![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.)
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.)
no subject
(Anonymous) 2005-05-18 06:10 pm (UTC)(link)For instance the Princeton University dictionary calls it simply "an act of aggression, the property of being wild and turbulent" and despite GreyOrms protestations to the contrary explicitly calls it synonomous with Force.
So I think we need to set aside any notion that there exists some universally understood official definition of the word.
To me violence, in the context I've been using it on these threads, is simply an act with the intent to inflict physical harm. Or to mark it a little finer, an act which knowingly puts another at high risk of suffering physical harm.
I, however, do not see any automatic moral wrong in inflicting physical harm on others. There are certainly conditions where inflicting physical harm IS morally wrong. But I believe there are also conditions where it is not.
For further clarification, I draw a distinction between arbitrary violence and constructive violence. I realize many people might not draw such a distinction, but I think history has provided ample evidence of the necessity for the controlled application of violent means for the greater good at all scales from individual to national.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2005-05-18 06:11 pm (UTC)(link)Ralph Mazza
Valamir
no subject
That is the whole point of this post -- set aside ideas that there is one meaning and see what our different meanings are.
Interesting definition. I can certainly buy it, and while I don't think that it is necessary for society to function, I can agree that a violent action, with your definition of violence, can at times be the right thing to do. But, then again, I'm not a pacifist.
It surprises me that you seem to think that your definition is what Ron means, and what Chris means. As near as I can tell, they mean something very different.
yrs--
--Ben
no subject
I'm fascinated.
What Ralph wrote is what I think. I'd love to hear from you, specifically, what you think I mean by violence. (Not Ron. Me.)
Christopher
Wait, let me clarify
The definition I found first online was, "An act of aggression."
Which lines up with Ralphs, as far as I'm concerned.
I see the phrase I just quoted, however, as valuable, because it puts the actual phyical harm on a continuum of agression. It may be at the far end, but it's on the continuum. Which is why Ralph assumes (correctly, I think) he, Ron and I are in agreement.
Because Ron didn't write, "Because the machine guns are firing, Mother Theresa is safe." He wrote that the emplacement are there, so Mother Theresa is safe. That is, putting the weapons out in view is an aggressive act . It falls short of actually causing harm. But unless one assumes that violence is implied in the placement of the machine guns, there's no point in putting them there. In short, putting them there is a violent act, in my view, even if they're not fired. Because if no one is willing to fire them, they're nothing but steel in the sun.
Because, let's be clear, neither Ron nor I said, "Go shoot everybody and take there stuff. I mean, not even close. The fact that he referred to violence being use to keep the peace: authories keeping the peace in India, the alliance the Quakers made with the Indians to serve as their proxies, suggests clearly he (nor I) am advocating a Road Warrior world.
I'll go out on a very sturdy limb and suggest Ralph sees things the same way.
Now, with that on the table, could you please tell me what you think I mean by violence?
Thanks,
Christopher
no subject
I think that this is the sticking point for the discussion and the difference in viewpoint of violence. While I will agree that application of violence throughout history has resulted in various good things; I would not argue that the use of violence was the best or right course of action simply because it resulted in those things.
Compare violence on a historical scale resulting in good things to violence on the personal scale resulting in good things. Let's take the example of corporal punishment of one's children as an example: Effective? Traditional? Sure, mostly.
Yes, one can effectively argue that it gets results, but that still doesn't mean it is a good thing to do. After all, would you throw your kid in a lake in order to teach them how to swim? Sure, it gets results...but that isn't really the point, is it?
I'm thinking that is where the main difference is for many of us, beyond definitions and semantics.