New Thread: Defining "Violence"

[ccool]

---

Members don't see this ad.

No. My experiences with ableism on the job market were beyond awful. The only "nice" thing about what I went through was where I ended up (and I do love my current job). The reminder is not to be disabled, so you won't have to have a better CV than many tenured faculty to get a TT job.

Thank you for reminding everyone who is reading and will read this thread that academia is not some magic land that is exempt from enacting and propagating institutional and systemic violence... nor that those who comprise it is are above reiterating that violence on an interpersonal level.

Thank you for your presence. Thank you for your labor.

edit: I wrote “t h a n k you” but when I just scrolled back to review it, it reads “bless you.” I don’t know why that’s the case or if it reads as “bless you” for others but I want to explicitly clarify that I wrote and mean “t h a n k you.”
Edit 2: hmm curious. “t h a n k you” only remains as t h a n k you and not converts to “bless you” with spaces. Are others having this experience??

 

[DynamicDidactic]

enacting and propagating institutional and systemic violence... nor that those who comprise it is are above reiterating that violence on an interpersonal level.

Just to be clear, what is the violence you speak of in this case?

 

[ccool]

Just to be clear, what is the violence you speak of in this case?

The violence of oppression, discrimination, dehumanization.

For most straightforward operationalization of violence, I use that of the Violence Prevention Alliance of the World Health Organization, “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."

Although from a critical and humanist perspective, I think they get this definition wrong by referring to individual motivation states, specifically via the inclusion of “intentional.” One can maintain and propagate violence completely without intending to. Lack of intention may increase empathy for some, but does not change resultant harm.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

The violence of oppression, discrimination, dehumanization.

For most straightforward operationalization of violence, I use that of the Violence Prevention Alliance of the World Health Organization, “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."

Although from a critical and humanist perspective, I think they get this definition wrong by referring to individual motivation states, specifically via the inclusion of “intentional.” One can maintain and propagate violence completely without intending to. Lack of intention may increase empathy for some, but does not change resultant harm.

It is difficult for me to conceptualize violence as something that is not intentional and, to a slightly lesser degree, physical. Many definitions (not exclusively) seem to include physical as a key component. The idea of psychological harm is also very wide open.

Not that my views are important to the rest of the world but I think (no empirical evidence) a lot of people do not conceptualize violence as that inclusive. At this point, creating difficult exams for a class - which is a power that I am exercising and can definitely cause psychological harm (e.g., anxiety, sad mood, anger) - is me enacting and propagating institutional and systemic violence.

I know that this is not the point of the thread, and it may lead to a threadjack, but the meaning of words seems to be more debated in recent years. Comes up on this forum a bit.

Let's see how this works out for me (the middle one should be the "b you" only:
Thank you (oh WOW, who is messing underneath the hood of SDN)
Bless you
t h a n k y o u

 

[ccool]

It is difficult for me to conceptualize violence as something that is not intentional and, to a slightly lesser degree, physical. Many definitions (not exclusively) seem to include physical as a key component. The idea of psychological harm is also very wide open.

Not that my views are important to the rest of the world but I think (no empirical evidence) a lot of people do not conceptualize violence as that inclusive. At this point, creating difficult exams for a class - which is a power that I am exercising and can definitely cause psychological harm (e.g., anxiety, sad mood, anger) - is me enacting and propagating institutional and systemic violence.

I know that this is not the point of the thread, and it may lead to a threadjack, but the meaning of words seems to be more debated in recent years. Comes up on this forum a bit.

Let's see how this works out for me (the middle one should be the "b you" only:
Bless you (oh WOW, who is messing underneath the hood of SDN)
Bless you
t h a n k y o u

First, thanks for doing the bless/thanks thing. I was worried I was losing touch with reality lol.

I am personally still working to define violence in a way that is accurate and incisive. It is a long-term chew. I agree with your point about words and cultural shifts in connotation of various words. I personally strive to be as precise in my language as I can and to name things as they are; I do not use words as code words or proxies for other words and become frustrated and sad when others do.

Regardless of the perspective or framework (e.g. legal, public health, the ecological that VPA uses) I don’t think that current definitions of violence are adequate. And I wonder a lot what is at stake for us on individual and systemic levels to be more critical and precise with regard to the concepts and reality of things like power and domination, harm and violence, and dehumanization.

In response to your counter, another crucial criticism I have of the WHO definition and of conversations regarding power is that power needs much greater exposition and is ultimately the key. It is the root of violence, after all!! For example, there is the equal organismic or human power, or ability to act upon a thing, including ourselves, that we all share. Then, distinct and in addition to or maybe in interaction with human power are the various ways power manifests or is codified within institutions and systems. For example, within your classroom, although you share equal human power with your students, as the instructor, you have greater institutional power. And in that same classroom, let’s pretend that you are physically read as anything but an able-bodied middle class cishetero white-bodied man, acknowledging that that structural location is at the apex of systems of domination (see bell hooks and Patricia Hill Collins for more on this in a digestible way) I would then argue that an able-bodied middle class cishetero white-bodied male student in your class has greater systemic power than you, despite your greater institutional power and your shared human power.

Then there’s what we do with our power. Exercise of power can be constructive, creative, exponential, in-finite. It can also be suffocating, quelling, transactional, belittling - destructive to self or others’ humanity.

There’s so many depths to this conversation and I have plenty of thoughts, but I’m ready to get my day started so I’ll end here with my personal current conceptualization of violence.

