The Role of Violence in Nonviolence Movements

I have been thinking a lot lately about the role that violence plays in nonviolence movements. It is difficult to look at nonviolence as being a separate entity from violence and from looking at all of the examples of nonviolent movements around the world. Violence actually plays a huge role in helping make nonviolence successful. The reason I have been thinking about this a lot lately is something that a friend of my grandmother said about nonviolence. This was that nonviolence movements actually rely on violence to be successful and would not work if there was not some violence involved. This statement is quite surprising but I can understand the rationality behind it. Indeed, it is difficult to find an example of nonviolence working on its own without some supplemental work from violence to help push it to success.

Often violence plays a few key roles in making a nonviolence movement successful. One is that it gives the opposition an opportunity to look seriously at the nonviolent practitioners as a more legitimate and civil entity, which gives them much more power. For example, one of the reasons that Martin Luther King and other leaders of the Civil Rights movement were taken seriously is because of other civil rights organizers such as Malcolm X who were advocating violent means. For many people, Martin Luther King would seem a little crazy and radical were it not for these groups of violent people who were even more radical. In many ways, the violence movements helped convince whites to support the nonviolence movement because it seemed like a much better option.

This example, while valid, is not really what my grandmother's friend was talking about. She mentioned that nonviolence movements often provoke violence reactions from opposition. In many ways we can see examples of how this happens in a variety of movements. Gandhi in some ways provoked violence through taking the salt mine, and the violence done with the school children being beaten in Montgomery. All of these actions of violence were used by nonviolence movements to help gain empowerment and motivation among members who feel as though they are being wronged and have common suffering to share. Is this violence necessary for the nonviolence movement? I would say that it isn't but it does make it much easier for bystanders to make up their mind and empower sympathizers to join the movement. I think it is a lot more difficult for nonviolence social movements to function when the opposition is also using nonviolent tactics. It is certainly not necessary but a lot of movements in nonviolence may not have had the same success if otherwise.

Human Rights Witnesses

I found the movie that we watched in class about the Juniata alumni that are acting as human rights witnesses on the border where the Israeli government has erected a wall between Palestinian and Israeli communities. The concept of a human rights witness is very interesting because it is utilizing certain status and privileges. For these witnesses, to walk around with a camera as though they were tourists is to utilize the fact that they are Americans and therefore have privilege as a foreigner. Since Israel relies on massive support from the United States and know that a lot of this support is based on a good public perception. Therefore, human rights witnesses who are carrying cameras have a certain privilege as Americans because the Israeli soldiers know that these individuals have the ability to get them in trouble because solely of their privilege. I wonder though the attitudes that human rights witnesses get from the people that they are protecting. In the case of the video that we watched in class, it seems like these individuals were well received but I can understand how some people may be offended by the idea of others using their status like that. It may especially be problematic in areas where maybe being an American doesn't carry as much weight. Perhaps in countries like Iran which already has a bad reputation with America would be less inclined to respect such an international body. Maybe my reasoning is flawed. After all, if an American is hurt even in Iran who was not actively participating in anything illegal, it can garner a lot of international pressure on countries that may need to watch their footing with the United States or other countries least avoid a confrontation.

The notion of human rights witnesses is actually very fascinating. The whole concept is a form of nonviolence being used as an intervention. When talking about international politics, in this country we create what I believe is a false dichotomy between having to be aggressive and violent or passive and weak. The notion of nonviolent intervention indicates that practitioners of nonviolence have certain power . This in a way comes back to Gandhi with the notion that nonviolence is a tactic of the strong. However, with human rights witnessing, how much of this pressure comes from an actual threat of violence. If you use "citizens of the world" as a physical barrier to stop a particular government from violating human rights, how much of this barrier is going to be respected because the government fears violence if these individuals are harmed? It seems in a lot of nonviolence movements that the treat of violence is a way that nonviolence practitioners can convince an opponent. For example, we can see how repeated human rights abuses that attract international attention has been shown to perhaps make a nation or government vulnerable for invasion. Iraq would be an interesting example. Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses was one of the explicit reasons for the U.S. invasion. Therefore, governments may not be so eager to announce human rights violations in a world where the international community feels inclined to use violence to intervene.

