New Thread: Defining "Violence"

[foreverbull]

---

Members don't see this ad.

It is an interesting discussion. I think suggesting that researchers/scholars/etc. reflect on the definition of violence has really hit a nerve for a few. For some others, it’s “problematic.”

I’m a pragmatist at heart and would like to understand how a shift in defining violence would affect people in practice—both advantages and pitfalls. And when I say people, I mean people in power and people who are marginalized. Correct me if I’m wrong, but an expanded definition may serve to challenge those currently in power and bring more of a voice to marginalized groups—particularly given our history of locking marginalized groups (women, ethnic minorities, sexual and gender minorities, those with disabilities, etc.) out of power positions in organizations at every level.

For a real world example, a Black administrator gets held to a higher standard of conduct than his white colleagues (true story), and then gets forced to resign in the face of “failing” to meet this higher standard, which became a clear tactic to get rid of him. This person was also talked to differently than colleagues and left out of important administrative conversations (as the only Black administrator). How do you even label this experience and talk about with with HR? Would it have helped him if we had an expanded definition of violence to include the stress from the psychological shutting out by colleagues and implicitly racist behaviors by other admins? Would it help give him more of a voice than he has now? If so, then maybe it would have utility. Side note: most folks in this position feel forced to remain silent so they won’t be considered troublemakers by other local employers, which is another facet of systemic racism to be afraid to be perceived as “that” troublemaking person who thinks others are racist. It’s a horrible position to be in.

On the flip side, a possible disadvantage is that expanding the definition can also result in false claims or misunderstandings of the definition, and in fact, those who actually already do have more power and whose voices are listened to more in society (ie. white folks), could ALSO benefit from this definition. Or even something more benign could happen, such as misunderstanding the violence definition and thinking a certain interaction is violence when it really isn’t could happen and be initiated by any party, but again, I wonder if a white person’s claims would be taken more seriously than a person of color? Could this definition serve to reinforce the injustice if so?

I agree with @ccool that you can’t really fully separate power from discussions and ideas (and where they come from and who they’re directed to and will affect—and who has the power to enact the ideas or ignore them). Some folks in here don’t agree with this premise, as has been discussed in other threads, and some do. But that’s a general philosophy that I keep in the back of my mind.

 

[WisNeuro]

The issue when it comes to research/policy is that to make a sea change in the definition of violence merely on a whim, is advocating for a clumsy , ill-informed approach to change. Which, at least for science, is not how things work. Politics is its own f'd up bag of worms. Now, if we wanted to do some methodologically sound research to explore how some of these situations may or may not fit into a conceptualization of violence in a useful, data-driven way, sure. Otherwise, to return to a real-world example, we get into an absurd situation wherein people would like to expand the definition of trauma to include divorce, being fired from a job, or failing a college class. It's not backed up empirically, it's not useful, and it just makes the trauma world, as well as the stressful events research worlds look ridiculous. It's all fine and dandy to discuss things in the theoretical, but if we'd like to change well developed research areas or policy, let's do it intelligently.

 

[foreverbull]

The issue when it comes to research/policy is that to make a sea change in the definition of violence merely on a whim, is advocating for a clumsy , ill-informed approach to change. Which, at least for science, is not how things work. Politics is its own f'd up bag of worms. Now, if we wanted to do some methodologically sound research to explore how some of these situations may or may not fit into a conceptualization of violence in a useful, data-driven way, sure. Otherwise, to return to a real-world example, we get into an absurd situation wherein people would like to expand the definition of trauma to include divorce, being fired from a job, or failing a college class. It's not backed up empirically, it's not useful, and it just makes the trauma world, as well as the stressful events research worlds look ridiculous. It's all fine and dandy to discuss things in the theoretical, but if we'd like to change well developed research areas or policy, let's do it intelligently.

I'm confused--did anyone advocate for this willy-nilly policy approach in this thread? I certainly didn't say anything that would indicate that, and I'm not even saying I believe we SHOULD change the definition. This is purely hypothetical.

Also, I think you’ve made this point before, but yes, research, and most of us agree that it is a crucial piece when we want to use our field/data to support policy changes.

I’m simply discussing possible real world ramifications of an expanded definition because why not? I think it’s worthwhile to consider the possible ramifications both positive and negative of a change in definition in terms of real life, especially when it comes to power relationships, which you did not comment on.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm confused--did anyone advocate for this willy-nilly policy approach in this thread? I certainly didn't say anything that would indicate that, and I'm not even saying I believe we SHOULD change the definition. This is purely hypothetical.

Also, I think you’ve made this point before, but yes, research, and most of us agree that it is a crucial piece when we want to use our field/data to support policy changes.

I’m simply discussing possible real world ramifications of an expanded definition because why not? I think it’s worthwhile to consider the possible ramifications both positive and negative of a change in definition in terms of real life, especially when it comes to power relationships, which you did not comment on.

On this board, that would be the implication. The real world implications in our field do include research and policy. Otherwise, it's simply a philosophical exercise, which is fine, but somewhat fleeting in it's usefulness in most circumstances.

As far as the power relationships, they're largely a political issue and irrelevant when it comes down to the simple issue of the definition of violence. It's an action, power differential does not matter. Power can influence the likelihood of perpetration and victimhood, but it's irrelevant to the definition itself. Violence can be perpetrated by the abused or the abuser. It is an act, what precedes the act is interesting for other reasons, but not in the definition of an act.

 

[foreverbull]

On this board, that would be the implication. The real world implications in our field do include research and policy. Otherwise, it's simply a philosophical exercise, which is fine, but somewhat fleeting in it's usefulness in most circumstances.

As far as the power relationships, they're largely a political issue and irrelevant when it comes down to the simple issue of the definition of violence. It's an action, power differential does not matter. Power can influence the likelihood of perpetration and victimhood, but it's irrelevant to the definition itself. Violence can be perpetrated by the abused or the abuser. It is an act, what precedes the act is interesting for other reasons, but not in the definition of an act.

The OP said they are "chewing" on this topic and didn't fully agree with the WHO definition and are thinking through things and considering their own definitions--to me, this sounds like a desire to stimulate discussion rather than to set out to change policy. I've never thought about this topic in depth myself prior, and I haven't come to any strong conclusions, although it's clear that others have. We also discuss hypothetical situations fairly often in here with no action or changes resulting from it, but just for fun and to reflect on different topics, so I would imagine this topic would be worthy of discussion even if the purpose isn't to change anything.

As far as power, I'm not talking about power as part of the definition of violence, necessarily, but in the implementation/real life in terms of how a change in definition and subsequently policy change might affect different groups of people in different ways, which I believe is important to consider, even if just as a hypothetical exercise. I know the OP is including it in their definition of violence, but I'm not sure if I agree.

I think this is a topic that would be interesting for us all to "chew" on further.

 

[WisNeuro]

The OP said they are "chewing" on this topic and didn't fully agree with the WHO definition and are thinking through things and considering their own definitions--to me, this sounds like a desire to stimulate discussion rather than to set out to change policy. I've never thought about this topic in depth myself prior, and I haven't come to any strong conclusions, although it's clear that others have. We also discuss hypothetical situations fairly often in here with no action or changes resulting from it, but just for fun and to reflect on different topics, so I would imagine this topic would be worthy of discussion even if the purpose isn't to change anything.

