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.

4. Social Perspective

While violence is often perceived as an extraordinary or disruptive act, a social perspective reveals that it is, in many ways, an ordinary feature of social life. It is woven into the structures, institutions, and daily interactions that define our world. Far from being merely physical, violence in society assumes subtle and systemic forms—inscribed in language, norms, economies, and policies.

4.1 Structural and Systemic Violence

The term structural violence was popularized by Johan Galtung to describe harm embedded in the fabric of society—not through direct attacks, but through social arrangements that deny people their basic needs, rights, and dignity. This form of violence is invisible but lethal, often normalized by institutions and perpetuated by silence.

Structural violence manifests in:

• Poverty and economic inequality, which prevent access to education, healthcare, clean water, and shelter.
• Racism and caste systems, which marginalize entire populations through systemic discrimination.
• Immigration policies, that criminalize mobility and create zones of exclusion and statelessness.
• Inadequate health systems, leading to avoidable suffering and early death.

For example, in many urban centers, poor neighborhoods suffer from underfunded schools, environmental hazards, and over-policing, all of which perpetuate cycles of violence and disadvantage. Philosopher Paul Farmer famously called structural violence “the architecture of oppression.”

Unlike direct violence, structural violence is not always traceable to a single perpetrator. It is often maintained by bureaucratic inertia, historical injustice, and political indifference. This makes it particularly challenging to address, as it implicates entire systems rather than isolated actors.

4.2 Gender-Based and Domestic Violence

One of the most pervasive and underreported forms of violence is that inflicted within the home or intimate relationships, particularly against women and girls. Gender-based violence (GBV) encompasses physical, sexual, psychological, and economic harm rooted in unequal power dynamics.

Forms of GBV include:

• Domestic abuse, often hidden behind closed doors, which can involve control, intimidation, beatings, and emotional manipulation.
• Sexual violence, including harassment, assault, and rape, often normalized or excused in patriarchal cultures.
• Honor killings, female genital mutilation, and forced marriages, practiced in the name of tradition.
• Economic abuse, where women are denied access to finances or employment.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 1 in 3 women worldwide experience some form of physical or sexual violence in their lifetime. In many cultures, societal norms, religious beliefs, and legal systems still protect perpetrators or blame victims.

Domestic violence also affects children, either as direct victims or as witnesses, contributing to intergenerational cycles of trauma and aggression. Addressing GBV thus requires not only criminal justice measures but transformative cultural change—challenging gender roles, promoting equality, and empowering survivors.

4.3 Urban Violence and Crime

Cities are often seen as centers of progress, but they are also flashpoints of urban violence: gang activity, drug trafficking, armed robberies, police brutality, and violent protests. Urban environments can concentrate both opportunity and desperation, creating conditions where violence becomes a mode of survival or expression.

In many impoverished areas:

• Youth are recruited into gangs as a form of belonging and protection.
• Organized crime thrives where state presence is weak or corrupt.
• Law enforcement resorts to excessive force, often targeting racial or ethnic minorities.

Urban violence is not merely about crime—it is also about inequality, segregation, and broken social contracts. Slums and marginalized neighborhoods often bear the brunt of militarized policing and underinvestment in public services. In this way, urban violence becomes cyclical: communities are criminalized rather than supported, and trust in institutions erodes.

Yet, urban violence also sparks resistance and resilience: neighborhood associations, youth initiatives, and restorative justice programs have shown that communities can be empowered to reduce violence from within.

4.4 Violence Against Children and Youth

Children and young people are among the most vulnerable to violence—and also among its most affected long-term victims. They suffer violence in homes, schools, online spaces, institutions, and even in legal systems.

Forms of violence against children include:

• Corporal punishment, still legal and practiced in many countries.
• Bullying, both in-person and cyber, leading to mental health crises.
• Child labor and exploitation, which steal education and freedom.
• Sexual abuse, often concealed or dismissed in families or institutions.

In armed conflicts and crises, children are especially exposed: forced recruitment as child soldiers, trafficking, and being separated from families. The scars of early violence often endure into adulthood, affecting relationships, self-worth, and life prospects.

Yet youth are also agents of change. In recent decades, young people have led movements against gun violence, climate destruction, racism, and more. Listening to and protecting them is not just moral—it is strategic for building nonviolent futures.

4.5 Media, Culture, and the Normalization of Violence

Mass media—films, television, music, video games, and social networks—have long been scrutinized for their role in representing and potentially encouraging violence. While the relationship is complex, there is no doubt that media both reflects and shapes cultural attitudes toward aggression and power.

