Aggressionism is a philosophical theory that the only real cause of war is human aggression, which refers to the "general tendency to attack members of one's species."
It is argued that aggression is a natural response to defend vital
interests such as territory, family, or identity if threatened. This theory has dominated much evolutionary thought about human nature.
Many evolutionary biologists discount aggressionism as it promotes human extinction through war. The idea is that if homicide was the norm, the human species would have wiped itself out millions of years ago.
There is also the claim that aggression is not a universal instinct in
the animal kingdom. However, some sources note that aggression serves
the animal kingdom
well since it brings the balanced distribution of animals of the same
species over the available environment and that it can be viewed as a
universal, externally directed drive that is possibly connected to a survival instinct.
Concept
The concept of aggressionism is based on the root word "aggression." In this particular concept, aggression occurs in all species as a form of protection of their own or of their territory
in order to keep their young safe. However, though most species protect
against their predators, some also protect from their own. For example,
lions are very territorial and fight other grown, male lions to keep
their status as the alpha. Similar to humans, if an invader attacks,
human instinct leads them to defend oneself and fend them off. When necessary, for the sake of survival,
most species become aggressive to get food to survive. Yet,
aggressionism isn't the same as aggression. Aggressionism is the concept
of aggression particularly made for humans, as it is more complex than
simply wanting to survive.
This is demonstrated in one of its definitions describing it as "the
action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state,
particularly its territorial rights; an unprovoked offensive, attack,
invasion, or the like..." or a "hostile or destructive mental attitude
or behavior" which leads to conflict and eventually, bloodshed.
Aggressionism specifies human nature in its hostile form when ideologies of multiple humans do not coincide with each other. However, the form of hostility that humans convey isn't direct in terms of street fights. This form of aggression directs humans in a composed manner between the leaders of nations or organizations in which leads to war. In this perspective, the hostility is contained due to the persons having respect in each other. Rather than being savage like animals, humans use their intellect to defeat their opponent in war—therefore, placing pride, greed, and belief in their own skill
to lead their nation to victory. Before a war starts, there is always
disagreement between the leaders. Never is there a leader raging at the
other. Calmly, they would always say that it is unfortunate that the two
nations disagree and would go back to their respective countries to
declare war.
Cause of War
Although it has been directly stated, that aggressionism is a philosophy
theory that humans are the cause of war, there are more direct reasons
for conflicts to escalate to war. Aggressionism is a theory that
describes complex behavior of human nature that involves strong beliefs
in one's own ideology. It is a description of people who cannot see the
views of others and would only see their own as the only right one in
the world. Throughout history, there have been a number of people who
were like this and had caused war.
Adolf Hitler
Examples of Political Leaders Who Displayed Aggressionism
Adolf Hitler is a primary example of a person who displayed aggressionism. In his time of reign, he installed a government that practiced fascism which is a form of statism. This type of government is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism. This type of nation is ruled by dictatorial power with overwhelming control over all the aspects of the country including the economy, society, and its beliefs. Hitler had a strong belief that the Jewish were in fact, the cause of Germany's loss in WWI
causing his ideology to circulate around a hate for the Jewish people.
Therefore, his aggressionism had started to take form in war through the
initial invasion of Poland.
Joseph Stalin
Joseph Stalin
is another example that also displayed aggressionism. However, Stalin's
aggressionism instead was more subtle than Hitler's. Stalin believed
that with his dictatorial power, he would be able to bring Russia in its
time out of its famine
and spread his ideology of communism towards the rest of the world.
During Stalin's reign, he transformed Russia to "an industrial and
military superpower." He had created programs to boost the food supply
and boost its economy, however this had killed millions. After WWII, the Soviet Union and the US had become superpowers and tension grew between these countries which started the Cold War. To gain advantage over the other, Stalin attempted to spread communism
towards other states, countries, and nations. Thus, the subtle
aggressionism. Unlike Hitler, he had helped spread his ideologies to
other leaders, including China's Mao Zedong.
Source of Aggressionism
In both of the examples of aggressionism, there are basic natures
of human beings that cause their ideologies to take form. With Hitler,
he had displayed his overwhelming hate for the Jewish due to his
nationalism for Germany. One of the more basic forms of emotion is hate,
which was the source of his aggression towards the millions of Jewish
who were killed during the Holocaust. The cause of war was due to his
inhumane actions towards a specific group of people. Therefore, his
unreasonable action for killing people, thinking that he has the right
to do so, is one of the most lethal forms of aggression. For Stalin, he
had created a country through is dictatorship with the ideology of
communism. He had aggressed his beliefs upon his own people with his
plans of creating a country that would be seen as a military superpower.
He had caused many to die with the famine and plan to boost
agriculture. However, the source for this action was due to the fact
that he believed in his ideology of Marxism/Leninism.
Laocoön and His Sons is one of the most famous of ancient sculptures. It shows Trojan priest Laocoön and his sons Antiphantes and Thymbraeus being attacked by sea serpents.
Violence in art refers to depictions of violence in high cultureart
as well as popular culture such as cinema and theater. It has been the
subject of considerable controversy and debate for centuries. In Western
art, graphic depictions of the Passion of Christ
have long been portrayed, as have a wide range of depictions of warfare
by later painters and graphic artists. Theater and, in modern times,
cinema have often featured battles and violent crimes. Similarly, images
and descriptions of violence have historically been significant
features in literature. Margaret Bruder, a film studies professor at
Indiana University, states that the aestheticization of violence in film
is the depiction of violence in a "stylistically excessive",
"significant and sustained way". Aestheticized violence differs from
gratuitous violence in that it is used as a stylistic element, and
through the "play of images and signs" references artworks, genre conventions, cultural symbols, or concepts.
Plato proposed to ban poets from his ideal republic because he feared that their aesthetic ability to construct attractive narratives about immoral behaviour would corrupt young minds. Plato's writings refer to poetry as a kind of rhetoric,
whose "...influence is pervasive and often harmful". Plato believed
that poetry that was "unregulated by philosophy is a danger to soul and
community". He warned that tragic poetry can produce "a disordered
psychic regime or constitution" by inducing "a dream-like, uncritical
state in which we lose ourselves in ...sorrow, grief, anger, [and]
resentment". As such, Plato was in effect arguing that "What goes on in
the theater, in your home, in your fantasy life, are connected" to what
one does in real life.
Politics of House of Medici and Florence dominate art depicted in Piazza della Signoria,
making references to first three Florentine dukes. Besides aesthetical
depiction of violence these sculptures are noted for weaving through a
political narrative.
The artist Hieronymus Bosch,
from the 15th and 16th centuries, used images of demons, half-human
animals and machines to evoke fear and confusion to portray the evil of
man. The 16th-century artist Pieter Brueghel the Elder depicted "...the nightmarish imagery that reflect, if in an extreme fashion, popular dread of the Apocalypse and Hell".
18th century onwards
In the mid-18th century, Giovanni Battista Piranesi,
an Italian etcher, archaeologist, and architect active from 1740, did
imaginary etchings of prisons that depicted people "stretched on racks
or trapped like rats in maze-like dungeons", an "aestheticization of
violence and suffering".
In 1849, as revolutions raged in European streets and authorities were putting down protests and consolidating state powers, composer Richard Wagner wrote: "I have an enormous desire to practice a little artistic terrorism."
Laurent Tailhade is reputed to have stated, after Auguste Vaillant bombed the Chamber of Deputies in 1893: "Qu'importent les victimes, si le geste est beau? [What do the victims matter, so long as the gesture is beautiful]?" In 1929 André Breton's Second Manifesto on surrealist art stated that "L'acte
surréaliste le plus simple consiste, revolvers aux poings, à descendre
dans la rue et à tirer au hasard, tant qu'on peut, dans la foule"
[The simplest Surrealist act consists of running down into the street,
pistols in hand, and firing blindly, as fast as you can pull the
trigger, into the crowd]."
