VIOLENCE, PEACE, AND PEACE RESEARCH
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
VIOLENCE, PEACE, AND PEACE RESEARCH*
By
JOHAN GALTUNG
International Peace Research Institute, Oslo
1. Introduction values of concern and togetherness be-
In the present paper we shall be using the causepeace is on anybody’s agenda.2
word ’peace’ very many times. Few words One may object that frequent use of
are so often used and abused - perhaps, it the word ’peace’ gives an unrealistic
seems, because ’peace’ serves as a means image of the world. Expressions like
of obtaining verbal consensus-it is hard to ’violence’, ’strife’, ’exploitation’ or at
be all-out against peace.’ Thus, when ef- least ’conflict’, ’revolution’ and war
forts are made to plead almost any kind of should gain much higher frequency to
policy - say technical assistance, increased mirror semantically a basically non-har-
trade, tourism, new forms of education, ir- monious world. But leaving this major
rigation, industrialization, etc. - then it is argument aside for the moment, it is ob-
often asserted that that policy, in addition vious that some level of precision is nec-
to other merits, will also serve the cause of essary for the term to serve as a cognitive
peace. This is done regardless of how tool. At this point, of course, nobody has
tenuous the relation has been in the past any monopoly on defining ’peace’. But
or how dubious the theory justifying this those who use the term frequently in a
as a reasonable expectation for the future. research context, as peace researchers
Such difficulties are avoided by excluding (will do) do, will at least have gained some
any reference to data from the past or to experience when it comes to definitions
theories about the future. that should be avoided for one reason or
This practice is not necessarily harm- another.
ful. The use of the term ’peace’ may To discuss the idea of peace we shall
in itself be peace-productive, produc- start from three simple principles:
ing a common basis, a feeling of com-
munality in purpose that may pave the 1. The term ’peace’ shall be used for social
ground for deeper ties later on. The use goals at least verbally agreed to by many, if
of more precise terms drawn from the
not necessarily by most.
vocabulary of one conflict group, and
excluded from the vocabulary of the 2. These social goals may be complex and diffi-
opponent group, may in itself cause cult, but not impossible, to attain.
dissent and lead to manifest conflict 3. The statement peace is absence of violence
precisely because the term is so clear- shall be retained as valid.
ly understood. By projecting an image of
harmony of interests the term ’peace’
may also help bring about such a har- The third principle is not a definition,
mony. It provides opponents with a since it is a clear case of obscurum per
one-word language in which to express obscurius. What we intend is only that168 the terms ’peace’ and ’violence’ be linked 2. On the definition and dimensions of to each other such that ’peace’ can be ‘violence’ regarded as ’absence of violence’. The As a point of departure, let us say that reasons at this early point in our seman- violence is present when human beings are tical excursion, are twofold: the state- being influenced so that their actual soma- ment is simple and in agreement with tic and mental realizations are below common usage, and defines a peaceful their potential realizations. This statement social order not as a point but as region - may lead to more problems than it solves. as the vast region of social orders from However, it will soon be clear why we which violence is absent. Within this re- are rejecting the narrow concept of gion a tremendous amount of variation is violence - according to which violence is still possible, making an orientation in somatic incapacitation, or deprivation of favor of peace compatible with a number health, alone (with killing as the extreme of ideologies outlining other aspects of form), at the hands of an actor who in- social orders. tends this to be the consequence. If this Everything now hinges on making a were all violence is about, and peace is definition of ’violence’. This is a highly seen as its negation, then too little is unenviable task, and the suggestions will rejected when peace is held up as an hardly be satisfactory to many readers. ideal. Highly unacceptable social orders However, it is not so important to arrive would still be compatible with peace. at anything like the definition, or the Hence, an extended concept of violence typology - for there are obviously many is indispensable but that concept should types of violence. More important is to in- be a logical extensicn, not merely a list dicate theoretically significant dimensions of undesirables. of violence that can lead thinking, re- The definition points to at least six im- search and, potentially, action, towards portant dimensions of violence. But first the most important problems. If peace some remarks about the use of the key action is to be regarded highly because it words above, ’actual’ and ’potential’. is action against violence, then the con- Violence is here defined as the cause of cept of violence must be broad enough to the diff ‘erence between the potential and include the most significant varieties, yet the actual, between what could have been specific enough to serve as a basis for and what is. Violence is that which in- concrete action. creases the distance between the potential Thus, the definition of ’peace’ becomes and the actual, and that which impedes a major part of a scientific strategy. the decrease of this distance. Thus, if a It may depart from common usage by person died from tuberculosis in the not being agreed to ’by most’ (consensus eighteenth century it would be hard to not required), yet should not be entirely conceive of this as violence since it might subjectivistic (’agreed to by many’). It have been quite unavoidable, but if he should depict a state of affairs the realiza- dies from it today, despite all the medical tion of which is not utopian (’not impos- resources in the world, then violence is sdile to obtain’), yet not on the imme- present according to our definition. Cor- diate political agenda (’complex and respondingly, the case of people dying bifficult’). And it should immediately from earthquakes today would not war- steer one’s attention towards problems rant an analysis in terms of violence,3 but that are on the political, intellectual, and the day after tomorrow, when earth- scientific agenda of today, and to- quakes may become avoidable, such morrow.2 deaths may be seen as the result of voi-
169
lence. In other words, when the potential To discuss them, it is useful to conceive
is higher than the actual is by definition of violence in terms of influence, as in-
avoidable and when it is avoidable, then dicated in the statement we used as a
violence is present. point of departure above. A complete
When the actual is unavoidable, then influence relation presupposes an influ-
violence is not present even if the actual encer, an influencee, and a mode of influ-
is at a very low level. A life expectancy of encing.6 In the case of persons, we can
thirty years only, during the neolithic put it very simply: subject, an object,
a
period, was not an expression of violence, and an action. But this conception of
but the same life-expectancy today violence in terms of a complete inter-
(whether due to wars, or social injustice, personal influence relation will lead us
or both) would be seen as violence accor- astray by focussing on a very special
ding to our definition. type of violence only; also truncated
versions where either subject or object
Thus, the potential level of realization is that or both are absent are highly signifi-
which is possible with a given level of insight cant. To approach this we shall start
and resources. If insight and/or resources are
with two dimensions characterizing the
monopolized by a group or class or are used for
other purposes, then the actual level falls below violent action itself, or the mode of in-
the potential level, and violence is present in the fluence.