Civilian Peacekeeping

In class we talked about the notion of civilian peacekeeping as existing in several applications of nonviolence. There is nonviolence for social change, nonviolence for social defense, and nonviolent intervention. In the spirit of civilian peacekeeping, we seem to focus primarily on the notion of nonviolence for civil defense, where the people keep order and peace.

This strongly reflects an interesting podcast that I remember listening to several weeks ago about how governments function. They mentioned the notion of a monopoly on violence, and stated that governments work solely on a shared notion that they are the only ones allowed to use violence. This actually makes a lot of sense. After all, it really takes a degree of violence in order for any government to be able to enforce any law. The notions of prisons reflect this theme, we accept socially that governments have the right and ability to put people in cages for an indefinite amount of time even though if this were to happen outside of our legal system, it would be considered unacceptable. Therefore, it is violence that maintains social order. I find this view somewhat problematic, while I agree that it is violence that governments use to maintain laws and prevent anarchy, I argue whether or not this is necessary in the maintenance of social order. This is where the notion of civilian peacekeeping comes into play. How can peace be maintained by civilians nonviolently, when we accept that violence is necessary when the government uses it? Is the fact that there is one group of people who are accepted as being able to legitimately use violence truly necessary for civilization?

Civilian peacekeeping is a very interesting notion because it requires a great deal of cooperation among willing citizens. While often civilian peacekeeping movements have leadership, I do not believe that this is akin to a government. From what we have talked about and learned from civilian peacekeeping movements, often these movements are encouraged socially by custom. It is interesting to see how civilian peacekeeping can maintain nonviolent and still enforce social order.

Digital Age Technology and Nonviolence

This is an older blog post that I wrote on Microsoft Word because my Internet connection was acting funny at the time. It regards the talk we had with Sarah Worley about the "information age" and its implications on nonviolence.

One of the things that I found most striking about Sarah Worley's talk with the class on nonviolence in an information age was the fact that our toolbox for creating nonviolence has dramatically expanded. With this surge in the amount of information that can be transmitted and in the time that it takes to send it, there is a whole new medium for which activists can use to bring about nonviolence.

One of the strategies that we were talking about as a form of civil disobedience is hacking. Often times activists will hack onto a website and either change its content, disable it altogether, or redirect traffic to a different website. This is certainly a form of civil disobedience because it primarily uses the tactic of using extra-legal tactics to bring about social change. There is a facet of this form of activism that needs to be addressed in comparing it to other forms of civil disobedience. While to tools of hacking may be available to anyone willing to bring about change, the ability to hack is only centered in a small percentage of the population. Hacking is an art and a skill, and to be able to successfully bring about change through a tactic of hacking, an individual truly must have the skills in order to make the work meaningful. The vast majority of Internet users do not have the skills needed to participate in hacking as a form of activism. This seems in someway to violate some of Gandhi's notions that civil disobedience is accessible to anyone willing to accept to consequences. Clearly, hacking is not a tool for the masses but rather for a few small groups.

A huge problem with the Internet is the ability of those in control to stop any movement before it happens. While governments can do this too with other forms of nonviolence movements through arrests, executions, and torture, those in control on the Internet fully have the ability to just kick an agitator off of their website, forums, or network. This can be combatted using the fact that many websites on the Internet are companies, and the people have the ability to just stop using a website if it is not appeasing them. The capitalist nature of the Internet can give a special opportunity for activists to bring about social change, simply through boycotts of websites, it is shown to be able to convince the power structure on the Internet to change.

