Fr. Vasilios Thermos
Now we will consider violence as the use of the other. Here we are talking about a manifestation of consumer culture.
Of course, not all people consume in the same way: some do it moderately and consciously, without falling into the traps of consumerism; others succumb to these traps; and still others even develop obsessive, dependent patterns of behavior related to consumption.
The main axis of advertising and consumer ideology is pleasure. (It would be interesting to count someday how many times the words “enjoy”, “pleasure”, “indulge”, etc. are repeated in advertising texts.) Since it is precisely pleasure that consumer culture constantly pushes us towards, then through the dopamine system of the brain – the so-called reward stimulus – this model can lead to a real obsession, even addiction. Addiction, of course, can be directed at different objects – substances, food, alcohol, or various activities, such as video games or compulsive, obsessive scrolling on social networks, etc. But depending on where this obsession is directed, it can also lead to the “consumption” of people. And the Internet is full of easily accessible pornography.
Someone might object: “Yes, but the pornography user does not directly exert violence on another person.” And this seems true at first glance. But his pleasure comes from a whole world built on violence – as we know and read, this world is dark and abusive. But the problem with pornography does not stop there, because a person is trained through the constant search for pleasure, and especially through pornography, to use the other person – most often the man uses the woman as a consumable, as an object. And today it is completely clear that a large part of sexual violence and deviant behavior, which has also been increasing in recent years, is directly related to the influence of pornography. There are people who cross the line and end up committing actual violence against another human being, be it a woman or a minor, precisely as a result of the obsessive search for pleasure.
Behind this problematic and dark landscape lies the background of postmodernity – this cultural state in which we live today. Why? Because postmodernity places the emphasis on the moment, on the experience, on adrenaline – this is the constant background on which the even more intense search for pleasure and enjoyment is built, which gives rise to obsession and addiction.
It is not simply a question of a consumer spirit, but of a new type of cultural environment in which digital technology and the digital image provide unprecedented opportunities and literally reshape human consciousness.
Today’s person is “trained” to seek the pleasure of the moment, the experience, the strong emotion, the adrenaline. When the other is used as a means to achieve such pleasure, then within the mental world of the perpetrator this other ceases to exist as a person. He does not exist as a whole person, he has no soul image, he has no subjectivity. He is an object – something that is used, not a person with his own qualities, desires and boundaries. This is objectification, turning him into an object, depersonalizing the other – often narcissistic in nature.
Let me add something more, although I will talk in more detail about femicide (the murder of women) later, but here too we can note something important. When the victim of violence resists this narcissistic use, then the violence can erupt with even greater force. Because the narcissistic logic of using others has one key property: it does not tolerate refusal.
“What I want must happen. The other must be as I want. I do not tolerate objections.” And if the other resists, then violence will be exerted on him. That is, it is not enough that the other is used as an object of pleasure, but if he resists, he can also be subjected to physical violence. We will return to this later.
And now we move on to another case, another type of violence: violence as a psychic fixation. Here it is important to explain: what exactly does a person fixate on? Psychoanalysis, and more specifically Melanie Klein, as well as the entire school that follows her, made an extremely valuable discovery by describing the transition from the so-called “paranoid-schizoid position” to the “depressive position” that a baby goes through in the first months of its life.
At the beginning of life, in the first months, the baby is mentally merged with the mother – he feels happiness when she is next to him, and anxiety or fear when for some reason the mother is absent, for example, when he is hungry and does not see her. The world for him is very roughly divided – he has a whole with the mother, which is good, and everything else is a threat to this happiness, therefore bad.
As he develops, the baby gradually moves into a more mature mental position – this transition occurs in childhood, and this is the so-called depressive position. There the child begins to understand that the world is not divided into completely good and completely bad, that he himself is not completely good, and that people who oppose him or disagree with him are not necessarily “evil”. The child begins to understand that things are mixed – and that is precisely why he can ask for forgiveness, realize a mistake – because he can now see nuances, not just extremes. This transition does not happen suddenly, but gradually, in the process of maturation.
What characterizes this more mature position? It is distinguished by the fact that the perception of both oneself and others is mixed – that is, a person can recognize both good and evil in oneself, as well as good and evil in others. The rigid, black-and-white division is a sign of an immature mental attitude that must be overcome at an early age.
