A conversation on TED.com: Why do we need violence to transfer power?

Stefan Molnar
reghin
Romania

TEDxReghin

This conversation has closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Why do we need violence to transfer power?

Revolutions are some very effective types of mass manipulation through which power changes and shifts. Why do we, humas, hold on to our positions or ideas even if we know we are wrong?

Related Talks:

Paddy Ashdown: The global power shift

Sort By:

heloise. obyrne
- 0
Feb 16 2012: i think your intuitively correct in that but as you aslo say the power structure itself is a male shaped thing ....and really what women excel at is complicated heirarchies not linear ones we excell at inclusive comunities not exclusive ones. as you say thatcher had to cut off her tits to join the club but we are free to create our own clubs now and disengage with male shaped governance we have room to man or womaneuvre and build alternative structures which build our own wealth based on need to provide for our kids food shelter etc and not profit nad bussiness which is meaningless to a hungry child. we have many practical abilities which even the normal man on the street cant get his head around like how to cook a potatoe cos theyre off in the clouds and just sticking a fifty percent limit on the amount of men in power i think is unfair. theres not as amany women in politics for a start and its a free vote if people wanted to vote for a woman they would but if you had to have ewuality forced i dont think thats a good thing. imagine we had to have sarah palin hand in hand with obama jsut to make things fair? do you really think women need to be handed the equality? just to make things fair? like its a bit patronizing..or matronizing perhaps.
Erin Tuncan
- 0
Feb 13 2012: It is odd, but some what expected, that a conversation of revolutions and needing violence to transfer power turns into an argument about gender equality. To make my (most likely) last comment on the gender issue, Miss Pavis, you seem to be a great example of" holding onto our positions or ideas even if we know we are wrong" aka scientific evidence, even googling such things about how the human psych works proves your stance wrong. I believe (to try to answer the original question of this conversation) that we believe we are right and rightous in our beliefs and ways, we as humans don't like to be proven wrong. For example say a (Man 1) kills (Man2) for killing (Man1)s brother, later when (Man 1) learns that his brother murdered and defiled (Man2)s family, he will most likely deny that his brother would do that and that he was set up or the other man lied etc. etc. Obviously not the best example as there are many other variables in that senario. My point is, we like being right, for our self confidence and to complete certain acts we must make ourselves belief that our path is the right one.

Hope this helps even a little bit.
Rhona Pavis 30+
- 0
Feb 12 2012: Thomas Jones, (No reply button next to your name so I'm replying here.) Thank you for expressing your true thoughts and feelings on the subject. Sometimes things have impacts that are far reaching. When battles between people, e.g., Ireland and England, Greece and Turkey, go on for hundreds of years does anyone remember the cause, the actual cause, of why one group of people started hating the other group enough to want them dead and take action to bring about their death? Yet, the group that has no idea or memory of the cause of the hostility, will participate as though the battle were their own. It is possible that the big lie that it's okay for males to dominate females in every part of society is exactly what is screwing up our otherwise loving world. I appreciate your input to this discussion, because it is apparent that you are seeking truth. Right on!
- Randy Cade
  - 0
  Feb 17 2012: firstly yes i think man and women are equal the only difference being physical. i do not think that humans are born loving but are raised to be that way. they are born as blank slates with minor mental and physical characteristics that effect their out look on life. most wars are started not do to gender differences but because of religion or for monetary gain of land and resources. many religions also state that women are 'inferior' the bible being one of them. so many of the wars would not have been stopped if a women was in charge for they would have still would have been raised in the same way that the men where. but by today's standards women are treated for better then they have in the past. and as the ignorance of the past is slowly corroded away with time and proper education equality becomes ever closer. (so long as religion stays out of the system and the system stays out of religion)
  - Rhona Pavis 30+
    
    0
    Feb 17 2012: Randy, I respectfully disagree with you. I believe all humans are born loving. Of course warped adults can grind that out of a person. Male aggression is involved in wars. That would diminish under conditions of female/male equality. Religions are male-made, male-dominated and tend to place and keep males in superior positions with relation to women. Yes, women in the USA and some northern European nations have it better now than they did in the past. Let's keep improving. I never, ever, ever recommend female domination. I am for EQUALITY between males and females in all areas of life. It is the complementarity and cooperation that will make our world a happy place to be for all.
Mark Meijer 100+
- 0
Host Associate

Feb 12 2012: Power = Violence.
jeffrey friesen 20+
- 0
Feb 10 2012: Good point. I wasn't thought of the less tangible forms of violence. Thus, sticks and stones may break my bones, but dammit, words can really hurt...