As far as power, I'm not talking about power as part of the definition of violence, necessarily, but in the implementation/real life in terms of how a change in definition and subsequently policy change might affect different groups of people in different ways, which I believe is important to consider, even if just as a hypothetical exercise. I know the OP is including it in their definition of violence, but I'm not sure if I agree.

I think this is a topic that would be interesting for us all to "chew" on further.

I'd wager those who have lived and published in the world of PTSD/trauma have thought about this, or issues related to this. I don't think there is anything wrong with espousing a theory or newer idea, but there is also nothing wrong with being asked to explain that, particularly on a professional forum where experts on this broad area of research post frequently. This isn't Reddit.

 

[foreverbull]

I'd wager those who have lived and published in the world of PTSD/trauma have thought about this, or issues related to this. I don't think there is anything wrong with espousing a theory or newer idea, but there is also nothing wrong with being asked to explain that, particularly on a professional forum where experts on this broad area of research post frequently. This isn't Reddit.

I think it's obvious that this isn't Reddit. I didn't see us having a "Reddit" conversation in this thread by any means, so this was unnecessary, and frankly, patronizing.

Those who have that experience researching/working with PTSD can speak up, sure.

I've also worked with folks with PTSD and I do think it's a fair consideration to reflect on whether their "trauma" qualitatively differs from "trauma" or effects of being treated as an outcast by others and seeing injustice happen to you but not being able to put words to it because it isn't physical violence that happens one time, but a lifetime of symbolic tiny cuts and jabs, and largely implicit, so it's so easily dismissed, minimized, and denied by offending parties and systems. Is that fair to say it's trauma? Violence? Just plain old racism? I think the bigger problem is that we have very easily accepted frameworks/labels and treatment plans for PTSD and trauma/violence in terms of threats on one's life in the short term, but the latter situation is contested and controversial in our society (although perhaps not as much in our field now), and the treatment for the latter isn't just at the individual level, but societal, so there's not much motivation from those in power to address it or even acknowledge that it's happening. And the other problem is that our research at present fails to adequately capture this nuanced but lifelong issue.

This is getting a bit off topic, though.

 

[Grenth]

I might regret jumping in here but the PTSD specialty providers at the VA I'm on internship at (big MIRECC) is really shifting to allow systemic racism/microaggresions qualify for criterion A. This is troubling to me on several levels. One, these same providers are incredibly stringent about other types of trauma for example not allowing non combat/non MST in the clinic so seems quite the double standard. Two, this is explicitly not within DSM standards and could represent diagnostic fraud. Last, we don't even have evidence the trauma focused EBPs would be effective for something like microaggresions. I'm quite social justice oriented myself but some of things this facility does seem more driven by emotion than data.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think it's obvious that this isn't Reddit. I didn't see us having a "Reddit" conversation in this thread by any means, so this was unnecessary, and frankly, patronizing.

Those who have that experience researching/working with PTSD can speak up, sure.

I've also worked with folks with PTSD and I do think it's a fair consideration to reflect on whether their "trauma" qualitatively differs from "trauma" or effects of being treated as an outcast by others and seeing injustice happen to you but not being able to put words to it because it isn't physical violence that happens one time, but a lifetime of symbolic tiny cuts and jabs, and largely implicit, so it's so easily dismissed, minimized, and denied by offending parties and systems. Is that fair to say it's trauma? Violence? Just plain old racism? I think the bigger problem is that we have very easily accepted frameworks/labels and treatment plans for PTSD and trauma/violence in terms of threats on one's life in the short term, but the latter situation is contested and controversial in our society (although perhaps not as much in our field now), and the treatment for the latter isn't just at the individual level, but societal, so there's not much motivation from those in power to address it or even acknowledge that it's happening. And the other problem is that our research at present fails to adequately capture this nuanced but lifelong issue.

This is getting a bit off topic, though.

I didn't see it that way. Just my opinion, we can chew it on it, though 🙂

 

[ccool]

Congrats, @WisNeuro, on contributing to the creation of a hostile environment in this space (intentional or not).

here are some easy wiki links for others who may be interested in learning more about some of the tactics they used.

Sealioning - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Straw man - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

False dilemma - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia and Argument from authority - Wikipedia

Appeal to ridicule - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and maybe everyone is tired, which i honestly understand, but it intrigues me what content those who were adamant about maintaining the "standards" of this very professional board that is not Reddit, about saying that some things should or shouldn't be said on said board for any reason for fear of some possible harm to the very professional board, the public, and the field, and/or saying that anything that is said on said board, regardless of the reason, needs some unknown number of approved citations behind it, choose to apply those arguments to.

i never cared to convince anyone of anything nor whether others agree with me or not. i still don't. however, i really cannot allow this behavior to stand without articulating it and without logging my objection to it.

 

[WisNeuro]

Hostility is subjective. People will see it where and when they want to. As to my most recent comments, none intended at all. Merely meant to highlight the issue of a professional board (SDN) vs a largely laymen (Reddit) board. I guess it could be interpreted differently based on which subreddits you frequent.

Objection noted.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Though stuff in here. I've spent the past few days googling and youtubing (I know, not the best methods) about postmodern thinking.

It seems that postmodern thinking has become much more popular in the nonacademic world and has been losing steam with academic philosophers.

@ccool sorry you think that there is some sealioning going on in here. That is a new term for me. I can only say that I genuinely wanted support for some claims being made. Though, this is a rather evidence-free discussion. It appears to be more of a philosophical discussion about how and why we use certain words. However, even this post could come off as sealioning to a person. Like I said, tough stuff.

 

[borne_before]

Though stuff in here. I've spent the past few days googling and youtubing (I know, not the best methods) about postmodern thinking.

It seems that postmodern thinking has become much more popular in the nonacademic world and has been losing steam with academic philosophers.

@ccool sorry you think that there is some sealioning going on in here. That is a new term for me. I can only say that I genuinely wanted support for some claims being made. Though, this is a rather evidence-free discussion. It appears to be more of a philosophical discussion about how and why we use certain words. However, even this post could come off as sealioning to a person. Like I said, tough stuff.

Postmodernism is exhausting!

 

[cara susanna]

I might regret jumping in here but the PTSD specialty providers at the VA I'm on internship at (big MIRECC) is really shifting to allow systemic racism/microaggresions qualify for criterion A. This is troubling to me on several levels. One, these same providers are incredibly stringent about other types of trauma for example not allowing non combat/non MST in the clinic so seems quite the double standard. Two, this is explicitly not within DSM standards and could represent diagnostic fraud. Last, we don't even have evidence the trauma focused EBPs would be effective for something like microaggresions. I'm quite social justice oriented myself but some of things this facility does seem more driven by emotion than data.

I also hate to jump into this thread, but what you said is really fascinating. I agree with your concerns, fwiw.

(If we wanted to make a separate thread to discuss Criterion A creep, I'm all for that. Then again, I think we've had threads like that.)

 

[WisNeuro]

I also hate to jump into this thread, but what you said is really fascinating. I agree with your concerns, fwiw.

(If we wanted to make a separate thread to discuss Criterion A creep, I'm all for that. Then again, I think we've had threads like that.)