Some key patterns include:

• Glorification of militarism and vigilante justice, where violence is portrayed as heroic.
• Gendered representations, where male characters dominate through force and female victims are sexualized.
• News sensationalism, which focuses on dramatic crimes and perpetuates fear.
• Desensitization, where repeated exposure to graphic content reduces empathy or concern.

The phrase “if it bleeds, it leads” captures the media’s tendency to prioritize violent stories for attention. This has real consequences: public perception of crime may not match actual rates, and punitive policies may be supported over preventive ones.

Culture can also trivialize or romanticize violence. Music lyrics, memes, and viral trends may promote dominance, humiliation, or revenge as acceptable behaviors. In such a context, violence becomes not only normalized but even acceptable.

Yet, media also holds potential for positive change. Films, documentaries, and campaigns have helped expose abuse, challenge stereotypes, and promote empathy. Culture is both a mirror and a tool—and how we use it matters.

4.6 Digital Spaces and Online Violence

The digital revolution has created new frontiers for violence. Online platforms, while enabling connection and expression, have also become venues for abuse, manipulation, and surveillance.

Types of online violence include:

• Cyberbullying, leading to anxiety, depression, and suicidality.
• Doxxing and threats, particularly targeting activists, women, and minorities.
• Misinformation and hate speech, which incite real-world harm.
• Surveillance capitalism, where personal data is extracted and weaponized.

Digital violence is particularly insidious because it is omnipresent, anonymous, and difficult to regulate. Victims may be harassed across multiple platforms, their reputations ruined, or their privacy permanently breached.

Moreover, online violence often intersects with offline identities: sexism, racism, homophobia, and xenophobia are amplified in digital spaces. The algorithms that govern social media can reward outrage and polarize communities.

Addressing digital violence requires technological, legal, and cultural interventions. It also demands new literacies—how to critically engage, resist manipulation, and create safer online environments.

4.7 Contemporary Case Studies

Let us consider some recent examples that illustrate the diverse expressions of social violence:

• George Floyd’s murder (USA, 2020): Sparked global protests against police brutality and systemic racism, revealing how law enforcement can enact racialized violence.
• Femicide crisis (Latin America): Countries like Mexico and Argentina face soaring rates of gender-based killings, despite growing feminist movements.
• Refugee camps and border crises (Mediterranean, USA-Mexico, Rohingya): The structural violence of displacement, detention, and denial of asylum.
• Youth gang wars (El Salvador, South Africa, inner-city USA): Driven by poverty, abandonment, and state failure, these cycles of violence devastate communities.
• Online harassment of women in public life (globally): From journalists to politicians, women face coordinated campaigns of digital abuse aimed at silencing them.

A Contemporary Case Study of Social Violence: Famine, Disease, and the Collapse of Gaza:

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza, ongoing since the escalation of conflict in October 2023, exemplifies the devastating impact of social violence on civilian populations. This situation underscores the necessity of condemning both the initial attacks by Hamas and the subsequent actions of the Israeli government, while distinguishing these from the broader Jewish community.

1. Origins of the Crisis: On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a large-scale attack on Israel, resulting in over 1,000 deaths and the taking of more than 250 hostages. This act was widely condemned internationally. In response, Israel initiated a military campaign in Gaza, leading to extensive destruction and a severe humanitarian crisis.
2. Humanitarian Catastrophe in Gaza:
   • Famine and Food Insecurity: The Israeli blockade has led to critical shortages of food, water, and medical supplies in Gaza. The World Health Organization reports that, as of May 2025, nearly half a million people are facing catastrophic hunger, with the entire population at risk of famine.
   • Healthcare System Collapse: The blockade and ongoing conflict have severely impacted Gaza’s healthcare infrastructure. Hospitals face shortages of fuel and medical supplies, leading to the closure of many facilities. As of November 2024, 94% of Gazan health facilities were damaged or destroyed; only 17 of the 36 hospitals with inpatient capacity are operational, albeit partially. The World Health Organization documented 686 attacks on health facilities between October 2023 and May 2025.
   • Destruction and Displacement: Israeli airstrikes have resulted in the destruction of approximately 70% of buildings in Gaza, displacing around 1.9 million people. The lack of adequate shelter and infrastructure has exacerbated the humanitarian crisis.
   • As of May 27, 2025, at least 54,056 people have been killed, including at least 17,400 children, added to at least 123,129 people injured.
3. International Response and Ethical Considerations: The international community has expressed concern over the humanitarian situation in Gaza. While condemning the initial attacks by Hamas, there is also widespread criticism of the Israeli government’s actions, which have disproportionately affected civilians. It’s crucial to differentiate between criticism of the Israeli government’s policies and the Jewish people as a whole to avoid anti-Semitism.