"Everything in this world has two handles. Murder,
for instance, may be laid hold of by its moral handle... and that, I
confess, is its weak side; or it may also be treated aesthetically, as
the Germans call it—that is, in relation to good taste."
In his 1991 study of romantic literature, University of Georgia literature professor Joel Black stated that "(if) any human act evokes the aesthetic experience of the sublime,
certainly it is the act of murder". Black notes that "...if murder can
be experienced aesthetically, the murderer can in turn be regarded as a
kind of artist—a performance artist or anti-artist whose specialty is
not creation but destruction."
In films
Film
critics analyzing violent film images that seek to aesthetically please
the viewer mainly fall into two categories. Critics who see depictions
of violence in film as superficial and exploitative argue that such
films lead audience members to become desensitized to brutality, thus
increasing their aggression. On the other hand, critics who view
violence as a type of content, or as a theme, claim it is cathartic and
provides "acceptable outlets for anti-social impulses".
Adrian Martin describes the stance of such critics as emphasizing the
separation between violence in film and real violence. To these critics,
"movie violence is fun, spectacle, make-believe; it's dramatic
metaphor, or a necessary catharsis akin to that provided by Jacobean theatre; it's generic, pure sensation, pure fantasy. It has its own changing history, its codes, its precise aesthetic uses."
Margaret Bruder, a film studies professor at Indiana University and the author of Aestheticizing Violence, or How to Do Things with Style,
proposes that there is a distinction between aestheticized violence and
the use of gore and blood in mass market action or war films. She
argues that "aestheticized violence is not merely the excessive use of
violence in a film". Movies such as the popular action film Die Hard 2
are very violent, but they are do not qualify as examples of
aestheticized violence because they are not "stylistically excessive in a
significant and sustained way". Bruder argues that films such as such as Hard Target, True Romance and Tombstone
employ aestheticized violence as a stylistic tool. In such films, "the
stylized violence they contain ultimately serves as (...) another
interruption in the narrative drive".
A Clockwork Orange is a 1971 film written, directed, and produced by Stanley Kubrick and based on the novel of the same name by Anthony Burgess.
Set in a futuristic England (circa 1995, as imagined in 1965), it
follows the life of a teenage gang leader named Alex. In Alexander
Cohen's analysis of Kubrick's film, he argues that the ultra-violence of
the young protagonist, Alex, "...represents the breakdown of culture
itself". In the film, gang members are "...[s]eeking idle
de-contextualized violence as entertainment" as an escape from the
emptiness of their dystopian
society. When the protagonist murders a woman in her home, Cohen states
that Kubrick presents a "[s]cene of aestheticized death" by setting the
murder in a room filled with "...modern art which depict scenes of
sexual intensity and bondage"; as such, the scene depicts a "...struggle
between high-culture which has aestheticized violence and sex into a
form of autonomous art, and the very image of post-modern mastery".
Writing in The New York Times, Dwight Garner reviews the controversy and moral panic surrounding the 1991 novel and 2000 film American Psycho. Garner concludes that the film was a "coal-black satire" in which "dire comedy mixes with Grand Guignol.
There's demented opera in some of its scenes." The book, meanwhile, has
acquired "grudging respect" and has been compared to Anthony Burgess's A Clockwork Orange. Garner claims that the novel's author, Bret Easton Ellis, has contributed to the aestheticization of violence in popular media: "The culture has shifted to make room for [Patrick] Bateman. We've developed a taste for barbaric libertines with twinkling eyes and some zing in their tortured souls. Tony Soprano, Walter White from "Breaking Bad", Hannibal Lecter (who predates "American Psycho")—here are the most significant pop culture characters of the past 30 years... Thanks to these characters, and to first-person shootervideo games, we've learned to identify with the bearer of violence and not just cower before him or her."
In Xavier Morales' review of Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill: Volume 1, he calls the film "a groundbreaking aestheticization of violence". Morales argues that, similarly to A Clockwork Orange,
the film's use of aestheticized violence appeals to audiences as an
aesthetic element, and thus subverts preconceptions of what is
acceptable or entertaining.
Violence is the use of physical force to cause harm to people, animals, or property, such as pain, injury, death, damage, or destruction. Some definitions are somewhat broader, such as the World Health Organization's definition of violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened
or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or
community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting
in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."
Internationally, violence resulted in deaths of an estimated 1.28 million people in 2013 up from 1.13 million in 1990.
However, the global population grew by roughly 1.9 billion during those
years, showing a dramatic reduction in violence per capita. Of the
deaths in 2013, roughly 842,000 were attributed to self-harm (suicide), 405,000 to interpersonal violence, and 31,000 to collective violence (war) and legal intervention.
For each single death due to violence, there are dozens of
hospitalizations, hundreds of emergency department visits, and thousands
of doctors' appointments. Furthermore, violence often has lifelong consequences for physical and mental health and social functioning and can slow economic and social development.
In 2013, of the estimated 405,000 deaths due to interpersonal violence globally, assault by firearm
was the cause in 180,000 deaths, assault by sharp object was the cause
in 114,000 deaths, and the remaining 110,000 deaths from other causes.
Violence in many forms can be preventable. There is a strong
relationship between levels of violence and modifiable factors in a
country such as an concentrated (regional) poverty, income and gender inequality,
the harmful use of alcohol, and the absence of safe, stable, and
nurturing relationships between children and parents. Strategies
addressing the underlying causes of violence can be relatively effective
in preventing violence, although mental and physical health and
individual responses, personalities, etc. have always been decisive
factors in the formation of these behaviors.
Types
Typology of violence
The World Health Organization divides violence into three broad categories:
self-directed violence
interpersonal violence
collective violence
This initial categorization differentiates between violence that a
person inflicts upon themself, violence inflicted by another individual
or by a small group of individuals, and violence inflicted by larger
groups such as states, organized political groups, militia groups and
terrorist organizations.
Alternatively, violence can primarily be classified as either instrumental or reactive / hostile.
Unlike the other two broad categories, the subcategories of
collective violence suggest possible motives for violence committed by
larger groups of individuals or by states. Collective violence that is
committed to advance a particular social agenda includes, for example,
crimes of hate committed by organized groups, terrorist acts and mob
violence. Political violence includes war and related violent conflicts, state violence and similar acts carried out by armed groups. There may be multiple determinants of violence against civilians in such situations. Economic violence
includes attacks motivated by economic gain—such as attacks carried out
with the purpose of disrupting economic activity, denying access to
essential services, or creating economic division and fragmentation.
Clearly, acts committed by domestic and subnational groups can have
multiple motives. Slow violence
is a long-duration form of violence which is often invisible (at least
to those not impacted by it), such as environmental degradation,
pollution and climate change.
A United States M8 Greyhound armoured car in Paris during World War II
War is a state of prolonged violent large-scale conflict involving
two or more groups of people, usually under the auspices of government.
It is the most extreme form of collective violence.
War is fought as a means of resolving territorial and other conflicts, as war of aggression to conquer territory or loot resources, in national self-defence or liberation, or to suppress attempts of part of the nation to secede from it. There are also ideological, religious and revolutionary wars.
Cain killing AbelSaul attacks David (who had been playing music to help Saul feel better), 1860 woodcut by Julius Schnorr von Karolsfeld
Interpersonal violence is divided into two subcategories: Family and intimate partner violence—that
is, violence largely between family members and intimate partners,
usually, though not exclusively, taking place in the home. Community
violence—violence between individuals who are unrelated, and who may or
may not know each other, generally taking place outside the home. The
former group includes forms of violence such as child abuse and child corporal punishment, intimate partner violence and abuse of the elderly. The latter includes youth violence, random acts of violence, rape or sexual assault by strangers, and violence in institutional settings such as schools, workplaces, prisons
and nursing homes. When interpersonal violence occurs in families, its
psychological consequences can affect parents, children, and their
relationship in the short- and long-terms.
