The prospect for sustainable growth and development of any society cannot be assumed in the absence of security. This calls for harmonious co-existence of its citizens across societal groups regardless of background differences. In practice, however, incidents of violence in societies from across the globe are a common feature of daily news, which makes an informed understanding of violence, especially concerning its causes, manifestations, and viable interventions, an area of continued research interest by scholars. Based on multifaceted theories by prominent theorists from varied disciplines, there seems to be a common belief that violence emerges within society. Key reasons cited for this belief include the interplay between social structures, power dynamics, and behaviors of individuals and groups within society (Amoore and de Goede 2008). This essay critically discusses why theorists believe that violence begins in society.
The belief that violence stands from society is well-informed and reflective of the theories of many prominent thinkers. First and foremost, there is the general view that violence is a problem of lack of or poor governance – the exercising of power by the state. Of particular significance here is the claim by Hannah Arendt that “power and violence are opposites; where the one rules absolutely, the other is absent. Violence appears when powers are in jeopardy” (qtd Amoore and de Goede 2008, 502). This perspective indicates not just the significance of governments in society but, more importantly, legitimate and credible government. Just to note, government can be understood as an establishment of, and by the people; hence, the view that governments are in purpose meant to secure, protect, and promote the interests of the electorate. The absence of social support for the government is, thus, a recipe for violence.
The connection between the social recognition and support a government command and the problem of violence in society can also be explained by exploring how governments engage the masses for continued social support – legitimacy and credibility. According to Arendt, while the masses and the elite are to be attracted by the dealings of totalitarian regimes, “the masses have to be won by propaganda” (qtd Thorsten 07/11/23). This indicates violence is a problem whose creation, propagation, and sustenance are rooted in ideologies and the effect such has in informing shared identity among individuals within a group and the society in general (Arendt 1994, 469). It is crucial here to consider the argument by Polkinghorne that narratives are the “primary way by which human experience is made meaningful” (qtd Wibben 2008, 86). As such, misinformation or propaganda is bound to shape the behaviors of individuals in society. This makes propaganda a common cause of violence.
In addition, Paul Richards argues that violence cannot be understood without considering the prevailing social context by asserting that “war is often . . . a state of mind shared among participants [and] “peace” can often be more violent and dangerous than “war”” (qtd Thorsten 07/11/23). Humans are inherently social by nature, an indication that the lives of individuals cannot be assumed outside their social context. This is clear given the impact that social context has on how individuals make sense of realities and the meanings they attach to presenting realities in their lives. Social context is bound to breed shared identity among individuals within a group in society as such relates to their intentions and behaviors. A good example here is the popular culture of political activism across groups within society. In practice, this is one of the common strategies governments and activism organization engage the masses to secure social support for their otherwise self-centered interests.
Michel Foucault, another influential theorist, also emphasizes the belief that violence originates in society when he argues that “politics is the continuation of war by other means” (qtd Amoore and de Goede 2008, 512). Of particular significance here, power dynamics are to be blamed for violence due to the potentially far-reaching effects that such have in shaping norms and practices in society. To this end, it is not uncommon for power dynamics to contribute to eliminating or normalizing violence within a group(s) in society. Power is presented here as a pervasive force operating through institutional and societal structures, highlighting how disciplinary mechanisms can either prompt violence or sustain law and order by fostering control and regulation of the behavior of others in society. This leads to the normalizing or embedding a ‘desired’ behavior within social systems.
In general, the perspectives of these theorists provide a nuanced understanding of the intricate interweaving of violence into the fabric of society. As a problem originating from society, violence has also been linked to the sociological causes of deviance. This implies of violence as the unprecedented outcome of societal breakdowns, as well as disintegration in a society, hence prompting, increasing, or sustaining violence and related behaviors and attitudes by individuals and groups within society (Amoore and de Goede 2008, 512). Anomie here refers to a state of normlessness by individuals within a society. Popular cultures promoting gangster lifestyles is a good example here, given the potentially far-reaching effects such usually have on the behavior of individuals in society.
In conclusion, violence in society is a complex social phenomenon. Although it is shaped by many and diverse factors, they all originate from the society. Overall, there is a consensus by theorists that violence is the undue outcome of the complex interplay between societal structures, power dynamics, and individual behaviors, as well as societal breakdowns. Popular culture is one of the most influential determinants of violence due to the potentially far-reaching effects it has in engaging individuals into embracing a shared identity – hence prompting the ‘we vs. them’ divide among groups within society. Accordingly, seeking an understanding of the different theories of violence manifest in popular culture provides for an in-depth comprehension of the relationship between society and violence.
Bibliography
Amoore, Louise and Marieke de Goede. “What Counts as Violence?” In Global Politics: A New Introduction, edited by Jenny Edkins and Maja Zehfuss, 496-516. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2014.
Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. San Diego: Harcourt, 1994.
Thorsten, Marie. “Week 5: What Counts as Violence? Part 2”.” PowerPoint presentation for Political Theory at Ritsumeikan Asia-Pacific University, Beppu, Japan, November 7, 2023.
Wibben, Annick T. R. “Who Do We Think We Are?” In Global Politics: A New Introduction, edited by Jenny Edkins and Maja Zehfuss, 85-107. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2014.
write