USA 2020. Violence and the Technological Impasse. Part 1
This is part one of two of an interview conducted between Andrew P. Keltner, a PhD researcher with GCAS College Dublin, and Dr. Andreas Wilmes, research fellow with GCAS College and lecturer with The West University of Timisoara in Romania. Both Andrew and Andreas are interested in socio-political affairs in the world, typically with special regard to Europe and the United States. For this interview the topic of discussion is centered around the protests in the United States and the world at large over the death of George Floyd. To be more specific, the topics are concerned with violence, policing, technology, and politics.
Dr. Wilmes, representing the European perspective, and the more Continental philosophical form, offers critiques and questions that those in the United States should start to wonder about themselves. For, philosophical thought in the US can be excluded from the rest of the world, this can be in part due to its more pragmatic nature, but also can be tied to the imperial stance the United States has held since World War II. This is why no critique should be left on the margins.
Of some of the philosophical foundations that can be taken from this interview are those from René Girard and Jacques Ellul. Two French philosophers who found themselves as outsiders to the wave of postmodernist and anti-religious thought that came from French Academia in the 1960s and 1970s, but who nonetheless gained insight into central conditions of humanity. René Girard for his idea of mimetic theory, wherein violence is derived from the desire to possess and, in part, be the Other, and Jacques Ellul for his understanding of the modern technological age as being that which has overtaken humanities ability to respond to its shared spirituality.
Both Girard and Ellul approach the world as Christians, but ultimately as deeply concerned existentialists. And one point to be made is the degree of difference to which they see the Christian role — something that seems completely foreign in the United States despite the rhetoric of the political classes. But, not to divert, this interview is only a small fraction of the larger conceptualization that can be used to understand modern socio-political issues and the inherent violence in them, and the technological maintenance that supports that apparatus.
Finally, we see that millennials and Generation Z perhaps even more so are really starting to break ground in the intellectual culture of the United States. These are groups of people who are deeply worried about the state of the world and feel any attempt to quell their existential crisis is at best met with neglect and at times even with derision from their political and ideological counterparts. It is certainly an uphill battle, but we implore the reader to concern themselves with matters of technological production, human and technological relationships, violence, and the condition of the modern human spirit.
Andrew P. Keltner:
What can you tell us about the European, and French, responses as part of the global reaction to the murder of George Floyd? This question, partly, regarding state and civilian violent interactions in the US and Europe.
Andreas Wilmes:
Just like everyone else, I saw pictures and videos of the UK, Spain, Italy, Brussels, and so forth joining the wave of Black Lives Matter protests. There have been kneelings and tributes to George Floyd. Statues reminiscent of colonialism have been vandalized. Although to a much lesser extent than in the US, riots and clashes between the protesters and the police occurred in several countries. At any rate, in many places activists or politics aimed to launch debates about law enforcement ethics. For instance, in Germany, Saskia Esken, the leader of the Social Democratic Party, accused the police of latent racism and demanded an independent investigation on that matter. Demonstrations in Central and Eastern Europe have been fewer and took place in a far calmer atmosphere. I have been living in Central Europe since 2016 — it is difficult to identify with problems in the United States when you live there.
Since the very beginning of the George Floyd protests, I have spent most of my time gathering information from US newspapers, news media, alternative media, studies on policing and police brutality. As a philosopher dealing especially with issues related to crime and violence, my prime concern is trying to understand what is happening in the US.
I must confess that I followed to a lesser extent the most recent news in France. I know however that there have been demonstrations against police brutality in the aftermath of which the minister of interior, Christophe Castaner, announced new measures against racism in law enforcement as well as a ban on “chokeholds.” He added that racism and brutality are the work of some isolated individuals and that “La France, ce n’est pas les Etats-Unis.” (1) [“France is not like the USA”]. President Emmanuel Macron also urged the government to announce further measures to improve police ethics.