Sharps Nonviolence Tactics and Controlling the Amount of Agitation

I know that we talked about different nonviolence tactics available in our toolbox a while ago, but there is something that I am reminded of now that we are beginning to look at nonviolence movements strategically. Since my group is working on changing the nondiscrimination policy at Juniata to include gender identity and expression, I have found many of the tactics in the toolbox irrelevant to our struggle. There are some useful tactics in there such as protests and other items that although effective, I believe are best saved for a last resort. The difficulty of this movement nonviolently is that our opponents seem thus far to be sympathetic to our claims. The president, the cabinet, and a few trustees and alumni have already given support of the notion but the problem now is that there are no steps being put in place to actually begin the process of writing an inclusive nondiscrimination policy. Therefore, a lot of the nonviolence tactics that we have learned about is focused on the people seizing control rather than using the power structures in place to create social change. I believe the usefulness of civil disobedience is very limited when working on this scale. It becomes problematic because as we increase agitation, the less likely we are to be able to keep the administration on our side. If we lose support the movement is hopeless again. There has to be nonviolence tools that can be used that help gain the respect of the target audience. As students, actions for change be met with respect by the administration, especially because we are trying to foster world citizens here at Juniata, and to see students concerned about the college is a good way to win the respect of some administrators. The trick though is how to keep them from writing us off as young students with a "good job, we are so proud" pat on the back and whatnot.

Right now, I believe that before we ask the administration to change, we have to make sure that they see us making a difference on a small and unrelated scale. If we start small projects that are sure not to fail such as getting more LGBT minded Beyond Tolerance Events, and other proactive steps towards bringing about change that does not bring agitation. When the administrators can look at us and all the change we are already in the process of brining to Juniata, it will be a bit more difficult to ignore our power.

Using Nonviolence in Our Own Conflicts

In class, we talked about different issues on campus that we can apply nonviolence to. I find myself the kind of person that can get passionate about a wide variety of issues. Here on campus I am concerned about issues of food, non-discrimination, LGBT rights, accessibility, and many others. In all the aspects of life that I am concerned with changing. Through what I have learned about nonviolence, I do believe that nonviolence principles and strategies can be employed to bring this change to real causes in my life. The difficulty that I find through the use of nonviolence is how to employ it as a last resort. Through all of the examples that we have seen, nonviolence has been used as an extra-governmental force, primarily focused on people taking power to either convince or coerce those in power. At first, in a college setting, it seems hard to find a way for the student body to take power over the administration seeing that it is easy for administration to write students off.

In my own struggle for gender neutral housing and an inclusive non-discrimination policy with protections for gender identity and expression, I have found many struggles that I feel make it impossible for the students to take power over policy. One primary reason is that our role here at Juniata as students is only really limited to 4 years. With only about 2 years here at Juniata, I am at a sever disadvantage when it comes to figuring out changes in college policy.

Through the examples we have looked at however, it seems as though people have held the ability to take power despite these setbacks. The difficulty is finding the use of it practically. We have a whole arsenic of tools that we learned in class that can be used nonviolently. There are sit-ins, boycotts, protests, and numerous other campaigns that can be utilized to promote social change. What I find difficult is understand how to use these tactics strategically. There are really no formulas available that show exactly how to apply these tools. Nor do we know much about how to garner enough support to give a cause a lasting impact. Right now, the group working on non-discrimination is quite small, and likely not large enough to get attention from the administration to make the issue a priority.

I feel compelled enough by the issue right now to hold a protest right outside President Kepple's house, but I do not feel as though such a tactic will actually be a good idea at this point. When to escalate the conflict to a level that would call for a rally, sit-in, protest, etc is a bit more difficult. It requires truly knowing the opposition and truly understanding how to effectively use these tools.

Right now, I feel like to movement for non-discrimination is moving forward, but we are not sure how to use all of the tools available to us.

Bus Boycott

We discussed in class the strategies that leaders of the civil rights movement used during the bus boycott. It is interesting to think why it was that this boycott was so successful especially when the opposition was so uncooperative. I think there were a few prime reasons for its success: community structure and power of the community.

