Violence in the Modern Moral Order

by Dennis Barbour

The question of violence in our modern moral order is a complicated one. We live in a society in which at the societal level, abhors violence in some cases but at the same time allows for and to some extent requires violence in others. This double standard can also be seen in the type of violence that our society hopes to confront. Physical violence, at least within the society, is considered unlawful yet when questions of structural violence are raised, a deaf ear is often turned to it. It is this type of mentality that has created a situation where violence in all its forms has become a kind of trade off. We have created structures and ideology meant to curb certain types of violence while simply ignoring the other types of violence they may incur. In the search for security from physical violence, we have ignored the fact that by doing so we have perpetuated the structural violence that often creates physical violence. A disconnection from those ideals that inform our modern moral order has occurred in which the ideal is replaced by an imperfect expression of it. This leads to a modern order that does not succeed in providing solace from a violent world.

Charles Taylor has shown in the history that has led up to this modern moral order, that it was created out of a need to stop physical violence. At the time, this took the form of the wars of religion and the wars of feudal nobility. The people saw the doctrine of force that informed peoples and nations on how to interact, as a threat to the existence of all involved. This laid the groundwork for the emergence of courtesy, civility and a weakened form of hierarchy that could to some extent, be malleable enough to confine conflict to the level of diplomacy and debate, at least most of the time. These new ideas however, where mainly left within the sphere of nobility, leaving the plight of the common people, and the structural violence they experienced, untouched. Later, during the enlightenment, these issues would be addressed but in such a way that ignored the real problem. The hierarchy, which was seen as the cause of oppression and violence, was replaced by a society of ‘equals” who no longer sought to fulfill their purpose through normative service to their society, but through profitable exchange. This was believed to help restrain violence by elevating the need to sustain an individual’s level in society by force, because each persons worth to society was the same. In essence, the individual no longer needed to define themselves by their service to society or common good; therefore, they did not have to conform to the oppression of the existing structure of society. Society was then no longer the master of the individual; instead, society was the slave to the individual. This can be seen in the evolution of the social contract which is based on the idea that individuals only participate in society to the extent that it can benefit there own ends as an individual.
This type of understanding however required that the social imaginary must be removed from the preexisting ideology. This involved removing the individual from nature. The hierarchical structure was validated by the belief that it was part of a natural order of things that involved not only humankind but all life. Therefore the first way to rebuke the hierarchies claim to rule would be by showing the individual to be outside the natural order or nature. The growing influence of technology and science was a perfect tool for this because they are both based on understanding the natural world and subduing it to the will of humankind. This can bee seen even today in “modern science and technology’s domination and objectification of nature as the “other””. Though this view worked very well in challenging the power of the hierarchy, it attacked something that in itself was not the problem. Nature is an important part of our human existence. We are symbiotically tied to natural order. Unfortunately, this order was perverted to protect a particular ideology, and when this ideology was perceived as dangerous, so was nature. Likewise, to make what Taylor calls the “disembedding" possible, the good that the hierarchy was perceived to provide must be discredited. The particular good that was targeted was the idea of virtue.

The pre-modern order revolved around society providing the means for the individual to strive for a common good or truth. This truth or virtue was something that was not naturally bestowed on individuals but must instead be attained. The hierarchy set itself in the position as the ones who could inform the people how this was possible. How the hierarchy instigated this was the true problem, however, it again was not truly confronted. As with the case of nature, this idea of a common good was attacked instead of the hierarchy’s ability to provide it. This involved the lowering of what is to be striven for to that which all individuals already inherently have and understand, namely the need for survival. This again can be seen in our modern order by the common good being based on the procurement of the means for survival.The force that influenced violence and war in the past was based on competition for respect and power. This was ignored in the changes that occurred in the time of courtesy and later during the enlightenment. Instead, what was created was a system that kept the underlying structure and simply converted it to a less outwardly violent form. This form was found in the idea of economy.
The idea of economy made it possible to suggest a model of society based on mutual exchange rather than a hierarchical order. Economic activity was seen as a productive, ordered, and peaceful activity, therefore, a society based on economic exchange would adhere to these same principles. The individual under this idea was seen as responsible for providing mutual benefit for the others in society. Later, in the eighteenth century these ideas would modify to provide for a whole framework of how human life was designed for mutual benefit. This came in the form of what Taylor calls “invisible hand” factors . These factors can be described as inherent modes of living that automatically provides for mutual benefit in a society that uses them. Adam Smith provides one of the most famous examples of these mechanisms, “whereby our search for our own individual prosperity redounds to the general welfare”. The major idea however is that the moral order is one of “good engineering design in which efficient causation plays the crucial role”. The role to be played then in the modern idea of mutual exchange became that of self-preservation. As long as you provided for your own existence, then this would provide the resources for all to provide for their own existence. The problem is that this idea removed the individual away from society even further. A member of society, in order to be a member of society, does not need to interact with other members at any level except to that which would secure their own ends. Furthermore, this mechanism of the “invisible hand” did not appear to work to the extent needed to provide for all of society. What has been painfully realized in our modern era is that what was considered the mode of self-preservation could not truly provide for complete security. There always seems to be more that can be done to secure ones survival because total escape from death is impossible. This then leads to a constant need for progress and consumption. The resources for this however are limited and in a society that calls for each to provide for themselves, this means there will be conflict. The original ideals of mutual exchange that this structure was formed on are forgotten and instead are replaced and an almost Hobbesian state of nature takes its place. The outward expression (self-preservation) of an ideal (mutual exchange) replaces the ideal, and leads to structural an overt violence not social harmony.

