Following on from our lively discussion of smacking - there was some dispute about the use of the word 'violent' (that is, that this word implied an unwarranted aggression). I know online sources are a bit unreliable, but Wikipedia's definition is interesting:
"Violence is deliberate behaviour resulting in physical injury to other human beings, or more broadly to other animals as well, and is often, but not necessarily, associated with aggression. Some forms of violence are socially and legally sanctioned, others are crimes. Different societies apply different standards relating to approved and non-approved forms of violence.
Forms of violence include:
Assassination
Assault
Boxing
Corporal punishment
Domestic violence
Drive-by shooting
Dueling
Genocide
Judicial execution
War
Martial arts"
This is a more neutral definition of violence - in which case smacking is most certainly violent. It is just a sanctioned form of it.
35 comments:
The list of examples is certainly eclectic.
Violence is deliberate behaviour resulting in physical injury to other human beings
A medical operation causes physical injury to a human being, but eventually can result in healing.
Corporal punishment causes physical injury, but eventually can result in healing.
Not all operations result in health, likewise not all forms of corporate punishment will result in rehabilitation, but we don't call an operation violent if it has an adverse effect on the patient.
Same, same but different?
Sorry, work is a form of violence. The second last paragraph should read "corporal"not "corporate" punishment.
I like your slip chris :)
Can violence include verbal acts - or even, non-verbal language? This is an interesting point with regard to discipline of children.
Can violence be enacted on the non animated creation? In which case 'corporate' violence isn't so much a slip any more...
Indeed, not just the inanimate creation, I would have thought that Christopher would have picked up on the human focus of the definition. What of violence to animals?
I think verbal violence is an important concept, yet we must continue to distinguish it from physical violence because the kind of effect is quite different. We must also defend persuasion as a (potentially) non-violent activity. On some definitions, to disagree is to be violent, which makes a mockery of real violence: there is a world of difference between arguing against a racist and a lynch mob.
Here's a definition from the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy:
1) the use of force to cause physical harm, death, or destruction (physical violence);
2) the causing of severe mental or emotional harm, as through humiliation, deprivation, or brainwashing, whether using force or not (psychological violence);
3) more broadly, profaning, desecrating, defiling, or showing disrespect for (i.e. "doing violence" to) something valued, sacred, or cherished;
4) extreme physical force in the natural world, as in tornados, hurricanes, and earthquakes.
Is the accidental causing of inadvertant damage violent? I wonder whether there is an intention to cause pain/harm implied in most uses of 'violence'. The surgeon does not intend to cause pain or harm: both the ultimate end (health) and the means (use of anaesthetic) demonstrate this. The smacking parent intends the experience to be painful, even though the ultimate end is intended for good. Perhaps we could rightly call surgery prior to modern anaesthetic violent. Thoughts?
I agree that labeling speech as violent can go too far, speech can incite violence, and as mentioned it can cause psychological harm, but there is a spectrum and the mob is at the other end from the argument.
From the definition above I think 'to cause destruction' is possibly a better description than 'to cause physical harm'. The former describes the purpose more clearly than the latter. Also I think there are more grey areas where causing harm or injury can lead to something good, whereas attaching violence to destruction would seem to have less vagueness. (This assumes that violence and good are exclusive of each other).
Violence to animals?
I thought Descartes conclusively demonstrated that animals are merely complex machines and they only appear to suffer and make suffering-like noises when prodded with sharp instruments.
Bizarre Cartesian theories aside, an act of psychological violence (cage/small pen captivity) and physical violence (slaughter) goes into producing the majority of chicken and pig meat in modern industrial countries. Maybe no smack no sausage could be a new slogan that combines the causes of animal/child welfare groups. :)
very tempted to leave a barbed comment quoting Robert Doyle about the use of Wikipedia (which went something like this: 'don't be one of those people who quote wikipedia. it can be unreliable and is not subject to peer review - use a real source).
but that would be mean :)
Are you accusing smackers of behaviour that cases physical injury to children? Once again - I can't see that "normal" (ignoring the extreme) smacking causes physical injury.
The second reason not to call smacking violent is your use of a loaded negative word to paint your opponents as evil.
Try a word that is neutral.
I find Wikipedia's definition lacking. For example, imagine a fellow at dinner with his wife and children. His youngest child accidentally spills milk over the dinner table. The father becomes infuriated. He throws whatever is at reach at the scared child. It does not result in physical injury. But I would argue that is violence.