The organization structure was very significant because of how the black community functioned at the time. The midnight masses likely gave the movement a lot of power because when people began to get discouraged, they had the strength of the community and religion to motivate. The masses were very effective in keeping the energy up within the community. In addition, there was a lot of organization that went into this boycott. There is no way it would have been sustained for 11 months if it had not been for the way the carpools had been organized so that everyone could get to work. Ultimately, if the bus service was absolutely essential, it would not have worked because the boycotters would have lost their jobs. But since there were alternatives in place, they could sustain it for as long as they did. In addition, the fact that this boycott was something they felt they had control over. While there were old laws against boycotting, people could easily see that it was their money to spend, and the buses service they are paying for. As with any service, if they were not happy with the way the service is being run, they have the right not to spend their money on it and choose and alternative. There was a lot of freedom that came with boycotting a bus service as opposed to something mandatory such as taxes. Therefore, there was a lot more motivation for the participants.

Another reason that this boycott was so successful was because of the power that the community had not just on Montgomery, but also legally. Though blacks were a minority, two-thirds of the of the bus riders were black. Therefore, by not participating in the bus service, it caused a very significant monetary hit. In shear numbers we can see how it is easy how the boycott had such power. It was not the Montgomery busses that eventually brought change, it was the court decision to desegregate. This came from the Rosa Parks case that was used to challenge segregation laws. The legal power certainly did help in the application of nonviolence during the bus boycott.

More Reflections on Gandhi Religiously

I was thinking about Gandhi and how Gandhi's religious life played into his ideas of nonviolence. It relates a lot back to what we were talking about in the civil rights movement with religion acting as an important motivator and inspiration for participants as well as what we were talking about at the beginning of the semester with nonviolence as a personal and principled choice. It seems that Gandhi has a lot to say about the philosophical and abstract idea of God. It all seems to relate and complement his idea of what is good and what is just in addition to not allowing the notion of God to be compatible with the world as it is as opposed to a naïve and idealized view of it.

What I think is even more interesting is Gandhi's idea of how belief was forever tied to actions. For Gandhi, any idea that you could not act out, was not an ideal worth having. I think this in an interesting take on it. It seems that it is less important what you believe, but more important what you do with those beliefs. This theory is what allowed Gandhi to be so productive in his work uniting Hindus and Muslims. He could find common ground among both groups by making the conversation less about what you believe but what you do with it. It is interesting that his mission towards religious tolerance would have been more successful if Gandhi did not already have strong affiliations with Hindus. If Gandhi was more religiously neutral, would that put him on the outside of the conflict, or give him more access to it. How did Gandhi's religious affiliations affect his role in the conflict?

The Personal Practices of Ghandi

From reading about Ghandi and discussing his life in class, I have found his internalization of nonviolence rather inspiring. The simplicity of how he dressed, how he chose to go about knowledge, everything seemed to reinforce his worldview. In my project of abstaining from complaining, I am finding Ghandi a wonderful inspiration. He is able to remain calm despite the most profound circumstances, and seemed to embody the idea of nonviolence. At the beginning of the semester, we talked briefly about those who choose not just to live nonviolence strategically, but to make nonviolence a part of their worldview and embody it. I found Ghandi has done that. What was most profound about the chapter on his life and work was that even after India had won its independence from Britain, Ghandi did not celebrate or attend any party. He was way too concerned with the ongoing violence between Hindus and Muslims. The fact that he stood up for peace even though many of his Hindu supporters criticized his celebration of Islam is very inspiring. Ghandi was very set by his convictions, despite what others were thinking.

When thinking about Ghandi's life, it is interesting comparing his take on nonviolence to pacifists such as Garrison, who recoiled from his pacifism with the belief that war may actually solve the slavery problem when it got too bad. Ghandi seemed to become even more committed to his concept of nonviolence despite how it seemed less promising. I wonder what difference there was between Ghandi and Garrison? From studying Ghandi it seems that Ghandi commitment to nonviolence was more spiritually driven than Garrison. To Ghandi, good will always naturally trump evil so even if his Satyagraha did not work out, there was some higher force working for good in the world that Ghandi was steadfast in his commitment to. This is what I find most inspiring about Ghandi, his commitment to nonviolence despite everything that may have told him otherwise.

