Reflection Paper #2

Throughout this course, the definition of violence and ways to apply the concept has been dissected. Through examining articles, in class discussions, and examples, my perceptions of violence have been challenged and expanded. Although many of my thoughts on violence still remain the same as previously reflected, I now have a new, broader lens of thinking about violence.

As mentioned in my previous reflection, I did not end up with an all-encompassing, simplistic definition of violence. What I did learn is that violence has many contexts. Violence depends largely on situational factors, personal opinion, nature, nurture, and so many other factors; it is very difficult to define. Violence can be deemed as acceptable, depending on its purpose, victim, perpetrator, and what behaviours are included in that violence.

In the beginning of the course, the suggested readings were based on typologies of violence in relation to opting for wide or narrow definitions of violence. During this examination, I ended up siding with Wolff’s (1969) account on the need for a wide definition of violence. Wolff (1969) argued that we need a wide definition of violence because structural barriers and institutional obstacles can harm people just as much as physical violence. This wide definition has a social stance, and sees violence as occurring if another person has been harmed (Wolff, 1969). Before taking this course, I had already considered both physical and emotional abuse to be violent, which would be considered more towards a wide definition; however, I had not considered violence in terms harm done by institutions. In my previous reflection paper, I suggested that anything, which instills fear in another individual, is violent. However, this has now expanded to not simply instilling fear, but also subjecting another individual to harm or potential harm.

Coady (1986) failed to include certain types of important violence. He argued against wide definitions of violence because it is difficult to measure different types of violence. Although physical harm is an important aspect of harm, it ignores the emotional harm that can be done by non-physical violence. Arguably, this type of violence, in some instances, could be more harmful than physical violence. To narrow violence down to only one category, allows for other forms of violence to slip by unnoticed, and resulting in a lot of harm being considered less important.

Some authors made a compelling account on the idea of violence, such as Collins (2008) and his idea of tension and fear stopping violence, and therefore fights tend to happen when they are not evenly matched. According to Collins (2008), in order to triumph these emotional barriers such as tension and fear, one must attack the weak (McVeigh, 2015). This argument makes sense for domestic violence. Often we see in domestic violence that the weaker individual becomes the victim. This weakness can be described as lack of support from law enforcement and/or fear of leaving either because of fear of more violence or financial reasons. These vulnerabilities make an individual weak and easily targeted. Therefore, the abuser has an easier time overcoming barriers that could prevent the violence.

What I do not agree with is the victim blaming approach Collins (2008) provided. Collins (2008) argues that victims put themselves in the position of being victims and maintain that position. This is a dangerous assumption, especially in relation to how these cases are handled in the legal system. Offering an account that arguably supports victim blaming allows perpetrators to take no responsibility for their actions. I wonder what Collins (2008) would say for people that are victims of one-time assaults. How can one-time victims, who are not maintaining a position of victimhood, be explained? Arguably, an individual is unlikely to have done anything to put themselves in that situation, to argue otherwise, suggests that an individual can be held responsible for the violent action of another. I do however agree with Collins (2008) notion on learning to be a victim. Not in the context that they learn to play the victim role because they prefer to, but rather they learn the victim role through the way they interact with the aggressor. The victim may begin learning techniques for getting along with the aggressor, but learning these techniques is for the purpose of avoiding the aggression, because they feel the relationship is inescapable (Collins, 2008).

Another author I have difficulty siding with is Singer and the obligation to assist. Although we do have an obligation to assist people in need, we can only assist so much, depending on our own means. For example, a person who is only able to provide for his or her family should not be responsible in assisting someone who cannot afford to provide for at all. As much is this may be considered selfish, people must take care of their own first, and then when they are able, they may take care of others in greater need than themselves. Obligation should not be on those who are just slightly better off than those who are the least wealthy. Obligation should be on those who are the wealthiest, helping those who are in the greatest need. There needs to be a great sense of balance. We have overly wealthy individuals, and overly poor individuals, and those are the two groups that we need to balance. Sacrificing the slightly less poor to help the even more poor only exacerbates the issue.

These are just some thoughts that have emerged over the course of this semester from examining articles and in class discussions in relation to violence. Overall, this course has provided new insights on the topic of violence and new ways to apply the concept to various situations.

References
Coady, C.A.J. (1986). The idea of violence. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 3(1), 3–19.

Collins, R. (2008). Violence: A micro-sociological theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (pp. 39–82).

Collins, R. (2008). Violence: A micro-sociological theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (pp. 134–155).

McVeigh, R. (2015). Subjects of Violence: Victims [PowerPoint slides]

Singer, P. (1993). Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (pp. 218- 246).

Wolff, R.P. (1969). On violence. Journal of Philosophy, 66(19), 601–616.