But even under Wikipedia's definition, as a previous poster pointed out, most forms of smacking do not qualify as violence because they do not result in physical injury, merely discomfort.
Hey MPJ, maybe this post should be linked back to the previous discussion so people can find their way there if need be?
Yes, throwing and missing is violent because the intention was to harm (and the result may well be harm to the thrown object, and the emotions of the child).
Many a smack handed out may not have the intention of causing harm but may inadvertently cause harm via humiliation or the smack reaching the child's head rather then their arm or hand. Surely then a smack is violent? Many such cases I have come across in child protection work.
Hmm, Byron is trying out an intention-ist model...
Anonymous: the whole debate is about the definition of the word 'violence'. I happy to say there may well be a case for legitimate use of force in all kinds of contexts. If you think it is loaded and emotive, consider your own conscience perhaps? ;-)
Fair cop on the Wikipedia...
What about animal on animal violence? Tyger tyger burning bright ... That is to say, is there a natural violence? and then, what about the killer whales playing cruelly with seal pups?
Hi Michael,
Your question about animal violence is a bit of a red herring I think and perhaps you can draw something from it for your book.
Did God give the animals the same nature and thinking abilities as he did to mankind? I'm not sure it is helpful to equate man and animal behavior as the one.
Also the question to ask about discipline and discomfort is to ask how does God discipline us as his own Children for our good? Can we draw parralels between the way God disciplines and the way we are to as parents?
Michael - I'm not sure why you are telling me to check my conscience - is it some sort of attack? I am feeling disappointed you have continued to avoid the issue and not dealt with what I think are fair and legitimate concerns. My frustration at your methods of discussion leads me to withdraw from interacting with you - which is perhaps what you want.
I have never questioned the legitimate use of force. But is it right to call the legitimate use of force violence? You set up a straw man. Violence is a loaded and emotive word, and is never (or rarely) used positively.
As others have pointed out:
- You don't call doctors violent when they cut into you.
- The intention of smacking is not to cause injury.
- The result of legitimate (and Rachel, you do have a valid point here) smacking is not to cause injury.
- An act of intended violence is still regarded as violent even though injury does not occur (the milk example)
The debate seems to be more about you justifying yourself in painting smackers as violent people rather then discovering what violence is.
I wouldn't want to limit my model exclusively to intentionism. Of course, other considerations are important. There is a significant difference between murder and murder-in-the-heart, and the former is worse than the latter, even though Jesus also warns sternly of the latter in a context where intentions were often (?) ignored.
Craig, why is animal on animal violence a red herring? I think we legitimately use the word violent of a charging bull, even if the precise overtones are different. Animals (at least some kinds) are still able to form intentions and carry them out. They can also be recipients of violence, feeling pain and receiving injury. As Christopher has pointed out, our Cartesian legacy serves us very ill indeed at this point.
Anonymous, I don't think Michael was attacking you (though he may have been - Michael?). Or at least that wasn't his intention (!). The fact that the result seems to have been otherwise might well cause him to reconsider the words he used. :-)
However, I'm still interested in your response to my earlier suggestion. The result of legitimate smacking is not to cause injury, though the intention is still to cause pain, even if not lasting injury. And this intention is not accidental, but is crucial to the activity of smacking. Is this significant?
Anon's offence seems to be coming from equating violence with evil, and feels that by Michael calling smacking violence, he is implicitly saying that smacking is evil.
Michael may think such things I don't know, but is violence evil?
Is violence always bad? People bang on about just-wars etc so surely there must be a place for just violence.
Maybe the smackers and anti-smackers should agree that smacking is violent, but not necessarily evil.
There is a long tradition of learning through suffering but more and more we shy from this idea, maybe due to its abuse, however I think there is still a place for it. Socrates, some other Greek I can't remember, Kirekegaard, John Dewey, Gadamer and I am sure many others recognised the importance of suffering, perplexity, anguish etc in learning. While this was mainly in reference to suffering of the soul or psyche I don't think that this should be seen as exclusive from a physical suffering.
So here is a little maxim to go by: A little violence to the soul maketh the man whole. ;)
Byron - good point. Yes, I suppose smacking is intended to cause pain, but for the future good. Doctors don't actual intend to cause pain, though they do! So yeah, it is significant.
Chris - I'm not sure I do equate violence with evil, though I can see why I come accross as that. I am convinced that there is such a thing as "justified" violence.
