What factors do you think are the most important in deciding between competing definitions of a concept like “violence”?

After reading this week’s excerpts, I do see a connection between all the excerpts and their approaches to defining violence. Arendt, Wolff, and Galtung all give their own clear definitions of power, force, and authority, which all seem to be intertwined with the concept of violence and how we can define or try to begin to define political violence. The excerpt I did find the most questionable would-be Arendt’s approach to violence. Her approach caught my attention the most because it was so tied solely to power, giving a very interesting way to look at political violence. She was very in-depth with her analysis, as she always is but in comparison to Galtung, I feel she was very abstract. The specific line that struck me the most from her excerpt proceeds by stating, “Indeed one of the most obvious distinctions between power and violence is that power always stands in need of numbers, whereas violence up to a point can manage without them because it relies on implements.”(Arendt, 42) She moves forward and gives clear distinctions between the definitions of some words she feels help to define violence, and those are power, strength, force, authority, and of course violence itself. All giving new perspectives on what can be considered true violence or causes therefore of violence. Arendt dives deep into these different categories, that entail what people consider political violence, but it is still hard to define true violence in the end with her abstraction. Following that concept of what defines true violence brings me to Wolff’s conception, in which he states, “the concept of violence is inherently confused, as is the correlative concept of nonviolence; these and related con- cepts depend for their meaning in political discussions on the fundamental notion of legitimate authority, which is also inherently incoherent.” (Wolff, 602) Wolff, just like Arendt gives definitions of power, authority, and force as well. And I can say I agree with him, in that defining violence, especially after reading Arendt, is very confusing and hard to define given certain social and political approaches. He states that violence cannot be clearly defined, because all people have different perspectives and opinions on what is right from wrong. If you find certain political activities as wrong, you may see acts against that ordinance as violent and wrong or even justified, leading to your own definition of what political violence can be.  Wolff leans mostly on the fact that authority is not enough to define violence. All of which I can agree with, but still left me feeling a little blurred between the lines. When it comes to political violence it is very hard to find one true definition of what truly can be called violent action but in some ways, we can put it in simple terms, Which was done with Galtung. The excerpt of Galtung was the most concise to me. Out of all the excerpts, I feel his approach was the least abstract, and very straightforward. His approach to defining violence is the most relevant to how I see society viewing violence nowadays. First, he simply defines violence as an act with intent to cause harm to another, whether it be by his definition of “structural or personal” violence. He goes more into detail with his six distinctions of what defines different forms of violence but put quite simply his approach to understanding and explaining violence to me was the most accurate, and comprehensible.

Hannah Arendt’s “On Violence” and Johan Galtung’s “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research” provide competing approaches to defining violence. Arendt suggests that violence is distinct from power and strength and is a means to an end that aims to achieve total destruction, while Galtung defines violence as the avoidable impairment of basic human needs, including physical harm, material deprivation, psychological harm, and deprivation of freedom and autonomy.

Arendt argues that violence is a manifestation of the absence of power, rather than an expression of it. According to her, violence arises when people resort to it as a substitute for power or when they are deprived of power. Arendt also distinguishes between violence and power, stating that power is the ability to act in concert with others to achieve a common goal, while violence is the power that is employed without limit, always with the aim of achieving total destruction. However, Arendt’s definition of violence may be too narrow, as it fails to recognize the complexity of the different forms that violence can take.

Galtung’s definition of violence, on the other hand, is broader, encompassing a wider range of actions that can cause harm. He suggests that violence can be direct, structural, or cultural. Direct violence is physical violence, while structural violence refers to violence that results from social structures and institutions, such as poverty, racism, and sexism. Cultural violence, according to Galtung, refers to violence resulting from cultural practices and symbols, such as the glorification of war and the celebration of masculinity.

In my opinion, Galtung’s definition of violence is more compelling, as it recognizes the systemic and indirect forms of violence that are often overlooked. Galtung’s definition also emphasizes the importance of basic human needs, such as freedom and autonomy, which may be impaired through structural and cultural violence. Furthermore, Galtung’s definition allows for a more comprehensive understanding of violence, which can help to identify its root causes and develop effective strategies to prevent and address it. When deciding between competing definitions of a concept like violence, it is essential to consider the context in which the concept is being applied. Depending on the purpose or goal of the analysis, one definition of violence may be more useful than another. For example, in a legal context, a narrow definition of violence may be required to determine whether a crime has been committed. However, in a social context, a broader definition may be necessary to identify and address systemic and cultural violence. Additionally, it is crucial to consider the potential consequences of using a particular definition, as it may have implications for how violence is addressed and prevented in practice.

