Violence Transformed: New Perspectives
In a world where mass shootings have become an epidemic and where we have the capacity to obliterate entire cities with essentially the press of a button, it is impossible to say that violence is decreasing. Many scholars have argued that the world today is a lot less violent than that which included Nazi Germany or Mongolian conquests. However, the trouble with this perspective is that the nature of violence itself and how it is being carried out has changed, leaving many historical comparisons unfounded.
One comparison often made is that between the world today and that of the Second World War including the horrific loss of life due to both battle and genocide. However, an article by Tanisha M. Fazal and Paul Poast explains that “all types of war are becoming more and more rare” (Fazal & Poast 2019, pg. 74). While the amount of wars has decreased, violence is enacted daily in all parts of the world and has taken on forms that did not exist when wars were prominent.
Many optimistic approaches regarding levels of violence ignore the fact that how war is waged has transformed. As is argued by Michael Mann, in places described as the global North, war itself has gone from “being ‘ferocious’ to ‘callous,’" making it “less visible” (Mann 2018, pg. 37). War today is not often carried out through physical combat that requires looking into the eyes of another human being and savagely murdering them with one’s bare hands. Rather, we have extracted the primal nature from killing by committing violence from a distance. It is this “indifference toward the victim,” as described by Mann, that lends to the proliferation of violence (Mann 2018, pg. 49). By taking into consideration impersonal tactics like drone strikes, militaries have the capacity to kill many people without even stepping onto a battlefield.
“The deadliest weapons are now wielded by people who never see the enemy they kill,” Mann explains (Mann 2018, pg. 50). As humans, we are wired to protect our kind, making killing another person psychologically taxing, and consequently making post-war effects such as PTSD more likely (Thaler, 2020). Yet, by removing the human face from the act of killing, one can argue that violence will be enacted more easily.
And, the wars that are being waged across the globe are privatized, as the Mann article explains. Unlike the 20th Century model in which large states go to war against one another, civil-wars have erupted globally, especially in poorer countries (Mann 2018, pg. 51). Rebels are fighting their respective states, as exemplified in one of the most violent places today, Syria. And for those wars taking place in the global north, responsibility has been disseminated to “proxy fighters” (Mann 2018, pg. 53).
In the same regard, although fatality in battle has decreased, we cannot quantify levels of violence through this measure alone. The quality of life for many people has substantially increased within the past century, as is argued by Steven Radlet in his article “Doomsday Delusions.” However, despite Radelt’s statements that “people are living longer and healthier lives” and that “basic human rights are more widely respected,” the world has not become any less violent (Radlet 2018, pg. 187). As the technological nature of war has changed, so has our ability to treat those wounded in battle. And although “The wounded-to-killed ratio for the U.S. military today is close to ten to one,” as explained by the Fazal and Poast article, we cannot compare fatality levels fairly because the average person, whether a soldier or civilian, has a greater life expectancy today than in the past (Fazal & Poast 2019, pg. 75).
Following this logic of increased technology, there is also increased media coverage, a large portion of which contains violence, desensitizing the average person to the violence that still takes place. Having a greater ability to digest the news of a bombing or terrorist attack does not mean that the world has become any less violent, rather that this violence has become so ingrained in daily human experience, that its horrors often go unnoticed.
In continuing the discussions posed by Mann, Fazal, and Post, direct and physical forms of violence are on the decline. And, in analyzing the nature of war and violence, authors often turn to physical manifestations of war, however, economic warfare is the source of a great amount of violence in our world today. Through sanctions and embargos, such as the current United States sanctions on countries like Iran and Venezuela, international economies suffer and consequently so do the people of these nations. The hardship caused by this economic warfare is also violence, depriving others of economic resources.
Although civilian casualties are often inevitable in a physical war, soldiers are primarily going to war against other soldiers. But attacking another nation’s economy, you are directly attacking its people. One might even argue, this violence is even greater in that is creates prolonged torture, rather than ending a person’s life which essentially alleviates them of greater suffering.
It is clear that there is not a comprehensive solution to creating world peace, therefore it is not violence that can be resolved. Rather, there is a need for revision in the decision making processes that allow governments to inflict violence. In the context of both economic and physical warfare, the enemy is often dehumanized, justifying this violence. Therefore, government thinking requires reform that does not privilege one nation’s self-interest at the cost of another. In other words, a globalized world view with respect at its core will elevate the way in which decisions are made and destroy the us-versus-them dichotomy that allows violence to continue.
The discussion surrounding if violence has increased or decreased in the world is often convoluted by a fixation on the quantifiable number of wars and fatalities and on physical rather than economic or structural warfare. By understanding the concept of violence from a variety of perspectives, that do not fall into our preconceived ideas of what violence looks like, one can confidently say the world is not at peace.
References
Fazal, T., & Poast, P. (2019). War Is Not Over. Foreign Affairs, 98(6), 73-83.
Mann, M. (2018). Have wars and violence declined? Theory and Society, 47(1), 37-60.
Radelet, S. (2018). Doomsday Delusions. Foreign Affairs, 97(6), 187-192.
