Analyzing weapons’ mechanics reveals the political form they impose on action

Evidence

A guiding thread is a thought expressed by the philosopher Simone Weil in the 1930s: “the most defective method possible,” she warned, would be to approach warfare and the phenomena of armed violence “in terms of the ends pursued and not by the nature of the means employed.” On the other hand, “the very essence of the materialist method is that, in its examination of any human event whatever, it attaches much less importance to the ends pursued than to the consequences necessarily implied by the working out of the means employed.” Rather than hastening to seek possible justifications—in other words, rather than moralizing—she advised doing something quite different: Begin by taking apart the mechanism of violence. Go and look at the weapons, study their specific characteristics. Become a technician, in a way. But only in a way, for the aim here is an understanding that is not so much technical as political. What is important is not so much to grasp how the actual device works but rather to discover the implications of how it works for the action that it implements. The point is that the means adopted are binding, and a combination of specific constraints is associated with each type of means adopted. Those means not only make it possible to take action but also determine the form of that action, and one must find out how they do so. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 119 (#expands, via linked claim)

Hegel wrote, “Weapons are nothing else than the essential being of the combatants themselves, a being which only makes its appearance for them both reciprocally.” If it is true that weapons constitute the essence of combatants, what is the essence of those who fight using drones? — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 609 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Weapons’ means, not ends, determine the form of violent action. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 119; Weapons constitute the essence of combatants, not mere instruments — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 609; Modern air power paradoxically makes ground infantry resemble pre-industrial guerrilla fighters — Julien Gracq, Balcony in the Forest, 345 (+3 more)

Related

• Weapons’ means, not ends, determine the form of violent action. (similarity 0.93)
• A combatant’s weapon defines the moral essence of who they become (similarity 0.91)
• Weapons constitute the essence of combatants, not mere instruments (similarity 0.91)
• Choosing a weapon can alter or forfeit the user’s moral essence (similarity 0.82)
• Combatants grasp their own essence only by being the object of an opponent’s weapon (similarity 0.81)
• Armed drones reshape sovereignty over a state’s own subjects, not just enemies (similarity 0.81)
• Drone war turns strategic evaluation into disconnected body counts. (similarity 0.81)
• Technical means and strategic ends interact, not oppose, in warfare. (similarity 0.81)
• Guerrilla power derives from the whole population, not weaponry (similarity 0.81)
• Eliminating reciprocal exposure to violence makes drones look like cowardly weapons. (similarity 0.80)
• The drone resolved a centuries-old contradiction in the theory of state sovereignty over war (similarity 0.80)
• The armed drone resolves a centuries-old tension in political sovereignty. (similarity 0.79)
• Armed drones make killing a priori one-directional, converting combat into slaughter. (similarity 0.79)
• Drones transformed from surveillance eyes into weapons almost by chance. (similarity 0.79)
• The drone state aims to replace mobilized citizen bodies with mechanical agents. (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Weapons’ means, not ends, determine the form of violent action. #expands (0.70) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 119
• Weapons constitute the essence of combatants, not mere instruments #expands (0.65) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 609