Essay2 Kairos
Why Violence Works?
This article,” Why Violence Works?" has been taken from The Chronicles of Higher Education and was published on August 12, 2013. The Author wants to present the fact that world history is full of examples, which tell about the use of violence by common people and even the rulers and the governments to get the submission of the others. The main purpose of writing this paper is to make people aware especially the youth about the role that Violence has actually played and is playing in the political scene. The things that triggered author to write this piece is to make people aware of the truth and to understand that the talks about peace are really encouraging and nice, but violence was the tool that has been used in history and is still used to achieve political aims, in modern world. It also suggests how culture, economics and the racial discrimination have caused violence and resulted in wars or political confrontations. This paper is regarding the use of violence in political history of the world and how it had been used effectively to get all the negative and positive gains in history. In particular, the paper attempts to explore the idea of violence, identifying it as a contemporary event that has essentially influenced the author to write the reviewed article.
Violence is a contemporary issue of high relevance in the modern society. The author of the reviewed article presents timely, important, and noteworthy discussion by providing a comprehensive review of the subject of violence. In essence, the article provides the controversial situation that characterizes the idea of violence. It is really difficult to justify the fact that violence could have been done with the intention other than putting the sovereignty of people at stake and showing aggression and cruelty against them. But, if human history is studied in detail, it can be observed that violence was certainly used for several purposes, over the course of history and had achieved its goals. No matter how much we try to support human race for what they have done for the humanity, but the thing that is certain is that, “the story of the human race is war”. Violence had always been use to get the material gains and to get the supremacy over another country. Even from the start of the human civilization wars had always been use and violence had been use against innocent and agitators to achieve the goals that have been set. Mao Zedhog was also of the opinion that violence is contributing factor to politics and is the tool that is effectively used in politics to achieve the political goals (Ginsberg, 2013, p. 3). Ginsberg summarizes the motivation and concept of the war in the modern world by stating:
In the case of statehood, there are occasional circumstances when a state may be built and endure mainly through peaceful means. The peaceful divorce of Slovakia and the Czech Republic is an example. This is, however, one of the rare exceptions. As the social scientist Charles Tilly has observed, most regimes are the survivors or descendants of a thousand-year-long culling process in which those states capable of creating and sustaining powerful militaries prevailed, while those that could not or would not fight were conquered or absorbed by others. Similarly, when it comes to control of territory, virtually every square inch of inhabited space on the planet is occupied by groups that forcibly dispossessed—sometimes exterminated—the land's previous claimants (Ginsberg 3).
Through this statement, Ginseberg clearly identifies war/violence as the primary tool for establishing statehood. The author is keen to acknowledge that such a state can also be established through peaceful means; however, he confidently argues that war is the ultimate strategy. The assertion is noteworthy as it explains the current frequent eruption of wars/violence in various parts of world. States are indirectly attempting to empower their authority by conquering others.
Violence is a contemporary issue as humans have recently witnessed the bloodiest wars that can considered to be “the mark of age”. For instance, “Violence stimulated by political motives or intentions” and the different countries of the world, super powers, imposed wars on the other that resulted in World War 1 and World War 2 were just started to maintain the supremacy over the world and make it clear to the world that who was the actual super power in world’s politics. In spite of the peace making processes and negotiations done by the civilized world, the thing that is clear that when these countries had their personal motives, they never hesitated in starting the war and using violence against opponents and in the process, violence used often resulted in collateral damage and killing and affecting millions of people (Kershaw, 2005, pp. 107-109). Kershaw defined the fact that how violence has played role in the political development in this century and how that was considered the "mark of age". The author has defended the fact that the government and different groups to get their personal motive and that had excessively used violence: "violence stimulated by political motives or intentions" (Kershaw, 2005, p. 108). The fact that is also discussed and analyzed here is that when politicians or people wanted to achieve any goal in the world then war has become essential and the use of violence was prerequisite of war. Even in the modern wars it is observed in several countries that peaceful demonstrations were followed by the use of force and the main aim was achieved and its examples are Syria and Libya. Ginsberg explains, “Only when Libyan insurgents resorted to force backed by NATO airstrikes were they able to defeat the Qaddafi regime” (4). This reinstates violence as the pivotal tool for establishing authority.
