I understand the impulse to resort to legal discourse to resolve the confusions about what constitutes violence, but it's a rigged game. The job of the law is to rescue an abstraction from the muddiness of real life. Instead of starting from a place where "real" violence is easily distinct from its reported symbolic counterparts, c…
I understand the impulse to resort to legal discourse to resolve the confusions about what constitutes violence, but it's a rigged game. The job of the law is to rescue an abstraction from the muddiness of real life. Instead of starting from a place where "real" violence is easily distinct from its reported symbolic counterparts, couldn't you help readers understand the moral morass you're aiming to both decry and circumvent? Abusive language might never rise to the level of physical abuse, but to deny that its effects might, in the end, be even worse than a moment of physical assault is to ignore the real suffering of those who don't or can't "fight" back. To also invoke Freud and his descendents, one of the chief "achievements" of civilization is to channel the energy of violence into the symbolic dimensions of culture. Maybe it's more devastating to be broken than merely to be struck.
Your point is well taken. An important context in which your argument needs to be seen more often is the abusive family. There is a growing body of research that psychological and emotional abuse of children is correlated with the development of mental and physical illnesses in victims, at levels that equal or exceed the long term damage correlated with physical and sexual abuse. In fact, physical and sexual abuse of children are themselves also psychological and emotional abuse, and they occur in families in which the latter forms of abuse are pervasive. Nevertheless, calling children's protective services about psychological abuse of children by a family usually does not result in an investigation. In many states physical abuse must be proven by expert testimony that bruises and broken bones were more likely than not to have been caused by physical violence.
Part of the problem is that CPS is ALWAYS psychologically abusive. It's inherently harmful. The question is whether it's less harmful than doing nothing. That's very clear if the kid has broken bones. Less clear if the kid's heart or spirit is being broken.
I have made CPS calls and it's important to do so when the circumstances warrant. Just be aware that everyone who ever interacts with that system comes out with scars.
<sigh>
I understand the impulse to resort to legal discourse to resolve the confusions about what constitutes violence, but it's a rigged game. The job of the law is to rescue an abstraction from the muddiness of real life. Instead of starting from a place where "real" violence is easily distinct from its reported symbolic counterparts, couldn't you help readers understand the moral morass you're aiming to both decry and circumvent? Abusive language might never rise to the level of physical abuse, but to deny that its effects might, in the end, be even worse than a moment of physical assault is to ignore the real suffering of those who don't or can't "fight" back. To also invoke Freud and his descendents, one of the chief "achievements" of civilization is to channel the energy of violence into the symbolic dimensions of culture. Maybe it's more devastating to be broken than merely to be struck.
Your point is well taken. An important context in which your argument needs to be seen more often is the abusive family. There is a growing body of research that psychological and emotional abuse of children is correlated with the development of mental and physical illnesses in victims, at levels that equal or exceed the long term damage correlated with physical and sexual abuse. In fact, physical and sexual abuse of children are themselves also psychological and emotional abuse, and they occur in families in which the latter forms of abuse are pervasive. Nevertheless, calling children's protective services about psychological abuse of children by a family usually does not result in an investigation. In many states physical abuse must be proven by expert testimony that bruises and broken bones were more likely than not to have been caused by physical violence.
Part of the problem is that CPS is ALWAYS psychologically abusive. It's inherently harmful. The question is whether it's less harmful than doing nothing. That's very clear if the kid has broken bones. Less clear if the kid's heart or spirit is being broken.
I have made CPS calls and it's important to do so when the circumstances warrant. Just be aware that everyone who ever interacts with that system comes out with scars.