Understanding the Multifaceted Definitions of Violence in Society

When most people hear the word “violence,” a clear image comes to mind: a punch thrown in anger, a weapon used in conflict, or the visible aftermath of physical aggression. This instinctive understanding has shaped laws, policies, and everyday conversations for centuries. Yet this narrow view leaves out a vast territory of harm that operates quietly, slowly, and often invisibly. Understanding violence in its fullest sense means looking beyond the bruise and the broken bone to recognise how harm is woven into language, relationships, institutions, and the very structures of society.

The traditional understanding of violence 🔗

The classical definition of violence centres on overt, physical acts that cause injury. This is sometimes called direct violence because the cause and effect are immediate and easy to trace. One person attacks another, and the harm follows visibly and instantly.

Philosopher C. A. J. Coady, a leading voice in this debate, defended what scholars call a restricted or narrow definition of violence, arguing that the concept loses its analytical usefulness if it is stretched too far. For Coady, violence essentially involves the use of physical force that causes harm. This view has practical appeal. It keeps the term precise, which matters when courts must classify crimes or when policymakers design interventions.

A representative narrow definition was offered by the political theorist who described violence as the physical attack upon, or the vigorous physical abuse of, or vigorous physical struggle against, a person or animal. Notice that even this “restricted” definition already widens the scope in two important ways: it includes animals as potential victims, and it acknowledges that violence can be an attack on property or objects, not only on human bodies.

Why the narrow view falls short 🔗

The problem with limiting violence to visible physical force is that it ignores forms of harm that are just as devastating but leave no marks. Consider a person trapped in a relationship where they are constantly humiliated, controlled, and made to feel worthless. No blow is struck, yet the psychological damage can be profound and lasting. If our definition cannot capture this experience, our response to it will also fall short.

Scholars like Vittorio Bufacchi have pointed out that the debate over defining violence is not merely academic. As his work on the two concepts of violence shows, how we define a problem determines how we try to solve it. A definition that is too narrow may lead us to believe we have addressed violence when we have only tackled its most visible symptoms.

Expanding the definition: the WHO approach 🔗

Recognising these limitations, the World Health Organization developed a broader and now widely accepted definition. In its 2002 World Report on Violence and Health, the WHO defined violence as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.

This definition is significant for several reasons. First, it includes the word “power” alongside “physical force,” acknowledging that domination and intimidation can be violent even without physical contact. Second, it includes threats, not just completed acts. Third, it explicitly recognises psychological harm, maldevelopment, and deprivation as outcomes of violence, moving far beyond visible bodily injury.

The WHO typology of violence 🔗

Building on this definition, the WHO created a typology that organises violence into three broad categories based on who commits it. Self-directed violence includes suicide and self-harm. Interpersonal violence occurs between individuals, such as family violence or assault by a stranger. Collective violence is committed by larger groups, including war, terrorism, and state repression.

Within these categories, the typology also identifies the nature of the harm inflicted: physical, sexual, psychological, and that involving deprivation or neglect. This framework matters because it shows that a single act of violence can have many faces, and that withholding care or resources can be just as harmful as a physical assault.

Psychological and emotional violence 🔗

One of the most important expansions in our understanding is the recognition of psychological violence. This refers to conduct intended to cause serious emotional harm, including verbal abuse, humiliation, constant criticism, intimidation, and manipulation. Within families, controlling behaviour that isolates a person or undermines their confidence is increasingly recognised as a serious form of harm.

Verbal violence, such as repeated humiliation or threats, is now widely acknowledged as genuine violence rather than something trivial. The harm here is real even when it is invisible. A student constantly told they are worthless, or a spouse subjected to relentless emotional control, suffers consequences that can include anxiety, depression, and a diminished sense of self. The absence of physical injury does not mean the absence of violence.

