As members of the Vincentian Family we have become accustomed to using terms such as Advocacy, Aporophobia, Homelessness, Collaboration, Systemic Change, etc., to describe either situations that we encounter in our work/ministry or actions that we carry out. To deepen our understanding of these concepts from the perspective of our charism, we have developed this series of posts, entitled a “Vincentian Dictionary”, with the aim of offering each week an explanation of the various words/phrases from a social, moral, Christian and Vincentian perspective. Inspired by the charism of St. Vincent de Paul, we hope to deepen our understanding and reflect on service, social justice and love of neighbor. At the end of each article you will find some ideas for personal reflection and/or group dialogue.

Follow the complete thread of this Vincentian dictionary at this link.

1. Introduction

Violence is a word that evokes immediate and visceral reactions. Images of war, domestic abuse, social unrest, and psychological trauma come readily to mind. Yet beyond these visible forms, violence also hides within institutions, language, and ideologies. It penetrates not only bodies but also minds, cultures, and systems. In its broadest sense, violence is the exertion of physical force or power intended to hurt, damage, oppress, or dominate. But such a definition, while useful as a starting point, fails to capture the full complexity and pervasiveness of the phenomenon. Violence is not merely an act—it is often a condition, a context, a logic.

In today’s world, violence is both hyper-visible and disturbingly normalized. We see it in armed conflicts broadcast live on television, in the quiet scars of domestic violence, and in the digital brutality of online hate. It is present in the racialized policing of urban neighborhoods, in the hunger that gnaws at millions due to economic exclusion, and in the degradation of our planet in the name of unchecked growth. As we move further into the 21st century, a paradox emerges: never before has humanity been more interconnected and technologically advanced, and yet, violence persists—in new forms and old.

The relevance of this topic cannot be overstated. We live in an age where violence, in its many manifestations, poses an existential threat not only to individuals but also to the very fabric of our societies. The devastating impacts of war, terrorism, gender-based violence, and environmental destruction challenge our moral imagination and demand urgent inquiry. At the same time, the growing awareness of systemic and structural forms of violence—such as racism, patriarchy, and economic inequality—calls us to examine not just acts of violence but the deeper logics that sustain them. Understanding violence, then, is not only a theoretical exercise but a moral and civic imperative.

2. Defining Violence

2.1. A Cross-Disciplinary Exploration

Violence is a complex and contested concept, and no single definition suffices across all contexts. Different academic fields have developed unique perspectives, each illuminating particular dimensions of violence.

• Sociology: In sociology, violence is not limited to direct physical harm. The Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung introduced the influential concept of structural violence, which he defined as “a form of violence where social structures or institutions harm people by preventing them from meeting their basic needs.” In this view, systemic poverty, racism, and classism are as violent as physical assault—just more insidious. Galtung’s framework widened the scope of violence from individual behavior to social conditions.
• Philosophy: Philosophical inquiries into violence often wrestle with its ethical and metaphysical implications. Violence is typically understood as the intentional infliction of harm, but thinkers such as Hannah Arendt have argued that violence must be distinguished from power. In On Violence (1970), Arendt claims, “Power and violence are opposites; where the one rules absolutely, the other is absent.” For Arendt, violence is an instrument, often used when power begins to erode.
• Psychology: From a psychological standpoint, violence is often explored through the lens of aggression, trauma, and behavioral conditioning. Psychologists differentiate between hostile aggression (driven by anger) and instrumental aggression (goal-directed, calculated harm). Furthermore, psychological research into intergenerational trauma reveals how violence can be passed down not only biologically (through stress-related epigenetic changes) but also socially, as cycles of abuse and learned behavior.
• Law: In legal discourse, violence is typically defined in relation to legality, consent, and state authority. Legal systems distinguish between lawful and unlawful violence, such as between a police intervention and an act of assault. However, law also legitimizes certain forms of coercion, raising ethical questions about when violence becomes codified as justice or punishment. State violence—including capital punishment, military intervention, or forced eviction—is often hidden behind legal frameworks but no less real in its effects.

2.2 Typologies of Violence

To understand the full spectrum of violence, it is essential to recognize its many forms—some visible and others invisible, some intentional and others systemic.

• Physical Violence: This is the most immediate and recognizable form: the direct infliction of bodily harm. Examples include assault, murder, torture, and war. Physical violence often leaves marks—scars, injuries, corpses—but it is rarely isolated from other forms.
• Psychological Violence: Psychological or emotional violence targets the inner self, often leaving invisible wounds. This includes manipulation, humiliation, threats, gaslighting, and persistent verbal abuse. It can erode a person’s sense of identity and agency, often with long-lasting effects.
• Structural Violence: As noted earlier, structural violence is systemic. It results from entrenched inequalities within economic, political, and social systems. When a child dies from malnutrition in a country with abundant resources, structural violence is at play. The harm is not inflicted by a hand or weapon but by the very architecture of society.
• Cultural Violence: Cultural violence refers to the symbols, language, and narratives that justify or legitimize other forms of violence. Racist stereotypes, sexist jokes, religious dogmas that dehumanize others—all are examples. As Joahn Galtung put it, cultural violence makes structural or physical violence “look, even feel, right.”
• Economic Violence: This form of violence arises when access to material resources is unjustly restricted, exploited, or denied. Economic violence includes wage theft, exploitative labor practices, gentrification, and corporate extraction of resources that impoverish communities. It is often invisible to those not directly affected.
• Symbolic Violence: Introduced by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, symbolic violence refers to the internalized oppression that causes people to accept their own subjugation as natural or deserved. It operates through norms, language, and social expectations. A young woman who believes she must stay silent in abusive relationships because she lacks worth is experiencing symbolic violence.