Let's recruit McNally to lead that discussion. Now that'd be interesting.

 

[ccool]

@ccool sorry you think that there is some sealioning going on in here. That is a new term for me. I can only say that I genuinely wanted support for some claims being made.

I’m confused, did I say that you were engaging in sealioning?

additionally, to my knowledge, I answered all of the questions you posed. In fact, your genuine question, (paraphrased) “in this instance what is the violence to which you’re referring” and my genuine response is what started this whole entire thing.

your questions communicated your genuine curiosity because each of them was about clarifying the content of statements, not the process or fact that a particular statement was made. And to my recollection, you didn’t ask me for “evidence”. To the extent that you did, I provided all of the premises I’m operating under - evidence of my conclusion.

other calls for evidence were weird and confusing to me because first, it was unclear what was the purported evidence that was being sought and what the appropriate amount or type of evidence would have been satisfactory for whatever the purpose. Second, these calls for evidence were only made when someone was also claiming that clarifying my definition in response to a question on a forum was problematic and/or using some fallacy to attempt to undermine my expression. I needed to show some kind of proof that I was allowed to even express what I did in this space. Furthermore, I reiterated an absurd number of times that I am not seeking to convince anyone of anything. Lastly, when the other person who offered a definition of violence on this thread did so, no calls for evidence were made. Thus, combined, repeated calls for evidence (of the content of my definition??? of my ability to share my definition???) rang as in bad faith to me.
I

Though, this is a rather evidence-free discussion. It appears to be more of a philosophical discussion about how and why we use certain words.

What started with me thanking someone for reminding everyone about the systemic, institutional, and interpersonal violence that can manifest within academia, and that I clarified to you by violence I meant that of oppression, discrimination, and dehumanization, became that, yes. I don’t apply any value judgement to having said discussion.

for me, the only problematic part of how this played out was that it seemed that some people were not content to simply disagree and share their own opinion, but to consistently use an array of fallacious arguments that resulted in the undermining and mischaracterization of my definition to bolster their point that I shouldn’t have said anything. That behavior is problematic because beyond this thread, I can imagine that others who may have thoughts about this or some other thing that comes up on this forum that may not align with the dominant thinking of the field or vocal people on this board may feel quite hesitant or concerned to express those things for fear of becoming ensnarled in a weird, prolonged battle or bad-faith argument filled with mocking, mischaracterization of ones expression and intentions, undermining of one’s expertise, and telling them to shut up. But I’ve said all of this before.

However, even this post could come off as sealioning to a person. Like I said, tough stuff.

I guess it could to someone, yes.

 

[Sanman]

Though stuff in here. I've spent the past few days googling and youtubing (I know, not the best methods) about postmodern thinking.

It seems that postmodern thinking has become much more popular in the nonacademic world and has been losing steam with academic philosophers.

@ccool sorry you think that there is some sealioning going on in here. That is a new term for me. I can only say that I genuinely wanted support for some claims being made. Though, this is a rather evidence-free discussion. It appears to be more of a philosophical discussion about how and why we use certain words. However, even this post could come off as sealioning to a person. Like I said, tough stuff.

I learned a new term, sealioning! I'm pretty sure that medical students call it pimping and I just referred to it as my dissertation defense. Can you just go into a dissertation defense now and tell everyone to stop sealioning you because it is traumatizing?

 

[WisNeuro]

I learned a new term, sealioning! I'm pretty sure that medical students call it pimping and I just referred to it as my dissertation defense. Can you just go into a dissertation defense now and tell everyone to stop sealioning you because it is traumatizing?

Apparently it's a defense to any line of questioning.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I’m confused, did I say that you were engaging in sealioning?

Oh, good. I wasn't sure if that included me and it was a new term for me 🙂

 

[Sanman]

It is an interesting discussion. I think suggesting that researchers/scholars/etc. reflect on the definition of violence has really hit a nerve for a few. For some others, it’s “problematic.”

I’m a pragmatist at heart and would like to understand how a shift in defining violence would affect people in practice—both advantages and pitfalls. And when I say people, I mean people in power and people who are marginalized. Correct me if I’m wrong, but an expanded definition may serve to challenge those currently in power and bring more of a voice to marginalized groups—particularly given our history of locking marginalized groups (women, ethnic minorities, sexual and gender minorities, those with disabilities, etc.) out of power positions in organizations at every level.

For a real world example, a Black administrator gets held to a higher standard of conduct than his white colleagues (true story), and then gets forced to resign in the face of “failing” to meet this higher standard, which became a clear tactic to get rid of him. This person was also talked to differently than colleagues and left out of important administrative conversations (as the only Black administrator). How do you even label this experience and talk about with with HR? Would it have helped him if we had an expanded definition of violence to include the stress from the psychological shutting out by colleagues and implicitly racist behaviors by other admins? Would it help give him more of a voice than he has now? If so, then maybe it would have utility. Side note: most folks in this position feel forced to remain silent so they won’t be considered troublemakers by other local employers, which is another facet of systemic racism to be afraid to be perceived as “that” troublemaking person who thinks others are racist. It’s a horrible position to be in.

On the flip side, a possible disadvantage is that expanding the definition can also result in false claims or misunderstandings of the definition, and in fact, those who actually already do have more power and whose voices are listened to more in society (ie. white folks), could ALSO benefit from this definition. Or even something more benign could happen, such as misunderstanding the violence definition and thinking a certain interaction is violence when it really isn’t could happen and be initiated by any party, but again, I wonder if a white person’s claims would be taken more seriously than a person of color? Could this definition serve to reinforce the injustice if so?

I agree with @ccool that you can’t really fully separate power from discussions and ideas (and where they come from and who they’re directed to and will affect—and who has the power to enact the ideas or ignore them). Some folks in here don’t agree with this premise, as has been discussed in other threads, and some do. But that’s a general philosophy that I keep in the back of my mind.

A few brief thoughts before I call it a night.

1. Why choose to use the word violence rather than the word exploitation for such imbalances of power or other non-physical aggression. It seems a much more apt term for something related to social dynamics.

2. There seems to be an underlying assumption with this argument that language is the barrier impeding us from addressing these power dynamics. That would suggest those in power are not aware of the power they yield other differences in how groups are treated. I don't think anything could be further from the truth. The U.S. is anything but a meritocracy.

3. Danger you incur is expanding the definition of language is the exploitation of that change to make the word meaningless. If violence can come to include a wide variety of gestures, does that mean that if you give someone a dirty look and he punches you in the face, you foisted violence on each other? Is that equivalence helpful in reducing violence or normalizing the term to the point where it has no meaning?

 

[ccool]

A few brief thoughts before I call it a night.

1. Why choose to use the word violence rather than the word exploitation for such imbalances of power or other non-physical aggression. It seems a much more apt term for something related to social dynamics.

my brief thoughts: the core of how I think about violence is someone forcing another person to do something or have some experience against their will... the nonconsensual placing of one’s self on to another...undermining another’s autonomy. And though maybe we can think of exploitation as some kind of coercion, which I do consider a form of violence, I don’t think it completely captures the forcing.

