International Center for Cultural Studies

側記｜ABOUT POWER, WAR AND GENDER: AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL APPROACH

2025-05-22

Topic｜ABOUT POWER, WAR AND GENDER: AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL APPROACH

Time｜2025/05/22 2:00 - 5:00 PM

Venue｜Room 103, HA Building 3

Speaker｜Rada Iveković (Professor Emerita, University of Paris-8)

Moderator｜Joyce C. H. Liu (Director, ICCS, NYCU)

Discussant｜Yuan Horng Chu (Professor Emeritus, NYCU)

Introduction｜Merima Omeragić (Postdoctoral Fellow, ICCS, NYCU)

Event Info｜LINK

Event Photo｜LINK

Event Recording｜LINK

Reported by｜Merima Omeragić

Sub-project｜Social Intervention and Artistic Production

Convener｜Wen-Shu Lai

On May 22, 2025, the International Center for Cultural Studies at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University hosted an event “About Power, War and Gender: an Epistemological Approach” (Formerly titled “NEW EPISTEMOLOGIES AT THE 'END OF THE WORLD'). In her talk Rada Iveković challenged Western-centric knowledge systems and argued for new, open-ended forms of understanding shaped by conflict and global crisis.

The moderator, Professor Joyce C. H. Liu opened the session by reflecting on her longstanding collaboration with Iveković, which began in 2005 and spanned joint conferences and academic exchanges across Europe and Asia. These included discussions on themes such as biopolitics, ethics, subjectivation, culture, politics, and decentering modernity. Notably, Professor Iveković previously delivered a lecture series at NYCU in 2019.

Postdoctoral fellow Merima Omeragić followed with a thoughtful introduction, connecting personally and intellectually with Iveković’s feminist writings on Yugoslavia. Omeragić presented an extensive overview of Iveković’s academic contributions, emphasizing her anti-nationalist, anti-racist, and anti-patriarchal stance. She highlighted Iveković’s transnational academic background, her comparative studies in Indian and Western philosophy, her contributions to feminist and political philosophy, and her deep engagement with questions of translation, identity, citizenship, violence, borders, and migration. Iveković’s prolific authorship—across numerous books and languages—underscored her intellectual range and impact, particularly regarding the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the philosophical interrogation of nationalism and war.

Following the introductions, Professor Joyce C. H. Liu outlined the structure and focus of the event. She noted that Professor Iveković’s keynote would connect epistemological questions with the lived consequences of civil war. Emphasizing the global and ongoing relevance of such conflicts—from the Yugoslav and Chinese Civil Wars to current tensions in Taiwan—Professor Liu highlighted their enduring impact on citizenship, inequality, and human suffering.

The talk was framed as a starting point for broader reflection and dialogue. Following the keynote, responses were offered by Merima Omeragić, who explored post-war trauma and literature research, and by Professor Yuan Horng Chu, who reflected on Taiwan's civil war legacy and its present geopolitical tensions.

Professor Rada Iveković’s keynote addressed the current global crisis, describing it as a “threshold” of rupture marked by war, political collapse, and historical change. She argued that the normalization of violence and the failure of the Western-centric national state system to challenge the belief that war is a thing of the past. Iveković critiqued current epistemologies, calling for new “figures of imagination” to build viable futures. She emphasized the difficulty of imagining the unknown, drawing on the concept of “avidyā” (ignorance) from ancient Indian philosophy. She also highlighted the breakdown of language and knowledge during moments of historical rupture, referencing her own experience of dislocation after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Finally, Iveković acknowledged the impact of technology, especially AI and the internet, on knowledge and human understanding. She urged confronting these global shifts with critical awareness and the need for new interpretive frameworks.

Professor Iveković argued that today’s crisis stems not only from the failure to create a just world order but also from a deeper inability to understand it—an epistemic breakdown reflected in language itself. She described our era as one of “confusionism,” a disordered new paradigm emerging from the collapse of the old. She critiqued Western modernity for universalizing itself by casting the West as “modern” and others as “premodern,” erasing non-Western histories and epistemologies. This framework centered the autonomous subject—individual and nation-state—according to Western norms, while alternative forms of knowledge and power persisted in more complex, non-hierarchical networks. Iveković reminded the audience that global turning points, like the end of the Cold War, are experienced differently depending on one’s position (was understood very differently in Europe than in Asia or the Global South). While some hoped for a post-binary world, such aspirations often remained unmet.

