Class Discussion – Week 4
In this week’s discussion, we will focus on Galtung’s (1969) seminal article, “Violence,
Peace, and Peace Research” (refer to the syllabus or the library database). Written in
1969, this article introduces fundamental concepts still relevant today. Galtung, a key
figure in conflict resolution, outlines six dimensions of violence through dichotomies.
Share your understanding of each dimension in your own words and provide examples
to illustrate the dichotomies.
Excerpt from book chapter:
The original idea of structural violence is commonly associated with the Norwegian
sociologist, John Galtung (1969) and has exerted a formative influence on the field of
conflict resolution. According to Galtung (1969), structural violence is the ongoing and
institutionalized harm done to individuals by preventing them from meeting their basic
needs for survival, well-being, identity and freedom. Structural violence is embedded
into the structures of social order and the institutional arrangements of power on a
constant basis (Barak, 2003). As aptly defined by Bornstein “structural violence is built
into everyday life, into the economy, a political system, and into the landscape” (2002, p.
6). We might also talk about ‘symbolic’ or ‘soft’ violence, which Bourdieu uses to explain
modes of socio-cultural domination hidden in everyday life and dominant discourses
(Bourdieu, 1984).
We suggest differentiating between macro-social and micro-social levels of structural
violence. The core-periphery notion of the global North and the global South is found at
the highest macroscopic level. This concept has been widely regarded from a historical
perspective and is discussed by Wallerstein (1974) in his world-system theory. Due to
the ongoing process of globalization, however, inequalities on a spatial basis, although
not dismissible, cannot be regarded quite as simple. International intertwining and
interaction are steadily increasing. Modern information technology has de-localized
functions of the core regions, although we should not entirely dismiss the idea that the
Western industrialized core nations, which are geographically located in the northern
hemisphere, remain in a powerful dominant position with respect to the so-called
underdeveloped, periphery countries.
A notable example of how industrial nations exercise their power can be illustrated by
the contemporary HIV/Aids pandemic in many regions of Africa. The manner in which
medical aid is being distributed is completely dominated by the political and economic
structure of the core nations. In her book The Crisis Caravan: What’s wrong with
humanitarian aid (2010), journalist Linda Polman argues that Western humanitarian aid
not only contributes to structural violence but to a macabre industry of aid organizations,
the media and warmongers. This industry, states Polman, leads to direct physical
violence for the sake of maintaining the humanitarian aid system. Such a conflict
environment illustrates one of the cruelest manifestations of structural violence.
On a microscopic level, Galtung (1971) identified core-periphery relationships within
core regions. We can also look at the spatial level where one can identify immense
differences between rural and urban areas, where the former are often left out of the
process of economic development. Not only on an economic basis, but also
ideologically, rural regions are generally perceived as being backward and the
population as “hillbillies”. Existing stereotypes fuel structural violence committed by the
dominant societal class.
Structural violence is not only based on spatial separations. We can also identify this
notion on a socially constructed cultural basis. A common challenge to any society is its
treatment of ethnic minorities. Many self-perceived “forward societies” – most notably
the United States – have officially eliminated institutional racial or ethnic discrimination,
which has always been a very powerful form of structural violence. Yet a closer look at
the American distribution of wealth, educational opportunities and the prison system
sheds light on the actual state of affairs with regard to U.S. racial discrimination.
We also should be reminded of Foucault’s work and the creation of the concept of
legality and illegality. Particularly with regard to the phenomenon of undocumented
immigrants in the United States, one must recognize that describing these individuals as
“illegal”, regardless of his/her contribution to society, is structural violence in its most
obvious form. Can we approach immigration issues with the demanded neutrality if such
preconceptions are at play? We believe it is our ethical mandate to challenge truisms
that exist with regard to terminology arising out of an established power/knowledge
context.
A further stinging example of structural violence can be observed in the treatment of
individuals within the LGBT community, who suffer in a similar manner as ethnic
minorities. In public discourse it seems that the rights of the LGBT community have
come a long way. While one must acknowledge that progress has been made, strong
hidden forms of homophobia can be identified as they are manifested by accepted
social norms applicable to LGBT couples. LGBT couples, for example, who are not
allowed to marry, are being denied a vast number of rights, which married couples
inherit with their legal marital status. The fact that such injustices are hidden behind the
overtly propagated progress merely nurtures and upholds structural violence caused by
prevailing social ideals and institutions.
Galtung’s (1969) typology of structural violence – despite its fundamental importance in
the field of conflict resolution – is not enough. While it is suitable to describe a variety of
social phenomena in their current status, it provides more of a societal snapshot than an
in-depth understanding. Societies and cultures are dynamic entities constantly
undergoing changes.
Structural violence is a notion that is fundamental to my own research and practice in
the field of conflict resolution. Together with my mentor I wrote the article The Bedouins
in Israel’s Negev Desert: Ubiquitous yet Invisible to the Dominant SocietyLinks to an
external site.. The article is based on an advanced field practicum I did during my
graduate studies. While I am hesitant in promoting my own writing, I recommend
reading this article as an example of structural violence. The photos were taken there
during the trip and should give you an idea what the unrecognized villages look like.
Unrecognized village
Unrecognized Bedouin village in the Negev dessert without access to infrastructure.
negev
Unrecognized Bedouin village in the Negev dessert
Negev
Unrecognized Bedouin village in the Negev dessert without access to infrastructure.
Powerlines in the background.
Works cited:
Barak, G. (2003). Violence and nonviolence: Pathways to understanding. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research,
6(3), 167-191.
Galtung, J. (1971). A Structural Theory of Imperialism. Journal of Peace Research, 8(2),
81-117.
Polman, L. (2010). The crisis caravan: What’s wrong with humanitarian aid? (1st u. s.
editio. ed.). New York: Metropolitan Books.
Wallerstein, I. M. (1974). The modern world-system. New York: Academic Press.