The structure of the modern industrial society as a model of constant growth is a perfect example. This model is based on the “assumption that there are no limits to our planets resources, no limits to technological progress, no limits to space, to growth”. The truth is that resources are limited so what then occurs is the exploitation and oppression of others for their resources. This cannot only be applied to corporate entities but also to the sphere of the individual. Economic exchange also provided the standpoint in which the new ideology of freedom from nature and common good based on survival could be realized. However, because these new ideas villanized nature and the search for a virtuous life, they completely disregard the true problem. Connection to nature and a striving for a common good outside the individual are not the problem. They are in fact ideals that are paramount to human unity. The problem is the inefficiencies of a society as a human institution to provide for them. Therefore, a system that concentrates its efforts in the subjugation of theses ideals simply recreates the mistakes of the previous moral order under a different set of rules. This is exactly why the new moral order does not succeed in providing a more peaceful life. Instead, it incurs the same violence in which it sought to eradicate. It has proven to not reduce the physical violence of war, just relocate it to the sphere of the individual and the nations they create. Likewise, structural violence has not been reduced, just simply moved from the oppression of hierarchical rule to the oppression of the economic policies of those in power.

The ideals of freedom, equality, and self-determination that lie in our social imaginaries have the capability of uplifting our society. However when these are based on western ideas of Industrial and economic modernization they simply further the goals of a new hierarchy of power. This is exemplified in the remarks of Maria Meis:“Freedom is the freedom of those who posses money. Equality is the equality of money. Self-determination is the freedom of choice in the supermarket. This freedom, equality, self-determination is always dependant on those who control the money/property”. The naturally ordained supremacy and virtuous system of living based on this supremacy of the pre-modern hierarchy has not been removed. The only thing that has changed is that where before those in power enacted the divine will of god or the laws of nature, now they use the will of the individual right to survive and the laws of capitalism to further their own agendas.
This is not to say that the moral order is completely immoral. The ideals held within in it can be insightful and beneficial. It is simply our misappropriation of these ideologies that have led us to perpetuate violence in all its forms. Mutual exchange, freedom, and equality are good ideas, however, the constructions we use to fulfill them (industrial modernization) leave us unfulfilled and longing for that which we have destroyed. A peaceful society revolves around a fulfilling of the needs and requirements of human existence. However, the project of modernization can only resolve the need for survival. The search for self-understanding involves much more than simply sustaining life and therefore we become restless. We yearn for human relationships and for relationships with nature, but are left with a structure that is based on the destruction of those relationships. We want to give value to our lives but are left with a structure that reduces this worth to an abstract monetary value. We feel there is something more to life but are left in a society that cannot help us in this endeavor and seeks only to distract us from it. This search for happiness then becomes a search for distraction, which fuels the consumer appetite. This in turn fuels the economy, which then fuels the structures of power that perpetuate a doctrine of violence and manifest destiny towards the natural world, other societies, and on its own marginalized citizens.
The modern industrial society is simply a misrepresentation of the modern moral order. Instead of a order based on peace and social harmony, it in many ways encourages and needs violence to survive. The amount of consumption this society needs to survive can only lead to the violence and oppression of those who have resources but lack the power to protect them. This ideology can be seen at the individual level as well, encouraging competition for resources and power that can only lead to the destruction of social harmony. Structural and overt violence towards those within society who cannot protect their own resources in order to provide a constant source of growth for those who can becomes the norm. Finally, the modern industrial society has perpetrated violence on the self-understanding of its members. The modernity project has relegated truth, wisdom, and goodness to the arena of values. This leaves the individual no real way to express the need for self-understanding except in the form of needless consumption. The modern industrial society therefore has not become less violent than its pre-modern counterparts. It in some ways could bee seen as more violent considering that with science and technology we have become more efficient in all arenas including the art of subjugation and war.



1 Maria Miens and V. Shiva. Ecofeminism. London: Zed Books, 1997 pg 144

2 Charles Taylor. Modern Social Imaginaries. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2004 pg 70

3 Charles Taylor. Modern Social Imaginaries. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2004 pg 70

4 Charles Taylor. Modern Social Imaginaries. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2004 pg 70

5 Maria Mies and V. Shiva. Ecofeminism. London: Zed Books, 1997 pg 58

6 Maria Mies and V. Shiva. Ecofeminism. London: Zed Books, 1997 pg 58

7 Maria Mies and V. Shiva. Ecofeminism. London: Zed Books, 1997 pg 66

8Maria Mies and V. Shiva. Ecofeminism. London: Zed Books, 1997 Pg 57-58

© 2005