Social Violence : A Schematic Framework

In the Present article, an attempt is made to analyse the views of Western American and Indian social scientists about violence and its different dimensions. Its social phenomenon has escalated in the years in our society has been violence. Even a quick gland over what is happening around us every day reveal both in thought and action its grip is becoming stronger. In town and villages far flung tribal areas and in certain states violence is endemic. Even the quiet atmosphere of the home is married by family violence. Violence has also caught the fancy of the youth. They not only enjoy its portrayal on the screen but indulge in it for fun. It seems that our life ways and thought-ways have been brutalized.

 

 

The concept of violence is elusive, complex and multidimensional. Violence is difficult to define as one Gargee wrote, "no definition of violence has ever proved completely successful. Although everyone knows what violence is, no one has ever been able to define it adequately so that every possible instance of violent behaviour is included within the definition. Several authors have offered-definition that may more or less serve as conventional thought in the area. IIfeld Viewed violence as an act of intense, willful, physical harm committed by an individual or a group against himself or another individual or group. Mulvihil described violence as overtly threatened or overtly accomplished application of force which results in the injury or destruction of persons or property or reputation, or the illegal appropriation of property, More recently, fesbach Characterized violence as more severe forms of physical aggression. Marmore clarified some terms that are often used inter changeably in discussing violence but are not really synonymous. These terms are aggression, force, conflict destruction, and violence. Sabin cogently distinguishes between violence and dangerousness- 'Violence' denotes action, dangerous denotes relationship virtually all workers hold the terms as synonymous. Some define violence to include only injury or death to person. While others include destruction or property Violent thought are also considered dangerous by some because patients with fear and fantasies of violence sometimes act them out. Violence may be defined as specific form of force that involves the effort to destroy

 

 

or injure an object perceived as an actual or potential source of frustration or danger, or as symbol thereof. The term aggression involves abroader concept, referring to any kind of behaviour that encompasses a hostile intent. Not all aggressive behaviour is violent. Aggression may express itself through simple competitiveness, through verbal attacks, or every through non-verbal behaviour, for example, glaring angrily at some one. Violence, however, implies that the aggressive action is clearly destructive in its intent. Force is a more generic term. Force refers to the application of Power to influence, restrain, or control an object, but not necessarily with destructive intent.

 

 

Violence in contemporary world phenomena, has assumed different connotations and meaning. It is not merely killing, inflicting injury or domination over others by a person or group. Galtang says : "Violence is present when human beings are being influenced so that their actual somatic and mental realizations are below their potential realizations." Anything avoidable that impedes human self- realization," is called violence." in fact, violence represents a situation which hinders the people in the way of self-affirmation and self-fulfillment explaining the nature of a violent situation, Paulo Friere, a world leader in the field of education writes, "Any situation in which 'A' objectively exploits 'B' or hinders his pursuit of self affirmation as a responsible person, is one of oppression. Such a situation in itself constitutes violence, even sweetened by false generosity, because it enters with man's ontological and historical vocation to be more fully human . With the establishment of a relationship of oppression, violence has already begun." It prevents "from engaging in the process of enquiry." It is one of the forms of violence because by doing so he alienates him from his own decision-making and reduces him to an object with a mounts to killing him." violence, however, is primarily of two kinds, one is that which is committed by an actor, a person, or a group intentionally or unintentionally directly, and the other is that where there is no such actor, but violence is there through some mediation. The first kind of violence is there through some mediation the first kind of violence is called personal or direct violence. It is called " classical violence" The second is called restructural or cultural or indirect violence. "The violence that kills slowly built into a structure violence." There is life and perception of life but then there is no thought of murder and hence no "carrying

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

it out". There is "death as a result of " of what ? not of" "it" in the sense or "carrying it out" but "it" in the sense of flagrantly unjust social structure giving very much to the few and extremely little to the many." Obviously this type of violence is not personal or direct violence like theft. Killing, and torturing. It is indirect lying with the structure of society. In front of him in question did not intend any injury to happen. The injury just takes place as an out come of the normal operation of the structure. The subject is at most negligent, not preventing the injury from happening. But he might also be totally unaware, not connecting the structure with any injury all."

 

 

Structural violence is concerned with disproportionate distribution of social resource. Keith Webb writes : "Structural violence may be defined as damage that occurs to individuals or groups due to differential access to social resources and which is due to the normal operation of the social system." Alluding Ted Robert Gurr, "When the structure is made in such a way that one party suffers. systematically, overtime and avoidably; one may talk about structural violence." According to Lalandde dictionary of philosophy "violence : the illegitimate or at all events, illegal exertion of force."

