Sometimes one tries to move further along the tracks on a particular train of thought and then just like that one is right back at the old station. While I think humiliation and its role in the facilitation of what some authorities refer to as radicalization is an intriguing topic, I wanted to delve more into the collective perception of the radicalization process.

Critical to understanding the (shifting) core of this perception, I believe, is people's relationship with and understanding of tension and conflict.  In particular, tension and conflict as it relates to not only as an expression of human nature, but also in the formation of that same human nature.  These perceptions inform our politics, our understanding of our place in the world, and the place of others.  As with one of the facets of this tension, humiliation, this topic quickly pushes one to the notion that the personal is political (and the political personal). 

To make a long story short, delving into the phrase "the personal is political" itself, I ended up at Z Magazine and the article "The Personal is Political" by Anna Popkin (2006), which "describes the early days of the Women’s Liberation Movement. Popkin was involved in the Bread and Roses collective in Boston and tells about their struggles and successes, particularly the revelation that 'the personal is political.'"  

It wasn't long in developing my take on this essay in light of the Boston Marathon bombings that I ended up at this quote [emphasis mine]:

“It is true that freedom, when it is made up principally of privileges, insults labor and separates it from culture. But freedom is not made up principally of privileges; it is made up especially of duties. And the moment each of us tries to give freedom's duties precedence over its privileges, freedom joins together labor and culture and sets in motion the only force that can effectively serve justice. The rule of our action, the secret of our resistance can be easily stated: everything that humiliates labor also humiliates the intelligence, and vice versa. And the revolutionary struggle, the centuries-old straining toward liberation can be defined first of all as a double and constant rejection of humiliation. ”
-- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion and Death: Essays
 

Well, here we are again. 

What also comes into more clarity is that when we start to have any discourse on humiliation, we are talking about power and the struggles its engenders.  This is true whether we talking about class and gender struggles or the struggle of two individuals to make the relationship "work."  It is also in that perceived struggled between an individual and the universe, the god of his or her understanding.

Probably in regards to the radicalization process, it is this last struggle which is of most particular interest.  It is not this individual or that group who is humiliating the individual, but rather the whole of creation (or at least the part of creation with all of the power) has conspired to humiliate one.  In an instance like Columbine, the victims became targets not because they were active participants in the humiliation (they could have been); rather they were representatives of the larger force which continually acted to humiliate the boys.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold are generally not described as having been radicalized since what seemed to motivate them was not overtly political in nature.  But I think maybe we should.  If the personal is political, one might argue, no matter what personal agenda drives someone to massacre other people simply because they are symbolic of the larger forces, it becomes a political agenda.  In this light, the act of bullying is also a political act.

But to get there, we have to step back and re-examine our notions of politics and its dynamics.  Simple political frameworks of such as conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat, while having their value, provide no real advantage into the inquiry.  The synopsis of the collection entitled Humiliation, Degradation, Dehumanization (2011) sums up the breadth of this dynamic and the effort to address it:

Degradation, dehumanization, instrumentalization, humiliation, and nonrecognition – these concepts point to ways in which we understand human beings to be violated in their dignity. Violations of human dignity are brought about by concrete practices and conditions; some commonly acknowledged, such as torture and rape, and others more contested, such as poverty and exclusion. This volume collates reflections on such concepts and a range of practices, deepening our understanding of human dignity and its violation, bringing to the surface interrelationships and commonalities, and pointing to the values that are thereby shown to be in danger. In presenting a streamlined discussion from a negative perspective, complemented by conclusions for a positive account of human dignity, the book is at once a contribution to the body of literature on what dignity is and how it should be protected as well as constituting an alternative, fresh and focused perspective relevant to this significant recurring debate. As the concept of human dignity itself crosses disciplinary boundaries, this is mirrored in the unique range of perspectives brought by the book’s European and American contributors – in philosophy and ethics, law, human rights, literature, cultural studies and interdisciplinary research.

So, maybe I will stay here at this particular station for a little while.  Check out the view from this particular platform until the next train comes by.  Two initial facets come to mind.  First, as one book suggested regarding the mental state of depression: is there a positive side to humiliation?  In other words, was there some evolutionary advantage to being able to experience humiliation? 

Second, while trying to look at humiliation holistically, what triggers or facilitates the experience of humiliation is ultimately a personal matter, and thus differs somewhat or dramatically from individual to individual. 

I could be here awhile.