I also think that social isolation can be very cruel. There was a girl in my junior high who had been ostracized by all the girls in the school and then eventually most of the boys. I have always felt bad about participating in that even in a small way. When I think about it now, I feel deep shame for my actions (lack of action and backbone) back then and I have vowed to make sure it doesn't happen to anyone I see or know about on my watch. At least that is the ideal, one which I fall short of.

That said, I feel that men and women bring different thoughts, experiences and wisdom to the table. We would do well to use that combined wisdom, experience and knowledge to our advantage rather than continuing to ignore 50% of our potential because someone else has secondary sexual characteristics that we don't share.

To use an example from my SWAT background. When not reacting to emergency situations (which were, thankfully, less often than they could have been) I worked with non SWAT officers. There was one female officer who was a genius of spotting concealed weapons at the distance of about 1 city block. It was uncanny. She just knew based on a number of subtle clues such as stance, gait, and the way they presented themselves and how their clothes were hanging on them. Damned if I could get even close to that level.

Another female officer was very good at defusing situations using words. And I can tell you that not all of the male officers were even half as good as that. It is always better to never have to use violence.

During the Yukon Gold Rush the entire territory was policed by a few NWMP "mounties" lead by a man called Sam Steele. Rumor has it that he is the foundation of the "one riot, one mountie" ideal. He kept the peace during chaos without backup. We should all be so good at our jobs.
James McGuiness
- 0
Feb 10 2012: Good question. There is only one real answer IMO. And that is that people are subjected to authority and hierarchy without any formal orientation to those concepts or knowledge that there are alternatives. It's understandable that parents must establish an authoritarian hierarchy although not necessarily hard-edged in their families to establish an "order" so that collective progress can be made. But after a time, the same order of power is invoked in society in a myriad ways where people are invariably called at times to yield to authority whether they understand or agree with it or not. People manipulate this--none more so than in religion and politics (which often lead to militarism which is the extreme edge of hierarchical authority). There is one thing that has come along to offer a near universal alternative--although we have yet to conventionalize it. And that is the achievement of a secondary plane of existence called "cyberspace".

The Internet is NOT cyberspace. Cyberspace is bigger than the net. It's a way to see all things in two manners rather than one. If we don't have to assemble in real space and time where we need hierarchy and authority to create the grounds for order and progress but have technology which allows us to interact across the entire spectrum of time, we can and eventually will establish cooperative order which leads to collective progress without hierarchy and authoritarian political decorum. There is a key to understanding how to view this potential so that "order" becomes obvious and worthwhile. I have spent my last 20 years thinking in terms of a duality in which cyberspace--not the Internet as it currently exists in primitive text and commercialism--cyberspace is a conventionalized realm of reality. I therefore consider myself a cyberculture theoretician and have more ideas than I can possibly fulfill on how to change the world for the better.
Ousmane Camara
- 0
Feb 10 2012: Rhona,

I believe domination is inherant to power use, so it's not a question of gender. Violence is more about the lack of faith in ourselves. Imagine the number of people living in a country compared to the number of military or police all put together. How come, so little control and submit so many? That's the essential question.

About women domination, you have a clear exemple in northern europ countries, we can all see that they are ruling pretty much like men, but on certain subject they are more flexible and more compassionate. That is what makes a difference: "Compassion".

In our society, we've been teaching so many things, but upto now, in our schools, we have no room for compassion; we are living that subject to the individual seek, which is an error. Pay attention to kids coming from loving family, they are more bound to transmit love than kids coming from violent family. Not that this is absolute, as many throughout life find their way of getting out of the egoistic cloud and straighten their path. But in general, giving love brings more love around.

Violence is a way of solving matters when there is no more compassion in the basket of action. If we educate our children to be compassionate and less judgemental with differencies, we will be having a way better world in the next two generation.

I have organised a weekly program for my kids to teach them compassion and discuss it. They are calling for it every sunday afternoon and they have invited a friend of them to join the group; they are only 10 and 8 years old.
My point is that compassion can be taught, it's not created in us, but as we are all loving people at the base, we need to exercise our children to show and express it.
russell lester
- +1
Feb 10 2012: We should determine a ranking of bad to worse in the nature of coersion and violence. Where Genocide and Rape and murder are at one extreme and refusing to share my internet access with you is at the other. Then working from the worse end we should adress how to both respond to imediatly stop such an act and work out a method for in the long term making a n end to those worse forms of violence. I was assaulted sexually at the age of 5 very damaging to me mentally, I dream all the time about a moment when humans are setting foot on the moon or mars for a permement settlement. And in the speech some one says today we have a world of man that has never known war never known murder never has it had a hand raised against another no person of any age has been raped in fact not only has no hand been raised against an other, neither has any voice been raise in anger. This is a new time a new world and we undertake a sacred vow that it shall not ever know these things.

