Introduction

Peace is generally conceived of as equivalent to the absence of manifest violence. In the Explanatory Phonographic Pronouncing Dictionary of the English Language (1850), peace is defined as a list of synonyms which include “respite from war”, “quite from suits and disorders”, “rest from any commotion”, “freedom from terror”, “silence”,”suppressions of thoughts” etc. Most of these are definitions by exclusion and peace here has been defined by the absence of “non-peace”. Juergen Dedring spines that the traditional assumption regards peace as the counterpart to the state of war and hence peace is defined as “absence of war”. According to Linus Pauling, the editor-in-chief of World Encyclopaedia of Peace (1986), “As history progress, peaks of joys and troughs of pain are experienced by the human beings populating the system, peace studies are usually concerned more with the avoidance of the latter, than with obtaining the former”. Peace is thus largely identified as a lack of conflict of any serious kind. More often the term “peace-making” is associated with conflict resolution without the use of violence.

Peace Studies is an interdisciplinary field focused on understanding the causes of conflict, the processes of conflict resolution, and the strategies for building sustainable peace. As a formal field of academic study, Peace Studies is relatively young, but it draws from a long tradition of philosophical, religious, and political thought on peace and conflict. Since its establishment in the mid-20th century, Peace Studies has evolved into a distinct academic discipline that addresses a range of topics, from human rights and social justice to conflict resolution and global security.

Historical Foundations of Peace Studies

Although Peace Studies emerged as an academic discipline only in the mid-20th century, the concept of peace has been a focus of human thought for millennia. Early peace concepts can be traced back to religious, philosophical, and ethical teachings across diverse cultures. For example, the ancient teachings of Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam all include principles of compassion, non-violence, and reconciliation. These religious traditions provided an ethical framework for resolving disputes and promoting harmony within and between communities.

Philosophers such as Confucius and Aristotle also emphasized the importance of social order and harmony. In the Western tradition, the Stoic philosophers and Roman thinkers like Cicero addressed ideas about universal humanity and the conditions for peaceful coexistence. Later, Enlightenment philosophers such as Immanuel Kant argued that democratic governance, economic interdependence, and international cooperation could contribute to perpetual peace, as described in his seminal essay, “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch” (1795). Kant’s ideas would later inspire liberal theories of international relations and the belief that democratic states are less likely to engage in war with each other—a concept known as the democratic peace theory.

The Impact of the World Wars and the Formalization of Peace Studies

The World Wars of the 20th century had a profound impact on the study of peace. The unprecedented destruction of World War I led to the creation of the League of Nations in 1920, the first major international organization aimed at maintaining peace through collective security and diplomacy. However, the failure of the League to prevent the outbreak of World War II highlighted the limitations of intergovernmental organizations and sparked a desire to understand the root causes of war and the means to prevent it.

After the horrors of World War II, including the Holocaust and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was a renewed urgency to prevent such atrocities from ever happening again. This period saw the establishment of key international institutions like the United Nations (1945), intended to foster peace and cooperation among nations, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which provided a global framework for human dignity and protection from violence.

During this time, scholars began to formalize Peace Studies as a distinct field. Recognizing that traditional political science and international relations approaches often focused on power and state security, Peace Studies emerged as a counter-discipline, seeking to understand and prevent conflict by addressing underlying social, economic, and political grievances. The field was also influenced by sociology, psychology, anthropology, and ethics, which introduced new perspectives on human behavior, social justice, and conflict resolution.

The Establishment of Peace Studies as an Academic Discipline

The 1950s and 1960s marked the official establishment of Peace Studies as an academic field. The Cold War, a period of heightened tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union, played a significant role in shaping Peace Studies. Scholars and activists feared the potential for nuclear warfare and sought ways to promote disarmament, diplomacy, and peaceful coexistence between rival powers.

During this time, several universities began to offer Peace Studies programs. Manchester University in the United Kingdom was one of the first institutions to introduce a Peace Studies program in 1948, followed by Brandeis University in the United States in 1961. These programs attracted scholars and students interested in exploring the causes of war, the processes of peacebuilding, and the ethics of non-violence. By the late 1960s, prominent academic institutions like Columbia University and Stanford University had also established programs in peace research and conflict resolution.