system. In addition to these types of indirect vio- The first distinction to be made is
lence there is also the direct violence where
between physical and psychological vio-
means of realization are not withheld, but di-
rectly destroyed. Thus, when a war is fought
lence. The distinction is trite but im-
there is direct violence since killing or hurting a portant mainly because the narrow con-
person certainly puts his ’actual somatic reali- cept of violence mentioned above concen-
zation’ below his ’potential somatic realiza- trates on physical violence only. Under
tion’. But there is also indirect violence insofar
as insight and resources are channelled away physical violence human beings are hurt
from constructive efforts to bring the actual somatically, to the point of killing. It
closer to the potential.44 is useful to distinguish further between
’biological violence’, which reduces so-
The meaning of ’potential realizations’ matic capability (below what is poten-
is highly problematic, especially when we tially possible), and ’physical violence as
move from somatic aspects of human such’, which increases the constraint on
life, where consensus is more readily human movementS7 - as when a person is
obtained5, to mental aspects. Our guide imprisoned or put in chains, but also wh en
here would probably often have to be access to transportation is very unevenly
whether the value to be realized is fairly distributed, keeping large segments of a
consensual or not, although this is by no population at the same place with mobi-
means satisfactory. For example, literacy lity a monopoly of the selected few. But
is held in high regard almost everywhere, that distinction is less important than the
whereas the value of being Christian is basic distinction between violence that
highly controversial. Hence, we would works on the body, and violence that
talk about violence if the level of literacy works on the soul; where the latter would
is lower than what it could have been, include lies, brainwashing, indoctrination
not if the level of Christianity is lower of various kinds, threats, etc. that serve
than what it could have been. We shall to decrease mental potentialities. (Inci-
not try to explore this difficult point fur- dentally, it is interesting that such Eng-
ther in this context, but turn to the di- lish words as ’hurt’ and ’hit’ can be used
mensions of violence. to express psychological as well as phys-170 ical violence: this doubleness is already lence in the sense that anyone is hit or built into the language.) hurt, but there is nevertheless the threat The second distinction is between the of physical violence and indirect threat of negative and positive approach to influ- mental violence that may even be char- ence.8 Thus, a person can be influenced acterized as some type of psychological not only by punishing him when he does violence since it constrains human action. what the influencer considers wrong, but Indeed, this is also the intention: the also by rewarding him when he does famous balance of power doctrine is what the influencer considers right. In- based on efforts to obtain precisely this stead of increasing the constraints on his effect. And correspondingly with psycho- movements the constraints may be de- logical violence that does not reach any creased instead of increased, and somatic object: a lie does not become more of a capabilities extended instead of reduced. truth because nobody believes in the lie. This may be readily agreed to, but does Untruthfulness is violence according to it have anything to do with violence? Yes, this kind of thinking under any condition, because the net result may still be that which does not mean that it cannot be human beings are effectively prevented the least evil under some widely discussed from realizing their potentialities. Thus, circumstances. many contemporary thinkers9 emphasize Is destruction of things violence? that the consumer’s society rewards am- Again, it would not be violence accord- ply he who goes in for consumption, ing to the complete definition above, but while not positively punishing him who possibly some ’degenerate’ form. But in does not. The system is reward-oriented, at least two senses it can be seen as psy- based on promises of euphoria, but in so chological violence: the destruction of being also narrows down the ranges of things as a foreboding or threat of possi- action. It may be disputed whether this ble destruction of persons,10 and the de- is better or worse than a system that struction of things as destruction of limits the range of action because of the something very dear to persons referred dysphoric consequences of staying out- to as consumers or owners)! side the permitted range. It is perhaps The fourth distinction to be made and better in terms of giving pleasure rather the most important one is on the subject than pain, worse in terms of being more side: whether or not there is a subject manipulatory, less overt. But the impor- (person) who acts. Again it may be tant point is, the awareness of the con- asked: can we talk about violence when cept of violence can be extended in this nobody is committing direct violence, is direction, since it yields a much richer acting? This would also be a case of what basis for discussion. is referred to above as truncated violence, The third distinction to be made is on but again highly meaningful. We shall the object side: whether or not there is refer to the type of violence where there an object that is hurt. Can we talk about is an actor that commits the violence as violence when no physical or biological personal or direct, and to violence where object is hurt? This would be a case of there is no such actor as structural or what is referred to above as truncated indirect.12 In both cases individuals may violence, but nevertheless highly mean- be killed or mutilated, hit or hurt in both ingful. When a person, a group, a nation senses of these words, and manipulated is displaying the means of physical vio- by means of stick or carrot strategies. lence, whether throwing stones around or But whereas in the first case these con- testing nuclear arms, there may not be vio- sequences can be traced back to concrete
171
persons as actors, in the second case this Violence with a clear subject-object rela-
is no longer meaningful. There may not tion is manifest because it is visible as
be any person who directly harms another action. It corresponds to our ideas of
person in the structure. The violence what drama is, and it is personal because
is built into the structure and shows up there are persons committing the vio-
as unequal power and consequently as un- lence. It is easily captured and expressed
equal life chances.13 verbally since it has the same structure
Resources are unevenly distributed, as as elementary sentences in (at least Indo-
when income distributions are heavily European) languages: subject-verb-ob-
skewed, literacy/education unevenly dis- ject, with both subject and object being
tributed, medical services existent in some persons. Violence without this relation
districts and for some groups only, and so is structural, built into structure. Thus,
on.14 Above all the power to decide over when one husband beats his wife there
the distribution of resources is unevenly is a clear case of personal violence, but
distributed.15 The situation is aggravated when one million husbands keep one
further if the persons low on income are million wives in ignorance there is struc-
also low in education, low on health, and tural violence. Correspondingly, in a
low on power - as is frequently the case society where life expectancy is twice as
because these rank dimensions tend to be high in the upper as in the lower classes,
heavily correlated due to the way they violence is exercised even if there are no
are tied together in the social structure.16 concrete actors one can point to directly
Marxist criticism of capitalist society attacking others, as when one person kills
emphasizes how the power to decide over another.
