Definition

[benlehman]

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.)

Comments

[lordsmerf.livejournal.com]

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

[yeloson.livejournal.com]

I always use the term violence to refer to physical harm done to another living being. The circumstances, motivations, etc, are irrelevant. So, when I use the term violence, it could refer to the violence of killing a chicken (or piece of broccoli) for food, as much as a brutal murder. Linked into it, I use the word "aggression" for the purpose of definining actions which involve violation and malicious intent. I use assertive for being proactive, without necessarily being aggressive.

I suppose for me, though I recognize a big difference between the how's and why's of violence, I also am not afraid to say breaking someone's neck in self defense and breaking someone's neck in serial murder both involve someone getting their neck broken. :/

[itsmrwilson.livejournal.com]

My def. of violence is pretty much the same as #1 above, and I posted as much at one point on Anyway.

I think of aggression as the release of any natural animal desire to hunt, stalk, chase, fight, kill, etc, but I don't think of it as necessarily harmful. You can apply it toward healthy human activities. Playing football is aggressive, and so is duck hunting, and so is selling a used car (though to some visiting the lot is a harmful experience). It can be harmful or intimidating, but not absolutely.

[(Anonymous)]

I think you'll have a bit of difficulty trying to use a dictionary definition as a starting point. Every dictionary is going to bring its own flavor of definition to the word.

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.

[evilmagnus]

Stay where you are. OED Ninjas will dispose of you presently, for your comfort and convenience.

[bippus1.livejournal.com]

I think of violence as abrupt force, whether physical, emotional, verbal, aural. A crash can be violent. A disruption can be violent. A motion can be violent, without intending harm to another. Those are some basics, without looking further. I agree that people usually use it to refer to physical harm, but I think the word is useful with a broader definition.

[bippus1.livejournal.com]

The www.etymonline.com etymology is interesting:

c.1290, "physical force used to inflict injury or damage," from Anglo-Fr. and O.Fr. violence, from L. violentia "vehemence, impetuosity," from violentus "vehement, forcible," probably related to violare (see violate). Weakened sense of "improper treatment" is attested from 1596. Violent is attested from c.1340. In M.E. the word also was applied in ref. to heat, sunlight, smoke, etc., with the sense "having some quality so strongly as to produce a powerful effect."

[tquid.livejournal.com]

I use the definition popularized by the Nonviolent Communication movement. However, this is from memory, and through my own filters, so take with a grain of salt.

Basically, violence is to tend to my own needs without taking account of someone else's, when I know I am going against them. It bears further defining that "need" here isn't the typical sense. A "need" is a need as usually, understood, with the added restriction that it be universal; it does not require some specific person or thing to be fulfilled. The classic example is of waiting in a restaurant to meet someone. They don't show up. If I was needing companionship, I might be pretty upset, or angry even. If I needed relaxation, and was anticipating a difficult conversation, or that I'd get a delivery of obligations from the meeting, then I might be quite pleased at the no-show.

Further, not all force is violent. If someone is about to run into traffic, I might knock them down--something conventionally thought of as violent, though most people would agree not in a really bad way. Here intention does matter: my intention would be to protect that person.

I find this a useful and satisfying definition. Of course, it is pretty unusual, so I do find I have to explain it with little essays and examples. :) Finally, I don't find it helpful to go around using the term as a way of labelling other people's behavior: "George Bush is violent," "the way you spoke to me just now was really violent," etc. It's more a category so I can know what kind of behavior I would like to change (hopefully without violence) in myself or others.