The 1960s and 1970s were also marked by significant social movements, including the civil rights movement, anti-Vietnam War protests, and decolonization efforts across Africa and Asia. These movements emphasized human rights, social justice, and opposition to imperialism, all of which became core concerns within Peace Studies. The field began to address not only international conflicts but also structural violence and social inequalities within societies. The influential concept of “positive peace,” coined by Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung, reflected this shift. Galtung argued that peace is not simply the absence of war (negative peace) but also the presence of justice, equality, and social harmony (positive peace).

Expansion and Diversification in the 1980s and 1990s

The 1980s and 1990s saw the rapid expansion and diversification of Peace Studies, as scholars began to explore a broader range of topics and approaches. The end of the Cold War in 1991 led to new forms of conflict, including ethnic violence, civil wars, and regional conflicts, which required different methods of analysis and intervention. Peace Studies scholars responded by developing new frameworks for conflict resolution, peacebuilding, and post-conflict reconstruction.

Several key developments in Peace Studies during this period include:

• Conflict Resolution and Mediation: Building on Galtung’s early work, scholars like John Burton and Adam Curle advanced theories of conflict resolution, which emphasize negotiation, mediation, and problem-solving approaches to address the root causes of conflict. Burton’s Human Needs Theory suggested that unmet basic human needs (such as security, identity, and recognition) are often at the heart of conflicts, and that sustainable peace requires addressing these needs.

• Peacebuilding and Post-Conflict Reconstruction: The concept of peacebuilding was popularized by UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali in the 1992 report “An Agenda for Peace.” Peacebuilding refers to the long-term process of rebuilding societies after conflict by addressing political, social, and economic structures that contribute to violence. The post-conflict reconstruction efforts in countries like Rwanda, Bosnia, and East Timor highlighted the need for comprehensive peacebuilding strategies that go beyond merely ending violence.

• Gender and Peace Studies: During the 1990s, scholars began to emphasize the role of gender in peace and conflict, highlighting how wars and conflicts disproportionately affect women and children. Influential works by Cynthia Enloe, Carol Cohn, and Betty Reardon brought attention to issues such as gender-based violence, the role of women in peace processes, and the militarization of societies. The adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 in 2000, which called for the inclusion of women in peacebuilding processes, marked a significant recognition of the intersection between gender and peace.

• Environmental Peace Studies: The 1990s also saw growing awareness of the links between environmental degradation, resource scarcity, and conflict. Environmental peace studies emerged as a subfield exploring how issues like climate change, deforestation, and water scarcity can fuel tensions, particularly in vulnerable regions. Scholars in this area advocate for sustainable development and the peaceful management of natural resources as essential components of long-term peace.

Peace Studies in the 21st Century

Entering the 21st century, Peace Studies has continued to expand, addressing new global challenges and incorporating innovative approaches. The field now encompasses issues such as terrorism, human security, transitional justice, and intercultural dialogue, reflecting the complex and interconnected nature of contemporary conflicts.

1. Human Security

The concept of human security has become central to Peace Studies in the 21st century. Unlike traditional notions of security, which focus on protecting states from external threats, human security emphasizes the protection of individuals from poverty, disease, violence, and environmental hazards. Peace Studies scholars argue that promoting human security is essential for sustainable peace, as economic and social stability reduce the likelihood of conflict. Organizations like the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Human Security Unit within the UN have adopted human security frameworks, prioritizing efforts to improve healthcare, education, and economic opportunities as part of peacebuilding.

2. Transitional Justice and Reconciliation

Transitional justice has emerged as an important area within Peace Studies, focusing on how societies can address past atrocities and human rights abuses after conflicts or authoritarian rule. Mechanisms such as truth and reconciliation commissions, war crimes tribunals, and reparations programs aim to foster healing, accountability, and reconciliation. Countries like South Africa, Argentina, and Rwanda have implemented transitional justice processes to confront legacies of violence and build a foundation for lasting peace.

3. Nonviolent Resistance and Social Movements

Building on the ideas of non-violence advocated by figures like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., Peace Studies now explores the role of nonviolent resistance in achieving social change. Scholars like Gene Sharp and Erica Chenoweth have studied the effectiveness of nonviolent movements in overthrowing oppressive regimes and addressing structural injustices, demonstrating that nonviolent resistance can be a powerful tool for advancing peace and democracy.

