Global View on Violence - Essay Example

?Global View on Violence Introduction The bombing of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, the genocide in Rwanda and the Hindu reprisal against Gujarati Muslims last 2002 are examples of violence that made it to international headlines in this current century. Death tolls were insurmountable and the lives affected were in total wreckage. An equally disturbing phenomenon which does not abruptly end lives, silent violence can also be heard from famine, racism, and discrimination. The global view of violence is comparable to liquid as it takes its various forms from its definition of each culture, reshaped by purpose and the manner by which it is avoided. Since looking at an intercultural perspective offers a broad image of violence, this paper will examine the definition and explanation of violence in sociology, since the uniqueness of societies and its norms are the ones initiating it and are also directly affected by it. Although it takes on different forms of which it is dependent on culture, the universality of violence would refer to the reaction of humans to deal with certain deprivation and as an act of fitting to the situation. Defining ‘Violence’ The World Health Organization (WHO) (n.d., p. 3) described violence as a “part of human experience” where “its impact can be seen in various forms, in all parts of the world.” The specified ‘human experience’ is already broad in its sense, but when referring to violence, it is mostly coming from negative perception. Through this definition, the World Health Organization agrees to the claim that ‘violence’ covers varied issues where the definition would surely undergo revisions; yet, all of which would be considered correct. The cultural view of violence depends on the specific ‘human experience’ and is entirely unique in one aspect or another, which makes the definition of violence more complex. Steger and Lind (1999, p. 24) improvised a way on defining violence without disregarding even one cultural background by categorizing it according to three disciplines where violence might have stemmed: Philosophical, Political and Sociological. A philosophical view of violence which is also called a “wide” definition is centered on structural violence. This has been expounded by Garver (n.d., cited in Steger & Lind, 1999, p. 24) wherein his definition of violence is about the unreciprocated needs of the society, or if there were alterations in the normal social process, specifically termed as ‘quiet violence.’ Quiet violence would exist if “people are deprived of choices in a systemic way by the very manner in which transactions normally take place” (Garver, n.d. cited in Steger & Lind, 1999, p. 24). Somehow, Garver’s definition is congruent to Galtung’s (1969, p. 169) assertion about what violence is. According to him, violence occurs when “the potential is higher than the actual is by definition avoidable and when it is avoidable.” In other words, violence, according to Galtung is when an action is entirely preventable and yet, no one is able to stop it from happening. A firm example posed is the case of a tuberculosis patient. Years ago, when tuberculosis inflicts death among people, the severity of the disease would not be considered violence since there were no effective medications available against it. However, if it has occurred now, such situation is considered violence because treatments for the said disease are available, and therefore, such deaths would have been preventable. In addition to Steger and Lind’s (1999) classification, sociological definition of violence might have to be the most overseen among the ones mentioned, since it deals with the acceptable and unacceptable types. In one way or another, sociological violence is politically driven especially when pertaining to the “illegal or illegitimate use of force” (Steger & Lind, 1999, p. 24). For example, the acts of the military men during war cannot be considered violence in this sense since they are permitted by the state to do so, but the riot of student protesters as a result of fighting back to the police is violence because of some legal reasons, such as not being able to secure a permit to rally or protesting in the places not specified in the permit. In this end, one can have a clear understanding of what sociological definition explains; however, the dilemma resides in the fact that there are more than one parties involved in violence and their reasons could not entirely be rejected or directly labeled as legal or illegal. Since what a person believes might not be true for others, then violence may not be violent for other people. The political definition is another story. This was described by the researchers as ‘restricted’ since it is “concentrate[d] upon positive interpersonal acts of force usually involving infliction of physical injury” (Steger & Lind, 1999, p. 24). Such definition describes violence as a political authority, where