2. There seems to be an underlying assumption with this argument that language is the barrier impeding us from addressing these power dynamics. That would suggest those in power are not aware of the power they yield other differences in how groups are treated. I don't think anything could be further from the truth. The U.S. is anything but a meritocracy.

Of course the US is anything but a meritocracy. Many but not all know and/or agree to that. From my observation and experience, some unquantifiable number (more v less) of people with more power than others are not aware and/or do not believe that that is true. In fact, some people with more power than others/power over others claim that they have zero power! I don’t know why they think that. Is it because of a lack of adequate language to describe the phenomenon and its various implications and manifestations? Maybe. Would having more or more accurate language help increase awareness and action? Highly likely. Would it resolve everything? Highly unlikely. Would it make space for new problems? Highly likely. Is it still worth it if it is not a panacea? Yes.

3. Danger you incur is expanding the definition of language is the exploitation of that change to make the word meaningless. If violence can come to include a wide variety of gestures, does that mean that if you give someone a dirty look and he punches you in the face, you foisted violence on each other? Is that equivalence helpful in reducing violence or normalizing the term to the point where it has no meaning?

That example does not fit within the definition that has been offered, so no. That’s like asking, because psychologists currently use the word trauma to refer to criterion A events of the DSM V PTSD dx, is someone who uses the word trauma to refer to getting a bad grade on a test right? No, not based on the definition. Just because there is misunderstanding about the current conceptualization or misuse by the general public and some professionals, does that mean we should not have articulated criteria, a definition? And just because DSM-III first articulated a definition, does that mean it was problematic for us to continually examine and refine it up to its articulation now in DSM-V? Or even presently as seemingly some are starting to wonder if systemic racial oppression is part of how we should conceptualize criterion A and as a poster wrote in this thread, take action as such. Maybe yes, maybe no. Even if new or different problems, does that mean discovery and exploration are not worthwhile? I don’t think so.

edit: it seems to me that some people place a lot of values and various connotations on the word “violence.” And because of that, it seems to /mean/ more than physical harm to some. So using this word in another way, maybe capturing some of that hidden, implicit meaning stuff or maybe not, feels uhh disquieting or something. If accuracy is our purpose, I think operating on the actual meaning of words and the roots upon which they were built, like bia (Ancient Greek) for violence, best serves us when trying to aptly define our reality..given the limits and opportunities of language.

 

[ccool]

Also, completely by happenstance I learned yesterday that the concept of child abuse was first articulated in 1962.

Some physicians published an article in JAMA in which they offered a term, “battered child syndrome” to articulate it. //as a warning, the article bluntly describes multiple incidences of physical maltreatment/abuse of infants and toddlers and shows X-ray photos depicting some of these children//

it’s interesting to me to think about that history and the implications of this articulation... it was not a discovery or creation given that child maltreatment has been occurring across time. And sure, no one uses the term “battered children syndrome,” but the act of examining and exploring and naming phenomenon is paramount to doing something about it.

I have to do more digging but can’t find anything about the science community’s or public’s reception to this. I can only imagine that it was extremely controversial.

 

[foreverbull]

I think I'm just surprised at the resistance to even DISCUSSING possible real-world implications of a changed definition of violence--and repeated "but research!" calls when no one is saying we DON'T need research to inform policy. When folks start repeating themselves, using humor to deflect, and start arguing against extreme ideas that no one ever suggested, it starts looking like there's no interest in a real discussion, but would prefer to end it.

And to the VA trauma point, I think this gets at the problem of not being able to adequately measure racial trauma or the sum of microaggressions over the lifespan and sort of just popping it in. I can see how that could be difficult and frustrating, because those kinds of effects might show up in other ways that don't even resemble trauma or show up as another disorder's symptoms, perhaps. We need more theory and research (qual/quant) and to really figure out how to frame this kind of experience—the challenge is how. It’s sort of in its infancy to have a language around all of this beyond the standard “racism” and “oppression.”

Apparently it's a defense to any line of questioning.

You yourself accuse others of using straw men in threads here, then when you argue against points that no one made and you assumed as an “implication,” and it was called out as a straw man, this was your response. Noted.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think I'm just surprised at the resistance to even DISCUSSING possible real-world implications of a changed definition of violence--and repeated "but research!" calls when no one is saying we DON'T need research to inform policy. When folks start repeating themselves, using humor to deflect, and start arguing against extreme ideas that no one ever suggested, it starts looking like there's no interest in a real discussion, but would prefer to end it.

And to the VA trauma point, I think this gets at the problem of not being able to adequately measure racial trauma or the sum of microaggressions over the lifespan and sort of just popping it in. I can see how that could be difficult and frustrating, because those kinds of effects might show up in other ways that don't even resemble trauma or show up as another disorder's symptoms, perhaps. We need more theory and research (qual/quant) and to really figure out how to frame this kind of experience—the challenge is how. It’s sort of in its infancy to have a language around all of this beyond the standard “racism” and “oppression.”

You yourself accuse others of using straw men in threads here, then when you start arguing things that no one disagreed with because no one made those extreme arguments in this exact thread and it gets called out as a straw man, this was your response.

Noted.

My arguments always centered around the baseless definition change, if you can show me where I accuse someone of specifically saying a certain thing, please do.

 

[foreverbull]

My arguments always centered around the baseless definition change, if you can show me where I accuse someone of specifically saying a certain thing, please do.

See responses #102-105. You used the term “implication”—-that it was implied (by unspecified others) in this thread that there was an underlying argument that policy change should be enacted after changing the violence definition on a “whim.” That is an assumed argument, and a straw man argument, if I’m understanding the term correctly.

I reiterated that I didn’t disagree that research is important (although I had said that research AND epistemology should not be above critiquing for bias, etc. as we discussed earlier in the thread). I don’t recall others saying anything about eschewing research entirely in this discussion.

I don’t necessarily agree with everything said from either side here, but I am genuinely interested in understanding who might benefit from definition changes in our society—what would be the perceived upside? Several folks have weighed in about the perceived pitfalls.

 

[WisNeuro]

See responses #102-105. You used the term “implication”—-that it was implied (by unspecified others) in this thread that there was an underlying argument that policy change should be enacted after changing the violence definition on a “whim.” That is an assumed argument, and a straw man argument, if I’m understanding the term correctly.

I reiterated that I didn’t disagree that research is important (although I had said that research AND epistemology should not be above critiquing for bias, etc. as we discussed earlier in the thread). I don’t recall others saying anything about eschewing research entirely in this discussion.

I don’t necessarily agree with everything said from either side here, but I am genuinely interested in understanding who might benefit from definition changes in our society—what would be the perceived upside? Several folks have weighed in about the perceived pitfalls.

Yes, and I stand by the implication within the context of the argument, as this discussion has been described within a SJ framework. As well as the thought of the generalization to research and policy already having been brought up. The comment was not that a specific person was advancing that position but that such a position had consequences in those arenas. So once again, where did I accuse someone of a specific statement out of order?

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Also, completely by happenstance I learned yesterday that the concept of child abuse was first articulated in 1962.

Some physicians published an article in JAMA in which they offered a term, “battered child syndrome” to articulate it. //as a warning, the article bluntly describes multiple incidences of physical maltreatment/abuse of infants and toddlers and shows X-ray photos depicting some of these children//

it’s interesting to me to think about that history and the implications of this articulation... it was not a discovery or creation given that child maltreatment has been occurring across time. And sure, no one uses the term “battered children syndrome,” but the act of examining and exploring and naming phenomenon is paramount to doing something about it.

