It is often very difficult to identify violence. On the first day when our class was asked to explain their understanding of the word, it was clear that each of us were struggling with what seemed to be a simple question. Yes, most of us were able to conclude that violence can be both physical and emotional; however, we could not identify the level of severity that separated a violent act from a non-violent one. I believe that this unfamiliarity is one of many contributing reasons that so many of my peers and fellow citizens have almost a lazy or inactive perspective on both violence and peacemaking. By inactive, I mean in the sense that we often aren’t conscious of our many opportunities to find peaceful resolutions to conflicts and avoid needlessly violent situations.
Presumably for most people in the nation and myself, our exposure to violence is more commonly inflicted by emotional pain than physical pain. The author of Nonviolence in Theory and Practice defines violence as: “an act or policy that is either intended to damage or can predictably be expected to damage a person against whom it is wielded and for which there is no compensatory benefit for the person damaged.” Thinking about violence in these terms led me to identify myself as a great example of someone completely ignorant of chances that I could have been more active in using emotionally non-violent methods. Whether it was a fight with my sister or an unnecessary insult to a friend, I am now more aware of the appropriate steps that should have been taken to avoid any moments that I might have truly hurt some one. Our discussion of the 12 Conflict Resolution Skills made sense to a lot of reasons why most arguments, much like those with my sister, are never settled correctly. Therefore because they are not settled correctly, fights and contention seem to be a recurring part of many relationships and associations. Parts of these people remain angry and carry something that isn’t their own until it...