Anthropologists In Violence

Participation of Anthropologists in Violence
Name:
Institution:
Participation of Anthropologists in Violence
Violence is a form of aggression that involves the use of physical force against a person, a group or a community that leads to psychological harm, injury or death. Violence can be verbal or physical. There are different types of violence, which include religious, structural, and domestic violence. The amount of violence and its manifestation in various societies vary substantially. Some societies are perceived to be without violence while others are said to be violent, based on perspectives drawn from other societies. Violence is regarded as a culturally and socially constructed demonstration of an insignificant attribute of human
However, when anthropologists are in marginalized culture, which might be the result of vulnerability to multiple risk factors, they are always negotiating a social world with its own risks, structure of social goals and behavior-related values. This high risk social world always turns out to be the governing or customary social context in the sense of associated doxa and Bourdieu’s habitus. In this case, violence may have several instrumental and positive attributes. More importantly, violence is an integral part of this setting per se and not risk behavior. Therefore, the characteristics of the circumstance generate ongoing rationales and motivation for engaging in violence. This perspective is different from the output model of risk exposure-behavior that is common in social science. Furthermore, violence itself as a social practice is admired when it is in designated domains. The interaction between behavior, which is socially valued, and its insertion within high risk contexts where fewer behavioral options exist to put it in perspective, has potential to amplify violence (Rogers,
It must be driven by righteous ideals or it will hurt the innocent. Political violence is the use of force to bring change in government. Therefore, anthropologists are allowed to use violence against political violence to oust a tyrant. The overthrow of a government should be seen as a mass social interaction and should not be shrouded as political violence. Society is a representation of people who have rights which do not change. In this respect, anthropologists have to consider the activities involved in a coup and evaluate the relation to the rule of non-aggression. It is inevitable that the only casualties will be the oppressors. Even if it was possible to use a destabilization effort that does not initiate violence against the oppressors, they will be posing an imminent threat. Violence is not an ideology; it is tactic anthropologists can use when there are few options. They can use it to maintain order and dignity for people to keep their campaign in that system moving. Sometimes, when the authorities ignore matters of the citizens, or when there is a transcendence to suppress their rights, culture or beliefs, and peace, talks may not work. Therefore, there is no option left apart from violence to force the authorities to oblige. A violent revolution is only legitimate if there is democratic representation for all or most of the state’s population (Schmidt & Schroeder, 2001). What matters is not just