My problem is that calling someone violent has very negative overtones - it is never a positive label. So labelling smackers as violent is just plain unfair. To agree that smackers are violent puts them in a negative light, and hampers real debate. It's like calling those who eat meat "killers". Sure, there may be some truth in the label, but there is no attempt to engage the issue - just tar the opposition.
But by shirking from the label of violence don't smackers just avoid the debate about the role of smacking altogether and focus on the meaning of violence?
I mean if you just said "yes, smacking is violent but not all violence is bad, and this form is justified..." then maybe the nature and purpose of smacking could be discussed.
I am a little confused about the logic of harming for a greater good (in any situation not just smacking)... Does the intention to bring about good in any instance make an act to cause harm OK? Do we beat an animal so that it will later obey us and not run on to the road? And in the instance of a doctor causing harm are we confusing the words 'harm' and 'pain'. I am sure that we would all agree that there is good 'pain' in life (giving birth for starters) but I'm not sure that we would agree that there is good 'harm'...
Chris - I would hope that shirking from the label of violence would allow us to debate the role of smacking (not to say that a discussion about what violence is, is not an interesting discussion - but this debate was started in the context of calling smacking violent).
Rachel - You're right - I think there is a distinction between harm and pain - you can cause pain without harm. But then again - sometimes intentially causing harm (and not just pain) will bring about the greater good (in the context of war - but I'm on very shaky grounds here).
It shows how complex talking about this stuff is. Harm, pain, intentions, appropriate labels and results of actions.
Looking back over the discussion and the various definitions, I don't understand how (legitimate) smacking can be termed as violent. The intention is to help, and the result is not to harm, or physically injure, but to cause pain (but is causing pain an injury?).
Of course, illegitimate smacking is violent. Smacking with unrestrained force, with the intent to injure all falls into that catagory. Beatings are violent. An infuriated parent lashing out is violent.
And just for the record - I would count smacking that causes bruising as injury - and violent.
But anon you have no record. I can't tell if you are a different anon from the anon above your comment. I try to treat all anon's equally and anonymously.
Anonymous the first: I admit to goading you somewhat I have to say! I am not try to use violence as a 'label'; I would say that there are legitimate and positive and even well-intentioned uses of violence, at least theoretically.
However, the word 'violence' used in conjunction with the issue of corporal punishment has an impact that may make us reconsider our use of it as a means of discipline. If so, then great!
An interesting passage to consider is Heb 12, where the author (also anonymous - could it be the same person?!) urges us to see our hardships and pains as the Lord's discipline and infact confirmation of his love for us.
That's the issue though - perhaps "theoretically" labelling someone or something as violent is a positive thing, but in common useage it is not.
I'm not sure you have justified your use of language. In the abortion debate, is calling pro-choice people murderers a good thing, because it has an impact and may make them reconsider their opinion?
um...
yes?
Actually, abortion is one of those areas of our modern society where deliberate refusal to call an act by its real name has lead to an appalling consequence...
Is abortion violent? What a good question... Our society would say not, and would say that calling it violent was using emotive language. And we can't have that now, can we?
:-)
So I choice a bad example - or perhaps not. I'm not sure that the abortion debate will be won by name calling. I have no doubt abortion is violent and murder (and both in the most negative terms), but I'm more inclined to enter a rational discussion with opponants than resort to labelling and name calling.
Where do you stand on using deliberatly loaded, emotive and offensive language in debate? What about academic discussions? Is that how you interact with those you disagree with? Surely if you were marking an academic paper by a student, you wouldn't praise them for using such emotive language in their argument?
It seems a cheap and nasty trick to use emotive language in an attempt to sway people, that won't stand up to rigorous debate.
That is "choose" a bad example - not "choice" :-)
And on a different note, I'm feeling like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here, so I suspect it is time for me to leave this debate.
I hope my Anon status and stand hasn't upset too many people, and I appologise if it did - I never meant to.
Now don't take your bat and ball and go home!
But hang on a minute: I think you make a false distinction between so-called 'emotive' language and an allegedly more 'rational' language. Emotive language, even in an academic setting can be thoroughly appropriate - the question is whether it complements the subject under discussion. Is it truth-speaking or not? We all know the damage non-emotive euphemisms ('collataral damage') can do... If calling abortion murder exposes it for what it is, then so be it! Or, to call an 'affair' by its real name, 'adultery', for example...
