Introduction
In structural violence, social systems or institutions harm people by prohibiting them from meeting their basic requirements. Although it is less evident, it is the most destructive type of violence since it results in unnecessary deaths that would not occur in more equitable societies. According to Galtung, regardless of the offender, direct and structural violence often results in harm. In direct violence, a specific actor—a person, a group, or an institution—is responsible for the violence. On the other hand, cultural violence refers to using replicated and unchallenged social norms to legitimize direct or structural violence. However, in structural violence, the conflict is inherent to the structures themselves (Shore & Kline, 2019). Despite the differences, an understanding of conflict through structural violence is intended to improve the analysis and knowledge of the conflict’s breadth. Structural violence is a useful way of understanding conflict because it explains bases on which it emerges, creates rationale for understanding internal laws, and it is an instrument for indication of challenges associated with change acquisition.
The Origin of the Theory
Structural violence has a clear foundation and framework for understanding conflict. It occurs when a societal organization prevents individuals from attaining their fundamental requirements. The theory was invented by a Norwegian sociologist known as Johan Galtung. The innovation was based on the 1969 paper “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research” (as cited in Ercoşkun, 2021). As postulated by Galtung, instances of structural violence comprise long-standing bigotry, prejudice, and classism, among others (Shore & Kline, 2019). According to Grauer and Buikstra (2019), domestic abuse, gender aggression, racial violence, ethnic cleansing, extrajudicial killings, state violence, extremism, and war strongly depend on structural and direct violence. (Gilligan, 2020). It is strongly related to social injustice as it impacts individuals in diverse social institutions differently (Herrick & Bell, 2020). Galtung contrasts structural violence with classical violence, which is direct and characterized by little, transient bodily harm committed by a person (Herrick & Bell, 2020). In this view, the purest kind of structural violence is violence that has no specific origin and lacks an actor to have perpetrated it.
The fact that structural violence is rarely detectable in comparison to direct violence is one of the biggest challenges for structural violence scholars. At first appearance, the costs of street violence or war seem to be considerably more significant, but structural violence’s “calm” waters are much more destructive (Lee, 2019). James Gilligan, an American expert on violence, linked structural violence to the worst military battles in history (Lee, 2019. As indicated by the historical origin of structural violence, the concept of institutional conflict is discussed, thus, a framework for understanding conflict.
Terrill Thomas Case
Structural violence is also prejudice against the poor, minorities, and the mentally ill. Upon entering the penitentiary system, more marginalized people are in increased danger. The poor treatment of correctional convicts of members of a marginalized group who are mentally impaired may increase mortality rates within prisons. Terrill Thomas, a 38-year-old African American suffering from mental retardation, is an example of structural violence (Holmes & Boville, 2020). In April 2016, in Milwaukee, United States, Terrill died of dehydration while being detained in solitary confinement, partly due to his actions in prison (Holmes & and Boville, 2019). According to the BBC, convicts around Thomas heard him pleading for water days before he passed away (BBC, 2019). Correctional staff allegedly switched off the water supply tap as a punishment for overflowing his former prison compartment and his unpredictable conduct due to mental illness.
Thomas had a bipolar illness, for which a doctor was giving medicine, and when he joined the facility, he was categorized among the mentally ill. However, instead of ensuring that he got to care for his acute mental illness, the prison punished him for pretending (BBC, 2019). His mental condition was treated as a behavioral issue, and he was penalized. He was arrested and put in a cell at the Milwaukee County Jail without a mattress, blanket, or pillow after being detained for allegedly shooting a person and then discharging a pistol inside a hotel and casino (Victor, 2017). In prison, Thomas was deprived of accessing drinking water, making him dehydrated. According to his attorney, he did not eat and dropped at least 30 pounds (BBC, 2019). This case shows how international laws contribute to the development of structural violence in the form of prejudice, distrust, and bias in healthcare for mentally ill people. This kind of conflict negatively impacts patients (Abdullah, 2019). Therefore, it is necessary to apply the concepts of the type of violence under study to understand possible problems in society.