Thaler, K. (2020, January). Peace, Conflict, and Violence in Global Perspective. Peace, Conflict, and Violence in Global Perspective. Santa Barbara.
One comparison often made is that between the world today and that of the Second World War including the horrific loss of life due to both battle and genocide. However, an article by Tanisha M. Fazal and Paul Poast explains that “all types of war are becoming more and more rare” (Fazal & Poast 2019, pg. 74). While the amount of wars has decreased, violence is enacted daily in all parts of the world and has taken on forms that did not exist when wars were prominent.
Many optimistic approaches regarding levels of violence ignore the fact that how war is waged has transformed. As is argued by Michael Mann, in places described as the global North, war itself has gone from “being ‘ferocious’ to ‘callous,’" making it “less visible” (Mann 2018, pg. 37). War today is not often carried out through physical combat that requires looking into the eyes of another human being and savagely murdering them with one’s bare hands. Rather, we have extracted the primal nature from killing by committing violence from a distance. It is this “indifference toward the victim,” as described by Mann, that lends to the proliferation of violence (Mann 2018, pg. 49). By taking into consideration impersonal tactics like drone strikes, militaries have the capacity to kill many people without even stepping onto a battlefield.
“The deadliest weapons are now wielded by people who never see the enemy they kill,” Mann explains (Mann 2018, pg. 50). As humans, we are wired to protect our kind, making killing another person psychologically taxing, and consequently making post-war effects such as PTSD more likely (Thaler, 2020). Yet, by removing the human face from the act of killing, one can argue that violence will be enacted more easily.
And, the wars that are being waged across the globe are privatized, as the Mann article explains. Unlike the 20th Century model in which large states go to war against one another, civil-wars have erupted globally, especially in poorer countries (Mann 2018, pg. 51). Rebels are fighting their respective states, as exemplified in one of the most violent places today, Syria. And for those wars taking place in the global north, responsibility has been disseminated to “proxy fighters” (Mann 2018, pg. 53).
In the same regard, although fatality in battle has decreased, we cannot quantify levels of violence through this measure alone. The quality of life for many people has substantially increased within the past century, as is argued by Steven Radlet in his article “Doomsday Delusions.” However, despite Radelt’s statements that “people are living longer and healthier lives” and that “basic human rights are more widely respected,” the world has not become any less violent (Radlet 2018, pg. 187). As the technological nature of war has changed, so has our ability to treat those wounded in battle. And although “The wounded-to-killed ratio for the U.S. military today is close to ten to one,” as explained by the Fazal and Poast article, we cannot compare fatality levels fairly because the average person, whether a soldier or civilian, has a greater life expectancy today than in the past (Fazal & Poast 2019, pg. 75).
Following this logic of increased technology, there is also increased media coverage, a large portion of which contains violence, desensitizing the average person to the violence that still takes place. Having a greater ability to digest the news of a bombing or terrorist attack does not mean that the world has become any less violent, rather that this violence has become so ingrained in daily human experience, that its horrors often go unnoticed.
In continuing the discussions posed by Mann, Fazal, and Post, direct and physical forms of violence are on the decline. And, in analyzing the nature of war and violence, authors often turn to physical manifestations of war, however, economic warfare is the source of a great amount of violence in our world today. Through sanctions and embargos, such as the current United States sanctions on countries like Iran and Venezuela, international economies suffer and consequently so do the people of these nations. The hardship caused by this economic warfare is also violence, depriving others of economic resources.
Although civilian casualties are often inevitable in a physical war, soldiers are primarily going to war against other soldiers. But attacking another nation’s economy, you are directly attacking its people. One might even argue, this violence is even greater in that is creates prolonged torture, rather than ending a person’s life which essentially alleviates them of greater suffering.
It is clear that there is not a comprehensive solution to creating world peace, therefore it is not violence that can be resolved. Rather, there is a need for revision in the decision making processes that allow governments to inflict violence. In the context of both economic and physical warfare, the enemy is often dehumanized, justifying this violence. Therefore, government thinking requires reform that does not privilege one nation’s self-interest at the cost of another. In other words, a globalized world view with respect at its core will elevate the way in which decisions are made and destroy the us-versus-them dichotomy that allows violence to continue.
The discussion surrounding if violence has increased or decreased in the world is often convoluted by a fixation on the quantifiable number of wars and fatalities and on physical rather than economic or structural warfare. By understanding the concept of violence from a variety of perspectives, that do not fall into our preconceived ideas of what violence looks like, one can confidently say the world is not at peace.
References
Fazal, T., & Poast, P. (2019). War Is Not Over. Foreign Affairs, 98(6), 73-83.
Mann, M. (2018). Have wars and violence declined? Theory and Society, 47(1), 37-60.
Radelet, S. (2018). Doomsday Delusions. Foreign Affairs, 97(6), 187-192.
Thaler, K. (2020, January). Peace, Conflict, and Violence in Global Perspective. Peace, Conflict, and Violence in Global Perspective. Santa Barbara.