Introduction
Violence is not a natural phenomenon, but a conscious product of culture, institutions, and our daily choices. As Leszek Kołakowski noted, we do not speak of violence in the natural world—it is the domain of human responsibility. Since violence is cultural in nature, we can tame, civilize, and limit it through law, politics, and education. This article analyzes the mechanisms of aggression, from the ethical dilemmas of philosophy and religion to practical solutions in urban planning and state management. You will learn how procedural transparency and an understanding of the psychology of shame can become the foundation of a safer society.
Philosophy and Religion: Ethical Boundaries of the Use of Force
At the center of the debate on violence lies Kołakowski’s dual realism, which distinguishes between justified and unjustified force. For the use of violence to be permissible, three conditions must be met: the goal must be indisputably virtuous (e.g., saving a life), there must be a lack of other means, and the goal itself must be precisely defined. Without these rigors, every revolution turns into tyranny. Max Weber complements this vision, defining the state as an organization possessing a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. This is not a license for oppression, but a mechanism protecting against chaos and widespread panic.
World religions also set strict boundaries for aggression. Buddhism promotes ahimsa (non-harming) as a method of transforming anger. Judaism introduces the principles of pikuach nefesh (saving a life above all else) and din rodef, which mandates stopping an attacker with minimal force. Western Christianity developed the just war doctrine, where combat is permissible only to restore peace. Meanwhile, Asian and Muslim traditions emphasize ritual, order, and the protection of civilians, serving as a cultural safety valve against uncontrolled brutality.
Sociology and Psychology: Systemic Sources of Aggression
Modern science, represented by Johan Galtung, identifies a triad of violence. Alongside direct (physical) violence, there is structural violence (unequal access to resources) and cultural violence (narratives and propaganda that legitimize force). It is cultural violence, hidden in language and symbols, that poisons the community and normalizes contempt. Hannah Arendt warned that treating violence as a tool is a trap—once unleashed, it often changes its intended goal or makes it impossible to achieve, destroying the social fabric.
A key psychological discovery, described by James Gilligan, is that the root of the most heinous crimes is often shame and humiliation. "Iron fist" policies, which only intensify shame, become a machine for producing recidivism. The solution is anti-shame pedagogy—education that teaches how to recognize emotions and build relationships without aggression. Steven Pinker points out that on a historical scale, violence decreases where the rule of law, trade, and education grow, confirming that civilization is a process of actively extinguishing tensions.
Institutions and Urban Planning: The Architecture of De-escalation
Countering violence is also a domain of practical systemic solutions. De-escalatory urban planning uses appropriate lighting, visibility, and greenery as shock absorbers for social tensions. A wisely designed city creates "soft intervention points," where mediators and social workers respond before escalation occurs. In a mature state, uniformed services operate according to a public algorithm: from presence and mediation to the principle of proportionality in the use of coercion. Transparency, provided by body-worn cameras and external oversight, protects both citizens and officers.
In the Polish context, the Good State Foundation promotes policies based on procedures and mediation instead of forceful solutions. Moving conflict from the street to institutions allows emotions to cool within the framework of the law. A key element here is also the culture of language toward authority—irony and substantive criticism expose the incompetence of rulers before it turns into systemic oppression. Wise leadership invests in competence and understands that a lack of knowledge about structural violence makes them complicit in its creation.
Summary
In a world of inevitable conflict, the idea of completely eliminating violence remains a utopia. Instead of chasing an illusion, we should strive for wise management of force, based on an ethical compass and reliable scientific knowledge. Effective anti-violence policy requires continuous auditing of institutions, care for individual dignity, and the conscious shaping of public discourse. We must remember that even in the defense of the noblest values, there lies a potential for destruction. As a society, can we maintain control over the monopoly on violence so as not to become victims of our own tools of order?
📄 Full analysis available in PDF