views in posse comes to be acted out. Such an
are possible of the work of Max Weber or approach is similar to that of the historians who
Carl Schmitt? study “war violence”, an expression sometimes
In fact what we now call “extreme viol- misunderstood but seemingly valid in that it
ence” designates phenomena that, basically, seeks to focus on the violence of war and in
have always been present in war. Is it not then war. Indeed, this is precisely what typifies the
our contemporary outlook that should be quer- general approach to extreme violence: to ana-
ied first? Do we not tend to put the “extreme” lyse the very core of violence, and thereby to
label on acts of violence that, in the past, would locate acts of violence at the very heart of the
not have been so described? Would this not historical and political processes.
support the theories of Norbert Elias?
In other words, we might describe as
“extreme” an act of violence which seems Translated from French
Notes
1. The symposium, organised by with the support of the latter and suggestions, which contributed to
the Association française de science the Centre National de la the success of the event.
politique, was the outcome of a Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) that
seminar that I had launched in Paris the symposium materialised. I also 2. In particular, No. 132 “Thinking
in 1998 at the Maison des Sciences wish to thank Isabelle Sommier and about Violence” (1992).
de l’Homme. Furthermore, it was Nathalie Duclos for their help and
References
Rummel, R. J. 1994. Death by Sofsky W. 1993. Die Ordnung des The Concentration Camp. New
Government. New Brunswick and Terrors: das Konzentrationslager. edition. Princeton (NJ): Princeton
London: Transaction Publishers. Frankfurt/Main: S. Fischer. [English University Press, 1999.]
translation: The Order of Terror.
Semelin, J. 2000. “Les rationalités
de la violence extrême.” Critique
Internationale 6: 143–158.
UNESCO 2002.