Professor Iveković critiqued binary thinking—such as subject/object, East/West, male/female—as a core obstacle to reimagining knowledge and politics. Drawing on Indian philosophers like Krishna Chandra Bhattacharyya, she highlighted alternative, relational understandings of the self. She argued that binary logics have been destructive, contributing to wars and political failures. The post–Cold War era, she noted, reinforced this mindset, with Western leaders were declaring neoliberalism as the only path forward (tertium non datur), stifling alternative visions. Despite claims of “post-globalization,” dominant powers continue to impose exploitative, racist, and patriarchal systems, ignoring international law, ecology, and human rights. This dominance, she said, persists ideologically as much as materially. Referencing the French philosopher Bruno Latour, she described today’s digital catastrophe as a collapse of meaning that affects all life—one we cannot escape because we live within it. This demands a shift from individual or national thinking toward an awareness of global interdependence. Iveković closed with philosopher Étienne Balibar’s concept of “anthropological differences”—gender, abnormality, and race or culture—which resist universal definitions and expose the contradictions of fixed identities. Language and identity, she noted, remain fluid and contested.

Reflecting on Yugoslavia, the speaker noted that war was once seen as part of the past, tied to WWII. This legacy fostered political complacency—until the 1990s wars reignited unresolved tensions and forced individuals to confront identity in binary terms, such as Serb vs. Croat. In conflict zones, identities are often imposed rather than chosen, creating new struggles over belonging. Professor Iveković critiqued the binary logic of tertium non datur (“no third option”), which strips individuals of agency. Instead, she calls for tertium datur—a third option—as a way to move beyond exclusionary binaries. In her talk she introduced a conceptual model: although universality (A) (a+b) is made of many parts (a, b, c, d…), dominant binaries (A vs. B) oversimplify complexity. One side becomes the norm, the other the exception. Applied to gender, Man (man + woman), this explains how non-binary identities are marginalized. Language plays a role in shaping universals—e.g., French blurs “man” and “human,” German separates them—revealing how binary hierarchical thinking is culturally embedded. Beyond gender, this logic governs East/West and other identity divides. Today’s challenge is to overcome entrenched binaries and embrace plural meanings, compromise, and inclusion—an urgent, if difficult, task.

Professor Iveković reflects on the current era of confusion, shaped by contradictory value systems, misinformation, and blurred truths that erode collective memory and democratic access to pluralism. This confusion—intensified during the Trump era—fragments society and strains human capacity, especially in the context of ecological and climate crises. Turning to violence and war, she highlights how violence is widely condemned yet persists, with judgments about its legitimacy depending on context. Historical cases like the Partition of India and Pakistan and the Yugoslav wars illustrate the complexity of labeling and understanding violence, as both events defy simple categorization and reveal deep political and personal trauma.

Quoting Italian historian Claudio Pavone, the speaker draws attention to his distinguishing two worldviews during WWII: anti-fascist resistance and the authoritarian “cult of order,” linking the latter to historic fascism and to modern politics, such as Trump’s use of violence as political strategy. She highlights Antonio Scurati’s “M”, a five-part historical novel as essential to understanding the rise of fascism in Italy and draws parallels with current developments in India under Hindutva nationalism, where unofficial militias target minorities—echoing patterns seen in Mussolini’s Italy and the Yugoslav Wars. Professor Iveković underscores the danger of state-tolerated militias and blurred legal boundaries in modern conflicts. While violence is morally unacceptable, she acknowledges that resistance against fascism—like the partisan movements in Europe—can become necessary when peaceful options vanish. She leaves the ethical dilemma unresolved: is violent resistance ever justifiable? Violence is never justifiable in principle, but it is sometimes inevitable in self-defense.

Finally, the speaker critiques the gendered nature of war, noting that while women resist too, war-making remains largely male-driven, tied to enduring cultural associations between masculinity, violence, and power. Professor Iveković concludes with a reflection on the gendered nature of power and violence. She notes that men, more than women, have historically been conditioned to pursue power—even at great personal and collective cost. Feminist critiques of this dynamic remain marginalized, while women in power are often expected to adopt traditionally masculine, aggressive behaviors. Instead of urging women to imitate male power, Professor Iveković calls on men to let go of it. She critiques the ego-driven pursuit of dominance as a tragic misuse of human potential, advocating instead for a model rooted in care, restraint, and shared responsibility. She emphasizes that violence is not only political but also psychological, shaped by deep historical asymmetries—and holds the West particularly accountable for perpetuating global systems of domination and war.

Professor Joyce Liu closes the keynote by introducing the upcoming panel, emphasizing the interdisciplinary work of Merima Omeragić and Professor Yuan Horng Chu. The moderator underscores the importance of ongoing dialogue on war, trauma, and resistance, especially amid today’s global crises, and expresses hope that the discussion will enrich understanding through intersectional and sustained engagement.

