An attempt to define the concept of “violence”
The term “violence” is amongst the subjects most consumed and discussed in the media at the beginning of the 21st century. It is, paradoxically, difficult to pin down, to define. Jean-Claude Chesnais, in his work on The History of Violence, defines violence as “brutal, illegitimate force exercised over others”, while specifying that it “is not a single thing, but multiple”. He considers that “attempting to tie it to a simple, fixed definition, exposes one to reductionism and a misunderstanding of the evolution of its historical specificity.” In the Arab language, the most useful tool from an etymological point of view is the Lisan al-Arab of Ibn Manzur[1]. The word unf, “violence” relates to transgression, the use of brutal force against anyone; it is also the opposite of tolerance and peace.
One may distinguish three forms of violence:
- physical violence, incontestable and measurable
- economic violence
- Psychological, moral or 'symbolic' violence (Pierre Bourdieu) which can mean verbal insults, social discrimination, and exclusion of all kinds which affect marginalised populations psychologically and mentally.
The use of violence has been formalised and regulated by religious leaders, especially in the Muslim religion. Amongst the most relevant Qu'ranic references are the Surahs Al-Anfal and Al Ma'ida . During the course of the centuries, the ulemas (such as Al-Tabari[2] or Ibn Al Athir[3] ) have interpreted the verses as follows: the Muslims should show or demonstrate their power, without necessarily using it, in order to dissuade the enemy and avoid, as far as possible, recourse to violence. These interpretations have in particular allowed for the development of political and diplomatic arts of negotiation, and to justify regional and international alliances. So that violence should not become normalised or pursued in ways which have not been clearly established, other Muslim law-givers (Ibn Taymiyya [note: http://www.universalis.fr/encyclopedie/ibn-taymiyya/], Al Bayhaqi, Al Boubri) have distinguished between “legitimate” (authorised) and “illegitimate” violence (forbidden).
“Legitimate” violence: must be considered, defined and managed by the established authority (represented by the State in the contemporary period), and not by individuals or organisations. The right and the duty to protect a territory and its institutions are justified, as is the protection of citizens and their goods from all violence committed by wrongdoers, criminals, and organised gangs. This authority has the capacity to and is required to make “the enemy” afraid in order to deter them.
“Illegitimate” violence: That which brings fear and makes victims of the population, which sabotages and destroys public or private institutions, which seizes goods in a way that is abusive, unjust or unjustified. The question which arises, of course, is what qualifies as “just” or “unjust” in relation to violence.