I currently define violence as the exercise of systemic or human power that impedes, undermines, or reduces an others’ human power.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I currently define violence as the exercise of systemic or human power that impedes, undermines, or reduces an others’ human power.

the problem with being overly inclusive is that it minimizes actual experiences of an event. The harm done is fairly substantial (e.g., other application of trauma, overuse of OCD, etc). This is no different.

 

[WisNeuro]

the problem with being overly inclusive is that it minimizes actual experiences of an event. The harm done is fairly substantial (e.g., other Easter egg collection of trauma, overuse of OCD, etc). This is no different.

It also raises the problem of muddying what is being talked about. The more we expand what fits under certain terms or concepts. the more we lose specificity of what we're talking about. I feel like there's a better way to define the negative actions and consequences of systematic discrimination than labeling it something that is confusing for many.

 

[ccool]

the problem with being overly inclusive is that it minimizes actual experiences of an event. The harm done is fairly substantial (e.g., other Easter egg collection of trauma, overuse of OCD, etc). This is no different.

I think that being inclusive is extraordinarily less important than being accurate when it comes to defining words and ultimately reality. And if in the process of being accurate we end up having to face perhaps uncomfortable truths or difficult questions about the world we live in and how we operate within it, so be it.

It also raises the problem of muddying what is being talked about. The more we expand what fits under certain terms or concepts. the more we lose specificity of what we're talking about. I feel like there's a better way to define the negative actions and consequences of systematic discrimination than labeling it something that is confusing for many.

I am not simply talking about discrimination, systemic or otherwise when referring to power, bia, and the exercise of it. Regardless, I agree that this is all very complex. I stand by my use of the word violence and my current definition. It will likely continue to evolve as I continue to think critically about human engagement within systems. I am ok with the fact that some or many feel that critique and different conceptualizations of violence feels problematic or harmful, muddy, and/or confusing. We all have the rights to our beliefs. 🙂

 

[WisNeuro]

I think that being inclusive is extraordinarily less important than being accurate when it comes to defining words and ultimately reality. And if in the process of being accurate we end up having to face perhaps uncomfortable truths or difficult questions about the world we live in and how we operate within it, so be it.

I am not simply talking about discrimination, systemic or otherwise when referring to power, bia, and the exercise of it. Regardless, I agree that this is all very complex. I stand by my use of the word violence and my current definition. It will likely continue to evolve as I continue to think critically about human engagement within systems. I am ok with the fact that some or many feel that critique and different conceptualizations of violence feels problematic or harmful, muddy, and/or confusing. We all have the rights to our beliefs. 🙂

We all have the rights to our beliefs, but you have to understand why the "definition creep" of things is problematic in settings where we research things with certain operational descriptions. Just talk to some PTSD/trauma researchers about this problem. Additionally, you render the definition meaningless when it is ill-defined, counterproductive to the original intent.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I think that being inclusive is extraordinarily less important than being accurate when it comes to defining words and ultimately reality. And if in the process of being accurate we end up having to face perhaps uncomfortable truths or difficult questions about the world we live in and how we operate within it, so be it.

I am not simply talking about discrimination, systemic or otherwise when referring to power, bia, and the exercise of it. Regardless, I agree that this is all very complex. I stand by my use of the word violence and my current definition. It will likely continue to evolve as I continue to think critically about human engagement within systems. I am ok with the fact that some or many feel that critique and different conceptualizations of violence feels problematic or harmful, muddy, and/or confusing. We all have the rights to our beliefs. 🙂

This isn't a philosophical issue. It's a scientific one. Armchair definitions don't hold the same weight. "What is violence" is an empirical question, as is "what is the effect of watering down the term". You can have your opinion. Don't confuse it with facts or supported science (e.g., how terms are accepted and defined, the impact of creeping definitions, etc - all of which are documentable). You are conflating your opinion with a fact of accuracy. As WisNeuro points out, this isn't the case.

 

[ccool]

We all have the rights to our beliefs, but you have to understand why the "definition creep" of things is problematic in settings where we research things with certain operational descriptions. Just talk to some PTSD/trauma researchers about this problem. Additionally, you render the definition meaningless when it is ill-defined, counterproductive to the original intent.

I understand the challenges criticism poses. And we can’t talk abt productivity or counter-productivity of something without specifying the frame.

The point I think you’re missing is that I think it is problematic to be bound to “original intent” without a more thorough, critical examination of the constructs, premises, and perhaps history that underly it. That process may be complicated and painstaking or it may not be. We may come back to the original/current definition or we may not. If we are serious abt enacting justice over and over again, I think it is paramount that we do not take “something as straightforward” as the definition of violence or literally anything for granted. To me, this questioning is the nature of science, art, philosophy, or other processes concerned with questions of what is and how things work.

But honestly, this tension between operating based on what has been and questioning what is/has been and offering something new or different is a tale as old as time. We obviously differ on where we fall. That’s fine.

 

[ccool]

This isn't a philosophical issue. It's a scientific one. Armchair definitions don't hold the same weight. "What is violence" is an empirical question, as is "what is the effect of watering down the term". You can have your opinion. Don't confuse it with facts or supported science (e.g., how terms are accepted and defined, the impact of creeping definitions, etc - all of which are documentable). You are conflating your opinion with a fact of accuracy. As WisNeuro points out, this isn't the case.

As you wish.