4. Intercultural and Interfaith Dialogue

In an increasingly globalized world, Peace Studies has embraced the need for intercultural and interfaith dialogue as a way to promote mutual understanding and reduce prejudice. Initiatives like the Alliance of Civilizations and interfaith peacebuilding projects encourage dialogue between communities with different religious or cultural backgrounds, helping to bridge divides and prevent conflicts rooted in ethnic and religious tensions.

Conclusion

The origin and evolution of Peace Studies reflect humanity’s enduring quest to understand and cultivate peace. From ancient religious teachings and philosophical ideas to the establishment of academic programs and modern approaches, Peace Studies has grown into a comprehensive field that addresses the complexities of conflict and peace in a globalized world. Looking forward, Peace Studies will continue to evolve as it confronts new challenges, from climate change and cyber conflict to the rise of authoritarianism and the need for global cooperation.

As Peace Studies continues to expand, it serves as a testament to the power of interdisciplinary collaboration and the importance of ethical commitment to a more just and peaceful world.

Negative peace is focussed on the absence of manifest violence such as war, which could . be realised through negotiation or mediation rather than resorting to physical force. It recommends the use of non-violent means, total disarmament and social and economic interdependence to avoid the physical violence and discourage the use of force in conflict situations. In a negative peace approach, preventing war also requires a large may of international agreements and institutions that can support stable relations among nations. The idea of improving peace has also been reflected in many international agreements and in the mechanisms of collective security included in the League of Nations and the United Nations.

Negative peace policies may focus on a present, short or near future time-scale. Due to the fact that stability and order can be maintained by an oppressive system, negative peace is compatible with structural violence. In such a situation, absence of physical violence can derive from deterrence strategies to punish enemies. Lasting conditions of peace are not synonymous with the preservation of intervals between outbreaks of warfare.” War can not be eradicated as long as militarism remains a prevalent value.

The concept of positive peace, based on a broad understanding of social conditions, means the removal of structural violence beyond merely the absence of direct violence. According to Johan Galtung, positive peace would not be obtained without the development of just and equitable conditions associated with the elimination of inegalitarian social structures. Equality is an essential element of peace because its absence perpetuates tensions of all types. All groups of people ought to have equitable access to the economic benefits of society as well as enjoying social, cultural and political development. For marginalised groups of people, equality means overcoming obstacles related to institutional, cultural, attitudinal and behavioural discrimination. According to Boutros Boutros-Ghali, former Secretary General of the UN. the elimination of repression and poverty is an essential element of peace. Equal opportunity allow people to develop their talents and skills so that they can participate in various aspects of development.

The comprehensive notion of piece touches upon many issues that influence quality of life, ‘ including personal growth, freedom, social equality, economic equity, solidarity, autonomy and participation. According to the UN Document No.84 1996, on The United Nations and the Advancement of Women 1945-IWQ, peace entails, beyond violence and hostilities at the national and international levels. “‘the enjoyment of economic and social justice, equality and the entire range of human rights and fundamental freedoms within society”. Conditions for harmonious relations derive from minimisation of all forms of exploitation. As the earth is recognised as the object of expliotation, positive peace is also extended to embrace the notion of respect for nature.

Negative peace thinkers argue that, in considering human nature and the power structure of the world, it is unrealistic and thus, meaningless to equate peace with social justice. A narrow focus on the control of symptoms of violence has a more tangible effect than a broad-based struggle for improving the quality of living. During Cold War, peace researchers like Kenneth Boulding raised concerns that a broadened notion of peace would divert attention away from the problems of disarmament toward ‘a grand, vague study of world development’. Those who are mainly interested in the reduction and elimination of warfare consider justice a less essential requirement for peace. Thus, popular topics in this research tradition have been control of violent social behaviour and the arms race. Priority has been given to investigating various methods relevant to reduction of the risks of war, disarmament, prevention of accidental war, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and negotiated settlement of international conflicts.

Scholars in the positive peace research tradition, most prominently Johan Galtung, assert that the structural roots of violent conflict have to be more seriously studied than particular cases of avoiding and limiting war or such narrow issues as reduction în particular weapons systems. Knowledge for conditions to achieve peace has to explain strategies to overcome institutional form of violence. The study of positive peace identifies conditions threatening human survival which include environmental issues as well as poverty and economic disparity. Given that these problems are not likely to be solved in the world’s current economic and political structure, the analysis of shortcomings of the present system naturally leads to a search for policy and institutional changes that can serve human welfare.

