Yes. All in all, violence (negatively understood) is not determined through theories and definitions.
It is about the set of political decisions and social practices, approved by a broad communal support. In Germany, there was not public consensus of Final Solution, since it was never publicly discussed there. Yet, the majority of population approved the complex of gradual steps, depriving
jews of their civil and political rights. For most Germans it was quite natural. Agamben as well as Deleuze and Guattari tried to explain how it was possible. — Number2018

Do you mind expanding on the underlined bit?

Do you mind expanding on the underlined bit? — TheMadFool

Agamben, in "Homo Safer", has developed a theory of sovereign power based on dialectics of
inclusion/exclusion. Starting from ancient Rome, juridical subjects were included in the judicial order
while a sovereign kept the ultimate right over excluded 'bare life'. Later, this mode of power was realized within the Nazi concentrated camps. Agamben asserts that today power is realized through
bio - politics, the control over life in various situations.
For Deleuze and Guattari, the Nazi regime was primarily produced by the investments of the collective subconscious desire, beyond ideology or political programs. Therefore, violent and coercive modes of power become effects of more fundamental processes.

Agamben, in "Homo Safer", has developed a theory of sovereign power based on dialectics of
inclusion/exclusion. Starting from ancient Rome, juridical subjects were included in the judicial order
while a sovereign kept the ultimate right over excluded 'bare life'. Later, this mode of power was realized within the Nazi concentrated camps. Agamben asserts that today power is realized through
bio - politics, the control over life in various situations.
For Deleuze and Guattari, the Nazi regime was primarily produced by the investments of the collective subconscious desire, beyond ideology or political programs. Therefore, violent and coercive modes of power become effects of more fundamental processes. — Number2018

Isn't this a theory of violence? You seem to delve into some aspects of violence in certain settings and that's alright by me. What would be interesting is a theory that explains the cause of violent actions.

You seem to delve into some aspects of violence in certain settings and that's alright by me. What would be interesting is a theory that explains the cause of violent actions. — TheMadFool

You could read Weibel's essay mentioned in OP of this thread.

What would be interesting is a theory that explains the cause of violent actions. — TheMadFool

There is no one theory about the causes of many, if not all, human behaviors. Motivations, reflexes (conditioned or not) or, more vaguely, the drives that conditioned some behavior can be explained. In the case of violence there are many interpretations in terms of frustrations, genetics, social reinforcements, pathologies, etc. For example, how the media encourage violent actions as a necessary and "glamorous" means of resolving conflicts.
If you want a simple explanation, politicians, journalists, priests and others make beautiful statements for peace while stimulating war with their left hand.

The conclusion is that violence is a permanent fact of the human condition and that only feeble attempts to control it - if any - are made by those who can. Two examples: the business of war and violent video games.

:up: