There is a passage in the famous first chapter, On Violence, of Fanon’s (1961) Wretched of the Earth or Damned of the Earth [Les damnes de la terre] that makes me think of Carl Schmitt: Thus we see that the primary Manicheism which governed colonial society is preserved intact during the period of decolonization. That is to say that the settler never ceases to be the enemy, the antagonist, the man that must be killed." (pp. 50-1 in Constance Farrington’s (1963) translation. Farrington’s translation is a bit imprecise, so I modestly changed the second sentence, which reads:
This kind of work (Fanon, Schmitt, advocates of violence in general) belongs in the realm of psycho-pathology rather than political theory.
Given the ample evidence that violence rarely produces good outcomes for anyone (Algeria and Nazi Germany excellent cases in point), the kinds of questions that should be asked in work "On Violence" are
* Why does political violence have such psychological appeal, and what can be done to counter that appeal ?
* What are the circumstances in which the strong presumption against violence can be overridden
* Once violent conflict is started, how can it best be ended.?
Whether asking these questions would help, I don't know, but we are now watching the consequences of not asking them.
This kind of work (Fanon, Schmitt, advocates of violence in general) belongs in the realm of psycho-pathology rather than political theory.
Given the ample evidence that violence rarely produces good outcomes for anyone (Algeria and Nazi Germany excellent cases in point), the kinds of questions that should be asked in work "On Violence" are
* Why does political violence have such psychological appeal, and what can be done to counter that appeal ?
* What are the circumstances in which the strong presumption against violence can be overridden
* Once violent conflict is started, how can it best be ended.?
Whether asking these questions would help, I don't know, but we are now watching the consequences of not asking them.