2.3 Violence vs. Conflict

One common confusion is to conflate conflict with violence, but the two are fundamentally different. Conflict is a natural and inevitable part of human interaction—a sign of diversity, competing interests, or change. It can be productive or destructive depending on how it is handled. Violence, by contrast, is a specific (and often destructive) response to conflict.

Conflict may involve negotiation, mediation, or confrontation, but it does not necessarily lead to harm. Violence occurs when dialogue breaks down or is deliberately avoided. Understanding this distinction is crucial for developing effective responses to social tensions. As conflict theorist Johan Galtung argued, “Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of creative alternatives for responding to conflict.”

2.4 Related Concepts: Power, Coercion, Domination, Aggression

To understand violence fully, it must be situated within a broader web of concepts that help explain how harm is produced and sustained in human societies.

• Power: Power is the capacity to act, to influence, and to effect change. While violence is sometimes used as a tool of power, true power does not always require violence. As Arendt famously noted, power is “the human ability not just to act but to act in concert.” Violence often emerges where power is weak or threatened.
• Coercion: Coercion involves forcing someone to act against their will through threats or pressure. It may be psychological, economic, or physical. Coercion is a form of violence when it undermines autonomy and agency.
• Domination: Domination refers to long-term, institutionalized control over others—often justified by ideology, law, or culture. It creates conditions in which violence becomes normalized or invisible. Colonialism, patriarchy, and racial apartheid are examples of systems of domination that produce violence as a byproduct or necessity.
• Aggression: Aggression is often a psychological precursor to violence. Not all aggression results in violence, and not all violence is driven by aggression. But understanding how aggression develops—through frustration, competition, or trauma—can help in preventing its escalation into violence.

Violence is not a singular event or behavior but a multidimensional phenomenon that operates across physical, emotional, cultural, and systemic levels. It intersects with power, identity, ideology, and structure. Defining violence clearly is essential—not to police language but to clarify responsibility, diagnose causes, and envision alternatives.

3. Historical Perspective

Violence is often assumed to be a constant of human existence, embedded in our instincts or inescapable in our nature. But history reveals a more nuanced picture. Across time, violence has not only taken different forms but has also carried different meanings, justifications, and functions. From the ritualistic killings of tribal societies to the mechanized slaughter of the 20th century, violence has evolved alongside human civilizations—sometimes as a tool of order, sometimes as a cry of resistance, and often as a tragic expression of unresolved conflict.

3.1 Violence in Premodern and Tribal Societies

In premodern societies—hunter-gatherering bands, tribal clans, and early agricultural communities—violence played both practical and symbolic roles. While archaeological and anthropological evidence suggest that small-scale violence (such as feuds or raids) was common, it was often ritualized or limited by social norms.

In many indigenous societies, acts of violence were not merely expressions of anger or domination but were embedded within cosmological and cultural logic. For example, rituals of sacrifice, revenge killings, and blood feuds were deeply connected to beliefs about honor, spiritual balance, or ancestral duty. These societies typically lacked a centralized state, so violence often functioned as a form of justice, regulation, or spiritual appeasement.

Contrary, however, to the myth of the “savage” past, many early societies developed sophisticated methods for conflict resolution, including mediation by elders, compensation systems (such as Weregild in Germanic tribes), and social taboos against excessive aggression. As anthropologist Margaret Mead famously noted in an article written in 1940, during World War II, “Warfare is an invention—not a biological necessity.”

3.2 Violence in Ancient Civilizations

As human societies became more complex, violence became institutionalized within hierarchical structures. The rise of ancient civilizations—such as Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, India, Greece, and Rome—brought with it centralized authority, organized armies, written laws, and formal penal systems. Violence was no longer a personal or clan matter; it became a function of the state and the elite classes.