Child maltreatment is the abuse and neglect that occurs to children
under 18 years of age. It includes all types of physical and/or
emotional ill-treatment, sexual abuse, neglect, negligence and commercial or other child exploitation,
which results in actual or potential harm to the child's health,
survival, development or dignity in the context of a relationship of
responsibility, trust, or power. Exposure to intimate partner violence
is also sometimes included as a form of child maltreatment.
Child maltreatment is a global problem with serious lifelong consequences, which is, however, complex and difficult to study.
There are no reliable global estimates for the prevalence of
child maltreatment. Data for many countries, especially low- and
middle-income countries, are lacking. Current estimates vary widely
depending on the country and the method of research used. Approximately
20% of women and 5–10% of men report being sexually abused as children,
while 25–50% of all children report being physically abused.
Consequences of child maltreatment include impaired lifelong
physical and mental health, and social and occupational functioning
(e.g. school, job, and relationship difficulties). These can ultimately
slow a country's economic and social development.
Preventing child maltreatment before it starts is possible and requires
a multisectoral approach. Effective prevention programmes support
parents and teach positive parenting skills. Ongoing care of children
and families can reduce the risk of maltreatment reoccurring and can
minimize its consequences.
Following the World Health Organization, youth are defined as people
between the ages of 10 and 29 years. Youth violence refers to violence
occurring between youths, and includes acts that range from bullying and physical fighting, through more severe sexual and physical assault to homicide.
Worldwide some 250,000 homicides occur among youth 10–29 years of
age each year, which is 41% of the total number of homicides globally
each year ("Global Burden of Disease", World Health Organization, 2008).
For each young person killed, 20–40 more sustain injuries requiring
hospital treatment.
Youth violence has a serious, often lifelong, impact on a person's
psychological and social functioning. Youth violence greatly increases
the costs of health, welfare and criminal justice services; reduces
productivity; decreases the value of property; and generally undermines
the fabric of society.
Prevention programmes shown to be effective or to have promise in
reducing youth violence include life skills and social development
programmes designed to help children and adolescents manage anger,
resolve conflict, and develop the necessary social skills to solve
problems; schools-based anti-bullying prevention programmes; and
programmes to reduce access to alcohol, illegal drugs and guns.
Also, given significant neighbourhood effects on youth violence,
interventions involving relocating families to less poor environments
have shown promising results. Similarly, urban renewal projects such as business improvement districts have shown a reduction in youth violence.
Different types of youth on youth violence include witnessing or
being involved in physical, emotional and sexual abuse (e.g. physical
attacks, bullying, rape), and violent acts like gang shootings and
robberies. According to researchers in 2018, "More than half of children
and adolescents living in cities have experienced some form of
community violence." The violence "can also all take place under one
roof, or in a given community or neighborhood and can happen at the same
time or at different stages of life."
Youth violence has immediate and long term adverse impact whether the
individual was the recipient of the violence or a witness to it.
Youth violence impacts individuals, their families, and society.
Victims can have lifelong injuries which means ongoing doctor and
hospital visits, the cost of which quickly add up. Since the victims of
youth-on-youth violence may not be able to attend school or work because
of their physical and/or mental injuries, it is often up to their
family members to take care of them, including paying their daily living
expenses and medical bills. Their caretakers may have to give up their
jobs or work reduced hours to provide help to the victim of violence.
This causes a further burden on society because the victim and maybe
even their caretakers have to obtain government assistance to help pay
their bills. Recent research has found that psychological trauma during
childhood can change a child's brain. "Trauma is known to physically
affect the brain and the body which causes anxiety, rage, and the
ability to concentrate. They can also have problems remembering,
trusting, and forming relationships."
Since the brain becomes used to violence it may stay continually in an
alert state (similar to being stuck in the fight or flight mode).
"Researchers claim that the youth who are exposed to violence may have
emotional, social, and cognitive problems. They may have trouble
controlling emotions, paying attention in school, withdraw from friends,
or show signs of post-traumatic stress disorder".
It is important for youth exposed to violence to understand how
their bodies may react so they can take positive steps to counteract any
possible short- and long-term negative effects (e.g., poor
concentration, feelings of depression, heightened levels of anxiety). By
taking immediate steps to mitigate the effects of the trauma they've
experienced, negative repercussions can be reduced or eliminated. As an
initial step, the youths need to understand why they may be feeling a
certain way and to understand how the violence they have experienced may
be causing negative feelings and making them behave differently.
Pursuing a greater awareness of their feelings, perceptions, and
negative emotions is the first step that should be taken as part of
recovering from the trauma they have experienced. "Neuroscience research
shows that the only way we can change the way we feel is by becoming
aware of our inner experience and learning to befriend what is going on
inside ourselves".
Some of the ways to combat the adverse effects of exposure to
youth violence would be to try various mindfulness and movement
activities, deep breathing exercises and other actions that enable
youths to release their pent up emotions. Using these techniques will
teach body awareness, reduce anxiety and nervousness, and reduce
feelings of anger and annoyance.
Youth who have experienced violence benefit from having a close relationship with one or more people.
This is important because the trauma victims need to have people who
are safe and trustworthy that they can relate and talk to about their
horrible experiences. Some youth do not have adult figures at home or
someone they can count on for guidance and comfort. Schools in bad
neighborhoods where youth violence is prevalent should assign counselors
to each student so that they receive regular guidance. In addition to
counseling/therapy sessions and programs, it has been recommended that
schools offer mentoring programs where students can interact with adults
who can be a positive influence on them. Another way is to create more
neighborhood programs to ensure that each child has a positive and
stable place to go when school in not in session. Many children have
benefited from formal organizations now which aim to help mentor and
provide a safe environment for the youth especially those living in
neighborhoods with higher rates of violence. This includes organizations
such as Becoming a Man, CeaseFire Illinois, Chicago Area Project,
Little Black Pearl, and Rainbow House".
These programs are designed to help give the youth a safe place to go,
stop the violence from occurring, offering counseling and mentoring to
help stop the cycle of violence. If the youth do not have a safe place
to go after school hours they will likely get into trouble, receive poor
grades, drop out of school and use drugs and alcohol. The gangs look
for youth who do not have positive influences in their life and need
protection. This is why these programs are so important for the youth to
have a safe environment rather than resorting to the streets.
Intimate partner violence refers to behaviour in an intimate
relationship that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm,
including physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and
controlling behaviours.
Population-level surveys based on reports from victims provide
the most accurate estimates of the prevalence of intimate partner
violence and sexual violence in non-conflict settings. A study conducted
by WHO in 10 mainly developing countries
found that, among women aged 15 to 49 years, between 15% (Japan) and
70% (Ethiopia and Peru) of women reported physical and/or sexual
violence by an intimate partner. A growing body of research on men and
intimate partner violence focuses on men as both perpetrators and
victims of violence, as well as on how to involve men and boys in
anti-violence work.
Intimate partner and sexual violence have serious short- and
long-term physical, mental, sexual and reproductive health problems for
victims and for their children, and lead to high social and economic
costs. These include both fatal and non-fatal injuries, depression and
post-traumatic stress disorder, unintended pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
Factors associated with the perpetration and experiencing of
intimate partner violence are low levels of education, history of
violence as a perpetrator, a victim or a witness of parental violence,
harmful use of alcohol, attitudes that are accepting of violence as well
as marital discord and dissatisfaction. Factors associated only with
perpetration of intimate partner violence are having multiple partners,
and antisocial personality disorder.
A recent theory named "The Criminal Spin" suggests a mutual
flywheel effect between partners that is manifested by an escalation in
the violence.
A violent spin may occur in any other forms of violence, but in
Intimate partner violence the added value is the mutual spin, based on
the unique situation and characteristics of intimate relationship.
The primary prevention strategy with the best evidence for
effectiveness for intimate partner violence is school-based programming
for adolescents to prevent violence within dating relationships.
Evidence is emerging for the effectiveness of several other primary
prevention strategies—those that: combine microfinance with gender
equality training;
promote communication and relationship skills within communities;
reduce access to, and the harmful use of alcohol; and change cultural
gender norms.
