Cartoon: Charlie Hebdo Tragedy

by    /  January 8, 2015  / 1 Comment

Click on image to enlarge.

No comment.

Artist: Arcadio Esquivel (Costa Rica)
See more of this artist’s work on Cartoon Movement

This piece was originally published on January 7, 2014.

About the Author

Sampsonia Way is an online magazine sponsored by City of Asylum/Pittsburgh that seeks to protect and advocate for writers who may be endangered, to educate the public about threats to writers and literary expression, and to create a community in which endangered writers thrive and literary culture is a valued part of life.

View all articles by

One Comment on "Cartoon: Charlie Hebdo Tragedy"

  1. Gerhard Kaucic / Djay PhilPrax January 12, 2015 at 8:56 pm ·

    MONTAG, 12. JANUAR 2015
    „Charlie Hebdo“ , deconstruction;
    Translation in English (approach), (Original text in German, see my Blog), Url: http://disseminationsdjayphilpraxkaucic.blogspot.co.at/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-blockheads-murderers.html

    „Charlie Hebdo“ blockheads murderers politics

    Charlie Hebdo, liberties, human rights, democracy,

    Children of men logocentrism religion politics violence identity ies

    attempt of a small deconstruction of great notions

    fiction and truth dream and delusion/chimera/vain imagining

    event and death

    Violence as a biographical “handwriting”(!) for the invention/finding of a “new” identity. Immeasurable/limitless violence. Murtyrs.(!!) Marderers.(!!)

    Notes on the structure, no, on the structural opening of the subjectively perceived objective field of possibilities of excessive violence. (cf. i.a. Zygmunt Bauman und Sofsky)

    On the deconstruction of violence as identity creation. „Charlie Hebdo“, – sensemaking or dissolution. Metaphoric truth and meaningful (?) violence.

    Every body is capable of inflicting violence and vulnerable (Popitz, Phänomene der Macht, 68f.).

    A battle is not a contest.

    As soon as a battle is led with violence it is about the prevention of injury and getting killed (death).

    Battle knows no rules (anymore). (Sofsky, Traktat)

    Violence is not a matter of light, it is not a matter of the clearing?? (cf. Heidegger, Sloterdijk), not a form of beauty or any other ideal.

    Violence is dark, death is black, a black hole, an eternal black space.

    Violence knows no questioning, violence does not have any questions (the Ancient Greeks claim, that with the question “What is….?” Philosophy started, the love (!) of wisdom).

    The violent human being does not ask anything, at least not in the moment of the darkness of the violence, not as a “Ruler” (!).

    Violence does not ask, does not ask itself, it speaks / works / rages.
    Violence has all the answers already.
    Violence „isn‘t“! Violence „becomes“ ! Violence prevails!

    Violence prevails and unlimits the individual. It leads the human subject out of its own subject state, its exposure (into a social / antisocial space), its vulnerability, its subjection (as a result of varied social realities / conditions / possibilities and impossibilities), into a sort of boundless subjection, into a special auto answering of a question (!), that isn’t a question (anymore), – a “statement” (!) of violence ( = killing and murdering ).

    Violence as dislimitation in extenso (entirely and in extremis) does not metaphorise as a correspondence and metaphorises literally (!!). Its content is an event of literal handwriting ! The signature of murder.

    The signature of murder already made quite a few “immortal”. Immortal murderers, killers, terrorists, fighters and other perpetrators, transgressors and villains. The gain of identity fights/acquires/captures/murders, even through the loss of one’s own life.

    The violence of murder escapes any notion and theorization and only belongs in critical thinking as it has always escaped its control.

    Robert Musil identifies those who are attracted to violence as stupid people (cf. Musil „Über die Dummheit“) who lack resistance.

    Many (all?) of us are prone to violence, but only a few actually exercise it.

    Ideologies (political, religious, cf. Dostojewski) often open up spheres for exercising excessive violence. A sort of creation of a structural opening of subjective objectively perceived possibilities of exercising excessive violence as a biographical hand writing (literally) as an invention of another, a “new” identity.

    Example: „Die Aufseher prügelten, quälten und töteten, nicht weil sie mußten, sondern weil sie durften.“ (Wolfgang Sofsky: Die Ordnung des Terrors, 1993, 135f.)
    Translation: „The wardens beat, tortured and killed, not because they had to, but because they were allowed to.“
    The body has lots of wounds, the social as the individual.

    Our bodies, all, injured, hurt, inflicted by various inscriptions of economy, nature, police, psychologies, pedagogics, religions, politics, techniques.

    In the horrible case of „Charlie Hebdo“ it is in particular a matter of religion. Religions are doctrines of salvation with promises of salvation and traps of the transcendence . They play off the phantasmatic body against the real body. Almost all systems of belief try this in one form or another. Religions try to reduce pain, promise salvation and impose rituals of community and of cruelty on its path. Yes, they even offer mental and physical, well “spiritual” recovery programs. For example in the form of Lenten seasons, pilgrimage, declamations, flagellation etc. etc.

    Religions and their rules and regulations try to treat the injured body, try to rewrite their grammatics, their pro-grammatics.

    Almost all religions are hierarchies. Almost all of them practice the formatting of believers by subjection to a “Master” and his revelation, – therefore, the submission to a message from the “transcendence” or any other world.

    Musil’s “stupid people” as people who are drawn to violence under the banner of the Master (signifier) with a message from the transcendence/afterlife, are easily controlled and politically instrumentalized in their delusional literalness (up to the highly official call for the murder of the independent thinker, e.g. Salman Rushdie and many other independent thinkers).