With regards to the matter of racism, it is important to note that, unlike the US, France prohibits any kind of statistics based on race or ethnicity. It is also worth mentioning that, although French law enforcement has been experimenting with body-worn cameras, they are used and implemented to a far lesser extent than in the US. The movement “Justice pour Adama,” which claims that the death of the Malian French Adama Traoré in 2016 was due to the racial biases and brutality of the police, played a significant role in the French protests. However, there is still no firm legal conclusion today on what exactly caused Traoré’s death and on whether racism played any role in his restriction and apprehension by the police. Quite recently, President Emmanuel Macron demanded further investigation on the Traoré case. In his latest televised address, on June 14, he announced new measures to come for fostering social justice and fighting racism. But he also issued a warning to those who want to exploit anti-racism to rewrite French history and nurture community divides. That is all I can say. I am not implying that racism does not exist in France. Rather, I am saying that there is currently no evidence supporting that racism is a core element of law enforcement.
On a more personal note, I must say that I do not share at all Cornel West’s enthusiasm for the spreading of the US protests across Europe. What I see happening is nothing else than a mimetic frenzy nurtured by people’s addiction to information and communication technologies. I do not deny that there are aspects in the current events in the United States that may also concern Europe. But we must put things in perspective.
Although the reliability of polls must not be overestimated, it seems reasonable to state that there has been a decline (which is hard to measure exactly yet) in French people’s trust in law enforcement since the yellow vests movement (It is worth mentioning in passing that, according to other polls, increasing distrust in the proper functioning of the institutions of justice may be more significant than French people’s distrust of the police). Prior to that movement, the terrorist threat was in most people’s minds and, overall, polls show that police presence felt reassuring. On top of that, the constant rise of identity politics and growing economic inequalities deepened an already existing community fragmentation. In the last years, working conditions of the police have been particularly difficult and, in 2019, 59 policemen committed suicide — which is an unprecedented peak. Incidentally, there is a commonality here with the US where suicide rates in police officers peaked as well (about 228 died by suicide in 2019). Returning to the topic of France, acts of police brutality occurred during the yellow vests protests and some of them were filmed. Other cases, like the one of Cédric Chouviat who died 48 hours after having been restrained and apprehended by police, also drew some media attention. From then, a change occurred in French people’s perception of the police.
Lately, a new law meant to prohibit the broadcasting of videos of policemen on duty has been proposed. In an article published in the HuffPost, French lawyer Vincent Brengarth (who represents the family of Cédric Chouviat) opposes this proposed legislation and, referring to the video footage of George Floyd’s murder, praises the “power of images” [“la portée des images”] (2) in the fight against police brutality. Here we are really entering the heart of the matter of the recent events in the US and the way they may influence other countries. Because the pivotal topic, I believe, has to do with violence and crime in the technological system.
APK:
You say you are trying to understand what is happening in the US — at this point what do you understand? What are you not understanding? And further, what for you are the biggest obstacles in forming a working hypothesis about crime and violence in the US?
Finally, both France and the USA have been growing in their distrust of police, this is also noticeable in Hong Kong, and is more or less becoming a global concern. Do you think this anti-police trend will continue to spread and grow? Why or why not? And if so, what type of consequences do you think we will see?
AW:
I will try to answer all your questions, but in no particular order. Distrust in the police is likely to come and go. If, for instance, France suffers another wave of terror attacks, I am quite sure people will be happy to feel protected by the police. In Germany, most of the recent polls show that people trust their police. And, from what I read, Saskia Esken’s statements about alleged issues of latent racism in law enforcement was far from being met with acclaim. Besides, it is worth considering countries which are regarded as safe and have a rather low rate of violent crimes like Japan, New Zealand, Czech Republic, Canada, Iceland, and so on. Examples and arguments showing that the anti-police trend is rather unlikely to spread and grow could go on and go on.
I mentioned earlier the topic of the “power of images.” This leads me to something I believe I understand about the US. Body cameras or cell phone videos by civilians are often considered as a means to prevent brutality and encourage policemen to discipline themselves. Derek Chauvin was filmed by bystanders and attorney Benjamin Crump stated that audio recordings from the body cam prove that Chauvin ignored that George Floyd was not having a pulse. This did not prevent violence and Floyd’s death.