the surplus from the production process In order not to overwork the word
is reserved for the owners of the means violence we shall sometimes refer to the
of production, who then can buy them- condition of structural violence as Social
selves into top positions on all other rank injustice.18 The term ’exploitation’ will
dimensions because money is highly con- not be used, for several reasons. First, it
vertible in a capitalist society - if you belongs to a political vocabulary, and
have money to convert, that is. Liberal has so many political and emotional
criticism of socialist society similarly em- overtones that the use of this term will
phasizes how power to decide is mono- hardly facilitate communication. Second,
polized by a small group who convert the term lends itself too easily to expres-
power in one field into power in another sions involving the verb exploit, which in
field simply because the opposition can- turn may lead attention away from the
not reach the stage of effective articula- structural as opposed to the personal
tion. nature of this phenomenon - and even
The important point here is that if peo- lead to often unfounded accusations
ple are starving when this is objectively about intended structural violence.19
avoidable, then violence is committed, The fifth distinction to be made is
regardless of whether there is a clear between violence that is intended or
subject-action-object relation, as during unintended. This distinction is importantt
a siege yesterday or no such clear rela- when guilt is to be decided, since the
tion, in the way world economic rela-
as concept of guilt has been tied more to
tions areorganized today.17 We have intention, both in Judaeo-Christian ethics
baptized the distinction in two different and in Roman jurisprudence, than to
ways, using the word-pairs personal- consequence (whereas the present de-
structural and direct-indirect respectively. finition of violence is entirely located on172 the consequence side). This connection tion is not sufficiently protected against is important because it brings into focus deterioriation by upholding mechanisms. a bias present in so much thinking about Similarly with structural violence: we violence, peace, and related concepts: could imagine a relatively egalitarian ethical systems directed against intended structure insufficiently protected against violence will easily fail to capture struc- sudden feudalization, against crystalli- tural violence in their nets - and may zation into a much more stable, even hence be catching the small fry and let- petrified, hierarchical structure. A revo- ting the big fish loose. From this fallacy lution brought about by means of a it does not follow, in our mind, that the highly hierarchical military organization opposite fallacy of directing all attention may after a brilliant period of egalia- against structural violence is elevated tarianism, and after major challenge, into wisdom. If the concern is with peace, revert to a hierarchical structure. One and peace is absence of violence, then way of avoiding this, of course, is to action should be directed against personal avoid hierarchical group struggle organi- as well as structural violence; a point zations in the first run, and use non- to be developed below. violent nonhierarchical guerrilla organi- Sixth, there is the traditional dis- zations in the fight so as to let the means tinction between two levels of violence, be a preview of the egalitarian goal.21 the manifest and the latent.20 Manifest That concludes our list of dimensions violence, whether personal or structural, of violence, although many more could is observable; although not directly since be included. One question that imme- the theoretical entity of ’potential real- diately arises is whether any combina- ization’ also enters the picture. Latent tions from these six dichotomies can be violence is something which is not there, ruled out a priori, but there seems to be yet might easily come about. Since vio- no such case. Structural violence with- lence by definition is the cause of the out objects is also meaningful; truncation difference (or of maintaining the non- of the complete violence relation can go decrease) between actual and potential so far as to eliminate both subjects and realization, increased violence may come objects. Personal violence is meaningful about by increases in the potential as well as a threat, a demonstration even when as by decreases in the actual levels. nobody is hit, and structural violence is However, we shall limit ourselves to the also meaningful as a blueprint, as an latter and say that there is latent violence abstract form without social life, used to when the situation is so unstable that the threaten people into subordination: if actual realization level ’easily’ decreases. you do not behave, we shall have to For personal violence this would mean reintroduce all the disagreeable structures a situation where a little challenge would we had before. trigger considerable killing and atrocity, Disregarding the negative-positive dis- as is often the case in connection with tinction as less important in this context, racial fights. In such cases we need a way we end up, essentially, with the typology of expressing that the personal violence illustrated in Figure 1. is also there the day, hour, minute, sec- If peace now is regarded as absence of ond before the first bomb, shot, fist-fight, violence, then thinking about peace (and cry - and this is what the concept of consequently peace research and peace latent, personal violence does for us. It action) will be structured the same way indicates a situation of unstable equili- as thinking about violence. And the brium, where the level of actual realiza- violence cake can evidently be cut a
173
Figure 1. A Typology of Violence
number of ways. Tradition has been to things, whereas structural violence be-
think about violence as personal violence comes apparent because it stands out like
only, with one important subdivision in an enormous rock in a creek, impeding
terms of ’violence vs. the threat of vio- the free flow, creating all kinds of eddies
lence’, another in terms of ’physical vs. and turbulences. Thus, perhaps it is not
psychological war’, still another (impor- so strange that the thinking about per-
tant in ethical and legal thinking) sonal violence (in the Judaeo-Christian-
about ’intended vs. unintended’, and so Roman tradition) took on much of its
on. The choice is here to make the dis- present form in what we today would
tinction between personal and structural regard as essentially static social orders,
violence the basic one; justification has whereas thinking about structural vio-
been presented (1) in terms of a unifying lence (in the Marxist tradition) was for-
perspective (the cause of the difference mulated in highly dynamic northwest-
between potential and actual realization) European societies.
