Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: Beyond the Obvious — in which cases and contexts is physical violence often overlooked? That’s the question we explore in Room #926 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme of “Power & Violence.” Listen in on the examples that came up and the perspectives that emerged in dialogue…
Note: This session was recorded live in German as part of the Deep Talk Club, so the video above is German-language audio only. What follows is an English translation of the conversation, lightly edited for readability — the back-and-forth between the moderator and participants is preserved, but the original timestamps and speaker names have been left out.
A very warm good morning to you all. Today we’re continuing with physical violence, with the question “Beyond the Obvious.” In which cases and contexts is physical violence often overlooked — that’s the question. And, well, some of you might think, physical violence is usually visible anyway. So what do we actually mean by “beyond the obvious” here? Since this suggestion actually came from ChatGPT, I actually asked ChatGPT what might fall under this too, and had it give me a few keywords, which I’ve brought along. I’d like to read them out to you, and then we can see where we want to pick things up, which examples we might have on this too, and what further aspects might come up as an additional impulse on top of that. The keywords ChatGPT gave me on this were: hidden violence — in some cases physical violence can be hidden, for example when someone conceals injuries under their clothing, or when the violence doesn’t leave visible marks. Then, abuse within families — violence within families can often be overlooked, especially when it happens behind closed doors. Next, physical violence in schools and on playgrounds is often dismissed as bullying and not taken seriously enough — it’s important to point out the long-term consequences of such incidents. Institutional violence — in institutions like prisons or care homes, physical violence can occur and be overlooked as well. Self-harm is also a form of physical violence that’s often overlooked or misunderstood. Sporting activities — in some sports there can be physical violence that’s often seen as part of the game and gets overlooked. Health risks — an aspect that’s often overlooked is the damage physical violence causes to victims’ physical and mental health. And cultural differences — in some cultures or communities, certain forms of physical violence might be considered acceptable or normal, and therefore often get overlooked. So those are the points that ChatGPT essentially spat out and handed to us, which we can use, as I said, as impulses. We don’t have to limit ourselves to them, they don’t have to set the guardrails — we can absolutely open up further aspects that come to mind for us in this context too. Or we can pick up on one point or another that’s already come up as an impulse here, and maybe bring in very concrete examples in this context, ones we might not have thought of at first if we hadn’t been given this impulse. So I’m really, really curious. Feel free to join in, as every morning, and let’s start this space for reflection together. Just a quick reminder again, we record the room the whole time, so if you join, you’re automatically agreeing that it’ll be published. Then we have three room rules to keep in mind in order to join: a profile photo where you’re recognizable, first and last name, and at least one sentence in your bio, and if for whatever reason you don’t want that, or can’t speak right now because you’re otherwise occupied, you also have the option to bring in questions or thoughts via the chat.
Yes, a very warm good morning, dear Marc, what do you have to say about that?
Good morning to the round. Yes, I’ll start a bit unusually today, and I’ll stick with that — I’ve learned a lot from you, dear Jürgen — and first of all, thank you for the introduction, dear Yasemin. On physical violence, the first thing I found, and your topic actually brought me to this, what often gets overlooked — if I go by what I’ve learned from Jürgen in terms of terminology, physical and bodily violence, and as a short definition, what I found for myself: physical and bodily violence targets the body. If I were to stick to that definition, and clearly distinguish between physical and psychological violence, then we’d arrive at very different results in this room, and go in a completely different direction. So today I’d like to loosen myself from these terms a bit, in the sense that I don’t relate physical violence only to physical contact, but also to other kinds of contact — we’ll surely get to that in a moment. And in that context, I found a term from couples therapists, called gaslighting. And that’s about violence too, though not physical violence — gaslighting is when, within a relationship, someone tries to destabilize another person, even to the point of complete breakdown. And that happens through words, through threats, and so on. No bruises show up anywhere there. But this violence is so strong that it can bring people to the very edge of what’s bearable.
Yes, thank you so much. Now I have to ask again — there’s a distinction between physical and psychological violence. Today we’re talking about physical violence, which means bodily violence specifically, and not psychological violence. Did you find other information on that?
I’d understand physical violence to mean exclusively bodily violence.
Yes, I understand that too, but the topic is so important. Exactly, dear Yasemin, I did that deliberately. No, I haven’t found a different definition. I just, because the topic is so important, and your room topic brought me to this, and you said, what often gets overlooked in this? And if we only talk about bodily violence, then physical violence only stands out to me when someone comes to me and I say, oh my, what’s going on with you, Mareike? Or, like you said, you have a bruise on your face. Oh, I fell or something. Okay, fine then. So you know what I mean. But if it’s not visible at all, I can’t even react to it. But you said the room is open, so that in certain cases we could also include psychological violence, which isn’t visible… I only got here because you distinguish between visible and non-visible. And there’s also bodily violence, in the broadest sense, that can, for me, also be what’s not visible — what I inflict through words, through blackmail, and so on, and not only through bruises, and through real, visible marks left on someone else’s body. Otherwise your definition is correct. It’s just that the reason I came to this topic and this distinction, dear Yasemin, is that in Germany — which is also a taboo topic — so many women are threatened by violence. There was even a recent report on this, and people just don’t talk about it. But this is a really, really current topic, affecting at least every third or fourth woman in Germany. And that’s not just the violence that’s physically inflicted and visible to us in the form of bruises or other marks on the body.