Sexual violence is any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act,
unwanted sexual comments or advances, or acts to traffic, or otherwise
directed against a person's sexuality using coercion, by any person
regardless of their relationship to the victim, in any setting. It
includes rape, defined as the physically forced or otherwise coerced
penetration of the vulva or anus with a penis, other body part or
object.
Population-level surveys based on reports from victims estimate
that between 0.3 and 11.5% of women reported experiencing sexual
violence.
Sexual violence has serious short- and long-term consequences on
physical, mental, sexual and reproductive health for victims and for
their children as described in the section on intimate partner violence.
If perpetrated during childhood, sexual violence can lead to increased
smoking,
drug and alcohol misuse, and risky sexual behaviors in later life. It
is also associated with perpetration of violence and being a victim of
violence.
Many of the risk factors for sexual violence are the same as for domestic violence.
Risk factors specific to sexual violence perpetration include beliefs
in family honor and sexual purity, ideologies of male sexual entitlement
and weak legal sanctions for sexual violence.
Few interventions to prevent sexual violence have been
demonstrated to be effective. School-based programmes to prevent child
sexual abuse by teaching children to recognize and avoid potentially
sexually abusive situations are run in many parts of the world and
appear promising, but require further research. To achieve lasting
change, it is important to enact legislation and develop policies that
protect women; address discrimination against women and promote gender
equality; and help to move the culture away from violence.
Elder maltreatment is a single or repeated act, or lack of
appropriate action, occurring within any relationship where there is an
expectation of trust which causes harm or distress to an older person.
This constitutes a violation of human rights and includes physical, sexual, psychological, emotional; financial and material abuse; abandonment; neglect; and serious loss of dignity and respect.
While there is little information regarding the extent of
maltreatment in elderly populations, especially in developing countries,
it is estimated that 4–6% of elderly people in high-income countries
have experienced some form of maltreatment at home. However, older people are often afraid to report cases of maltreatment
to family, friends, or to the authorities. Data on the extent of the
problem in institutions such as hospitals, nursing homes and other
long-term care facilities are scarce. Elder maltreatment can lead to
serious physical injuries and long-term psychological consequences.
Elder maltreatment is predicted to increase as many countries are
experiencing rapidly ageing populations.
Many strategies have been implemented to prevent elder
maltreatment and to take action against it and mitigate its consequences
including public and professional awareness campaigns, screening (of
potential victims and abusers), caregiver support interventions (e.g.
stress management, respite care), adult protective services and
self-help groups. Their effectiveness has, however, not so far been
well-established.
Targeted
Several rare but painful episodes of assassination, attempted assassination and school shootings
at elementary, middle, high schools, as well as colleges and
universities in the United States, led to a considerable body of
research on ascertainable behaviors of persons who have planned or
carried out such attacks. These studies (1995–2002) investigated what
the authors called "targeted violence," described the "path to violence"
of those who planned or carried out attacks and laid out suggestions
for law enforcement and educators. A major point from these research
studies is that targeted violence does not just "come out of the blue".
Everyday
As an
anthropological concept, "everyday violence" may refer to the
incorporation of different forms of violence (mainly political violence)
into daily practices. Latin America and the Caribbean, the region with the highest murder rate in the world, experienced more than 2.5 million murders between 2000 and 2017.
Philosophical perspectives
Some philosophers have argued that any interpretation of reality is intrinsically violent. Slavoj Žižek in his book Violence stated that "something violent is the very symbolization of a thing." An ontological
perspective considers the harm inflicted by the very interpretation of
the world as a form of violence that is distinct from physical violence
in that it is possible to avoid physical violence whereas some
ontological violence is intrinsic to all knowledge.
Both Foucault and Arendt considered the relationship between power and violence but concluded that while related they are distinct.
In feminist philosophy, epistemic violence
is the act of causing harm by an inability to understand the
conversation of others due to ignorance. Some philosophers think this
will harm marginalized groups.
Brad Evans (author)
states that "violence" "represents a violation in the very conditions
constituting what it means to be human as such", "is always an attack
upon a person's dignity, their sense of selfhood, and their future", and
"is both an ontological crime ... and a form of political ruination".
Factors and models of understanding
Violence cannot be attributed to solely protective factors or risk factors. Both of these factor groups are equally important in the prevention, intervention, and treatment of violence as a whole. The CDC outlines several risk and protective factors for youth violence at the individual, family, social and community levels.
Individual risk factors include poor behavioral control, high emotional stress, low IQ, and antisocial beliefs or attitudes. Family risk factors include authoritarian childrearing
attitudes, inconsistent disciplinary practices, low emotional
attachment to parents or caregivers, and low parental income and
involvement.
Social risk factors include social rejection, poor academic performance
and commitment to school, and gang involvement or association with
delinquent peers. Community risk factors include poverty, low community participation, and diminished economic opportunities.
On the other hand, individual protective factors include an
intolerance towards deviance, higher IQ and GPA, elevated popularity and
social skills, as well as religious beliefs.
Family protective factors include a connectedness and ability to
discuss issues with family members or adults, parent/family use of
constructive coping strategies,
and consistent parental presence during at least one of the following:
when awakening, when arriving home from school, at dinner time, or when
going to bed. Social protective factors include quality school relationships, close relationships with non-deviant peers, involvement in prosocial
activities, and exposure to school climates that are: well supervised,
use clear behavior rules and disciplinary approaches, and engage parents
with teachers.
With many conceptual factors that occur at varying levels in the
lives of those impacted, the exact causes of violence are complex. To
represent this complexity, the ecological, or social ecological model is often used. The following four-level version of the ecological model is often used in the study of violence:
The first level identifies biological and personal factors that
influence how individuals behave and increase their likelihood of
becoming a victim or perpetrator of violence: demographic
characteristics (age, education, income), genetics, brain lesions, personality disorders, substance abuse, and a history of experiencing, witnessing, or engaging in violent behaviour.
The second level focuses on close relationships, such as those
with family and friends. In youth violence, for example, having friends
who engage in or encourage violence can increase a young person's risk
of being a victim or perpetrator of violence. For intimate partner
violence, a consistent marker at this level of the model is marital
conflict or discord in the relationship. In elder abuse, important factors are stress due to the nature of the past relationship between the abused person and the care giver.
The third level explores the community context—i.e., schools,
workplaces, and neighbourhoods. Risk at this level may be affected by
factors such as the existence of a local drug trade, the absence of
social networks, and concentrated poverty. All these factors have been
shown to be important in several types of violence.
Finally, the fourth level looks at the broad societal factors
that help to create a climate in which violence is encouraged or
inhibited: the responsiveness of the criminal justice system, social and
cultural norms regarding gender roles or parent-child relationships, income inequality,
the strength of the social welfare system, the social acceptability of
violence, the availability of weapons, the exposure to violence in mass
media, and political instability.
Child-rearing
While
studies showing associations between physical punishment of children
and later aggression cannot prove that physical punishment causes an
increase in aggression, a number of longitudinal studies suggest that the experience of physical punishment has a direct causal effect on later aggressive behaviors. Cross-cultural studies have shown that greater prevalence of corporal punishment of children tends to predict higher levels of violence in societies. For instance, a 2005 analysis of 186 pre-industrial societies found that corporal punishment was more prevalent in societies which also had higher rates of homicide, assault, and war. In the United States, domestic corporal punishment has been linked to later violent acts against family members and spouses. The American family violence researcher Murray A. Straus believes that disciplinary spanking
forms "the most prevalent and important form of violence in American
families", whose effects contribute to several major societal problems,
including later domestic violence and crime.
Psychology
The causes of violent behavior in people are often a topic of research in psychology. Neurobiologist
Jan Vodka emphasizes that, for those purposes, "violent behavior is
defined as overt and intentional physically aggressive behavior against
another person."
Based on the idea of human nature, scientists do agree violence
is inherent in humans. Among prehistoric humans, there is archaeological
evidence for both contentions of violence and peacefulness as primary
characteristics.