like the sociological definition, is also governed with reasons. It is considered as a ‘positive interpersonal act of force’ since it aims to attain the common good. The event in Canada last March 16 is an example, where a handful of protesters were detained by the Montreal Police and charged them with “mischief and assault” (Anon., “258 People,” 2011, par. 1). As reported, the Montreal Police acknowledges the freedom of the Canadian citizens to express their sentiments, however, “the Code stipulates people cannot walk in the street without a proper permit” (Anon., “258 People,” 2011, par. 3). In other words, such violence serves as a remedy of an undesirable behavior and aims to see an improvement from the said behavior. Among the posed definitions of violence, it is hard to distinguish a general factor existing between them. The feasibility of having a general theory about violence is rejected by Alasdair McIntyre saying that it is too impossible since it is governed by cultures and personal beliefs which are entirely diverse. However, in the research by Karstedt and Eisner (2009), the general theory of violence is viewed positively. Karstedt and Eisner (2009, p. 4) compared it to “apples and pears, feathers and leaves, bricks and roofs all fall to the ground,” that no matter how different they are and their manner of falling, Galileo Galilei still was able to discover a general theory of falling. The same case is attributed in forming the general principle of violence. Per Olof Wikstrom and Kyle Treiber (2009) believe that violence is a “situational action” which means that violence is a moral action, and every form of violence is subject to the explanation of “moral decision-making.” This lead to the development of Situational Action Theory as a general theory of violence. Per-Olof H. Wikstrom and Kyle H. Treiber (2009, p. 77) contend that the theory is a combination of “deterministic approaches (behaviouristic) and voluntaristic approaches (free will)” and could be explained regarding following individual reasons. For example, terrorists kidnap foreigners to transmit to the government their political goals. The emergence of a general theory is directly opposed by Lawrence and Karim (2007, p. 7) stating that there could be no general principle governing violence, and that each act of violence is unique. They contend that apart from practice, a general theory of violence is just not feasible. However, in the notions about violence stated before the discussion on Situational Action Theory, one can observe that the general theory posed by Karstedt and Eisner could be relevant to other theories mentioned. In the case of Steger and Lind’s (1999) classification in relation to the assumption of Karstedt and Eisner, what they revealed to be sociological, political and philosophical could be what the Situational Action Theory is made of. Examining the theories, one can observe that violence depends on the ‘situation’ and how people react to this potential violent situation. A person’s behavior and free will determines the outcome. Social Situation and Violence There are many types of violence existing in the society nowadays. Especially in the time of freedom of speech, freewill, and political skepticism, it is not unusual to experience or witness violence in its different forms. Although not entirely a violent being, some people tend to act violently because it is what the situation calls. This serves an addendum to Per Olof Wikstrom and Kyle Treiber’s Situational Action Theory. Collins (2009, p. 1) said that violence does not only deal with violent people, but more of not violent individuals in a violent situation. The practice of violence may differ but the objective is to fill in the gap of deprivation whether it is for the common good, for personal interest with negative outcomes. Endeavors undertaken by people in a violent situation prove that what Freud believes must be true. In his book Civilization and its Discontents, he highlighted in the first chapter the wants of men and how they are seeking more as they achieve it. Freud (1962, p. 11) explicitly stated that the efforts to achieve the so-called “false measurement” leads humanity to violence as they struggle and fight for what they needed and eventually describes it as a “practical purpose of enabling one to defend oneself against sensations of unpleasure” (Freud, 1962, p. 15). Not all forms of violence are depicted to have bloodshed and anarchy. Silent violence, as coined by Michael Watts in his book Silent Violence identified famine as a result of “a century of economic and social transition” and violence in itself because it was human action and weak-decision making which caused it in pursuit of a larger political goal (n.d. cited in Robbins, 2004, p. 77). Watts pointed out that the famine in Nigeria back in the 80’s was generated as an act of political preservation. This would be a good example of the Situation Action Theory, only that the issue presented by