and (2) by indicating that there is no In other words, we conceive of struc-
reason to assume that structural violence tural violence as something that shows a
amounts to less suffering than personal certain stability, whereas personal vio-
violence. lence (e. g. as measured by the tolls caused
On the other hand, it is not strange by group conflict in general and war in
that attention has been focussed more particular) shows tremendous fluctua-
on personal than on structural violence. tions over time. This is illustrated in Fig-
Personal violence shmt’s.22 The object of ure 2.
personal violence perceives the violence,
usually, and may complain - the object
of structural violence may be persuaded
not to perceive this at all. Personal vio-
lence represents change and dynamism - Figure 2. Time and the Two Types of Violence
not only ripples on waves, but waves on
otherwise tranquil waters. Structural vio- This is to a large extent tautological. A
lence is silent, it does not show - it is type of violence built into the social
essentially static, it is the tranquil waters. structure should exhibit a certain stabi-
In a static society, personal violence will lity : social structures may perhaps some-
be registered, whereas structural violence times be changed over night, but they
may be seen as about as natural as the may not very often be changed that
air around us. Conversely: in a highly quickly. Personal violence, which to a
dynamic society, personal violence may larger extent is seen as subject to the
be seen as wrong and harmful but still whims and wishes of individuals, should
somehow congruent with the order of show less stability. Hence personal vio-174
lence may more easily be noticed, even ons or arms, and the organization is not
though the ’tranquil waters’ of structural called a workshop or a factory, but a
violence may contain much more vio- gang or an army.
lence. For this reason we would expect a A typology of personal, physical vio-
focus or personal violence in after-war lence can now be developed focussing on
periods lest they should become between- the tools used, starting with the human
war periods; and if the periods protracts body itself (in the elementary forms of
sufficiently for the major outburst of fist fights and the more advanced forms,
personal violence to be partly forgotten, such as Karate and Aikido), proceeding
we would expect a concentration on towards all kinds of arms culminating,
structural violence, provided the societies so far, with ABC weapons. Another
are dynamic enough to make any stability approach would use the form of organi-
stand out as somehow unnatural.23 zation, starting with the lone individual,
proceeding via mobs and crowds ending
3. The means of personal and structural up with the organizations of modern
violence guerrilla or army warfare. These two
To make this distinction less abstract, let approaches are related: just as in econo-
us now explore how personal and struc- mic organizations the means and mode of
tural violence, are, in fact, carried out. production (here direct bodily violence)
Starting with personal violence, concen- depend on each other, and if one is lag-
tration on ’actual somatic realization’: ging behind a conflict will arise. Together
how can it be reduced or kept low at the these two approaches would yield the
hands of somebody else? The question is history of military warfare as a special
simple, as are the answers since they case, since much bodily violence is not
suggest an instrumental approach to the military. The approach would be cumu-
problem of violence. There is a well- lative for a weapon or technique, and a
specified task to be done, that of doing form of organization once developed may
bodily harm unto others, and there are become obsolete but not erased; hence
persons available to do it. But this is a this typology would not be systematic,
production relation, suggesting a ’devel- but always open to record new devel-
opment’ much like in the economic sec- opments.
