Uncomfortable questions - reflections on the political nature of modern-day iconoclasm

For many observers and activists alike, the incidents of iconoclasm that occurred in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd were perceived as genuinely political acts – even if, or specifically because they exhibited a disturbing feature: the use of physical violence against statues as if they were living human beings. From a theoretical perspective, the combination of toppling statues with exerting and enacting violence on them can in fact be considered political – if Carl Schmitt’s concept of the political is interwoven with Horst Bredekamp`s idea of the image act. Iconoclasm, then, not only serves as an example of the performativity of objects and of a prevalent friend-enemy-dichotomy. Above all, it indicates the unresolved conflicts and fears within us, in other words, the uncomfortable questions that we come to ask ourselves and the way we respond to them. Modern-day iconoclasts in liberal democracies consider vandalism to be a legitimate political expression. The framework proposed here, however, allows us to reject violence enacted on objects not for reasons of morality and civility, but on the grounds of political theory.