Topic: Social and Cultural Issues
The Language of Violence Americans love violence. It's in everything, from our best movies to our worst policies.by Kishi
(Centrist)
Friday, February 8, 2008
The War on Drugs. The War on Terror. No Child Left Behind. Operation Freedom.
Powerful names, aren't they? The words themselves invoke a sense of purpose. It's not enough to say ‘Policing Drugs,' or ‘Acting Against Terror.' No, the imagination isn't caught in those things. People become fascinated instead with policy only if it engages in a certain degree of drama.
And there is one guaranteed form of language that will capture the drama of the situation every single time. It's guaranteed. Do you know what that language is?
It's the language of violence.
I can hear you scoffing already. "Kishi, that's crazy. Violence is such a terrible solution to any problem. The idea of anybody liking it! Don't you know this is America? We're beyond liking that kind of thing."
Well, pardon my skepticism. I simply can't help but note a few things:
-People love to feel like they're part of something important. The humdrum drudgery of everyday living just feels old after a while. People don't recognize the miracles of every day, such as actually waking up the next morning or driving safely to work or having a family that they care for.
Cast an issue as a dramatic thing, though. Instant purpose! Suddenly, you have your very own part in a play whose stage stretches from coast to coast. And the driving force behind every play? Conflict. What is the most obvious indicator of conflict? Violence.
-War is one of the great expressions of violence. And what greater use could there be for violence than to destroy something that is universally abhorred? You say ‘drugs' in America and the very first thing that'll pop into most people's heads is some urban scene where a shady guy is pushing pills on a wide-eyed kid. Nobody wants that.
But you don't want to call it ‘The Initiative for Anti Drug Legislation.' That bored me to tears just typing it. Nobody wants to be part of something like that.
Call it a ‘War on Drugs' and the dynamic pulls a u-turn. Suddenly, you are part of a valiant struggle against a brilliant, cunning enemy who seeks to undermine all that you hold dear. How dare anybody stand against you! You are righteous, you are ready, you will win.
Let me take a second to note to all the military folk that frequent this place: yeah, war definitely isn't like that. I get it. Let's be honest with each other, though: do any of you out there think that people have a real idea of how much effort winning a war takes? This isn't World War II, where everyone was involved. People these days are outright instructed to go about their daily lives as if nothing has changed. I'm just pointing out that people like the idea of being part of this if it's painted as against a great evil.
That's what it comes down to. People like the idea of being ‘the good guy.' Nothing in the public consciousness delineates good and evil like the classic struggle that violence represents. I do believe people love the idea of good triumphing over evil in a might-makes-right sort of way.
Sounds pretty crackpot, right? How could that possibly be true? Because we realize how utterly false those ideals are now, right?
Except that America keeps falling for the same thing over and over and over again. And surely we aren't all crazy, right? So something about the language of violence appeals to us.
We bring peace with war. We defeat drugs with war. We defeat our ignorance with war. We defeat poverty with war.
We are, in short, fighting wars on at least four fronts. We haven't won any of them. But we keep fighting because we love the language of violence. It enthralls us with promises and fills us with the false pretense of a purpose that gives our lives more hum, a certain spring in our collective step.
Because let's be honest: it is a false pretense. We're fighting a war on drugs, huh? Do you believe in the cause? Of course you do. What have you done for it? Well, you've probably done everything reasonable: you keep tabs on who your kids hang with, what's popular and what's not, report suspicious characters. What else could you be reasonably expected to do?
But war is not reasonable.
How many of you are willing to embrace the fullness of the rhetoric and embrace violence? I don't mean rioting in the streets or even vigilante activity. I mean, how many of you are willing to go out and seek your enemies, the dealers? How many of you are willing to hold your kids absolutely accountable to your cause? How many of you will burn the drugs? How many of you will work with the police?
But that's not reasonable. I know that. Because, after all, you're busy. You work forty hours a week. You have a family to support. This war is supposed to be somebody else's job. Your only part in this is that you let it pass. It just sounded like a good idea that the politicians in D.C. were toting around, and if they wanted it, fine by you. If it meant war on drugs, fine.
