THE ANATOMY OF VIOLENCE
Joseph Kenny, O.P.
Dominican Institute, Ibadan
Conference on
Islam, terrorism and African development
organized
by the Department of Arabic and Islamic Studies,
University of Ibadan
8-10 February 2006
In addressing any Islamic topic, I usually turn to Islamic sources and try to think like a Muslim about them. But for this topic that method would not yield anything that most participants of this Conference do not already know.
So I tried an introspective, psychological approach, inspecting the human mind through a mirror, the way we might inspect the anatomy of the human body.
This approach, I submit, will reveal the depths and intricacies of violence and a variety of methods of dealing with it. It will show the inadequacy of reducing peace to the cessation of injustice—a recipe dependent on each side's assessment of who has been wronged, so that we have an unending cycle of "You do me, I do you," as has gone on between Israel and Palestine.
Violence hurts. If you do it to me I don't like it. If I do it to you I still don't like it, because every action sparks an opposite and equal reaction. One way or another it will make me suffer.
Why is violence spiraling all around us? Is all of it bad? How can we reduce it to the minimum that may be necessary and justifiable? What exactly constitutes violence? What is the range of the many forms of violence? What are the alternatives? In a word, what is the anatomy of violence?
My primary reference point for this discussion will be Thomas Aquinas' treatment of the subject,[1] which itself is a synthesis of a range of thinkers over previous centuries. I will also incorporate the major insights of contemporary discussion.
To begin with, what is violence? Violence, in the broad sense, is any action affecting another against its natural inclination or will. In human affairs it is an attack on the well-being of another.
The anatomy of hate-rooted violence
Violence can take many forms. On the level of participants, it can be an attack of one nation upon another, one community in a nation upon another community, or one individual upon another.
In its manifestations, the forms of violence are very many. The primary form is separation or withdrawal, the severance of relations, the breaking of unity, secession. An example of it is divorce, preceded by a break in communication between the parties.
All other forms of violence come under the category of aggression. Even defense is a kind of counter-aggression, to repel an attacking force.
There is first of all
verbal aggression. In matters of religion or science or politics there will
surely be disagreements about what is the truth or the best way to follow.
Disagreements in these matters are part of the human condition and something we
have to live with. But insulting words over a person's belief will always be
resented.
Verbal violence can also target the person (or community) of another, with the aim of bringing down his reputation or splitting him from his friends. This can be done by exposing his faults or by slandering him falsely, whether behind his back or to his face or in a court of law. Or it can be done by done by mocking or cursing him.
While false accusations can never be justified, telling the truth about another's faults is also evil if it is done out of hatred or in an abusive manner and without the intent of correcting him or protecting others against him.
We now come to hostile action, first of all on property. We are all familiar with 419 and other ways of cheating and fraud in commercial transactions.
Then there is the sin of usury. We may reasonably justify some interest as a form of participatory investment, but there are other cases of debt servicing which are obviously exploitative. Whereas a bad loan to a company can always be written off by the company's declaration of bankruptcy, African nations have not been allowed to declare a government project bankrupt, but are forced to continue interest payments over decades, to a tune many times over the original loan. This is clearly a case of usury.
Then there is attack on property by embezzlement, theft, or armed robbery, the latter with a threat on the life of the victim.
Finally there is violence against the person of another, either by injuring the person or killing him, or detaining or enslaving him. In its extremity, we find massacres, ethnic cleansing and genocide.
An even worse sin against the person of another is scandal, that is, persuading someone by words and example to do evil. Thus we see how cult members on campus recruit members to join the m in their nefarious activities. And government officials induce their subordinates to cooperate with them in corruption.
Scandal is the worst kind of violence against another person, because it is not merely perpetrating evil upon another, but coopting the victim to become an evildoer himself.
The root of violence
Such is violence in its manifold forms. But we have not yet looked at the root of violence, nor the opposites of each form of violence. Until we do so, we have not grasped the full anatomy of violence.
The root of all human violence is hate. Why would anyone hate another person? One reason is that I may think the other person is trying to harm me. Another reason is the other person's goodness and ability are bringing him popularity and success and diverting it from me. Saul hated David because the women sang "Saul killed his thousands, and David his tens of thousands" (1 Sam 18:7).
What can we do if someone harms us? Regarding vengeance, I would like to quote a passage from Thomas Aquinas:
Vengeance takes place by inflicting a punishment upon a sinner. If this is done with the principal aim of harming the person being punished with no further aim, it is altogether unlawful. That is because taking delight in the evil another person suffers pertains to hate, which is contrary to the love which we owe to all men.
Nor can anyone be excused for wishing an evil upon another because that person had unjustly inflicted evil upon him, just as no one can be excused from hating another because that person hates him. For no one should sin against another person because that person first sinned against him. For that is to be overcome by evil, as the Apostle forbids (Rom 12:21), saying: "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good."