 

 

Unesco definition serves to orient peace research violence in such a widely humanistic sense is a concept that does not necessarily have the same elements when considered from the point of view of the North, the East, the West or the sought, as one says in the language of the world-wide diplomacy.

 

 

In the word of Martin Luther king, "deriving a Negro child of decent food and clothing, is a serve form of Violence." In Indian context, nearer home, in our own country treating a section of our population as untouchables and not allowing them to come any where near hundred yard of the so called upper caste, a practice in certain parts of the country until a few years back and which has since disappeared was one of the crudest forms of violence, much more humiliating and destructive of human dignity than even physical assault. To people who have been so humiliated over centuries, resort to violence in extreme conditions of harassment is a psychological relief and release, particularly when all their silent suffering and force bearance had only given then fresh doses of humiliation. Subjecting an individual or a group to patent act of injustices is another aspect of violence. Exploitation in any forms social or economic, is yet another angle to violence. Treating people in a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

manner which is contrary to the accepted norms of human dignity too is a form of violence. That the latter categories of victims are not subjected to overt physical injury or every apparent hurt, does not exclude such cases from the concept of violence in its comprehensive sweep. Broadly any act, weather overt or covet that coerces or causes physical hurt, material loss or mental anguish or which degrades human beings or which militates against human rights, dignity and decency should be viewed as an act of violence. Thus all acts which have anything to do, among others even child labour, bonded labour, practice of untouchability and similar acts of discrimination either with regard to group or communities, fall within the scope of the terms of violence. Violence may be categorized in serval ways; for example, we make a distinction between collective or political violence and personal or individual violence. If accept this distinction and look at collective violence from historical perspective we shall see that it is much more normal, central and historically rooted than many would have us believe. Tilly has written:

 

 

Historically collective violence has & flowed regularly out of the central political processes of western countries men seeking to seize hold or religion, the level or power, have continually emerged in collective violence as part of their struggle. The oppressed have struck in the name of order and those in between in the name of fear. "

 

 

Form of Violence :

 

 

1. Societal Violence
2. The Violence of the Establishment
3. The Violence of Protest

 

 

1. According to Herbert Spencer society is looked upon as an organism with various parts incompatible with each other. These parts are values, norms role and collectivity. So long as these are broadly held in compactable relationship, society is stable in a hemostatic state. However, according to the theory is never in perfect harmony. There are always present one or other kinds strains that constantly press upon the system These strains may be expressed in several ways. They may either be generated internally or externally leading to changes in the hitherto prevalent values, norms, role and sub-group structures. New conception fo values may arise,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

new roles my replace the old, and sub-group structures. New conception of values may arise, new roles my replace the old, and sub-groups in society may either question their own status or acquires now roles.

 

 

Thus when such kinds of strains are produced upon the system, it moves toward adaptation with them. They system therefore may adapt to the strains so produced by the existing institutionalized mechanisms, like the law courts, legislatures, collective bargaining, political parties; or might innovative new mechanisms within its own frame work. However, when strains become too overwhelming to reckon with, society seeks measures other than institutionalized or innovative mechanism. These mechanisms are sought outside the frame work of the system. And one of these may be violence. Hence, this type of violence gives a belief that society is in steady state. It returns to this state, one disturbances caused by strains are resolved The steady state. It returns to this state, one disturbances caused by strains are resolved The steady state may be restored at the same level or it might move to another level.

 

 

1. Centralized bureaucracies, large institutions, monoliths of industry and business monopolies-be they of power, position, wealth and merit all together and each one of them singly provide the infrastructure of the violence of establishment. Following Gandhiji's definition of violence in this context, means exploitation. The establishment exploits and since all exploitation hurts, the violence of exploitation too hurts all concerned. It leads to deprivation and discrimination. It denies a great many people their primary needs of survival and opportunities fro growth and ultimately militates against life itself. It leads to infant mortality, to the emancipation of the physique and to early death. In short, the violence of establishment spill blood as much a dagger or a gun does; the only difference being that this violence in not seen and often remains unrecognized unaccounted for. The violence of the establishment is, however, not only the violence of estate or of economic institution but it is enshrined in all big establishment. Tolstoy has described the present form of the democracy is an expanded oligarchy and one of the main perpetrators of tyranny, Gandhiji had called 'majority vote' a violence Vivekananda accused every educated man as a traitor one who being educated at the cost of his fellowmen does not pay back his debts to the people at large. The machinery of law and law and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

order, one which supposed to protect the citizens, provides, by itself an important device of exploitation and violence.

