top of page

Verbal Violence

 

Verbal violence is any use of language—external or internal, spoken or silent—that functions to impose judgment (good/bad, right/wrong) on oneself or others, in a way that reinforces psychological coercion, identity stratification, or relational domination. It operates not through the volume or tone of speech, but through the moral architecture embedded in the language and its intent to control, diminish, manipulate, or maintain identity.

Expanded Criteria

Verbal violence, under this model, is defined by the following core elements:

1. Judgment-Based Framework

It arises from and reinforces a “House of Good and Bad”—a binary moral system where human worth, identity, and behavior are evaluated through good/bad labels. This includes:

  • Condemnation (disapproval, blame, criticism, shaming)

  • Elevation (approval and praise when it defines worth)

Both forms are violent in this view because they affirm a structure that makes suffering and blame inevitable.

2. Internal and External Expression

Verbal violence includes:

  • Outward speech: accusations, scorn, moral superiority, coercive praise and approval

  • Inward monologue: self-blame, guilt, shame, approval-seeking

All internal verbalizations with judgmental content are treated as equally valid expressions of verbal violence.

3. Intent or Effect to Coerce and Maintain Identity

The essence of verbal violence lies not in expression of disagreement, critique, or firm communication, but in language used as a tool of control and identity maintenance:

  • To compel behavior

  • To establish dominance or moral superiority

  • To protect one’s identity at another’s expense (including one’s own past self)

4. Disguised in Civility

Verbal violence may wear the costume of kindness, rationality, or social order:

  • Institutionalized forms include "civic virtue" that shames

  • Praise becomes manipulative when it’s conditional or instrumental

  • Apologies and self-deprecation are often strategic self-judgments used to manage power dynamics

Contrast with Physical Violence


As physical violence became socially illegitimate in modern civil life, verbal violence held its place as the primary socially permissible tool of coercion. Just as cultures once believed they needed physical violence to function, they now believe verbal violence (especially judgment) is necessary to:

  • Motivate change

  • Uphold ethics

  • Maintain personal and group identity

In this view, verbal violence is the psychological heir to physical violence—less visible, but structurally equivalent in the role it plays in enforcing control and maintaining both personal and group identity.

Distinction from Assessment or Boundary-Setting


This definition does not equate all disagreement or firmness with violence. The key distinction is between:

  • Assessment: descriptive, non-hierarchical evaluations grounded in observable reality (e.g., “This action led to these consequences”)

  • Judgment: evaluative labels attached to personhood (e.g., “You were wrong/bad to do that”)

Core Premise


Verbal violence, whether other directed or self-directed, is not measured by tone, vocabulary, or cultural taboos—but by whether the intended or actual effect is to:

  • Diminish agency,

  • Reinforce comparative worth,

  • Secure moral ground at the expense of truth,

  • Or preserve an identity via blame, guilt, or praise.

Purpose of Definition


This rigorous framing is designed not merely to name a problem, but to open the possibility—much as the West did with physical violence centuries ago—that we can function better without it. Its ultimate aim is to offer:

  • A mirror to how we relate to ourselves and others,

  • A roadmap for disarming coercion in communication,

  • And an invitation to reclaim a life unshackled from the house of judgment.

I got it!

  • Facebook

COPYRIGHT © 2018-2025 BY DWIGHT GOLDWINDE

bottom of page