But that's a dream. Something in the nature of the league of nations should be reinstituted so that wherever a nation begins international or internal war or genocide , the other nations of the world could inundate them with troops carrying less lethal weapons( backed by more lethal ones should resistance to the peace keepers be to violent. )These troops should be ceded to and commanded by the UN maybe 100 troops from each county l 100 thousand troops plus or minus could pretty quickly put the brakes on some thing like Somalia or Uganda The UN should have access to the satellite intel of its security council members, and the UN should develop a air sea and space force that could in the air provide air support to UN missions, on sea carry out environmental and anti piracy & SAR. In space when privatization is the future and airliners are WMD a orbital coast guard with police powers is the only way to keep space from becoming an armed extention of nationalist conflict.
heloise. obyrne
- 0
Feb 10 2012: we dont need violence to transfer power... we just need to stop giving it away all the time.. if youve ever been in a realtionshipw here there is a power struggle.... you fight when you feel weak usually you are angry because you gave some power away and then someone took advantage... say you gave up going out with friends to meet your lover but then they meet theri friends and decide to change their plans ..you get mad and you fight and there is power struggle because you have given someone power and they have abused it..so you fight to win back that power..it doesn work usually he will be defensive after all he si only looking out for his own interests ...whats wrong with that... nothing so long as i do the same. so i think the macro reflects the micro in a lot of ways... we are told to do what is accepted we do it but we have different desires and we get frustrated and they build up and we then blow up at the restricting forces and demand change... but we could just as easily assert ourselves consitently and individually...part of the reflected process is that we all fear to assert ourselves alone..we dont think our voice will be heard if we speak out alone ...even among those who propose leaving these restricted social paradigms behind they bring with them the fear of individualism... and take on a reflection of the powerfull one and fight it...and really the powerfull system we see as so established is only a lot of people ordinary humans...like you and me... and

theres also this thing in jung..about the shadow ..so you have a psotive self image or ego part and you say this is me i believe this...you also at the same time create a shadow part...which you usually ascribe to your enemy..so you say i am a good vagan they are a bad meateater... rather than understanding the meateater within yourself you disidentify with it...so we disidentify with our enemies rather than see that theyre faults are our faults our strengths are therye strengths...
Thomas Jones 50+
- +2
Feb 10 2012: The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong. - Mahatma Gandhi

We do not not need violence to transfer power. We use violence to shield us from our own, mis-perceived weakness.
- heloise. obyrne
  - 0
  Feb 10 2012: you said what i wanted to say with such brevity and clarity that i am utterly jealouse:)
Li Chen
- 0
Feb 9 2012: I don’t mean to limit the concept of violence to ‘bad intent’ or acts of aggression and should not have to remain true to the topic. A smashing glass is just movement. If you slow it down it can become a very graceful vision.
In the context of this conversation, the views people are ‘holding on to’ are causing conflict and being resolved through violence. That has nothing to do with shame or regret (fallibility was my original point), but these conflicts are due to real beliefs (right or wrong aside). It is odd that we project something opposite of ourselves onto others as if they are different from us. Do you hold onto your position when you are wrong? No, you first deny you are wrong because you cannot see it. If you are proven wrong you may deny it, but you would no longer risk death over it! The human mind must adjust gently to change. Then why do we think that others do not behave as we would? The failure to resolve the conflict without violence is the shame caused by the holding on to ideas whether right or wrong.
There should be no shame or regret in defending yourself and your rights if you are have not incited such action. In some cases a gentle group must fight or be trampled by those who would commit dirty deeds.
The beginning is a choice: where you place it determines whether it is violent or not. Two friends on the American continent can, if they chose to, select the War for independence as the key component to their friendships beginning. An artist can chose to, if he/she wishes to, understand how the paint was made and consider it a violent start. The same friendship could choose to recognize that many beautiful loves had to happen in order for them to be born and become friends. So, violent or not. irrelevant. Beginning is irrelevant and pointless in this conversation, let’s abandon it.
Tommy Bong
- 0
Feb 9 2012: "Why do we need violene to transfer power?"