Dr. Merima Omeragić, born in Bosnia just before Yugoslavia’s collapse, shared how growing up during the siege of Sarajevo deeply influenced her turn to literature and the arts as a way to process trauma. She described her generation as “lost,” shaped by war, displacement, and silenced histories. She noted the post-war silence in Bosnian society and academia, where confronting the war’s legacy was discouraged—especially as many institutions remained steeped in nationalist ideologies. Through her work, she discovered that resistance often came from women, whose civilian-centered stories were largely excluded from mainstream narratives dominated by male, militarized and nationalistic perspectives. Omeragić highlighted the personal and political risks faced by women writers who opposed nationalism, often suffering exile and misogynistic backlash. Her research focuses on this marginalized group, which she frames as Post-Yugoslav Anti-War Women’s Writing—a body of literature rooted in pacifism, resistance, and civilian experience, challenging nationalist glorifications of war.

She highlights the diverse forms of women’s anti-war writing from ex-Yugoslav countries, incuding the activists work, such as a group like Women in Black in Belgrade. These works—spanning essays, letters, novels, and autobiographical fiction—blend literary expression with political documentation, focusing on themes like identity, trauma, exile, and childhood. She emphasizes that this writing should be read not just as personal testimony but as a vital historical lens—telling stories from below that challenge dominant, often male-centered war narratives. These works create self-contained literary worlds shaped by war and, in doing so, reshape how war is understood. In closing, Omeragić introduces the idea of “personal history” as a counter to official accounts, restoring humanity to those erased by nationalist retellings. Drawing on Sartre’s notion of literature as ethical engagement, she reflects on the tension between aesthetics and ethics, suggesting that politically engaged writing can, in fact, deepen literary value.

Merima Omeragić draws on Virginia Woolf and Dubravka Ugrešić to argue that war is historically rooted in male power and violence, while women are left to pick up the pieces—socially and literally. This theme is echoed in Nobel prize-winner Wislawa Szymborska’s poetry and runs throughout the post-Yugoslav women’s literature Omeragić studies. She reflects on the challenges of researching across fragmented national borders and the suspicion she faced for not adhering to ethnic or nationalist expectations. Her work recovers voices often erased from official memory—women writers who resisted war and nationalism. Connecting her insights to today’s world, she warns that although over 110 armed conflicts exist globally, only a few gain sustained attention. Citing Susan Sontag, she critiques this selective empathy and urges recognizing that war is never distant—violence can emerge from within any society, and ignoring it is a dangerous illusion.

Professor Yuan Horng Chu began by recalling his collaboration with Rada Iveković, then shifted to a critical reflection on three key themes. First, he discussed eschatology and binary thinking, noting how narratives about the “end of the world” in both Christian and Marxist traditions reflect a desire for closure. Despite efforts to move beyond binaries like East/West, Chu argued—drawing on Derrida—that such oppositions are persistent and continually reappear. He then critiqued modernity, warning against its idealization as Western or progressive. Instead, he proposed seeing modernity as “that which hasn’t happened before,” which includes violent events like 9/11 or fascist regimes—disrupting the idea that modern equals good or Western. Finally, Professor Chu challenged the idea that catastrophe leads to redemption. Drawing on Balibar, he argued against romanticizing disaster as transformative, urging a more realistic, materialist view that recognizes ongoing violence without rushing to hope or transcendence.

Professor Yuan Horng Chu deepens his exploration of violence and political rupture by drawing on Étienne Balibar’s idea of catastrophe—not as a singular violent event, but as the collapse of civility itself. Using Yugoslavia as a case study, he reflects on how its wars were seen as civil from some perspectives, but were also foundational for new states, complicating the term “civil war.” He shares his personal reaction to the post-socialist era—relieved at the fall of Soviet-style regimes, yet stunned by the Yugoslav wars’ brutality. Quoting Nobel prize-winner Herta Müller, he notes that the “boring” oppression of socialism gave way to a far more chaotic violence. The speaker then shifts to Russia and China, arguing that in both, civil war never truly ended. Instead, internal violence became institutionalized—through purges, reforms, and ideological campaigns. Events like China’s Cultural Revolution and the Tiananmen Square massacre exemplify this ongoing state violence, revealing how catastrophe can be embedded within regimes that claim peace.