    The open universalism of a variety of Islamism (not of Islam!!), to return to Charlie Hebdo, clearly shows its face almost daily, in the configuration of military and political desire for expansion (with many financiers in the background), whether in the form of a limited caliphate or ultimately with a globalist claim.

    Violators, perpetrators, murderers, terrorists, perceived people of all kind and of almost all ages, particularly from European countries, lack the access (European societies, companies, investors, governments and the European Union are extraordinary in their debt to teenagers and their quoted lack of prospects) to an appropriate(!!!) search for identity and manifestation of identity.

    The increasing complexity in democracies and beyond apparently doesn’t let the libido of many individuals trace a hospitable and pleasurable path (cf. Lacan, Derrida) and doesn’t let them see or gain a different perspective (like a straw to someone who is drowning) than the one of the thanatocoenose (of a death community of living people or of a community on a journey to an approaching death), of a Jihad (with all kinds of promises for the afterlife from patriarchal virgin servants up to glorious (!) entries in lists of martyrs, for the apparent polishing of a so called biography; all that and more on the narcissistic composition of delusional, self-nourishing, earthly, mostly young characters; presumably, that as well, a reflex to the non-reachable pop-idol).

    Manuals and training for thanatocoenosis is abundant in large quantity and easily available on the internet and printed on paper for a long time (cf. e.g. Fatima Grimm: „Die Erziehung unserer Kinder“, 1975). It is a bestseller of Islamic pedagogy in Europe. Citation: (translation): “… award for every muslim, to be able to fight for the cause of Islam with weapons in their hands.” Fatima Grimm is an honorary member of the Central Council of German Muslims/Muslims in Germany! (quoted from: Heiko Heinisch, Nina Scholz: Menschenrechte und Islam – ein Kulturkampf?, Wien 2012, Passagen Verlag, S. 231 )

    I am afraid, poor or complete lack of education, psychological trauma and conflict, suppression of affects, mental cruelty and morbidity, aggression and “freely” funded killing, pathological distortions of personality, sexual restriction, as well as economic, religiously staged and political dependence will escort us for a long time with all its effects, especially in societies with patriarchal family rules, – also as terror (with fear and horror, deadly, stupid and devilish effects/death, stupidity and devilishness in the name of whoever and whatever.)

    Freely adapted from Freud and Lacan, incalculable things might have occurred on the oedipal entanglements, which have been diagnosed from the patricide (c.f. my text on “Unberrechenbares” the “Unpredictable” Gezi Park, engl./germ., see my blog). In any case, the threat of the power of the father doesn’t benefit the sons who kill him. See Libya, Iraq, Syria.

    Viewed from the point of the right of the strong the legislator is always weak, it doesn’t even exist.
    Bataille says: (translation) „Sovereignty is NOTHING.” (George Bataille: Hegel, Death and Sacrifice, Yale French Studies 78 (1990), p. 9f. and as well c.f. Jean – Luc Nancy: Die undarstellbare Gemeinschaft. Stuttgart 1988)

    The true excess appears where no one knows anymore what a father is and what he would have said.
    In a lot of traditions a father makes the rules (at least starting with Moses, up to constitutional law expert Carl Schmitt and beyond). Monotheistic gods, tyrants, dictators, decision makers, family despots.

    He is the creator of law (up to cases as Amstetten).

    Even in democracies ideas of Fatherland, Nation and male friendship and brotherhood/fraternity prevail (especially in the right wing of the party political scope). There are still rules of exclusion in such political spaces of hierarchies, there is gender discrimination, there is violence in marriage and uptight sexual practices with all their effects on politics, work and justice/law.

    But at least in democracies the sons have started to dream up the end of the Patriarchate, with a simultaneously happening discourse and long expected juridification (a little hesitant in this country).

    1938 Freud writes in the Outline of Psychoanalysis: “A dream is a psychosis–with all the absurdities, delusions and illusions of psychosis.” ( Sigmund Freud, An Outline of Psycho-Analysis p . 98 ).
    And on page 92 Freud writes, a dream is a “wish-fulfilment”. This wish fulfilment, admitted and annulled (!) by the I, must be implemented in society and made into law this way. The termination of the Patriarchate in all its structures, – the cause of delusion in the consciousness (c.f. Russia under Putin, this would be a literary case for E. Kishon today).

    I’m afraid there is still going to be a long future for fraternal/brotherly (Cain/Abel) pathologies.

    The physical architecture is political (c.f. Monique Wittig’s analysis of heterosexuality as a political regime and M. Foucault’s analysis of the dispositif of sexuality, as well as Judith Butler’s analysis of the performative identity ).

    Physical bodies are socially constructed texts (c.f. Beatriz Preciado’s Countersexual Manifesto).

    Consciousness originates from bodies in structures.

    Actions/acts are created in delusions, in dreams and as a dream.

    Charlie Hebdo’s murdering is (only) a symptom and symptomatic. CH. H. is on its way to becoming a mark/brand. Maybe a “mark” (c.f. Derrida) for a b r e a k of whole societal architectures. Not only another breach of taboo in a long series, but a breakpoint in thinking, a break in all of our thinking about “ourselves”. (!)

    The murder of draftsmen/cartoonists as a sole and final „act of speaking“ in the name of a fathertext, – al-legedly (!).
    A delusional fathertext. A delusional and insane act of speaking without information (except: incomprehensible D E A T H ). Just like that, to be a self-announced “martyr”, a self-announced biographical signature.

    “What” i s my text ? What “is” my desire (in the text) ?! (c.f. Barthes, Lacan, Derrida)

    Fin

Leave a Comment

comm comm comm