Since violence is a matter of perception as well as a measurable
phenomenon, psychologists have found variability in whether people
perceive certain physical acts as "violent". For example, in a state
where execution is a legalized punishment we do not typically perceive
the executioner as "violent", though we may talk, in a more metaphorical
way, of the state acting violently. Likewise, understandings of
violence are linked to a perceived aggressor-victim relationship: hence
psychologists have shown that people may not recognise defensive use of
force as violent, even in cases where the amount of force used is
significantly greater than in the original aggression.
Evolutionary psychology offers several explanations for human violence in various contexts, such as sexual jealousy in humans, child abuse, and homicide. Goetz (2010) argues that humans are similar to most mammal
species and use violence in specific situations. He writes that "Buss
and Shackelford (1997a) proposed seven adaptive problems our ancestors
recurrently faced that might have been solved by aggression: co-opting
the resources of others, defending against attack, inflicting costs on
same-sex rivals, negotiating status and hierarchies, deterring rivals
from future aggression, deterring mate from infidelity, and reducing
resources expended on genetically unrelated children."
Goetz writes that most homicides
seem to start from relatively trivial disputes between unrelated men
who then escalate to violence and death. He argues that such conflicts
occur when there is a status dispute between men of relatively similar
status. If there is a great initial status difference, then the lower
status individual usually offers no challenge and if challenged the
higher status individual usually ignores the lower status individual. At
the same an environment of great inequalities between people may cause
those at the bottom to use more violence in attempts to gain status.
Research into the media and violence examines whether links between
consuming media violence and subsequent aggressive and violent behaviour
exists. Although some scholars had claimed media violence may increase
aggression, this view is coming increasingly in doubt both in the scholarly community and was rejected by the US Supreme Court in the Brown v EMA
case, as well as in a review of video game violence by the Australian
Government (2010) which concluded evidence for harmful effects were
inconclusive at best and the rhetoric of some scholars was not matched
by good data.
Mental disorders
Despite public or media opinion, national studies have indicated that
severe mental illness does not independently predict future violent
behavior, on average, and is not a leading cause of violence in society.
There is a statistical association with various factors that do relate
to violence (in anyone), such as substance use and various personal,
social, and economic factors. A 2015 review found that in the United States, about 4% of violence is attributable to people diagnosed with mental illness,
and a 2014 study found that 7.5% of crimes committed by mentally ill
people were directly related to the symptoms of their mental illness. The majority of people with serious mental illness are never violent.
In fact, findings consistently indicate that it is many times
more likely that people diagnosed with a serious mental illness living
in the community will be the victims rather than the perpetrators of
violence.
In a study of individuals diagnosed with "severe mental illness" living
in a US inner-city area, a quarter were found to have been victims
of at least one violent crime over the course of a year, a proportion
eleven times higher than the inner-city average, and higher in every
category of crime including violent assaults and theft.
People with a diagnosis may find it more difficult to secure
prosecutions, however, due in part to prejudice and being seen as less
credible.
However, there are some specific diagnoses, such as childhood conduct disorder or adult antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy,
which are defined by, or are inherently associated with, conduct
problems and violence. There are conflicting findings about the extent
to which certain specific symptoms, notably some kinds of psychosis
(hallucinations or delusions) that can occur in disorders such as
schizophrenia, delusional disorder or mood disorder, are linked to an
increased risk of serious violence on average. The mediating
factors of violent acts, however, are most consistently found to be
mainly socio-demographic and socio-economic factors such as being young,
male, of lower socioeconomic status and, in particular, substance use
(including alcohol use) to which some people may be particularly vulnerable.
High-profile cases have led to fears that serious crimes, such as
homicide, have increased due to deinstitutionalization, but the evidence
does not support this conclusion.
Violence that does occur in relation to mental disorder (against the
mentally ill or by the mentally ill) typically occurs in the context of
complex social interactions, often in a family setting rather than
between strangers. It is also an issue in health care settings and the wider community.
Prevention
The
threat and enforcement of physical punishment has been a tried and
tested method of preventing some violence since civilisation began. It is used in various degrees in most countries.
Public awareness campaigns
Cities
and counties throughout the United States organize "Violence Prevention
Months" where the mayor, by proclamation, or the county, by a
resolution, encourage the private, community and public sectors to
engage in activities that raise awareness that violence is not
acceptable through art, music, lectures and events. For example,
Violence Prevention Month coordinator, Karen Earle Lile in Contra Costa
County, California
created a Wall of Life, where children drew pictures that were put up
in the walls of banks and public spaces, displaying a child's view of
violence they had witnessed and how it affected them, in an effort to
draw attention to how violence affects the community, not just the
people involved.
Interpersonal violence
A review of scientific literature by the World Health Organization
on the effectiveness of strategies to prevent interpersonal violence
identified the seven strategies below as being supported by either
strong or emerging evidence for effectiveness. These strategies target risk factors at all four levels of the ecological model.
Child–caregiver relationships
Among
the most effective such programmes to prevent child maltreatment and
reduce childhood aggression are the Nurse Family Partnership
home-visiting programme and the Triple P (Parenting Program).
There is also emerging evidence that these programmes reduce
convictions and violent acts in adolescence and early adulthood, and
probably help decrease intimate partner violence and self-directed
violence in later life.
Life skills in youth
Evidence shows that the life skills
acquired in social development programmes can reduce involvement in
violence, improve social skills, boost educational achievement and
improve job prospects. Life skills refer to social, emotional, and
behavioural competencies which help children and adolescents effectively
deal with the challenges of everyday life.
Gender equality
Evaluation studies are beginning to support community interventions that aim to prevent violence against women by promoting gender equality.
For instance, evidence suggests that programmes that combine
microfinance with gender equity training can reduce intimate partner
violence. School-based programmes such as Safe Dates programme in the United States of America and the Youth Relationship Project in Canada have been found to be effective for reducing dating violence.
Cultural norms
Rules
or expectations of behaviour – norms – within a cultural or social
group can encourage violence. Interventions that challenge cultural and social norms
supportive of violence can prevent acts of violence and have been
widely used, but the evidence base for their effectiveness is currently
weak. The effectiveness of interventions addressing dating violence and sexual abuse among teenagers and young adults by challenging social and cultural norms related to gender is supported by some evidence.
Support programmes
Interventions
to identify victims of interpersonal violence and provide effective
care and support are critical for protecting health and breaking cycles
of violence from one generation to the next. Examples for which evidence
of effectiveness is emerging includes: screening tools to identify
victims of intimate partner violence and refer them to appropriate
services; psychosocial interventions—such as trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy—to reduce mental health problems associated with violence, including post-traumatic stress disorder; and protection orders, which prohibit a perpetrator from contacting the victim, to reduce repeat victimization among victims of intimate partner violence.
Collective violence
Not surprisingly, scientific evidence about the effectiveness of interventions to prevent collective violence is lacking. However, policies that facilitate reductions in poverty, that make decision-making
more accountable, that reduce inequalities between groups, as well as
policies that reduce access to biological, chemical, nuclear and other
weapons have been recommended. When planning responses to violent
conflicts, recommended approaches include assessing at an early stage
who is most vulnerable and what their needs are, co-ordination of
activities between various players and working towards global, national
and local capabilities so as to deliver effective health services during
the various stages of an emergency.
Criminal justice
A sign that calls to stop violence
One of the main functions of law is to regulate violence. Sociologist Max Weber stated that the state claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of force practised within the confines of a specific territory. Law enforcement is the main means of regulating nonmilitary violence in society. Governments regulate the use of violence through legal systems governing individuals and political authorities, including the police and military. Civil societies authorize some amount of violence, exercised through the police power, to maintain the status quo and enforce laws.
However, German political theorist Hannah Arendt
noted: "Violence can be justifiable, but it never will be legitimate
... Its justification loses in plausibility the farther its intended end
recedes into the future. No one questions the use of violence in
self-defence, because the danger is not only clear but also present, and
the end justifying the means is immediate".
