Violence and the violence discourse are very similar from country to country: focus on youth, preponderance of males among perpetrators and victims, disproportionate involvement of migrants and indigenous people, greater prevalence with socioeconomic disadvantage and low education, and the impact of underlying factors such as political disintegration, exclusion from the consumer lifestyle, and inadequacies of social institutions. In social disintegration theory, the basic explanatory backdrop is the dynamic relationship of integration and disintegration between and within the different spheres: individual and functional system integration, integration into society, and integration into the community. (Relative) exclusion from work, consumption, and democratic processes combined with experience of socioemotional deficits seem to give a particularly strong boost to socially unacceptable forms of particularist integration and to favor collective and individual acceptance of violence. When subjects draw balances of personal recognition and of the achieved and achievable scope to organize their life, the latter orientations appear subjectively more likely to meet their expectations than socially (more) accepted modes of behavior.The central conclusion on social reactions to violence in general and professional social work in particular is that rather than relying on admonishment, punishment, or curative measures, or some combination of these, to combat violence, there is a need for wide-ranging long-term options for those acutely affected and at risk to have the long-term scope to organize their own lives-to experience life control, recognized integration, and development of competences. Those who experience being the organizer of their own life have no need of violence as a form of self-assertion.