Abstract

We do two things in this article: develop a novel conception of domination and show how the Kurdish people are dominated in this novel sense. Conceptions of domination are usually distinguished in terms of paradigm cases and whether they are moralised and/or normdependent accounts, or neither. By contrast, we argue there is a way of understanding domination in terms of distinct social kinds. Among kinds of domination, like economic or racial or sexual domination, there must be a specifically political kind of domination. Borrowing from Carl Schmitt’s framework of differing degrees of political enmity, we argue political domination is best understood as an existential form of domination whereby one people aim to prevent the independent existence of another people mainly through the uncontrolled power and extreme violence involved in absolute enmity. This conception of existential domination is offered as an example of a non-moralised, normindependent account of domination. We then argue that the Kurdish people, who are the largest stateless people in the world, suffer existential domination from the absolute enmity expressed towards them by the four nation-states they find themselves dominated within: Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.

Highlights

  • We do two things in this article: develop a novel conception of domination and show how the Kurdish people are dominated in this novel sense

  • As we have argued elsewhere (xxxx), the Kurds are an example of a people who have responded to their existential domination with real enmity

  • If one can conceive of the phenomenon of domination as being organised into distinct social kinds, and if one wished to supply a non-moralised and norm-independent account, one could claim that there is a distinctly political kind of domination that could be viewed, given its existential nature, as perhaps the most basic or primary form of domination

Read more

Summary

Introduction

We do two things in this article: develop a novel conception of domination and show how the Kurdish people are dominated in this novel sense. Borrowing from Carl Schmitt’s framework of differing degrees of political enmity, we argue political domination is best understood as an existential form of domination whereby one people aim to prevent the independent existence of another people mainly through the uncontrolled power and extreme violence involved in absolute enmity This conception of existential domination is offered as an example of a non-moralised, normindependent account of domination. If we are willing to admit that domination can take a distinctly or primarily legal form, could not each of the paradigm cases slot into distinct social categories as well? The case of an empire’s domination of its colonies could obviously be shown to exemplify in some way each of legal, economic, racial, sexual, filial, intergenerational, and environmental kinds of domination (Kohn and Reddy 2017). We decided to try to develop a theory of political domination that is more sensitive to its singularity and captures what is distinctive about it

Objectives
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call