Author: Josh Curtis
Many living in the United States recognize the intense political climate we face today. Polarization and political division are part of the status quo. Both the political left and right have campaigns against the opposing side. Each views the other as an other, where the opposing political party becomes a stubborn barrier in need of removal. This kind of discourse is unsustainable. Indeed, it is detrimental to our interactions as cit- izens of the same country, not to mention the resultant corrosion of our humanity. Thus, our primary concern should be focusing on dismantling the stark division between political parties’ dia- logue. Addressing this division is not for the sake of finding some politically moderate solution. Instead, the goal of addressing the political divide should be for the sake of restoring our perception of humanity in others, especially those of the opposing side. To support this thesis, I will draw on Simone Weil’s conception of force as well as her assessment of the power of words. I will argue that our society in the United States objectifies other humans via force and the power of words. It is this force that turns other people into objects that need to be addressed. To conclude, I will explain how the remedy is a call for attention towards others: not in the typical sense, but in the sense the Weil describes. This attention towards others directly opposes the use of force and the power of words by putting in focus the humanity of others.
In her essay The Iliad or The Poem of Force, Weil ar- gues that the concept of force is central to understanding the Ili- ad. Force “is that x that turns anybody who is subjected to it into a thing.” Essentially, force is the imposition of one’s will directed at other people. Imposing one’s will onto another subject treats them as if they were a physical object without any subjective will. Force is that which allows for one human to kill another, turning a person from a subjective human into mere matter. Thus, Achil- les reduces those he kills, including Hector and Priam, to mere objects. Similarly, force that does not go as far to kill still reduces the status of another into mere matter. By treating a subject as if they were an object, the subject begins to embody the status of an object. They lose their subjectivity, their humanity, at least in the eyes of the person using force. Eventually, the person being forced begins to identify with this objectification. This non-kill- ing force imposes a state of living worse than death by creating a harsh necessity of either enduring the will of another or being killed. Such is the case for the captive slaves in the Illiad, which are reduced to the status of objects.
Notably, though, Weil argues that force also reduces the imposer of the will to a sub-human status too. Those forcing others into objects are slaves to a lack of reflection. Indeed, it requires a lack of reflection to be able to impose force onto another. Hector, Ajax, Agamemnon, and Achilles all let force drive their motivations and actions as if they were incapable of reflecting on the murders they commit. Weil acknowledges that it takes a “god-like generosity” to reflect and consider justice
and prudence as options for acting, and not just succumbing to an act of force. So, just as becoming the slave of someone else reduces one to an object, so too does the act of reducing another to a mere object. For this reason, Weil argues that the Iliad is a scornful bitter account of the horrors of force. Unlike the Illiad, the United States is not in a present state of war. Nonetheless, the lack of reflection in cross-party interactions is still fertile ground for the sprouts of force. The eventual inclination towards aggressive acts and uses of force is in part fueled by our righteous belief in abstract concepts. This fuel is what Weil calls the power of words.
In The Power of Words, Weil argues that our ability to glorify abstract ideas leads us to create “conflicts with no defin- able object.” If there is no definable object, then victory lies in the eradication of the opposing side. Contrast this with definable, concrete, objectives in a conflict. With concrete goals, one side will cease fighting once this clear object is attained. For exam- ple, if 1935 Germany wanted to expand its borders 100km2 into France (for whatever reason), the Germans would have fought fight until they achieved this concrete objective. In this hypothet- ical, since there is no commitment to an abstract goal, once the land is attained, the fighting stops. However, if Germany decides to expand their borders in the name of some unattainable ideal, like Nazism, then there is no end for the fighting. The fighting is no longer fueled by a concrete desire like land. Rather it is fueled by some unattainable ideal that fuels people to fight at any costs. The Germans committed horrific acts in the name of this abstract ideal that was fundamentally unattainable. Thus, via the power of words, the conditions for victory eventually become the eradication of the opposing sides.
Weil gives many similar examples to emphasize the power words hold over us when they represent abstract objects. This was the case in the Trojan war, when they spent 10 years fighting over Helen, despite only one person truly caring about her. Most in the trojan war fought for honor and for respect of their nation, unattainable ideals that are not fulfilled through war. This is likewise the case when nations have gone to war in the name of Democracy, Socialism, Capitalism, Communism. The unclear success conditions for these -isms turns conflicts in the name of them into wars without end.