In my opinion, the most compelling and interesting account of what the definition of violence is given by Arendt. She begins her argument early on by giving Engel’s definition of violence that it is an accelerator of the economy and on the same page goes into the violence involved in war and that rather than the historical notion that war is an “extension of diplomacy “ that it is in her opinion the opposite with peace being a continuation of war by other means (Arendt, 9). 

Her argument intrigues me the most because from this point of view it seems that violence is an act that can not only start wars but keep them at bay. Later on in the excerpt in part two, Arendt examines how this violence works it’s way into politics by explaining the means of power through violence. With this identification it seems to stand that with the implementation of or the threat of violence a population, whether foreign or domestic, can be controlled. 

On the opposite end, the argument that was least compelling to me was the research done on Predicting Attitudes Toward Violence. Although there is data and polls and such to back the claims of Blumenthal, I believe that there is better definitions and accounts given by the other excerpts. 

Blumenthal states, “It appears from the data that attitudes toward violence are strongly related to basic values, attitudes toward others, and the language used to describe events” (Blumenthal, 1302). This would stand to mean that the “attitude “ towards violence connotes its definition. This in my opinion lends too much to the general population in understanding what is and isn’t violent. If public opinion is what decides whether something is violent then we are free to give any and all understanding to the meaning of the word. This is established even in Blumenthal’s own research wherein some of the participants indicated that force or violence used by police was regarded as necessary by some and unnecessary by others. Regardless of the participants opinions on whether it was necessary or not it is still violent. 

To get a full understanding of the word and deciding what the complete definition should be it is important to understand past definitions and build on that foundation. Arendt does this by referring to the past while also recognizing, “it is a game that bears no resemblance to whatever war games preceded it” (Arendt, 3). This she said in regards to war but can be applied to violence in general. The previous definition of the word still holds value but it is important to take into account the world we live in now contains more subvert and indirect grievances that constitute violence. In order to choose a proper definition I believe it is important to compile both past and present events within their contextual standards. There also needs to be a limit on public input because it can skew our understanding.

The topic of defining “violence” is a complex one, and the authors of this week’s texts present different approaches and definitions. In my opinion, Johan Galtung’s definition of violence is the most compelling. This is because his definition of violence is compelling because it expands our understanding of what constitutes violence beyond just physical harm. Galtung defines violence as any avoidable impairment of basic human needs, whether directly or indirectly, and he argues that violence can take many forms beyond physical violence, including structural violence and cultural violence (Johan 180). This definition takes into account the many ways in which violence can manifest and recognises that violence is not limited to physical harm.

On the other hand, I find Robert Paul Wolff’s approach to defining violence to be the least compelling. Wolff argues that violence must involve physical harm and that other forms of harm, such as economic harm or psychological harm, cannot be considered violence. Economic harm, for example, can have a significant impact on people’s lives. In many cases, economic harm can lead to poverty, unemployment, and a lack of access to basic necessities such as food, shelter, and healthcare (Robert 610). This type of harm can have severe physical and psychological consequences for individuals and communities, including increased rates of illness, homelessness, and suicide. Similarly, psychological harm, such as emotional abuse or trauma, can have profound and lasting effects on individuals. Psychological violence can include things like verbal harassment, intimidation, or gaslighting, which can lead to feelings of fear, anxiety, and low self-esteem. This type of harm can be just as debilitating as physical violence and can even lead to physical health problems over time. This narrow definition overlooks the many ways in which harm can be inflicted on individuals and communities.

One of the most important factors in deciding between competing definitions of a concept like “violence” is the context in which the concept is being used. For example, (Monica D. Blumenthal’s pp 1300) study on attitudes toward violence demonstrates how cultural and societal factors can influence people’s perceptions of what constitutes violence. In her study, Blumenthal found that people who were exposed to more violence in their daily lives were more likely to have a broader definition of violence that included economic and psychological harm. Hannah Arendt’s essay “On Violence” (pp 25), also highlights the importance of context when defining violence. Arendt argues that violence is inherently unpredictable and can arise when power is threatened, but she also emphasises that violence is not the same as power. Understanding the context in which violence occurs is crucial for developing effective strategies for preventing and addressing violence.