 

[WisNeuro]

The definition of something can always be revisited, but in an academic and healthcare sense, it should be data driven. What we have is a cart before the horse situation right now. Which, if anything, slows down and obfuscates things when it comes to systematically studying something in an empirical manner.

 

[ccool]

The definition of something can always be revisited, but in an academic and healthcare sense, it should be foolishness driven. What we have is a cart before the horse situation right now. Which, if anything, slows down and obfuscates things when it comes to systematically studying something in an empirical manner.

Before I end my participation in this conversation, I would just like to point out that it seems you’re engaging in some kind of weird fallacy.

It kind of seems like you’re saying me answering a question on a forum that was posed to me regarding what I meant when I said violence is the same as me saying that all people studying violence and related sequelae and proffering interventions related to such need to stop what they’re doing and use the definition/clarification I offered on said forum. Or perhaps you’re saying that until I publish a few papers utilizing my definition and showing consistent and replicable empirical support of its use, this conversation cannot be had?

I never told anyone on this forum to adopt my thinking. I have not even sought to convince anyone of it. I have certainly made zero argument for current study or interventions to be slowed or stopped or even that they are incorrect based on their own current conceptualization. If I wanted to make any of those arguments, I could have. I have no interest in doing that, however, so I didn’t. Thus I am incredibly confused why you are trying to convince me or others of your belief that my expression is incorrect or otherwise problematic, “a cart before the horse situation,” for example.

There are many truths and my expression/belief is just as valid as yours or any others. Just as there are many differing or even conflicting theories about many things across many fields of study. There is room for all of us.

 

[WisNeuro]

Mostly because this isn't a laymen's board. This is professionals who work and research in these areas, Where poor definitions nd wording actually do have real world implications. You have the right to any opinion you want, just as we have the right to detail why it is problematic in the world of psychology and healthcare. We abhor solipsistic thought here 🙂

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Mod Note: Hi all, while I would fully agree that the recent topics are appropriate for discussion in this forum, I would suggest they may benefit from a separate thread so that we can return more to the subject of the OP.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Mod Note: Hi all, while I would fully agree that the recent topics are appropriate for discussion in this forum, I would suggest they may benefit from a separate thread so that we can return more to the subject of the OP.

Agreed. I’ll split it when I’m at my computer.

 

[Ollie123]

That was a big derail even for this board!

Someone at SDN is having April 1 fun (or the board has been compromised by a relatively benign hacker?).

A n y b o d y = anybunny. T h a n k y o u = Bless you. I'm sure there are others.

 

[cara susanna]

That was a big derail even for this board!

Someone at SDN is having April 1 fun (or the board has been compromised by a relatively benign hacker?).

A n y b o d y = anybunny. T h a n k y o u = Bless you. I'm sure there are others.

Edit: Wait, it's not evidence? Is it research? Something is turning into "foolishness" but I'm not sure what it is now

 

[WisNeuro]

Data, d a t a

 

[ccool]

Mostly because this isn't a laymen's board. This is professionals who work and research in these areas, Where poor definitions nd wording actually do have real world implications. You have the right to any opinion you want, just as we have the right to detail why it is problematic in the world of psychology and healthcare. We abhor solipsistic thought here 🙂

It is a board organized around a particular profession, but it is open and available for all to engage as they see fit within the bounds of the terms of service etc.
I am a professional who works and researches in these areas.
I disagree with the implication that my definitions and/or wording has been poor. I agree that definitions and wording have real world implications.
I am going to presume that you do not think of yourself as the arbiter of what is problematic in the world of psychology and healthcare on this forum or otherwise. Even if you do, I hope that you recognize that the judgement of what is and is not problematic is a matter of your opinion... I imagine that it is informed by your experiences, your studies, your thinking, and so forth...just as all people's opinions, professional or otherwise are.
Ok, re solipsistic thought. i don't know how that is relevant unless you are referring to my position as solipsistic in an effort to exaggerate and undermine it. I also don't know who "we" is, particularly given that I am here and I do not abhor solipsistic thought.. but my position on that is currently irrelevant.

I just want to clarify next or future steps based on the position you expressed. For the future, if I or anyone express anything on this forum, and are subsequently asked for clarification of the premises upon which the conclusion lies, if those premises do not align with the status quo of the psychology or healthcare fields and if the expression of such may be deemed problematic to said fields by others who choose to read or engage with the premises and conclusions, and regardless whether those premises are informed by empirical and theoretical literature and/or experience and regardless whether the one clarifying the premises and conclusions is a professional in the related area or not, it would be best not to express them?

If that is what you are saying, I disagree with that as well. I am completely tolerant of our many disagreements and have been thoughtful about not making definitive statements characterizing your premises or conclusions. Annoyingly to all, including myself, I'm sure, I will continue to engage as long as you continue to offer statements of "truth" about my premises or conclusions that are not true to what I am saying. Or maybe what's more true is that at this point, I think my position is exceedingly clear and yours in relation to mine, though not your position re the definition of violence in itself, is as well. I actually don't think I am concerned any longer that any characterization of my position by you will be read by others as my actual position. And if they do, that's on them.

I'm probably going to regret including this because it will open a whole other thing that I don't actually feel like dealing with.. but take it as part of my expression, something I chew on and would like to share.....This conversation has reminded me of the Racial Arrogance subsection of Robin DiAngelo’s 2011 White Fragility article where she says:

“Yet dominance leads to racial arrogance, and in this racial arrogance, whites have no compunction about debating the knowledge of people who have thought complexly about race. Whites generally feel free to dismiss these informed perspectives rather than have the humility to acknowledge that they are unfamiliar, reflect on them further, or seek more information. This intelligence and expertise are often trivialized and countered with simplistic platitudes (i.e. “People just need to...”).”

