Violence And Its Effect On The Road Of Violence

In the 1960s, Johan Galtung posited the construct of violence as a phenomenon generated by the existence of social barriers that deny needs satisfaction in certain sectors of society. Galtung's conceptual framework illustrates the relationship between the structure of society and the inequalities experienced by its citizens. Gilman's seminal definition of structural violence reads, “physical and psychological harm that results from exploitive and unjust social, political, and economic systems” (1983, p. 8).

“The practice of violence, like all action, changes the world, but the most probable change is to a more violent world” (Arendt pg 80). Violence is contagious, like a disease, which will destroy nations and our morals as human beings. Each individual has his or her own definition of violence and when it is acceptable or ethical to use it. Martin Luther King Jr., Walter Benjamin, and Hannah Arendt are among the many that wrote about the different facets of violence, in what cases it is ethical, the role we as individuals play in this violent society and the political aspects behind our violence.

For as long as humanity has existed, men have committed violence against one another. Assuredly, Nancy G. Guerra’s and Lyndee Knox’s entry on violence in the Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice affirms that, “As historical and cross-cultural records demonstrate, our evolutionary history is laced with examples of violence. Indeed, paleontological data reveal a rather continuous stream of human violence dating back thousands of years.” It is clear that violence is a part of human nature that has always existed and will likely never be eradicated. One of the aspects that all forms of violence seem to share is that, societally (in terms, at the very least, of Western societies), they are looked down upon. Consequentially, those who commit violent

Violence is one of the most exaggerated forms of physical aggression and it can exist for a series of reasons. It involves a person or a group of persons acting against another person or groups of persons with the purpose to achieve one or several diverse goals. In many cases violence results from individuals perceiving the acts of other people as hostile and thus wanting to act against these people before it is too late. Depending on the situation, more or less individuals might get involved in an act of violence, especially when they consider that it would be essential for them to do so.

David Nirenberg talks about two types of violence, “cataclysmic violence” and “systematic violence”. The first part of the book discusses “cataclysmic” violence, while the second part of the book focuses on “systematic violence.”

The world we live in today is filled with violence everywhere you look. Whether it be through the news, books, video games, or movies, society is constantly being bombarded with violence and war. Growing up, children learn at an early age that violence can solve any problem. Violence is never the answer. People who act out in violence ruin their own lives and others' lives as well. People die for no reason every day from unstable men, women, and children that act out violently. According to the WHO, World Health Organization, one person is killed every minute. Most problems of this world can be solved peacefully; however, people choose to act out violently instead of working

First of all, it is almost impossible to watch the news, or read an article on the newspaper without encountering the word violence in it. Karl Marx, main author of The Communist Manifesto and Frantz Fanon who wrote The Wretched of the Earth argued that the use of violence is always present and unavoidable. In the book Colonial Voices, the first chapter

Finding the Good in Violence Violence has always been a taboo topic, focused around the brutality of man. No one dares to speak of violence in a positive light, because the harm it causes greatly outweighs any other outcomes. Though seemingly miniscule, violence has brought about some constructive changes in today’s society. Violence can be constructive when it comes to deterring potential criminals from committing crimes as well as it has been essential to the reconstruction of government all over the world. More so, violence can be used as a template to learn from and to shape our society so that we can know the dangers of violence and steer ourselves away from similar violent acts that have been committed in the past.

One of the most common ways of defining violence is to only consider forms of criminal violence and to argue that violence is the use of force that has been prohibited by law (Riedel & Welsh, 2002, p.3). The Oxford dictionary when taking a legal dimension, defines violence as “the unlawful exercise of physical force”. This definition suggests that violence is harm that results in physical pain. It may be criticised for not taking into account emotional and psychological pain often associated with interpersonal violence. Interpersonal violence is said to include domestic violence, family violence, intimate partner violence, sexual violence, child abuse or elder abuse. Other forms of violence which occur within schools, workplaces, neighbourhoods and other organisations can also be considered interpersonal. These forms of violence may be economic, emotional, sexual or physical. Interpersonal violence includes acts which can be considered as violent or harmful. The main purpose of this essay is to critically assess how well this statement defines interpersonal violence.

In Violence (1998), C.A.J. Coady introduces the concept of violence as one that has been marked with confusion due to “lack of clarity about its meaning and about the moral status it should have in our development of public policy” (p. 1). He argues that it would be preferable to adopt a “restricted” definition of violence. To support this, he considers two popular views about violence and claims that both: 1. Have counterintuitive consequences and/or do not reflect ordinary language usage, and 2. Lack the ability to aid in practical decisions. He then argues that a restricted definition of violence would score higher on these considerations and consequently (given the lack of negative upshots) be preferable to either of the popular accounts.

My definition of violence is, physical or verbal behavior that is intended to cause pain and destruction. When comparing the competing definitions of violence with my own, I think my definition fits very well with the rest. After carefully reviewing the different definitions of violence and politics I found three different themes that go hand and hand with the two terms. My first theme is about the pursuit of power. With politics, people of hierarchy tend to have a need for higher power over others to make them feel satisfied. While with violence, the person enforcing violence tends to want power over the person they are trying to physically harm or dominate. My second theme is social manipulation and verbal abuse. I think these two correlate

Direct violence is the manifestation of the anger or frustration and the intention is to

Structural violence can come from individual, social and political bearings. Although structural violence is not derived from anyone

Structural violence is defined as a systematic way in which social structures harm people or put them at certain disadvantages over others. It is ‘structural’ because arrangements are made within the political and economic levels of the social world that favors one person while acting as a disadvantage to another. It is ‘violent’ because it can cause injury to people. One major example of this is the major crisis we’re seeing in Flint, Michigan.

The term violence brings to memory an image of physical or emotional assault on a person. In most circumstances, the person affected due to violence is aware that a violent action has been performed on that person. There is another form of violence where the affected individual, in most cases are unaware of the violence inflicted upon them. These types of violence are termed as structural violence. Structural violence is a form of invisible violence setup by a well-defined system, to limit an individual’s development to his full potential, by using legal, political, social or cultural traditions (Winter and Leighton, 1).