Palin Mantrafesto

I was hoping to continue the conversation about forms of violence and the violence of language because I thought it was an interesting one within the frame of "Feminism is for everyone." Bell Hooks makes it very clear that all forms of violence, including certain forms of violent language, are damaging and MUST be altered. However, I found her own language and aggressive politics were violent as well. I feel that any form of "revolutionary" politics requires a "violence" of the mind; one that requires a significant alteration of thinking. A person must not only desire to upstage the social conventions surrounding them but the conventions that have been absorbed by the mind and then are projected outward. This change in thinking is radical- it asks a person to fight against their social conditioning and everything they have internalized; to reassess how they see the world and the identities they have come to align themselves with. I'm curious as to whether this violence of the mind is useful and productive. I'm inclined to say that in some instances, violence of language and mind can create change. This recalls back to mind our discussions revolving around activism earlier in the semester; where the point was made that perhaps activism needs to make people uncomfortable to a certain extent- the reveal the ways in which people have become passive in there ways of thinking. Any thoughts about violence and language? I worry that using this as a method to create change is dangerous and can promote other forms of violence. It also requires using forceful language, which is opposite to everything we've been discussing about the openness of lanuage.