What’s the “Correct” Response to Violence?

And why does it matter?

Attempts to simplify the public responses to the recent killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery in the United States of America into neat categories of “peaceful demonstrator” and “violent rioter”, as if to subtly mirror separate qualifications of “good person” and “opportunistic criminal”, are equally as unhelpful as they are illogical. As a social scientist, I believe that a deeper look into how persons respond to violence and oppression would be more helpful.

There seems to be an unspoken consensus that all protests should be non-violent and somewhat passive. I’m not here to argue that a Gandhi-esque approach is not desirable but the demonisation of other approaches is not a constructive way to have a conversation.

This is not a discussion about looting or theft nor an attempt to justify violent or unethical behaviour. Rather, it is an examination on how attempts to swiftly place people into categories can completely miss the point and wider context of this moment in history.

At first, I did not want to see it. I did not even want to read about how the life of yet another person of African descent had been lost at the hands of those sworn to protect them. Yet, like millions of others, I was stunned to see the footage that resulted in the death of George Floyd. It was a cruel act of violence. As someone that teaches International Relations, I know all too well that violence often provokes, and at times, demands a response. At a cursory glance, I can list three primary categories of responses to acts of violence that usually occur. Each response requires an examination of the relevant wider context. An understanding of each response is essential in shaping the type of dialogue that can help us to take meaningful actions to move us forward.

Snap

The first response category is that of sudden outrage or a ‘snap’ that results after pent up frustration. This is often the response generated by constant bullying. For example, if a child is being beaten up after school every day or week for a year, a day may arrive when that child determines that they can take no more, and so, they respond violently. It would be unhelpful if our first and only response is an attempt to characterise that response as good or bad.

It is a response.

Fear

The second category are responses to perceived violence or to a perceived threat. Simply put, on some occasions, when persons feel threatened, they can respond violently. As an example: let’s suppose that every time you saw a person in a specific type of black jacket, they punched somebody in the face that looked like you, but left others unharmed. If this were actually the case, then, you might reasonably conclude that persons in specific types of black jackets punch specific persons in the face when they come into contact with them. You might also conclude that there is a high possibility that you might be punched in the face if you resemble others that suffered such a fate. In such cases, if possible, they might decide to avoid persons in specific types of black jackets altogether. Alternatively, they might decide to strike first. They might decide to acquire a firearm. Persons may respond violently due to the perceived threat that such persons pose to them and the choices that they believe are available in that moment in time. It would be unhelpful if our first and only response is an attempt to characterise that response as good or bad.

It is a response.

Cost of Inaction

The third and final response category that I will draw upon as an example occurs when there is a wider objective, usually seen to be in the interest of a specific population or future generations. In such cases, the cost of inaction is often seen to be too great to ignore. Within the field of international relations, the example that immediately comes to mind is the invasion of a Middle Eastern country due to accusations surrounding the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). In this scenario, the wider context was the aftermath of September 11, which claimed thousands of American lives. WMDs could bring about similar events, not only in the US but in other parts of the world. A decision was therefore made to invade a sovereign territory in search of these weapons due to the wider potential damage and catastrophic loss that could occur due to inaction.

Similarly, one might assert that a community that has suffered violence at the hands of another community on a number of occasions, might feel that inaction would lead to loss, damage and trauma that could last for generations if left unchecked. In such cases, the cost of inaction might be too much to bear. It would therefore not be illogical for such a community to respond violently if they believed it necessary to preserve the fate of future generations.

I don’t think it would be useful to label the above responses as good or bad, right or wrong. In each of these cases, the wider context within which the action takes place is what is most important. If this isn’t done, it may indeed result in violent clashes, or even deaths (such as occurred in the Middle East) without the intended result being realised. There may be no weapons of mass destruction. Instead, we may create a weapon that is far more destructive than anything that could ever be produced in a laboratory. We may create weapons of bitterness, hate, strife and tension that will threaten not only to undermine harmonious relationships between different communities, but also our aims to live peaceably, one with the other. We risk not war from without but a war from within, simply because we did not stop to ask about the wider context. We did not stop to ask for more information, because we were too busy quoting headlines or composing clever tweets, that sought to place persons into categories of protester, looter or violent demonstrator. We need to shift our focus from trying to determine which persons or groups are good or bad, and focus on why they’re all on the streets.

In the case of any perceived or real threat, the broader context needs to be examined and addressed. In the case of a bully, it might make sense to address the bully directly and to have some form of counselling and therapy for the victims of such consistent abuse. In the case of a wider threat, a thorough investigation and perhaps enhanced communication between the group that feels threatened and the group that poses the perceived threat might be beneficial in order to avoid continued tension or all out conflict that may have implications for generations to come.

Categories and labels aren’t going to help right now. Honest dialogue will. Justice will. Prosecuting those responsible for crimes will.

This article is part of a developing series that has been inspired by the global response to the murder of George Floyd.

Dr. Keron Niles is a lecturer at the Institute of International Relations at the University of the West Indies and is a youth worker with over 20 years of experience.