In the areas of non-violence, some people are mainly concerned with logistics and tactical issues involved in unarmed struggle against enemies without much regard to changes in struct’ural conditions for oppression. Peace thinkers like Gene Sharp view non-violent action as merely an effective strategic instrument to achieve specific political objectives and score victories with non-lethal means. Other thinkers, such as Geoffrey Ostergaard who follow the traditions of Mahatma Gandhi, emphasise non-violence as a principle capable of preventing the origin or existence of unjust social and economic system. Non-violent social structure in turn can be acquired by establishing egalitarian social relations. 

Though the focus of anti-war movements during the Cold War period was to prevent the worst scenario of having a nuclear war, many peace groups working in the negative peace traditions, at the same time, shared the ideal of pacifist communities that a peaceful order requires social justice. If the study of peace is designed forpolicy changes and action, its ultimate goal is to create social conditions for the betterment of the life of all humanity. Building positive peace should thus be complementary to practicing negative peace. Preventing the use of physical, manifest violence is more successful under certain social structural conditions. There is no need for the use of violence if there is justice in society. Institutions of war are based on domination, and they play an important role in maintaining the culture of violence. In that sense, peace is synonymous with the elimination of the institution of war.

INTRODUCTION

Violence is an endemic problem in the world and captures one’s attention like few other human events. People on daily basis hear, see or witness incidents of violence, which victimise millions of people each year with varied degrees of intensities. Violence can come from many sources and can be inter-personal like domestic violence; intercommunity or communal violence; violence in armed conflicts; legitimate use of force by the state and structural violence. In this Unit we focus on structural violence.

Violence can be defined from many perspectives such as from an injury perspective, criminal justice perspective, a domestic violence perspective, a medical perspective, and a sociological perspective, among others. If we look at major categories of violence discussed in the literature, we find primarily the crime-related violence, like homicide, robbery, rape and aggravated assault. One also comes across events, which involve firearms, suicides, and domestic violence. There is however, lesser use of the concept of structural violence.

DEFINING VIOLENCE

Violence as commonly thought of is something one party does to another by use of force, an overt, physical act causing injury to a person or property. Nevertheless, such understanding of the forms of violence is inadequate because it focuses only on crime related events like killing, torture, rape, sexual assault etc. That is why the ‘status quo definition of violence was challenged when people understood violence not only as the harmful use of force against persons but also as social structures which cause the oppression of human beings.

Violence as an act or force exerted to impart physical harm or injury on other person becomes inadequate on at least three accounts. First, the standard definition of violence exclusively refers to physical harm or injury and neglects the psychological abuses or attacks. Secondly, it lists only human beings as the potential victims of violence, whereas animals or inanimate objects can also be the targets of violence. Last but not the least, the definition assumes that there is a direct link joining the perpetrator and the victim of violence, overlooking the fact that violence often operates in indirect ways.

These definitional inadequacies of violence over the years have led to many fragmented, diverse perspectives, models and theories that try to explain people’s ‘commitment’ towards conflictive behaviour in general and violence in particular. These perspectives not only led to richer and accurate determinants and standards of violence but also to the conditions of non-violence. For the purpose of our study of structural violence, we shall deal with violence as the direct or indirect physical attack, injury or psychological abuse of a person or animal, or the direct or indirect destruction or damage of the property or potential property.

TYPOLOGY OF VIOLENCE

It was not until the World War II when the interest grew in the relationship between concurrent process of modernisation and decolonisation, on the one hand, and enlarging expectations, inequality and grievance formation, on the other. Kenneth Waltz (1959), in his book Man, the State and War, analytically examined violent conflicts from various viewpoints, from intrapersonal dissonance to interpersonal disputes, civil unrest, interstate war and global conflagrations. The dominant notions of evolutionary social change had come under increasing pressure, and tended to offer functionalist and linear accounts of industrialisation, population growth, urbanisation, education and the increased role of the nation-state in the bureaucratic management of everyday social interactions.

Prominent writers like Talcott Parsons and Walt Rostow, in late 1950s and early 1960s, offered accounts of the societal factors that promote or inhibit the development, industrialisation, population growth, urbanisation, education etc. Their objectives were to understand why some countries adopted them while others did not. Doing so, they noted a shift from being ‘traditional’ to being ‘modern’ from segmented, contained communities to complex societies of greater interdependence and complex division of labour.

