Psychological Violence?

[Received]

A problem with laws is that many people come to see the stuff that's illegal as being unethical without really knowing why, and therefore not knowing any underlying reasoning that justifies something as illegal means you can't see (via the same type of reasoning) how something could be unethical but not illegal.

So physical violence is considered to be unethical for most people because it's illegal, but very few people would identify any such thing as psychological violence because they don't really grasp the reasoning as to why physical violence is illegal. Physical violence is illegal because it causes some level of disorder in society, and/or violates individual rights for freedom (not just in the physical sense). This largely overlaps with ethical condemnations of physical violence (although there are more details in the ethical consideration camp).

Okay, so take this criterion of disorder and apply it to psychological actions that people do which result in societal disorder and/or violation of individual freedom. This would be what's basically known as psychological violence. But because this isn't illegal (except in extreme cases, e.g., severe psychological abuse resulting in traumatization of another person), nobody really thinks of it as really existing, much less as being within the domain of ethics by being unethical.

Imagine hearing that one of your friends shoved another friend during a debate about whatever. You find out who did the shoving and immediately blame him -- he initiated the physical violence, case closed, easy peasy. But imagine that what caused the person who initiated the shove to go "off the handle" was the other friend being intentionally or at least negligently psychologically manipulative (e.g., calling him subtle names, making smart-alec facial expressions or tones, and/or outright insulting him). Can't we at least make a case that the psychologically violent person is at least as, if not more, responsible for the outcome as the physically violent person?

Obviously there would be stricter limitations in determining what makes up psychological violence, or else any domestic abuser would get off the hook ethically (and potentially legally) because his partner "mouthed off too much." Unlike physical violence, which is as easily seen as objective as objective can be understood to be, psychological stuff involves cognitive filters (thoughts, beliefs, schemas) that might magnify the level of psychological harm on the person who responds with violence.

But still: why don't we seem to capture psychological violence as even being a category and only focus on physical violence? And by extension, why can't we see that violence, far from being only physical, can also be institutional, i.e., written into the rules and organization of society?

 

[Hank77]

But still: why don't we seem to capture psychological violence as even being a category and only focus on physical violence? And by extension, why can't we see that violence, far from being only physical, can also be institutional, i.e., written into the rules and organization of society?

Are you thinking that psychological abuse should somehow be criminalized and punished the way physical abuse is?

 

[Received]

Are you thinking that psychological abuse should somehow be criminalized and punished the way physical abuse is?

Are there any psychologically violence or abusive crimes? I know that a child can be taken from its home in cases of neglect, but that doesn't result in criminal charges.

That said, I'm very wary of legislating against psychological violence, precisely given the sometimes very subjective nature of determining violence, which is an open door for corrupt legislation.

I want people to realize that violence isn't reducible to physical violence -- a conclusion I think that comes from generalizing ethics from law.

 

[Ana the Ist]

A problem with laws is that many people come to see the stuff that's illegal as being unethical without really knowing why, and therefore not knowing any underlying reasoning that justifies something as illegal means you can't see (via the same type of reasoning) how something could be unethical but not illegal.

So physical violence is considered to be unethical for most people because it's illegal, but very few people would identify any such thing as psychological violence because they don't really grasp the reasoning as to why physical violence is illegal. Physical violence is illegal because it causes some level of disorder in society, and/or violates individual rights for freedom (not just in the physical sense). This largely overlaps with ethical condemnations of physical violence (although there are more details in the ethical consideration camp).

Okay, so take this criterion of disorder and apply it to psychological actions that people do which result in societal disorder and/or violation of individual freedom. This would be what's basically known as psychological violence. But because this isn't illegal (except in extreme cases, e.g., severe psychological abuse resulting in traumatization of another person), nobody really thinks of it as really existing, much less as being within the domain of ethics by being unethical.

Imagine hearing that one of your friends shoved another friend during a debate about whatever. You find out who did the shoving and immediately blame him -- he initiated the physical violence, case closed, easy peasy. But imagine that what caused the person who initiated the shove to go "off the handle" was the other friend being intentionally or at least negligently psychologically manipulative (e.g., calling him subtle names, making smart-alec facial expressions or tones, and/or outright insulting him). Can't we at least make a case that the psychologically violent person is at least as, if not more, responsible for the outcome as the physically violent person?

