Warrior Charisma and the Spiritualization of Violence
Warrior Charisma and the Spiritualization of Violence
复制标题
战士魅力与暴力的灵性化
DOI：
10.1177/135703403773684676
复制
发表时间：
2003
期刊：
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
B. Turner
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Turner
诺伯特·埃利亚斯（Norbert Elias）（2001年）提出了关于人类社会暴力历史的最有影响力的理论之一，即“文明化进程”。随着封建社会的转型、资产阶级社会的兴起和现代国家的发展，人际暴力越来越受到强调自我克制和个人纪律的社会规范的约束。他的理论是身体的道德教育学，其中的“激情”是通过详细的社会制度自我调节的。虽然他的理论是有影响力的，但它也一直是系统批评的主题。我研究了埃利亚斯理论中三个明显的缺陷。首先，他的理论没有提供一个充分的说明宗教在文明化进程中的作用，特别是在控制人类暴力方面，我检查埃利亚斯的理论，通过对人类社会的魅力和神圣的评论，即神圣暴力的作用。其次，埃利亚斯对军事技术和人际规范之间的相互作用几乎没有什么可说的。现代技术使国家和现代军事机构无论在和平时期还是在战争时期都有可能控制各种形式的大规模暴力，而这些暴力在欠文明的社会中是不可想象的。我们可以接受埃利亚斯关于人际暴力的限制的主张，但认为现代技术明显增强了社会暴力手段的能力。这种暴力的“去人格化”与埃利亚斯的文明理论相一致。然而，技术的主题被完全低估了。第三，除了埃利亚斯对艺术和社会的兴趣是由于他在加纳的教学任命（1962年至1964年），他的理论主要是关注解释欧洲社会的社会变革方面。对美国平原印第安人，特别是夏延人的军事暴力和魅力的演变的探索，旨在阐述围绕埃利亚斯的“形象社会学”的争论。通过对游牧平原文化中战士训练的考察，他们的战争模式被定义为一种精神暴力形式，因为战争与宗教行为规范密切相关，他们的军事互动高度仪式化。这些灵性技术是自我创造的军事技术的一个重要例证。我的叙述最后在国际人权框架内审查了职业军队之间现代冲突的性质。战争的民主化导致了军事魅力的平民化，魅力型英雄主要以名人的身份存在于大众文化中。
Norbert Elias (2001) produced one of the most influential theories on the history of violence in human societies in terms of ‘the civilizing process’. With the transformation of feudalism, the rise of bourgeois society and the development of the modern state, interpersonal violence was increasingly regulated by social norms that emphasized self-restraint and personal discipline. His theory was a moral pedagogics of the body in which the ‘passions’ are self-regulated through detailed social regimes. While his theory is influential, it has also been the subject of systematic criticism. I examine three obvious lacunae in Elias’ theory. First, his theory does not provide an adequate account of the role of religion in the civilizing process, particularly with respect to controlling human violence, and I examine Elias’ theory through a commentary on charisma and the sacred in human society, namely the role of sacred violence. Second, Elias had relatively little to say about the interaction between military technology and interpersonal norms. Modern technology has made it possible, both in peace and war, for the state and modern military institutions to gain control of forms of mass violence that were unimaginable in less civilized societies. We could accept Elias’ proposition about constraint in terms of interpersonal violence, but argue that modern technology has obviously enhanced the capacity of the means of violence in society. This ‘de-personalization’ of violence is consistent with aspects of Elias’ civilization theory. However, the theme of technology was completely understated. Third, apart from Elias’ interest in art and society as a consequence of his teaching appointment in Ghana (1962–4), his theory was primarily concerned to explain aspects of social change in European society. An exploration of the evolution of military violence and charisma among American Plains Indians, especially the Cheyenne, is intended as an elaboration of the debate around Elias’ ‘figurational sociology’. Through an examination of the training of warriors in nomadic Plains culture, their mode of warfare is defined as a form of spiritual violence, because warfare was bound up with religious norms of conduct and their military interaction was highly ritualized. These spiritual technologies are an important illustration of military technologies of self-creation. My account concludes with an examination of the nature of modern conflict between professional armies within an international human rights framework. The democratization of warfare results in the routinization of military charisma and the charismatic hero survives primarily in popular culture as a celebrity.