Arendt made a clear distinction between violence and power. Most
political theorists regarded violence as an extreme manifestation of
power whereas Arendt regarded the two concepts as opposites.
In the 20th century in acts of democide governments may have killed more than 260 million of their own people through police brutality, execution, massacre, slave labour camps, and sometimes through intentional famine.
The criminal justice approach sees its main task as enforcing
laws that proscribe violence and ensuring that "justice is done". The
notions of individual blame, responsibility, guilt, and culpability are
central to criminal justice's approach to violence and one of the
criminal justice system's main tasks is to "do justice", i.e. to ensure
that offenders are properly identified, that the degree of their guilt
is as accurately ascertained as possible, and that they are punished
appropriately. To prevent and respond to violence, the criminal justice
approach relies primarily on deterrence, incarceration and the
punishment and rehabilitation of perpetrators.
The criminal justice approach, beyond justice and punishment, has
traditionally emphasized indicated interventions, aimed at those who
have already been involved in violence, either as victims or as
perpetrators. One of the main reasons offenders are arrested,
prosecuted, and convicted is to prevent further crimes—through
deterrence (threatening potential offenders with criminal sanctions if
they commit crimes), incapacitation (physically preventing offenders
from committing further crimes by locking them up) and through
rehabilitation (using time spent under state supervision to develop
skills or change one's psychological make-up to reduce the likelihood of
future offences).
In recent decades in many countries in the world, the criminal
justice system has taken an increasing interest in preventing violence
before it occurs. For instance, much of community and problem-oriented policing
aims to reduce crime and violence by altering the conditions that
foster it—and not to increase the number of arrests. Indeed, some police
leaders have gone so far as to say the police should primarily be a
crime prevention agency.
Juvenile justice systems—an important component of criminal justice
systems—are largely based on the belief in rehabilitation and
prevention. In the US, the criminal justice system has, for instance,
funded school- and community-based initiatives to reduce children's
access to guns and teach conflict resolution. Despite this, force is
used routinely against juveniles by police.
In 1974, the US Department of Justice assumed primary responsibility
for delinquency prevention programmes and created the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, which has supported the "Blueprints
for violence prevention" programme at the University of Colorado Boulder.
Public health
The
public health approach is a science-driven, population-based,
interdisciplinary, intersectoral approach based on the ecological model
which emphasizes primary prevention.
Rather than focusing on individuals, the public health approach aims to
provide the maximum benefit for the largest number of people, and to
extend better care and safety to entire populations. The public health
approach is interdisciplinary, drawing upon knowledge from many
disciplines including medicine, epidemiology, sociology, psychology,
criminology, education and economics. Because all forms of violence are
multi-faceted problems, the public health approach emphasizes a
multi-sectoral response. It has been proved time and again that
cooperative efforts from such diverse sectors as health, education,
social welfare, and criminal justice are often necessary to solve what
are usually assumed to be purely "criminal" or "medical" problems. The
public health approach considers that violence, rather than being the
result of any single factor, is the outcome of multiple risk factors and
causes, interacting at four levels of a nested hierarchy (individual,
close relationship/family, community and wider society) of the Social ecological model.
From a public health perspective, prevention strategies can be classified into three types:
Primary prevention – approaches that aim to prevent violence before it occurs.
Secondary prevention – approaches that focus on the more immediate
responses to violence, such as pre-hospital care, emergency services or
treatment for sexually transmitted infections following a rape.
Tertiary prevention – approaches that focus on long-term care in the
wake of violence, such as rehabilitation and reintegration, and attempt
to lessen trauma or reduce long-term disability associated with
violence.
A public health approach emphasizes the primary prevention of
violence, i.e. stopping them from occurring in the first place. Until
recently, this approach has been relatively neglected in the field, with
the majority of resources directed towards secondary or tertiary
prevention. Perhaps the most critical element of a public health
approach to prevention is the ability to identify underlying causes
rather than focusing upon more visible "symptoms". This allows for the
development and testing of effective approaches to address the
underlying causes and so improve health.
The public health approach is an evidence-based and systematic process involving the following four steps:
Defining the problem conceptually and numerically, using
statistics that accurately describe the nature and scale of violence,
the characteristics of those most affected, the geographical
distribution of incidents, and the consequences of exposure to such
violence.
Investigating why the problem occurs by determining its causes and
correlates, the factors that increase or decrease the risk of its
occurrence (risk and protective factors) and the factors that might be
modifiable through intervention.
Exploring ways to prevent the problem by using the above information
and designing, monitoring and rigorously assessing the effectiveness of
programmes through outcome evaluations.
Disseminating information on the effectiveness of programmes and
increasing the scale of proven effective programmes. Approaches to
prevent violence, whether targeted at individuals or entire communities,
must be properly evaluated for their effectiveness and the results
shared. This step also includes adapting programmes to local contexts
and subjecting them to rigorous re-evaluation to ensure their
effectiveness in the new setting.
In many countries, violence prevention is still a new or emerging
field in public health. The public health community has started only
recently to realize the contributions it can make to reducing violence
and mitigating its consequences. In 1949, Gordon called for injury
prevention efforts to be based on the understanding of causes, in a
similar way to prevention efforts for communicable and other diseases.
In 1962, Gomez, referring to the WHO definition of health, stated that
it is obvious that violence does not contribute to "extending life" or
to a "complete state of well-being". He defined violence as an issue
that public health experts needed to address and stated that it should
not be the primary domain of lawyers, military personnel, or
politicians.
However, it is only in the last 30 years that public health has
begun to address violence, and only in the last fifteen has it done so
at the global level.
This is a much shorter period of time than public health has been
tackling other health problems of comparable magnitude and with
similarly severe lifelong consequences.
The global public health response to interpersonal violence began
in earnest in the mid-1990s. In 1996, the World Health Assembly adopted
Resolution WHA49.25
which declared violence "a leading worldwide public health problem" and
requested that the World Health Organization (WHO) initiate public
health activities to (1) document and characterize the burden of
violence, (2) assess the effectiveness of programmes, with particular
attention to women and children and community-based initiatives, and (3)
promote activities to tackle the problem at the international and
national levels. The World Health Organization's initial response to
this resolution was to create the Department of Violence and Injury
Prevention and Disability and to publish the World report on violence
and health (2002).
The case for the public health sector addressing interpersonal violence rests on four main arguments.
First, the significant amount of time health care professionals
dedicate to caring for victims and perpetrators of violence has made
them familiar with the problem and has led many, particularly in
emergency departments, to mobilize to address it. The information,
resources, and infrastructures the health care sector has at its
disposal are an important asset for research and prevention work.
Second, the magnitude of the problem and its potentially severe lifelong
consequences and high costs to individuals and wider society call for
population-level interventions typical of the public health approach.
Third, the criminal justice approach, the other main approach to
addressing violence (link to entry above), has traditionally been more
geared towards violence that occurs between male youths and adults in
the street and other public places—which makes up the bulk of homicides
in most countries—than towards violence occurring in private settings
such as child maltreatment, intimate partner violence and elder
abuse—which makes up the largest share of non-fatal violence. Fourth,
evidence is beginning to accumulate that a science-based public health
approach is effective at preventing interpersonal violence.
The human rights
approach is based on the obligations of states to respect, protect and
fulfill human rights and therefore to prevent, eradicate and punish
violence. It recognizes violence as a violation of many human rights:
the rights to life, liberty, autonomy and security of the person; the rights to equality and non-discrimination; the rights to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment; the right to privacy; and the right to the highest attainable standard of health. These human rights are enshrined in international and regional treaties
and national constitutions and laws, which stipulate the obligations of
states, and include mechanisms to hold states accountable. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, for example, requires that countries party to the Convention take all appropriate steps to end violence against women. The Convention on the Rights of the Child
in its Article 19 states that States Parties shall take all appropriate
legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect
the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or
abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation,
including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.
