Modern attitudes to conflict
Aug. 29th, 2010 12:37 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pyraxisOMG.
He's taken the things I've been theorizing but thought I was alone and haven't been able to talk about, and he's put brilliant words to them. This is it!
Marc MacYoung, "Conflict: the 21st Century Taboo":
Current dogma is that conflict is bad. Physical violence is viewed as evil, abhorrent, traumatic, out of control and something that must socially engineered out of existence by policies, laws and legal retribution.
And yes we intentionally used the word 'dogma.' Much of what are being promoted as unquestionable 'truths' on these subjects are not only unproven, but in many instances demonstrably false (e.g. "Violence never solved anything"). Offering a different point of view is risky. Daring to question the veracity of popular 'truths' about violence is often an invitation to a tirade worthy of a religious fanatic.
At Conflict Communications we contend popular denial, condemnation and ignorance don't protect people from the trauma of conflict and violence. They instead leave people vulnerable and more traumatized. Simply stated, teaching abstinence does not instill coping skills regarding a normal human behavior.
(the rest of the article)
Just had to share that with somebody, while I'm sitting here all elated that anti-violence neurosis really, truly, is wrong. And there's a logical case for it.
He's taken the things I've been theorizing but thought I was alone and haven't been able to talk about, and he's put brilliant words to them. This is it!
Marc MacYoung, "Conflict: the 21st Century Taboo":
Current dogma is that conflict is bad. Physical violence is viewed as evil, abhorrent, traumatic, out of control and something that must socially engineered out of existence by policies, laws and legal retribution.
And yes we intentionally used the word 'dogma.' Much of what are being promoted as unquestionable 'truths' on these subjects are not only unproven, but in many instances demonstrably false (e.g. "Violence never solved anything"). Offering a different point of view is risky. Daring to question the veracity of popular 'truths' about violence is often an invitation to a tirade worthy of a religious fanatic.
At Conflict Communications we contend popular denial, condemnation and ignorance don't protect people from the trauma of conflict and violence. They instead leave people vulnerable and more traumatized. Simply stated, teaching abstinence does not instill coping skills regarding a normal human behavior.
(the rest of the article)
Just had to share that with somebody, while I'm sitting here all elated that anti-violence neurosis really, truly, is wrong. And there's a logical case for it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-30 03:39 am (UTC)I think you and the people who wrote this article have different definitions of violence. I could be wrong (lemme know if I am!) but it sounds like you are using violence as a term for *physical* violence, whereas these authors are using the term for any kind of injurous or forceful action, including emotional, mental and social.
If you define violence as they do, I think you are saying the same as them!
(I know the authors hence I know what they mean when they use the term violence :-) in fact, in this or another essay, they explore the dictionary definition of violence, and its different levels of interpretation.)
no subject
Date: 2010-08-30 03:01 pm (UTC)Obviously I should, you know, READ THE WHOLE THING before commenting. Sorry.
--Rogan
no subject
Date: 2010-08-31 03:54 am (UTC)