The situation in Gaza illustrates the multifaceted nature of social violence and its devastating impact on civilian populations. It highlights the importance of upholding humanitarian principles and ensuring that responses to conflict do not exacerbate suffering or target innocent populations.

These cases are not isolated—they reflect broader social patterns that require systemic and sustained responses.

Violence in society is not always explosive or visible. Often, it is quiet, cumulative, and embedded in norms we take for granted. It shows up in economic arrangements, domestic spaces, cultural narratives, and digital algorithms. A social perspective compels us to look beyond individual blame and toward collective responsibility. If violence is socially constructed, it can also be socially deconstructed. But this requires not only laws and policies—it demands a transformation of values, structures, and imaginations.

5. Moral and Philosophical Perspective

Violence raises deep moral and philosophical questions that have haunted human thought for centuries: Is violence ever justified? Can it be moral to inflict harm for a greater good? Or is all violence, by its very nature, an affront to human dignity and ethical order? Philosophers, theologians, and ethicists across time have wrestled with these dilemmas, producing a rich, often contradictory tradition of thought.

5.1 Is Violence Always Immoral?

At its core, violence involves the intentional infliction of harm. This harm—whether physical, psychological, or symbolic—violates the integrity of the other. For this reason, many ethical systems regard violence as morally wrong, an offense against human dignity and the social contract.

Yet the moral judgment of violence is rarely clear-cut. Ethics is not simply about rules but about context, intention, consequences, and proportionality. The question is not only “Is violence wrong?” but also “Is it ever right?” In some traditions, violence is considered evil but sometimes necessary or lesser than other evils.

In this moral ambiguity, three positions generally emerge:

• Absolute pacifism: All violence is wrong, regardless of circumstance.
• Conditional justification: Violence is wrong, but it may be justified under specific, often extreme conditions.
• Realist acceptance: Violence is a part of human nature or politics and must be managed rather than eliminated.

These positions reflect underlying beliefs about human nature, justice, power, and the role of the individual in society.

5.2 Classical Reflections: From Hobbes to Arendt

Western philosophy has long grappled with violence, often through the lens of political theory and human nature. Let us consider several foundational thinkers:

• Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679): In Leviathan, Hobbes famously claimed that without a sovereign authority, human life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” For Hobbes, violence is a natural state, born of fear and competition. The solution is the creation of a powerful state to monopolize violence and impose order. Here, violence is not so much immoral as it is natural and necessary—a problem to be tamed through social contract.
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778): Rousseau offered a different view: human beings are naturally peaceful but corrupted by social inequality and private property. Violence, then, is not innate but socially produced. Moral renewal comes not through repression but through rebuilding society on more egalitarian grounds.
• Immanuel Kant (1724–1804): Kant viewed violence through the lens of reason and duty. In his moral philosophy, actions must respect the human dignity of all persons as ends in themselves. Thus, violence that treats others as mere means—through coercion or harm—is morally unacceptable. However, Kant allowed for just punishment and defensive war, provided they adhere to universal principles of justice.
• Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900): Nietzsche challenged moral norms altogether. He saw morality as a tool of the weak to control the strong and elevate suffering into virtue. Violence, in his view, was not inherently evil but a potential expression of the will to power. For Nietzsche, moral condemnation of violence was often a mask for resentment and control.
• Walter Benjamin (1892–1940): In his essay “Critique of Violence,” Benjamin distinguished between law-making violence and law-preserving violence. He questioned the legitimacy of state violence and suggested that divine or revolutionary violence—outside of law—might be purifying or redemptive. His critique opened new ways of thinking about violence beyond legalism.
• Hannah Arendt (1906–1975): In On Violence, Arendt drew a clear line between power and violence. For her, power arises from collective agreement and legitimacy, while violence is instrumental and degrades true politics. “Power and violence are opposites; where one rules absolutely, the other is absent,” she wrote. Violence, she argued, can destroy power but never create it.

Together, these thinkers illustrate the philosophical tension between realism and idealism, naturalism and moralism, order and freedom.

