180208 VO Resistance and State Terror (2019W)

Objectives: Elaboration of a differentiated, critical-reflected, thus: philosophical approach to subjects as politics, concepts of politics, the relationship between politics and law, the topic areas state, terror/terrorism and ideology. We’ll look at those subjects from perspectives of legal and political theory and philosophy as well as history of ideas. The course will also support sensitisation for the interdependence of political phenomena in an international perspective and provide an introduction in some crucial topics of political philosophy and ideology critique as well as an exploitation of relevant subjects by means of selected texts. The methodical approach to these texts will, beyond others, also include methods of conceptual history.

Contents: The way a society is handling rebelliousness, opposition, disobedience or even open resistance against laws and authorities seems to be an important indicator for its openness, liberality and ability for providing social and cultural diversity – or the lack of all those aspects. Each political community requires some idea of order, though it remains open, if that means basic rules of social cohabitation or a dangerous threat. The state, as developed in early modern Europe, proceeded (and partly does so furthermore) against any kind of protest with particular energy. So did, by the way, also several prior forms of rule. Especially the state tried, as part of its very concept, to suffocate any dissent from the outset by introducing measures of education and training. If they did not work, it systematically tried to suppress dissent by using violence and intimidation. Such state terror mostly is able to outperform extent and effect of terror caused by individuals or small groups of people quite easily, simply because of its technical and performative possibilities. Not least it does so due to symbolic advantages: Atrocities produced by state protagonists usually were or are declared as legal respectively legitimate approaches.
Critical appraisals with a self-conception of states that lead to such developments helped, in some parts of the world throughout centuries and massive confrontations, to established the idea of a liberal state under the rule of law. At least this liberal constitutional state claims to protect some basic rights and to guarantee its citizens equal rights and fair legal proceedings. This claim is nowhere honored completely and moreover can easily be suspended, but that’s another subject. Its sheer existence can be highly esteemed from a historic perspective, and it has been achieved frequently on the basis of resistance or opposition of human beings against state rules and orders. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat in a bus on December 1st 1955, for example, she was arrested. These events triggered the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which lead to a decision of the US Supreme Court, declaring “race segregation” in the United States to be illegal. As the Civil Rights Movement as a whole the mentioned boycott met massive violence carried out by white supremacists. Those acts of violence often went unpunished. So it seems that legal and political systems do not assess different kinds of resistance, unlawful behavior as well as politically motivated violence in the same way at the same time.

Methods: Lecture, (critical) analysis of texts and film sequences, discussion (collaboration, also a critical one, will be considered, only in a positive way), written exam.
A collection of important texts for the lecture will be offered.