This is why Weil writes that “to clarify thought, to discredit others by precise analysis…strange thought it may appear, might be a way of saving human lives.” When the abstract ideologies are deflated by clear definitions, they no longer become worth the cost of a war without a concrete aim. Reflection upon these abstract ideals takes away the power of those words, reducing the possibility for one to succumb to the will forcing another into subhuman status.
From the characterizations of these concepts, the lack of reflection enables both the use of force and the power of words. There remains a further question of what the relationship is between force and the power of words. An irreflexive agreement to a set if core beliefs gives power to words. If one doesn’t reflect upon why they have certain beliefs and what they would risk to defend their beliefs, then they will unreflexively defend their beliefs at all costs. Included in these costs is the ultimate price of using force on another. So, it sees that the lack of reflection is a function of a blind buy-in to a certain ideology. This blind buy- in results in the use of force to impose one’s will onto another to get their way. All of which takes place in the name of the defense of the ideology. So, if force is a lack of reflection, and the power of words enables a lack of reflection (via creating blind buy-in to the concept, then the power of words is a facet of force.
The commitments to certain ideologies, like conser- vative or liberal agendas, exacerbate the lack of reflection on these commitments. And, when feelings of anger and frustration bubble up, the result is a situation where the use of force seems like the only feasible option to defending the abstract ideologies. Thus, instances in which a situation appears to call for the use of force is due to commitments to abstract ideologies. In other words, the blind commitments to the power of words demands the use of force. A case of this type of force is the January 6th storming of the capital. In this case, we see a community of individuals resorting to the use of force to override their opponents in government. Rather than reflecting on the cost of breaking into the capital, their commitments to their ideologies inhibited their value judgements. Though they may have sought to uphold Conservative ideals of democracy and fair elections, their actions represented the exact opposite. Though this particular example is of the political right, examples are present from both sides. Take for example ANTIFA riots that become overly destructive. A lack of reflection enables the defense of ideological commitments to go too far.
Since a lack of reflection gives power to words that result in force, reflection is required to avoid this use of force. The objectification of others reduces them to subhuman status. Similarly, the objectification of an entire class of people that are ideologically opposed to oneself is very dangerous. Rather than attempting to reflect on the ideological differences, the defense of one’s own abstract concepts calls for the drastic use of force.
Thus, force makes entire groups of people objects in need of removal on the way to success. To achieve this abstract success, fundamental respect of people’s humanity is lost and disregard- ed. Both the political right and left are striving for the betterment of the United States. However, each side makes the other out to be the primary reason for subpar status of the nation. Rather than just viewing the other party as an other, a separate class of entities that needs removal, we ought to cultivate a reflexive attitude towards our beliefs and the beliefs of others. Rigorous contemplation needs to go into why one is committed to a set of core beliefs. Likewise, one ought to contemplate why others may have their completely alien set of core beliefs. Reflection on the core beliefs that allow us to identify with these ideological com- mitments are necessary to engaging in political discussions with the opposing side. As presented by Weil, this kind of reflection defuses the power of words and avoids the use of force. This kind of reflection is embodied by her concept of attention.
For Weil’s concept of attention, we focus less on our relationship to external objects, and focus entirely on the good and the bad; the pure and the impure. Weil argues that by facing both sides with an equal amount of selfless attention, we will nat- urally be drawn towards that which is good. Despite the notions of good and bad being abstract, a similar attentive strategy can be applied to our beliefs. One can attend equally to two opposing views without imposing a concept of the self. By equally viewing two opposing views, say pro-choice and pro-life, and giving each serious consideration, one is then actively reflecting and resisting the power of words. This type of attention gives each viewpoint respect as a valid viewpoint and enables one to seriously con- sider the pros and the cons of each view. This is contrasted with excluding certain viewpoints due to some inherently opposed ideological grounding.
Thus, to reinstate the humanity of the opposing side, we need to be able to reflect on the positions being advanced on both sides. A blind coherence to a political party’s tenants fails to spark the necessary reflection to truly cultivate an engaged individual. If one fails to reflect, force becomes the ultimate answer to resolving conflicts. Not only does this force erode the founding values of the United States, but it also contradicts the ideals of both political parties. Thus, Weil’s concept of attending towards both positions will combat this use of force. Objectification is evaded and humanity is cultivated.