What Violence Cannot Do

All eyes are on London for the games. It is strange to think that the world was similarly transfixed by the city a year ago. For very different reasons. A year has gone by since the London riots. It seemed then that the city had gone up in flames in a sudden outburst of violence. The riots were thought by some to be a message. I saw a quote repeated many times on facebook, apparently from Martin Luther King: "violence is the language of the unheard." People, mostly young people, were apparently trying to say something. King, who spent his life advocating (through the eloquent use of words, I might add) peaceful, non-violent protest, would be somewhat annoyed to see people using what he said in support of rioting.


The trouble is that violence is not a very good substitute for speech. There is quite a difference between the two. Violence is "the exercise of physical force so as to inflict injury on, or cause damage to, persons or property; action or conduct characterized by this; treatment or usage tending to cause bodily injury or forcibly interfering with personal freedom." Language, on the other hand, is "the system of spoken or written communication used by a particular country, people, community, etc., typically consisting of words used within a regular grammatical and syntactic structure." 


The difference is clear. Violence has no grammar, no syntax, no regularity. Violence is irrational; it is anti-rational. Language is violated by violence, not replaced by it.