Yes, I understand, thank you so much. Yes, that’s really something we can steer in either direction with this invisible, or non-visible, violence. Since a few days ago we had room number 915, invisible violence, with the question, how can we recognize and combat psychological violence — there we went into all these mental aspects. Today I’d like to focus specifically on looking exclusively at bodily violence, but not the kind you can immediately recognize at first glance, but rather where bodily violence also happens where you can’t immediately see it, because that bruise, which you were just talking about, is immediately and obviously visible to us. So, for example, if we pick up the point about abuse within families, that violence often gets overlooked — there too, bodily violence is meant, but it happens behind closed doors, and so maybe we don’t notice it as easily, and the bruises that do exist might be on parts of the body that aren’t immediately visible either. Especially if someone has it on their arm, and it’s winter, and they’re wearing a sweater, then we don’t see it obviously either. But the abuse still happened nonetheless. So let’s stay with “bodily” today, because we’ve already opened up that other aspect elsewhere before, and let’s look specifically at where this “beyond the obvious” still applies. Marc, would you like to follow up on that?
Yes, I understood you very well. I find it a bit hard to spontaneously step in as a conversation partner here, because I’m filled with a lot of gratitude that I haven’t consciously experienced this myself, and I also don’t know how you’d even recognize it, because thankfully I haven’t had to deal with this topic. That means I also have no contact with children or employees where I could say, I can report from experience. But there are certain signs where it might be possible for me to recognize it. And I’d count myself among those who say, I don’t see it. I don’t see it when it’s hidden, and that’s why, thank goodness, this hasn’t come up in my world so far.
Yes, thank you so much. Then let’s bring Youssef in — I hope I pronounced that correctly, Youssef, if not, please correct me — and see what he’d like to bring in too. A very warm good morning.
A very warm good morning, dear Yasemin. Good morning, Marc. I find what Marc said really interesting. And maybe Marc could say something on the topic of bodily violence within a partnership, specifically in the sense of not touching each other. I think that’s bodily violence too. Even though you live together, even though you’re married or in a committed partnership, that you basically don’t touch each other at all — I personally consider that a form of bodily violence too, even though there’s no physical interaction at all. And so this aspect of not touching, or not being tender with each other, is, for you, also a form of bodily violence too, whether that’s in a parent-child relationship, in a partnership, or maybe even in a friendship. And you could start there too, if the topic is bodily violence, meaning, say, hitting someone. I think that’s a topic that’s difficult to judge, because it could also be bodily violence, for example, if someone blocks your way — if you want to leave a building and someone stands in your way and says, no, you can’t leave yet. And, well, that’s not quite so simple. You’d need some context for that, but maybe we can find that too. Because right now it’s maybe too general, which is why we’re not really getting into any depth.
Thank you. Feel free to convince me of something else, I’m open to that. Nonetheless, I’ll stick with the definition that, yes, you’re right, it’s a form of violence, but ultimately it’s not bodily violence, what you just gave as an example. Physical violence is bodily violence — meaning it’s targeted at the victim’s body — and psychological violence, in turn, targets feelings, thoughts, so it’s about emotional injuries and so on. That means what you just gave as an example falls under psychological violence, emotional violence. Both are a form of violence, so we’re completely on the same page there, but today it’s really about looking at bodily violence specifically.
Sabine, a very warm good morning. What do you have to say on the topic?
A very warm good morning. Unfortunately I can’t contribute anything from my own experience either — and I’m glad about that too, it sits well with me. Nonetheless, everyone says we can’t contribute anything, but if you look at the world, there’s really a lot out there. And near us, not far from where we live, a woman was recently stabbed to death by her lover. The lover wasn’t the father of the children. The children were even at home. He only lived there part-time. There apparently was some history beforehand, it was in the newspaper, which is why I can talk about it — I only know it from the paper. And of course people around here talked about it. The father was there the evening before, even spoke with the neighbor. The neighbor denied that he could ever do something like that, because he was such a loving father, and so on. So the question is, do people all just close their eyes? How can someone be a loving father, a loving partner, and everything else, and then, a day later, wield a knife? Something doesn’t add up there. That’s an example from not-too-distant real life.
