The line between rhetoric and reality, between impassioned speech and incitement, is increasingly blurred, and the consequences are playing out in the public square – and, tragically, in acts of violence. A recent assassination and a growing climate of polarization are forcing a reckoning with how we discuss, and even *define*, disagreement in the 21st century.
The murder of Charlie Kirk during a campus visit to Utah Valley University , as reported by multiple sources, served as a stark wake-up call. Kirk, who went to the campus specifically to engage in debate, was met with deadly force. This incident, as Greg Lukianoff, president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), told sources, is “insane.” Lukianoff, a veteran defender of free speech on college campuses for 26 years, has witnessed a disturbing trend: the normalization of the idea that “words are violence.”
Lukianoff’s concern, as he articulated in a conversation , isn’t simply about the phrase itself, but about its implications for how we create and understand knowledge. He frames it as a “rhetorical flourish” that has gained dangerous traction. The acceptance of this idea, he suggests, is actively eroding the infrastructure for disagreement – the very foundation of a functioning democracy.
This erosion isn’t happening in a vacuum. The R Street Institute published analysis highlighting the connection between the diminishing “bright line between words and violence,” the encouragement of rage, and the increasing polarization that prevents meaningful dialogue. The piece argues that rebuilding this infrastructure – including legal protections for speech – is paramount.
The concept of “words as violence” isn’t new, but its recent prominence is linked to broader cultural shifts. The idea challenges traditional understandings of free speech and raises questions about accountability for harmful rhetoric. However, critics argue that equating speech with physical violence undermines the importance of open debate and can be used to silence dissenting voices. The danger, as Lukianoff implies, is that when words are deemed inherently violent, any attempt to engage with opposing viewpoints can be framed as an act of aggression.
This dynamic is further complicated by the historical context of violence and conflict. As a compilation of quotes on war and violence demonstrates, the relationship between language and aggression has been a subject of philosophical inquiry for centuries. Leo Tolstoy, for example, questioned the purpose of reason if it cannot overcome violence, stating, “Why does man have reason if he can only be influenced by violence?” This suggests a long-standing awareness of the potential for language to both incite and mitigate conflict.
The current situation echoes concerns raised by observers of political instability in other parts of the world. A recent report highlighted the warnings of a Ugandan woman, Kimi, who observed that Americans are often shielded from the realities of political violence. She cautioned against complacency, noting that cycles of retaliation are a recurring feature of human history. This perspective underscores the importance of recognizing the potential for escalation and the need for proactive measures to prevent violence.
The acceptance of the “words are violence” mantra, as explored in The Coddling Movie, has far-reaching consequences. It’s not limited to college campuses; it’s permeating broader society and contributing to a climate of fear and distrust. The film suggests that this trend is particularly dangerous in a country like the United States, where historical protections for free speech are being challenged.
The assassination of Charlie Kirk, and the subsequent reactions, serve as a chilling illustration of this danger. The incident highlights the urgent need to reaffirm the importance of civil discourse and to rebuild the infrastructure for disagreement. As the R Street Institute argues, this requires not only legal protections for speech but also a cultural shift towards greater tolerance and understanding. The challenge lies in finding a way to engage in robust debate without resorting to inflammatory rhetoric or demonizing those with whom we disagree.
The situation demands a nuanced approach. While acknowledging the potential for harmful speech, it’s crucial to avoid equating all speech with violence. The focus should be on addressing the underlying causes of polarization and fostering a culture of respectful dialogue. This requires a commitment to critical thinking, empathy, and a willingness to engage with opposing viewpoints – even when those viewpoints are deeply unsettling.
The legacy of figures like Bacha Khan, described as an “epitome of peace,” offers a potential path forward. While details about Khan’s specific work are limited in available sources, the designation itself suggests the importance of prioritizing peaceful resolution and non-violent resistance. The preservation of both free speech and social cohesion depends on our ability to navigate the complex relationship between words and violence with wisdom and restraint.