One other aspect that I think is very interesting in Ghandi's life is his treatment of knowledge. The book talks about how Ghandi seldom read and when he did it was very deliberately and thought out. Reading one book at a time to fully absorb its wisdom. I really like that idea and I wish I could apply it to many different aspects of my life. Since being in college does not make reading one book at a time practical, I can see how I can do this with other things. I am a musician and I think that instead of playing through a songbook trying to learn all of the songs, I should follow Ghandi's example and play one at a time until I have fully absorbed it. I think I could possibly learn much more from life if I followed this example. I find the small personal things that Ghandi did in his life more indicative of his commitment to nonviolence than all of the satyagrahas and campaigns.

Sharp: Nonviolence as a political tool

Sharp gives a very interesting perspective on nonviolence. He talks about nonviolence existing on a continuum of communication starting at simple talking to the opponent and ending at violence and destruction. The dichotomy between violence and nonviolence is really destroyed by Sharp as nonviolence is presented in a way that makes it a more extreme move, closer on the spectrum to violence than simply being opposite to it. Nonviolence, Sharp argues, is very similar to war in that it takes strategy and demands participants to have courage, struggle, and make personal sacrifices for the larger cause. It is acknowledged that nonviolent action is certainly a form of coercion similar to war.

The other very interesting thing that is pointed out, is the fact that nonviolent action is really not as uncommon as we think. Throughout reading, I started thinking that maybe nonviolence is something that we see all the time. The Civil Rights Movement, the anti-Apartheid movement, and all of the other examples we are given of nonviolence is only the massive scale models to follow. Existing on this spectrum between simply asking authority for requests to staging a violent war against this authority, nonviolence is everywhere. Labor strikes, boycotts, anytime someone doesn't participate in something for political reasons, whether it be resisting a military draft or refusing to shop at Wal-Mart because of cooperate policies, is an example of nonviolent action. Sharp also points out that we do not have to break any laws to participate in nonviolence, in the example of a labor strike, a strike may be perfectly legal, or a boycott may be perfectly legal, but the very action of refusing to cooperate for political reasons makes the action nonviolent.

The other point that Sharp made was that nonviolence often has different messages of bringing about change. These were divided into three categories: conversion, accommodation, and nonviolent coercion. This is a very important thing to acknowledge because it shows how nonviolence can work in very different ways. In addition these three categories can show how the goals of nonviolence can change over time. With conversion, the goal is to "enlighten" the opponent and convince them to support your side. Accommodation is an intermediary where the opponent may not agree with the nonviolent protestors, but may choose to allow requested changes because it is in their best interest or because they acknowledge the power of the resistance. The most forceful is the coercion goal where the goal is literally to remove the person from power. I find that in many cases, the goals of a nonviolence resistance movement can change over time as the conflict escalates.

Jane Addams and cooperation vs. competition

From reading Jane Addams' "Personal Reactions During War" and discussing it in class, I found a lot of its insights somewhat enlightening. The one thing that I believe was most poignant and crucial to Addams' writing was the idea that war is not a natural state of humanity. In fact, the very nature of conscription implies that individuals, if given the choice would not fight in a war. Therefore, war by its very nature is contrary to democracy because it requires one party to force its will on another party. The very cornerstone of democracy is the freedom of the people to choose the direction of the state. If the state is imposing a war that the people do not wish to fight, the nation is not really a democracy. Therefore, there is a lot of coercion that goes into the very training of an army defying everything that the leaders may be standing for.

Addams makes a comment about the natural inclination for cooperation that exists within humans. While I personally believe that this is essentially true, I believe that it is our cooperative nature that can be manipulated to get us to join into a war. To aid or fellow citizens, to protect the innocent, to support the country. All of the propaganda that goes into war preparation seems to speak to our cooperative nature. I also believe that in a war situation, although there is competition going on between sides, there requires a lot of cooperation within each party to properly coordinate a war.