tor of society, with the introduction of A more systematic approach can be
increasingly refined tools and differentia- obtained by looking at the target; the
ted social organization - only that the human being. He is relatively known ana-
tools in this case are referred to as weap- tomically (structurally) and physiologic-
Table 1. A Typology of Personal Somatic Violence175 ally (functionally), sotypologies can be Is it now possible to construct a corre- developed on that basis. One primitive sponding typology for structural vio- typology might be as shown in Table l. lence ? If we accept that the general for- The basic distinction is not water-tight, mula behind structural violence is inequa- but nevertheless useful: for one thing is to lity, above all in the distribution of power, try to destroy the machine (the human then this can be measured; and inequality body) itself, another to try to prevent the seems to have a high survival capacity machine from functioning. The latter can despite tremendous changes elsewhere.24 be done in two ways: denial of input But if inequality persists, then we may (sources of energy in general, air, water, ask: which factors, apart from personal and food in the case of the body), and violence and the threat of personal vio- denial of output (movement). The human lence, tend to uphold inequality? Obvi- output can be somatic, recorded by the ously, just as military science and related outside as movement (with standstill as subjects would be indispensable for the a limiting case) or mental not recorded understanding of personal violence, so directly from the outside (only by indi- is the science of social structure, and cators in the form of movements, in- particularly of stratification, indispens- cluding movements of vocal chords). The able for the understanding of structural borderline between physical and psycho- violence. logical personal violence is not very clear, This is not the occasion to develop since it is possible to influence physical general theories of social structure, but movements by means of psychological some ideas are necessary to arrive at techniques, and vice versa: physical con- some of the mechanisms. Most funda- straints certainly have mental implica- mental are the ideas of actor, system, tions. structure, rank and level. Actors seek In Table I some of the techniques have goals, and are organized in systems in been indicated in parenthesis. A note the sense that they interact with each should be added here about explosions. In other. But two actors, e. g. two nations, principle they are of two kinds: to pro- can usually be seen as interacting in pel some missile, and to work directly on more than one system; they not only human bodies. Explosions are much used cooperate politically, e. g. by trading votes for the latter purpose because they com- in the UN, but also economically by bine the anatomical methods: a standard trading goods, and culturally by trading bomb would combine I and 2; add some ideas. The set of all such systems of shrapnel and 3 is also taken care of; add interaction, for a given set of actors, can some simple chemicals so as to make it then be referred to as a structure. And a fire bomb and 4 is taken into account; in a structure an actor may have high some gases would include 5 and if in ad- rank in one system, low in the next, and dition the contraption is made nuclear then high in the third one; or actors may the crowning achievement, 6, is there - have either consistently high ranks or presumably for ever, at least in principle, consistently low ranks. since it is difficult systematically to un- However, if we look more closely at make an invention, it can only be sup- an actor, e. g. a nation, we shall very often pressed. New weapons can always be in- be able to see it as a structure in its own vented, based on one or any combination right, but an integrated structure since of the principles in the Table. But there it is able to appear as an actor. This is also room for the more basic innova- ’Chinese boxes’ view of actors is very tion : the introduction of a new principle. important, and leads to the concept of
176
level of actors. There are three major 1. Linear ranking order - the ranking is com-
interpretations :25 plete, leaving no doubt as to who is higher
in any pair of actors;
2. Acyclical interaction pattern - all actors are
-
in terms of territories: a nation can be seen connected, but only one way - there is only
as a set of districts, in turn seen as a set of one ’correct’ path of interaction;
municipalities, and these are then seen as a
3. Correlation between rank and centrality - the
set of individuals;
higher the rank of the actor in the system,
-
in terms of organizations: a factory can often the more central his position in the interac-
be seen as an assembly line with sub-factories tion network;
feeding into the assembly-line with their pro- 4. Congruence between the systems - the inter-
ducts, finally coming down to the individual action networks are structurally similar.
worker.
5. Concordance between the ranks - if an actor
-
in terms of associations: they can often be
is high in one system then he also tends to be
seen as consisting of local chapters, ending
high in another system where he participates
up with individual members. and
6. High rank coupling between levels - so that
the actor at level n-1 are represented at level
Thus, the image of the social order or dis-
in
n through the highest ranking actor at level
order can be presented as Figure 3. n-l.
The factors can best be understood
by
examining to some extent their
negation,
starting with the last one.
Thus, imagine that a nation is domi-
nated by an economic and cultural capi-
tal, but has a much smaller political
capital through which most political in-
teraction in the international system is
carried out. This would tend to distribute
the power at the level of cities since the
coupling is not at the highest point.
Similarly, we could imagine that the ma-
jor road from the capital to a district did
not connect directly with the district
point gravity but with some peripheral
of
point; as when a government is represen-
Figure 3. An Image of the Social Order ted abroad not by the president or prime
minister but by the foreign minister -
In all these systems there is interaction, or a sub-factory not by the manager
and where there is interaction, value is but by his deputy. But very often the top
somehow exchanged. It then makes very actor at level n-1 is made the represen-
much sense to study what the value-dis- tative at level n - with a number of im-
tribution is after the system has been op- plications.26
erating for some time, and the gross Similarly, imagine there is consider-
distinction has been made between egal- able rank discordance, even to the point
itarian and inegalitarian distributions. where the summated rankings of the
We can now mention six factors that actors tend to be relatively equal. In that
serve to maintain inegalitarian distribu- case, patterns of inequality would be less
tions, and consequently can be seen as consistent and less reinforcing, and the
mechanisms of structural violence: amount of disequilibrium in the system177
would also tend to upset any stability. 4. The relation between personal and
Moreover, if the systems are not congruent structural violence
but differ in structure, actors will not so
easily generalize interaction patterns but In this section some comments will be
be more flexible, less frozen into one way offered on this relationship, following
of acting (for instance servility). And if this outline:
the actor with highest rank did not nec-
essarily have the most central position 1. Is there really a distinction between personal
in the network this would diminish his and structural violence at all?
power, which would also be diminish- 2. If there
is, does not one type of violence pre-
ed if actors with lower ranks were to a lar- suppose the manifest presence of the other?
ger extent permitted direct interaction 3. If pure types exist, could it not nevertheless
(not only interaction mediated through be said that they have a pre-history of the
the actors with high rank). Finally: non- other type?
linear, pyramidal (also known as partial) 4. If this is not generally the case, could it not
ranking order permits more leeway, more be that one type of violence presupposes the
latent presence of the other?
flexibility in the system.27
Many propositions can now be devel- 5. If this is not the case, could it not be that
one is the price we have to pay for the ab-
oped about this, a basic one being that sence of the other?