• Slavery and Social Hierarchies: In ancient societies, violence was often used to maintain rigid social hierarchies. Slavery, for example, was a cornerstone of many empires, from the Pharaohs of Egypt to the Roman patricians. Enslaved people were considered property and subject to brutal discipline, forced labor, and sexual exploitation. The legitimacy of this violence was reinforced by religious and philosophical systems that justified inequality.
• War and Empire: War was both a means of expansion and a legitimating force for rulers. The Assyrian Empire celebrated its conquests with graphic carvings of massacres and impalements. Roman generals returned home with triumphal processions displaying the spoils of war, slaves, and vanquished enemies. Violence was not hidden—it was glorified, serving to inspire awe and fear.
• Punishment and Law: Legal codes like Code of Hammurabi in Babylon institutionalized retributive justice, including corporal punishment and the death penalty. Such laws reflected and reinforced the power of rulers, often applying harsh penalties to lower classes while protecting elites. The spectacle of public punishment—crucifixions, floggings, executions—was common, serving as a theatrical warning to others.

3.3 Religion and Violence

The role of religion in legitimizing violence is one of the most enduring and paradoxical features of human history. Nearly all major religions contain both teachings of peace and stories of conquest or divine wrath.

• Sacred Violence and Sacrifice: In many traditions, ritual sacrifice—animal or human—was believed to appease gods or ensure cosmic order. The Aztecs, for example, practiced large-scale human sacrifices at the Templo Mayor to nourish the sun god. In the Hebrew Bible, God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son, only to replace the child with a ram at the last moment, symbolizing divine mercy within a framework of obedience and blood.
• Crusades and Holy Wars: The medieval Crusades, launched by Christian Europe to reclaim the Holy Land, are a dramatic example of religiously sanctioned warfare. Pope Urban II’s call in 1095 urged Christian knights to take up arms, promising spiritual rewards for those who died in battle. Similar logic is found in Islamic jihad movements and Hindu dharmic wars—conflicts portrayed as fulfilling divine duty.
• Inquisition and Internal Control: Religious institutions have also used violence for internal regulation. The Christian Inquisition used torture, imprisonment, and execution to suppress heresy. In some Islamic caliphates, apostasy was punishable by death. These acts were not seen as cruelty but as a spiritual necessity to maintain orthodoxy and divine order.

3.4 Modernity and Political Violence

The advent of modernity—enlightenment, industrialization, and nation-states—did not eliminate violence; rather, it transformed it into more systematic, rationalized, and far-reaching forms.

• Revolutions and State Formation: Modern revolutions—the American, French, Haitian, and others—combined ideals of liberty with often bloody upheavals. Violence was seen as the birth pangs of freedom. The guillotine became the symbol of the French Revolution, as both justice and terror. Nation-states began to monopolize legitimate violence, as theorized by Max Weber, who defined the state as the entity that “claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force.” Police, prisons, armies, and border controls were created to maintain internal order and defend national sovereignty.
• Colonialism and Imperialism: The expansion of European empires was rooted in extreme violence: conquest, enslavement, cultural erasure, and economic exploitation. From the genocide of Indigenous peoples in the Americas to the forced labor in African colonies, colonialism was justified by civilizing ideologies and racial hierarchies. As Aimé Césaire wrote, “Colonization = ‘thingification.’”
• Totalitarianism and Genocide: The 20th century witnessed the rise of totalitarian regimes—Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China—that used mass surveillance, propaganda, and purges to control populations. The Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the Cambodian killing fields—all exemplify violence as bureaucratized evil, executed not by chaotic mobs but by administrators and soldiers following orders.

3.5 The 20th and 21st Centuries: New Frontiers of Violence

• The last hundred years have produced both unprecedented violence and new forms of resistance and awareness.
• World Wars and Technological Destruction: The two World Wars brought mechanized killing on an unimaginable scale. Chemical weapons, tanks, and aerial bombings turned battlefields into slaughterhouses. The dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki introduced the threat of annihilation, transforming violence into a global existential risk.
• Terrorism and Asymmetric Warfare: Post-World War II, many conflicts took the form of guerrilla warfare and terrorism, challenging traditional military paradigms. Movements for national liberation, religious extremism, and ideological battles have all used violence to disrupt dominant powers.
• State Violence and Surveillance: Governments today use increasingly sophisticated tools to monitor, discipline, and sometimes harm their citizens—often in the name of security. Police brutality, mass incarceration, and authoritarian crackdowns remain significant forms of violence, even in democratic societies.

3.6 Changing Perceptions of Violence

Across history, the moral imagination of violence has shifted. Practices once normalized—like public execution, child labor, or corporal punishment—are now broadly condemned. Simultaneously, new forms of violence (e.g., ecological destruction, digital harassment) are entering public consciousness.

While some historians argue that violence has declined over time—a thesis popularized by Steven Pinker—others point out that this may reflect shifts in visibility and reporting, rather than actual harm reduction. What is clear is that violence has become increasingly contested, legally constrained, and morally scrutinized, though far from eradicated.

Violence has always been with us, but it has never been static. Its justifications, instruments, and targets have evolved with human societies. From ritual sacrifice to drone warfare, from public torture to silent structural harm, violence has adapted to the norms and technologies of its time. By studying its historical forms, we begin to see that violence is neither natural nor inevitable—it is shaped, sanctioned, and resisted by people, systems, and ideas. This historical awareness prepares us to examine violence in our own time with greater clarity and urgency.

(To be continued…)