She continues, “...whites are the least likely to see, understand, or be invested in validating those assertions and being honest about their consequences, which leads whites to claim that they disagree with perspectives that challenge their worldview, when in fact, they don’t understand the perspective. Thus, they confuse not understanding with not agreeing. This racial arrogance, coupled with the need for racial comfort, also has whites insisting that people of color explain white racism in the “right” way. The right way is generally politely and rationally, without any show of emotional upset.”

Anyway, thanks for the engagement. Cheers to the pursuit of our shared humanity.

 

[WisNeuro]

I just want to clarify next or future steps based on the position you expressed. For the future, if I or anybunny express anything on this forum, and are subsequently asked for clarification of the premises upon which the conclusion lies, if those premises do not align with the status quo of the psychology or healthcare fields and if the expression of such may be deemed problematic to said fields by others who choose to read or engage with the premises and conclusions, and regardless whether those premises are informed by empirical and theoretical literature and/or experience and regardless whether the one clarifying the premises and conclusions is a professional in the related area or not, it would be best not to express them?

I'm probably going to regret including this because it will open a whole other thing that I don't actually feel like dealing with.. but take it as part of my expression, something I chew on and would like to share.....This conversation has reminded me of the Racial Arrogance subsection of Robin DiAngelo’s 2011 White Fragility article where she says:

“Yet dominance leads to racial arrogance, and in this racial arrogance, whites have no compunction about debating the knowledge of people who have thought complexly about race. Whites generally feel free to dismiss these informed perspectives rather than have the humility to acknowledge that they are unfamiliar, reflect on them further, or seek more information. This intelligence and expertise are often trivialized and countered with simplistic platitudes (i.e. “People just need to...”).”

She continues, “...whites are the least likely to see, understand, or be invested in validating those assertions and being honest about their consequences, which leads whites to claim that they disagree with perspectives that challenge their worldview, when in fact, they don’t understand the perspective. Thus, they confuse not understanding with not agreeing. This racial arrogance, coupled with the need for racial comfort, also has whites insisting that people of color explain white racism in the “right” way. The right way is generally politely and rationally, without any show of emotional upset.”

Anyway, thanks for the engagement. Cheers to the pursuit of our shared humanity.

To the bolded part, not in the least, we welcome discussion. But it tends to be heated discussion and it tends to veer towards empiricism. So when arguments are not very well thought out or lack any empirical basis, they tend to get jumped on. As to the latter issue, I find it a lazy rejoinder to any disagreement about an issue related to SJ these days. Much easier to call someone a racist than to have an in-depth discussion and actually have to back up your ideas.

 

[ccool]

To the bolded part, not in the least, we welcome discussion. But it tends to be heated discussion and it tends to veer towards empiricism. So when arguments are not very well thought out or lack any empirical basis, they tend to get jumped on. As to the latter issue, I find it a lazy rejoinder to any disagreement about an issue related to SJ these days. Much easier to call someone a racist than to have an in-depth discussion and actually have to back up your ideas.

Lol, I don’t know how or why you keep making the claim that my argument regarding my definition of violence is not well thought out or lacking any empirical basis.

also, the only discussion that occurred regarding the definition of violence was between myself and DynamicDidactic. The rest of the engagement was negations with zero evidence backing those claims or even questions seeking to understand the original claim. Otherwise it has been this meta discussion about who “owns” .. I can’t think of a better word rn.. knowledge and what the implications of that are for action.

Re the last point, I personally am not calling anyone a racist lol. Yes of course she’s talking about race because that’s what the article is about. I referenced it because I think it’s very relevant to the issues of power we must consider when talking about violence, the issues of power relevant to who can define what in what ways and what that means and for whom, and the issues of power that are playing out on this board amidst this conversation.

What I find to be an incredibly lazy tactic is to use rhetoric to attempt to dismiss someone’s claims without actually engaging with the claims themselves or offering your own.

I have been incredibly giving and have explicated so much in a clear and stepwise fashion as it relates to my personal definition of violence and as it relates to the interaction that has been going on between us. I find your suggestion that I’m not backing up my ideas absurd and absolutely not based in the reality of the situation. And frankly, I don’t care that you are not satisfied with all I have offered.

It’s funny because in the scheme of things, I don’t care about this conversation at all. I offered my opinion because it was asked of me. And I am still not trying to prove or convince anyone of anything. I would not even still be engaged in this conversation if my expression was not continually mischaracterized. At the end of each of my posts since the original, I basically say, let’s agree to disagree.I am happy to go about my business operating under the premises that serve me and am happy to leave you and others to do the same.

Can we please leave it there?

 

[WisNeuro]

Lol, I don’t know how or why you keep making the claim that my argument regarding my definition of violence is not well thought out or lacking any empirical basis.

also, the only discussion that occurred regarding the definition of violence was between myself and DynamicDidactic. The rest of the engagement was negations with zero evidence backing those claims or even questions seeking to understand the original claim. Otherwise it has been this meta discussion about who “owns” .. I can’t think of a better word rn.. knowledge and what the implications of that are for action.

Re the last point, I personally am not calling anybunny a racist lol. Yes of course she’s talking about race because that’s what the article is about. I referenced it because I think it’s very relevant to the issues of power we must consider when talking about violence, the issues of power relevant to who can define what in what ways and what that means and for whom, and the issues of power that are playing out on this board amidst this conversation.