Overall, the competing approaches to defining “violence” presented in this week’s texts highlight the complexity of the concept and the importance of taking into account the many ways in which harm can be inflicted upon individuals and communities. While some definitions may be more limited in scope, others take a broader view that recognizes the interconnectedness of different forms of harm. Ultimately, the most compelling definition of violence will depend on the context in which it is being used and the goals of those who are working to prevent and address violence.

The authors of this week’s texts present competing approaches to defining violence. Johan Galtung proposes a broader definition of violence, including physical harm and structural and cultural forms. Galtung argues that violence is a “social disease” that pervades all aspects of society, including political, economic, and cultural institutions (Galtung, 1969). On the other hand, Robert Paul Wolff argues that violence is inherently destructive and dehumanizing and is always a result of a power struggle. Wolff argues that violence is used to assert power over others and perpetuates a cycle of conflict and suffering (Wolff, 1969).

Personally, I find Galtung’s definition of violence to be the most compelling, as it recognizes the pervasive and insidious nature of violence beyond just physical harm. By including structural and cultural forms of violence, Galtung’s definition highlights the ways in which violence can be perpetuated through social institutions and systems of power. This allows for a more comprehensive understanding of violence and its underlying causes, which can inform more effective strategies for preventing and addressing it.

In contrast, I find Wolff’s definition of violence to be the least compelling. While it acknowledges the destructive nature of violence, it fails to account for the broader social and systemic factors that contribute to violence. Additionally, Wolff’s emphasis on power struggles as the underlying cause of violence overlooks the ways in which social inequalities and systemic injustices can create conditions that lead to violence.

When deciding between competing definitions of a concept like violence, it is important to consider the context in which the definition is being used and the goals of the analysis. For example, Galtung’s definition may be more useful in a broader analysis of social and political structures. In contrast, Wolff’s definition may be more appropriate for examining the dynamics of interpersonal violence.

Hannah Arendt also presents her own perspective on violence in her work “On Violence.” Arendt’s definition of violence differs from both Galtung and Wolff, as she argues that violence is distinct from power and force. Arendt suggests that violence is a form of action that aims to destroy and replace power with domination (Arendt, 1970). According to Arendt, violence differs from force because it lacks legitimacy and is not backed by authority or right. On the other hand, force is legitimate and can be used by those in power to maintain their authority. Arendt argues that violence is used by those who lack the power to achieve political goals and is a symptom of the breakdown of political institutions and norms.

Arendt’s definition of violence is compelling because it emphasizes the political nature of violence and its relationship to power. By distinguishing violence from the force, Arendt highlights the ways in which violence can be used as a means of challenging and subverting existing power structures. At the same time, her emphasis on the illegitimacy of violence underscores the need for political institutions and norms that can prevent its use and ensure the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

Overall, the different perspectives on violence presented by Galtung, Wolff, and Arendt highlight violence’s complexity and varied nature as a social and political phenomenon. While each definition has its own strengths and weaknesses, they all underscore the importance of understanding violence to address its causes and prevent its use in achieving political goals.

The most compelling text I found was Arendt’s “On Violence”. Throughout her text Arendt critically analyses the connections between violence, war, power, and politics, and directly addresses her two audiences: authorities who sought corrective measures to restore peace to American life and people who were actively creating turmoil throughout the country. Her main argument was that the theories that equated violence with power were wrong and showcased the dichotomy and faulty line of reasoning reinforced by the Judeo-Christian religion that “violence” was custom of an angry God. Arendt’s reasoning for bashing he ideology of Judeo-Christian religion and their take on violence was that it was illogical as it primarily imposed conformity through physical coercion. Rather, she argued that power is the ability of a social entity to act together.

To conclude on Arendt, she uses a definition of violence in relation to power that truly stood out to me and reads as follows: “Violence can always destroy power; out of the barrel of a gun grows the most effective command, resulting in the most instant and perfect obedience. What can never grow out of it is power” (Arendt, 53).  This quote was the true definition of her stance, that the only real resolution to conflict is through peaceful means to ensure all of the involved parties’ satisfaction. The in-depth analyses Arendt does connecting violence to war, power, and politics was simply extraordinary to me.

Although not exactly a definition per sé, I found Blumenthal’s approach the quite compelling as well because in her text she explored the different kinds of violence that inhibit American life. The most compelling in my opinion being “instrumental violence” which explored the theory of violence being used “as a tool for achieving a variety of goals, some of which are political” and others which can simply be for personal and selfish gains and have a faulty line of reasoning (Blumenthal, 1296).

