Structural Violence

[FredLC]

Good, original, thread, ram. i'm gonna have to think it over before I have something useful t post in here.

By the way, remember thes posts I made?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3955701&postcount=57

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3955704&postcount=58

Don't know if you have actually read my "bible" when i have called people's attention to it las time, but I think it has quite a lot in common with the concept of perverse status quo that you are advocating here.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

BTW, in the debate about the honesty or dishonesty of implying the existence of violence in an immaterial co-relation of social agents, I think it is instrumental to actually define violence. Acording to the Merrian-webster:

Main Entry: vi·o·lence
Pronunciation: 'vI-l&n(t)s, 'vI-&-
Function: noun
1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure
2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : OUTRAGE
3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm> b : vehement feeling or expression : FERVOR; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : DISCORDANCE
4 : undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text).

 

[Arcadian83]

But if a slick salesman rips me off, I don't say they were 'violent' against me. If my parents make me do an unfair amount of chores, they aren't being violent towards me.

It's like saying: "I am mortal" -> "I am subject to death" -> "I am a servant of the rider of the pale horse in the apocolypse"
I certainly hope I'm not, though it might be kinda cool

If anything it's more like "Stuctural Injustice", but "violence" is better, because everyone hates violence with passion and a sense of urgency.

 

[Veritass]

PS. I see your sarcasm really stimulated the debate...
PPS. I also see that you've really settled the matter beyond question and given us a truly deep and rich understanding...

Ridiculing my use of sarcastic with your own sarcasm...interesting choice.

 

[Rambuchan]

Veritass: Was there any other choice? Please, lower the spam and get with the commentary of the topic.

Fred & TLC: Sorry, I've been too busy today to get anything significant done on CFC. Will come back to you.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Since luc has a habit of answering to threads that he's said he won't visit again, I thought I'd respond to this:

That is because people either 1) Can't understand common English, 2) Are not able to respect simple requests of other posters.
I am sorry, but where I come from discussing somebody who just left the room is not model behaviour. Growing up is about more than being able to read academic books and expressing abstract ideas in a satisfactory manner.

Hell, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd think the phrase "structural violence" were invented by conservatives to prevent debate about societal inequities.

If you just stay around long enough here, you sure will get every trite right-wing specimen in the whole cabinet of horrors.
When I was young, the French "noveaux philosophes" was all in fashion. They were mostly wind-bags but they were good at marketing and quite skilled ideology-producers. And... to the surprise to only a few one of them(To my eternal shame I can't remember who) had this idea that Marxism was a conspiracy against the working-class(!!).

I thought you thought that I didn't care about the poor, that I was okay with "structural violence." If that's not the case, then forget I said anything.

I have absolutely no reason to think that neither you nor anybody else don't "care" about the poor. As far as I understand everybody "cares" about the poor. So much in fact, that most of them want to keep them.
But by all means; while I haven't seen you carrying the torch about this on this board, I can't exclude the idea that you every night change into your super-hero costume and mercilessly carry on your crusade against exploitation and oppression.

I think President Bush has caused a good amount of suffering, but I wouldn't call him a "violent man." Any journalist from a reputable newspaper who wrote a headline, "Bush Shows Violent Tendencies Yet Again" would be instantly fired. But I guess that's just because The Times is run by the elite, eh?

And yes, here the dog lies buried.
I think he is indeed a violent man, and a dangerous one. Now I noticed that Ram, who is way more eloquent and probably smarter than me, already addressed this, so I have nothing to add.
But just ask yourself, and let us at the same time keep Godwin away; was Ceausescu a violent man? Robespierre? Wallenstein?
And regarding New York Times, yes a corporate newspaper is part of the elite, obviously.

Well, your mother is a whore.

Now I can see your age from your profile, and if you want me to continue to treat you as an adult; earn it.
You are lucky because: 1) I am tolerant 2) My relationship to my mother is euphemistically said problematic.
But I think that bringing in close family members in such ways are both unacceptable and immature. And I can guarantee you that if you, when you get out in the real word will go on like this, you will get far more knuckle sandwiches than you can ever digest.

Of course, by "whore" I mean "good cook." You see, language change!

If you think that this is a good example then you either need to get a girl or change your diet.
Here is a word for you which fits remarkably well and comes from a society which in some crucial ways was more mature than ours: "idiot". I can think of a fair number of others. Yes, language does indeed change.

Yes, language changes, but like you said, with societal changes. Not on the whims of a couple professors.