No...not really. I can make a case for being responsible for my actions...or even my words...but I can't make a case that someone else's words are responsible for my actions.

Now...there's the "fire!" in a crowded place example...but that's not what you're talking about, is it?

 

[Received]

No...not really. I can make a case for being responsible for my actions...or even my words...but I can't make a case that someone else's words are responsible for my actions.

Now...there's the "fire!" in a crowded place example...but that's not what you're talking about, is it?

No. But I'd say responsibility is by definition a finite thing (response able), and so if this is the case it should follow that people can be put "over the edge" by psychological behavior in others in such a way where the other person, in a sense, overrode the first person's responsibility.

As an extreme example, imagine a bully trapping someone in a corner and continually yelling out pejoratives over and over and over again. Is it really the target of the bully's fault for kicking him in the nuts, even if it isn't the best thing to do?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No. But I'd say responsibility is by definition a finite thing (response able), and so if this is the case it should follow that people can be put "over the edge" by psychological behavior in others in such a way where the other person, in a sense, overrode the first person's responsibility.

As an extreme example, imagine a bully trapping someone in a corner and continually yelling out pejoratives over and over and over again. Is it really the target of the bully's fault for kicking him in the nuts, even if it isn't the best thing to do?

In your example...you placed the "kicker" in physical danger. You literally had to have him physically "trapped" in a corner...where we can arguably make the case that he felt physically in danger (even if his bully didn't threaten physical danger...he at least made his anger clear) in order to justify his behavior.

Can we justify it without the physical element?

If our bully is a 5'3" 98lb 79yo woman with arthritis....and she's bullying a 25yo amateur mma fighter in excellent physical shape...is the mma fighter justified in breaking the old bully's hip with a roundhouse kick? Or does psychological violence only justify physical violence if the person is a weakling?

 

[Received]

In your example...you placed the "kicker" in physical danger. You literally had to have him physically "trapped" in a corner...where we can arguably make the case that he felt physically in danger (even if his bully didn't threaten physical danger...he at least made his anger clear) in order to justify his behavior.

No, I don't think so. Imagine them both being the same size, maybe the bully is slightly smaller, to draw out the psychological underpinning. "Trapped" here means the person felt obligated to stay where he was, not physically trapped.

Can we justify it without the physical element?

If our bully is a 5'3" 98lb 79yo woman with arthritis....and she's bullying a 25yo amateur mma fighter in excellent physical shape...is the mma fighter justified in breaking the old bully's hip with a roundhouse kick? Or does psychological violence only justify physical violence if the person is a weakling?

I wouldn't use the word justify, as that seems to imply that the consequence of getting a broken hip is fitting, i.e., the bully deserves it. I'm talking about psychological violence being responsible for setting off physical violence, and ultimately the psychological violator, because she "set off" through her intentional psychological violence, being responsible as an agent for getting what she got, given that she put the person "beyond his limits," much like screaming at a snowcap will go "beyond the limits" of the physics of snow on the mountain and result in an avalanche.

And again, "beyond his limits" needs some qualifications: is the person put "beyond his limits" because he virtually has no limits and easily goes off the handle given a free pass because the old lady said a few neutral words that were interpreted negatively? No. In this case, because the old lady made neutral comments without a negative intention, she isn't responsible for setting off the MMA fighter.

But imagine that the psychologically violated person -- the MMA fighter -- came from a family of repeated physical and sexual violence, and so has a natural "short fuse" because of this, and (very important) the violator clearly didn't drop neutral terms of nonverbal forms of communication and rather intended to cause the person to be ticked off, but had no idea he would snap this easily. Does this mean the violator isn't responsible? No, the person is responsible, just as throwing a pebble at a mountain might culminate in an avalanche and this person who threw the pebble is responsible. You can be responsible for "setting off" the person (or stimuli) without being responsible for the amount set off.

