Sep 12 2008
‘Violence as a Language’
There’s something I’ve been thinking about for a while in order to justify violent action toward certain individuals.
Imagine a situation in which you are approached by an individual who is insulting you constantly and pushing you around aggressively. You communicate to them verbally ‘I don’t like when you do that and I’d appreciate if you’d stop.’ Yet they still continue pushing you. You continue ‘This really makes me unhappy and I would appreciate it if you would stop’. Yet he goes on aggravating you despite your pleas for peace. In an attempt to communicate more clearly you attempt using charades and yet he doesn’t seem to relate to your attempted use of symbolic gestures.
In this situation it seems that your means of communication is inadequate to relate your true feelings to the individual, because surely if he associated with your sorrow he would stop.
The idea is then, that violence is a form of communication that would most adequately communicate to this person. This seems insane at first but think about it!
Do you speak to someone who knows Chinese in English? Do you speak to someone who knows French in Japanese? You don’t, you may try at first, but once you realize you don’t understand their language and they don’t understand yours you move onto something else (perhaps charades). However if it is clear that this communication is not working you can either walk away or attempt a different means.
Now back to the imaginary situation. You are completely flustered by your communication being unsuccessful as so you attempt to walk away. However the individual pursues you. Turning around you look at him, and then quickly punch him in the face. Rolling around on the ground the pursuer then ceases, finally understanding your feelings.
What have you done in this situation? All you have done is expressed yourself to the person in a manner they understood. The punch to the face simply represents ‘NO…. BAD!!!!’ in a different from of communication that he evidently understands as he’s attempting to communicate to you in this manner.
Is this situation that ridiculous? I think not. An important thing to distinguish is understanding the language that someones is speaking and actually understanding the meaning. My question is; doesn’t true understanding require some sort of empathy? Obviously the person bullying you doesn’t show empathy toward you but does understand what you’re saying.
I really think understanding does require this; if I say to you ‘I’m sad’ you may understand my language, but unless you relate to my feelings you don’t truly understand me. In such a manner if violent action is how someone is communicating isn’t it simply logical to communicate back to them in a manner they understand?
What do you think?
2 Responses to “‘Violence as a Language’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Not A Member? Register for Free!
Well, violence by itself can’t really be a language, but it’s a part of any language as a negative. Think of children, who don’t know language - generally they have to be hurt in some way to understand that they shouldn’t do something, be it administered by a guardian or whatever they were messing with (fire, for example). Violence is sometimes necessary to get a point across when other methods (words, restraint) don’t work.
Language, at its basic, is a system of communication. People often misunderstand language to mean the words we speak, or the words we write. This is incorrect. Spoken language is just that — spoken language. Written language is just that — written language. Body language is just that — bodily language. The first uses sound as a system of communication. The second uses symbols as a system of communication. The third uses the body as a system of communication. Violence can be seen as body language. One is using one’s body as a system of communication. By utilizing a thing with meaning — and, obviously, in a way in which others understand that one is expressing a meaning (and preferably one in which can be understood) — one is using language. Whether it by sound or sight or smell or touch or taste. Language is in the meaning, and meaning can be expressed in many different ways.