Addams is very right however. A cooperative nature does allow us to naturally not want to enter into a conflict. It would make us more inclined to work out our problems with an enemy diplomatically or through other nonviolent means. The cooperative nature of humanity is what motivates the conscientious objectors and the pacifists, not just the political leaders. In many ways, war mongers tend to appeal to our competitive sense much more often than our cooperative sense. If you look at army commercials today, it seems little more that promoting competition--"Be all you can be". Ultimately we are sucked into conflict using very individualistic motivation. We are given heroes to look up to, told that we can make a difference. Every bit of advertising that the military does not only includes an appeal to our cooperative sense "join a team" "serve the country", but also uses rhetoric of individualism by talking about "your country", "your career options after the military." Most of what the military uses to get recruits is actually appealing to our competitive, individualistic side.

Therefore, I agree with Addams in that by nurturing our compassionate and cooperative nature, it is easy to see how war sort of falls out of the picture. Unlike The Moral Equivalent to War, we do not need to continue to nurture out rugged, masculine side. It is much more important to realize that to be creatures of peace is not only impossible, but much easier than being warriors.

Can William James' "Moral Equivalent of War" Actually Create Change?

After I finished reading William James "The Moral Equivalent of War" I found the overall tone of the writing quite optimistic, and the writer's arguments well founded, but I found myself disagreeing with the notion that we need any sort of "Equivalent" for war. Before asserting my disapproval all over the place like I normally do with these sorts of things, I would really like to point out the parts of the James' analysis that I found quite profound. James mentions several times the "pleasure-economy" that we have in the United States. The idea that our cultural breeds us to be self-centered and to strive for what is good for us can be quite a destructive way to run a society. James' other point that the military provides us with the framework to break away from the trap that a "pleasure-economy" brings by teaching self discipline and other beneficial virtues.

What I disagree with however with the notion that the what needs to be preserved is this cultural notion of manliness, that James says is so essential to society. James' notion of manliness includes virtues of "toughness" and "authority." While I don't want to say that these things cannot contribute positive things to society, I think that James' "alternative" has the potential to breed the same kind of violence and oppression that war brings, just without the actual killing. While this is certainly better than our current state of affairs, it is not creating a positive peace. James' says: "we should all feel some degree of it imperative if we were conscious of our work as obligatory service to the state." I don't want to be too outlandish, but to me this seems like revamped fascism. Human action and work done not because of passion and love but rather an obligation? James' even goes on to say "we should be owned, as soldiers are by the army." This utopia the author is creating is starting to look quite oppressive.

I understand what William James is saying in that it is much more productive to take the cultural notion of war and the military and simply reposition its energy for good. I do however see that this looks like dangerous business to get ourselves into. James' says that if we simply get rid of both the military model and war, both will soon come back. But instead that it is more productive to keep the military and position it as an anti-war force. I disagree with the notion that this capability for oppression which James calls "manliness" is so essential to our nature that it needs to continually be nurtured. Like any aspect of human nature, whether it be love or hate, creation or destruction, toughness or gentleness. What is nurtured is what will be expressed. I agree with James that we shouldn't ignore the tough and rigid side of our humanity, but I do not think that continually building society around these notions will produce anything more just than it already has.

My crazy violence theory

So we talked a little in class last week about how one defines violence. I still am not sure what I think about the subject though I must admit that I had a lot to say... I liked how we talked about punishing children and other "hard-to-define" issues rather than things like war or murder. I think it is in these examples of violence that are difficult to define that we can have a good idea about how we define it.

So I am blogging about this today to get a couple thoughts out that I have been formulating in my head and unable to get out, and I figure writing it down in a blog for the class is a safer way to objectively look at my crazy ideas than doing something impulsive like try to write my definition paper about something that may just be completely ludicrous. So my theory starts with the the assumption that what is considered violent is highly influenced by culture. Not exclusively though, because I live in a culture that considers hunting and other forms of killing animals for amusement is acceptable and I personally feel appalled by the idea, so I would have to say that the way we as humans define violence is heavily based on culture and our own personal experiences and understandings. In that case, my theory of violence is not necessarily a way of understanding "objectively" what is violent or not violent, but rather a rubric for assessing violence that changes on an individual scale.

It starts with the idea that I was talking about in class; the fact that to determine violence we cannot just look at one factor. If we just look at the interpretation of the victim, we have to consider a parent sending a child to their room for kicking and screaming when they don't get their way to be a form of violence because the child thinks hell has been unleashed unto them. Similarly, if we just look at the harm that is done to the victim, that would qualify a doctor who fails to recover a patient to be committing violence.