I have to do more digging but can’t find anything about the science community’s or public’s reception to this. I can only imagine that it was extremely controversial.

I am not sure I understand. Are you saying the term "battered child syndrome" was controversial? This article is from 1989 in the journal Child Abuse and Neglect. They tried to introduce a term that never seems to have caught on. Seemingly, because people were already studying this phenomenon for decades and did not want adopt an extraneous label.

but the act of examining and exploring and naming phenomenon is paramount to doing something about it.

I partially agree, likely people were not really studying child abuse much before the 60s. Though, a lot was not being studied before the 60s. Creating a term like child abuse likely helped organize, galvanize, and recognize a phenomenon that was harmful yet ignored. However, plenty of people are studying discrimination and have been doing so for a few decades. We all agree that it is harmful. Something is already being done about it. It does not have to be renamed or re-conceptualized to impact change (it may but I worry it would do the opposite). If anything, this examples seems to serve the point that changing discrimination to mean violence will likely not catch on like battered child syndrome did not catch on.

Furthermore, I am not sure how this post supports the view of calling non-physical and, more importantly, unintentional discrimination violence. This article is trying to create a categorical diagnosis to help in research and intervention on a harmful phenomenon. This is seemingly a wholly different reason than the current conversation. We are not creating a diagnosis here but using language in a manner that can cause more conflict and have the opposite of the intended effect.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I really feel (just my feelings) that if people start referring to unintentional and non-physical discrimination as violence they will get a defensive response (just like me here, though I have tried to channel the defensiveness into curiosity at first). This will lead to more barriers to reduce discrimination. Alternatively, people learning that discrimination is often a reflexive action that does not necessarily indicate an evil will or a desire to harm others is more likely to impact change. If we go around calling everyone violent for their discriminatory actions it will lead to more walls. On the other hand, if we explain to people that their inherent cognitive and social biases lead them to make unhelpful decisions with harmful consequences, I feel that is a much more impactful method to get people to be more open to changing their behaviors (or at least be mindful of their biases).

It feels like using the term violence so inclusively attempts to frighten and coerce people to not be discriminatory. From all I know about human behavior, this is not an effective method of getting long-term change.

 

[Sanman]

my brief thoughts: the core of how I think about violence is someone forcing another person to do something or have some experience against their will... the nonconsensual placing of one’s self on to another...undermining another’s autonomy. And though maybe we can think of exploitation as some kind of coercion, which I do consider a form of violence, I don’t think it completely captures the forcing.

Of course the US is anything but a meritocracy. Many but not all know and/or agree to that. From my observation and experience, some unquantifiable number (more v less) of people with more power than others are not aware and/or do not believe that that is true. In fact, some people with more power than others/power over others claim that they have zero power! I don’t know why they think that. Is it because of a lack of adequate language to describe the phenomenon and its various implications and manifestations? Maybe. Would having more or more accurate language help increase awareness and action? Highly likely. Would it resolve everything? Highly unlikely. Would it make space for new problems? Highly likely. Is it still worth it if it is not a panacea? Yes.

That example does not fit within the definition that has been offered, so no. That’s like asking, because psychologists currently use the word trauma to refer to criterion A events of the DSM V PTSD dx, is someone who uses the word trauma to refer to getting a bad grade on a test right? No, not based on the definition. Just because there is misunderstanding about the current conceptualization or misuse by the general public and some professionals, does that mean we should not have articulated criteria, a definition? And just because DSM-III first articulated a definition, does that mean it was problematic for us to continually examine and refine it up to its articulation now in DSM-V? Or even presently as seemingly some are starting to wonder if systemic racial oppression is part of how we should conceptualize criterion A and as a poster wrote in this thread, take action as such. Maybe yes, maybe no. Even if new or different problems, does that mean discovery and exploration are not worthwhile? I don’t think so.

edit: it seems to me that some people place a lot of values and various connotations on the word “violence.” And because of that, it seems to /mean/ more than physical harm to some. So using this word in another way, maybe capturing some of that hidden, implicit meaning stuff or maybe not, feels uhh disquieting or something. If accuracy is our purpose, I think operating on the actual meaning of words and the roots upon which they were built, like bia (Ancient Greek) for violence, best serves us when trying to aptly define our reality..given the limits and opportunities of language.

So, I think the better question here is how does your definition of violence differ from what one might term exploitation, coercion, or aggression? To me all these terms differ from violence in the lack of physical force used. For example, taunting might be considered aggression, but not violence. Blackmail is considered coercion, but not violence. Forcing someone to take a low paying job or starve is exploitation, but not violence. How would your definition of violence best be used. I am having trouble understanding the utility of changing the word violence rather than using another term.

 

[ccool]

I am not sure I understand. Are you saying the term "battered child syndrome" was controversial? This article is from 1989 in the journal Child Abuse and Neglect. They tried to introduce a term that never seems to have caught on. Seemingly, because people were already studying this phenomenon for decades and did not want adopt an extraneous label.

i didn’t look closely. It’s from Kempe’s website. if this version is from Child Abuse and Neglect 1989, it is a reprint from the 1962 JAMA article.

No, I’m wondering whether the introduction of the concept of child abuse, that the authors here called “battered child syndrome” including a range of behaviors, outcomes, etiologies, and recommended action steps were controversial.

Social workers were attuned to some of this before this point, but my point is that people were not identifying this phenomenon let alone studying widely or systematically nor enacting steps (e.g. state child protective services, mandatory reporting laws, etc.) before this was articulated as such. My other point is that yes, although the literal term battered children syndrome has fallen out of fashion in the present day and we use different terms now, the articulation of this conceptual definition was critical

I partially agree, likely people were not really studying child abuse much before the 60s. Though, a lot was not being studied before the 60s. Creating a term like child abuse likely helped organize, galvanize, and recognize a phenomenon that was harmful yet ignored. However, plenty of people are studying discrimination and have been doing so for a few decades. We all agree that it is harmful. Something is already being done about it. It does not have to be renamed or re-conceptualized to impact change (it may but I worry it would do the opposite). If anything, this examples seems to serve the point that changing discrimination to mean violence will likely not catch on like battered child syndrome did not catch on.

My use of the word violence as I conceptualized it is simply a product of observation and experience, rational thought, and critiquing dominant ideology. The fact that you continue to indicate that I am using the word violence as a replacement for the word discrimination and that the purpose of offering a new conceptual definition is to impact change as it relates to discrimination alone suggests that you do not understand what I am saying. And that’s ok. I will reiterate once again that I do not care what you think or how you operate on the world. I do not care to convince you or anyone on this board of anything. I am not even saying that I am “right.”I’m just talking lol. It is true that in my real life, I am working to examine these questions and framework empirically, but that is irrelevant to this conversation.

Furthermore, I am not sure how this post supports the view of calling non-physical and, more importantly, unintentional discrimination violence. This article is trying to create a categorical diagnosis to help in research and intervention on a harmful phenomenon. This is seemingly a wholly different reason than the current conversation. We are not creating a diagnosis here but using language in a manner that can cause more conflict and have the opposite of the intended effect.