Professor Chu continued his philosophical reflection by examining how revolutionary violence in Russia and China became embedded in the structure of the state. What began as temporary civil war—such as War Communism in post-1917 Russia—evolved into a permanent political regime defined by purges, show trials, and the continual invention of internal enemies. In these systems, violence became the norm rather than the exception, and no one could be certain they would not be labeled a counter-revolutionary. Professor Chu contrasted this with Yugoslavia under Tito, in which, despite its being authoritarian, a fragile peace was maintained through the ideology of “brotherhood and unity” and the scale of internal purges seen elsewhere was avoided. Still, the violent collapse of this system in the 1990s revealed the long-suppressed tensions. He concluded by warning that in authoritarian regimes, power often lies in the ability to define who counts as an enemy. Whether in China, Iran, or Eastern Europe, political violence is used not only to suppress opposition but to shape identity, truth, and history itself.

The discussion that followed the keynote talks offered a rich and emotionally resonant exchange between speakers and audience members. It illuminated the urgent relevance of the themes raised—war, memory, identity, violence, and resistance—while also bringing these abstract ideas into lived experience. Participants posed challenging, deeply reflective questions that expanded the conversation beyond the academic, inviting honest engagement with the moral and political tensions of our time.

The discussion opened with a student reflecting on the internationally awarded film Quo Vadis, Aida? (2020), directed by Jasmila Žbanić questioning whether reconciliation is truly possible after atrocities like the Srebrenica genocide. Another participant redefined war in today’s context, pointing to China’s treatment of Uyghurs as a form of unarmed warfare—through surveillance and control—underscoring earlier themes of structural and epistemic violence. A third question challenged the idea that more women in power means less war, noting that power can corrupt regardless of gender. Professor Liu concluded by highlighting the core dilemmas: Can we resist violence without reproducing it? Can feminism disrupt oppressive systems? And does civility sometimes hide deeper violence?

Professor Rada Iveković closed the event by emphasizing that understanding violence and reconciliation requires both academic insight and lived experience. Reconciliation, she stressed, is a long-term process rooted in listening, inclusivity, and collaboration—offering hope even when outcomes are uncertain. She praised movements like Women in Black for their grassroots efforts to foster peace and address trauma across divides. Erasing history, she warned, is dangerous; instead, how we interpret history must be handled responsibly, as certain narratives can reignite conflict. She questioned the assumption that women in leadership naturally bring peace, noting that power structures often shape behavior more than gender. Drawing from global struggles, she highlighted the contradictions of liberation movements and invoked Balibar’s concept of “civilizing violence,” suggesting that while violence may not be eliminated, it can be made less dehumanizing. Reflecting on the fall of Yugoslavia, she framed it as both a tragedy and a lesson in the need for shared, cooperative futures. Once an advocate for revolution, she now calls for rethinking political change through sustained, collective efforts.

Merima Omeragić praised Quo Vadis, Aida? for its powerful, human portrayal of the Srebrenica genocide, yet expressed deep skepticism about the real-world possibility of reconciliation. Despite the film’s hopeful ending, she and Rada Iveković agreed that the political reality in the former Yugoslavia remains bleak. Merima Omeragić emphasized that global history—from Europe to Rwanda, The Rohingya people, and Palestine—shows a continued failure to learn from past genocides. She traced the roots of current ethnic divisions back to the post-Tito power vacuum of the 1980s, when political elites stirred nationalist tensions. Today, those elites still dominate, suppressing dissent and limiting open dialogue. In such a climate, true reconciliation feels increasingly utopian. Both speakers closed with concern over the global trend toward repression and division, casting doubt on the feasibility of healing in the near future.

Professor Joyce Liu concluded the discussion by emphasizing the deeply human nature of the issues raised—violence, reconciliation, and resistance—acknowledging their complexity and lack of easy answers. Building on Rada Iveković’s talk, she argued that resistance must come not through violence, but through sustained intellectual, artistic, and educational work. Violence, professor Liu warned, forecloses the possibility of change. Instead, she called for ongoing critical engagement as an open-ended process. At the end, she thanked the speakers and the audience for their thoughtful participation in this collective effort.

Through powerful reflections by Professors Rada Iveković, Yuan Horng Chu, and Joyce Liu, as well as researcher Merima Omeragić, the event illuminated the enduring impact of past conflicts and the urgent need to confront structural violence and nationalism in today’s world. Though reconciliation remains fraught and uncertain, the speakers affirmed the critical role of feminist thought, intellectual inquiry, and artistic expression in resisting erasure and opening space for dialogue. The conversation made it clear that while no final solutions exist, sustained collective engagement and ethical responsibility remain essential for imagining and building more just futures.