So it seems like there are a few central ingredients here. Psychologically speaking, the bully is responsible for setting off the other person if the other person is put beyond his limits if the bully intends and makes this intention clear to provoke the person. However, setting off the other person is like contributing a spark, but you don't know how big the fire will be until it starts. The bully isn't responsible for the fire; he's responsible for the spark that caught on leading to the fire. OTOH, the bullied person is responsible for how much control he has generally speaking, which is by definition limited (again seen in the very morphology of responsibility, response able), i.e., the bullied isn't necessarily responsible for the outburst that happens if he can't reasonable control for it through having the character he has -- hence the sexually and physically abused MMA fighter isn't responsible for being "set off", whereas the old lady is responsible for the setting off but not the fire that resulted from things being set off.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, I don't think so. Imagine them both being the same size, maybe the bully is slightly smaller, to draw out the psychological underpinning. "Trapped" here means the person felt obligated to stay where he was, not physically trapped.



I wouldn't use the word justify, as that seems to imply that the consequence of getting a broken hip is fitting, i.e., the bully deserves it. I'm talking about psychological violence being responsible for setting off physical violence, and ultimately the psychological violator, because she "set off" through her intentional psychological violence, being responsible as an agent for getting what she got, given that she put the person "beyond his limits," much like screaming at a snowcap will go "beyond the limits" of the physics of snow on the mountain and result in an avalanche.

And again, "beyond his limits" needs some qualifications: is the person put "beyond his limits" because he virtually has no limits and easily goes off the handle given a free pass because the old lady said a few neutral words that were interpreted negatively? No. In this case, because the old lady made neutral comments without a negative intention, she isn't responsible for setting off the MMA fighter.

But imagine that the psychologically violated person -- the MMA fighter -- came from a family of repeated physical and sexual violence, and so has a natural "short fuse" because of this, and (very important) the violator clearly didn't drop neutral terms of nonverbal forms of communication and rather intended to cause the person to be ticked off, but had no idea he would snap this easily. Does this mean the violator isn't responsible? No, the person is responsible, just as throwing a pebble at a mountain might culminate in an avalanche and this person who threw the pebble is responsible. You can be responsible for "setting off" the person (or stimuli) without being responsible for the amount set off.

So it seems like there are a few central ingredients here. Psychologically speaking, the bully is responsible for setting off the other person if the other person is put beyond his limits if the bully intends and makes this intention clear to provoke the person. However, setting off the other person is like contributing a spark, but you don't know how big the fire will be until it starts. The bully isn't responsible for the fire; he's responsible for the spark that caught on leading to the fire. OTOH, the bullied person is responsible for how much control he has generally speaking, which is by definition limited (again seen in the very morphology of responsibility, response able), i.e., the bullied isn't necessarily responsible for the outburst that happens if he can't reasonable control for it through having the character he has -- hence the sexually and physically abused MMA fighter isn't responsible for being "set off", whereas the old lady is responsible for the setting off but not the fire that resulted from things being set off.

Sorry, I took "trapped" to mean backed into a corner where there was no escape...physically trapped.

I suppose I'm always going to disagree with you because I've never experienced, personally, this moment of inability to control my actions because of the words of another. It's not something I've felt...ever. Even at times I've resorted to physical violence...it's always been a clear decision for me. It's something I deliberately chose to do.

Perhaps because of that, I've always viewed the "I couldn't control myself/didn't mean to do that" types of excuses as garbage...lies.

"I came home to see them having sex on my bed, the next thing I know, I've stabbed them 64 times...."

I never believed that was an actual possibility. I know that stressful events...particularly highly stressful events...can impair memory of the event, but that's not what you're referring to, is it?

I suppose if psychologists neuro/cognitive/other could somehow show that such a state actually exists in mankind...where words can "set off" a person who is then unable to control their choices...I would consider the validity of your proposal. That being that psychological violence can somehow bear a similar responsibility to actual violence.

 

[Received]

Sorry, I took "trapped" to mean backed into a corner where there was no escape...physically trapped.