Yes, thank you so much, and I think that’s a really, really exciting question — whether we might, in certain cases, actually close our eyes, and therefore not perceive or see certain things at first, even though it’s actually quite clearly heading into bodily violence, and maybe certain things can be interpreted differently in hindsight if you handle it openly and honestly, in quotation marks. And that’s also the prerequisite for maybe recognizing one thing or another after all. And I’d like to pick up this example from ChatGPT here. I think there were one or two examples in there that I do think happen in our own environment too, and we do see it — the question is whether we perceive and realize it, and classify it the way it should actually be classified in one place or another. Two or three examples I found really nice. One was about bodily violence in schools and on playgrounds, which often gets dismissed as bullying. Why does it often get dismissed as bullying? Because maybe people assume the children aren’t doing it consciously — the others are children too, who maybe don’t quite know what they’re doing yet, in quotation marks. And that’s why it’s often maybe not taken seriously enough. And just a few days ago I actually brought in examples here too, with Elias, where I said, this really affects him very, very intensely and massively, which also has an impact on how things will continue going forward. But it left deep scars, in quotation marks, and that’s where we’re at bodily violence, because it went as far as nosebleeds, and, I don’t know, really obvious injuries. Then I’d also like to bring in, as an example, these sporting activities — in some sports there can be bodily violence that’s often seen as part of the game and gets overlooked. I want to remind us of that, and I remember very well that this definitely happened during our school years, for example, that if something on the field led to aggression or something like that, it would end in a foul, and you’re in the middle of the game, and then, in quotation marks, it gets treated as if it just happened as part of play, but underneath, you can often see full intent. Then you might accept getting a yellow card or something, having to give up the ball or something similar, but that doesn’t stop one player or another from very consciously exercising a kind of violence on the field. And then I also found the example with the care homes really, really interesting, because anyone who’s had a family member in care might have noticed one thing or another too, especially how care staff sometimes handle patients, or handle elderly people. I think, in various instances, that borders on bodily violence too, especially when it comes to things like changing bedsheets or similar, how roughly people get handled sometimes. I think that leans toward bodily violence too, from my point of view — it can get really borderline at times. Of course we have too little staff in many places, which doesn’t mean staff generally do bad work, not at all — but sometimes the sensitivity is missing here too, due to routine, or whatever the underlying reasons are. I don’t want to excuse it either, but here too we’re really allowed to look more closely, and direct our attention to it. Now I’ve seen that several people have raised their hands — I think Sabine was first, then Marc, then Youssef.
Yes, I actually wanted to say too, it’s not exactly unknown that when there’s violence at home, children who grow up with violence also tend more toward violence themselves later on. I think they partly understand violence as part of upbringing, and it’s probably normal to some extent for a lot of them. And then, of course, when they meet someone on the schoolyard and things don’t fit, they hit faster too. And what I also wanted to say — the topic of psychological and bodily violence often blends into each other, especially in school life. First someone gets bullied, and then at some point someone hits them. I don’t think that’s really so far apart. And yes, I’ve noticed this often with my daughter at school too — she played football on a boys’ team, and because of that she was of course often around boys more. And there, it wasn’t settled verbally — you just got hit, which to some extent seems totally normal for a lot of people. I certainly don’t share that opinion.
Yes, and it especially gets difficult, in quotation marks, when something keeps happening repeatedly, and then maybe teachers get involved, and so on, especially in everyday school life. But something happens that, in quotation marks, isn’t visible, yet still has an effect. And then of course the question also comes up, how do you deal with that? Question mark. I don’t know, someone once told me they’d said, well, then you just have to defend yourself, that’s just how it is. But then we’re back at encouraging violence, in a way — so it’s really not so simple. Marc?
I’d like to say something too. I was just thinking about whether I’ve ever become violent in my life, or done something, and I found a definition that says pushing is violence too. And I thought, okay, I have to be careful in these discussions — this really matters to me — that it doesn’t go in some direction where, you know, you’re not allowed to say certain things anymore these days, and so on. But if pushing is called violence, then I have been violent, even though this is being recorded now. But for me, pushing was part of a certain developmental process. During puberty, in eighth grade at school, there were scuffles with other students, where you’d hold each other, or maybe even, if you remember this, put someone in a headlock. But then it was also over. What I observe today is that this boundary, which is part of that development, sometimes doesn’t exist anymore. I don’t know if video games are responsible for that, that you cross a line and then nobody has any boundaries left. But what’s really important to me, if the definition really is that pushing counts as violence, then I’ve certainly pushed or shoved someone before. But if someone were to call me violent because of that, I would of course push back against that and not accept it. The question is how it continues from there. So, giving someone a shove — and I just read this as the definition of shoving and pushing — that’s also not visible, it doesn’t leave bruises or anything. But yes, I have pushed or shoved someone before. But for me, that’s part of a process during puberty. And if I really think back to my eighth grade, it was genuinely normal among boys to bump into each other sometimes. But then that was it too. I hope you understand what I mean by that.
Yes, thank you so much. I’d like to come back to that in a moment. First, I’d like to give Youssef the chance to bring in his point too.
Yes, so I find it problematic that bodily violence is seen as something inherently bad per se, because it simply isn’t. Violence is part of life, of course including bodily violence too. And anyone who’s ever been in danger, or when there was imminent danger, was naturally glad that there were men there who would also apply bodily violence. And those don’t necessarily have to be police officers, who have the legal authority, but ordinary people who are obligated to act too. There’s also such a thing as failure to render assistance, and there’s also the right to self-defense. That’s why I see bodily violence with completely different eyes. So wishing for a society where no bodily violence is ever applied at all is simply ridiculous and far from any reality. You really have to let go of that idea, because it just doesn’t work.