Studies do not evidence a significant correlation between body worn cameras and enforcing ethics in policemen. I am aware of the many cases where police officers turned their body cam off. However, it strikes me as obvious that being a policeman involves stress and fear, as well as the likelihood of having to deal with extreme and unpredictable situations which cannot always be handled through a predetermined set of rules. It further seems clear to me that, during their career, law enforcement officers are very liable to experience psychological trauma. I must say that I really trust my common sense on that matter : generally speaking, body worn cameras are likely either to dissuade law enforcement officers from taking risky initiatives, or to increase their stress level (insofar as in extremely dangerous situations, your behavior must also look acceptable to those who may watch the video recording). In addition, I see here a typical trend in technological societies which Jacques Ellul referred to as the “humiliation of the word.” (3) Nowadays, testimonies which cannot be supported in their entirety by video recordings may be regarded as disputable, if not to say worthless. Speaking and being listened to is vital to mankind. Policemen are liable to be deprived of that. Consider the article by serving police commander Travis Yates who exactly voices those kinds of frustrations in US law enforcement officers : “We used to be able to testify in court and we were believed. Now, unless there is video from three different angles, no one cares what you have to say.” (4)
At the same time, people also raise the issue of limitations of misconduct procedures and show that police brutality persists because officers do not have to face the legal consequences for their actions. The main idea, then, is that further reforms to turn video recordings into a true counter-power are needed. For several years, internet activist Ethan Zuckerman supported the use of cellphone cameras and social media as a counter-power to police brutality. These have been the tactics of Black Lives Matter since its inception. However, today, in the aftermath of Floyd’s death, Zuckerman acknowledges that images and social media are not enough; an actual change in the judicial system is needed. Hence, he recently expounded his idea of an inverted panopticon in which the police take the place of the criminals:
“Bentham’s panopticon works because the warden of the prison has the power to punish you if he witnesses your misbehavior. But Bentham’s other hope for the panopticon—that the behavior of the warden would be transparent and evaluated by all who saw him—has never come to pass. Over 10 years, from 2005 to 2014, only 48 officers were charged with murder or manslaughter for use of lethal force, though more than 1,000 people a year are killed by police in the United States.” (5)
On the one hand, the increasing hold of social media and video technologies on law enforcement poses many problems. On the other hand, there is the righteous indignation about police brutality. My point is to lay emphasis on the fact that technological solutions always generate further issues. I am really trying to imagine what life is and will be like for these police officers surrounded by cameras and guns (for, as a French, I cannot help thinking about the availability of guns in the US). Is adaptation to this technological environment psychologically possible or bearable?
From the case of Rodney King till today, it is striking how images eventually turned against US law enforcement. There is of course nothing symbolic in the recent cancellation of the reality crime television program Cops. The footage of killer cop Derek Chauvin is just the latest in an already long line of videos of police brutality. We gradually moved from the age of reality TV to that of snuff movies. Millions of people watched the video reconstruction of Floyd’s murder. Millions of people watched a snuff movie. I lay emphasis on this because, today, the emotional impact of such videos is often understated; they are like dynamite. In Hollywood movies, directors make us see violence through a specific perspective along with music, film editing and sound editing. The violent movie scene is an imitation of reality which enables catharsis and sometimes (provided the movie is good) even critical distance. Snuff movies are exactly the opposite they impede thought and provoke only negative feelings. (6) The footage of Floyd’s murder is that of a long agony. For a viewer, the identification with the victim is strong and the video in itself feels like an aggression. (7) And, as we have seen recently with Candace Owens, anyone whose narrative deviates from this fundamental viewer experience is risking backlash. There is potentially contagious violence in footage of police brutality and this, I think, must not be overlooked. It would be timely to reread what Saint Augustine wrote on Alypius’ “weakness for the circus games.” However well-meaning, the fight against police brutality through images and social media is not devoid of pernicious effects.
I have been reading books and papers in criminology since many years now. The US, unlike France, are extraordinarily strong in this field. Nonetheless, regardless of political leanings, criminology involves a great share of ideology and studies often raise epistemological questions. It takes a lot of reading and thoughts to have a clear-cut opinion on whatever the matter at stake. And sometimes readings only nurture skepticism. That is a serious obstacle.
Finally, I do not want to pretend that I am an expert on American society and institutions. In addition, I do not have a real living knowledge of your country. Interpreting the recent events in technological terms makes them more understandable to me. This implies a certain degree of abstraction, but, at least according to me, this is compensated for by what this interpretation grid can shed light on.
