Indirect Power: Violence as Social Control

Violence is often treated as the opposite of indirect power. It is understood as the breakdown of social regulation, the moment when persuasion, norms, and subtle mechanisms fail. In this framing, violence appears as rupture rather than structure. It is seen as an aberration rather than a component.

This understanding is incomplete.

Violence is not only an endpoint. It is also a background condition that gives indirect power its force. Even when violence is absent, its possibility organizes behavior. Even when it is not enacted, it remains operative as a reference point.

Violence governs not primarily through its use, but through its availability.

Indirect mechanisms such as mockery, surveillance, normalization, and moral framing function precisely because they operate in the shadow of force. They allow regulation to occur without invoking violence directly. Yet their effectiveness depends on a shared understanding that escalation remains possible.

Violence marks the boundary of refusal.

When violence is conceivable, indirect control feels preferable. Compliance appears rational. Accommodation feels safer than confrontation. The presence of force, even if dormant, narrows the range of viable resistance.

This narrowing does not require explicit threat. It requires only a credible history. When individuals know that force has been used before, or could be used again, behavior adjusts.

Violence therefore functions as a latent regulator.

One of the most important features of violence as social control is that it rarely needs to be repeated frequently. A single visible instance can reorganize an entire field. Others learn without direct exposure.

This learning is not abstract. It is embodied. People internalize limits. They sense where lines are drawn. They adapt.

Violence teaches finality.

Unlike indirect mechanisms, which operate through ambiguity, violence resolves uncertainty. It demonstrates what happens when compliance fails completely. It clarifies consequences.

This clarity is why violence often appears decisive. Yet it is also why it is costly. Violence damages legitimacy. It exposes coercion. It risks backlash.

For this reason, violence is often reserved as a last resort. Indirect power exists precisely to delay or avoid it.

In this sense, violence is not the opposite of indirect power. It is its guarantor.

Violence also governs through uneven distribution. Not everyone is equally exposed to it. Some bodies are more likely to encounter force. Others are buffered from it.

This asymmetry matters. Those closer to violence adjust behavior more quickly. Those further from it may underestimate its regulatory role.

As a result, perceptions diverge. Some experience social order as consensual. Others experience it as enforced.

Violence also interacts with legitimacy. When force is framed as necessary, protective, or corrective, it is often accepted. Moral narratives justify its use. Responsibility is displaced.

This justification allows violence to be incorporated into social order without appearing as domination.

Violence also governs through memory. Past violence lingers. Even when conditions change, the memory remains. Behavior continues to be shaped by what has happened before.

This persistence explains why environments remain regulated long after overt force subsides. The lesson has already been learned.

Violence also interacts with dehumanization. It is easier to use force against those whose humanity has already been thinned. Violence rarely arrives first. It follows abstraction, distance, and moral erosion.

Once violence occurs, dehumanization accelerates. Harm justifies further reduction. The cycle reinforces itself.

Violence also restructures time. It collapses deliberation. Decisions are made quickly. Compliance becomes urgent. The future is reordered around survival rather than possibility.

This temporal compression is regulatory. It forces alignment by eliminating space for reflection.

Violence also governs silence. After force is used, speech becomes risky. Expression narrows. Dissent is postponed.

This silence is often mistaken for peace.

Violence also stabilizes hierarchy. Those who can deploy force occupy a different position than those who cannot. Even when force is not used, this difference structures interaction.

The threat does not need to be spoken. It is embedded.

In institutional contexts, violence may appear indirect. Legal force, removal of livelihood, confinement, or exclusion from essential systems function as forms of coercion even when framed bureaucratically.

These forms of violence are often normalized. They are treated as procedure rather than force. Yet their effects are no less real.

Violence also reshapes subjectivity. Exposure to force alters how individuals see themselves and the world. Trust erodes. Agency narrows. Survival becomes primary.

This reshaping is not always visible. People may appear functional. The cost is internal.

Recognizing violence as social control does not require equating all regulation with brutality. Violence differs in degree and form. The issue is not exaggeration, but continuity.

Indirect power mechanisms are effective because they promise order without force. Violence remains present as the condition that makes that promise meaningful.

When violence is absent entirely, indirect mechanisms lose urgency. When violence is too visible, legitimacy collapses. Social control operates in the tension between these poles.

Violence governs by standing at the edge of possibility. It does not need to be invoked often. Its mere presence is sufficient.

This is why violence is not simply the failure of social order. It is one of its foundations.

---