Force and violence

Commenting on a previous entry, a reader writes:

I think it would be technically more accurate to say that civilization rests on force, rather than violence, and involves curbing undirected, private, irrational violence. Actually, the left seems quite happy with that, or at least it can’t get much worked up about violence … from criminals, Muslim fanatics, or anybody who can be defined as “oppressed.”

My reply:

As soon as I read your comment, I felt abashed that I had advocated “violence,” instead of “force.” I went to that blog entry thinking to change the word, and there I saw the title: “Civilization depends on violence, cont.” But something stopped me from amending “violence” to “force.” The backdrop of that entry was the earlier essay by a reader which I had entitled, “What it all depends on,” and there I see that I also said “violence,” not “force,” in my introduction. I agree with you that the word “violence” connotes the private, irrational use of force, rather than the legitimate use of force for the defense of society. Normally I would speak of force, not violence. Yet in both instances I left it as “violence.” Why? It’s because I realized that the thought in my mind, triggered by the reader’s essay, was, in fact, violence, not force. The image is not of restrained, upright men who just use force when absolutely required and within the rules, but of tough men, violent men, men who have something primal about them, men who can subdue Indians, men who can blow away the Liberty Valance types and rescue the softer, civilized Jimmy Stewart types, men who are ready, able and willing to kill barbarians and save society, men like Nelson, who used apocalyptic levels of violence to kill thousands of men and destroy Napoleon’s navy and prevent the invasion of England. That was the image that the reader’s e-mail brought to mind, so I stayed with that and used “violence” rather than “force,” though I wasn’t aware of the choice at the time. It was the unconscious realization that underlying the legitimate use of force, if it is to be effective in protecting society from its enemies, there must be the primal aspect of force which is conveyed by the word “violence.”

All this bloodymindedness is very strange coming from me. It’s a thought I’ve never had before, and I had doubts about posting it. But it seems to reflect some aspect of the truth, and I thought it would be better to expose it to the light, whatever it’s worth, than to conceal it.

John Hagan writes:

As a youth I grew up in a lower middle-class and poor neighborhood that vibrated with physical and psychological violence. A day did not go by when some threat, physical, or psychological, did not present itself. After time, if you want to survive, you devise a strategy to protect yourself that requires not only the aura of force, but the “real” projection of violence. Though intelligence was important to survive in this environment, it was not enough. You had to define yourself in a way that sealed a reputation for physical fearlessness! Because in that place, that was the ONLY thing that was understood on the most primal level. When my time came I made sure the beating that I administered to one of the most dangerous thugs in school was not only complete, but ruthless in its application. I find the episode distasteful looking back upon it all these years later, Lawrence, but I will tell you this: I would do the same thing all over again if I had to!

The use of that “violence,” that excessive force, paradoxically had a civilizing effect for me personally in the world that I was required to traverse everyday. I essentially purchased for myself some space or breathing room from the assorted lunatics that I had to share space with. Only the threat that I might do to them what they had seen me do to this individual kept me from being in constant physical confrontations.

Force, or the projection of force, is all well and good, and it can work in many situations, but not in every situation. And when force does not work, you had better be damn ready to apply violence. The kind of violence Sherman took down South, the kind that, in the end, restores civilization.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 01, 2005 06:30 PM | Send