|
| |
 |
Forms of direct violence are instantly recognizable as such. According to peace researcher Johan Galtung,
however, there are also hidden forms of violence: "And it is for this reason that research into peace needs
a violence typology in a similar was that the field of medicine needs pathology as a precondition of its
work." Galtung proceeds from the following understanding of violence:
"I understand violence as the avoidable impairment of fundamental human needs
or, to put it in more general terms, the impairment of human life, which lowers the actual degree to which someone is able to meet their needs below that which would otherwise be possible. The threat of violence is also
violence."
[Johan Galtung, Kulturelle Gewalt; in: Der Bürger im Staat 43, 2/1993, p. 106]
This understanding of violence goes far beyond direct violence in which one or more people inflict violence on other people. In addition to direct
violence, Galtung emphasizes another form of violence, namely structural violence, which is not carried out by individuals but is hidden
to a greater or lesser extent in structures. An example of this might be the injustices of
the worldwide system for the trade in goods, which creates more and more
starving people every year.
|
An encyclopaedia article provides an explanation to the much-discussed term of "structural violence": "Violence is built into the social system and expresses itself in the unequal distribution of power and, as a
result, unequal opportunities (i.e. inequality in the distribution of income, education opportunities etc.). As far as Galtung is
concerned, structural violence is synonymous with "social injustice". There is an alignment between Galtung's analysis and criticism of capitalism in developing
countries. This criticism legitimates the struggle against socially unjust systems (Guerrilla etc.), even when these systems largely forgo the use of oppressive
measures."
[Taken from: Dieter Nohlen (Hrsg.): Lexikon Dritte Welt, Länder, Organisationen, Theorien, Begriffe, Personen, Reinbek 1991, p. 621-622]
If we take the definition of violence according to Galtung ("impairment of fundamental human needs") and add four need groups to the two forms of violence, we are left with the following typology:
|
Violence typology according to Galtung
|
Need Groups |
|
Survival
(Negation: death) |
Well-being
(Negation:
poverty, illness) |
Identity / purpose
(Negation: alienation) |
Freedom
(Negation:
oppression) |
|
Direct violence |
killing |
injury, siege, sanctions, poverty |
de-socialization,
re-socialization, underclass |
repression, imprisonment, expulsion, deportation |
|
Structural violence |
Exploitation A |
Exploitation B |
Penetration, segmentation |
Marginalization, fragmentation |
During the 1990s, Galtung supplemented
his violence typology with another category and introduced the concept of cultural violence: "Cultural violence should be understood as those aspects of culture that can be used to justify or legitimate the use of direct or structural
violence. The Stars and Stripes, Hammer and Sickle, flags, hymns, military
parades, portraits of the leader, inflammatory speeches and posters are all included in this
category."
[Johan Galtung, Kulturelle Gewalt; in: Der Bürger im Staat 43, 2/1993, p. 106]
The last line of the Galtung's violence typology table
is in need of a little explanation: What, for instance, is to be understood under the terms exploitation (A and B), penetration and segmentation and marginalization and fragmentation in this
context? Galtung provides us with the following explanation:
"In order to be able to discuss the structural violence
category, we need to have some idea about a structure of violence as well as a vocabulary in order to identify the individual aspects of the violence structure and to determine how its individual aspects relate to the need
categories. As far as I am concerned, exploitation represents the main part of a archetypical violence
structure. This means nothing more than a situation in which some people, namely the top dogs, draw substantially more profit from
the interaction taking place within this structure (...) than the others, the underdogs (...).
To use a
euphemism, an 'unequal exchange' exists. In reality, the underdogs might be
disadvantaged to such a degree that they die (starve or waste away as a result of illness and
disease): This is categorized as exploitation A. The second type of exploitation (B) means leaving the underdogs in a permanent involuntary state of
poverty, which usually encompasses malnutrition and illness. All this happens within complex structures and at the end of long and ramified
legislation chains and cycles.
A structure of violence not only leaves its marks on the human
body, it also impacts on the mind and the soul. The best way to understand the next four terms is as a constituent part of the exploitation,
that is, strengthening components contained within the structure. Their function is to prevent awareness and
mobilization of this awareness, which are two of the conditions needed to be successful in fighting
exploitation.
With the help of penetration the consciousness of the underdog is
reached with elements of the top dog ideology; this penetration is linked to segmentation, which only allows the under dog a limited view of
reality. The latter is the result of two processes, marginalization and fragmentation. This involves forcing
the under dogs increasingly to the edges, condemning them as
insignificant, dividing them and keeping them away from each other.
These four terms actually describe forms of structural
violence. Indeed, they are all also linked to the gender issue - even in circumstances in which death and illness figures for women are not higher and in which they actually have a higher life expectancy than men. Or in other
words, while exploitation and oppression might go hand in hand, they are not
identical."
[Johan Galtung, Kulturelle Gewalt; in: Der Bürger im Staat 43, 2/1993, p. 107]
|
„By making a fundamental distinction between personal and structural
violence, it can be seen from two angles. Indeed, this is exactly the same as
peace, which is understood as the absence of violence. A more expansive concept of violence leads to a more expansive understanding of
peace: peace defined as the absence of personal violence and the absence
of structural violence. These two forms of peace are referred to as negative peace and positive
peace.“ [Johan Galtung] |
[Author: Ragnar Müller]
[Back to top of page]
|