One factor though we can exclude is intent. I would say that if the perpetrator of the action did so with the intent to harm the victim, it should qualify as violence. But what about cases where the harm done was to prevent an even greater harm, like the example of the parent pushing a child in the street to keep them from getting hit by a car (the parent may be hurting the child, but it may be the only way to save his/her life). We could call that justified violence, or we could extend the definition of violence to say that the amount of harm done was excessive to the situation that called for it. Therefore we can say that even if the perpetrator intended to harm the victim, it is only violence if it is excessive to the situation.

Now what constitutes excessive is highly subjective. I would consider personally a lot of things excessive that many would not; such as spanking a child, or attacking someone who we think may attack us. This is where personal and cultural bias comes in. What is acceptable to one person may be excessive to another. I don't want to be the one to draw any particular line in the sand, I just think that by saying excessive it allows for more wiggle-room in determining if individual actions are considered violent.

So we determined that if the perpetrator intended excessive harm, we can call the action violent. But what about cases where the perpetrators have good intentions? It has been said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and it has been seen that some of history's most depraved acts have been done with the best of intentions. Therefore, we have to take other criteria into consideration, when determining whether an action is violent.

These other criteria present are the victims perceptions and the actual, objective harm done. The victims perceptions of the action are quite important in situation where the perpetration may not have intended excessive harm, or may have a skewed perception of harm. Once again however, this view is flawed the same way that looking at perpetrators perceptions is flawed. An individual can certainly take a sincerely not violent action or even an unintended accident and blow it out of proportion making themselves out to be the victims of something unspeakable. As with the example of the child being sent to eir room.

Therefore, it is important to be aware that in addition to victims reported suffering, one must also take into account objective harm. That is on a scale beyond either parties perception. I am now considering what the criteria for what constitutes "objective" when talking about harm, but thus far I like utilizing Galtung's method for determining violence. The idea that harm is something that limits our life potential seems to be a good method for assessing the amount of harm that is done. In that way, we can continue to include things like psychological, physical, educational, and social limitations on one's life potential.

So now we have three qualifiers for measuring violence: intent of perpetrator, perception of victim, and objective harm done. Let's talk about how they come together. It is important that if violent intent on it's own is considered "excessive" then we need not worry about the other categories. I would say that violent intent constitutes violent action regardless of the outcome. The other two categories are a bit different though. I would say that the other two categories would have to be codependent. If both the victims perceptions of the action constitutes "excessiveness" and the actual harm done is "excessive" than it does not matter whether the perpetrator intended the action to be violent, it was violent nonetheless. It is unfair to call an action violent that didn't intend or actually harm someone just because the victim seems to be very upset by it (see once again the child example). However, what about cases that cause excessive harm, but neither the victim nor the perpetrator think it is excessive? There are two types scenarios where this could happen. One is the example of the accident, such as a doctor trying hard to not have to amputate a patients leg, but not being able to properly get the blood transfusion in time. I would not call this violence, because it was neither the intent of the doctor, nor does it seem excessive by the patient's perspective even though objectively there was a lot of harm done. The other example is a little more difficult to write off. Say for instance there is a man who beats his wife, the man grew up in a household where there was a lot of abuse, so from his point of view it is not an excessive way of expressing frustration. His wife also, after years of abuse has come to accept it as a part of life and believes that she deserves the treatment that he gives her. In this case, both parties agree that the the harm done is not excessive, yet objectively we can see that there is a lot of emotional, physical, psychological, and social harm being done to the wife.

In both examples the parties did not view it as excessive, but the amount of harm done was objectively high. How do we qualify that? The answer seems to be to do something to lower the objective harm count of anything that was completely unintentional in this category. Or we could also create a second threshold for objective suffering.

Either way, the dichotomy has to be taken into account. I wrote this all out in chart form on a piece of paper, I'll need to refine it more though. That was a rather "Excessive" rant. I just thought I'd get my thoughts out somewhere.