I think I have argued that the particular word under discussion, namely 'violence', can be appropriately and non-emotively used in a broad sense. The real question is the legitimacy or otherwise of the violent act. I am happy to accept that you might have another definition of the word: fine. But still, the word points to a commonality between certain acts which involve causing physical pain (though not necessarily harm) to another.
If that leads to a rethink about how we treat children, then so be it! I think whatever emotive content there is in the word is justified.
BTW: I am not offended by the use of anonymity per se. However, some of the anonymous writers come accross as saying things in a way that they perhaps wouldn't if they were identifiable, and that rankles with some.
I concede the point that calling abortion murder may be part of a rational and fair argument. But only because if you can prove it is murder, you prove it is wrong. I do wonder what academic setting applauds name-calling as rational argument. But here you are trying to argue that violence is not negative, and if smacking is violent, it doesn’t make it wrong. Yet at the same you use it negatively.
Michael - you continue to argue unfairly. You have argued the extreme, and refused to answer legit questions. You goad your opposition, attacking the man, not the ball.
You claim violence is not negative, yet fail to show in common language where it is not. If I called you a violent man, that is an insult. We never say "gee it's good that justified war is violent".
In your search to justify your language, you use an online dictionary, when last month you mocked me for doing just that.
You have pushed to define "violence" so widely that many acts that aren't violent now fall under the definition.
You claim calling smacking violent does not unfairly negatively label those who disagree with you, yet admit the emotive content is good when it leads us to rethink how we treat children. Doesn’t this actually admit the negativity of the violent label?
You claim the real question is the legitimacy of the violent act, yet this is the exact thing you won’t tackle. You dubiously attempt to justify your label.
You know if you manage to label your opposition as violent, you have "won" the argument. Those who disagree with you now have to argue their violence is "justified".
You have shifted the argument away from the legitimacy of the act. The basis for your argument is emotive and loaded language.
If you really think the label doesn't matter, and is not negative, then why do you insist on calling it violent? Surely the discussion can continue to discuss the legitimacy of the act without the label?
You insist on keeping the label because you know that violence, despite your protests, is generally considered negative.
Comon Michael – you should be doing better then this. Stop using inflammatory language to bait your opposition and convince your followers.
Now, you wouldn't ever use inflammatory or emotive language, would you, anon? ;-)
Having done a quick whip round of online and offline sources (I did admit the limitation of this in my post you know), I will concede that usually violence is associated with physical 'harm' or 'injury' and intent to cause such (as per the definition Byron gave). So, the question perhaps is: is the pain of a non-abusive, carefully administered corporal punishment sufficient to be called 'harm' or 'injury'?
Hi Michael, Byron.
I replied to your post to mine Byron some time ago, but it seems to have got lost in the realms of cyber space.
I'm not sure that any animal would think of what they are doing is a violent act, no matter the severity of their action, and so I think it is difficult to bring the actions of animals into the equation. However, I will use Elephants behavior as an example for discipline, when the parents use force to bring their calves into line when they become unruly - they are as far as I know the only animal to do so.
I also am considering the actions of God, do we call God a violent God when he disciplines us? Are we permitted to call him violent when he disciplines us? Can we in good concience call Gods acts violent? Sorry getting into preaching mode
If God however does use means that are incomfortable and causes us short term pain for our own good, I believe that we also are given the authority to do so in disciplining our children in all Godliness.
Which in a round about way leads us to the cross...
Was this the violence of God?
Was not the bath that Egyptians took at the Red Sea at least somewhat violent? Hmm...
Here's O'Donovan:
'A private entrepreneur may deploy a stick of dynamite to clear a building site; it is force against persons that the state monopolizes. "Violence" and "legitimate force" are exclusive alternatives.'
- Ways of Judgment, 141, fn #16.
Craig - not quite sure which post you were referring to - could you post a link? Or come over to my blog and post a link in case I forget to come back here (as it has now fallen off the bottom of Michael's (too short) page, and I only came back because I found the O'Donovan quote and thought I'd add it). Or just send me an email. :-)
Ah, yes Byron... however, the question of legitimacy is not a straightforward one in itself. Clearly, with the death penalty for example, there was a point in the community when it was felt that the force legitimately used by the state was excessive - perhaps even 'violent'... likewise with teachers caning their pupils -which was done in my day, thought not to me!
Post a Comment