The shift further brought newly decolonised nations under the Western bloc’s influence. In due course of time, particularly in the late 1960s, the conflict between the West and the Warsaw Pact, along with associated weapons transfers and highly destructive proxy wars nullified much of the possible benefits of economic assistance. It, despite considerable economic growth over the post war period, resulted in a divide between rich and developing countries.

The divide between rich and developing countries combined with vociferous social forces in the West, such as the radicalisation of black consciousness, the anti-Vietnam movement, student protest and industrial unrest, which brought in sharp rise in civil dissent. At the wake of dissatisfaction and frustrations of the sixties, Johann Galtung in 1969 articulated the notion of structural violence. He faced some of the conceptual difficulties in trying to present the notion of structural violence as both a response to ascendant radicalism and an attempt to reconcile its iconoclasm with the order of peace.

Some forms of violence are instantly recognisable but there are others, which are unrecognisable, latent and hidden. Galtung, a Gandhian philosopher in his seminal works Violence, Peace and Peace Research, clarified the muddling concept of violence. He established that a good typology of violence should conceptualise violence in a way, which brings under the concept of violence phenomena that have something very important in common, yet are disparate. Galtung distinguished types of violence, from ‘impairment of fundamental needs’ perspective and established the concepts of direct, structural and cultural violence. He reiterated that people have four classes of basic needs as an outcome of extensive dialogue in many parts of the world.

According to his basic needs theory, the first ‘need groups’ category is survival and its negation is death or mortality. Second category is well-being and its negations are poverty, illness and misery. The third one is identity, meaning or purpose of whose negation is alienation. The fourth ‘need groups’ category is that of freedom and its negation is oppression or repression. The denial to these basic needs or ‘need groups’ result in eight types of violence with some subtypes which are easily identified for direct violence but more complex to identify for structural violence.

DIRECT VIOLENCE AND STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE

Direct violence

Direct Violence is the only type of violence that is acknowledged as real violence. At interpersonal level, direct violence is the act or force, which one or more people use to impart or inflict physical harms or injuries on other people including nature. It is also known as personal violence and is static. These acts insult the basic needs of others. These acts are of war, torture, fighting, arms violence, physical abuse and emotional abuse and are the example of direct violence. Actor or actors are the fundamental ingredient of the direct violence and make it a personal act.

Many forms of direct violence are the result of structure-based inequalities exacerbated by ethnic tensions, environmental degradation, and economic desperation. Sometimes particular expression of direct violence such as armed violence causes damage and promotes conditions for structural violence. It also weakens a society’s capacity to resist or adapt to other life-threatening harm. Thus, armed violence and its debilitating direct and structural effects threaten peace—both negative and positive peace. The mechanisms of direct violence are killing, injury, siege, sanctions, poverty, de-socialisation, re-socialisation, underclass, repression, imprisonment, expulsion, deportation etc.

Structural Violence

Structural violence is a permanent state of violence, which is embedded in the social, political and economic structures that make up a society. Due to the absence of concrete person and its camouflaged nature, it is also known as indirect violence. The structural violence is often accepted as norms in the society. Primarily, structural violence is the result of hierarchical relations within and between societies that privilege those who are on top and oppress, exploit and dominate those who are at the bottom. Johan Galtung describes the mechanisms, and the forms of structural violence, which are: exploitation, penetration, segmentation, marginalisation, and fragmentation. We explain these as argued by Galtung:

Exploitation is based on unjust economic and social relations. It happens within complex structures and at the end of long and ramified legislation chains and cycles. It represents the main part of an archetypical violence structure and means nothing more than just a situation of ‘unequal exchange’ in which the ‘top dogs’ or the elite, draw substantially more profit from the interaction taking place within this structure than the ‘underdogs’ or the people excluded from development. In reality, the ‘underdogs’ might be disadvantaged to such a degree that they starve or die because of illness and disease or are left in a permanent involuntary state of poverty that usually encompasses malnutrition and illness. People tolerate and rationalise structural violence due to important psychological reasons. A structure of violence not only leaves its marks on the human body, but also affects the mind and the soul.