Geographical context
Violence,
as defined in the dictionary of human geography, "appears whenever
power is in jeopardy" and "in and of itself stands emptied of strength
and purpose: it is part of a larger matrix of socio-political power
struggles". Violence can be broadly divided into three broad categories—direct violence, structural violence and cultural violence. Thus defined and delineated, it is of note, as Hyndman says, that "geography came late to theorizing violence" in comparison to other social sciences. Social and human geography, rooted in the humanist, Marxist, and feminist
subfields that emerged following the early positivist approaches and
subsequent behavioral turn, have long been concerned with social and spatial justice.
Along with critical geographers and political geographers, it is these
groupings of geographers that most often interact with violence. Keeping
this idea of social/spatial justice via geography in mind, it is
worthwhile to look at geographical approaches to violence in the context
of politics.
Derek Gregory and Alan Pred assembled the influential edited collection Violent Geographies: Fear, Terror, and Political Violence,
which demonstrates how place, space, and landscape are foremost factors
in the real and imagined practices of organized violence both
historically and in the present.
Evidently, political violence often gives a part for the state to play.
When "modern states not only claim a monopoly of the legitimate means
of violence; they also routinely use the threat of violence to enforce
the rule of law", the law not only becomes a form of violence but is violence. Philosopher Giorgio Agamben's concepts of state of exception and homo sacer
are useful to consider within a geography of violence. The state, in
the grip of a perceived, potential crisis (whether legitimate or not)
takes preventative legal measures, such as a suspension of rights (it is
in this climate, as Agamben demonstrates, that the formation of the
Social Democratic and Nazi government's lager or concentration camp can
occur). However, when this "in limbo" reality is designed to be in place
"until further notice…the state of exception thus ceases to be referred
to as an external and provisional state of factual danger and comes to
be confused with juridical rule itself".
For Agamben, the physical space of the camp "is a piece of land placed
outside the normal juridical order, but it is nevertheless not simply an
external space".
At the scale of the body, in the state of exception, a person is so
removed from their rights by "juridical procedures and deployments of
power" that "no act committed against them could appear any longer as a crime"; in other words, people become only homo sacer. Guantanamo Bay
could also be said to represent the physicality of the state of
exception in space, and can just as easily draw man as homo sacer.
In the 1970s, genocides in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot
resulted in the deaths of over two million Cambodians (which was 25% of
the Cambodian population), forming one of the many contemporary
examples of state-sponsored violence. About fourteen thousand of these murders occurred at Choeung Ek, which is the best-known of the extermination camps referred to as the Killing Fields.
The killings were arbitrary; for example, a person could be killed for
wearing glasses, since that was seen as associating them with
intellectuals and therefore as making them part of the enemy. People
were murdered with impunity because it was no crime; Cambodians were
made homo sacer in a condition of bare life. The Killing
Fields—manifestations of Agamben's concept of camps beyond the normal
rule of law—featured the state of exception. As part of Pol Pot's
"ideological intent…to create a purely agrarian society or cooperative", he "dismantled the country's existing economic infrastructure and depopulated every urban area".
Forced movement, such as this forced movement applied by Pol Pot, is a
clear display of structural violence. When "symbols of Cambodian society
were equally disrupted, social institutions of every kind…were purged
or torn down",
cultural violence (defined as when "any aspect of culture such as
language, religion, ideology, art, or cosmology is used to legitimize
direct or structural violence")
is added to the structural violence of forced movement and to the
direct violence, such as murder, at the Killing Fields. Vietnam
eventually intervened and the genocide officially ended. However, ten
million landmines left by opposing guerillas in the 1970s continue to create a violent landscape in Cambodia.
Human geography, though coming late to the theorizing table, has
tackled violence through many lenses, including anarchist geography,
feminist geography, Marxist geography, political geography, and critical
geography. However, Adriana Cavarero notes that, "as violence spreads and assumes unheard-of forms, it becomes difficult to name in contemporary language".
Cavarero proposes that, in facing such a truth, it is prudent to
reconsider violence as "horrorism"; that is, "as though ideally all
the…victims, instead of their killers, ought to determine the name".
With geography often adding the forgotten spatial aspect to theories of
social science, rather than creating them solely within the discipline,
it seems that the self-reflexive contemporary geography of today may
have an extremely important place in this current (re)imaging of
violence, exemplified by Cavarero.
Deaths due to interpersonal violence per million persons in 2012
0–8
9–16
17–24
25–32
33–54
55–75
76–96
97–126
127–226
227–878
As of 2010, all forms of violence resulted in about 1.34 million deaths up from about 1 million in 1990. Suicide accounts for about 883,000, interpersonal violence for 456,000 and collective violence for 18,000. Deaths due to collective violence have decreased from 64,000 in 1990.
By way of comparison, the 1.5 millions deaths a year due to
violence is greater than the number of deaths due to tuberculosis (1.34
million), road traffic injuries (1.21 million), and malaria (830'000),
but slightly less than the number of people who die from HIV/AIDS (1.77
million).
For every death due to violence, there are numerous nonfatal
injuries. In 2008, over 16 million cases of non-fatal violence-related
injuries were severe enough to require medical attention. Beyond deaths
and injuries, forms of violence such as child maltreatment, intimate
partner violence, and elder maltreatment have been found to be highly
prevalent.
Self-directed violence
In the last 45 years, suicide rates have increased by 60% worldwide.
Suicide is among the three leading causes of death among those aged
15–44 years in some countries, and the second leading cause of death in
the 10–24 years age group. These figures do not include suicide attempts which are up to 20 times more frequent than suicide. Suicide was the 16th leading cause of death worldwide in 2004 and is projected to increase to the 12th in 2030.
Although suicide rates have traditionally been highest among the male
elderly, rates among young people have been increasing to such an extent
that they are now the group at highest risk in a third of countries, in
both developed and developing countries.
Interpersonal violence
Rates
and patterns of violent death vary by country and region. In recent
years, homicide rates have been highest in developing countries in
Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean and lowest in
East Asia, the western Pacific, and some countries in northern Africa.
Studies show a strong, inverse relationship between homicide rates and
both economic development and economic equality. Poorer countries,
especially those with large gaps between the rich and the poor, tend to
have higher rates of homicide than wealthier countries. Homicide rates
differ markedly by age and sex. Gender differences are least marked for
children. For the 15 to 29 age group, male rates were nearly six times
those for female rates; for the remaining age groups, male rates were
from two to four times those for females.
Studies in a number of countries show that, for every homicide
among young people age 10 to 24, 20 to 40 other young people receive
hospital treatment for a violent injury.
Forms of violence such as child maltreatment and intimate partner
violence are highly prevalent. Approximately 20% of women and 5–10% of
men report being sexually abused as children, while 25–50% of all
children report being physically abused.
A WHO multi-country study found that between 15 and 71% of women
reported experiencing physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate
partner at some point in their lives.
Collective violence
Wars
grab headlines, but the individual risk of dying violently in an armed
conflict is today relatively low—much lower than the risk of violent
death in many countries that are not suffering from an armed conflict.
For example, between 1976 and 2008, African Americans were victims of 329,825 homicides.
Although there is a widespread perception that war is the most
dangerous form of armed violence in the world, the average person living
in a conflict-affected country had a risk of dying violently in the
conflict of about 2.0 per 100,000 population between 2004 and 2007. This
can be compared to the average world homicide rate of 7.6 per 100,000
people. This illustration highlights the value of accounting for all
forms of armed violence rather than an exclusive focus on conflict
related violence. Certainly, there are huge variations in the risk of
dying from armed conflict at the national and subnational level, and the
risk of dying violently in a conflict in specific countries remains
extremely high. In Iraq, for example, the direct conflict death rate for
2004–07 was 65 per 100,000 people per year and, in Somalia, 24 per
100,000 people. This rate even reached peaks of 91 per 100,000 in Iraq
in 2006 and 74 per 100,000 in Somalia in 2007.
Scientific evidence for warfare has come from settled, sedentary communities.
