benlehman: (Beamishboy)
benlehman ([personal profile] benlehman) wrote2005-05-18 12:22 am

Definition

Here's an exercise, for all of us, apropos of my last post

What do you mean when you say violence? When I say it, and when I read it, it has the main meaning of "doing harm to another person, especially physical harm." Other people seem to have other definitions to it, with varying levels of positive stuff, negative stuff, and defensibility as moral action.

Being a word geek, I also immediately checked the dictionary after I wrote that. Now, I know that just 'cause some balding, middle-aged English professor wrote it don't make it so, but I think it is important to look at this and say "is this like what we mean? Is it strange or unexpected? What parts?" I'm presenting it as a tool for starting discussion, a neutral thing that we can react to, not as a final authority.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

My reaction to this: I think it's a pretty correct definition. Their (1) is clearly the closest relative of my definition, but much more strongly stated, because it includes the necessity of violation, damage or abuse. I would have said that the word carried that sort of connotation, but I wouldn't have gone so far as to say that it necessarily crossed that line. It makes sense, though. "Violence" and "violate" do come from the same root.

Some guidelines -- what this post is about is to explore other people's definitions and meanings. It is emphatically not to argue about what is the "right" definition or come to any sort of agreement about what the word means. Rather, it is aimed at gaining some understanding about what others might mean. If you reply to someone else, make sure that you are talking about "oh, I hadn't thought of that" or "that's interesting, could you expand on it" and not "you're wrong" or any of its veiled variants ("I don't see how you..." or "I can't understand this" or "that's stupid" are common ones.)

[identity profile] lordsmerf.livejournal.com 2005-05-18 04:54 am (UTC)(link)
Oh, interesting question! One of the reasons it is so interesting is that I know exactly what I mean when I say it, but I find that I'm having trouble expressing it.

First, violence is objective. It isn't a question of state of mind, you do not have to intend violence to do violence. That's pretty important to my definition. That said, I think that violence is highly circumstantial (more on that below).

Second, I'm not sure that I agree that violence is about violation despite the shared root. The problem is that I don't know exactly what it is about. Is striking someone always violent? I'm not sure... A playful punch to the shoulder is clearly different from an injurious attack on the shoulder, but is it a difference of degree or a difference of kind? What about a playful punch to the shoulder of someone who really doesn't want you punching them in the shoulder playfully?

So, to me, I find that violence is like obscenity: "I'll know it when I see it." But that doesn't satisfy me, I'd love to be able to articulate it. I'm going to watch this thread, maybe someone will say something that helps me out.

Thomas