During the centurie I can think of quite a lot of individuals who created new terms for describing social processes and phenomenas that eventually gained ground and was incorporated in mainstream thinking. You know,history is not over, it is not only dead guys that can do that sort of thing.

I said I have nothing good to convince you otherwise, as this is just a semantics debate. I feel my opinion on the semantics behind "structural violence" is on equal debatable footing as my opinion on the best ice cream flavor. It's worth discussing in a thread like this, but not debating. I'm not sure how I got involved in a debate with you on ice cream; I am sorry.

You should rather be sorry for your tasteless analogy above, and your inability to write my username correctly. I am not a spelling-Nazi, but this is about fundamental respect.
And you might also want to work on your sarcasms. Stendhal used ten years to write a good novel, his example should be a shining one; coolness also requires some time.

 

[Norseman2]

Structured violence? As in a system of ordered/mandated violence?

One building knocking another building upside the head?

 

[MamboJoel]

Finally, I tend to find luceafarul's member bashing threads as entertaining as his "propaganda" threads. Mind if I reuse some witty quotes in real life ?
And I'll wear the shiny right wing cry baby suit once more in front of you : I think we have to be carefull with words to avoid misunderstandings and fallacies.
So while I acknowledge there is violence in economic dramas, George Bush, luceafarul's ideology (etc...), I think it's important to be careful with words : they are violent indeed

 

[WillJ]

Correct me if I am wrong, but this, I believe, sums up where you are coming from and the point you are making.

Are you really suggesting and leading us to believe that Bush is a man in isolation? Are you really saying to us that his "facilities" are not part of him as a person, as a president of a nation, as a commander in chief of the world largest military? Really?!

Now that, good sir, is dishonesty!

(But I suppose you'll just say you're playing a game with us....)

Yes, of course Bush's actions (often very indirect ones) as president of the U.S. are a central part of his character, not just how he treats his nieghbors at dinner parties.

Bush probably isn't the best example, as the Iraq war is quite, well, violent. But his veto on the stem cell research bill, to use just one example, is not what I would call "violent," even though it may lead to quite a bit of suffering.

Now, about your previous post and your points in general. I agree that a lot of dubious terminology is used all the time. Before you start to think otherwise, perhaps I should point out that if I heard someone use the term "structural violence" in real life, I would not howl like a monkey and punch them in the face. Just like I wouldn't do that to my boss when me makes me do "mandatory overtime."

I think just about every aspect of society hinges on some "violence," or more precisely, the threat of it. It's necessary for law and order, but when the "structure" is faulty, it can lead to much disorder. I don't disagree with this. But I still wouldn't call this disorder "structural violence." Perhaps TLC was on track with the computer analogy, although it seems a tad odd to me. I'm struggling for good words here; perhaps I'll get back to you.

And yes, here the dog lies buried.
I think he is indeed a violent man, and a dangerous one. Now I noticed that Ram, who is way more eloquent and probably smarter than me, already addressed this, so I have nothing to add.
But just ask yourself, and let us at the same time keep Godwin away; was Ceausescu a violent man? Robespierre? Wallenstein?
And regarding New York Times, yes a corporate newspaper is part of the elite, obviously.

Bush wasn't the best example, as I said to Ram. And your examples are good ones to show that inadequacy, as Ceausescu, Robespierre, and Wallenstein were all responsible for actual violence. Now if you read what I said to Ram and think Bush's veto is an act of violence, well then I'm not sure how to argue with such a fundamental disagreement on definition.

Now I can see your age from your profile, and if you want me to continue to treat you as an adult; earn it.
You are lucky because: 1) I am tolerant 2) My relationship to my mother is euphemistically said problematic.
But I think that bringing in close family members in such ways are both unacceptable and immature. And I can guarantee you that if you, when you get out in the real word will go on like this, you will get far more knuckle sandwiches than you can ever digest.


If you think that this is a good example then you either need to get a girl or change your diet.
Here is a word for you which fits remarkably well and comes from a society which in some crucial ways was more mature than ours: "idiot". I can think of a fair number of others. Yes, language does indeed change.

It was indeed not wise or mature of me to mention your mother, what with its emotional charge, and I apologize. That doesn't change the point behind it, of course.

During the centurie I can think of quite a lot of individuals who created new terms for describing social processes and phenomenas that eventually gained ground and was incorporated in mainstream thinking. You know,history is not over, it is not only dead guys that can do that sort of thing.

And there have been many more individuals who tried to create new words but largely failed. Are you a betting man?

You should rather be sorry for your tasteless analogy above, and your inability to write my username correctly. I am not a spelling-Nazi, but this is about fundamental respect.