Penetration involves the implantation of agents of the powerful within the collective ‘underdogs’, which create a harmony of interests between the global centre and the comprador (compromising) bridgehead within the periphery. In a nutshell, with the help of penetration, elements of the ‘top dog’ or elite ideology reach the consciousness of the underdog- or exploited sections of society. The penetration of the ideology is linked to segmentation.

Segmentation allows the underdog only a limited view of reality. It acts to obscure the true nature of the relationship between strong and weak. The segmentation is the result of two processes, marginalisation and fragmentation.

Marginalisation and Fragmentation exclude the peripheral agents from the centre and from each other. Together, marginalisation and fragmentation serve to create greater level of disharmony within the periphery than within the centre, while simultaneously preventing the interests of the exploited within the periphery from coinciding with the exploited within the centre. In other words, both marginalisation and fragmentation force the ‘underdogs’ to the edge of society, condemn them as insignificant, divide them and keep them away from each other. Here it needs to be stated that while exploitation and oppression might go hand in hand, they are not identical. Galtung stated that ‘these are short-hand formations for complex matters in economic, social and political orders that have consequences such as shortage of nutrition, lack of freedom, lack of togetherness, deprival of well-being in general’.

In a similar vein, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had spoken about the Giant Triplets i.e. racism, materialism and militarism as structural forces that propagate violence or the causes of all violence. Since indirect violence is deeply rooted in pervasive societal forces, its effects are as diverse as racism, poverty, hunger, sexism, violation of human rights and militarism.

Johan Galtung also pointed out that the threat of violence is also a form of violence. He defined violence beyond direct violence and pointed out violence as an ‘avoidable impairment of fundamental human needs and life, that lowers the actual degree to which someone is able to meet their needs below that which would otherwise be possible’. He argued that apart from deliberately inflicted harm, economic misery, repression and alienation are also types of violence. Therefore, violence is any physical, emotional, verbal, institutional, structural or spiritual behaviour, attitude, policy or condition that diminishes, dominates or destroys others and ourselves.

Structural violence may be contained through granting rewards and not simply by giving punishments, for instance, immoderate expenditures are readily awarded under capitalism. Structure violence confines the range of options that individuals have available to pursue their objectives and fulfill their potential. It exists even though someone is not hurt. Conflicting behaviour such as the issuing of credible threats to others’ interests and values, the destruction of property and forced displacement can lead to people acting violently, obstruct a realisation of the potential, and therefore do violence. Structural violence is present even when there is no subject-to-object relationship or no overt and distinguishable goal incompatibility. It emerges from non-violent intentions and is therefore included in attitudes despite the absence of a self-proclaimed intention to harm. Structural violence is latent as well as manifest. Moreover it increases the latent potential for violence, such as highly tense situations which reduce individual’s capacity to pursue their objectives.

Difference between Direct and Structural Violence

Structural violence is both conceptually and empirically separable from direct and behavioural violence in many ways.

Direct violence refers to intentional events that harm or kill individuals or groups. Like direct violence, structural violence also kills people but does so slowly because it manifests in social inequalities. It can be both physical as well as psychological. It may work on the body and soul. The harm is exacerbated by socio-political structures and decisions that deprive people of their access to basic needs necessary for fulfilling their full potentials in life.

In direct violence, the consequences of the act can be traced back to concrete persons as actors. In structural violence, the consequences of the acts cannot be traced back to concrete persons or are no longer meaningful because there may not be any person who directly harms another person in the structure.

Negative peace is characterised by the absence of direct violence. Positive peace is characterised by the absence of structural violence. Both (direct and structural violence) can be expressed through physical and psychological violence, directed at specific objects or not, with acts that are intended or unintended, and expressed in manifest or latent terms. Both (direct and structural violence) are interdependent forces. Although direct violence tends to be more visible and easily perceived, there is no reason to assume that structural violence amounts to less suffering than direct violence.

DIMENSIONS OF VIOLENCE

Cultural Violence

Before understanding cultural violence, it is imperative that one should know what culture is conceptually. Culture is a dynamic living concept of values and ideas, which reflect the context within which people live and work. It is dynamic because the ‘derivation of experiences are rarely the same for any two persons and, never the same over time. Avruch contends that culture ‘to some extent is always situational, flexible and responsive to the exigencies of the worlds that individual confront’. He posits that ‘cultural attributes may even vary from person to person within a single culture because of overlapping group memberships. In nutshell, culture is a totality of values, norms, attitudes, beliefs, gender relations, child-rearing practices, governance, etc. It is an economic, political, social, and spiritual organisation of people’s existence.