 

 

1. Generally some people, the pathological deviants, who break laws and protest against the establishment do so surreptitiously to pilfer the profits that the individuals expropriate from the system. They do "violence" against the lower rung of the society and can hardly touch the upper elite in an effective manner. For the arms of law protect the latter and remain ever ready to clamp on the 'deviants with all the weight of counter violence at their command. This has more or less, for a long time, been the general rule. While the majority of people thus suffered silently the violence of the establishment, some did try to protest. They directed their violence in the process against their own kith and kin. The poor were thus twice oppressed, first by establishment and then by these who protested against it.

 

 

The violence of protest, as also counter violence are new phenomena. Their quantum have increased and their directions have changed. Grossly political in content, they are no longer a mere pathological behaviour. political decision - makers who belong to different parties and interest groups and others, who support these interests and represent. The key decision - makers of our polity, have been the incarnation of violence.

 

 

Views of Violence in Indian thought :

 

 

Aurobindo supported the use of violence by the Russion revolutionaries and Irish partriots. Defending armed revolt as a political weapon, he referred to its historical role in the struggle of the oppressed whenever and wherever the latter had been able to use it with success. As a political method also it was useful because " it is the readiest and the swiftest, the most through in its results and demands the least powers and endurance and suffering and the smallest and briefest sacrifies." Hence he asserted; "Passive resistance can not build up a strong and great nation unless it is masculine, hold and ardent in its spirit and ready at any moment and at the slightest notice to supplement itself with active resistance. we do not develop a nation of women who know only how to suffer and not how to strike." To kill national enemies in a "Dharma-yudda" was also a part of Dharma. Aurobindo supported political violence and armed revolt not only on grounds of the social vocation or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dharma of Kshatriya, but also with reference to the philosophic theory of the cosmic destruction by Mahakali as developed in the puranas and the Tentra. Mahakali is the supreme embodiment of the comic destructive energy imbused with powerful intensity and passion, "a divide violence rushing to shatter every passion, "a divides violence rushing to shatter every limit and obstacle," For the purpose of immediate and dynamic effectuation of her cosmic purpose she assures the tempestuous role of the wielder of violent force and sweeps and demolishes everything before her. If the great mother herself resorts to force and violence, these could ne no moral and metaphysical argument against its use by a political group for the redemption of the country which also was an aspect of the great mother. The concept fo violence represents one of the most important problems of politics as a dynamic science of social Techniques and methods. But in modern India though and practice, non- violence, with the rise of Gandhi, assumed a supremely important role. But Gandhian non-violence par took far more of the spirit of the western quakers, pacifists and Tolstoy than it did of the Rigveda, the Vedanta or the Gita. All the political leaders of the extremist school of the Indian freedom movement accepted violence as a legitimates political means . There was almost a general agreement that the Budhhist philosophy of total non-violence has been a factor leading to national ruin and collapse, because the Hindus who believed in this doctrine could not successfully oust the Muslim invaders. Vivekanand also considered the indiscriminate Buddhist ahimsa a factor which brought ruin upon India. Tilak defended political murder on the basis of the Gita. Defending on murder of Afzal Khan by Shivaji, Tilak said ... as the Divine Krishna tells us in Bhagvadgita that we may kill even our teachers and our Kinsmen and no blame attaches if we are not actuated by selfish desires." In interpreting the Gita as supporting righteous violence it resorted to in the course of the disinterested pursuit of one's vocation. Tilak and Aurobindo certainly are genuinely representing the old Vedic and Vedantic spirit. It is a mistake to interpret the numerous references to violence in the Vedic texts and the Gita as having only an analogical or allegorical relevance. Aurobindo's support of active resistance and boycot brings out the realistic character of his political philosophy. In the article "The Morality of Boycott" he defended boycott as a legitimate political technique against the attack of Tagore. His concept of politics as the Dharma of the Kshatriya also demonstrates his realism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to Kuldip Nayar the root cause of the spreading endemic violence is definitely economic. But the hotwind of communalism blowing in the country has now affecting the countryside also. So economic reason, no doubt, is substantial part, but some people are trying to pollute the atmosphere and contaminate it by playing one group against the other for parochial gains. But substantial transfer of power, substantial transfer of money can retrieve the situation. Madhu Dandavate states that politicization of the society has accentuated communal and caste violence as it is largely based on fanning caste and communal passion. However, politicization of the society in a desirable direction making secularism take root in the soil can improve the situation and prevent violence. But politicians mus suppress violent agitation.

 

 

According to EMS Namboodripad :

 

 

In the concrete conditions of India, the state is dominated by the landlords and capitalist classes whose interests are opposed to the interest of the overwhelming majority of the people society is divided also on the lines of caste, religious community, language, ethnic group, territory etc. Conflicts among these social group is inherent in the situation. This is what has lead to the "increasing incidents of social and political violence.

 

 

Violence is as old as the world in cosmogonies mythologies and legends it is presented as something linked to the beginning of history at ways attendant upon the deeds of heroes and innovators.