APK:
What are some of these ideological and epistemological questions found in criminology? And further, do you think those examples say about the US?
AW:
I cannot go through all the studies and expounding my views on epistemology would take us too far off the topic. For the sake of concision, let us take a timely example: Alex Vitale’s book The End of Policing. To be sure, police reform is necessary. And one cannot but agree with some of Vitale’s observations on over-policing, overcriminalization, mass incarceration, and so forth. However, the book is also frustrating in that many ideas boil down to a critique of neoliberalism and an appeal to a welfare state. I saw very few testimonials from police officers (which is rather surprising for a book about policing). When statistics show anything disproportionate, Vitale often jumps to the same conclusion: it is about discrimination, racism, social injustice and so on. He also introduces many false dilemmas. For instance, it strikes me that he never seriously considers the option of changing gun politics in the US and amending hiring policy and procedures in law-enforcement. In Vitale, downsizing law enforcement officers and reducing police intervention is always meant to be compensated by social and restorative justice. But it is also about:
“creating a mental-health infrastructure that includes peer-to-peer mental health services. Or we have state-funded centers, but they’re using a model that is embedded in specific community needs, and the community is part of the process. We could have community-based anti-violence centers that address problems of domestic violence and youth violence, of disputes between people in the community. These could be government functions, they could be nonprofit functions, or they could be some kind of hybrid. We just need to have control over them as much as possible.” (8)
In other words, it is about a society of which psychiatrists and psychological counselors will be the pillars. According to Vitale, “Policing is fundamentally a tool of social control.” But what about the model of society he vindicates? Did he ever read Michel Foucault, Thomas Szasz, or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders?
The current enthusiasm of some Americans rests on anarchist reveries, the idea that communities may regain some self-governance, and the laudable intent to prevent violence rather than resorting to police and crime punishment. But it is unfortunately much more realistic to notice how gradually people may move from one technological apparatus to another, that is from the apparatus of surveillance and military-style techniques to that of medical surveillance. This is what I mean by ‘ideology’ in the strongest sense of the word. Our positions on dealing with violence ultimately commit us to technological projects. Current debates on policing are debates within the technological system.
Unlike many conservatives, I do not regard the idea to end policing as a mere joke. According to me, it is likely to become a long-term project which raises important questions and shall be taken very seriously. Above all, we must not forget that neurosciences and genetics are looking more and more specifically at the biological roots of violence and crime. Also, we must not forget research that is sometimes less known in European countries. For instance, the NGO “Cure Violence” founded by Gary Slutkin contends that violence must be regarded as a public health issue. In outline, Slutkin argues that violence is a contagious disease which ought to be dealt with in a similar way than epidemics (he is himself an epidemiologist by training). Not to mention current testing with Artificial Intelligence for crime prevention and detection. Our era is certainly not done yet with Cesare Lombroso's fantasies on the born criminal. My point is not to say that our future will be like Philip K. Dick's science fiction novella "The Minority Report." Rather, I am implying that novel, complex and sophisticated ways to treat violence like a medical issue are highly likely to emerge. The medicalization of violence may be not more effective than former models. But the public health rhetoric on violence may be quite appealing to highly technologized countries (also because this approach may be presented as gentler and as a means of limiting human costs in the fight against crime).
On a different note, it is quite striking that current debates in the US — at least in most of the news media — revolve almost entirely around statistics. Democrats lay emphasis on the fact that black people are more likely to be killed by police. Republicans aim to put those figures into perspective in relation to national statistics on homicide and race. Debates turn out to be an impasse. Both democrats and republicans rely on official statistics. Neither of the two make statements that are, broadly speaking, empirically wrong. In a way, the statistical debate seems to generate rivalries almost mechanically. In the end, democrats remain convinced that republicans are neglecting issues of racism. And republicans remain convinced that democrats are exaggerating race issues in the US. There is a strong ideological divide here and I fear it is very unlikely Americans will go beyond this soon.
A real discussion about the issues at stake today would require a great deal of calm and patience which, given the current situation, has obviously become impossible. What makes rates of police violence differ across states in the US? What is the history behind these states and the history of the civilians and law enforcement officers living there? And answering those questions might still not be enough — not to mention the practical difficulties of field research in criminology.