Yes, thank you so much, and we can certainly discuss that too, to see what the others think about it — I’ll give you the opportunity again in a moment. I also found the aspect Marc brought in interesting, that this was also a developmental process during puberty. And I can absolutely relate to that at first, because let me open up a parallel world, or a parallel door, here. We once talked in another context about juvenile delinquency and so on, and it’s actually documented that something like stealing, for example, is something that’s part of the developmental process too. But it’s really fascinating to open this up, because a lot of people tend to say there need to be much harsher punishments, much longer prison sentences, maybe even starting much earlier, and so on. However, if we take into account that certain aspects are simply part of a person’s development, and that includes, for example, stealing in adolescence, which is completely normal, and generally speaking, one can say that every second person, when surveyed, admits to having taken something at some point in their youth — that proves it’s a fact. And yet the demands don’t necessarily match what actually happens in reality. And we can discuss the same thing here too — this connects nicely to what you just said, Youssef — the question is whether this doesn’t belong to this developmental phase too, because, for example, emotional regulation isn’t quite fully developed yet, self-efficacy isn’t quite established yet at that point, and so on. But that still means, in consequence, we have to look again at whether we look away in certain contexts, or whether we still look at it anyway. One doesn’t necessarily have to do with the other, and it doesn’t necessarily mean expecting society to function completely free of violence, but it does mean we might still need to look closely, and be allowed to act in certain cases too. What do you all think about that? Go ahead, Youssef.
Yes, in that context too, I find it really, really difficult, if not impossible, to separate the different forms of violence, whether that’s psychological, physical, or institutional violence. If you want to look at cases of physical violence and examine them more closely, you’ll very quickly find that they’re embedded within a larger complex of violence. It’s not like, I don’t know, you wake up in the morning, go outside, and just hit the first person you meet — that’s not how it works. That would be bodily violence, but it happens extremely rarely, almost never. There’s always a context, and you have to look at that context. So if someone becomes physically violent, there’s usually a motive behind it. And a motive always has to be judged psychologically. There aren’t people who just, for fun, decide, now I’ll go steal something, or now I’ll become violent, now I’ll hit someone. And if there are groups that bully — you mentioned that too, that someone gets bullied at school, and then people band together in groups and suppress someone — that’s also something that’s institutionally present in our society. School itself is also a big institution for bullying, where the group of teachers wears down the larger group of children. You have to say that too, and start acknowledging it now. Otherwise society keeps moving backward, back into history, and then we’ll have to move back into caves if we don’t simply acknowledge and admit that this is how it is. That’s why I find it difficult to answer these questions, I have to say honestly. Thank you.
Thank you so much. Heike, a very warm good morning. What do you have to say on the topic?
Good morning. Yes, I find this a tough topic for such a bright morning, and yet I do have an opinion on it, from my own experience too, in which I’ve already experienced bodily violence from a partner, from my life partner — it was a mild variant, but he threw me against the seatbelt. He threw me against the seatbelt. That’s about 30 years ago now, so I can talk about it, and what I know today is that when we’re under stress, our body prepares us for fight or flight. Various things happen — brain function goes down, blood flows to the arms and legs, we get adrenaline and other hormones. So something happens when we’re under stress. That means, for me, that in a situation where a person becomes violent, that’s somehow an aspect of desperation. Desperation, because I’m under stress, and I have no other means left available to me than to actually go into this fight mode. And I ask myself, are we just, to some extent, or are these people, the ones this happens to, who go into this absolute desperation, and become physical toward a person they love, who’s very close to them — do they run out of the means, the communication options, the behavioral options, to resolve this situation any other way than through the last, in my opinion the last resort, now I get physical, now I have to — because that has nothing to do with thinking anymore, as far as I understand it, but is a reaction of desperation, because there are no other options left, and the stress level is so high that this is all that remains. So an unfortunate state for both sides. Yes, that’s my contribution for the moment. Thank you.
Yes, thank you so much, Heike, for this openness too, that you brought in here. And I’m completely with you from this point of view — I find it really nicely explained too, with fight or flight, that it comes out of desperation, that this stress level rises, and that it also has to do with running out of means, and that we then act, so to speak, in the heat of the moment. So it’s not this “I’m going to hit now” kind of thing, but more an affect-driven action. That means it’s also no longer a conscious deliberation about what that can lead to in such situations. And you rounded it off so nicely at the end with, an unfortunate state, so to speak, for both sides. And that means we’re also allowed to make a distinction here. There might be violent people for whom this is, in quotation marks, “normal,” because they classify it as normal, because they themselves might have grown up with violence and understand it as the norm. And there are also people who aren’t generally, in everyday life, repeatedly noticeable for violence in some way. And still, that doesn’t mean that in the heat of the moment, in a particular extreme situation, something like that couldn’t still happen. So I find it wonderful that you brought in this example here too. And with that, I’d like to bring Jürgen in first, and then we can draw some cross-connections too.
A very warm good morning, Jürgen.
