Abstract

In this article we focus on the role that symbolic practices play in the realisation of human violence. Our interest is to show how the distinction between verbal and physical violence, seemingly obvious and peaceful, is decidedly less clear-cut and more problematic when looking at concrete cases. In specifically human practices, in fact, between the various forms of violence there is not a clear cut but rather a blurred continuity. In particular, let us try to answer these questions: is the aggressiveness of the human animal radically conditioned by the possession of language? And, if so, in what way? In order to answer these questions, we analyse in particular the discursive practice of threat, considered both an exemplary case and a borderline case, which is particularly useful for bringing out the ambivalence of the relationship between language and violence. We seek to show, in fact, that threat is capable of avoiding but also anticipating, amplifying and, again, replacing physical violence, and that the variety and unpredictability of these alternatives can be explained precisely by the possession of language