Column | Not all violence is easy to observe

In this column I would like to call for a reconsideration of violence. Not the use of force, we can talk about that another time, but the meaning of the concept. Recently, at Pakhuis de Zwijger in Amsterdam, it was decided to cancel a debate evening because the announcement stated that violence should be reconsidered in the context of climate protest. Speakers unsubscribed, politicians spoke out against violence. This seems noble, and also logical, because who is in favor of violence? The problem is that violence, self-defense and peaceful protest are notoriously vague concepts.

Most people think of ‘violence’ as direct violence, which is aimed at the body and directly affects an individual. A man kills his wife. But there are also other forms of violence. We recognize structural violence less well. Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung uses this term to denote violence against groups – racism, sexism, speciesism. This is often accompanied by direct violence, for example in femicide, hate crimes and police brutality.

Not all violence is easy to observe. The American thinker Rob Nixon coined the term ‘slow violence’ for gradual, barely visible violence that leads to ecological destruction, long-term pollution and climate change. This is often linked to structural violence; for example, poor people suffer more from air pollution.

The fact that we recognize some forms of violence less well than others is because our daily lives have been shaped by them. The Australian philosopher Dinesh Wadiwel points here to the role of institutional violence and epistemic violence. We often do not recognize violence against animals because it is embedded in our institutions and is legitimized by it (think of laws and policies) and because our knowledge systems are hierarchical (people are more important than animals). If a pig is boiled alive in the slaughterhouse, we think that’s bad, but we think the slaughterhouse itself is normal, because it’s legal and we learn that animals are inferior.

What is considered non-violent by the community or the law is not necessarily so. In fact, an important part of activism is demonstrating that violence is “violence.” Think of Black Lives Matter, the movement that insisted that police brutality against Black Americans is violence. Or ‘Black Pete is Racism’: a figure that many people are attached to is actually violent. What is seen as violence is also shifting in the law, rape within marriage has only been punishable since 1991.

Different forms of violence require different countermeasures. Such as generating new forms of knowledge, exploring other ways of living together, designing institutions based on listening, learning to read silences, voting for parties that are against economic growth, blocking highways, buying out land and camping in trees. Ultimately, we are all connected in those counteractions. Judith Butler enrolls The Force of Nonviolence that a liberal conception of self-defense and nonviolent resistance is problematic because it focuses on direct violence against individuals and divides beings into groups with opposing interests. This reinforces other forms of violence, such as structural violence. No one can learn to recognize and counter these other forms of violence alone. We need debate evenings for that, in which we have difficult conversations about what violence is and who determines it. And a lot of protest.

Eva Meijer is a writer and philosopher. She writes a column every other week.