Literature Review & Methodology

Literature Review

A survey of available sources suggests that predominantly the studies analysing the portrayal of violence often focus on its motivations and the links between the mind and the act.

Physical Violence in Literature

The Extremes of Conﬂict in Literature: Violence, Homicide, and War (Carroll, 2012) posits a few types of violence in literature. They are Violence against Oneself, Violence in the Family, Violence within the Social Group and War. Specifically, Violence against Oneself is portrayed in literature because of the appeal of the intense inner struggle which culminates in taking one’s own life. On the other hand, while “blood is thicker than water” (Carroll, 2012), sometimes the proximity of familial and intimate relations peculiarly magnify the shock and horror when star struck lovers or romantic rivals resort to using violence - Violence in the Family - against each other. Violence within the Social Group is represented in a way so as to showcase predominantly themes of vengeance and dominance, because in literature as in life, much of the violence in the wider social circles is instrumental in character (Carroll, 2012). For War, it is asserted that “war puts exceptional stress on men’s minds, because combat elicits instinctive ﬁght or-ﬂight responses but channels them into highly disciplined patterns of behaviour regulated by rigidly hierarchical social structures” (Carroll, 2012). While a connection of common brotherhood is inculcated in the face of crises among soldiers who bear an intensely fond memory towards the degree of closeness this relationship offers, at the same time, war systematically dehumanizes the enemy in ways and breaks down the psychological inhibition most people feel against doing violent bodily harm to other people.

From the above, it can be deduced that, for all forms of violence outlined, a common trait is shared among them, in that at the core of violence it is always conflict. Be it the self’s conflict with circumstances, environment or fate, or the conflict between lovers or romantic rivals; or consider the need for individuals to assert dominance or take revenge, and in the grander scheme of things, defend a conglomeration of people against existential crises. The root cause of violence is not only an asymmetry of interests; it is a set of diametrically opposite motivations that cannot exist in the presence of each other. It is intuitive then, to conclude, that physical violence manifests so as to overcome these tensions that cannot coexist in harmony.

However, the forms of violence differ by size and scale. Size in this case refers to the number of individual it may concern, while the scale of violence means the extent of interaction among the individuals involved. For example, Violence against Oneself is most distinguishable by the fact that it mostly points to acts of self-harm and suicides. Yet, the extent of inner, personal struggle that eventually convinces a human being to end his own life amidst a sea of other possibilities is arguably the most severe and traumatising out of all other forms of violence. Similarly, while Violence in the Family is often constrained between two persons, for a pair so in love with each other to take out each other’s life requires a remarkably grave degree of conflict that is incomparable with the other forms of violence. Despite this, the conflict in War is gigantic in terms of both size and scale. In terms of size, War threatens the livelihoods and survivals of hundreds and thousands of people, but the fear of the death is not divided among everyone involved to a point where it is manageable; each person is as close to the destruction of his life, identity and community as everyone else.

Thus, the takeaway is that physical violence almost always revolves around a conflict of motivations that are at odds with each other. They vary by how many people are involved and how these people may be affected. These differences are then translated into the distinctive forms of physical violence.

Psychological Violence in Literature

In Violence in Literature: An Evolutionary Perspective (Carroll, 2014), it is argued that “violence is the flash point at which the tensions aroused by conflicting interests reach critical mass”, and “reveals the underlying structure of human motives and passions”. This crystallises the understanding that violence is an expression of human pursuits often shaped by interactions with other agents. It is further reinforced when Carroll claims that “violence in literature has no inherent valence or significance”. Violence can be heroic, triumphant, cruel, vicious, or futile and ineffectual and the value attached to any particular instance of violence derives from occasions and circumstances, the motives of characters, the author’s attitude toward the depicted characters, the author’s general outlook on life, and the responses of readers (Carroll, 2014). In other words, what gives violence purpose and meaning is the various underlying causes that precipitate the final stage of the character attribute formation discussed earlier.

In Julia Kristeva’s distinguished and revolutionary psychoanalytic work, Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection (1982), she notes, “abjection preserves what existed in the archaism of pre-objectal relationship, in the immemorial violence with which a body becomes separated from another body in order to be.” This means that, for the human subject to be born, it must be violently abjected to be separated from the maternal body. Thus, according to Kristeva, violence exists at the heart of human existence. More generally, however, she argued that abjection’s violence lies in the process of the self-separation where what is not considered as the self is shunned and rejected.