Good morning, dear Yasemin, good morning everyone in the room. Sorry, my voice is a bit hoarse. I’d like to build a bridge to, or briefly address, one contribution or another. From my personal point of view, I’d contest that violence, whether psychological or physical, is inherently given to us. What is given to us, though — and I’ll say this right away — is a potential for aggression. And it’s exactly from this point, in my view, that this potential arises, in order to even have the ability to defend ourselves, to go into fight mode, or to flee. But in my view, it’s a fundamentally important precondition to keep these two terms and their meanings separate — aggression on one side, and violence on the other. And I know that for both terms, and the overall context, if you want to subsume it under aggression, or destructiveness, which in my view is actually the umbrella term, I know there are different views on this, and certainly no all-encompassing, final, set-in-stone definition of these terms. But for me, mind you, I draw the distinction between aggression and violence like this: violence presupposes the will to harm someone else, while the original form of aggression consists of protecting oneself against violence or some kind of physical or psychological influence from someone else. That’s, for me, after a longer study of this context, what remains of human destructiveness — that I can separate whether someone is defined as a violent person, or as having an aggressive character. So, the intentional, knowing action with the goal of causing physical or psychological harm to someone else — that’s violence, for me. And I’ll repeat again, and I say this quite deliberately, this isn’t an academic doctrine, it’s my opinion, that this isn’t the fundamental context of aggressiveness in general, and that a distinction needs to be made there. And regarding Heike’s contribution about acting in the heat of the moment — the question that follows from that is, how can I prevent violence? If I have a potential, aggression, that clearly carries within it this explosive charge to mutate, in a negative sense, into violence, how can I prevent something like that? And then I think we’re back at our essential topics, especially socialization, upbringing, and education on one side. And please correct me, dear Yasemin, but our brain is structured accordingly too — I’m giving a scientific basis for this now — into two sectors. One is a very affect-driven, very quickly reacting part of our brain, which basically gives us the trigger, hit back now. And then there’s a second sector, especially connected to the frontal cortex, which needs a bit longer to clarify the situation — which is why the affect-driven response often dominates instead, sailing, so to speak, under the flag of self-control, to bring itself under control, and thereby the situation. And that, for me, mind you, is again a question of socialization, upbringing, and education. Thank you for listening.
I’d like to pick up on one or two points here. First, since you just spoke about self-control and education and things like that, I’d like to add training too, because these two areas — acting in the heat of the moment, and the more deliberate part, so to speak, in the realm of self-control — also have a lot to do with training. That means, the better I’ve trained that, the better I can apply it too. And this naturally also explains, to some extent, why for certain people acting in the heat of the moment is more strongly in focus, when the other area isn’t consciously perceived, trained, and so on either, so that certain things keep kicking in again and again. That explains, to some extent, why especially when violence, for example, has occurred in someone’s own socialization, and gets classified as “normal,” it also tends to get reached for more often, in terms of self-application, so to speak, because I don’t even question it. And this questioning is exactly where we’re at these educational contexts, and if I’ve recognized that, and if I start working on it, that means I consciously engage with it, deal with it, and accordingly go into corresponding training, for example. And training means, for example, things like actually practicing emotional regulation, and so on. So, really, really fascinating. At the same time, I don’t know if the distinction between aggression and violence is sufficient here — I’d like to bring in another impulse, and I’ll deliberately phrase it as a question, because we humans are emotional beings. If we look at this from the emotions themselves, what emotions do we actually have here? And there we’re at anger and irritation. So the emotions — aggression as such doesn’t exist. That means aggression is already an effect, a result. So, how do I deal with it? And not what’s initially laid down, so to speak, but the emotion behind it, in both cases, is anger and irritation, which triggers something. And then maybe we can embed the rest too. That doesn’t contradict what you said, Jürgen, it’s maybe another impulse to go into fine-tuning here. And then I’d like to put another question out into the room — this is the third point — we picked up the example of bullying earlier, specifically what happens in schools. We agreed that bullying is indeed a form of violence too. So why do we call it a form of violence, if we were to apply this definition, or this distinction you just brought in, Jürgen — then we’d be at a point where we might not even be allowed to call bullying violence at all, but instead it’s somehow an expression of aggression? And I’d like to give you the chance to respond to that first, before I bring Youssef in again.
Thank you so much, dear Yasemin. I can respond directly to the last point — I’ll say, or repeat, that I think, and I believe you also brought this up, regarding the terms irritation, one could also start with the milder form of irritation, moving through anger, all the way to rage. Delimiting all of these from each other is, in my opinion, quite difficult. And what counts as a violation there, that may be left open. On the last point, about bullying, my answer is that the criterion for identifying whether something counts as violence is certainly different depending on each individual’s perspective too. Marc’s example with pushing, for instance — I give everyone the freedom to define for themselves whether they say, that’s actually an effect of violence against me, against my person, while someone else says, well, come on, that’s nothing, really minor. So if I define violence as occurring when harm is done to me, or to a person, then, in my view, it lies in the eye of the beholder to concretize the dimension of that harm for themselves. And so it’s naturally difficult to give a general definition on this. Could you please remind me of your question regarding the first aspect, about training, if I remember correctly?
