Is it possible for speech to be “violent”? Should speech that leads to physical harm be deemed violent? In what ways is this way of thinking harmful?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In their book, The Coddling of the American Mind, <\/em>Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff argue that there is no such thing as violent speech, even if the speech in question does lead to physical harm of some form. They think that labeling<\/a> speech as violent is an excuse to respond with physical violence in turn.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Keep reading to learn why Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff think that labeling speech as violent is harmful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n In The Coddling of the American Mind,<\/em> Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff discuss the idea of violent speech, and whether or not speech can be violent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/em>In a 2017 New York Times<\/em> essay, Northeastern University professor Lisa Feldman Barrett made the argument that certain forms of speech ought to be considered a form of violence.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The logic of this argument is that inflammatory speech can cause emotional distress. Emotional distress, in turn, can have harmful effects on one\u2019s physical health. Therefore, since some forms of speech can lead to physical harm, such speech ought to be considered the moral equivalent of physical violence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But this is a deceptively simple formulation. By this logic, almost <\/strong>anything <\/em><\/strong>could be considered an act of violence, since anything is likely to be emotionally stressful to at least <\/strong>someone<\/em><\/strong>.<\/strong> Anything that causes stress would therefore be considered \u201cviolent.\u201d A parent telling their kids to clean their room or to do their homework (either of which might trigger stress) would be violent if one carried the premise of Barrett\u2019s argument to its logical conclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\nSpeech as Violence<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n