The text I found the least compelling was Wolff’s “Journal of Philosophy” because I found his text to go in circles – not giving a direct definition of “violence”. Note that in the very beginning of his text he stated that violence followed “a number of familiar questions [and] confusions which [garnered] no coherent answers” (Wolff, 602). I disagree with this stance. Aside from this, I found his texts to be more suitable for defining “coercion” rather than “violence” because of what he says: “violence is the illegitimate or unauthorized use of force to effect decisions against the will or desire of others” (Wolff, 606) – to me, that is exactly what coercion is, not violence. Coercion, in accordance to Wolff uses violence as its weapon of choice but the same does not work vice versa.

The factors I found to be important when defining a term like “violence” are distinguishing between the different types of violence that exist and defending the stance of nonviolence, which personally made me think back to last week’s texts on King and Gandhi and fighting violence with nonviolence. Like I previously stated, Arendt’s distinction between “violence” and the one imposed by the Judeo-Christian religion was one that especially stood out to me as she pinpointed the illogicalness of this ideology which sought to blame “violence” on an angry God rather than holding people accountable for their acts.

The least compelling approach to defining violence is Hannah Arendt. Arendt defines violence as “distinct from power, force, or strength” (Arendt, 4). She uses a lot of Engel’s words in her arguments. For example, talks about the economic development of a country. The contradiction between political power structures will lead to violence. This is where her definition of violence relates to power and politics. She also makes a distinction between the relationship between war and violence. I find her definition least compelling because her definition and arguments are very narrow.

On the other hand, I find John Galtung’s approach more compelling. He emphasizes that there are many types of violence. Therefore, a definition of violence isn’t important. For him, it is more important to find the theoretical significance dimensions of violence. Yet he does give a broad definition as the basis of what violence is. “Violence is present when human beings are being influenced so that their actual soma- tic and mental realizations are below their potential realizations” (Galtung, 168). In this definition, he provides six important dimensions of violence. He points out the difference between what is potential and actual within violence.

Additionally, he provides an example of the difference between ‘potential’ and ‘actual’. “If a person died from tuberculosis in the eighteenth century, it would be hard to conceive of this as violence since it might have been quite unavoidable, but if he dies from it today, despite all the medical resources in the world, then is violence” (Galtung, 168). With this scenario, we can understand the importance of having a broad definition. When the potential is higher, it becomes unavoidable therefore there is violence present. While if the actual is unavoidable there is no violence present.

In his third distinction, he talks about physical violence and indirect threats of physiological violence. He emphasizes the idea that the destruction of things is not inherently violent according to his definition. Moreover, he mentions in his third distinction between personal violence and structural violence. He refers to structural violence as a social injustice. His fifth distinction talks about intended and unintended violence. Unintended violence can be biased and fail to notice structural violence.

With Galtung’s arguments, it becomes very noticeable that the biggest factor in deciding which definition is more compelling is how broad and at the same time, as specific can the definition be. Galtung’s definition is broad, but he talks about different significant varieties of violence. That makes the definition specific at the same time.

First of all, I am going to touch base on the argument I found less compelling:

Out of all the scholars that we read this week, I found that Galtung’s argument is the most confusing. I am not sure about his definition when saying “Violence is here defined as the cause of the difference between the potential and the actual, between what could have been and what is” (Galtung, 168), I feel like this is too confusing, and I understand that we need the definition of peace to understand that violence ultimately, is the contrary of peace. But peace is also a very complex definition, and peace can mean many things to different nations and communities. This is why I cannot find his argument as compelling.

With Arendt, I love how she writes. Her ultimate conclusion is that “violence in the shape of war and revolution may appear to constitute the only possible interruption” (Arendt, 30). I feel like this one can be a great definition because violence is ultimately a disruption of something, a normal situation. Moreover, she also states that violence is “ruled by the means-end category”, and this is something definitely finds compelling because it ties with the end justify the means, and personally, it ties well itself with my own definition of violence (my personal one)

For Blumenthal, I found it too scientific but she has valid quantitative data to support the argument and opinions of violence. I personally believe that the question of “do the media simply serve as a model for imitation, or do they project modify fundamental social values that inhibit or facilitate violent behaviors?” (Blumenthal, 1296) and the three arguments for identifying violence are valid. We do need to ask these various questions, and, like her, make surveys and studies to see any correlations between the groups that perform more violence vs the ones that do not.