What I find to be an incredibly lazy tactic is to use rhetoric to attempt to dismiss someone’s claims without actually engaging with the claims themselves or offering your own.

I have been incredibly giving and have explicated so much in a clear and stepwise fashion as it relates to my personal definition of violence and as it relates to the interaction that has been going on between us. I find your suggestion that I’m not backing up my ideas absurd and absolutely not based in the reality of the situation. And frankly, I don’t care that you are not satisfied with all I have offered.

It’s funny because in the scheme of things, I don’t care about this conversation at all. I offered my opinion because it was asked of me. And I am still not trying to prove or convince anybunny of anything. I would not even still be engaged in this conversation if my expression was not continually mischaracterized. At the end of each of my posts since the original, I basically say, let’s agree to disagree.I am happy to go about my business operating under the premises that serve me and am happy to leave you and others to do the same.

Can we please leave it there?

I mean, for those of us with a trauma background, an empirical basis example would be looking at PTSD within that more inclusive definition. That's just one example, you'd also have to break out the subjective nature of portions of that inclusive definition.

As for the dismissing of claims, take it at whatever face value you want. I come at it from a clinical research background where tighter operational defintions are important. But also from a policy standpoint of what this looks like in legislation. The nebulous proposed definition can be problematic in both.

We can leave it wherever you like. I enjoy debating and discussion with colleagues, some don't. Its your choice whether you wish to do that or not. There is nothing personal in heated discussions. There are multiple people here that argue on the same and opposite sides in a very heated way. It's good for the field. One of these poeple that I've argued very vociferously against is still someone I meet up with for a drink at our annual conference (at least when it's in person). Don't argue the person, argue the point.

 

[ccool]

I mean, for those of us with a trauma background, an empirical basis example would be looking at PTSD within that more inclusive definition. That's just one example, you'd also have to break out the subjective nature of portions of that inclusive definition.

As for the dismissing of claims, take it at whatever face value you want. I come at it from a clinical research background where tighter operational defintions are important. But also from a policy standpoint of what this looks like in legislation. The nebulous proposed definition can be problematic in both.

We can leave it wherever you like. I enjoy debating and discussion with colleagues, some don't. Its your choice whether you wish to do that or not. There is nothing personal in heated discussions. There are multiply like rabbits people here that argue on the same and opposite sides in a very heated way. It's good for the field. One of these poeple that I've argued very vociferously against is still someone I meet up with for a drink at our annual conference (at least when it's in person). Don't argue the person, argue the point.

Lol, I don’t find this to be a heated debate at all. I have found it to be annoying and amusing lol.

I also barely find it to be a debate given that we haven’t spent any significant time on any one argument and that the positions have been mine and yours - no, lol. So far, you have been bringing up new arguments and conflating them with others to reject my premises. The quoted post is an example where you have done the most explication but are conflating a number of arguments. I don’t care enough to disentangle and refute or support them anymore lol. Ciao friend.

 

[Mad Jack]

Violence is physical harm or the threat of direct physical harm. Many of the things that are being conflated as violence in this thread would be better described as abuse, which can be emotional or physical, intentional or unintentional. Abuse can be violent, but not all abuse is violence, and many things that are abusive and nonviolent can be inherently worse than violence itself.

 

[WisNeuro]

And this went about where I expected 🙂

 

[WisNeuro]

Violence is physical harm or the threat of direct physical harm. Many of the things that are being conflated as violence in this thread would be better described as abuse, which can be emotional or physical, intentional or unintentional. Abuse can be violent, but not all abuse is violence, and many things that are abusive and nonviolent can be inherently worse than violence itself.

This is a pretty good breakdown at least in terms of the semantic aspects of the issue.

 

[psych.meout]

It is a board organized around a particular profession, but it is open and available for all to engage as they see fit within the bounds of the terms of service etc.
I am a professional who works and researches in these areas.
I disagree with the implication that my definitions and/or wording has been poor. I agree that definitions and wording have real world implications.
I am going to presume that you do not think of yourself as the arbiter of what is problematic in the world of psychology and healthcare on this forum or otherwise. Even if you do, I hope that you recognize that the judgement of what is and is not problematic is a matter of your opinion... I imagine that it is informed by your experiences, your studies, your thinking, and so forth...just as all people's opinions, professional or otherwise are.
Ok, re solipsistic thought. i don't know how that is relevant unless you are referring to my position as solipsistic in an effort to exaggerate and undermine it. I also don't know who "we" is, particularly given that I am here and I do not abhor solipsistic thought.. but my position on that is currently irrelevant.

I just want to clarify next or future steps based on the position you expressed. For the future, if I or anybunny express anything on this forum, and are subsequently asked for clarification of the premises upon which the conclusion lies, if those premises do not align with the status quo of the psychology or healthcare fields and if the expression of such may be deemed problematic to said fields by others who choose to read or engage with the premises and conclusions, and regardless whether those premises are informed by empirical and theoretical literature and/or experience and regardless whether the one clarifying the premises and conclusions is a professional in the related area or not, it would be best not to express them?