 

 

References :

 

 

1. Sachidananda, The Issue, Denouement, March 1990, p.6.
2. Megargee, E.I., The Psychology of Violence : A Critical Review of theories of violence, in Crimes of Violence : A staff Report to the national Commission on the Prevention fo Violence, Vol. 13, D.J. Mobihill and M.N. Tumin, eds. U.S. Government Printing office, Washington D.C. 1969.
3. Ilfed, F.W., 'General Overview of the Causes and Prevention of Violence' Arch- Gen Psychaiatry 20 : 675 : 889.
4. D. Mulvithill and M. Tumin (eds.), Crimes of Violence, a staff Report submitted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, Washington D.C., US Government Print Office, 1969.

 

 

1. Fesbach, S., Dynamics and Morality of Violence : Some Psychological Considerations American Psychology, 26 : 282 : 292.
2. Marmore, Judd, 'Psychological Roots of Violence' In Rebert L. Sadood (ed., Violences and Responsibility. New York : S.P. Medical and Scientific Bones.
3. V. Sabin, The Dangerous Individual : An Outcome of social Identity Transformation' British Journal of Crimonology, 1967, PP. 285-95.
4. B. Rubin, Prediction of Dangerousness in Mentally Ill Criminals, Arch, of Gen. Paschiat, 72, 1972, pp. 397-407.
5. Mulvihill and T.Tumin, op.cit.
6. F. Ervin and J.Lion, Clinical Evaluation of the Violent Patient in Mulvihill and Tumin, op.cit.
7. Nagla, B.K., Concept and Dimensions of Violence, Published Paper, Deptt. Of Sociology, M.D. University, Rohtak,
8. John Galtung, Violence, Peace and Reace Research, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 3, 1969, pp. 168-70.
9. Johan Galtung, The Specific Contribution of Peace Research to the Study of Violence : Typologies in Violence and its Causes : (Paris : UNESCO Publication, 1981), pp. 83-96.
10. Sinha, Kumud, Education : Comparative Study of Gandhi and Friere (Delhi : Common Wealth Publishers, 1995), p. 143.
11. Ibid.
12. Johan Galtung, Buddhism : A Quest for Unity and Peace, p. 138.
13. Ibid.

 

 

18.   Ibid., pp. 75-76,

 

 

1. Keith Webb, structural Violence and the Definition of Conflict, in Linus Pauling, ed., World Encyclopaedia of Vol. 2, pp. 331-34.
2. Gurr, Ted Robert, Peace Theory : An Introduction, Ibid., pp. 251-259.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. UNESCO, Violence and Its Causes, 1981, p. 28.

 

 

22.    Ibid., p.11.

 

 

23     Rajgopal, P.R., Social Change and Violence, Uppal Publishing House, New Delhi, 1988, p.4.

 

 

24.    Ibid., pp. 4-5.

 

 

1. UNESCO, Violence and its Causes, 1981, p.128.
2. Prasad, Nageshwar, Rural Violence in India, Vohra Publishers and Distributiors, Allahabad, 1985, pp. 4-5.
3. Dasgupta, Sugata, The Real Theme, Seminar paper, Gandhian Institute of Studies, Rajghat, Varanasi, October, 1969.
4. Dasgupta, Sugata, Three Faces of Violence, quoted in 'Violence Erupts (ed.) Udayan Sharma, Radhakrishna Publishing, 1978, pp. 14-17.
5. A.B. Keith, Buddhist Philosopy in India and Ceylone (Oxford, 1923) p. 117.
6. Sri Aurobindo, the Doctrine of Passive Resistence, pp. 28-29.

 

 

31.    Ibid., p. 65.

 

 

1. Sri Aurobindo, Dharma Aur Yatiyata (in Hindi), p.43.
2. Sri Aurobindo, Mandira Annual, 1942, pp. 150-1.
3. Varma, V.P., Violence in Indan Thought, Denouement, March 1990. p. 38.
4. The complete works of Swami Vivekanand, Vo. V., p. 317.
5. Tilak's presidential speech at Ragarh, quoted in Chirol, Indian Unrest, The Original Marathi can be consulted in the kesari, 15 June 1897.
6. Aurobndo Wanted passive resistance to be "masculine, bold and ardent" . He did not want Indians to be a nation who know only how to suffer and not how to strike" - The Doctrines passive Resistance, p. 65.
7. Denouement Interviewed with Kuldip Nayar, March, 1990, p. 34.
8. Madhudandavats, Ibid., p. 32.
9. E.M.S. Namboodripad, Ibid., p. 34.

 

 

41    UNESCO, Violence and its Causes, 1981. p. 27.