I am sorry for misspelling your name. (No, really, I am.)

I have absolutely no reason to think that neither you nor anybody else don't "care" about the poor. As far as I understand everybody "cares" about the poor. So much in fact, that most of them want to keep them.
But by all means; while I haven't seen you carrying the torch about this on this board, I can't exclude the idea that you every night change into your super-hero costume and mercilessly carry on your crusade against exploitation and oppression.

Well, my life's goal does happen to be getting a Ph.D. in development economics or microfinance and working to end poverty in undeveloped/developing countries, having been inspired by Jeffrey Sachs's End of Poverty, among other works. Make of that what you will; I wouldn't have mentioned it, as it's irrelevant to this thread, if you hadn't egged me on with that wiseass super-hero comment.

 

[Rambuchan]

Yes, of course Bush's actions (often very indirect ones) as president of the U.S. are a central part of his character, not just how he treats his nieghbors at dinner parties.

Bush probably isn't the best example, as the Iraq war is quite, well, violent. But his veto on the stem cell research bill, to use just one example, is not what I would call "violent," even though it may lead to quite a bit of suffering.

What I was encouraging you to do was to think of the "structure" in "structural violence". You are reducing it to one man in your first paragraph and one bill in your second. Kindly bear in mind the structure, its implements and all that is implied, as well as the one man and the one bill.

I also wish you had chosen someone else. It leaves us both looking very bad.

Now, about your previous post and your points in general. I agree that a lot of dubious terminology is used all the time. Before you start to think otherwise, perhaps I should point out that if I heard someone use the term "structural violence" in real life, I would not howl like a monkey and punch them in the face. Just like I wouldn't do that to my boss when me makes me do "mandatory overtime."

Absolutely. Punching people in the face tends to lead down a road contrary to enlightening discussion. That's a beauty I happen to love about OT actually. With us not being allowed to follow such a course, all us members are spared the sight of what would otherwise be a seething brawl pit. Let's face it!

So Mr Coolness, you are quite free to fairly argue the use of such phrases here in OT and not risk a punch in the face, or a baton in the ribs...

I'm just wondering, why don't you do it more often? I can't count the threads on two hands that are on my version of page one that contain massive assumptions about certain dubious phrases. Why not speak up about those as well, instead of only this one?

Semantics is where truly aloof coolness is at, right?

I think just about every aspect of society hinges on some "violence," or more precisely, the threat of it. It's necessary for law and order, but when the "structure" is faulty, it can lead to much disorder. I don't disagree with this. But I still wouldn't call this disorder "structural violence." Perhaps TLC was on track with the computer analogy, although it seems a tad odd to me. I'm struggling for good words here; perhaps I'll get back to you.

TLC is not on track with the analogy and I have said why I think this. Bear in mind the meeting point of the two words, which he is denying both with his anaology and general approach. And yes, do please get back to me.

 

[Zamecnik]

[/QUOTE] Well, my life's goal does happen to be getting a Ph.D. in development economics or microfinance and working to end poverty in undeveloped/developing countries, having been inspired by Jeffrey Sachs's End of Poverty, among other works. Make of that what you will; I wouldn't have mentioned it, as it's irrelevant to this thread, if you hadn't egged me on with that wiseass super-hero comment.[/QUOTE]

If you don't understand structural violence, then you don't belong in the development field, neither does Jeffrey Sachs, or alot of other people. End of Poverty is a horrible book IMO, there are others out there, try some.

 

[WillJ]

What I was encouraging you to do was to think of the "structure" in "structural violence". You are reducing it to one man in your first paragraph and one bill in your second. Kindly bear in mind the structure, its implements and all that is implied, as well as the one man and the one bill.

You mean the institution that gives Bush this veto power, and the armed forces that are prepared to defend this institution?

I've heard governments defined as having a "monopoloy of force." I could see "structural violence" as capturing the same concept, but then again I know that's not how it's used. When I don't have work to do (I'm kind of procrastinating here, as I'm prone to do), I might re-read what you've said and give it some more thought.

I'm just wondering, why don't you do it more often? I can't count the threads on two hands that are on my version of page one that contain massive assumptions about certain dubious phrases. Why not speak up about those as well, instead of only this one?

I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to. Examples? (Edit: I have a feeling you'll mention this, although I rarely read or venture into threads that are already that long. Too much work. And one reason I posted here was the sheer novelty of this thread, which I congratulate you on; that linked thread seemed to be lacking in it, no offense to Dawg.)