There, you’ve triggered a really essential point for me — in connection with training, and in connection with sport. This sport that I practiced, I’ll deliberately call it a highly aggressive sport, which in its basic forms isn’t designed to exercise violence. But I can, and here Sabine might agree with me, if she has a bit more insight into this sport, as she hinted — in my time, and surely still today, there were certain players on our team who, in certain situations, were no longer sent into the water with an “assignment” of aggressive playing behavior, but rather violent behavior. And looking back, and that’s why you triggered this in me, looking back, if I let some of these people pass through my memory, it took considerable coaching effort with one or another of them to bring them back down. So something clearly happened there. And it was also apparently the case that, with these teammates, only a minimal trigger was enough, a motivation, to set off this potential for violence. You’ve just set off that trigger in me, but I don’t want to say anything more about that right now. The second area, the second question, I’m sorry, I don’t remember anymore. Let’s leave it at that.
Thank you so much. Another impulse I’d like to bring in, before I give Youssef the chance to speak again, is to pick up this cultural aspect too. And not only in the sense of, in other cultures violence is somehow considered normal or something like that, but it’s also a cultural aspect that, in our cultural sphere, for example, violence is frowned upon. So looking at it from that angle too. Because I remember a conversation with an acquaintance of mine who’s actually active in the field of violence-prevention training herself. So, on one hand, there are a lot of different places where violence comes to light — not just in interpersonal interactions in a private context, but increasingly in a professional context too. Especially for employees who might be in customer-facing roles, that’s apparently increased massively in recent years, so much so that, for example, the unemployment office has been training its staff on this for many years now. There are various buttons you can press if a situation escalates, and so on. And at the same time, I remember this conversation, where she also pointed to couple relationships and so on, where she said, this gets dismissed far too often, far too easily, in quotation marks, along the lines of, violence must not be tolerated, yes, that’s not to be excused, okay. At the same time, that doesn’t mean that, for example, if someone in a relationship has become violent, or is violent, that this has to immediately lead to, along the lines of, you have to leave them — because that’s often the reaction from outside too, if you think about how people typically deal with this — but rather that there are actually a lot of couples who, through training, or through couples counseling with corresponding training, specifically violence-prevention training, learn over time how to deal with it, both the victim, for example, learning not to set off certain triggers, and looking at, what’s my own contribution in certain situations, without being made responsible for it, and the perpetrator, in that case, looking at how they can better, and here we’re back at training again, how they can better handle this emotion in certain situations, and when certain red flags come up, consciously realizing that already, and, for example, removing themselves from the situation, from the context, maybe going for a walk or whatever, in order to get back into this emotional regulation. So I find this cultural aspect really, really exciting to look at from both sides too, and not just along the lines of, in certain cultures it gets dismissed as normal, but, in quotation marks, our culture is already further along — but rather to handle this carefully too, including the interpretations and judgments made here.
Youssef, you wanted to add something too.
Yes, two things. First, I think everyone is aware that if they call the police, the police could, or even would, apply bodily violence — and of course you’d want that too. We don’t need to pretend otherwise there. It’s the same when you look at the military side of the state apparatus — there are plenty of people who wish for military interventions to be applied. That’s physical too, and under certain circumstances even lethal. And these people would never go to war themselves, they’d never become police officers themselves, they wouldn’t apply bodily violence themselves even in a dangerous situation. But they want someone else to apply bodily violence. And second, I’ve been asking myself this question the whole time since I got on this stage: how is it even possible to stop bodily violence without applying bodily violence? Because that would genuinely, burningly interest me. And if anyone has an answer, or doesn’t, I’d be glad to hear either way. Thank you.
Yes, a lovely question. Thank you so much. Marc, Sabine, Heike, Jürgen — are there various cross-connections you’d like to draw, and, above all, maybe address Youssef’s question as a final point too? Marc, and then Jürgen, go ahead.
Thank you for your question, Youssef. Two things just went through my mind. First, that saying, if someone hits you, turn the other cheek too, and that this is meaningful — and then I have to think about the current conflict in Ukraine, and ask, should violence be answered with counter-violence? You can always say that, we’re in a comfortable position. If I were really that Christian, with our faith, as Yasemin also mentioned — if someone hits you, turn the other cheek — that would mean, if I get attacked, I don’t defend myself, I don’t protect myself, but instead say, oh, you’re attacking me, wonderful, come in, sit down, eventually he’ll come to his senses, and probably in two or three years you’ll notice it’s not nice to have someone taken out of the house. I think what you said, dear Youssef, reflects reality — that violence is sometimes part of self-defense. And I have another really important question for Yasemin. Dear Yasemin, you’re our nutrition… sorry, our neuroscience specialist. And violence is such a really current topic. And the question that’s been occupying me for a really, really long time now is — if we’ve learned violence as a way of resolving conflict, then two forms of society collide. And this came up recently too, with the swimming pool discussion, where a psychologist explained that when two social structures collide — where one father told his son, if someone hits you, hit back twice as hard, otherwise you’re the weaker one, defend yourself, versus, if someone hits you, turn the other cheek too — then, as Jürgen just said, as an explanation, I don’t apply violence intentionally. I’d like to gently push back on that, and I will, because of unconscious bias — we’re not even aware of our own actions. If I’ve learned, until I was 18 or 25, that violence is tolerated by my family as a way to resolve conflict, then I grew up with that. I don’t know anything else. That’s not an excuse, but then it’s not conscious. I don’t consciously decide to apply violence there, I just do what I’ve learned, because that’s exactly how I lived until I was 18 or 25. And dear Yasemin, that’s always the question when you answer these things — we now have, in Germany, so many different societal cultures colliding, with different religions, without judging what’s better or worse, and with different behaviors, and I wouldn’t call this conscious decision to apply violence fully conscious anymore, only conditionally so, because if it’s true that most of what we do is unconscious action — that of course doesn’t excuse violence, but it’s what someone has learned, meaning they don’t even think about it. And then two people stand across from each other, where one sees violence as a legitimate way to resolve conflict and doesn’t know anything else, while the other says, in my upbringing, it was always the case that you talk to each other, and put your arm around someone, and you can talk about everything here. That just can’t work in that moment. It can really only lead to escalation, and to mutual misunderstanding.