social systems will have a tendency to
6. If this is not generally the case, could it not
develop all six mechanisms unless delib- be that one type is much more important in
erately and persistently prevented from its consequences than the other?
doing so. Thus the pattern is set for an
aggravation of inequality, in some struc-
tures so much so that the lowest-ranking Let us start with the first question.
actors are deprived not only relative to It may be argued that this distinction
the potential, but indeed below sub- is not clear at all: it disregards slights
sistence minimum. Inequality then shows of the structural element in personal viol-
up in differential morbidity and mortality ence and the personal element in struc-
rates, between individuals in a district, tural violence. These important perspec-
between districts in a nation, and be- tives are regained if a person is seen as
tween nations in the international sys- making his decision to act violently not
tem - in a chain of interlocking feudal only on the basis of individual deliber-
relationships. They are deprived because ations but (also) on the basis of expec-
the structure deprives them of chances tations impinging on him as norms
to organize and bring their power to bear contained in roles contained in statuses
against the topdogs, as voting power, through which he enacts his social self;
bargaining power, striking power, vio- and, if one sees a violent structure as
lent power - partly because they are something that is a mere abstraction
atomized and disintegrated, partly be- unless upheld by the actions, expected
cause they are overawed by all the from the social environment or not, of
authority the topdogs present. individuals. But then: does not this mean
Thus, the net result may be bodily that there is no real distinction at all?
harm in both cases, but structural viol- Cannot a person engaging in personal
ence will probably just as often be recorded violence always use expectations from
as psychological violence. Hence, highly the structure as an excuse, and does not
different means may lead to highly similar a person upholding an exploitative social
results - a conclusion to be explored later. structure have responsibility for this?178 The distinction that nevertheless re- any setting - often referred to as ’bullies’. mains is between violence that hits hu- Characteristic of them is precisely that man beings as a direct result of Figure 4 they carry their violent propensity with type actions of others, and violence that them far outside any structural context hits them indirectly because repressive deemed reasonable by society at large, structures (as analyzed in preceding sec- for which reason they will often be insti- tion) are upheld by the summated and tutionalized (in prison or mental hospi- concerted action of human beings. The tal, depending on which basic norms they qualitative difference between these ac- infract first and most clearly). Hence, we tions is the answer. The question of guilt may conclude that the two forms of is certainly not a metaphysical question; violence are empirically independent: guilt is as real as any other feeling, but a the one does not presuppose the other. less interesting one. The question is But from this alone it cannot be con- rather whether violence is structured in cluded that there is no necessary (not such a way that it constitutes a direct, only sufficient) causal relationship be- personal link between a subject and an tween the two types of violence, or that object, or an indirect structural one, not the even stronger condition of one-way how this link is perceived by the persons reductionism is not fulfilled. One may at either end of the violence channel. The argue that all cases of structural violence objective consequences, not the subjec- can, by closer scrutiny, be traced back to tive intentions are the primary concern. personal violence in their pre-history. But are personal and structural vio- An exploitative caste system or race lence empirically, not only logically, in- society would be seen as the consequence dependent of each other? Granted that of a large-scale invasion leaving a thin, there may be a corrrelation so that struc- but powerful top layer of the victorious tures richly endowed with structural vio- group after the noise of fighting is over. lence often may also display above aver- A bully would be seen as the inevitable age incidence of personal violence, it is product of socialization into a violent possible to have them in pure forms, to structure: he is the rebel, systematically have one without the other? are there untrained in other ways of coping with structures where violence is person-invari- his conflicts and frustrations because the ant in the sense that structural violence structure leaves him with no alternatives. persists regardless of changes in persons? That structural violence often breeds And conversely, are there persons where structural violence, and personal vio- violence is structure-invariant in the sense lence often breeds personal violence no- that personal violence persists regardless body would dispute - but the point here of changes in structural context? would be the cross-breeding between The answer seems to be yes in either the two. In other words: pure cases are case. The typical feudal structure, with only pure as long as the pre-history of a succession of incapsulating hierarchies the case or even the structural context are of metropole-satellite relationships is conveniently forgotten. clearly structurally violent regardless of Far from denying that these may be who staffs it and regardless of the level fruitful perspectives both for research of awareness of the participants: the into the past and the etiology of violence violence is built into the structures. No as well as for search into the future and personal violence or threat of personal therapy for violence we would tend to violence are needed. And there are per- reject the position that violence presup- sons who seem to be violent in (almost) poses a pre-history of violence of the