I suppose I'm always going to disagree with you because I've never experienced, personally, this moment of inability to control my actions because of the words of another. It's not something I've felt...ever. Even at times I've resorted to physical violence...it's always been a clear decision for me. It's something I deliberately chose to do.

Perhaps because of that, I've always viewed the "I couldn't control myself/didn't mean to do that" types of excuses as garbage...lies.

"I came home to see them having sex on my bed, the next thing I know, I've stabbed them 64 times...."

I never believed that was an actual possibility. I know that stressful events...particularly highly stressful events...can impair memory of the event, but that's not what you're referring to, is it?

I suppose if psychologists neuro/cognitive/other could somehow show that such a state actually exists in mankind...where words can "set off" a person who is then unable to control their choices...I would consider the validity of your proposal. That being that psychological violence can somehow bear a similar responsibility to actual violence.

Well, maybe because of me starting it, I think we're focusing on the physical violence part as something obviously recognized as physical violence (i.e., something big), as opposed to (more relevant to my OP) focusing on the question as to whether psychological violence is even a thing and whether it can influence a person in terms of causing a reaction that precipitates in emotions and behaviors. The latter might be seen as "smaller" bits of physical violence (here the SJW term microaggression in the non-racial sense is actually relevant). So a man psychologically abuses a woman by using all sorts of language and negative tones, leading to the woman screaming or throwing things around. How about that?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, maybe because of me starting it, I think we're focusing on the physical violence part as something obviously recognized as physical violence (i.e., something big), as opposed to (more relevant to my OP) focusing on the question as to whether psychological violence is even a thing and whether it can influence a person in terms of causing a reaction that precipitates in emotions and behaviors. The latter might be seen as "smaller" bits of physical violence (here the SJW term microaggression in the non-racial sense is actually relevant). So a man psychologically abuses a woman by using all sorts of language and negative tones, leading to the woman screaming or throwing things around. How about that?

No...he isn't responsible for her actions.

Now...there's such a thing as psychological trauma, so I suppose that what causes it could be called psychological violence. Oddly enough, it seems the worst of psychological trauma is caused by physical violence.

As to words that precipitate an action...what are you saying? That the words caused the action? Or they merely influenced the action? I'm asking because in your sentence you seem to mix both words together as if they were interchangeable...yet you know they aren't. If you're saying it's caused...then we're headed down that deterministic wormhole where "guilt" and "justice" lose all real meaning and "responsible" loses a lot of meaning.

If you're saying "influences" behavior...so what? Don't all words and actions influence behavior on some level (subconscious or otherwise?)? I think the entire notion of "micro aggression" is conceptually bankrupt. What isn't a microaggression? Cannot all concepts and ideas have negative impacts upon someone? Would you want to live in a world where everyone was limited to expressing only positive statements and concepts?

On its face, it sounds good...don't say anything which might negatively impact someone else. Upon any real critical examination...the only way to do that is to impose a lot of silence upon everyone. So, to anyone who's bought into this whole "microaggression" nonsense...I'd say, toughen up. A lot of reality isn't "nice" or "positive" and can potentially even hurt your feelings.

It sounds like the kind of speech you should give to a child...yet so many of the sjw crowd comes off like grown children to me. People who think they should have a right to a place where no one critically challenges their outlook on life. It's garbage, it's intellectually stifling, and it increasingly appears to me a result of a group of people who realized one day that life is difficult sometimes and they want to change that inexorable fact lol. At best it's dumb...at worst it's damaging to the whole of society.

 

[quatona]

But still: why don't we seem to capture psychological violence as even being a category and only focus on physical violence?

I´m not sure why you think "psychological/emotional violence" isn´t a category. Where I come from, it is an important one.

And by extension, why can't we see that violence, far from being only physical, can also be institutional, i.e., written into the rules and organization of society?

I don´t know the reasons why it isn´t.
I can only give you reasons why I think it wouldn´t be a good idea:
We would have to determine which feelings/emotions are ok/appropriate/justified/correct in a given situation, and which aren´t. I don´t think we want to go there.

 

[quatona]

On its face, it sounds good...don't say anything which might negatively impact someone else. Upon any real critical examination...the only way to do that is to impose a lot of silence upon everyone.