Yes, thank you so much. I’d like to give Jürgen the chance first, and then I can gladly say a few sentences too, before we move into today’s closing round.
I’ll hand the word back to you, dear Yasemin. Marc has actually already said a lot of what I wanted to say too. In this room, under the overarching theme of power, in relation to violence too, we were clear that there’s a positive and a negative side to both. Youssef’s example, what happens, how do you respond to a violent person standing in front of you with a claw in their hand — I can’t stroke that person to death. So we’d already established that much. What’s decisive for me is really this balancing act on a knife’s edge, where I see this dividing line, to say, is the intention behind my use of violence still mainly, or primarily, driven by protecting myself, or does it slip into the same level of violence, namely protecting myself while simultaneously also harming the other person? And I openly admit, from my point of view, that’s always an individual matter to assess, and in many cases extremely difficult. So I wouldn’t know a solution there. But now, back to Youssef.
Yes, thank you so much. And I think it becomes really clear that this is a really, really complex topic too. Especially because, when it comes to judgments or something like that — on one hand, it’s individual, how we look at it, and on the other, we can’t look into the other person’s head either. So that’s another factor that becomes really clear too, especially in court proceedings or something like that. There, too, you have to try to look at and understand the background, and factor that in. You get different statements, but there too, things can be quite different — it could be that something was done intentionally, and it gets claimed that it wasn’t intentional. So this gets really murky and difficult to judge too. What I find really interesting is, first, Marc’s question here — we can actually open this up again. I’ve shared before, in one or several of these rooms, how important dialogue is here too. Dialogue is important because, on one hand, in a democracy there are different opinions, and that has to be endured too. At the same time, especially with learning processes, it’s simply the case that this has a lot to do with our socialization. And against the background of where we grew up, in which family, in which culture, and so on, there are a lot of aspects that come together here, that shape a basic understanding and a basic attitude toward all kinds of topics. That’s not just about violence and violent behavior, or crime, but in a lot of contexts — things like, am I more right-leaning or more left-leaning, and so on. That’s exactly what makes this so complex, so difficult, and so challenging to deal with, ultimately. But it’s all the more important that we learn to deal with it. And that’s something that always leads me to say — I shared this example with you before — that someone who helps care for my mother, from an official capacity, is quite clearly right-leaning politically. And still, we regularly sit together and have a coffee and talk. Because I find it all the more important to show, in quotation marks, on one hand, that it always depends on how you look at these topics — to be a good example of the fact that, in quotation marks, foreigners, and I’m deliberately using that term now, shouldn’t all be put in one box. At the same time, it’s not that this represents an exception, because that’s also often what happens in conversations, along the lines of, we’re not talking about you, you’re a shining example, or an exception. No, we often just see the ones that stand out, that catch the eye, but there are a lot of others too, and that’s why we can’t really speak of exceptions either. And still, only by stepping into this dialogue do we have the chance to bring some irritation, and rethinking, into that original socialization that happened, that led to certain beliefs forming that aren’t helpful in various contexts. Whether that’s the task or responsibility of any one individual, that’s up for discussion, everyone can see it how they want. I’m convinced that only dialogue — because the moment we shut ourselves off, we don’t get anywhere, that doesn’t help — only dialogue offers a real possibility to actually create irritation through dialogue, to stir up questions, and whenever irritation happens, that’s initially an initiator for learning to happen. And that’s the only chance, in quotation marks, we have — to open up different examples, to show it, to model it, to stay in exchange, and thereby initiate change too. We don’t know what lands with the other person, or where it connects, but only through this do we open up the chance for anything to change at all. And accordingly, the exact same applies to this topic of violence too. That means, regardless of how we grew up, and so on, that still doesn’t change the aspect of intent. The intent can certainly still be there, to carry out violence, but the question is, how do I judge that? And that judgment depends on which cultural background we come from, and how we were socialized, in which family we grew up, and so on — it gets judged differently. And that’s why it’s important here too, and that’s also what often happens in court, for example, that you don’t just, and this is also the background for why you first go into mediation, for example, and don’t immediately go to court to litigate what just happened, but instead try to reach solutions through other instruments and paths, with the goal of not just hitting it with a hammer, but also taking the context into account here. And I find that approach absolutely correct and appropriate. Whether that always succeeds is a whole different topic. And it won’t always succeed — learning processes just aren’t that simple. And a human being isn’t a machine. We can’t put in A and already know that B will come out; instead we can put in A, hoping to see that something happens in the system that leads to a result heading toward the desired B. But then we have to wait and see whether that worked or not. And we don’t always have influence over that, at least not in a way you can plan for. That’s what I wanted to pick up on there. And then, to also come back to Youssef’s question — how is it possible not to answer bodily violence with counter-violence? Yes, by simply looking at what possibilities or alternatives exist. And there are plenty of alternatives to counter-violence. One is, quite classically…
Give me one, please.