Well, you said that. Not me.
Erik Danziger
- +1
Feb 9 2012: "Wrong" is a relative term. What some percieve as right, others percieve as wrong due to cultural differences or different moral systems to which they are used.

To answer your question, the people who still hold on to their positions or ideas or even habits DON'T actually know they are wrong either because they don't know the negative implications of their actions or because they choose to close their eyes and be ignorant of them.

As to the matter of "revolutions", in my humble opinion no revolution happens without being allowed to happen. In this century, nothing is spontaneous anymore.
Mark Hurych
- 0
Feb 9 2012: Hi Stefan Molnar

Here's another way to look at it.
We need violence because as much as we realize we should "just say no," we are addicted to the glory, pride, and sense of control or power.

Or it's sort of an illness (a learning disability?) of our species. (We failed the final exam TWICE! See history of WWI "the war to end all wars" and then WWII yes, another lesson not learned, and then the cold war big idea is in fact MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction and "Detente.") We should know better, but often we forget... again and again.

Catch 22:
We (industrialized nations with military industrial complexes) only know to fight fire with fire because no one has shown us the Fire Extinguisher. What??? You expect that we should think for ourselves??? Are you crazy??? [:-)

Can Romania loan us (USA) a few billion dollars, just to tide us over? Please?? We seem to have misplaced our national guard. They were here a moment ago... Hmmm.

Mark
Mohammad Marohombsar
- 0
Feb 7 2012: We needed violence when respect went out of style. Violence induces fear. If fear is ignored(courage), violence would go out of style too.

Bring back respect, throw away fear.
Tommy Bong
- +1
Feb 7 2012: Mind is the emperor, power rolls the rock.
Jiang Di 500+
- 0
TEDx Organizer

Feb 7 2012: What do we afriad ? The Overwhelming force.
Violence is not a necessary part of Revolutions. But it`s most effective way to change power. Just review the past time.Except the Glorious revolution. The other revolutions, most of it were develop with war.Or there is no blood in some revolution,but it failed. So,I never think there will be a no blood revoluntion in future, at less in the next 100 years
.Even we are Civilized Person and we hope peace.But the benefit between two countries will break the peace and war will begin when the talks fail.I don`t know the power you talk about is big or small.But as a Civilized Person,small power means little benefits and we don`t need to use violence.BUT if the power is big,everything will become more serious.Many people will use any way to get the power even dirty means.That will help you understand why violence is necessary in transfer power.
But i hate violence.So,I try to make myself much stronger and won`t afraid the dirty means and violence.
Forgive my poor english.
Stuart Woods
- +1
Feb 6 2012: Hi Stefan, I think that of the three essential power bases (violence/wealth and knowledge)violence is the most readily available and inclusive of all three powers. The other two are seemingly elitist and unattainable for many so the default setting to transfer power is ultimately violence. Although not necessarily needing less thought, endeavor or tenacity, I believe violence connects via our primal instinct and not only pre-dates knowledge and wealth but will arguably conquer both in the end if allowed to endure in sufficient enough quantities. Also I see that violence can often be seen a leveler (of say race or class) and so through the ages has featured in key events where either wealth and/or knowledge have failed.
fridah land
- 0
Feb 6 2012: It depends on what you mean by "power". In a systemic structure that frames "power" as something someone/group holds OVER another, then the very nature of that "power" is inherently violent. If you're talking about "power" as something that comes from within, and/or that is cultivated and shared collectively, you won't be faced with the dilemma you raise in your question.
Rohit Srimal
- 0
Feb 6 2012: I think the basic reason for violence is pampering one's ego. The best way to pamper one's ego is to show off to the world what you have and they don't. Somewhere, when you realize you have power, because of this basic need of pampering one's ego, you feel a strong urge to exercise you power and show it off to the world. You are in constant search of an opportunity, a reason to get in a fight with someone and exercise your power via violence. Violence is the most visible form of display of power which helps achieve the end goal of pampering one's ego.
Michael Juan
- +1
Feb 6 2012: Humans are social animals, the easiest way to transfer power is to cripple or destroy the thing that is currently in power. This is achieved by mostly violence because it is the easiest way to harm others.
russell lester
- 0
Feb 6 2012: Power fundamentally is violence. If I use the power that my advanced medical and food production tech gives me to influence you and your people what I am really doing is implying that Ill deny it if you dont agree with me.