Keep in mind that this is one of a small handful of threads I've seen that is actually ABOUT a term and whether it's good or not. I'm of course not enough of an ass to point out the foibles of people's language when it's not what the discussion is about. (Unless it's a very important foible! And in such cases, I've shared my opinion, although specific examples escape me at the moment.)

If you don't understand structural violence, then you don't belong in the development field, neither does Jeffrey Sachs, or alot of other people. End of Poverty is a horrible book IMO, there are others out there, try some.

Well...

1. Since I "don't understand" structural violence, do you have any personal insights, or what?
2. Why does Sachs not belong in the development field? He's done quite a bit of good, as far as I can tell. (Keep in mind I disagree with him on some things, and don't worship him or anything.)
3. Specifics on why End of Poverty was horrible?
4. What do you recommend?
5. Are you personally involved in development? Just curious.

 

[Kozmos]

Structural Violence? Umm is that violence towards structures. As a suicide bomber, I feel somewhat guilty by destroying all those building.

 

[Rambuchan]

You mean the institution that gives Bush this veto power, and the armed forces that are prepared to defend this institution?

Yes. Plus everything that has been mentioned before. It is an holistic view that the phrase encourages.

TLC: This holistic view is what is not taken into consideration with your analogy. That is why I say it does not work.

I've heard governments defined as having a "monopoloy of force." I could see "structural violence" as capturing the same concept, but then again I know that's not how it's used. When I don't have work to do (I'm kind of procrastinating here, as I'm prone to do), I might re-read what you've said and give it some more thought.

That "monopoly of (rather 'on') force" is very important. It is what I refered to in my rambling post. It is one component in the make up of "the structure" and this monopoly helps to underwrite everything with violence. This monopoly on force is both actual and implied (threatened). Consequences flow as direct and indirect results. The indirect ones tend to be more long lasting and damaging, for everyone.

Remember the historical, holistic view I mentioned when reading the link.

I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to. Examples? (Edit: I have a feeling you'll mention this, although I rarely read or venture into threads that are already that long. Too much work. And one reason I posted here was the sheer novelty of this thread, which I congratulate you on; that linked thread seemed to be lacking in it, no offense to Dawg.)

Keep in mind that this is one of a small handful of threads I've seen that is actually ABOUT a term and whether it's good or not. I'm of course not enough of an ass to point out the foibles of people's language when it's not what the discussion is about. (Unless it's a very important foible! And in such cases, I've shared my opinion, although specific examples escape me at the moment.)

This is really not very important in the discussion I feel. How you post is really none of my business.

I'm just saying to you here, let's bear in mind that it is indeed all about the contest for language. Whether we have time to open and read the threads or not, whether the thread asks us to question the language or not, that's what it is all about at the end of the day.

By failing to contest such terminology, we allow so many other dangerous assumptions and omissions to creep into our minds, news, diplomacy and actions, simply by default.

Failing to take an holistic view of our political and social systems (both global and national), leads to a whole set of other problems. See the link above.

 

[Richard Cribb]

It was indeed not wise or mature of me to mention your mother, what with its emotional charge, and I apologize. That doesn't change the point behind it, of course.

Apology accepted, but the point that language changes still stands firm.

And there have been many more individuals who tried to create new words but largely failed. Are you a betting man?

That is not the point, and no I am not a betting man, in my situation I can't afford that luxury. What I am, however, is a man who think that leaving the doxic room once in a while is refreshing and expedient.
And to your point, I never said that every new-coined term becomes accepted. What I said is that in the change of time, change of social, economical and political structures, change of mental horizone, new concepts become paradigmatic (spelling?). In this process, snot and mustaches should ideally be sorted out, but of course the nature of political struggle is such that regressions sometimes appear.

I am sorry for misspelling your name. (No, really, I am.)

Good for you.

Well, my life's goal does happen to be getting a Ph.D. in development economics or microfinance and working to end poverty in undeveloped/developing countries, having been inspired by Jeffrey Sachs's End of Poverty, among other works. Make of that what you will; I wouldn't have mentioned it, as it's irrelevant to this thread, if you hadn't egged me on with that wiseass super-hero comment.

Jeffrey Sachs is indeed one of those goons I referred to. I leave to Zamechnik (nice avatar Zamechnik! ) to carry on that debate, but you may want to check out what he did to Russia, and then ask yourself how much credibility anybody has after such a human disaster.
Regarding wiseass comments, nobody has the monopoly around here to be tall and handsome, and I am not so sure whether I was the one who started.
However, what the one who launched an ad-hominem attack on me consisting false accusations can be sure of , is that he is reported. But that one I have long time ago given up to treat like an adult.