179 same or opposite kinds. This view is a whether they result from conflicts or not. breeding theory, and like all breeding Personal violence is perhaps more ’na- theories it fails to answer two questions: tural’ than personal peace. It could also how did the process come into being at be argued that an inegalitarian structure all? and is spontaneous generation of is a built-in mechanism of conflict con- violence impossible, or are all cases of trol, precisely because it is hierarchical, violence the legitimate offspring of other and that an egalitarian structure would casesof violence - handed down through bring out in the open many new conflicts some kind of apostolic succession, the that are kept latent in a feudal structure. content being more like ’original sin’ One could now proceed by saying though? that even if one type of violence does not Take the case of structural violence presuppose the manifest presence of the first. Here it may be argued we will never other, neither synchronically, nor dia- get the perfect test-case. Imagine we chronically, there is nevertheless the based our thinking on something like possibility that manifest structural viol- this: people, when left to themselves in ence presupposes latent personal violence. isolation (in a discussion group, stranded When the structure is threatened, those on an isolated island, etc.) will tend to who benefit from structural violence, form systems where rank, or differential above all those who are at the top, will evaluation of relatively stable interaction try to preserve the status quo so well patterns referred to as status, will emerge; geared to protect their interests. By ob- high ranks tend to cluster on persons who serving the activities of various groups already have some high ranks, and inter- and persons when a structure is threaten- action tends to flow in their direction - ed, and more particularly by noticing hence the net result is sooner or later a who comes to the rescue of the structure, feudal structure. One might then object: an operational test is introduced that can yes, because these persons are already be used to rank the members of the socialized into such structures, and all structure in terms of their interest in they do is to project their experiences and maintaining the structure. The involve- their habits so as to give life to an em- ment that does not show clearly in times bryonic structure. And there is no way of unimpeded persistence is brought up around it: human beings, to be human, to the surface when there is turbulence. have to be rated by humans, hence there But one has to observe carefully, for will always be an element of succession. those most interested in the maintenance Maybe, but, we also suspect that the of status quo may not come openly to reasoning above holds true even under the defence of the structure: they may tabula rasa conditions because it prob- push their mercenaries in front of them.28 ably is connected with the fact (1) that In other words, they may mobilize the individuals are different and (2) that these police, the army, the thugs, the general differences somehow are relevant for social underbrush against the sources their interaction behavior. Hence, spe- of the disturbance, and remain them- cial measures are needed to prevent the selves in more discrete, remote seclusion formation of feudal structures: struc- from the turmoil of personal violence. tural violence seems to be more ’natural’ And they can do this as an extrapolation than structural peace. And similarly with of the structural violence: the violence personal violence: it is difficult to see how committed by the police is personal by even the most egalitarian structure would our definition, yet they are called into be sufficient to prevent cases of violence, action by expectations deeply rooted in
180
the structure - there is no need to assume theless around the corner - and corre-
an intervening variable of intention. spondingly that if absence of structural
They simply do their job. violence is combined with personal vio-
This view is probably generally very lence, then structural violence is also
valid, even if it may underestimate the around the comer. All we are saying is only
significance of a number of factors: that the sum of violence is constant, only
that one has to take into account the latent
1. the extent to which the ’tools of oppression’ variety of the type of violence ’abolished’
may have internalized the repressive struc- to see more clearly how that type is in a
ture so that their personal violence is an ex-
pression of internalized, not only institution- standby position, ready to step in once
alized norms; the other type crumbles. Absence of one
2. the extent to which those who benefit from type of violence is bought at the expense
the structural violence may theniselves have of the threat of the other.
severe and sincere doubts about that struc- But, however insight-stimulating this
ture and prefer to see it changed, even at
their own expense;
may be in certain situations we refuse to
3. the extent to which the ’challenge of the
accept this pessimistic view for two rea-
sons. First, the two propositions seem
structure’ may be a personal confrontation
with the police etc. more than with the simply not to be true. It is not at all
structure, and reveal more about the dyna- difficult to imagine a structure so purely
mics of interpersonal relations than about structural in its violence that all means
the structure.29
of personal violence have been abolished,
4. the extent to which all members in a violent
so that when the structure is threatened
structure, not only the topdogs, contribute
to its operation and hence are all responsible there is no second trench defense by
as they can all shake it through their non- mobilizing latent personal violence. Simi-
cooperation. larly, a structure may be completely
unprepared for freezing the released for-
But these are minor points; social affairs ces stemming from a reduction of per-
always refuse to be captured in simplistic sonal violence into a hierarchical order.
formulations. More important is whether Empirically such cases may be rare, but
one can also turn the proposition around yet significant.
and gain some insight by saying that Second, the assumption would be that
manifest personal violence presupposes human beings somehow need violence to
latent structural violence - which is not be kept in line; if not of the personal
the same as saying that it presupposes type, then of the structural variety. The
manifest structural violence. The idea argument would be that if there is no
would be that of an egalitarian structure personal violence or threat of personal
maintained by means of personal vio- violence then a very strong hierarchical
lence, so that when this pattern of vio- order is needed to maintain order and
lence is challenged to the point of aboli- to control conflict; and if there is no
tion there will be an emergence of struc- structural violence or threat of structural
tural violence. violence, then personal violence will
The proposition is interesting because easily serve as a substitute. But even if
it may open for some possible insights in this may be a reasonable theory to explain
structures yet unknown to us. It does not possible empirical regularities, that in
seem a priori unreasonable to state that itself is not sufficient argument for rei-
if the absence of personal violence is fying a regularity into a principle sup-
combined with a pattern of structural posedly eternally valid. On the contrary,
violence, then personal violence is never- this would be a highly pessimistic view181
of the human condition, and to accept Personal violence directed against the top-
it fully would even be a capitulationist dogs in a feudal structure incapacitating
them bodily by means of the techniques in
view.