Lastly, I agree with Wolff’s arguments the most. I found them the most compelling because with “the concept of violence is inherently confused, as is the correlative concept of non-violence; these and related concepts depend for their meaning in political discussions on the fundamental notions of legitimate authority, which is also inherently incoherent” (Wolff, 602). THIS is what I found more compelling because it leaves room for interpretation. Wolff presents us the argument that it really depends on the political environment. As I said above, violence and non-violence are interpretative depending on the nation or community in question. There are different levels of violence and non-violence that are acceptable or completely non-sense depending on the community, culture, nation, etc.

“Tradition has been to think about violence as personal violence only, with one important subdivision in terms of violence vs. the threat of violence. . . physical vs. psychological war, intended vs unintended” (Galtung 173). Johan Galtung’s idea is the most compelling one because of the widely broad definition of violence and the distinctions between all the kind of violence that exist. He concludes that the only, or more important distinction, should be between structural and personal violence. And yet structural violence can be easily overlooked, and this is because the object of personal violence (the person) receives the violence directly, whereas the object of structural violence can be persuaded not to perceive it (Galtung 173). Structural violence is silent because it has to do with inequality, unbalanced distribution of power, and its main weapon is social stratification (Galtung 175).

Hanna Arent focuses her discussion on the comparison between power and violence. She explains that the concept of violence will depend on the political goal and the specific society, mainly, “power is nothing more than the most flagrant manifestation of power” (Arendt 35). This idea of violence as an extension of power wrongly used, is very compelling as well. The ideas about the type of society and political goals are comparable to Monica D. Blumenthal article about the results of a social survey published in 1972, that showed what Americans perceived as violence and nonviolence at the time. 58% of the respondents believed that burning draft cards is a form of violence, 38% agreed that student’s protests are another kind of violence, and 22% said that sit-ins are violence as well (Blumenthal 1300). In the same study, only 56% of men believed that beating students was violence (Blumenthal 1301). This shows how irrational and malleable are people’s perceptions, in this case, in regard to violence.

Robert Paul Wolf’s article is the least compelling one because of his idea that there is not true meaning of violence, and it is just a rhetorical term used in politics, and that what is considered violence will depend on legitimacy of authority, but the idea of legitimate authority is “inherently incoherent” for him (Wolf 602). However, in spite of not being the strongest arguments it is still somehow backed by what the study showed, because for a person to think that sit-ins are violent there has to be a cognitive impairment, or the structure of society and culture has led this person to believe this, which in the any case proves that somehow violence is an abstract concept that can be understood differently depending on the society and historical moment.

Throughout the readings this week I’d have to say in my opinion that Robert Wolff has the most compelling argument to the concept of Violence. Wolff is quoted as saying in the text that “The concept of violence is inherently confused, as is the correlative concept of nonviolence; these and related concepts depend for their meaning in political discussions on the fundamental notion of legitimate authority, which is also inherently incoherent”. What I take away from that quote on violence is that when you have a violent moment, whether it’s war, a murder, a political martyrdom, and many more circumstances, is that their is a grand lack of communication from the multiple parties involved. This will change under each and every circumstance because of the factors involved. A great example of this was January 6th when Thousands of Trump supporters stormed the capitol in Washington in the name of overturning the results of the election. People were killed, trampled, injured. The capitol was ransacked. This was a great example of violence with one party being completely clueless and confused. The crowd was controlled and the violence was definitely created by the vast manipulation set forth by Donald Trump in the media calling the election stolen and that the democrats rigged it in multiple states. This was obviously a lie and anyone with any common sense could see that the election was secure. This whole statement by definition that Wolff states suggests that violence has confusion when being committed.

The author who I believe has the least compelling concept of violence is Arendt’s concept. Arendt defines it as “Violence is by nature instrumental; like all means, it always stands in need of guidance and justification through the end it pursues.” I believe this is compelling in a way because truth be told all the authors had compelling arguments for the definition of violence. But in my opinion Violence doesn’t always need justification when being committed. Political violence sure, one can argue that Political violence needs justification for the ending that it is pursuing. There’s strong belief in the argument when someone is committing political violence because the act is committed on strong belief that they are left no choice but to act with violence, hence January 6th. But most violent acts aren’t thought out processes. You commit violence and most of the time it’s the wrong decision. A lo of times in political violence cases, the person running the act of violence will try to go down as a martyr. Whether they were coerced into believing that being a martyr was the right choice is in question, but what isn’t in question is that they’re 100% sure that this act needed to be committed.