It doesn't take much mental effort to hit someone. It's generally all instinctual.
It takes more mental effort to pressure them, make them uncomfortable, make them feel violated, while doing nothing to them physically.
Perhaps the alleged psychological violence of CD is preferable to physical violence simply because it forces us to use our brains.
That's a great point! I think the lack of concrete and consistent evidence that is associated with psychological violence contributes to this preference as well. While bruises, broken bones, and even the black and white act of hitting someone is much easier to categorize, perhaps the civilly disobedient should be more wary of his or her potential to damage someone psychologically. And I do think that this gray area, combined with other factors, such as the conscious effort to abstain from physical violence, makes it more preferable in civil disobedience.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. I think, more often than not, the act of physically acting in a violent manner is a graduation from psychological methods. A psychological attempt to violate someone is significantly easier because of the following reasons: It is often done sub-consciously by the offender, it is so much harder to recognize and diagnose than physically violent action, and violence is an action generated by choice, not instinct. Surely, if someone is threatening your child or wife, etc. then you choose to protect them physically, even in the most adrenaline filled situations, a physical action if a big decision. That being said, I firmly believe that goes for me, but not all people. I think some people are more inclined to swing a fist than utilize words to ameliorate the situation and some wouldn't dream of hitting another human no matter the occasion. I do however think it would be a mistake to say that hitting someone doesn't require just as much if not more brain power than psychologically harming another.
ReplyDelete