In reflecting on the contributions to this collection, the afterword outlines three ways of understanding violence—direct physical force, structural violence and cultural or symbolic violence—and relates these to Steven Lukes’ three faces of power. It revisits Weber’s definition of the modern state as claiming a monopoly of the legitimate use of the first kind of violence, and contrasts that with the ways in which the actual practice of South Asian politics implies or requires violence. The example of state and non-state violence in Nepal in 2015 is used to illustrate these themes. This example brings out, as several contributions do, the importance of borders as violence-provoking sites of state sensitivity.

中文翻译：

---

后记

在反思对该系列的贡献时，后记概述了理解暴力的三种方式——直接的身体力量、结构性暴力和文化或象征性暴力——并将这些与史蒂文·卢克斯的三种权力面貌联系起来。它重新审视韦伯对现代国家的定义，即声称垄断了第一种暴力的合法使用，并将其与南亚政治的实际实践暗示或需要暴力的方式进行了对比。2015 年尼泊尔国家和非国家暴力的例子被用来说明这些主题。这个例子表明，正如一些贡献所做的那样，边界作为国家敏感的暴力引发场所的重要性。