Review of Physical and Psychological Violence in Literature

In Physical Violence it is shown through The Extremes of Conﬂict in Literature: Violence, Homicide, and War (Carroll, 2012) that while forms of violence may differ in terms of size and scale, their point of commonality remains constant, in that they are always about mutually exclusive motivations and desires. This understanding is later reflected in Violence in Literature: An Evolutionary Perspective (Carroll, 2014), which stated that at the heart of all of these motivations are human pursuits of their sense of self. The idea that selfhood is a pre-requisite to violence is again reiterated and reinforced in Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection (Kristeva, 1982), which defends the view that in any human experience there is always a subject conception of the self, the one we want ourselves to be, and the abject, the version of ourselves we resent and shun. The understanding is evolved when Kristeva further argues that the process of distinguishing the self from what does not constitute the self is an incredibly violent process that invites shock and disgust, and this corresponds with The Extremes of Conﬂict in Literature: Violence, Homicide, and War (Carroll, 2012) which puts forth the sensations of horror when carriers of mutually exclusive motivations descend into a chaotic violence so as to exterminate the existence of the other party. As such, a composite recognition of violence can be derived. At the heart of violence, no matter the size and scale, is abjection, the rejection of what the self refuses to be. At an individual level, when the subject and abject exists in one person, Violence against Oneself becomes the only option to reconcile the asymmetry between the subject’s expectation and reality. At a passionate and intimate level, the disparity between the abject and the subject can even overcome the power of love, and in the case of romantic rivals, make it ever so tempting to kill the other party. In one’s wider social circles, the subject seeks to dominate the abject through a ceaseless pursuit of violence, prompting cycles of revenge. In war, when the sanctity of life and sovereign nationhood encounters the proximity of death and destruction, even the most benign civilians are inspired and prepared to butcher their enemies in the most atrocious and heinous ways possible. Such is the power of abjection as the driving force of violence.

Methodology

The Extremes of Conﬂict in Literature: Violence, Homicide, and War and Violence in Literature: An Evolutionary Perspective, both by Joseph Carroll, will be used alongside the Theory of Abjection to explore the core of violence and abjection in Tokyo Ghoul, and the portrayal of violence in relation to its purposes, applying the Yale Film Studies along the way.

Throughout Tokyo Ghoul, a grand total of 13 scenes of violence are selected and analysed using the research framework. These scenes range from Kaneki being attacked by Rize in the beginning of the series and having to survive as a half ghoul and half human after her organs are transplanted into him, Nishiki taking a bite out of his human girlfriend due to his burning hunger, and Tsuukiyama fighting Touka so as to be able to eat Kaneki, to Hinami and Touka killing Mado together, Jason torturing Kaneki and Kaneki eventually feasting on Jason after defeating him. Out of these 13 scenes, 12 scenes clearly belong to the category of Violence within the Social Group, while one scene in particular stood out initially. This scene showcased Nishiki battling his inner hunger and desire for human flesh so that he will not hurt his girlfriend, but eventually failing to do so and taking a bite out of her shoulder.

Upon closer examination, it is realised that this scene does not strictly fall under the categorisation of each form of violence. While it is too generic to say that Nishiki taking a bite out of his girlfriend is an indication of Violence within the Social Group, it also does not suffice to say that it is Violence in the Family, as the violence portrayed is almost entirely non-interactive, as his girlfriend is not shown to have had a role to play in culminating this violence, be it attempting to dissuade Nishiki or sacrificing for him, besides appearing as the bait for Nishiki. This scene was ultimately discarded because it was beyond the scope of the research framework.

Nonetheless, under the broader umbrella of Violence within the Social Group, three key areas have been identified, namely the struggle for identity and the assertion of the self, the need for an escape and the desire to transcend social boundaries. After applying the theoretical understanding of violence as a manifestation of conflict where the subject is at diametrically opposite ends with the abject, the three main key areas of discussion emerged, namely, the portrayal of violence as diametric tensions which are simultaneous seeking and denial of self-assertion, escape and transcendence. The film analysis aspects of Mise-en-scene, Editing and Lighting (Yale Film Studies, 2002) are applied to establish a link between the concept behind the scenes of violence and the portrayal of the scenes on screen.