To what extent does the word 'violence' have meaning shared across all Essay

To what extent does the word military force have meaning sh ard across in all tender-hearted cultures - Essay ExampleSince look at an intercultural perspective offers a broad image of violence, this paper will examine the definition and explanation of violence in sociology, since the uniqueness of societies and its norms are the ones initiating it and are also directly affected by it. Although it takes on different forms of which it is dependent on culture, the universality of violence would refer to the reaction of humans to deal with authentic deprivation and as an act of fitting to the situation. Defining Violence The World Health Organization (WHO) (n.d., p. 3) described violence as a part of human experience where its impact can be seen in various forms, in all parts of the world. The specified human experience is already broad in its sense, but when referring to violence, it is mostly coming from negative perception. Through this definition, the World Health Organization a grees to the claim that violence covers varied issues where the definition would surely undergo revisions yet, all of which would be considered correct. The cultural view of violence depends on the specific human experience and is entirely unique in one aspect or another, which makes the definition of violence more complex. Steger and Lind (1999, p. 24) improvised a way on defining violence without disregarding even one cultural background by categorizing it tally to three disciplines where violence might have stemmed Philosophical, Political and Sociological. A philosophical view of violence which is also called a wide definition is center on on structural violence. This has been expounded by Garver (n.d., cited in Steger & Lind, 1999, p. 24) wherein his definition of violence is about the unreciprocated needs of the society, or if there were alterations in the normal social process, specifically termed as quiet violence. Quiet violence would exist if people are deprived of choic es in a systemic way by the very demeanor in which transactions normally take place (Garver, n.d. cited in Steger & Lind, 1999, p. 24). Somehow, Garvers definition is congruent to Galtungs (1969, p. 169) assertion about what violence is. According to him, violence occurs when the potential is higher than the actual is by definition avoid qualified and when it is avoidable. In other words, violence, according to Galtung is when an action is entirely preventable and yet, no one is able to stop it from happening. A firm example posed is the case of a tuberculosis patient. Years ago, when tuberculosis inflicts death among people, the severity of the disease would not be considered violence since there were no effective medications available against it. However, if it has occurred now, such situation is considered violence because treatments for the said disease are available, and therefore, such deaths would have been preventable. In add-on to Steger and Linds (1999) classification, so ciological definition of violence might have to be the most overseen among the ones mentioned, since it deals with the acceptable and unacceptable types. In one way or another, sociological violence is politically driven especially when pertaining to the illegal or illegitimate use of force (Steger & Lind, 1999, p. 24). For example, the acts of the military men during war cannot be considered violence in this sense since they are permitted by the state to do so,