Its the same as letting you know that if you do z to y Ill blast you into X-rays

the only way to transfer power is by taking the personal power you use to support what ever version of violence your government is engaged in and away and using it to support some other option. Violence is power. If everyone was personally armed with a world destroying bomb we would have peace,, the peace of the tomb. If no one had weapons someone would invent one to topple the strongest guy. If we all supported a global rule of law then it would have to be truly equal and impartial. No Justice No Peace.
Mitch SMith 30+
- 0
Feb 5 2012: I think one has to understand the conflicting drives within social creatures.
Although conflicting, these drives serve essential purposes.
1. THe social drive - this is beneficial in times of abundance - it drives grouping and promotes sharing.
2. The territorial drive - this is beneficial in times of scarcity - it drives dispersal and promotes owning/taking/competition.
The territorial drive operates to kill surplus individuals when equal share amongst the population would result in all dieing.
THe affect of scarcity has a step-wise transition on populations - the international community fragments into nations, then the national community fragments into tribes, tribes fragment into families, families fragment into mating-pairs.
There is no actual wrong or right in any of it - it just is.

However - I would argue that the true state of abundance is not properly recognised - that the default territorial drive tends to kick-in prematurely and hold sway inapropriately.
Violence will certainly be required in times of true scarcity.
If you want to reduce it, you will need to educate the species about the true availability of resources.
As it stands, the inapropriate application of competition is actually creating scarcity.
Perhaps the species has to evolve to get better balance between these drives.
Comment deleted
- Mitch SMith 30+
  - 0
  Feb 6 2012: Thank you for the link Richard.
  Gene SHarp's observations are a critical peice in the resolution of non-resource based conflict.
  THis might be a critical evolutionary factor to prevent unecessary fragmentation promoted by resource injustices.
Roger Gay
- 0
Feb 5 2012: Multi-party (parliamentary) democratic systems seem to work pretty well, especially when combined with inalienable fundamental human rights. I'm pretty sure that was a human invention, and perhaps to Rhona's dismay - an invention of a bunch of old white men.
Tiago Landman
- 0
Feb 3 2012: To say that violence has simply to do with men running the show is ridiculous and that in itself is a radical feminist point of view. Women are capable of as much and at times even more violence than men, it's all relative. Now when you are speaking of Power, the word suggests one force that dominates another, therefore for such a thing to take place, the weaker force must bow to the stronger force, if it doesnt, the stronger force will use any means necessary to surpress it. Violence will always take place in human nature, it has nothing to do with being male or female and anyone who says otherwise is living completely blind in their own little reality.
Check the prison system Rhona...the crimes comitted by women at times are the most sadistic brutal crimes, involving their own defensless children! I get you're feeling upset with the male population, you must have your reasons, but to generalise like that will get you no where.
jeffrey friesen 20+
- 0
Feb 2 2012: Because power never submits without a fight.
Rhona Pavis 30+
- 0
Feb 2 2012: Erin, I am responding to your comment here because there is no reply button by your name. "Women would make better leaders than men." This is your statement. This is an incorrect conclusion. I believe that males and females, working together as complementary, cooperative EQUALS, are the solution to all the excessive violence in the world. You know very well there is an excess of totally unnecessary violence in this world and you know that it is happening where men and women are not in equal power. I wonder why men are so terrified to admit that they are equal to women. Certainly, I acknowledge the differences, so please don't say the word "equal" means the same thing as the word "same." Thank you.
Richard Krooman 30+
- 0
Feb 2 2012: We don't need violence to transfer power. Most transitions of power go without any struggle. For instance when a CEO steps down there is usualy a mutual agreement. When a new government is chosen the power also transfers.

Ofcourse your question is much more focussed on the dictatorial regimes that have been / will be overthrown.
However there are 2 'errors' in your way of thinking.
The first comes from the line "Why do we, humas, hold on to our positions or ideas even if we know we are wrong?".
People don't have it in them to know they are wrong. For which I'd like to point out to you the term cognitive dissonance which is a term for when someone has 2 (or more) conflicting thoughts. Basicly when someone realizes 'it could have been done better' he still cannot really admit failure to himself. You should hear some politicians talk their way out of saying they were wrong. ("With the knowledge I had then I could not have forseen blabla etc. etc. -> I made the best judgement given all of the previously mentioned random statements"). Also there is some research (but I forgot which) that basicly sais that when you disagree with someone openly, due to the cognitive dissonance, he will most likely become a more radical believer of his own believe.

The other actually is discussed in the talks by Zimbardo (also here on ted). Which is that power corrupts. See his 'prison experiment'.

So when a dictator's ideas of how the society should look like gets protested by the inhabitants. He will (most likely) become more radical believer in his own ideas. And because he's somewhat corrupted by power and has militairy command it can only end badly.