Redefining Violence

Webster's definition of violence is clear: the "exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse." But a recent survey by the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research suggests that vast numbers of Americans use the word differently.

For the study, the institute used a sampling of 1,374 black and white men chosen to represent the U.S. male population. They were asked whether certain actions are violent in themselves--not merely violence provoking. More than half (57%) decided that the shooting of looters is not a violent act. Nearly a third regarded the beating of students as equally nonviolent. By contrast, 22% looked upon passive sit-ins as acts of violence, along with such actions as draft-card burning (58%) and looting (85%).

The I.S.R. survey also found that 65% of those questioned were much worried about growing violence in the U.S. Asked to describe its source, 68% mentioned civil disorder and protest; only 27% spoke of crime. To most of those interviewed, the word violence meant acts against property, not people. The notion that violence is determined not by acts but by political ends tended to range partisans of violence in the name of law-and-order on one side and advocates of violence for social change on the other. Since a large number of those questioned believe that violence, however defined, may be necessary--and even useful--the report is depressing. It points out, though, that a majority assume that the cause of violence lies in social problems. Perhaps more encouraging, the study did not support a widespread notion that students are admirers of violent action. Instead, the most highly educated men were the strongest opponents of violence either for law enforcement or for social change.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.