Since many questions are related to violence, I feel that this one is to be asked. When I reflect about Police (in general), I think about Max Weber. As he argues, States, through police, have the monopoly of the legitimate use of violence in their own territory. Hence, when people consider Police to be instrasically abusive, they counsciously or inscounsciously imply that the State itself is excessively violent - officers nothing but the "ambassadors" of the State. While it is undeniable that there are violences, aren't most of them justify ? Could Police be non-violent ? Isn't its job to be violent - to trump citizens violence ?
But also, what's the role of images ? You would feel sorry for a a guy if you were too watch him getting "vividly handled" by policemen - even if that same guy was pointing a gun at people moments ago - that's empathy.
I'm not saying that there is no abuse, racism etc. Some officers committed terrible crimes and they must be judged. However, they represent a minority (being a policeman is noble - as they dedicate their lives to "serve and protect"). If they aren't a minority, it means that the State itself is abusive and use violence unlegitimately - exactly as a dictatorship.
I'm thinking about the role of Police and its articulation. Is our system outdated ? What has become the society's relationship with violence? What's the role of its (constant) mediatic exposure?
2 answers0 replies
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (Hall, 1906, 199)