...which, btw., can also be perceived as having a negative impact.

 

[quatona]

Well, maybe because of me starting it, I think we're focusing on the physical violence part as something obviously recognized as physical violence (i.e., something big), as opposed to (more relevant to my OP) focusing on the question as to whether psychological violence is even a thing and whether it can influence a person in terms of causing a reaction that precipitates in emotions and behaviors. The latter might be seen as "smaller" bits of physical violence (here the SJW term microaggression in the non-racial sense is actually relevant). So a man psychologically abuses a woman by using all sorts of language and negative tones, leading to the woman screaming or throwing things around. How about that?

Once we start acknowledging emotional re-/actions as being forced by others, or interpreting them in terms of simple cause-effects chains, we will be in deep trouble.

 

[quatona]

"You freely chose to do X, so I had to do Y."

 

[Received]

I´m not sure why you think "psychological/emotional violence" isn´t a category. Where I come from, it is an important one.

You not being from America. Boom, case solved. Us Americans have a tendency, particularly since globlization in the late 70s influenced lots of money in politics resulting in politicians who value what you call neoliberalist attitudes (i.e., classical liberalism on steroids), and with it the belief in the individual as the ultimate authority of himself, arbitrarily cut off from the rest of the ecology of life that surrounds him and so restricts or determines him (because, you know, this makes it easier for big corporations to make a lot of money), to determine "freedom" in the most minimal physical sense. Viewing freedom as a physical matter lets us ignore the economic and institutional influences that would contribute to a person's loss of freedom in other senses (such as psychologically and emotionally), but because we often don't believe in these types of freedom, we don't think psychological violence is even a category, much less institutional violence, which to Americans sounds like communism.

Thankfully I've always identified myself as having a European sentiment.

I don´t know the reasons why it isn´t.
I can only give you reasons why I think it wouldn´t be a good idea:
We would have to determine which feelings/emotions are ok/appropriate/justified/correct in a given situation, and which aren´t. I don´t think we want to go there.

What wouldn't be a good idea?

 

[Received]

Once we start acknowledging emotional re-/actions as being forced by others, or interpreting them in terms of simple cause-effects chains, we will be in deep trouble.

Presumably you'd say it's not simple dyadic interactions (X behavior in one person causing Y reaction in another person), but is a triadic interaction, with the third factor being the stuff the other person (psychologically violated) projects or constructs onto the situation?

The way I see it, we all have limited gas tanks of how much we can psychologically take. When the gas tank runs out we start drawing on our physical-behavioral reserve gas tank and reacting physically and behaviorally. This doesn't mean the individual isn't to some degree responsible for how big his psychological gas tank is, but this also doesn't mean the person who would drain this psychological gas tank can't be responsible for doing so -- again, keeping in mind that the psychological violator is only responsible for starting sparks and not the size of the fire that results.

 

[Armoured]

Are you thinking that psychological abuse should somehow be criminalized and punished the way physical abuse is?

Assault, technically, is a purely psychological crime.

 

[Received]

No...he isn't responsible for her actions.

Now...there's such a thing as psychological trauma, so I suppose that what causes it could be called psychological violence. Oddly enough, it seems the worst of psychological trauma is caused by physical violence.

Actually researchers are finding that the worst trauma is likely negligence, i.e., attachment-based trauma, which fits under the psychological category. So if we use the gas tank metaphor I just used with quatona, a person who is neglected is much likelier to have a considerably smaller psychological gas tank, meaning she will be considerably quicker in drawing on the physical-emotional reserve tank, leading to possible physical violence.

As to words that precipitate an action...what are you saying? That the words caused the action? Or they merely influenced the action? I'm asking because in your sentence you seem to mix both words together as if they were interchangeable...yet you know they aren't. If you're saying it's caused...then we're headed down that deterministic wormhole where "guilt" and "justice" lose all real meaning and "responsible" loses a lot of meaning.

See last response to quatona and the gas tank metaphor.