 

[WillJ]

This is really not very important in the discussion I feel. How you post is really none of my business.

I'm just saying to you here, let's bear in mind that it is indeed all about the contest for language. Whether we have time to open and read the threads or not, whether the thread asks us to question the language or not, that's what it is all about at the end of the day.

By failing to contest such terminology, we allow so many other dangerous assumptions and omissions to creep into our minds, news, diplomacy and actions, simply by default.

Failing to take an holistic view of our political and social systems (both global and national), leads to a whole set of other problems. See the link above.

"Indeed" is all I have to say here.

That "monopoly of (rather 'on') force" is very important. It is what I refered to in my rambling post. It is one component in the make up of "the structure" and this monopoly helps to underwrite everything with violence. This monopoly on force is both actual and implied (threatened). Consequences flow as direct and indirect results. The indirect ones tend to be more long lasting and damaging, for everyone.

Remember the historical, holistic view I mentioned when reading the link.

I read the link, and yes, that is a solid example of this "structural violence." But the monopoly on force possessed by our world's governments is necessary, I think. Structural violence leads not only to such economic idiocy as what you linked to but also to a myriad of positive results, the most basic one being the simple survival of the species through law and order (others being public literacy, health care, etc.). I see no reason to limit structural violence to such things as poverty and classism.

That is not the point, and no I am not a betting man, in my situation I can't afford that luxury. What I am, however, is a man who think that leaving the doxic room once in a while is refreshing and expedient.
And to your point, I never said that every new-coined term becomes accepted. What I said is that in the change of time, change of social, economical and political structures, change of mental horizone, new concepts become paradigmatic (spelling?). In this process, snot and mustaches should ideally be sorted out, but of course the nature of political struggle is such that regressions sometimes appear.

Fair enough.

Jeffrey Sachs is indeed one of those goons I referred to. I leave to Zamechnik (nice avatar Zamechnik! ) to carry on that debate, but you may want to check out what he did to Russia, and then ask yourself how much credibility anybody has after such a human disaster.

Not only will you leave it up to Zamecnik (notice how there's no 'h'), but I suppose this is hardly the thread to discuss such things anyway.

Regarding wiseass comments, nobody has the monopoly around here to be tall and handsome, and I am not so sure whether I was the one who started.
However, what the one who launched an ad-hominem attack on me consisting false accusations can be sure of , is that he is reported. But that one I have long time ago given up to treat like an adult.

My original comment was hardly personal; the only actual ad-hominem attack I remember is you calling me an idiot. If pleas regarding who "started it" is what makes an adult, then I suppose I don't mind if you don't consider me one.

 

[Richard Cribb]

My original comment was hardly personal; the only actual ad-hominem attack I remember is you calling me an idiot. If pleas regarding who "started it" is what makes an adult, then I suppose I don't mind if you don't consider me one.

My apologies for the misunderstanding.
You are not the one I referred to in the quoted passage (You may want to check out post #48...).
That said, I never called you an idiot.

 

[WillJ]

My apologies for the misunderstanding.
You are not the one I referred to in the quoted passage (You may want to check out post #48...).

Ah, I see.

That said, I never called you an idiot.

Now that I realize I misunderstood you above, perhaps it's beside the point, but I was referring to this, although perhaps I'm confused, since I'm no expert on the etymology of the word "idiot": Here is a word for you which fits remarkably well and comes from a society which in some crucial ways was more mature than ours: "idiot". I can think of a fair number of others. [post 46]

 

[Richard Cribb]

Ah, I see.

Now that I realize I misunderstood you above, perhaps it's beside the point, but I was referring to this, although perhaps I'm confused, since I'm no expert on the etymology of the word "idiot": Here is a word for you which fits remarkably well and comes from a society which in some crucial ways was more mature than ours: "idiot". I can think of a fair number of others. [post 46]

That's a fair cop.
Idiot (Idiotes) is a word originally coming from Ancient Greek polises and refers to those who did not care to take part in public life, but were just concerned about their own interest. For the ancient Greeks this was a shameful way of living, but didn't necessarily imply exaggerated stupidity.
Times surely change, and not always to the better.

 

[WillJ]

That's a fair cop.
Idiot (Idiotes) is a word originally coming from Ancient Greek polises and refers to those who did not care to take part in public life, but were just concerned about their own interest. For the ancient Greeks this was a shameful way of living, but didn't necessarily imply exaggerated stupidity.
Times surely change, and not always to the better.

Well, obviously I disagree with that characterization, but at least it made sense in context, so forget my accusation.