I disagree. But that’s fine. And from my point of view, the only “reason” for this conversation is because I answered your question. I continue to engage because I reject misinformation being offered on my behalf. I also don’t like being told what to do. There’s also the parts where people are actually discussing ideas and content and I find that stimulating.

 

[ccool]

So, I think the better question here is how does your definition of violence differ from what one might term exploitation, coercion, or aggression? To me all these terms differ from violence in the lack of physical force used. For example, taunting might be considered aggression, but not violence. Blackmail is considered coercion, but not violence. Forcing someone to take a low paying job or starve is exploitation, but not violence. How would your definition of violence best be used. I am having trouble understanding the utility of changing the word violence rather than using another term.

This isn’t personal, but I don’t feel like it. I think the post I wrote about robins and blue jays and penguins being categorized as birds touches on this. I think also the meehl article I cited on the distinction between intervening variables and hypothetical constructs also gets at this.

 

[ccool]

I really feel (just my feelings) that if people start referring to unintentional and non-physical discrimination as violence they will get a defensive response (just like me here, though I have tried to channel the defensiveness into curiosity at first). This will lead to more barriers to reduce discrimination. Alternatively, people learning that discrimination is often a reflexive action that does not necessarily indicate an evil will or a desire to harm others is more likely to impact change. If we go around calling everyone violent for their discriminatory actions it will lead to more walls. On the other hand, if we explain to people that their inherent cognitive and social biases lead them to make unhelpful decisions with harmful consequences, I feel that is a much more impactful method to get people to be more open to changing their behaviors (or at least be mindful of their biases).

It feels like using the term violence so inclusively attempts to frighten and coerce people to not be discriminatory. From all I know about human behavior, this is not an effective method of getting long-term change.

Thanks for sharing that you feel defensive when you hear the word violence. And maybe even when you hear the word discrimination and maybe other words too. From my observations and experience, you are not the only one. and I appreciate that you are able to acknowledge it and make a choice to do something about it, like consciously turn it into curiosity, as you noted.

I personally don’t have that reaction to those words. And know and have heard of many others who also do not.

Given differences in perceptions and assumptions about others’ intentions, regardless of the reality of what is actually said, I don’t think anything can actually be done but for us to have integrity and to be responsible for what we think and say and do... and acknowledge that it is no one else’s responsibility but our own to change the way we think or change what we do. Yes, of course, some things can be more effective for moving us towards our goals than other things, but doing so still cannot make anyone think or feel or do anything.

For example, I have developed an extraordinary amount of patience and empathy that in conjunction with my skills at logic have increased my ability to stick with frustrating conversations and pull out fluff, all while remaining kind and incisive. Even though this can be an incredible amount of work, I do this on purpose because I know that it is the most effective communication style for my goals of being heard, for example. Still, some get so upset by the content of what I’m saying, regardless of the style in which I’m saying it, they say that they can’t or won’t hear me unless I do X Y Z. I might try phrasing something in a different way or whatever else I think might help if I am moved to, but if no matter what I do, they still refuse to hear me, I can’t help that. And I’m ok with that. I don’t need everyone to agree with me or even understand me (though mutual understanding is always my goal).

 

[Sanman]

This isn’t personal, but I don’t feel like it. I think the post I wrote about robins and blue jays and penguins being categorized as birds touches on this. I think also the meehl article I cited on the distinction between intervening variables and hypothetical constructs also gets at this.

, don't really have much to say to that. The only other thought I have is this. The primary use of words is effective communication between parties. I am a pretty smart guy. If I cannot easily understand your definition of violence after a cursory read through this thread, then maybe it is not an effective tool for communication of your ideas.

 

[WisNeuro]

, don't really have much to say to that. The only other thought I have is this. The primary use of words is effective communication between parties. I am a pretty smart guy. If I cannot easily understand your definition of violence after a cursory read through this thread, then maybe it is not an effective tool for communication of your ideas.

Exactly what a sealion would say.

 

[ccool]

, don't really have much to say to that. The only other thought I have is this. The primary use of words is effective communication between parties. I am a pretty smart guy. If I cannot easily understand your definition of violence after a cursory read through this thread, then maybe it is not an effective tool for communication of your ideas.

I have explained maybe 80% of my thoughts on an array of distinct yet overlapping concepts on this thread. If for you and your cursory read through this thread, you don’t understand, that’s ok. Others who have been following along or who may read in the future may or may not understand and that’s ok too.

Is it important to me that people on this thread completely follow, agree, or understand the ideas and framework I have posed on this thread? No, given that was never my purpose. Would it be cool? Maybe, I guess... maybe it would further my IRL work or maybe I could stumble into collaborators, but I am not seeking that from this space.

 

[calimich]

For example, I have developed an extraordinary amount of patience and empathy that in conjunction with my skills at logic have increased my ability to stick with frustrating conversations and pull out fluff, all while remaining kind and incisive. Even though this can be an incredible amount of work, I do this on purpose because I know that it is the most effective communication style for my goals of being heard, for example. Still, some get so upset by the content of what I’m saying, regardless of the style in which I’m saying it, they say that they can’t or won’t hear me unless I do X Y Z. I might try phrasing something in a different way or whatever else I think might help if I am moved to, but if no matter what I do, they still refuse to hear me, I can’t help that. And I’m ok with that. I don’t need everyone to agree with me or even understand me (though mutual understanding is always my goal).

I really appreciate your explanations, patience, and seriousness in this thread. This board seems to come back to this kind of topic every few months or so, with usually the same posters making the same comments. I've enjoyed reading and thinking about some of the new ideas you're presenting and those from the few others who appear to be engaging in good faith.

For all the talk of a professional, non reddit board, there do seem to be lots of reddit like comments from certain posters.

 

[WisNeuro]

I really appreciate your explanations, patience, and seriousness in this thread. This board seems to come back to this kind of topic every few months or so, with usually the same posters making the same comments. I've enjoyed reading and thinking about some of the new ideas you're presenting and those from the few others who appear to be engaging in good faith.

For all the talk of a professional, non reddit board, there do seem to be lots of reddit like comments from certain posters.

Oh, come now, there hasn't been a single meme posted. Yet.

 

[Sanman]

Oh, come now, there hasn't been a single meme posted. Yet.

As someone who follows multiple subreddits, I disagree that this place is not like reddit. There are professionals on reddit and some even choose to use their real names. That said, SDN is open to anyone regardless of background and we are not required to use real names or even limit ourselves to a single username. Very different from the professional listservs I utilize currently. There are positives and negatives to this,

Also, I was very tempted to post a meme in response to @WisNeuro

 

[WisNeuro]

As someone who follows multiple subreddits, I disagree that this place is not like reddit. There are professionals on reddit and some even choose to use their real names. That said, SDN is open to anyone regardless of background and we are not required to use real names or even limit ourselves to a single username. Very different from the professional listservs I utilize currently. There are positives and negatives to this,

Also, I was very tempted to post a meme in response to @WisNeuro

I agree somewhat. Reddit does have some subreddits with pros, but in general its open and there are a lot of laymen, unless it' a closed sub. It's a much more self-selected restricted population here. And, many of the longer-term people on here really aren't all that anonymous. Many of us know each other personally and professionally. And, we always get the occasional doxxing threat here and there 🙂

And, memes are always appreciated. That's one way we should be more like Reddit.

