The treatment of violence in the context of the essentialism/anti-essentialism debate

Abstract

Demanding a world where there is no violence, where people live together in harmony, requires of us first and foremost to understand the world that experiences and perpetuates violence. This presentation examines the essentialism/anti-essentialism debate in ethics and politics and discusses how both views are interpreted in such a way as to lead to violence and conflict. Today, many critics suggest that essentialism ignores social and historical differences, denies autonomy, leads to prejudicial practices, and is hence instrumental in pervasive and polymorphous violence. On the other hand, others evaluate anti-essentialism as a view with negative connotations vis-à-vis violence when it is carried to extreme subjectivism or extreme relativism. Accordingly, this paper aims to identify and explain the key ideas in this debate and to investigate the possibility of a new perspective that doesn't lead to violence.