Nineteenth-century struggle was redefined as civilian and economico-political, not warlike

Evidence

This will therefore be an essentially civil struggle to the extent that domination is neither its goal nor its expression, and to the extent that the State is both its object and its space. It will take place essentially in and around the economy, institutions, production, and the administration. We will have a civil struggle, and the military struggle or bloody struggle will become no more than an exceptional moment, a crisis or an episode within it. Far from being the real content of every confrontation and every struggle, the civil war will in fact be no more than an episode, a critical phase in a struggle that now has to be seen not in terms of war or domination, but in nonmilitary or civilian terms. And this, I think, raises one of the basic questions about history and politics, not only in the nineteenth century, but also in the twentieth. How can we understand a struggle in purely civilian terms? Can what we call struggle—the economic struggle, the political struggle, the struggle for the State—actually be analyzed not in terms of war, but in truly economico-political terms? — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 240

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects forward to how the Islamophobia field analyzes racialized exclusion as struggle over the state rather than literal war — Gramsci’s hegemony as a civilian war. — connects to: The 1880s-1920s reconstituted the terrain of political struggle and modern popular culture; Nineteenth-century faith in the law’s impartiality dwarfed later responses to persecution; Proletarian-nation rhetoric reframed imperial conquest as class struggle — Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on…, 378 (+1 more)

Broader Connections