If that is what you are saying, I disagree with that as well. I am completely tolerant of our many disagreements and have been thoughtful about not making definitive statements characterizing your premises or conclusions. Annoyingly to all, including myself, I'm sure, I will continue to engage as long as you continue to offer statements of "truth" about my premises or conclusions that are not true to what I am saying. Or maybe what's more true is that at this point, I think my position is exceedingly clear and yours in relation to mine, though not your position re the definition of violence in itself, is as well. I actually don't think I am concerned any longer that any characterization of my position by you will be read by others as my actual position. And if they do, that's on them.

I'm probably going to regret including this because it will open a whole other thing that I don't actually feel like dealing with.. but take it as part of my expression, something I chew on and would like to share.....This conversation has reminded me of the Racial Arrogance subsection of Robin DiAngelo’s 2011 White Fragility article where she says:

“Yet dominance leads to racial arrogance, and in this racial arrogance, whites have no compunction about debating the knowledge of people who have thought complexly about race. Whites generally feel free to dismiss these informed perspectives rather than have the humility to acknowledge that they are unfamiliar, reflect on them further, or seek more information. This intelligence and expertise are often trivialized and countered with simplistic platitudes (i.e. “People just need to...”).”

She continues, “...whites are the least likely to see, understand, or be invested in validating those assertions and being honest about their consequences, which leads whites to claim that they disagree with perspectives that challenge their worldview, when in fact, they don’t understand the perspective. Thus, they confuse not understanding with not agreeing. This racial arrogance, coupled with the need for racial comfort, also has whites insisting that people of color explain white racism in the “right” way. The right way is generally politely and rationally, without any show of emotional upset.”

Anyway, thanks for the engagement. Cheers to the pursuit of our shared humanity.

Probably not a great idea to quote Robin DiAngelo and White Fragility in particular. It exists as part of an industry to sell corporations expensive anti-racism training that is used to give said corporations the veneer that they are against racism and doing something about it when they are actually doing nothing about the structures of racism and other forms of discrimination that underlie their existing corporate models. Moreover, they also exist as a means to atomize these systemic issues to individual employees, thereby deflecting focus from the larger systemic forces and also giving pretext for disciplining and firing employees, especially if they object to any part of these supposed "anti-racism" training.

Most importantly, it functions based on irrefutable circular reasoning. Either you agree wholeheartedly with the premises or your disagreement is prima facie evidence of your own fragility, thereby affirming the premises. There's no way to earnestly disagree with any part of her arguments without it being used against you and evidence in favor of her claims. This is fallacious BS that shouldn't be tolerated, especially not a forum ostensibly dedicated to professionals whose careers should be focused on science and evidence.

This seems especially ironic in that you are also eschewing any attempts to bring research and evidence into this conversation. Yeah, fine, you can have your "personal definitions," but you have to put your money where your mouth is. You've been making claims that are contrary to what the prevailing operational definitions are, thus the onus is on you to support the claims you're making. You claim to be a researcher, so do what a researcher would do and provide some data or citations to support the claims.

 

[PsyDr]

Easy to solve. I propose a q sort method where we find a group of people that have had a gun barrel to their head, or been violently raped, or hospitalized for physical assault. Have applicants tell those judges that they understand because they underwent X. See if they let you in their club.

Or everyone’s beliefs have the same value.

 

[ccool]

Probably not a great idea to quote Robin DiAngelo and White Fragility in particular. It exists as part of an industry to sell corporations expensive anti-racism training that is used to give said corporations the veneer that they are against racism and doing something about it when they are actually doing nothing about the structures of racism and other forms of discrimination that underlie their existing corporate models. Moreover, they also exist as a means to atomize these systemic issues to individual employees, thereby deflecting focus from the larger systemic forces and also giving pretext for disciplining and firing employees, especially if they object to any part of these supposed "anti-racism" training.

Most importantly, it functions based on irrefutable circular reasoning. Either you agree wholeheartedly with the premises or your disagreement is prima facie evidence of your own fragility, thereby affirming the premises. There's no way to earnestly disagree with any part of her arguments without it being used against you and evidence in favor of her claims. This is fallacious BS that shouldn't be tolerated, especially not a forum ostensibly dedicated to professionals whose careers should be focused on science and evidence.

This seems especially ironic in that you are also eschewing any attempts to bring research and evidence into this conversation. Yeah, fine, you can have your "personal definitions," but you have to put your money where your mouth is. You've been making claims that are contrary to what the prevailing operational definitions are, thus the onus is on you to support the claims you're making. You claim to be a researcher, so do what a researcher would do and provide some data or citations to support the claims.

Umm, hi. I haven’t read the book and don’t know anything about how the book is used or what corporations or whomever do with its content. I am not surprised that the book and its contents have been weaponized; anything can be. I quoted from her 2011 article. And just as the definition I offered, I offered this part of her article because I thought it was interesting and relevant... the idea I find the most compelling is that people who are operating from a place of power over others (intentionally or not), and likely others, may confuse not understanding with not agreeing. And in doing so may ultimately reiterate the harm they vehemently claim they are not doing.

I am not sure when or how I eschewed any attempts to bring research and evidence in this conversation? In fact, beyond my own inclusion of a few assorted links or authors of interest, I don’t see any citations for any other claims. It’s curious to me that you are adamant about it for my position but not others. Why is that?

And no, I don’t have to do anything. You chose to engage with me. I am not responsible for appeasing you. As I have said the entire time, I simply explicated where I am in my thinking. If you disagree, fine. If you agree, fine. If you’d like to dismiss it, fine. You are free to do whatever you please. I only care when one mischaracterizes what I am saying.

