Process comment: Notice the strict adherence to the playbook.
Step one: use the most divisive and incendiary labels that you can imagine to bait people into a power discussion. Use various cognitive distortions (e.g., black and white thinking, labeling, etc.) to support claims.
Step two: when someone says they disagree, call them a racist and insist that words don't actually have meaning (and truth doesn't actually exist) and then use identity and discrimination/racism to further call them a label at a systematic level without thought to divisive nature of claims and if it's actually good for society.
Step three: the low status individuals sits there like a stone wall because they have the "moral high ground" because you are a vile privileged member of a group and have increased their control over others.
wow, i am impressed and fascinated by the many assumptions you have made about others' internal motivation states, the "status" of individuals who you do not know, and the conclusions those assumptions have led you to. if what you listed happens to be a personal experience you have had in the past, i'm sorry that happened to you.. it sounds like it was very frustrating. i can see how you might be associating that experience with this one given that we have been talking about power, but i'm happy to report that none of the motivations (e.g. using divisive and incendiary labels to bait people into a power discussion) or perceptions of myself (having the "moral high ground") or others (e.g. vile privileged member) you listed apply to me in this situation or otherwise, actually. if you're willing to believe me, I hope that eases you a bit. it's hard for me to understand assuming others' intentions or motivation states, particularly to assume that they are nefarious. i take people's actions at face value and if I assume anything, I am assuming sincerity. And I understand initial disagreements or confusion as evidence of missing data and lack of mutual understanding. still, i empathize because I do recognize that we live in an unfair world and if the objective is to prevent harm over all other objectives, high sensitivity and low specificity is much safer than the alternative.
most essentially, i (and most people, i think) define power as the ability to act upon a thing, ability to do. fundamental to human power, and likely other beings too, include ability to be aware of external stimuli (the world) and internal stimuli (ourselves), ability to access the world and ourselves, and ability to pursue our potential. of critical importance is that we are equal in our power and our ability to exercise our power to pursue awareness, access, and pursuit of potential. equal power means equal humanity.
Our ideas about knowledge and empiricism and most theories in our field are largely western/white. That certainly leads to bias in how we see knowledge and theory. That said, I’m not sure that this conversation about violence and its definition would be productive because our white western definition is accepted by researchers and has only recently been challenged and will continue to be seen as the standard without operational definitions and research that can supplant it.
Bigger picture thinking, perhaps
@ccool is challenging the reality of knowledge and understanding from our field and in general as a result of its inherent western/white bias, perhaps? I can agree with that aspect.
Also bigger picture, systemic racism is very difficult for some to see, label, and understand its wide ranging and far reaching effects on people of color. We have the same argument occur when people bring up microaggression research (defined poorly, can’t see the effects, hard to establish cause and effect). But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t hurt people or have an effect just because research on the subject is behind the curve and is murky. The effects of racism are very difficult to pin down, but that doesn’t mean our field should ignore it and give up on it or pretend it doesn’t exist because it’s difficult to study. That’s what I would say is a faulty assumption of our current science: if we can’t operationalize it, it doesn’t exist. Many phenomena exist but that are difficult to capture from our view of science in the western world.
Just reflecting on the larger issue here, if I’m not misunderstanding the points of view on both sides.
yes, correct. but not for the sake of doing so, for the sake of accuracy. it just so happens that questioning the construct of violence and its prevailing operationalization is challenging the reality of knowledge and understanding from our field.
Is the definition of a word really that tough to agree upon.
yes. because words not only have an operational definition but a conceptual one. and here actually is where i think most of the conflict about this lies. where i am using a different than the prevailing conceptual definition to operationalize oppression, discrimination, and dehumanization as forms of violence, i think, but am not certain that others are using a specific operational definition (i.e. exercise of physical force that causes harm) as the conceptual definition as well. This paper by MacCourquadale and Meehl (1948) "
On a Distinction Between Hypothetical Constructs and Intervening Variables" is kind of dense but I think does a nice job laying out this issue.. but honestly I think anything by Meehl that has anything to do with issues related to defining constructs is always relevant.
Can't we get numerous lines of research to support the weight of the evidence one way or another. Maybe sample a lot of dictionaries and tally up who mentions physical as a necessary component, or intention. Maybe survey a representative group of people and see what they think. When the weight of the evidence falls one way or another you can say that violence tends to mean so and so with the caveat that not everyone agrees and meanings of words change over time.
This would only measure the popularity of certain definitions over others...which would likely simply be a reflection of dominant ideology. It would not necessarily help us get closer to identifying and articulating at the "nature" of violence.
Finally, no one seems to want to address that the newer definition would be so inclusive that it would make teaching a class an act of violence.