Sorry?
Give me one, please, exactly.
Yes, I’m just getting to it, if you give me the chance. So, on one hand there’s the possibility to talk to each other, on a purely verbal level. Then there’s the possibility to avoid the violence altogether — that’s a second option. A third option is to get help — to talk openly about it too, for example if it happens at work or something like that, to bring in colleagues or supervisors or similar. At school, that would be teachers and so on. And another option is that we have a legal system — meaning I don’t have to respond with violence, but can also take legal action against it, and in many cases that’s certainly possible. That doesn’t mean you should always just duck away, but it does require quite a bit of strength and time to actually see it through. And those are just a few examples, which you certainly also know from sports — in sport too, you can apply various techniques. Especially if we think toward martial arts or something like that, it’s not always the counter-attack that’s applied, but sometimes, for example, it’s much more powerful and effective to dodge, and let something run into emptiness. Just as an example. That won’t always work, yes, which is why you always have to look at this in context, and see how you handle the situation. Often it’s the case that you’re allowed, and need, to apply different techniques, to see which one takes hold, and how to proceed accordingly. And with that, I’d like to move into today’s closing round, in the order Marc, Youssef, Sabine, Heike, and Jürgen. What were the highlights for you in the room today, and what can we round off today’s session with? Marc.
I’d like to say, dear power-career folks, please, let’s always stay in dialogue — that’s what I’m taking away for myself. Let’s stay in dialogue, and always approach each other. Have a wonderful weekend, everyone.
Yes, thank you so much. Youssef, I’m curious what you’ll say now, and I’d like to give a quick heads-up, in line with our room rules, to be careful with word choice, and to really keep to the rules here. We’re all allowed to have our own opinions, in quotation marks, but a respectful way of engaging is expected, and I’m quite curious now.
Yes, what should I say. Okay, I would wish for more civil courage, or rather, I know why it doesn’t exist in Germany, after this room today, and if I saw someone attacking another person, I’d talk to him, then I’d grab him and throw him three meters away. And I think that person would be very grateful for that. That’s at least my personal life experience. Thank you.
Yes, thank you so much. Sabine.
Yes, what Youssef just said reminded me of something too. You’ve all surely seen a crime show where an attack happens on a Berlin subway, and other people didn’t look away and helped the person, and almost got hurt themselves in the process. And I have to say, looking and acting really does require a lot of civil courage, as Youssef just said — courage, strength. I don’t know if I’d do it, honestly. Another great room again. I think we all need to work on this topic. I wish you all a lovely day.
Thank you so much. Heike. Heike, are you still with us? Otherwise let’s go straight to Jürgen. Let’s continue with Jürgen then.
Thank you, everyone, for this room, which, as usual, showed that in every area we always have a more positive and a more negative antagonist and protagonist. Actually, dear Yasemin, I wanted to leave the stage after your last summary — we’ve already agreed on that often too, and it’s the result of many rooms. That means, if we already know there are different perspectives, different ways of interpreting things, whether from personal development, or from the civilization or culture we come from, then the only way to break this endlessly self-reinforcing cycle, including in relation to violence, the only possibility I see, is based on dialogue. And for that, thank you again for your last summary, Yasemin. I’d dare say it could have been my closing word too. Have a wonderful weekend, everyone, and thank you.
Yes, wonderful, thank you all so much. I found today’s room really stimulating and exciting, with really, really many different viewpoints too, and all the more lovely that we could round off today’s closing round so wonderfully, with the various aspects that were picked up again. Tomorrow we continue with our author’s breakfast, and Dr. Mario Herger will be joining us with Cyberfact. I’m already really, really looking forward to it, and I’m really curious — it’s about how women are threatened and harassed online, and what we can all do about it. I think one question or another that came up in the room today might get picked up in that context too — not under the aspect of bodily violence, but in the context of psychological violence too. And so I’m really looking forward to the impulses that’ll come from Mario. And you’re all warmly invited, not just to join in, but of course also to use the opportunity at the end to bring in your own questions and thoughts. With that, I wish you all a wonderful day, whatever you have planned today, and I’m looking forward to tomorrow. Until then, ciao!