Table 1, used singly or combined. When the
From the problem of whether one type topdogs are no longer there to exercise
of violence is necessary to obtain or their roles the feudal structure can clearly
sustain the other type, whether at the no longer function. Hence, just as under 1
manifest or the latent levels, it is not far above between-group structural violence
may be abolished by this process. But to
to the opposite problem: is one type of abolish the topdogs in a violent structure is
violence necessary or sufficient to abolish one thing, to abolish the violent structure
the other type? The question, which quite another, and it is this fallacy of mis-
actually splits into four questions, brings placed concreteness that is one of the stron-
us directly into the center of contempo-
gest arguments against the proposition. The
new power group may immediately fill the
rary political debate. Let us examine vacancies, retaining the structure, only
briefly some of the arguments. changing the names of the incumbents and
possibly the rationalization of the structure,
in which case the structural violence is not
1. Structural violence is sufficient to abolish even abolished for a short term. Or the struc-
personal violence. This thesis seems to have a ture may re-emerge after some time, because
certain limited and short-term validity. If all of internal dynamism or because it has after
the methods mentioned above for sustaining
all been firmly imprinted on the minds of
structural violence are implemented, then the new power-holders and has thus been
it seems quite possible that personal violence
present all the time in latent form.
between the groups segregated by the struc-
ture is abolished. The underdogs are too 4. Personal violence is necessary to abolish
isolated and too awed by the topdogs, the structural violence. This is, of course, a fa-
mous revolutionary proposition with a cer-
topdogs have nothing to fear. But this only
holds between those groups; within the tain currency. One may argue against it on
groups the feudal structure is not practised. three grounds: empirically, theoretically
And although the structure probably is and axiologically. Empirically one would
among the most stable social structures point to all the cases of structural change
imaginable, it is not stable in perpetuity. decreasing structural violence that seem to
There are many ways in which it may be take place without personal violence. The
upset, and result in tremendous outbursts of counter-argument will be that there were ca-
ses with no basic change of the structure, for
personal violence. Hence, it may perhaps be
said to be a structure that serves to compart- if there had been a fundamental threat to the
mentalize personal violence in time, leading power-holders then they would have resorted
to successions of periods of absence and pre- to personal violence. Theoretically one would
sence of personal violence. point to the qualitative difference between
the means of personal and structural vio-
2. Structural violence is necessary to abolish
lence and ask: even if personal violence may
personal violence. This is obviously not true, lead to the abolition of structural violence,
since personal violence will cease the mo- is it not likely that some, and possibly also
ment the decision not to practise it is taken.
more effective means of changing a structure
But this is of course begging the question: would be structural, for instance systematic
under what condition is that decision made
changes of interaction networks, rank pro-
and really sustained? That structural vio- files etc.? In other words, the belief in the
lence represent3 an alternative in the sense
that much of the ’order’ obtained by means
indispensability of personal violence could be
said, on theoretical grounds, to be a case of
of (the threat of) personal violence can also
fetishization of personal violence. And then
be obtained by (the threat of) structural there is the axiological argument: even if
violence is clear enough. But to state a re-
personal violence could be seen as indispens-
lation of necessity is to go far outside our able up till today, on empirical and/or
limited empirical experience. theoretical grounds, this would be one more
3. Personal violence is sufficient to abolish good reason for a systematic search for the
structural violence. Again, this thesis seems conditions under which this indispensabi-
to have a certain limited short-term validity. lity would disappear.182
Again our search seems to fail to research institutes, is that the door would
uncover any absolutes. It is hard to be opened for answers to questions such
sustain abelief in sufficiency or necessity as whether the costs in terms of personal
one way or the other. The two types of violence were higher or lower than the
violence simply do not seem to be more gains in reduction of structural violence
tightly connected empirically than logi- in, say, the Cuban revolution. The pre-
cally - and as to the latter, the whole sent author would say that they were
exercise is an effort to show that they may definitely lower, using comparable Latin
be seen as logically independent even American countries as a basis for evalu-
though they are continuous with each ating the costs of the structural violence
other: one shades into the other. under Batista, but in the equation one
But even if one now rejects reduction- would of course also have to include the
ism one way or the other there would personal violence under Batista and the
still be good reason for focussing research structural violence under Castro, e. g. in
attention more on one kind of violence the form of almost complete alienation of
than on the other: it may always be ar- the former bourgeoisie, not only as status
gued than one is much more important holders, but as persons. Such statements
in its consequences than the other. Thus, are impressionistic however, they should
imagine we were able to calculate the be backed up empirically.
losses incurred by the two forms of vio- But however attractive such calcula-
lence, or the gains that would accrue to tions may be - for reasons of intellectual
mankind if they could be eliminated. In curiosity about the dynamics of violence,
principle this should not be quite impossi- structural and personal, even to develop
ble, at least not for the simpler physical much higher levels of theoretical in-
forms of violence that show up in terms sights in these phenomena than we possess
of mortality, and possibly also in terms of today - this is not the same as accepting
morbidity. Mortality and morbidity rates cost-benefit analysis in this field as a
under the condition of absence of war basis for political action. The point here
can usually be calculated relatively well is not so much that one may have objec-
by extrapolation from pre-war and post- tions to projecting the mathematical ’one
war data. It is more difficult for the case human life-year one human life-year’,
=
of absence of exploitation, but not im- regardless how it is lost or gained, on to
possible : we could calculate the levels at- the stage of political action, but rather
tained if all available resources were used that this type of analysis leads to much
for the purpose of extending and im- too modest goals for political action.
proving the biological life-span and in Imagine that the general norm were for-
addition were distributed in an egalitar- mulated ’you shall act politically so as
ian fashion in social space. The costs to decrease violence, taking into account
incurred by violence of one form or the both before and after levels of personal
other would then appear as the difference and structural violence’. A norm of that
between the potential and the actual, as kind would be blind to possible differen-
the definition requires, and the costs can ces in structural and personal violence
then be compared. One could also imag- when it comes to their potential for get-
ine calculations of the costs of the joint ting more violence in the future. But it
operation of the two forms of violence. would also condone action as long as
One significant feature of such calcu- there is any decrease, and only steer polit-
lations, that definitely should have a high ical action downwards on the violence
priority on the research program of peace surface, not lead to a systematic searchYou can also read