 

[foreverbull]

Yes, and I stand by the implication within the context of the argument, as this discussion has been described within a SJ framework. As well as the thought of the generalization to research and policy already having been brought up. The comment was not that a specific person was advancing that position but that such a position had consequences in those arenas. So once again, where did I accuse someone of a specific statement out of order?

So now a straw man is if you “accuse someone of a specific statement out of order?” This part doesn’t make sense.

But I’ll reiterate that per my understanding, arguing against something that no one actually proposed is a straw man argument. And you’ve done just that because you argued against something “implied” in your opinion. i’ll note that you responded with this argument directly after me when I was clearly being hypothetical and discussed imagined real world consequences. You even made reference to this in your response, indicating you were responding to me in part. And no one in this thread has advocated for immediate change in policy.

 

[WisNeuro]

So now a straw man is if you “accuse someone of a specific statement out of order?” This part doesn’t make sense.

But I’ll reiterate that per my understanding, arguing against something that no one actually proposed is a straw man argument. And you’ve done just that because you argued against something “implied” in your opinion. i’ll note that you responded with this argument directly after me when I was clearly being hypothetical and discussed imagined real world consequences. You even made reference to this in your response, indicating you were responding to me in part. And no one in this thread has advocated for immediate change in policy.

That wasn't what I was referring to. I responded to your assertion of me making up points other people made. And, we argued about the extension of the concept in a professional position. Someone proposed a somewhat absurd concept, we talked about its absurdity, and no attempt was made to address the absurdity. That seems to be about as far as its gotten. Along the way, the racist card got played and we brought up sea lions. All in all, it's been pretty positive.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Thanks for sharing that you feel defensive when you hear the word violence.

That seems disingenuous, I did not say that. My defensiveness was not to the word violence but to the inaccurate (in my view) use of the word. And, more importantly, the potential harm of its use in that manner.

acknowledge that it is no one else’s responsibility but our own to change the way we think or change what we do. Yes, of course, some things can be more effective for moving us towards our goals than other things, but doing so still cannot make anyone think or feel or do anything.

I do not agree with this or in DBT language I would say this is overly non-dialectical. Your actions have an effect on others as my actions have an effect on others. Responsibility isn't completely individual. I have responsibilities to others in many different ways (e.g., work, family, laws) and they in turn have responsibilities to me. More precisely, it is my responsibility to give my child certain skills, knowledge, and experiences to help form certain ways of thinking (or reduce some harmful ways of thinking). I think it is my responsibility to provide accurate (as you can see, this is a thing of mine) information to those close to me (e.g., friends, family), which in turn will have an effect on their thinking. I spend way too much time on internet forums arguing with people b/c I think it will change how they think and vice versa they may change how I think (this has happened on this forum a lot). I feel a responsibility to talk about issues I feel are poorly misunderstood and lead to harm, not exclusively but the ones I prioritize.

We definitely affect how people think and feel, otherwise discourse is useless if we are just waiting for our turns to talk. What you have said definitely had an effect on me and I see your perspective even if I do not agree with it. That is categorically a change from not even hearing your perspective. And my thinking cannot change unless I am exposed to information. Someone has to have the responsibility to disseminate that information.

 

[ccool]

That seems disingenuous, I did not say that. My defensiveness was not to the word violence but to the inaccurate (in my view) use of the word. And, more importantly, the potential harm of its use in that manner.

Oh, I meant this very sincerely. Sorry I misunderstood you... I didn’t mean to mischaracterize what you were saying. The same sentiment I was expressing still applies.

I do not agree with this or in DBT language I would say this is overly non-dialectical. Your actions have an effect on others as my actions have an effect on others. Responsibility isn't completely individual. I have responsibilities to others in many different ways (e.g., work, family, laws) and they in turn have responsibilities to me. More precisely, it is my responsibility to give my child certain skills, knowledge, and experiences to help form certain ways of thinking (or reduce some harmful ways of thinking). I think it is my responsibility to provide accurate (as you can see, this is a thing of mine) information to those close to me (e.g., friends, family), which in turn will have an effect on their thinking. I spend way too much time on internet forums arguing with people b/c I think it will change how they think and vice versa they may change how I think (this has happened on this forum a lot). I feel a responsibility to talk about issues I feel are poorly misunderstood and lead to harm, not exclusively but the ones I prioritize.

We definitely affect how people think and feel, otherwise discourse is useless if we are just waiting for our turns to talk. What you have said definitely had an effect on me and I see your perspective even if I do not agree with it. That is categorically a change from not even hearing your perspective. And my thinking cannot change unless I am exposed to information. Someone has to have the responsibility to disseminate that information.

I’ve already argued this point in response to ollie123. We disagree. That’s fine.

 

[foreverbull]

That wasn't what I was referring to. I responded to your assertion of me making up points other people made. And, we argued about the extension of the concept in a professional position. Someone proposed a somewhat absurd concept, we talked about its absurdity, and no attempt was made to address the absurdity. That seems to be about as far as its gotten. Along the way, the racist card got played and we brought up sea lions. All in all, it's been pretty positive.

Your argument has now changed and morphed to justify your comments, but as you’ve said on other threads to attempt to end conversations: “you do you.”

 

[Dazen]

Some interesting ideas in this thread, although it seems like the most contested definition was that of "empirically." Seems like much of the disagreement could be boiled down to "definitions must be based in peer reviewed, data-based science" vs "definitions can include conceptual categorizations of observable phenomena."

 

[WisNeuro]

Your argument has now changed and morphed to justify your comments, but as you’ve said on other threads to attempt to end conversations: “you do you.”

Exactly. The subjective is all that matters, so I'm right, you're right, and nothing matters 🙂 Now I've got to go provide some Brainspotting and EMDR services.

 

[Ollie123]

I absolutely do not take this discussion as an attack. We are engaging with ideas and seeking clarification and mutual understanding. 🙂

I think that it does given that your position is that others’ messaging, actions, whatever can make people do things. And we can only make people do things when we use our systemic or human power to undermine their human power - acts of violence (hehe). Also, to clarify, I am not implying that these things are necessarily conscious. And I don’t /know/ this to be true, though it is an empirical question.

You may not have meant to use the word “cause” but it is still fundamentally what you are saying when you say “messaging that moves people toward detachment,” and “those open to agreeing who are being turned away [by the messaging].”

Depending on one’s goals, sure, maybe. But my point is that it still may not be effective for moving the needle if it is ultimately up to the receiver to make/allow that to happen.

Certainly, people who are working to make an impact in whatever ways they are, to the extent they want to and are able to are probably best served by utilizing the available knowledge base to do so. Not doing so, if the goal is change of others’ behavior, may be neutral or ineffective at best and actively harmful to those one is trying to change, at worse. There still must be the acknowledgment that we can’t change anyone’s behavior, even when we use the most effective tools and messaging available. Addiction is obviously a little tricky, but in the smoking/drug use messaging context, let’s pretend that some entities are using the most effective messaging and tools available to decrease smoking among the population, how do we still explain people continuing to smoke? Presumably because engagement in a behavior is a function of more than messaging, both what is said and how it is said.