In the 1990s, Galtung supplemented his violence typology with another category and introduced the concept of cultural violence. Galtung, in the early 1990s, explained how culture could in some instances, constitute a type of violence. He established a sort of triangle between direct violence, structural violence and cultural violence. On cultural violence, he stated that ‘by cultural violence we mean those aspects of culture, the symbolic sphere of our existence exemplified by religion and ideology, language and art, empirical science and formal science that can be used to justify or legitimate direct or structural violence. Stars, crosses and crescents; flags, anthems and military parades; the ubiquitous portrait of the leader; inflammatory speeches and posters all of these come to mind… The features mentioned above are ‘aspect of culture, not entire culture.’

There is no truly complete violent culture, but within culture, there are certain aspects, which could be used to justify or legitimise structural violence or direct violence, for example, female genital mutilation in some African tribes. Nevertheless, there are cultures, which transmit traditions of nonviolent behaviour and commemorate and honour nonviolent values and qualities. But, nonviolent traditions in most cultures, religions and philosophies most of the time remain dormant due to the prevalence of violent manifestations.

The legitimisation of the culture aspects, which justifies the direct or structural violence, is known as cultural violence. Pierre Bourdieu also states that the ‘cultural violence is the unjust distribution of opportunities for determining the symbols and cognitive components prevailing in a society. The fundamental inequality of differential access to power and resources is justified through the normative and enshrined ideological beliefs, cultural proclivities and equal access. For example, Eurocentric domination has limited the ability of the African Americans to advance and prosper in the United States. The trickled down effect of the massive direct violence against blacks had resulted in colossal structural violence. Structural violence has produced and reproduced massive cultural violence with racist ideas everywhere. The vertical cultural mosaic result of colonialism, has structured societies in a way that different groups are wedged between the perceived ‘truly dominant” and “truly subjugated. Similarly caste oppression of the schedule castes in India by upper castes for generations is a form of cultural violence.

This wedging of different groups between ‘truly dominant’ and ‘truly subjugated’ has led to the hierarchy of cultures. In the hierarchy of cultures, the indigenous cultures are at the bottom, overlaid by immigrant cultures consisting of those brought over as slaves, indentured labour, and others, and the dominant colonising cultures are at the top. As a result, the experiences and interpretations of ‘truly dominant’ – who had more power, relative to other groups or societies, dominated the socio-cultural landscape of the ‘truly subjugated’. This domination is endorsed and imposed onto all who rely on societal institutions whereas the experiences and interpretations of ‘truly subjugated’ – who wield less control, find little support and expression in the broader society and face discrimination.

Throughout the world, cultural practices systematically discriminate against women where they are denied the right to vote, suffer from domestic abuse, and are excluded from employment opportunities. The justification to curtail women’s human rights is that the concept of human rights is ‘imperialistic’ and the ‘rights are culture-specific and culturally determined’.

From the above discussion, it is clear that direct violence is an event, structural violence is a process and cultural violence is an evolution. Cultural violence makes direct and structural violence look, even feel, right or at least not wrong. As studied in this Unit the religion, ideology, language, etc not only exemplify the people’s symbolic sphere of existence but also are used to justify or legitimise direct or structural violence.

Economic Violence

Economic violence is rooted in the structure of the production relationships and its consequences for workers and consumers. Poverty, unfair hiring procedures, insufficient health care, joblessness and wage dumping etc are the expressions of economic violence. The unjust economic power structures create conditions due to which certain social groups possess more capital than other groups and the materially rich groups utilise their privileged status to exploit other groups. These unjust economic structures are seen as the state’s failure to provide people access to basic needs. Poor people suffer from poverty, hunger and malnutrition while the rich of that society live in relative luxury.

All these conditions lead individuals to believe that they have not received a fair share of the benefits and resources available in that society. Thus, the inequalities in wealth create circumstances for conflict and violence. For example, the class conflict within a society and international conflicts between the rich developed countries and poverty-stricken developing countries are the manifestation of economic violence and unjust power relationships. The neo-liberal economic policies of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, G8 countries and (World Trade Organisation (WTO) lead sometime to severe economic violence.