Watts goes right through the effects of such violence in a macro level. Also, the recent event in Somalia indicated that silent violence like famine can cause turmoil in economy and healthcare. Campbell (2011, par. 2) reports that “over the last six months, the drought in South Central Somalia has deepened an already catastrophic humanitarian situation.” Racism is also a form of silent violence since it affects a particular racial group emotionally and psychologically. Racism also puts boundaries on employment and educational opportunities which would make their lives complicated and elevates the issues on unemployment and social stress as factors of an inconvenient life for racial minorities. The evolution of street gangs is largely due to racial discrimination. Covey (2010, p. 8) argues that street gangs promote “racism and racial violence.” However another argument states that the youth involvement in street gangs is not necessarily promoting racism but at act of protecting themselves against racism and racial violence, as their membership would assure them protection. The result of such membership is the contrary to what the youths have expected since violence is most prevalent among gang groups and rivalries. Meaning of Violence on a Global Perspective It has been mentioned that the definition of violence can be varied since it is subject to opinion, beliefs and moral background or in a larger context, culture. However varied the definitions may be, a common factor indicated that violence happens due to neglect. The feeling of being deprived is what inspires violent acts. Moser (2004, p. 169) asserts that deprivation accounts for the act of violence. Especially in the case of livelihood framework, the insecurity of having the basic and most essential needs push individuals to do petty to serious crimes. In the case of the violence in Yugoslavia, as mentioned in Schmidt, et al. (2001, p. 41) in their book The Anthropology of Violence and Conflict, Yugoslavians believed that such violence happened because “some agent [had] stolen their pleasure” of “affluent and liberal past.” The efforts of achieving or getting back what was once for them caused political turmoil in Yugoslavia. Similar situation also happened in Kenya where 21,000 Kenyans voiced out to protest their deprivation of liberty (Slye, 2011, par. 7). Conclusion Violence has different faces, and it may be difficult to form a boundary up to which extent would it be similar for all cultures. When talking about a general theory of violence, violence occurs through two things: 1) Wikstrom and Trieber’s Situational Action Theory; and 2) deprivation. The two are the larger umbrellas of the different acts of violence each society must face. Therefore, the extent to which the meaning of violence is shared across cultures is from the different experiences which made them resort to violence, but in general, their aim circulates with the two theories. References Anonymous, 2011. 258 people arrested at Montreal police protest. CBC News, [internet] 16 Mar. Available at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ story/2011/03/16/police-protest-brutality.html [Accessed 22 March 2011]. Campbell, E. F., 2011. Looms in Somalia as crisis marks 20th year. ReliefWeb, [Online] 07 Mar. Available at: http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/KHII-8ER4A2?OpenDocument [Accessed 23 March 2011]. Collins, R., 2008. Violence: a micro-sociological theory. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Covey, H.C., 2010. Street gangs throughout the world. Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher. Galtung, J., 1969. Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6 (3), pp. 167-191. Freud, S., 1962. Civilization and its discontents. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. Karstedt, S. & Eisner, M., 2009. Introduction: is a general theory of violence possible? International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 3 (1), pp. 4-8. Lawrence, B.B. & Karim, A., 2007. On violence: a reader. North Carolina: Duke University Press. Moser, C.O., 2004. Urban violence and insecurity. London: IIED. Robbins, P., 2004. Political ecology: a critical introduction. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. Scmidt, B., et al., 2001. Anthropology of violence and conflict. New York: Routledge. Slye, R., 2011. Kenya: debate on ICC process misplaced. allAfrica.com, [online] 21 March Available at: http://allafrica.com/stories/201103220239.html [Accessed 23 March 2011]. Steger, M.B. & Lind, N.S., 1999. Violence and its alternatives: an interdisciplinary reader. New York: Palgrave McMillan. Wikstrom, P.H. & Treiber, K.H., 2009. Violence as situational action. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 3 (1), pp. 75-99. World Health Organization, n.d. Violence--a global public health problem. [Online] Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2002/9241545615_chap1_eng.pdf [Accessed 22 March 2011]. Read More