But if the intention of exacting vengeance is a good to be achieved by punishing the sinner—such as reforming the sinner, or at least restraining him so that others may have peace, and to preserve justice and the honour of God—the vengeance can be licit, provided other due circumstances are assured.[2]
Thus we see that violence stemming from hatred of the other person is always wrong, but violence which stems not from hatred of the other person but from hatred of his sin can be justified, provided certain conditions are met, will be taken up later.
The anatomy of love-rooted anti-violence
Hatred of another is a sickness of heart which is opposed to the love of God. "If anyone says he loves God and hates his brother, he is a liar, for he who does not love his brother whom he can see cannot love God whom he has not seen" (1 John 4:20). Thus, someone who hates his neighbour is truly the enemy of God (عدو الله).
Love of God and neighbour is manifested in joy that God is so good, and joy that he shares this goodness with us, especially when we love him in return. Hate, however is manifested in sadness, a distaste for God and for worshipping and knowing about him, and also envy, or sadness at our neighbour's good, which we regard as an evil, construing it as competing with our own good.
Love of God and neighbour is also manifested in peace, which is a
"tranquillity of order" or contentment, rooted in the union of our desires with
God, and of our will with the good of our neighbour. Thus anyone who has love
for God has interior peace, even with an enemy who is doing violence to him.
But perfect peace includes mutual concord and presupposes justice; yet 
it does not presuppose
agreement of opinion, since we can love and be at peace with someone who holds
views that differ from our own. On the contrary, hate is manifested in
discord, that is, a state of alienation, detestation and turmoil, in place of
tranquillity and contentment.
Love of God and neighbour is further manifested in mercy, another state of mind whereby, because of our love for our neighbour, we regard the evil that he is suffering as our own, we have sympathy for him and are motivated to do whatever we can to relieve him of his suffering.
When it comes to words, love is again the opposite of hate. Love rejoices in the truth, even the hard and bitter truth which it bravely upholds. It also accords praise where praise is due, gives credit where credit is deserved, and expresses gratitude where benefits have been received.
And as for actions, love builds up where hate tears down. It is beneficent and gives liberally. Above all, it translates mercy into zakāk. To relieve bodily needs, it leads one to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, house the homeless, visit the sick, redeem captives and bury the dead. To relieve spiritual needs, it leads one to pray for others, teach them, counsel them, console them, correct them, forgive them, and put up with their defects.
Where we saw hatred at its worst, in converting its victim into a devil by bad example, we see love at its best in the exercise of fraternal correction. While public authority can do this on a coercive level, through police and prisons, on a non-coercive level it is the equivalent of الأمر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر. It is an attempt on the part of any private citizen to persuade someone who is leading a bad life to make a turn-about, a conversion to a good or a better life. Love is at its best and most effective level of operation when, with God's grace, it can change a human devil into a saint.
Just violence?
We are now in a position to ask when can force or violence, of any sort, be justified. Some criteria have emerged.
- First, the target person, community or country must be guilty of an offense which must be stopped or redressed.
- Secondly, those who lead the action against the guilty party must be in a position of authority to do so. The police are the normal guardians of internal order and security in a country. That does not prevent an individual from resisting an attack from a robber if he is in a position to do so. And in the case of severe government injustice and oppression, a well-planned coup or rebellion may be justified. Apart from these cases, disputes between individuals or communities are best settled out of court or through an arbitration panel, before resorting to law courts. In any case, rioting is out of order. A country may use its army not merely to defend itself against an external attack, but also to protect or rescue another country which is being attacked, or to intervene in another country to prevent massacres or genocide.
- Thirdly, the action cannot be motivated by
hatred, with the sole aim of harming the aggressor, but it must aim at
restoring justice.
Yet before resorting to force to correct an injustice, certain additional conditions must be in place.[3]
- Force must be a last resort. Words of persuasion or warning must have preceded and failed.
- Again, force should not be used if a situation worse than the original injustice will result, whether by the action failing or by its succeeding but at too great a price.[4]
- Lastly, the corrective operation should not be excessive. If a thief can be stopped by shooting him in the leg, he should not be shot dead. Nuclear weapons should be ruled out. Non-combatants in a conflict should be spared—something suicide bombers do not observe.
Conclusion
Much discussion revolves around war, what may be done and what may not be done, and about the grievances which lead to war. There is little consideration of the broader psychology, root motivation, and inter-connection of the various forms of violence, in other words, the anatomy of violence. And just as a doctor does not carry out an operation on a part of the body without first examining whether the whole body is capable of sustaining the stress of an operation and giving the body preliminary transfusions or medicine, so the remedy for violence cannot be simply a matter of redressing grievances, but must bring into play the full anatomy of anti-violence, rooted in love, with all its complex operations.
[1]Summa theologiae, II-II, qq. 23-45 (See www.newadvent.org/summa).
[2]Summa theologiae, II-II, 108:3.
[3]These conditions have been developed my a number of modern authors. See Kenneth W. Kemp, "Just war theory and its non-pacifist rivals," http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/kwkemp/Kosova/. For further references on just war theory, see http://www.w3c.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd.
[4]Thomas Aquinas himself adds this condition in Summa theologiae, II-II, q. 42, a. 2, ad 3.