If you're saying "influences" behavior...so what? Don't all words and actions influence behavior on some level (subconscious or otherwise?)? I think the entire notion of "micro aggression" is conceptually bankrupt. What isn't a microaggression? Cannot all concepts and ideas have negative impacts upon someone? Would you want to live in a world where everyone was limited to expressing only positive statements and concepts?

I think microaggression could be a good psycological construct, but the problem is that it's hugely abused by political groups to achieve their political goals, resulting in, as with feminism, the victimization of women, seeing how microaggressions are framed in the context of things that happen to you, with no emphasis (that I see) of developing a backbone and learning to stand on your own two feet -- rather than setting up safe spaces. My points appeal to standing on your own two feet, but puts a limit on how long this can happen -- hence the gas tank metaphor.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Actually researchers are finding that the worst trauma is likely negligence, i.e., attachment-based trauma, which fits under the psychological category. So if we use the gas tank metaphor I just used with quatona, a person who is neglected is much likelier to have a considerably smaller psychological gas tank, meaning she will be considerably quicker in drawing on the physical-emotional reserve tank, leading to possible physical violence.

I'm going to struggle with the idea that simple neglect could be more psychologically damaging to a person than say...being locked in a basement for 20 years and continually raped and sexually abused.

Maybe you've got the research to back this up though? Again, it's something that I struggle to believe because according to your analogy...my gas tank has simply never been "drained".

See last response to quatona and the gas tank metaphor.

See my last statement to you. Your link actually led me to a page selling gas tanks for cars.

I think microaggression could be a good psycological construct, but the problem is that it's hugely abused by political groups to achieve their political goals, resulting in, as with feminism, the victimization of women, seeing how microaggressions are framed in the context of things that happen to you, with no emphasis (that I see) of developing a backbone and learning to stand on your own two feet -- rather than setting up safe spaces. My points appeal to standing on your own two feet, but puts a limit on how long this can happen -- hence the gas tank metaphor.

What do you think a valid example of a microaggression would be then? There's no reason we have to just talk past each other...lay one out for me.

 

[Received]

I'm going to struggle with the idea that simple neglect could be more psychologically damaging to a person than say...being locked in a basement for 20 years and continually raped and sexually abused.

Maybe you've got the research to back this up though? Again, it's something that I struggle to believe because according to your analogy...my gas tank has simply never been "drained".

Whoa, then I misspoke. All things being equal (i.e., all forms of abuse being equal), neglect is the most damaging. That's what I meant to say.

And your tank has never been completely drained? I've never been there either. But would you also say that another person's behavior (language, tone, etc.) hasn't resulted in anger or another emotion which, if the person continued doing so, would have you metaphorically pulling your hair out? This is how I would define the gas tank being partially drained. The example we're talking about is a pretty extreme one (one that actually happened between two friends of mine, and yes, alcohol was involved), but I don't think it's only a matter of extremes here, but these extremes still exist. I, like you, am fortunate to not have the psychological violence of another person result in me "flying off the handle" in big or small ways physically. But still: why isn't the person who pushes in a situation where the other person is basically being a douchebag in a sense allowable?

See my last statement to you. Your link actually led me to a page selling gas tanks for cars.

I didn't put that link there.

What do you think a valid example of a microaggression would be then? There's no reason we have to just talk past each other...lay one out for me.

Pretty much any action from one person that invites negative feelings in another person. So if I say "yo sup dawg?" then that could be interpreted by an African American onlooker as being a microaggression given that it invites feelings of hurt or resentment, interpreting the statement as "racist", even if the speaker had no intention of being racist.

I haven't made up my mind on whether microaggressions should be a useful category. But assuming that they are, we have to speak of "microreactions" or something like that to refer to the idea that the individual is more than than the negative reactions others might create in him, i.e., he isn't a victim by virtue of a microaggression being directed his way and should have a backbone to some degree in standing up against the daily nonsense microaggressions that he might have to experience. Why? Because the alternative -- viewing the world as only microaggressions and no backbones -- means making people into victims, which inexorably leads to attempts to recreate society, including now in Canada through attempting to legislate gender pronouns. Bad stuff.