The emergence of ‘rights’ is not separate from law, force or violence; instead these concepts are highly interconnected. Thus, through the lens of Rousseau, Nietzsche and Foucault, this paper will argue that civilization has always operated within a 'state of violence ' as force and violence are centrally imbedded into law and it will account for how the social contract is used as a vital tool in order to enact laws. It will do so by first discussing how civilization has operated as a ‘state of violence’ by assessing Rousseau and Nietzsche’s account of the legitimization of power through law. Next, it will examine the types of violence enacted that have established said state by evaluating Foucault’s echo of Rousseau’s theory surrounding the
…show more content…
Nietzsche argues that through morality man was made predictable , thus in being predictable, the modern subject equipped with memory and reasoning was produced (). Therefore, man can be conditioned and disciplined through unforgettable experiences that must be burned into ones memory . An example of this is Nietzsche’s examination of the creditor-debtor relationship, as when someone takes from another, the way in which justice would be served is through punishment, thus the creditor through a form of ‘compensation’ is granted the right to exercise power over the powerless . This corresponds to the idea of cause and effect thinking, as modern subjects are now able to discipline themselves, through the internalization of violence (). Thus, unlike Rousseau, there is no accountability to a sovereign or right of rule, as the relationship between law and violence emerges as man begins to exercise discipline upon the self, through guilt (). Therefore, violence is at the heart of law, and the internalization of violence is enacted* through self-discipline and guilt. Hence, this can be regarded as an analogy of violence, as the modern subject has not be rid themselves of violence but rather violence is embedded within the heart of law and society. Thus, the modern subject exists within a literal ‘state of violence,’ as violence becomes the foundation for modern law, rights, and society and is also
Nietzsche argues that through morality man was made predictable , thus in being predictable, the modern subject equipped with memory and reasoning was produced (). Therefore, man can be conditioned and disciplined through unforgettable experiences that must be burned into ones memory . An example of this is Nietzsche’s examination of the creditor-debtor relationship, as when someone takes from another, the way in which justice would be served is through punishment, thus the creditor through a form of ‘compensation’ is granted the right to exercise power over the powerless . This corresponds to the idea of cause and effect thinking, as modern subjects are now able to discipline themselves, through the internalization of violence (). Thus, unlike Rousseau, there is no accountability to a sovereign or right of rule, as the relationship between law and violence emerges as man begins to exercise discipline upon the self, through guilt (). Therefore, violence is at the heart of law, and the internalization of violence is enacted* through self-discipline and guilt. Hence, this can be regarded as an analogy of violence, as the modern subject has not be rid themselves of violence but rather violence is embedded within the heart of law and society. Thus, the modern subject exists within a literal ‘state of violence,’ as violence becomes the foundation for modern law, rights, and society and is also