As I originally said, this is incredibly complex. In thinking about power, its various levels (e.g. human, institutional, systemic) and the ways that it can be used (e.g. destructively/constructively), I think it is important to remember that at the human power level, we are inherently equal. As a function of our human power, we are able to consent/agree and withdraw consent or refuse anything. Given that we share equal power, or ability to do, and that power is not inherently bad or harmful, though it has the potential to be, one thing we have the ability to agree to (or refuse) is differences in power. This occurs often in institutional contexts where students in a classroom accept and agree to the institutional power differential between themselves and the instructor. That is, all involved have consented to the idea that in this context, the teacher (seemingly) has some knowledge base that the students don't and that the teacher's purpose is to educate the students on that knowledge, evaluate the extent of students' learning, and report on the results of the evaluation of their learning, for example. Thus, anything that happens as a function of the exercise of the agreed-upon teacher's institutional power (i.e. educating students, evaluating and reporting on learning) must be accepted given that all used their human power to enter and engage in that relationship with those contingencies. And if any one doesn't accept the conditions, they have the human and institutional power to do anything else, like drop the class, for example. However, if an instructor were to use their increased institutional power in comparison to the student to engage in a power differential behavior that the student has not agreed upon and that undermines, violates, or impedes their own humanity/power, to say, make a grade contingent on the completion of a sexual favor by the student, I would call that incident an act of violence. Or to make it non-sexual/physical, if an instructor were to act to prevent a student from dropping the class by telling them that if they do, they will tell all other instructors that they are the worst student ever, I would call that an act of violence. The problem is not the exercise of power, nor even differences in power given that those differences have been agreed to. Rather, it is the non-consensual exercise of unequal power that is the problem. We can also see this agreed-upon unequal power dynamic in personal relationships. However a couple chooses to organize themselves and act in their relationship is fine as long as both agree; problems related to power differentials occur when one exercises their power (human, institutional, systemic) to undermine, impede, or violate the others' human power. Systemic power is a different case than those I think because there I would argue that power differentials on the systemic level are not agreed upon. I have a hard time imagining that anyone who is a member of a subjugated group agree to their group-level subjugation and the manifestations of it on the institutional and interpersonal levels. Thus, I think that any exercise of systemic power that undermines, violates, or impedes another's human power, or ability to do, is an act of violence.
Of course, some violence is discriminatory.
I would argue that discrimination that occurs as a function of the exercise of nonconsensual differences in power is a form of violence. Other forms of discrimination, like choosing a fish filet that has indicators of being fresh over a murky-colored, fishy-smelling filet at the market to serve for dinner tonight are things we do all the time and are necessary.
But I would have a hard time equating the violence of the elderly Asian woman beaten in broad daylight to having your name mispronounced.
What is the need to equate these two acts, and more specifically to attempt to do so in a hierarchical way? Sure, a hierarchy of violence, that also imbeds perpetrator intent, has been constructed in a legal sense, but I don't know why or how creating a hierarchy and making judgements based upon it is relevant to defining the construct of violence or to its operationalization.
As WisNeuro said, I would say more clearly that some violence is discriminatory (edit: maybe most violence is discriminatory if we include the intent aspect but not that most discrimination is violence).
The point I am making is that conflating discrimination with violence would lead to far more problems than solutions (at least in the short term). But, I am very open to that idea that short-term problems can lead to important long-term gains. Though, it does not seem anyone has tried too make that point. Perhaps if we start calling all discrimination violence then it would lead to a reduction in discrimination (though, I have a hard time believing punishment is an effective long-term solution).
The purpose in defining the construct of violence is not to make it more inclusive or to make people do anything. also, the logic of calling all discrimination violence leading to reduction in discrimination rests on many assumptions including but not limited to the idea that people do things that result in harm with the intention of being harmful (i.e. if they choose to be harmful that means they can choose not to be harmful), that people place different values on engaging in something that would be characterized as "discrimination" versus "violence," and that people are motivated to reduce "violence" than "discrimination," for whatever reasons.
Similarly, saying that violence includes people using their power in a way that leads to psychological harm may also be more problematic than helpful. The same with deprivation. Do I not have the power to give my life savings to starving children around the world? However, by not exercising my power, am I not in turn depriving starving children of food? So, I guess I am being violent to anyone in the world that can genuinely use my money? The arguments seem to cyclone out of control at that point.
I stress again that I want to hear the counterarguments. What I am saying is that the voice in the back of my head that questions the efficacy of eye movements, the science behind energy therapies, validity of horoscopes, the statements from the CCP about Uyghurs, Turkey's stand on the Armenian genocide, and the promises of politicians is also barking at the statement that was made by
@ccool
Equally important, my goal is to not minimize the discriminatory experiences that
@futureapppsy2 had on the job market (and generally in the world). But we live in a world where some things are definitely real (
@foreverbull and
@ClinicalABA ) and questioning them is likely to only slow down progress (e.g., the earth revolves around the sun, the earth is not flat). Now, I don't know where the definition of violence fits on the spectrum of reality but seemingly more towards accurate knowledge (meaning, we actually have an English definition for it that the vast majority of people accept different from how it was used) than not (e.g., the definition is whatever we make it out to be based on you cultural perspective).