Some scholars argue humans may have a predisposition for violence
(chimpanzees, also great apes, have been known to kill members of
competing groups for resources like food), placing the origins of organized violence prior to modern settled societies.
However, actual evidence suggests that organized, large-scale,
militaristic, or regular human-on-human violence was absent for the vast
majority of the human timeline, and is first documented to have started only relatively recently in the Holocene, an epoch that began about 11,700 years ago, probably with the advent of higher population densities due to sedentism. Social anthropologist Douglas P. Fry writes that scholars are divided on the origins of this greater degree of violence—in other words, war-like behavior:
There
are basically two schools of thought on this issue. One holds that
warfare... goes back at least to the time of the first thoroughly modern
humans and even before then to the primate ancestors of the hominid
lineage. The second positions on the origins of warfare sees war as much
less common in the cultural and biological evolution of humans. Here,
warfare is a latecomer on the cultural horizon, only arising in very
specific material circumstances and being quite rare in human history
until the development of agriculture in the past 10,000 years.
Jared Diamond in his books Guns, Germs and Steel and The Third Chimpanzee
posits that the rise of large-scale warfare is the result of advances
in technology and city-states. For instance, the rise of agriculture
provided a significant increase in the number of individuals that a
region could sustain over hunter-gatherer societies, allowing for
development of specialized classes such as soldiers, or weapons
manufacturers.
The percentages of men killed in war in eight tribal societies. (Lawrence H. Keeley, Archeologist, War Before Civilization)
In academia, the idea of the peaceful pre-history and non-violent tribal societies gained popularity with the post-colonial perspective. The trend, starting in archaeology and spreading to anthropology reached its height in the late half of the 20th century. However, some newer research in archaeology and bioarchaeology may provide evidence that violence within and among groups is not a recent phenomenon. According to the book "The Bioarchaeology of Violence" violence is a behavior that is found throughout human history.
Lawrence H. Keeley at the University of Illinois writes in War Before Civilization that 87% of tribal societies
were at war more than once per year, and that 65% of them were fighting
continuously. He writes that the attrition rate of numerous
close-quarter clashes, which characterize endemic warfare,
produces casualty rates of up to 60%, compared to 1% of the combatants
as is typical in modern warfare. "Primitive Warfare" of these small
groups or tribes was driven by the basic need for sustenance and violent
competition.
Fry explores Keeley's argument in depth and counters that such
sources erroneously focus on the ethnography of hunters and gatherers in
the present, whose culture and values have been infiltrated externally
by modern civilization, rather than the actual archaeological record
spanning some two million years of human existence. Fry determines that
all present ethnographically studied tribal societies, "by the very fact
of having been described and published by anthropologists, have been
irrevocably impacted by history and modern colonial nation states" and
that "many have been affected by state societies for at least 5000
years."
Steven Pinker's 2011 book, The Better Angels of Our Nature,
argued that modern society is less violent than in periods of the past,
whether on the short scale of decades or long scale of centuries or
millennia.
Steven Pinker argues that by every possible measure, every type
of violence has drastically decreased since ancient and medieval times. A
few centuries ago, for example, genocide was a standard practice in all kinds of warfare and was so common that historians did not even bother to mention it. Cannibalism and slavery have been greatly reduced in the last thousand years, and capital punishment
is now banned in many countries. According to Pinker, rape, murder,
warfare and animal cruelty have all seen drastic declines in the 20th
century.
Pinker's analyses have also been criticized, concerning the statistical
question of how to measure violence and whether it is in fact
declining.
Pinker's observation of the decline in interpersonal violence echoes the work of Norbert Elias,
who attributes the decline to a "civilizing process", in which the
state's monopolization of violence, the maintenance of socioeconomic
interdependencies or "figurations", and the maintenance of behavioural
codes in culture all contribute to the development of individual
sensibilities, which increase the repugnance of individuals towards
violent acts. According to a 2010 study, non-lethal violence, such as assaults or bullying appear to be declining as well.
Some scholars disagree with the argument that all violence is
decreasing arguing that not all types of violent behaviour are lower now
than in the past. They suggest that research typically focuses on
lethal violence, often looks at homicide rates of death due to warfare, but ignore the less obvious forms of violence.
Beyond deaths and injuries, highly prevalent forms of violence (such
as child maltreatment and intimate partner violence) have serious
lifelong non-injury health consequences. Victims may engage in high-risk
behaviours such as alcohol and substance misuse
and smoking, which in turn can contribute to cardiovascular disorders,
cancers, depression, diabetes and HIV/AIDS, resulting in premature
death. The balances of prevention, mitigation, mediation and exacerbation are complex, and vary with the underpinnings of violence.
Economic effects
In
countries with high levels of violence, economic growth can be slowed
down, personal and collective security eroded, and social development
impeded. Families edging out of poverty and investing in schooling their
sons and daughters can be ruined through the violent death or severe
disability of the main breadwinner. Communities can be caught in poverty traps
where pervasive violence and deprivation form a vicious circle that
stifles economic growth. For societies, meeting the direct costs of
health, criminal justice, and social welfare responses to violence
diverts many billions of dollars from more constructive societal
spending. The much larger indirect costs of violence due to lost
productivity and lost investment in education work together to slow
economic development, increase socioeconomic inequality, and erode human
and social capital.
Additionally, communities with high level of violence do not
provide the level of stability and predictability vital for a prospering
business economy. Individuals will be less likely to invest money and
effort towards growth in such unstable and violent conditions. One of
the possible proves might be the study of Baten and Gust that used "regicide" as measurement unit to approximate the influence of interpersonal violence and depict the influence of high interpersonal violence on economic development and level of investments. The results of the research prove the correlation of the human capital and the interpersonal violence.
Religious and political ideologies have been the cause of interpersonal violence throughout history. Ideologues often falsely accuse others of violence, such as the ancient blood libel against Jews, the medieval accusations of casting witchcraft spells against women, and modern accusations of satanic ritual abuse against day care center owners and others.
Both supporters and opponents of the 21st-century War on Terrorism regard it largely as an ideological and religious war.
Vittorio Bufacchi describes two different modern concepts of
violence, one the "minimalist conception" of violence as an intentional
act of excessive or destructive force, the other the "comprehensive
conception" which includes violations of rights, including a long list
of human needs.
Anti-capitalists say that capitalism is violent, that private property and profit survive only because police violence defends them, and that capitalist economies need war to expand. In this view, capitalism results in a form of structural violence that stems from inequality, environmental damage, and the exploitation of women and people of color.
Frantz Fanon critiqued the violence of colonialism and wrote about the counter violence of the "colonized victims."
Throughout history, most religions and individuals like Mahatma Gandhi have preached that humans are capable of eliminating individual violence and organizing societies through purely nonviolent means. Gandhi himself once wrote: "A society organized and run on the basis of complete non-violence would be the purest anarchy." Modern political ideologies which espouse similar views include pacifist varieties of voluntarism, mutualism, anarchism and libertarianism.
For many people, ... only physical violence truly qualifies as
violence. But, certainly, violence is more than killing people, unless
one includes all those words and actions that kill people slowly. The
effect of limitation to a "killing fields" perspective is the widespread
neglect of many other forms of violence. We must insist that violence
also refers to that which is psychologically destructive, that which
demeans, damages, or depersonalizes others. In view of these
considerations, violence may be defined as follows: any action, verbal
or nonverbal, oral or written, physical or psychical, active or passive,
public or private, individual or institutional/societal, human or
divine, in whatever degree of intensity, that abuses, violates, injures,
or kills. Some of the most pervasive and most dangerous forms of
violence are those that are often hidden from view (against women and
children, especially); just beneath the surface in many of our homes,
churches, and communities is abuse enough to freeze the
blood. Moreover, many forms of systemic violence often slip past our
attention because they are so much a part of the infrastructure of life
(e.g., racism, sexism, ageism).
_Photo_Paolo_Villa_FOTO9260.JPG)
.jpg)