APK:
I think both political parties might answer those questions based on a number of factors: access to arms, demographics, family structures, and education, are the big four that come to mind. What important factors do you think are left out of public, or common, discussion concerning violence between law enforcement and civilians?
AW:
Of course, the factors you just mentioned matter (and I would further add the factor of corruption). The specifics about police officers, the victims, and the way they interacted seem particularly important to me. Books and other online resources give you broad categories which are necessary for a first mapping of the issues (keep in mind that we are talking about more than thousand cases a year). These categories include some victims’ characteristics such as race, armed or unarmed, mental illness, and so forth. They further include the cause of death such as shooting, physical force, taser, etc. Then, we have the contextual elements like suspected violent or non-violent offenses. Finally, you get some indications of how police officers acted (e.g., they did not try to de-escalate, they did not proceed by the book in such and such ways) and about the victims’ demeanor (e.g., threatening or not). But there are so many other things we need to consider. For instance, what was the police officer’s state of mind prior and during the killing? What happened during his workday before the killing? If several police officers were present, how did they communicate and interact with each other? Was there any dialogue between the police officer and the victim? If so, what was this dialogue about? In addition, what are the differences between all these cases and those of police officers who, even in dangerous contexts, did not kill? What are the differences between all these cases and 'borderline cases' (so to speak) where victims almost got killed by a policeman? Questions could go on and go on.
I am not saying anything new here: The correlations we find are dependent on the statistical variables we consider. Adding new statistical variables may significantly change your views on a given issue. Perhaps Vitale and others are right when they blame the ‘military mindset’ of police officers. I have no fascination with guns. Also, I acknowledge it is better to de-escalate and prevent violence than resorting to other methods (but who actually disagrees on that?). However, this does not stop me from keeping my critical judgement. Pointing to police officers who act like thoughtless brutes does not entirely warrant the ‘military mindset’ hypothesis. Good soldiers, after all, have ethics. Does the current criticism of militarism really offer the best explanation for the issues of police violence?
Let me now turn to a more controversial matter. It is striking to me that the left-wing / right-wing divide is currently about two conflicting views on violence (I would also say the same applies to France). Right-leaning people tend to have a restricted definition of violence concentrating on “interpersonal acts of force usually involving the infliction of physical injury.” (9) Left-leaning people have a much wider definition of violence which is quite often reminiscent of Galtung’s notion of ‘structural violence.’ This divide has become so deep that people no longer perceive the world in the same way. And I think that explains in part why democrats and republicans so strongly disagree even though they have the same statistics in front of them. I could dwell a lot more on this but, ultimately, the burden of argumentation is on the left. There is no other way out of this dialogue of the deaf. If you extend a notion beyond its original scope, then you must warrant it — end of story. Conflicting views on the idea of violence are now taking a catastrophic turn in the US. I am extremely concerned about this.
To be continued in the following days.
Endnotes
Le Monde, “Méthodes d’interpellation, propos racistes, contrôles d’identité… Les annonces de Christophe Castaner sur les violences policières.,” Le Monde, June 8, 2020.
Vincent Brengarth, “La proposition de loi qui entrave la lutte contre les violences policières,” Huffpost, June 2, 2020.
Jacques Ellul, The Humiliation of the Word (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985).
Travis Yates, “‘You won’t need to abolish us – we won’t be around for it’: Why I and many of my colleagues are quitting as US police officers,” Russia Today, June 10, 2020.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/03/1002587/sousveillance-george-floyd-police-body-cams/
Michela Marzano, “Snuff Movies,” in Dictionnaire de la Violence, ed. Michela Marzano (Paris : Presses Universitaires de France, 201), 1203-1208.
This viewer experience is perfectly illustrated by Dave Chapelle’s Netflix special “8:46.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tR6mKcBbT4
Alex S. Vitale, Micah Uetricht, “Policing Is Fundamentally a Tool of Social Control to Facilitate Our Exploitation,” Jacobin, June 8, 2020.
C.A.J. Coady, “The Idea of Violence,” Journal of Applied Philosophy 3/1 (1986): 4.
Photo Credit to Maxim Hopman