I acknowledged that these are very complex issues and that my exploration of this issue continues to evolve. I don’t care whether your definition aligns with mine or the generally agreed upon one or falls somewhere else. You seem to care very much that my definition does not align with the agreed upon one. That is your responsibility to manage. I have no interest in proving anything to anyone on this forum on this line or any other. If that changes, I will act accordingly.

 

[erg923]

I'm probably going to regret including this because it will open a whole other thing that I don't actually feel like dealing with.. but take it as part of my expression, something I chew on and would like to share.....This conversation has reminded me of the Racial Arrogance subsection of Robin DiAngelo’s 2011 White Fragility article where she says:

“Yet dominance leads to racial arrogance, and in this racial arrogance, whites have no compunction about debating the knowledge of people who have thought complexly about race. Whites generally feel free to dismiss these informed perspectives rather than have the humility to acknowledge that they are unfamiliar, reflect on them further, or seek more information. This intelligence and expertise are often trivialized and countered with simplistic platitudes (i.e. “People just need to...”).”

She continues, “...whites are the least likely to see, understand, or be invested in validating those assertions and being honest about their consequences, which leads whites to claim that they disagree with perspectives that challenge their worldview, when in fact, they don’t understand the perspective. Thus, they confuse not understanding with not agreeing. This racial arrogance, coupled with the need for racial comfort, also has whites insisting that people of color explain white racism in the “right” way. The right way is generally politely and rationally, without any show of emotional upset.”

Anyway, thanks for the engagement. Cheers to the pursuit of our shared humanity.

Good Lord, I would never dream of addressing an audience as "blacks." Gross.

 

[borne_before]

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.

 

[Mad Jack]

Probably not a great idea to quote Robin DiAngelo and White Fragility in particular. It exists as part of an industry to sell corporations expensive anti-racism training that is used to give said corporations the veneer that they are against racism and doing something about it when they are actually doing nothing about the structures of racism and other forms of discrimination that underlie their existing corporate models. Moreover, they also exist as a means to atomize these systemic issues to individual employees, thereby deflecting focus from the larger systemic forces and also giving pretext for disciplining and firing employees, especially if they object to any part of these supposed "anti-racism" training.

Most importantly, it functions based on irrefutable circular reasoning. Either you agree wholeheartedly with the premises or your disagreement is prima facie evidence of your own fragility, thereby affirming the premises. There's no way to earnestly disagree with any part of her arguments without it being used against you and evidence in favor of her claims. This is fallacious BS that shouldn't be tolerated, especially not a forum ostensibly dedicated to professionals whose careers should be focused on science and evidence.

This seems especially ironic in that you are also eschewing any attempts to bring research and evidence into this conversation. Yeah, fine, you can have your "personal definitions," but you have to put your money where your mouth is. You've been making claims that are contrary to what the prevailing operational definitions are, thus the onus is on you to support the claims you're making. You claim to be a researcher, so do what a researcher would do and provide some data or citations to support the claims.

What little research exists on the topic shows that this training actually worsens divisiveness in the workplace

 

[borne_before]

human power.

How do you define that?

 

[Mojito_15]

Maybe violence is not the right word- but certainly, academia can be exclusionary and uncomfortable for some. For example- I had a supervisor tell me she and the entire team that I worked with couldn't learn to say my Hispanic last name because she cannot roll her r's - so I spent all of my internship being called by my first name because explaining to this person that you don't need to roll an r to say my name would have been uncomfortable and made the semester potentially worse.

 

[WisNeuro]

Maybe violence is not the right word- but certainly, academia can be exclusionary and uncomfortable for some. For example- I had a supervisor tell me she and the entire team that I worked with couldn't learn to say my Hispanic last name because she cannot roll her r's - so I spent all of my internship being called by my first name because explaining to this person that you don't need to roll an r to say my name would have been uncomfortable and made the semester potentially worse.

But this example isn't about taxonomy or operational definitions, it's just someone being an ahole.

 

[foreverbull]

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.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Maybe violence is not the right word- but certainly, academia can be exclusionary

Yes it can be and I think everyone is in support of making academia and psychology less exclusionary.

 

[WisNeuro]

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.

It's kind of how science works. If you feel like a theory or hypothesis is correct/incorrect, you study it empirically. You don't get to say, "I believe x, therefore x it is." Science as a field is critical. Every idea is subject to criticism, no matter what western/eastern/northern/southern ideal it comes from. We cannot hold certain hypotheses or systems of thought exempt from critical review.

Also, at no point here did anyone dispute that racism does not exist or that it should not be studied. No one even comes close to that. Now does anyone dispute the damaging effects of institutional racism. So we can dispense with these strawmen.

At least from my point of view, it is asking how a broader definition of violence is supported empirically? This is especially salient as I have actually published in the field of PTSD and resilience, where we have debated the definition creep of "trauma" for some time now. Creating vague, nebulous concepts doesn't help the field, or social justice causes. I fail to see how advocating for more rigorous research is a bad thing. Most of us criticize many area for their lack of rigor, just because something is framed in a social justice framework, does not exempt it from that same criticism.

 

[Mojito_15]

It's kind of how science works. If you feel like a theory or hypothesis is correct/incorrect, you study it empirically. You don't get to say, "I believe x, therefore x it is." Science as a field is critical. Every idea is subject to criticism, no matter what western/eastern/northern/southern ideal it comes from. We cannot hold certain hypotheses or systems of thought exempt from critical review.

