Detaching ourselves from the culture of violence

Detaching ourselves from the culture of violence

Alpha Amirrachman
Jakarta

From the pre-independence to post-Soeharto eras, violence has
marred the history of this nation, perhaps prompting some to ask:
Are we born violent? It would be shameful to answer "yes", but we
might also argue that violence occurs everywhere in the world.
Jawahar L. Nehru once bitterly admitted, "Violence has played a
great part in the world's history".

However, although violence is not exclusively ours, it cannot
be denied that violence has been constantly disturbing the life
of this nation. Examples abound, from the burning of a petty
thief by an angry mob to religious and ethnic conflicts in some
parts of the country. Such violence occurred because certain
conditions had not been met, such as decisive law enforcement and
a resolute end to discrimination. According to sociologist Joel
M. Charon (1992), "Violent action...is often caused by relative
deprivation. Groups in society compare what they have to what
they expect, and where their expectations are not met, violent
collective behavior is encouraged."

Nevertheless, Charon also argues that "violence should not be
seen simply as irrational frustrated action." For example, at one
junction of the nation's history, the concept of violence had
been transformed into the power of words, which might have
passionately inspired people to pursue violence. Mochtar Lubis
(1980), one of the greatest journalists this country has, in his
book Catatan Subversif, quotes a poem written by a communist poet
in March 1965 but published in one newspaper on Dec. 5, 1965:
"What is the use of having many (military) generals if peasants
have no security? People...get ready... take (the generals) to
their graves!"

But violence breeds violence. After the mysterious murder of
the generals blamed on the communists, reprisal was recorded by
historians as even more vicious with millions of PKI (Indonesian
Communist Party) members or sympathizers brutally murdered. No
trials, no accountability, but life went on as if the large-scale
massacres had been trivial.

This means violence is not only caused by frustration, but may
also be socially engineered to reach specific goals such as
ideological or religious fanaticism. Unfortunately, we have never
had truly national leaders who consistently promote peaceful
means such as Mahatma Gandhi of India.

We, conversely, have both political and spiritual leaders who
seem to have let violence take its course as a "normal" feature
of our lives. During the New Order regime, mass violence was
suppressed, ironically by violently repressing individual
liberty. After the collapse of the New Order regime, mass
violence sanctioned by lack of tolerance and a feeling of
majority-superiority erupted amid a euphoric atmosphere.

After the euphoria died down, however, the violence reemerged
taking new forms. The suspected political assassination of rights
activist Munir, the beating of military-critic Farid Faqih, and
the alleged shooting of a bartender by tycoon Adiguna Sutowo
illustrated a new face of violence that is steadily taking root
under this new democracy. The trend is disturbing, particularly
if the powerful might increasingly perceive this violence as a
"practical" way to tackle their power-related problems.

Nevertheless, there is another "new" form of violence that has
barely been detected: "Media violence" and its profound influence
on our youngsters. Kevin Browne and Catherine Hamilton-
Giachritsis of the England's University of Birmingham have
recently reported their research findings that "the likelihood of
aggressive or fearful behavior in younger children, especially
boys," has been evidently enhanced through violent imagery in TV,
movies and videos and computer games.

Likewise, several other studies showed that those who were
exposed to violent programs were increasingly reluctant to
mediate or to call for assistance when faced with a group of
people fighting.

In another aspect, this has arguably resulted in increased
youngsters' hostile aggressiveness, manifested such as in
bullying and student brawls. And in our country, particularly in
big cities, student brawls have tragically cost many lives and
caused injuries.

This hostile violence, which seems aimed purely at hurting
others, is equally dangerous to previous forms that had been
caused by frustration or orchestrated with specific goals in
mind. It is horrendous to imagine this hostile violence of our
youngsters gradually developing into a component of our social
structure.

So, we are probably not born violent, but learn to be violent.
From the top level of society (the state) to the very bottom
(families), violence is cultivated.

This nation may never be able to detach itself from the
culture of violence when the spirit of impunity is still attached
to the apparatus, where law enforcement is toothless when facing
the "haves", where discrimination exists among certain people and
where our youngsters are encouraged to view violent behavior.

All segments of society, therefore, need to take
responsibility for breaking this circle of violence.

For the authorities, upholding law enforcement and respecting
human rights, demanding social equality and ending discrimination
once and for all are among the most pressing issues.

For parents, scrutinizing TV violence and cautiously but
critically discussing its social costs and realities with their
children is necessary, but stations should also consider
reviewing their program selection criteria.

This is, after all, no light matter; we cannot afford to let
violence develop into an accepted form of conflict resolution.

The writer (a.amirrachman@edfac.usdy.edu.au) is a lecturer at
the University of Muhammadiyah Prof. Dr. Hamka. The views
expressed are his own.
-------