This is my first post on a blog. I am excited to enter the world of public sharing my ideas.
As part of a class requirement I will be posting on topics of non-violence.
Last week in class we did some discussing about the nature of violence and what it means to be violent. I was particularly intrigued by the idea that surgery as a form of violence. The argument that was stated is that since the doctor is cutting the patient open and purposefully harming them, then that is a form of violence. I disagree that this is violence because for an action to be violent I believe that means and the ends must be looked at as one unit of analysis—the situation as a whole must be examined. Surgery is not violence because both parties consent to the temporary physical harm for a long term goal of betterment. Neither party goes into surgery with the intent to cause violence nor is the end, if successful, is not violent. For something to be classified as violent, both the ends and the means have to be examined. It is possible for an action to be violent, I believe, if it is only violent in the ends or the means. For example, a drunk driver kills a pedestrian. There is no intent to cause violence and the means themselves are not violent, but the end is violent because harm has been caused. Similarly, structural violence is necessarily violence in its means but it is violent in its ends.
What would be a situation where the means are violent but the ends aren’t? Would an un-detonated landmine be an example? The means are to cause harm and violence, but if it is never detonated, is it violence? I would say yes.