Also, at no point here did anyone dispute that racism does not exist or that it should not be studied. No one even comes close to that. Now does anyone dispute the damaging effects of institutional racism. So we can dispense with these strawmen.

At least from my point of view, it is asking how a broader definition of violence is supported empirically? This is especially salient as I have actually published in the field of PTSD and resilience, where we have debated the definition creep of "trauma" for some time now. Creating vague, nebulous concepts doesn't help the field, or social justice causes. I fail to see how advocating for more rigorous research is a bad thing. Most of us criticize many area for their lack of rigor, just because something is framed in a social justice framework, does not exempt it from that same criticism.

To be clear- I don't think you're saying that institutional racism doesn't exist, and I'm sympathetic to your desire to be clear about scientific definitions. That being said- how does one quantify and taxonomize- as you put it- many instances of people being aholes? Because I've got many stories just like the one that I said. On my practicum, some Mexican dancers came to perform a cultural routine for students in the school. My prac supervisor suggested I should get on stage and dance with them. I am not Mexican.

 

[WisNeuro]

To be clear- I don't think you're saying that institutional racism doesn't exist, and I'm sympathetic to your desire to be clear about scientific definitions. That being said- how does one quantify and taxonomize- as you put it- many instances of people being aholes? Because I've got many stories just like the one that I said. On my practicum, some Mexican dancers came to perform a cultural routine for students in the school. My prac supervisor suggested I should get on stage and dance with them. I am not Mexican.

With a hypothesis, a study. Then refining that hypothesis, and another study. And so on as you build a literature. Otherwise we're just practicing armchair philosophy. We definitely should study these things more systematically. Especially if we want data-driven policies to actually do something about it.

 

[ClinicalABA]

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.

Problem is, though, that sometimes that stuff in step three is true, and historically the high status individual is actually a privileged member of group- and may in fact be vile- but does not recognize and/or acknowledge the benefits afforded to them as a member of that group.

I'm not saying that's what's going on is this thread. This seems to me more of an argument over membership of a specific item into a non-natural category, in which both sides can technically be correct, depending on how they choose to define the arbitrary parameters of the category. How you "should" define the parameters of a non-natural category is open for debate, but ultimately is a factor of individual needs or agendas. This is a lovely type of endeavor, where everyone can be wrong AND right at the same time (and I hope all you lefties out there will excuse me for using the biased term "right"as a substitute for "correct" 😉 )

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Our ideas about knowledge and empiricism and most theories in our field are largely western/white.

Yes. I would not argue this point.

That certainly leads to bias in how we see knowledge and theory.

Yes, and knowledge/theory are rarely bias-free. We simply hope to reduce the level of bias.

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.

I started this threadjack with the understanding that the definition of words indeed changes over time. I do not think this is a bias (since most things have some level of bias) issue, it is simply the accepted definition. I am not sure how research can change the definition of a word. Isn't this something we agree to as a culture? Simply put, the vast majority of the English-speaking world (my view, I could be wrong) has very different conceptualization of the word violence.

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.

Yes, a very worthwhile philosophy of science topic.

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.

I do not think anyone here thinks racism is being ignored in psychology or that it does not exist. What have we discussed that has not been operationalized or is not being studied?

Being the target of discrimination sucks. I want to world to be as least discriminatory as possible. I want the world to be as least violent as possible. However, discrimination is not the same as violence for most of the English-speaking world, at the current time and could change eventually.

 

[Mojito_15]

Being the target of discrimination sucks. I want to world to be as least discriminatory as possible. I want the world to be as least violent as possible. However, discrimination is not the same as violence (or most of the English-speaking world, at the current time and could change eventually.

Surely you do think that some instances of discrimination are violent- though perhaps not all? For example- a hate crime is both discrimination and violence. The point I think you're trying to make is that some instances of microaggressions- especially those that are not intentional- may not rise to the level of violence.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

This seems to me more of an argument over membership of a specific item into a non-natural category, in which both sides can technically be correct, depending on how they choose to define the arbitrary parameters of the category. How you "should" define the parameters of a non-natural category is open for debate, but ultimately is a factor of individual needs or agendas. This is a lovely type of endeavor, where everyone can be wrong AND right at the same time (and I hope all you lefties out there will excuse me for using the biased term "right"as a substitute for "correct" 😉 )

Is the definition of a word really that tough to agree upon. 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.

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.

 

[WisNeuro]

Surely you do think that some instances of discrimination are violent- though perhaps not all? For example- a hate crime is both discrimination and violence. The point I think you're trying to make is that some instances of microaggressions- especially those that are not intentional- may not rise to the level of violence.

Of course, some violence is discriminatory. But I would have a hard time equating the violence of the elderly Asian woman beaten in broad daylight to having your name mispronounced.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Surely you do think that some instances of discrimination are violent- though perhaps not all? For example- a hate crime is both discrimination and violence. The point I think you're trying to make is that some instances of microaggressions- especially those that are not intentional- may not rise to the level of violence.

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).

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.

 

[borne_before]

I have a huge issue with the concept of microaggression (i.e., culture of victimhood, "creates a society of constant and intense moral conflict as people compete for status as victims or as defenders of victims," and mindreading).

 

[WisNeuro]

I have a huge issue with the concept of microaggression (i.e., culture of victimhood, "creates a society of constant and intense moral conflict as people compete for status as victims or as defenders of victims," and mindreading).

This could be a rabbit hole, if we want to debate this one, I'd resurrect that Lillienfeld thread.