Violence is a pervasive aspect of existence. Violence occurs at all levels of social life.(Deutsch,1991) There is violence within the household, violence between religions, violence between races, violence between the weak and the strong, both individually and communally, violence as a criminal act and violence between communities, mankind has perpetrated violence on itself. Before we examine the question of “Is violence a social construct” we must first look at the root causes of violence to better understand why it happens, and to better understand that violence is a part of who we are and part of what allows us to function as a human race. Violence is a social construct to such an extent it is ingrained into our whole human evolution.
Violence as a social construct seems to be a generally accepted notion. (Jacoby, 2008) The situations in which violence is perpetrated may depend on the beliefs of an individual or group as to whether violence is an individual construct (MacLean,1967) or a group or social construct (Gultang,1969) or if it is a combination of both the individual makeup and the social influences individuals and groups experience.
Davis, (1980) would have us believe that all human beings have a violent component as part of their make up He argues that the spontaneity of human aggression and violence can be explained by the imperfectness of the evolutionary process. Davis goes further by arguing that people may not be totally aware or in control of their reasons for behaving like they do. (Davis, 1980) When violence is viewed as an imbedded trait it can be compared to violence in the animal kingdom where the strongest and fittest prevail. (Darwin, 1859)
Swiss cognitive psychologist Jean Piaget (1985) proposed that there are two major factors in the development of a child that stay with individuals throughout their lives. These two areas are adaptation and organization. He suggested that assimilation and accommodation are part of the adaptation process. As we develop we adapt to our surroundings and the influences around us. As humans develop they formulate mental structures that assimilate external events. Individuals create their own mental structures to accommodate new, unusual and constantly changing aspects of their external environment”. (Piaget, 1985) Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Maill (2009) argue that within any evolving society conflict is an inevitable and intrinsic part in that change. (Ramsbotham et al 2009) As we grow up and experience different things, we also start to become aware of our environment and this environment starts to shape our beliefs and actions. This environment becomes the norm for us. In a way we become indoctrinated into our environment and the norms of behavior within that environment. Domestic violence fits into this area. Children that are smacked or given a “hiding” may see this as normal within their social environment. The parents who hit their children may not see this as being a bad thing, but more of a normal situation. These situations will also vary from culture to culture. (Harrington, 2004)
Harrington (2004) explained that people, as a whole, are willing to obey “authority figures and commit acts of violence they would have normally found morally repugnant” (Harrington, 2004) Harrington’s theory suggests that violence is a social construct in that individuals are socialized to accept certain levels of violence as normal, or to follow a set of norms that ensure that we follow a group, either in positive or negative ways. His work gives us an insight into the ways in which we can explain why leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Adolf Hitler who were able to get millions of people to believe in their cause, and ultimately change the course of history, not only in their own country but elsewhere. The socialized acceptance of violence under Hitler’s Third Reich is well documented. The individuals perpetrating that violence were behaving in a manner that was deemed socially acceptable in the time and place, but was considered to be repugnant by individuals socialized in a different time and place.(Fox, 1989) Gandhi was able to achieve his goals in a relatively peaceful manner, denouncing violence. This fact supports the ideas of (Coser, 1967 in Deutsch, 1991), the view that there are positive functions of violence and that it is the external environment that shapes the way in which we act and react.
Piaget’s theory of adaptation explains humans have the ability to learn new ideas that may not have been part of our former beliefs and why people such as Gandhi and Hitler were able to manipulate minds and ideas to such as extent that caused individuals to willing act in ways that may seem “out of character” or against their previous beliefs or opposed to their previous actions.
In Burton (1997) writings on violence as a social construct articulated the idea that people will go to extreme limits to fight against a system that is oppressive. The lengths that people will go to in pursuit of their deeply felt basic needs can include death by suicide bombing and hunger strikes. Part of the reason that individuals like as Hitler, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Osama Bin Laden have been so successful in their mobilization of people is that, prior to globalisation and the emergence of human rights, poverty, exclusion, suffering, discrimination, exploitation and abuse were usually accepted when they occurred in the lower echelons of society. The downtrodden were expected to ‘know their place,’ and either nature, or divine ordination was invoked to justify their plight as legitimate. (Jordanger & Gayer, 2009) The way in which the downtrodden were treated can lead to feelings of humiliation, which they then, in turn, may interpret as justification for violence. The genocide in Rwanda in the 1990’s was carried out by the underlings (Hutu) on their former masters (Tutsis). The downtrodden of the world, if lead by determined leaders’ could unleash unprecedented mayhem. (Jordanger & Gayer, 2009)
(Sayers,1984 in Jacoby 2008) indicates that groups may form from individuals who see that they share the same hardships or resentment as others, or between individuals who may have different resentments but see that they have a common oppressor so join together to take action.(Jacoby 2008). One example of what Sayers was indicating maybe the situation between the Palestinians and the Israeli’s and the Orthodox Jews in Israel. Both have completely different reasons for fighting with the Israeli security forces; however they both resort to violence against the Israeli security forces to air their grievances.
Violence as a social construct is not only confined to individuals or groups it can also be seen as socially constructed as the national or state level, and between nation states. Countries may be joined in a united fight against something that may not be of an immediate threat to their national sovereignty but are convinced to follow other nation states into conflict or to take actions against other nations. An example of this is the “coalition of the willing” in the US led invasion of Iraq in 2002 when President George W Bush used the term when outlining if the then President of Iraq did not voluntary disarm then a US led “coalition of the willing” would disarm him. (CNN, 2002) This action could be seen as an example of individual countries, which may have had different reasons (political favor, with the US, resources such as oil) for taking part in invasion of Iraq; however they united to confront what they perceived to be a common foe. This type of behavior may also be linked to what Harrington(2004) eluded to when he outlined that people will follow an “authority figure”, in this case it may be the people following their elected government leaders, which is an example of people joining together at a political level to elect a candidate of their choice.
Violence has been with mankind for generations. It has been argued that it is part of our genetic makeup to be violent. We have seen examples of violence being perpetrated because it is seen as the normal way of things. Violence is used when groups of individuals, with either the same grievance or different grievances, use violence against someone they see as a common foe. Violence is not just an individual thing it is seen in groups or masses of people, it is also seen at national or state level, all of these example show that violence is a social construct. The fact that we know that it is a social construct will assist in any moves to change.