Violence is a significant, universal political occurrence. There is hardly any difference between the history of violence and the history of politics. Abuse can take different forms such as physical, economic, psychological, political, social, and identity-yielding (Siroky, 2012, p.350). It is vital to differentiate between the types of violence that attract public attention and those that are often ignored, and how they intersect as they are never mutually exclusive (Lupu and Peisakhin, 2017, p.836). Based on one’s understanding of violence, their perception of peace, conflict, and war will differ.
There is a close link between power relations and violence. In hierarchical societies, people are more or less acceptable or desirable based on their compliance with the current assumptions and values (Cocks, 2012, p.223). Consequently, people undergo disciplinary measures or exclusions that are physical or psychological or even both. Violence is not only present in conditions of conflict or war but within political and social processes, which leads to the dilemma of whether to understand violence in a limited or more significant perspective. Abuse is not necessarily physical and can be broadly conceptualized as a force, a violation or structural violence.
Violence as a Force
Force as coercion is defined based on the agent or perpetrator of destruction. Catastrophic use of force can cause a disturbance. According to Bufacchi, (2005, p.195) energy results in violence when it frustrates or defeats purposes rather than realizing or executing it. For example, when an explosive kills people instead of shattering rocks, and it results in waste and destruction instead of production and construction. Hence, it is called violence and not power or energy. In this case, violence happens when force produces destruction. This explanation offers a relatively clear and narrow understanding of violence and leaves out its other forms.
Violence as a Violation
A Human Rights perspective defines violence as any avoidable activity that amounts to infringement of human rights, in its broadest interpretation, or which hinders the satisfaction of an essential human right (Bufacchi, 2005, p.199). This definition is based on the victim of violence and includes more comprehensive analysis of violence past force. An example is being subjected to a totalitarian type of rule. However, this rights-oriented perspective leads to ever-widening conceptualization of violence from physical suffering to psychological, economic and social issues. Bufacchi (2005, p.202) asserts that if violence is infringing a human right, then every social mistake is a brutal one, every crime against humanity is a violent crime, and every sin against a person is a violent act. Defining violence can extend to a meaningless degree.
An individual can apply physical violence if he or she intentionally acts in a manner that obstructs another’s exercise of their legitimate rights through physical means. However, the deliberate infliction of psychological injury on an individual or individuals can also be called violence. Furthermore, Bufacchi (2005, p.203) notes that violence is felt when people are influenced to make their mental and bodily realizations go below their possible understandings. For example, terrorism can generate physical destruction as well as violence that is not necessarily physical. Physical abuse would include injuring and killing people as well as damage and destruction of poverty, while non-physical violence would consist of a challenge to prevailing ideas and values as well as psychological trauma. An example of abuse that is both physical and psychological is the Drone Warfare which led to the maiming and killing of 3500 civilians in Pakistan. The constant threat of being injured or killed is considered a psychological violence. Another example is the indiscriminate German bombing campaign in London that occurred between 1940 and 1941. Its primary intention was to destroy important infrastructural objects and squash the moral of civilians. These attacks on civilians were regarded as a war crime (Zúquete and Martin, 2015, p.787).
Structural Violence
Violence is not necessarily caused by a direct action but also can be interwoven within the structures of the society (Cocks, 2012, p. 850). Stone (2015, p.182) describes structural violence as elusive, often hidden. Usually more than one person is responsible for this crime. For example, when one parent physically assaults their child it is the act of personal violence, but when a million parents fail to provide education to one million children we are dealing with structural violence. Other examples involve military, police, or additional power of the state committing violent acts. Naturally, it is easy to accuse the individual soldier. However, the aspects that caused the soldier to kill a civilian may be far more intricate than the explanation would imply.
Conclusion
To sum up, violence can be physical or non-physical. While physical violence involves pressure or power to cause them harm, non-physical violence involves those actions that arise from power relationships, such as intimidation, threats and so on. Such non-physical violence results in a wide range of consequences including maldevelopment, deprivation, and psychological harm. Political violence differs extensively in practice, severity, and form.
References
Bufacchi V. 2005. Two Concepts of Violence. Political Studies Review, 3 (2), pp.193-204
Cocks, J. 2012, The Violence of Structures and the Violence of Foundings. New Political Science, 34 (2), pp. 221-227.
Lupu, N., and Peisakhin L. 2017. The Legacy Of Political Violence Across Generations. American Journal Of Political Science, 61 (4), pp. 836-851.
Siroky, D. S. 2012. Dissecting Political Violence. International Studies Review, 14 (2), pp. 349-351.
Stone, L.K. 2015. Suffering Bodies and Scenes of Confrontation: The Art and Politics of Representing Structural Violence. Visual Anthropology Review, 31 (2), pp.177-189.
Zúquete, J. P. 2015. Martin A. Miller.The Foundations Of Modern Terrorism: State, Society And The Dynamics Of Political Violence. Terrorism And Political Violence, 27 (4), pp.786-788.