Unfortunately, there are older people who have not made this transition sufficiently, and retain elements of the earlier, immature position. How do we recognize them? We see it when such people attribute all the good to themselves or their group, and all the evil to others.
In what spheres does this manifest itself? For example, in political life. The political culture in our country clearly shows this mental immaturity: “Our party is the best. We would have achieved everything if you (the others) had not interfered with us. You are evil, you are wrong.” This leads to the demonization of the opponent and the idealization of “their own”.
And if we move away from politics and look at a more primitive field, we will find the same among football fans, where it is no longer even a question of arguments or any rational justification, but of blind identification – “my group (team, party, people) is not just better – it is a religion”. And when we meet supporters of the “other” group, if we are more numerous and stronger – we beat them, and sometimes even kill them.
This is a primitive way of experiencing the world, through the division of good and evil – the so-called psychic “schizoidity” or “splitting”, which, when not outgrown, leads directly to violence.
This type of violence is very often observed in nationalist conflicts. In such situations, citizens and soldiers are “educated,” brought up with the idea: “Greece is always right, the Greeks have always been the good ones. Our opponents have always been the bad ones.” And, of course, other countries do the same — with their own narratives. That is, here we have a form of psychological immaturity and fixation that is deeply rooted in the phenomenon of nationalism. Extremely widespread and invariably accompanied by violence.
A classic example of this is the functioning of totalitarian regimes – for example, Hitler, who used exactly this logic: “We are the chosen people, the rest are either impure and subhuman, or at best something inferior to us.”
The Soviet system also used this type of logic, and added to it an exaggerated paranoia – a pathological suspiciousness, as we know, which even led to the liquidation of former allies and the inability of leaders to trust anyone. This type of violence is also associated with the phenomenon that we now call bullying.
When we meet people who suffer from a serious chronic illness, or have a disability, or are socially marginalized – for example, migrants, poor people, Roma, or belong to an ethnic group that we are used to considering “inferior”, such an encounter creates anxiety. A completely human anxiety. The anxiety is of the type: “If this is happening to them, it could happen to me. Maybe I could be in their place. Maybe I would have been born on the “other side”.
That is, we see real problems of human nature, or others that are not problems in themselves, but we are used to perceiving them as such – for example, that one ethnicity is inferior to another. And then an anxiety is created that we all belong to the same human nature. What “should” be done in such a situation to “drive away” the pain and the feeling of inferiority? Some resort to exclusion, to humiliation, to violence against these people – so that they themselves can feel “higher”, more secure, and to affirm their own value by rejecting the other. The goal is to affirm our own “privileged” superiority. For example: “If I, who am healthy, do not make fun of at least a little, or at least do not isolate, someone who is not healthy, who has a disability, then I do not confirm, I do not demonstrate my privileged position that I am healthy.” The same applies if I am white and the other is black, etc. This is the psychological mechanism of this type of violence.
Now we move on to the last type of violence, which is more specific and specific: when violence manifests itself as an expression of male identity – the so-called “androcratic” (male-centric) attitude.
Why does a man, for example, resort to violence? Very simply – when he has doubts about his masculinity. And many men have such doubts. Why does this happen? For two main reasons: First, because in Mediterranean societies, including Greece, there is an extremely strong bond between the boy and the mother – perhaps the strongest family bond of all. As a result, the developing young man is strongly influenced by his mother, even if he speaks harshly to her or rejects her – she continues to have a huge impact on him. The mother often has a strong, even determining, role in the lives of her boys, and sometimes her influence even destroys their future marriages. In other words, the mother remains such a strong figure in the mind of a man that it creates insecurity and vulnerability in him towards women in general. We even have such a saying: “Be careful that a woman does not take your breath away”, that is, she does not dominate you. This is the first reason.
The second reason is that masculinity, male identity, is understood in a negative way. That is, what it means to be a man is not described, but rather boys are “educated” in what they should not be: “Men do not cry”, “Don’t act like that – that’s for women”, “Men do not show feelings”, “Don’t touch the dishes – leave them to your sister”, etc. These two factors make masculinity fragile, vulnerable, and lead to the need for a man to constantly remind himself that he is a “man”.
Such men usually experience deep anxiety towards gender equality, as well as towards the desires and will of a woman. They do not accept the woman as an equal subject, nor that her desire has the same weight as their own.