Expanding the circle: violence against animals and property 🔗

Many definitions of violence now extend beyond human victims. Violence against animals is significant both in its own right and as a warning sign. Research consistently shows that cruelty toward animals often correlates with a willingness to harm people, which is why animal abuse is taken seriously by those who study patterns of violence.

Violence against property is another contested but important category. Vandalism, arson, and the deliberate destruction of homes, shops, or places of worship are widely treated as forms of violence. Even legal systems wrestle with this question. As a detailed legal analysis has explored, classifying force against property as “violence” raises complicated questions, because property damage does not map neatly onto the traditional idea of physical force against a person. Yet the destruction of property is rarely just material loss. When a family’s livelihood is destroyed, the harm extends into deep psychological and economic trauma.

Indirect and structural violence 🔗

Perhaps the most transformative shift in our understanding came from the Norwegian peace researcher Johan Galtung, often called the father of peace studies. Galtung argued that violence is not only direct and personal. It can also be indirect, built into the very structures of society without any identifiable attacker.

Structural violence 🔗

Galtung defined structural violence as an avoidable impairment of fundamental human needs. Unlike a punch or a gunshot, structural violence has no single perpetrator. It is the harm caused by social, economic, and political systems that deny people access to resources, rights, and opportunities. Poverty that condemns children to malnutrition, caste or class systems that block social mobility, and unequal access to healthcare and education are all examples of structural violence.

This form of violence is invisible precisely because it appears normal. It does not erupt in a dramatic moment; it endures quietly across generations. A child who dies from a preventable disease because their community lacks a clinic is a victim of violence, even though no one struck a blow. The harm is just as real, only the cause is diffuse and systemic.

Cultural violence 🔗

Galtung later added a third dimension: cultural violence. This refers to any aspect of a culture, such as religion, ideology, language, or art, that can be used to legitimise direct or structural violence. Cultural violence is what makes other forms of violence seem natural, acceptable, or even right. Beliefs that justify discrimination based on gender, caste, or race are examples. Such ideas do not kill directly, but they sanction and conceal the violence that does.

Galtung represented these three forms as a triangle. Direct violence is the visible tip, while structural and cultural violence form the larger, hidden base. The forms reinforce one another: cultural beliefs justify unequal structures, and those structures eventually erupt into direct violence. Understanding this connection is essential, because addressing only the visible violence leaves the deeper causes untouched.

Why the broader definition matters 🔗

Some scholars, including Coady, worry that defining violence too broadly drains the word of its meaning and loads it with excessive moral weight. If everything harmful is called violence, the term may lose its power to distinguish a beating from social inequality. This is a serious concern worth taking seriously.

Yet the wider definitions championed by Galtung and adopted in modified form by bodies like the WHO offer something the narrow view cannot: they reveal the full landscape of human harm. They help us see that a society can be peaceful on the surface, with no riots or wars, while still inflicting enormous suffering through poverty, discrimination, and exclusion. The concept of positive peace, which means the absence of structural violence rather than merely the absence of open conflict, depends on this broader understanding.

For students of human security, this multifaceted view is not just theoretical. It shapes how governments measure wellbeing, how organisations design development programmes, and how communities decide what counts as a problem worth solving. A definition of violence that includes the physical and the psychological, the direct and the indirect, the personal and the structural, gives us a far more honest map of the harms that human beings face.

What do you think? Should we reserve the word “violence” for clear physical acts to keep it precise, or does a broader definition that includes structural and psychological harm give us a truer picture of human suffering? And in your own community, which forms of invisible violence go most often unrecognised?

References

1. https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/violence/v-1
2. https://vittoriobufacchi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Two-Concepts-of-Violence.pdf
3. https://www.emro.who.int/violence-injuries-disabilities/violence/
4. https://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/violence-position-paper.html
5. https://columbialawreview.org/content/violence-against-property-the-breaking-point-of-federal-crime-of-violence-classifications/
6. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022343390027003005
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_violence
8. https://rpl.hds.harvard.edu/what-we-do/our-approach/peace-violence