What is violence?
Which actions we choose to categorise as violent or non-violent informs our outlook.
The question of what counts as violence, and who is allowed to do it, is one of the fundamental separators between different ideologies. Many who claim to be against violence, or even pacifists, rely on definitions that have major blindspots.
Can speech be violent? If so, is tone important in determining if speech is violent?
Can threats and intimidation be violence? What about the display of symbols?
Is violence against a human worse than violence against property?
Is physical restraint of movement a kind of violence? Who should be allowed to restrain others?
If violence is ever acceptable, under what conditions might it be acceptable?
What is the difference in acceptability between state violence and civil violence?
What is the relation between local and broader violence? If a demagogue incites a crowd and they then hurt people, how much responsibility belongs to the demagogue and how much to the crowd?
What does structural violence look like, and how should one oppose it?
People are likely to land on different answers for all of these, and far greater thinkers than I have gone into this topic in depth. As such, I’ll focus on my own conclusions.
I personally accept that some violence is acceptable, namely, the least amount of violence that prevents greater harm from occurring. From this, I accept the following:
Defense of the self when attacked, or the defense of others from unjustified violence against them.
Some - limited - use of state power in cases when individuals are an active danger to themselves or others. This is pretty right-wing of me, I know, but I’m closer to People Against Prisons Aotearoa than I am today’s status quo.
The exclusion of intolerant speech and actions from public spaces. We can’t have a diverse and safe society if we allow the intolerant any space.
The necessity to maintain a state defense capability to deter attacks on our sovereignty (and the sovereignty of our Tiriti partners).
To clarify for the kind of folks that hear “violence” and assume the worst, I think it’s important to keep violence at a minimum and seek alternative solutions where possible. Violence isn’t glorious, it sucks and it can easily go horribly wrong, and civilised people prefer other tools if those tools will work better.
I count tipping juice on a TERF as acceptable violence, as is something as simple as pushing an aggressor back from standing on someone, or loudly drowning out hate speech. Vehicular assault is definitely (unjustified) violence, as is whatever this is.
Perhaps my views will change over time as I learn new things, but this is a snapshot of what violence means to me today. What do you reckon? How do your answers differ from mine?