But I don't think anyone is willing to fight that war.
In which case, we all seriously need to divorce ourselves from this language of violence. We need to approach these issues and see them for what they really are. Because until we can, I just don't see this working any other way.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
2008 Kishi, all rights reserved.
Published: Friday, February 8, 2008
Last modified: Friday, February 8, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Kishi only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Kishi is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
You make a very good point about the "language of violence", and I like your writing style. I think you have the makings of an excellent article here, but because you single out drugs as an issue you make me want to reply to your implications regarding drugs instead of replying to your main point.
You seem to be implying that the only thing wrong with the "war on drugs" is the "language of violence" used in its implementation. Many people believe the government has the right to tell us what are "bad" drugs and "good" drugs - to dictate morality. It is my understanding that the Constitution does not grant the government this power.
You said, "I mean, how many of you are willing to go out and seek your enemies, the dealers?"
So you are suggesting I go into my local pharmacy, shoot everyone selling drugs and burn the place to the ground? I know those very same drugs make zombies out of some of my family and friends. I want those drug-pushers to stop making addicts out of people I love and at the same time robbing them blind!
The fact is that prescription drugs are a much larger problem in this country than illegal drugs - and the big pharm companies, with the government's help, are making a literal "killing".
Sorry Kishi, I've really enjoyed all of your articles but this one hit a sore spot.
Hey, no fear, man. You have no obligation to agree with everything I say. Otherwise, what would be the point?
I singled out the drug issue because I was doing this during a late-night shift and my replacement was due in soon. So rather than approach each issue, I just hurried it up instead. I guess this is the price I pay, hm?
I would say that I’m really in agreement with you, though, if you think about it. The government uses the language of violence as a way to cast an issue into black and white, with a clear good and clear bad. The government, naturally, is the clear good, and earns itself the right to dictate our morality on the issue.
Now, I’m not suggesting you go to your local Rite-Aid and blow ‘em to the moon. Remember, I also said, “I don't mean rioting in the streets or even vigilante activity.” And I really don’t. In an abstract ‘war’ like this, violence is also abstracted. It doesn’t mean picking up an AK and going to town.Violence in this abstract sense simply means doing something. You want to talk about the corporate dealers, the pharms. Okay, so: how many are willing to hold the pharms accountable? How many are willing to see regulations passed and make sure that they’re met? How many are willing to fight to make sure we can keep our money?You see what I mean? Nobody’s actually doing this, though. It’s unreasonable, after all. So rather than an honest language, what we have is a loaded rhetoric designed to let us think we’re making a difference rather than actually doing something.And be glad I hit that sore spot. Be glad you have spots to get sore. That’s becoming rare, these days. :-)
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-02-09 14:20:04
I agree with your overall analysis about the language of violence. I would point out, however, that the problem goes much farther than you've described. The War on Terror, for instance, is an intentional null. It literally has no meaning, but it is intended to drum up support for international violence by the U.S. military. Truly, you can't declare war on an emotion, yet that is exactly what the War on Terror has done. It makes about as much sense as legislating against hate crimes. Since government isn't interested in reason and common sense, they leaped at the idea of outlawing the emotion of hate....while perpetuating hatred whenever it suits their purposes.
Further, there's a reason that War on Terror "sounds better" than Bringing Bomb-Throwers To Justice. The former appeals to hatred and fear. The latter appeals to reason and justice. Our government, our schools, our media, and yes, even many of our churches have lined up support for hatred and fear for decades by persistently emphasizing what we should fear and who we should hate, and the War on Terror is merely the latest milestone in this ongoing journey along which our government, our schools, and our media are leading us..
Blaming this all on video games is absurd when the number one sport in America (football) involves people trying to crush other people. Blaming this on TV shows is ridiculous when the President of the United States and his gang of thugs perpetually call for violence against whomever is their chosen enemy of the month. TV shows and video games are symptoms of a much wider problem. They are not the problem itself.
If we want to leave behind this fear-based culture, we need to replace it with a culture based in quiet, peaceful courage. That's a lot harder to do, but it's also a much better option.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Kishi, all rights reserved.