Been a wild week, but did want to follow up on this. I think we're actually more or less on the same page. We could continue to quibble over the exact definition of cause and where responsibility lies, but I'm not sure we're likely to sway one another further.

I do want to clarify that of course there are still people who continue to use drugs regardless of messaging. Just like of course there is (and unfortunately - probably will continue to be) racism/sexism/other -ism regardless of what messages someone puts out there. I'm in no way arguing we can change everyone's behavior. Just that a given public-facing speaker may have the power to influence someone's behavior with their messaging. Indeed, that seems almost the whole point of political activism - is it not? If not, what purpose is it intended to serve?

To date, I feel very strongly that a lot of the so-called political activists on a number of topics are taking counter-productive actions from the perspective of driving change. The messaging is not guided by approaches most likely to yield the intended consequence. Maybe they don't actually want change, maybe they want change only on "their" terms, maybe they don't have access to political/communication messaging or anyone to guide them, maybe they feel strongly that the process matters more than the end-goal. I'd guess its a mixture of these things and probably several others I haven't thought of depending on the individual.

 

[WisNeuro]

Been a wild week, but did want to follow up on this. I think we're actually more or less on the same page. We could continue to quibble over the exact definition of cause and where responsibility lies, but I'm not sure we're likely to sway one another further.

I do want to clarify that of course there are still people who continue to use drugs regardless of messaging. Just like of course there is (and unfortunately - probably will continue to be) racism/sexism/other -ism regardless of what messages someone puts out there. I'm in no way arguing we can change everyone's behavior. Just that a given public-facing speaker may have the power to influence someone's behavior with their messaging. Indeed, that seems almost the whole point of political activism - is it not? If not, what purpose is it intended to serve?

Seems to do a pretty good job at helping the fringe elements of the GOP like MTG fund raise gobsmacking amounts of money. So, one could say it's very successful at some purposes.

 

[ccool]

Been a wild week, but did want to follow up on this. I think we're actually more or less on the same page. We could continue to quibble over the exact definition of cause and where responsibility lies, but I'm not sure we're likely to sway one another further.

to be clear, i don't mind if we disagree. also, i'm not seeking to sway you; i'm simply pointing out flaws in your argument 😉

I do want to clarify that of course there are still people who continue to use drugs regardless of messaging. Just like of course there is (and unfortunately - probably will continue to be) racism/sexism/other -ism regardless of what messages someone puts out there. I'm in no way arguing we can change everyone's behavior. Just that a given public-facing speaker may have the power to influence someone's behavior with their messaging. Indeed, that seems almost the whole point of political activism - is it not? If not, what purpose is it intended to serve?

To date, I feel very strongly that a lot of the so-called political activists on a number of topics are taking counter-productive actions from the perspective of driving change. The messaging is not guided by approaches most likely to yield the intended consequence. Maybe they don't actually want change, maybe they want change only on "their" terms, maybe they don't have access to political/communication messaging or anyone to guide them, maybe they feel strongly that the process matters more than the end-goal. I'd guess its a mixture of these things and probably several others I haven't thought of depending on the individual.

yes, of course. i don't think anyone ever disagreed that people can influence other people. and that people whose expressed goal is to influence others, like political activists or scientists or whomever, are certainly best served by utilizing the most effective tactics known to them to meet their goals.

however, when we talk about impacting others and messaging, we are not talking about a homogenous group of others/people. thus it follows that different messaging may have differential impacts on different groups. because one style of messaging or set of tactics is not effective for influencing desired change in one group, but is for other groups, to the point below,

Seems to do a pretty good job at helping the fringe elements of the GOP like MTG fund raise gobsmacking amounts of money. So, one could say it's very successful at some purposes.

does that mean that that messaging is globally ineffective or counterproductive or something? i think the only way that we can make that claim is if we argue that influencing some groups to the desired change is more important that influencing other groups to the desired change. and we could argue when that might be true in some cases.

let's bring it back to where this discussion started. the implicit and explicit argument that has been made by you and others on this thread is that new ideas or critiques to dominant ideology ("messaging around 'social justice' issues") should be offered in a particular way (if they should be offered at all) in order to better influence those who have the power to maintain dominant ideology to understand, agree, and/or take action in line with the new ideology/desired change, lest the content or process of expression is globally problematic. even if the purpose of offering the new thing is to inspire change, the only way we can judge the act of doing so as wholly ineffective or problematic is if we have defined effectiveness as desired change in those with more power to affect society (e.g. the centrists and true independents that have been previously cited), and understanding, agreement, or action in other groups (e.g. those already on the same side) is irrelevant. So then, if these particular more important or relevant groups are not moved to change for whatever reason, and thus do not as a function of their own autonomy, then the messaging is ineffective and problematic and those producing it need to change it so that groups in power may be more moved to make desired changes, which they still may or may not enact.

i follow this premise and conclusion completely. i just fundamentally disagree with it. the implications of this is that in order for society to change, we must always and only convince those in power to agree; it is up to those with less power/those who are harmed to work to figure out how to effectively satisfy those with more power so they can enact changes for the good of all. and everyone else must simply...wait until the point in which power has deemed whatever expression worthy or valid or effective or whatever to 'allow' the change or to make the change itself?

across time and place, we have seen that this tactic has extremely limited utility in impacting change, freedom. for an easy US example, see the American Revolution. as fredrick douglass noted in his 1857 speech where he says, "power concedes nothing without a demand. it never did and it never will," a less-often quoted section that almost immediately precedes it and that I think about often when I think about change is that, "those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters." I also think often of this 1831 quote by Maria Stewart, a Black woman abolitionist known as the first American-born woman to address public and integrated (race and/or gender) audiences, where she says "Sue for your rights and privileges. Know the reason that you cannot attain them. Weary them with your importunities. You can but die, if you make the attempt; and we shall certainly die if you do not."

we're talking about the pros and cons of maintaining systems of power and seeking reform as an end or disrupting, challenging, or abolishing systems of power and seeking revolution, freedom as an end. it's ok that we disagree.

honestly though, it is quite amusing to me that my expression of something that happened to challenge the status quo, which i made for literally no other purpose but to respond to a question directed to me, has led us here.

in an attempt to pre-empt more, stop trying to indoctrinate us to your absurdity and you're doing more harm to your cause than good calls, i will say again, i have no purpose or cause other than to express myself. i do not care if the people reading this understand or agree with what i am saying nor whether they enact some change in their lives because of it. i am not calling for any policy changes or changes to anyone's use of particular methodologies or frameworks with this expression. i recognize someone could choose not to believe me, and that's fine, that's their choice. there is literally nothing else I can do. if anyone argues any of these points about the purpose of my expression, my belief about other people's ideas or actions, or anything about how my expression on this board is a problem because it creates problems in larger society, please recognize that those points are not based in the reality of the situation and are fallacies.

 

[WisNeuro]

does that mean that that messaging is globally ineffective or counterproductive or something? i think the only way that we can make that claim is if we argue that influencing some groups to the desired change is more important that influencing other groups to the desired change. and we could argue when that might be true in some cases.

Not at all, because "messaging" is not a static constant.