Globalisation has widened the manifestations of economic violence. There is no doubt that globalisation has resulted in market growth. However, it has also increased the income disparity around the world. Relaxed trade regulations and increased communication networks have created powerful multinational conglomerates that derive huge profits off under-paid labourers in developing countries. The result is horrific structural violence to workers who toil under brutal conditions. It has also created conditions of chronic poverty, food and nutrition insecurity in urban as well as in rural areas. Globalisation has influenced people’s incomes and livelihoods and consequently their life style and food habits. As a result, the problems of under-nutrition and over-nutrition are increasing which are putting extra burden on the health care system.

Political violence

Political violence has no single accepted definition. Generally, political violence consists of those types of collective action that involve great physical force and cause damage to an adversary or violence for political gain. It encompasses naxalism, guerrilla warfare, national liberation movements and sometimes even strikes and demonstrations that turn violent. The state can also be violent in repressing dissent on minority communities that seek political or other rights. Moser and Clark define political violence, as ‘the commission of violent acts motivated by a desire, conscious or unconscious, to obtain or maintain political power’. Political violence is about the acquisition of power through violent acts. It is driven by desires for power that lead people to transgress others’ private domains. This phenomenon can be seen among guerrillas, paramilitary groups, tyrannical regimes, extremist religious and ethnic groups and others, that aim at undermining the other in order to achieve hegemony over a region, state or a group.

If one leaves aside state or state sponsored violence then political violence comprises of the ‘collective attack within a political community against a political regime’. Violence in political movements may emerge intentionally or accidently as the ‘deliberate infliction or threat of infliction of physical injury or damage for political ends’ or as violence ‘which occurs unintentionally in the course of severe political conflict. According to Apter, ‘political violence disorders explicitly for a designated and reordering purpose; to overthrow a tyrannical regime; to redefine and realize justice and equality, to achieve independence and territorial autonomy; or to impose one’s religious or doctrinal beliefs’.

Various forms of political violence have been recognized by state and non-state actors including wars, terrorism and other violent political conflicts that occur within or between states and state-perpetrated violence such as genocide, repression, disappearances, torture, organised violent crimes and other abuses of human rights.

Political violence takes place due to many political, economic, societal, community and demographic factors. For example, the lack of democratic processes, unequal access to power, grossly unequal distribution of resources, unequal access to resources, rapid demographic changes, control over key natural resources and inequality between groups, the fuelling of group fanaticism along ethnic, national or religious lines and the ready availability of small arms and other weapons lead to overt political or collective violence. At times, governments and police forces also engage themselves in terrorism and political violence.

Terrorism is a specific form of political violence that usually has the purpose of creating fear or terror among a population. Political violence may or may not have the purpose of causing fear among a populace. Sometimes it targets a given political figure to remove that individual from power, as in an assassination. Or it may be a more general insurrection or violent protest on political grounds.

Social Violence

Structuralism asserts that the ‘individual actors are not completely free agents capable of determining particular outcomes. Rather, individuals are embedded in relational structures that shape their identities, interests and interactions.’ Therefore the social location of a person, group or groups is crucial if one wants to understand their vulnerability to violence of all types.

Social structures include sexism, racism, caste system (in the case of South Asia) as well as class-based structures. These structures are the social axis of the structural violence. The relational structures constrain the agency as well as individual choices, which result in the violation of human rights. However, it is still debatable as to how much these

structures constrained agency. The person or group that violently resists structural violence becomes an aggressor because he uses overt or obvious violence. Those who maintain injustice by police or military power are more clearly the aggressors than those who react to them.

Social violence is an important consequence of the abuse of political and economic powers. The manifestations of social violence cover a large spectrum of possibilities that go from the disproportionate increase in robberies and crime, mob rule, revolt and guerrilla warfare that may turn into revolutions and civil wars. Another important factor is rooted in the rapid technological changes that accelerate and stampede social changes, trans-culturalisations that burst traditional norms and leave a void.

An example of social violence is the caste system which forces people to accept a demeaning role from birth or the one which forces them to acquiesce in demeaning patterns of life is a structure maintained by dominant groups in power. Labour riots, race riots, lynching mobs, fights among delinquent gangs, and attacks by organised criminal syndicates are the manifestations of the social violence that have punctuated the history of social change.