Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach to a Deeper Understanding
Violence is a word so often used, and an action so often seen in today’s society, yet it is such a complex term to describe. When one thinks of violence, thoughts of physical abuse and aggression immediately come to mind for most, but my time at Lake Head has challenged me to delve deeper into the concept and its many intricate components.
If a boy comes to school and bullies or physically injures another child, it is considered violent. But what about the people that stood around and watched or took pictures instead of intervening, can this not be considered violent as well? And what if the bully had learned this behaviour from an abusive parent, or was acting out because of some trauma at home that planted the seed of aggression in him earlier that day. This leads me to my next question, who is really to blame in this situation? The cycle of violence is very relevant in this scenario because if the child is witnessing extreme acts of violence during crucial stages of his development, he or she will be more likely to exhibit violent behaviour in the future. Although the hypothetical parent did not directly injure or bully a child, they set off a chain of events that ultimately lead to this child being harmed. Thirdly, what if the child that had ultimately been bullied, was also frequently bullying other children at school, is the violence inflicted on said child justified or excused? Although this example is small in comparison to the large and devastating acts of violence taking place all over the world, it raised some very relevant questions one can consider when examining the ethics of any violent act.
At first, I found it difficult to come up with more than a handful of violent things that I have personally experienced, but when I expanded my definition of violence I began to recall less extreme situations where violence was still very much prevalent. For instance, things like watching a family member kick my dog away from the table, or even somebody slamming a door in my face during an argument, to me, are still acts of aggression and can be considered violent. I think that society as a whole, myself included, has become so numb to everyday violence, in which scenarios such as these are no longer considered violent in comparison to things like the acts of terrorism and murder being shown every night on the news.
When examining the concept of violence in today’s society, the role of the government must be taken into consideration. Thomas Hobbes said that society must transfer all power to an absolute sovereign, and that by doing so, the sovereign can not commit a violent act towards the people because it is not considered to be violent if we have elected said sovereign to make those choices for us. Although it is an outdated point of view, examples of this kind of thinking are still very prevalent in society today and we are constantly excusing the violent acts of our government. I’m curious to know if Thomas Hobbes opinion would have been different if he had at one point been a victim of police brutality. Is violence justified? Does the end outweigh the means? To what extent will society allow the government to get away with blatant violence, as long as it benefits our people in the long run? As I am writing this, I am struggling with the fact that so many of the questions I have raised in this reflection paper, I had not thought to ask before. It is difficult to come up with a definition of violence, but then have that definition change depending on the scenario and the hierarchy of the people involved. These are also things I would consider when attempting to form a definition about something so complex.
Lastly, as a woman and a proud feminist, domestic violence is something that I hope to gain a deeper understanding of as well. If for example, a husband hits his wife one time during an argument, is he considered a violent person as a whole, or was it simply a violent act performed by someone having a bad day. To me, in this situation, the obvious answer is that the man is a violent person and there should be extreme consequences. But if I apply this theory to other scenarios, even ones involving myself, I do not come to the same conclusion. For example, if I were to lose my temper and slam a door one day, it is not something I would normally do and I would not label myself as a violent person based on this one act. Furthermore, what about an accidental act of violence? Is a person considered violent if they hit somebody with their car while drinking and driving? Although the act itself could and should have been avoided, if the intent was not there to hit and injure someone, is it still considered violence? And are they now deemed a violent person?
While examining all the different considerations of violence, it has raised more questions than answers. I have at this point decided that a wide definition of violence is necessary to incorporate all the different aspects, and look forward to filling in the blanks to form said definition as the course progresses.