The so-called “masculine” (androcentric) types, or simply sexists, live with a constant anxiety that predisposes them to violence. Why? Because violence provides them with distance – it guarantees that there will be no rapprochement. This is the phenomenon that many women describe when they say: “My husband is never gentle or attentive, except when he wants sexual contact.”
Such men do not know how to express feelings, and when the woman copes better with language, with verbal expression, these men feel threatened and underestimated, which predisposes them to violence.
The results can be: emotional pressure, jealousy, and sometimes even femicide (murder of women).
Now we come to another form of violence, which I do not present as a separate category, but as an extension of the previous one – violence against homosexual people. This is also violence by men – never by women, and by men with a fragile sense of masculinity who feel vulnerable because when they encounter homosexual or trans people, their own doubts about their masculinity are rekindled.
That is why homophobia is much more widespread among men, while women are much more tolerant. It is men who use abusive words, or even use physical violence, against homosexual and trans people.
A very interesting observation that anyone can make is this: Homophobia is not only more common among men, but it is also particularly prevalent among far-right circles and among people hostile to immigrants.
My explanation is this: They perceive these groups as “invaders” in the symbolic body of the nation, and from there the same anxieties related to the violation of the male body are activated as in the fear of homosexuality.
We have finished with the different types of violence and move on to the conclusion. Everything that has been said occurs on the basis of a culture of violence that is widespread in Greek society.
What are the Greek peculiarities? We have generalized lawlessness. A very bad attitude towards the law – low respect for rules. A long tradition of distrust towards anyone outside the wide family circle. In comparative international studies, Greece is characterized by an extremely low culture of trust, while, for example, American society, despite all its problems, has a high level of social trust, which is important even for economic development. This deficit of trust also predisposes to violence. Greece is the only European country with an active anarchist terrorist movement – let’s not forget this fact. There are intense party passions, a divisive political culture and demagogy.
What should we do in practice – especially for the victims?
First, to identify and support children who unconsciously attract bullying or violence – usually children with low self-esteem and social isolation. They should receive preventive and therapeutic care.
Another important group are women who do not accept their own equality and develop dependence on the aggressor man. They need specialized support to be internally strengthened – not just to leave the abuser, but to change themselves so that they do not fall into a new, pathological relationship again.
There are officials in the administration who tolerate violations, threats and aggression – and this tolerance must also be stopped.
But the perpetrators of violence also need care – children, young people, adults who exercise violence.
How can prevention networks be developed? A functional triangle needs to be created between school, a mental health structure (for example, a child psychiatric center or a mental health center) and the family.
This triangle needs to be connected and function as a prevention network. In this respect, we are still behind. We also need structures for correction and correction, which practically do not exist. That is, when violence has already been committed, what happens to this person? How do you work with him, how do you correct him? (I will not talk about the prison system, which, as we know, does not correct, but rather worsens the situation.)
It is important to remember that the victim can very easily become a perpetrator – this is the cycle of violence. The one who has suffered violence can later reproduce it – become the new abuser. And we must always remember that when a child is a perpetrator of violence, very often the parents underestimate the problem or react defensively when it is pointed out to them. So we have resistance on their part as well, and the child does not reach a specialist because the parents deny the problem.
These are big, systemic issues that must be addressed by the institutions.
I will end with a poet and a saint.
Tassos Livaditis – my favorite poet, whom I consider extremely important not only as an artist, but also as a person, reminds us with these verses of his of the drama that both sides experience. Of course, we do not equate the victim and the perpetrator – not at all.
But our interest here is not judicial – we do not dispense justice. We are also interested in the suffering of the perpetrator, in addition to the suffering of the victim, if for no other reason, then at least for a practical one: because by caring for this suffering, we can reduce this violence or stop it altogether.
“In the end, the murderer and the victim will always go the same way, because it matters who will die less lonely.”
And I will end with the famous phrase of St. Gregory Palamas, which was actually first uttered by St. Gregory the Theologian, although they are separated by a thousand years, and here the unity in patristic thought is clearly visible:
“Whoever turns against other people, hates them or hurts them – such a person is at war with Christ himself.”
This is a natural conclusion and logical consequence of our faith and theology.
*Second part of the lecture “Violence – an individual phenomenon or a psychopathology of society?”, February 2024
———-
First published in this link of The European Times.
