That's not violence...is it?

VIOLENCE...we all know what that is right?

...sure, it's when someone hits another person...simple.

...oh, wait...or hits an animal...

Cool...that it?

...hold on...let me think about this...I'd say it could be the threat of hitting someone too...yep, that's it.

Right, so just those three things? What about being forcibly displaced from your home due to conflict or unrest...is that an act of violence?

Umm...yeah, I guess...I mean...no, wait...umm...I dunno!

It’s not that simple, is it? In fact the more you think about it, the trickier it gets. To be honest, I haven’t been that fair by putting you on the spot. Before we go too much further we should probably define the word ‘violence’, or at least look at some common definitions.

Jacquin (2020) in Britannica defines it as ‘an act of physical force that causes or is intended to cause harm’. This is what would be called a minimalist conception of violence or MCV (Bufacchi, 2005), in other words, a fairly narrow view.

The World Health Organisation (Krug et al., 2002) goes a bit further with;

“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”

Sociologists such as Audi and Galtung, as Bufacchi (2005) asserts, have helped broaden this definition to one that would be considered a comprehensive conception of violence or CCV (p. 198).

So what’s the broader definition I hear you ask. Well, you could go to the Bufacchi link above if you’ve got time to read his journal article or here is one that Audi (1971) prepared earlier;

“Violence is the physical attack upon, or the vigorous physical abuse of, or vigorous physical struggle against, a person or animal; or the highly vigorous psychological abuse of, or the sharp, caustic psychological attack upon, a person or animal; or the highly vigorous, or incendiary, or malicious and vigorous, destruction or damaging of property or potential property”

Ok, that’s a mouthful, I know, and it opens up a whole can of worms. If it’s that broad, it is so hard to place it neatly into society. A narrower definition helps to create boundaries around what we consider violent. Otherwise, we might be able to pass anything and everything off as violent if we can make it fit that definition.

It seems that Audi's definition eludes to violence as an act of violation, not necessarily an act of force. I said it wasn't simple. It appears we may have gotten ourselves into a hole.

Let's keep digging...

For a deeper dive into some of the aspects of the WHO and Audi's descriptors...and more, click here

If not, check out the video below for some alternate views on the subject.

So, you've seen a little of how sociologists have explained it and developed a couple of categories for a conception of violence. Remember, a minimalist conception of violence or MCV, an act of force, and a comprehensive conception of violence or CCV, an act of violation (and so much more).

Any idea where you stand on that yet? Wanna find out? Why not take the quiz? it's quick, easy and hopefully enlightening.

What the first graph shows (Blue) is a scale of your conception of violence

0 being, a fully embracing, comprehensive concept of violence (CCV)

100 being, the most narrow or minimalist concept of violence (MCV)

Your score shows where you are on that 0-100 scale, in other words, how broad or narrow your concept is likely to be.

The second graph (Yellow) is a meter (in %) of your acceptability of violence. It is a calculation based on the distinct values selected on the quizzes sliding scale from 0-5. It represents your personal view on how acceptable violence is. The second column is the modal average of yours and everyone else's personal scores to show a public view.

Hope that helps, and I hope you got something out of the process.