I am sure I wrote something inaccurate or worth arguing against. And, maybe, no one wants to argue it. Either way, I would love to hear something more about what the word
violence means and if using it in a more inclusive way is more helpful or harmful.
hmm. interesting case. i haven't thought about this. hmm, the question is, is awareness of violence with no action or witnessing an act of violence an act of violence in itself? there is no directive to exercise our power, no matter the level we're talking about. so to not exercise our power is simply a personal choice, a reflection of our human power not to do so. if not exercising our power undermines, violates, or impedes an others' power, then yes, i suppose. although i have to think more about it... i think something weird in your example and in this question that makes it tricky is that I think the proximity, mutuality (?) of the relationship matters. general thoughts I'm having are related to bystanders across a range of situations. i think this is a moral and philosophical question more than anything: if one has the ability to act, must we?
You’ll note that I never said you or people in this thread can ignore racism—but our field, generally speaking, so that seemed to land in a place where it wasn’t directed.
Ignoring racism has been true historically (not necessarily recently) and I would imagine not disputable. It’s basically empirical logic taken to the extreme by saying we shouldn’t study X because we don’t know how to do so and stick to things that we know and are easier—much easier to say it isn’t possible to study or place the burden on those who are marginalized to study it, or to simply say it doesn’t exist. One might see how that could reflect a certain power relationship that parallels greater society.
That idea aside, I don’t think everyone completely disagrees here. That said, I want to note that the entire basis of western knowledge/empiricism shouldn’t be exempt from criticism itself—not just social justice concepts, but yes, they are included.
quoted for agreement and reiteration.
But no one did that in this thread, if anything, people advocated for more research to properly explore and define some of these things.
From my perspective, up to the point of recent engagement, with some exceptions, the general sentiment that was expressed was: don't question or critique the current knowledge base. doing so is bad for the field. we refuse to engage with the content of said question or critique unless you utilize the current knowledge base to convince us that it is acceptable for you to offer the critique in the first place... despite the fact that you only offered a response, which happened to be a critique, because you were asked to and not because you were making a declaration of fact for all people to abide by.
I agree that's the heart of the issue. Violence is a term that people can identify as "a wrong thing and can have negative consequences" and I don't think always discrimination or other terms can have that same weight. So social justice researchers- rightly or wrongly- latch on to a term to get people to care when they notice that they're being told their experiences are not as bad as someone else's worse thing. It's a technique to address whataboutism.
point of reference, what is a social justice researcher? i think someone else mentioned it before too? also, i don't deny that some people use words or terms to convey specific effects, despite the actual meaning and despite what is actually happening, and that use of those terms rise and fall with various trends. i know you're not implying that this is what I did, but I just want to take every opportunity to reiterate that I have no purpose or motivation to use any word, including the word violence, other than to be accurate and incisive with my language. if people find its use incendiary or read it as a call to action or whatever, that is their responsibility. i can imagine that maybe its use and the use of other words that seem to evoke strong emotional reactions in people, like power, has a lot more to do with their evaluation of the implications or outcomes related to the existence of that construct than the construct itself.
Agreed. However, that is a philosophy of science question.
philosophy of science and epistemology is fundamental to the conduct of science and its products, knowledge, no? sure, we may not actively be thinking of all of these things when we are conducting science, but we are always fundamentally operating and making conclusions on an array of these premises.
For example, when talking about which treatment is most beneficial for PTSD, PE or CISD, and public funds need to be allocated while training programs and professional organizations need to agree on standards, empiricism, positivism, determinism, and skepticism are currently accepted as the most effective methods of getting to the "truth." These are definitely not the only possible methods of attaining "truth" or understanding our reality or gaining knowledge but that is an academic conversations. Perhaps, the reasons for why we need to know certain truths will change and thus our methods will change. We should definitely improve on the actually techniques and reduce bias but questioning certain realities (e.g., the definition of words could be more problematic than helpful).
In what ways could questioning certain realities be more problematic than helpful? And even if doing so does result in problems, so what? Alternately, presuming avoiding problems is the goal, are there any other solutions besides, don't question certain realities, that exist? At what point can on question certain realities? Or when is that not problematic? If it's never, why? and what are the implications of that?
Hence my definition, in all its blandness. Words should be functional, and such an expansion of the word violence dilutes it to meaninglessness. Such a dilution limits the functionality of violence as a concept, requiring one to come up with a whole new word or phrase for what we now consider to be violence. Rather than making old words useless and making new words for old things, we should keep an old word that works well and people like OP should create or use another word that fits more with the definition they want to describe
i didn't think your definition was bland and thought that there were actually quite a few premises, particularly as it relates to abuse, that needed expansion. i think we're simply back at the difference between conceptual and operational definitions of things.
To go a step further, as I mentioned earlier, empiricism is functionally much more useful for our society.
empiricism is functionally much more useful for our society than what?
Phew. That was a lot. Thank you to those engaging in ideas with earnestness and for sharing your thoughts on these very complex issues.
