In previous works, I have mentioned the idea that language is the crystallization of thought, and that the words we use and the way we use them can reflect as well as change the way we think. And so, I think it is of grave importance to investigate how we use and understand the word violence.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines violence as: "the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy ." This seems to be the most conventional and widely used understanding of the word, one that many of us might indeed subscribe to. It puts violence in the boundaries of physical force with the intent to harm. And while I think intent could be a very important aspect for our own definition of violence, I think as a whole, this definition falls short.
The World Heath Organization defines violence as: "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation." This is no doubt a broadened definition, but also a more complete one. It mentions the intentional use of physical force, and it realizes the damage done in the threat of violence. It should also be noted that it includes deprivation as a part of its violence. Most importantly, it mentions power.
It should also be important to note a definition for power; The political scientist Michael Taylor defines power as "the ability to alter the range of someone's available actions."
While the WHO gets closer to the core of violence, but I feel we are not quite there yet. The philosopher Slavoj Žižeks has a definition of systemic violence, he writes it is "the violence inherent in a system: not only direct physical violence, but also the more subtle forms of coercion that sustain relations of domination and exploitation, including the threat of violence." This begins to turn back to power once again, the ability to dominate and exploit.
The thinker Mike Rugnetta gives, what appears to me, one of the most complete and appropriate definitions of violence out there. He defines it as "the whole or partial negation of agency through force." Here force does not only refer to direct bodily contact, but also as passive destruction, anything unwillfully done to a person. Truly, with this complete definition, violence becomes clear to us as the removal of autonomy.
So maybe we ought to reinvestigate some of the phenomena in the world around us using this new lens. I think we should now be inclined to say things like poverty, income inequality, gentrification, expansionism, discrimination, and hate speech are all examples of inherently violent things.