Ginsberg further presents interesting sentiments towards the idea of violence that are relevant in the contemporary society by explaining the pertinent political motivation that characterize most wars that the society is witnessing. Ginsberg feels that the political ideology behind the violence is mainly based on two aspects. These include the need to establish dominance and the assumption that violence is eventually characterized with political transformation (4). There are different political goals of people and different ideals of countries and people, which determine that how it could be and has been used in politics. Violence did play one role in increasing the awareness of people about their social and civil rights and compel them to understand what they actually are worthy of and deserve. Civil rights movement in America was the one in which role of violence and non-violence were both important. The violence and the suppression of black people by white supremacists had deprived blacks of all the basic human and civil rights and compelled them to live in the state of subjugation. This violence of whites compelled blacks to realize their actual place in society and the things that they surely deserved as a human and as American and were just deprived of, because of their racial different. But, in civil rights movement, blacks used strategy of non-violence and "long struggle to force the state to combat racist violence, one of the Civil Rights Movement's most significant achievements" (Bermanzohn, 2000, p. 31). This helped them to get not only the attention of human rights associates in the country, international attention, but also of great majority of the country, who was not prejudiced. In this case violence done against the law enforcement agencies and racist white organization, against the peaceful movement of blacks helped them to achieve their goal quickly.
Thornton supports Ginsberg’s discussion by explaining a situation that is likely to make people result to violence. It is true that the people who live in subjugation and had to live under the cruelty of the arrogant and malicious leadership of the country also got the attention of the foreign groups and are also helped in those situations. The three kings once ruled Congo and all treated their subjects really badly and "the founder ruled through force and conquest, maintaining his control by violence" (Thornton, 1993, p. 190). When some of slave and subjects went to the aid from foreign groups like Spain, they were received well and those powers also showed sentiments of tenderness towards them, after listening to the evils and the cruelties and violence that common people had to face, just to bear because of being the subject of the very cruel government.
However, it is not the fact that the authoritarians and the cruel rulers only used violence. Whenever a movement started to get rid of such rulers and to remove them from the power, then against that armed struggle was used against them, which also involved violence. No matter what the situation had been, either used to gain power and authority over others, to get human rights, power and violence was certainly used in politics. Like other countries in the world, "The Nigerian political scene is bedeviled by violence" (Aver, Nnorom, & Targba, 2013, p. 264). Rulers used power to get submission of common people but again that violence compelled people to raise voice against it and in the rebellions used power against their cruel rulers also. The Nigerian rulers made the culture of violence common among people and developed the environment that was ruled by the racial differences and was affecting social, cultural and economic norms of the country. The cruelty of rulers also compelled the international community to help the people of Nigeria and in that way violence played it role in triggering social and economic development in the country. The culture of violence was created by the rulers that also compelled the common people to retaliate in the same manner and thus, it had become difficult to deal with the situation and to bring any social, economic or the positive change in country. There are also examples that peaceful demonstrations of the people were held against the culture of threat and dictatorship and the economic loss and fear that people were feeling due to the rulers. But, when those demonstrations were dealt with violence, it was then that real attention of the world was brought to the issues and was solved later by the intervention of international community (Ginsberg, 2013, p. 3)
Through the presented research, it is apparent that Ginsberg’s article provides a timely discussion of high relevance by exploring a contemporary issue of the violence. In reference to the cited examples, it is an undeniable fact that either we consider it good or bad; violence surely played its role in shaping human history and in becoming the cause of bringing both positive and negative changes in the world. The examples of Syria, Libya, Nigeria and the civil rights movement, which intended the peaceful struggle were dealt with violence and brought the attention of people to the matter. All those issues have been caused due to racial, political, social, cultural or the economic reasons, but the results were the same. In spite of the hate of people against aggression and violence, its role cannot be denied in international politics. Violence did have its role in human history and international politics and if we observe critically, we can see the same effects in present political scene.
Work Cited
Aver, T. T., Nnorom, K. C., & Targba, A. (2013). Political Violence and its Effects on Social Development in Nigeria. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(17), 261-266.
Bermanzohn, S. A. (2000). Violence, Nonviolence, and the Civil Rights Movement. New Political Science, 22(1), 31-48.
Ginsberg, B. (2013, August 12). Why Violence Works. Retrieved from The Chronicle of Higher Education: http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Violence-Works/140951/
Kershaw, I. (2005). War and Political Violence in Twentieth-Century Europe. Contemporary European History, 14(1), 107-123.
thornton, j. k. (1993). “I Am the Subject of the King of Congo” : African Political Ideology and the Haitian Revolution. Journal of World History, 4(2), 181-214.