5.3 The Moral Justification of Violence

From the just war tradition to revolutionary theory, many systems have tried to articulate when violence might be justified or excusable. Key justifications include:

a) Legitimate Defense

Most ethical systems and legal frameworks recognize the right to self-defense—the use of force to protect oneself or others from immediate harm. This principle is grounded in the moral intuition that preserving life sometimes requires resisting aggression.

However, moral challenges arise:

• What counts as proportionate force?
• Who determines the legitimacy of the threat?
• Can defensive violence preempt an anticipated attack?

b) Just War Theory

Rooted in Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, the just war tradition outlines conditions under which war—organized violence—can be moral:

• Just cause (e.g., self-defense)
• Right intention (not revenge or conquest)
• Legitimate authority
• Probability of success
• Proportionality
• Last resort

This framework has guided Christian and secular ethics for centuries. Yet critics argue that it often moralizes war and is manipulated by powerful states to justify aggression.

c) Revolutionary Violence

Movements for liberation, from anti-colonial uprisings to slave rebellions, have often justified violence as a necessary response to systemic oppression. As Frantz Fanon argued in The Wretched of the Earth, the colonized subject, denied dignity and humanity, may reclaim both through violent resistance.

This view sees violence not as destructive but as restorative—a means of breaking chains and asserting selfhood. Yet it also raises profound ethical questions: Does the end justify the means? Can violence for justice avoid reproducing new forms of domination?

d) Civil Disobedience and Nonviolent Resistance

In contrast to revolutionary violence, figures like Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Dorothy Day championed nonviolence as a moral force stronger than weapons. They saw nonviolence not as passivity but as active resistance grounded in love and conscience.

For King, nonviolence was both tactical and moral: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.” His ethic rejected the dehumanization that violence entails, even against one’s enemies.

Yet nonviolence, too, has limits. Critics argue it may be ineffective against brutal or intransigent regimes, and that glorifying nonviolence can place unfair burdens on the oppressed.

5.4 Pacifism vs. Violence as Last Resort

The tension between absolute pacifism and violence as a last resort lies at the heart of moral debates on violence.

a) Pacifism

Pacifists argue that violence always destroys moral integrity—it degrades both victim and perpetrator. Rooted in religious traditions (Christian, Buddhist, Jain, Quaker), pacifism sees love, compassion, and forgiveness as higher principles than justice obtained through harm.

Leo Tolstoy, for example, believed the Sermon on the Mount rendered all violence immoral. For radical pacifists, accepting suffering is preferable to inflicting it.

Yet pacifism is often criticized as naïve or irresponsible, especially in the face of genocide, tyranny, or abuse.

b) Violence as Last Resort

Many ethicists propose a middle ground: violence is morally regrettable but may be justified when all peaceful alternatives have failed. This principle undergirds humanitarian interventions, rescue missions, and some forms of armed resistance.

The key ethical criteria here are:

• Necessity: All other options have been exhausted.
• Proportionality: Harm caused is outweighed by harm prevented.
• Intention: The goal is to protect or restore life and dignity.

Yet this position, too, is vulnerable to abuse and ambiguity. How do we measure when peace has truly failed? Who decides what level of violence is “proportionate”?

5.5 Ethical Dilemmas: Protection, Punishment, and Deterrence

Beyond self-defense or war, violence also appears in law enforcement, punishment, and moral deterrence. These raise thorny ethical dilemmas:

Protection

• Is violence justified to protect the vulnerable?
• Can force be moral if it prevents greater harm?
• Does protection require domination?

Punishment

• Can violence be rehabilitative or only retributive?
• Is capital punishment ever moral?
• Does the state have the right to “repay violence with violence”?

Deterrence

• Can the threat of violence be morally justified to prevent actual harm?
• Does nuclear deterrence preserve peace or perpetuate fear?

These dilemmas reveal that violence, even when used for noble ends, risks corrupting moral purpose. As the saying goes, “He who fights with monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster” (Nietzsche).

— – —

Violence is not merely an act—it is a moral crossroads. It exposes the fault lines between ideals and realities, between ethical consistency and practical necessity. While many traditions rightly condemn violence as a moral failure, others view it as a painful but sometimes necessary response to injustice.

Ultimately, any moral theory of violence must wrestle with human dignity, power, suffering, and responsibility. In a world where harm is both caused and endured, the greatest moral task may not be to eliminate violence entirely—but to reduce its necessity, to resist its glorification, and to uphold compassion as a higher law than retribution.

(To be continued…)