The Blog

A Deeper Dive

Well, if you made it this far, you probably either clicked the wrong link, or you are genuinely interested in looking into this subject a little deeper.  Either way, you're here now, so let's dive in, shall we.

Firstly, let's talk about force.  It's problematic to use as a descriptor, to be honest.  As you may recall the world health organisation (2002) defined violence as 'the intentional use of physical force' 

Why is that problematic?  Well, imagine now a scenario where an armed criminal was rampaging through the city, assaulting the public, destroying property, endangering both himself and others. Now, enter the Police, after careful surveillance, they intercept the criminal, disarm him and he is thrown to the ground and cuffed, all with the use of force (Riga, 1969). Crisis averted. Violent? Yes, necessary?.....ah.

Or as Riga points out, 'the physical force used to restrain a baby...from falling off the stairs' (p, 143) should not be considered violent due to the 'use of reason' in exercising this power of protection.  He goes on to say that force is exerted in other pursuits, sporting and sexual for instance, and yet when outworked as 'passions' the subtle line between force and violence tends to widen.  However, when that 'passionate force' is imposed upon someone against their will, it quickly crosses the line back into violence.

The blurred line between force and violence is no more tenuous than in a context such as war.  Father Riga postulates in his 'Violence: A Christian Perspective' (1969), that when force is played out on the field of conflict, and a soldier shoots and kills an enemy combatant, this is not considered murder but a form of self-defence in a 'just war' against an unjust aggressor.  That's probably a whole 'nother can o' worms which we will leave there for now. 

Peace.

More questions than answers

We started leading down a whole different garden path in the previous entry, where it does bring us to though are the questions, 'is violence always wrong? , is it justifiable?'.    

...well, that depends on the interpretation, doesn't it? 

Oh good, you're still here.  It sure does, thanks for pointing that out.  We're back to trying to define it.  At its root the word violence comes from the Latin 'violare', a verb that means 'to break, violate, infringe, profane'  (‘Violare in Wiktionary’, 2021) as well as to dishonour and to outrage.  Violate and infringe are interesting as it starts to tease out aspects such as justice and rights (Runkle, 1976).  

Runkle (1976) sets the dilemma up by using an analogy of, people who believe in tax liability and fines for infringements find nothing 'violent' about the governmental process, whilst those that believe that all governments are illegitimate feel tax and punitive action are a violation, unjust and, an outrage (p. 368)

Let me set it in a slightly different light,  Picture, if you will, a situation where there are a number of protesters in the CBD right before the peak hour hits in the morning.  They have cable-tied themselves together and also to the centre bollard on one of the busiest intersections in the city.  As the commuters stream in, the city is in deadlock and chaos.  The Police have cordoned off the intersection and are diverting traffic and pedestrians.  The workers can't help but feel that their right to move freely has been impinged upon.  

Adversely. the protestors are adamant that their actions are justified in order to shed light on the injustices by the government in regards to asylum seekers in offshore detention.  The Police begin to try to break up the protest by force, trying to get the entangled limbs free enough to cut the cable ties without causing injury to the protesters.

Mmmm...a right old pickle.  It's a chicken and the egg scenario here folks.  Which came first, the right to protest being extinguished?  The right to seek asylum ignored?  The just use of reasonable force to compel people to move on?  The seemingly sensible view, that to overthrow injustice, one needs to break the rules and ignore the rights of others only to champion the rights of another cohort to try to restore justice for them....sheesh!

I'll be honest, I don't know the answer, nor do I know whether that was at all relevant to the question.  The point is that when hypothesizing, it begins to get the ol' brainbox firing up to see the dilemma and to start to engage with it.  To critically reflect and to begin to challenge either my long-held beliefs or to kickstart a thought process hitherto uncovered.   

Peace.        

And another thing...

In the immortal words of Forest Gump, "since I'd gone this far, I might as well just...keep right on going."

In this entry, I thought we might tackle animals. Not literally tackle them of course, because that would be violent and wrong.  Or would it?

I heard a story recently that was quite troubling.  During a particular outbreak of a virulent disease, a sheep farmer was faced with a dilemma. A whole paddock of sheep had begun to show symptoms of said outbreak, and the decision had to be made quickly as to their fate.  If he waited too long, all of the sheep on the property would come down with the virus, leading to trauma, pain and death, not to mention loss of livelihood.  The most 'humane' thing would be to cull the herd to prevent the spread.  

This would involve quickly isolating the infected, suspected infected and livestock in close contact, whether in good health or not, then systematically slaughtering them.  A lengthy, tiring and unsavoury task.  It involves corralling the animals into a pen, selecting one, tackling it to the ground and administering a 'captive bolt device' to the head, and lastly, a process known as, 'exsanguination', "performed by cutting the main blood vessels; at the top of the heart via the thoracic inlet (chest stick) or in the neck (neck cut)" (DPI, 2018).

...what the hell, you could have warned me. 

Yeah, sorry about that, wasn't sure you were still here.  So in that story, it should be noted that the young farmer relating the story is a gentle, empathic and understanding individual.  Not a violent man by most people's reckoning.  Although in this case, he became, by virtue of his occupation, extremely violent in his actions.  Justified violence perhaps?

But this story aside, does a person who works in an abattoir automatically qualify as a violent person?  After all, they kill living beings as a profession.  Well, not necessarily I would say.  However, research out of the US does show "a correlation between the opening of a large slaughter operation in a community and rates of violent crime" (Fitzgerald et al., 2009, p. 1960).

In the past, we have been able to argue that animals aren't like us; we have 'culture' say the sociologists.  In modern times and with advances in science and animal studies we have come to see that there is a lot more to some of these 'dumb' beasts than we first gave them credit for.  It is becoming harder and harder to hear the cry of the vegan movement and pass it off as 'tree-hugging' paranoia.  The rise of plant-based alternatives is becoming less 'alternative' and more 'every day'.  Will it one day be considered violent 'NOT' to be a vegan?  

At some point, we will get into, "animal products [...] in our economy, in the form of meat, eggs, dairy products, leather, wool, silk, cosmetics, soap, toiletries, and medications. Animal products, in drywall, linoleum, paint, and adhesive for wallpaper and carpet" (Irvine, 2008, p. 1954).

But that's for another can o' worms, stroll down the garden path or run across America. 

Peace.

Next: "The Inescapable Ambiguity of Non-Violence" (Smith, 1969)....coming soon