Usefulness of Structural Violence for Understanding Conflict
Structural Violence as Fundamental on which Conflict Emerges
The relationship between structural violence and international law is quite evident and requires finding measures to limit its negative consequences. Thus, Cusato (2021) notes that international law contributes to the creation and formation of peace and society in such a way that structural violence is often ignored or simply overlooked by authorities, government and people. It follows from this fact that often more global problems and the omission of other issues has a detrimental effect on individuals. It can be considered crucial in the justifications for international violations since it robs some people of their rights and privileges while others get advantages and plaudits (Lewis & Sagnayeva, 2020). International conflict theories denounce the use of structural violence in settings that are easily accessible to the general public.
Healthcare inequality is a fundamental example in analyzing and understanding how conflict emerges as a structural violence. For instance, as it has been seen in the case of Terrill Thomas, structural violence may take on various forms and be so ingrained in the social order that it is impossible to identify. As a contemporary existence of healthcare disparity, approximately two million children die annually from preventable illnesses such as diarrhea and pneumonia because they cannot afford excellent treatment (UNICEF, 2022). In the United States, the maternal mortality rate for black women has been four times that of white women during the previous 50 years (Alang, 2019; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2022). The above illustrations indicate a health disparity within a mirage of social constructs.
Since structural violence is primarily considered biological, it disregards issues induced by people’s surroundings. These problems may be poor social behaviors or the prevalence of inequality, addressing the issue ineffectively (Kumar & Sinha, 2020). Notably, Paul Farmer argues that the biggest weakness in the prevalent healthcare model in the United States is that health services are promoted as utilities and remain available only to the rich (Christiansen, 2017). As medical practitioners need to be educated to appreciate the social dynamics that lead to disease, they are compelled to neglect the social factors that impact access to treatment. Thus, the study of structural violence within the medical field shows how this phenomenon can be useful in the study of conflicts (Hamed et al., 2020). As it was pointed out, international laws and innovations restrict multiple communities of people, which may result in reduced accessibility and the emergence of prejudice and bias.
Structural Violence as a Rationale for Understanding International Laws
The contemporary world is dominated by recurring international wars, with studies demonstrating that most result from structural violence. This primarily involves humanity’s social, cultural, geopolitical, and economic systems within a comprehensive ecosphere (Woehrle, 2022). In essence, structural violence is understood as a hypothetical tool that gives speculation deemed tentative to develop an acceptance of legally admissible facts. In addition, justifying the use of international laws also helps to interpret it.
Structural violence is a valuable tool since it involves a cognitive error in supposing that violent conflicts are employed to deprive other people of their rights and advantages. For instance, Terrill Thomas, an African-American, may have been a victim of institutionalized violence due to breaks of international laws regarding prisoners’ rights and privileges, a kind of structural violence. Consequently, even though an investigation suggests Thomas may have died from dehydration, the circumstances inside the jail might have led to pneumonia or other health-related illness that could have been combated with strong international laws enactments. In this regard, understanding is further enhanced by the fact that people or groups harmed or infected by structural violence are indirectly exposed to it. Therefore, structural violence provides a comprehensive explanation of applicable international law and a forecast of what just laws would entail in society.
Instrument for Indication of Challenges Associated with Change Acquisition
Structural violence is a helpful indicator of problems related to change adoption as a conflict. For example, recent years have seen significant changes in many fields, and every international organization must accept new concepts. Poor governance and oversight of multinational organizations have already compromised the employment system, leading to conflict and violence. According to Väyrynen (2022), land disputes have also been a cause of international wars when weak governing systems impede the possibility of maintaining peace via dialogue. The results are peace enhancement and the elimination of international conflicts. Inadequate methods of governance that do not accommodate the weak and downtrodden in society also contribute to the incidence of structural violence.
However, structural violence from uneven resource distribution enhances understanding international conflicts. The reality that successful governments are always entitled to advantages leads to international conflict (Väyrynen, 2022). In this instance, Thomas’s death might have resulted from restricted access to illness prevention as a social construct and structural violence. Based on this understanding, the study of conflict is more plausible. Research stated that “structural violence is that it opens up the category beyond visible, direct and immediate infliction of harm to include social evils” (Cusato, 2020, para. 14). Therefore, international law bases structural violence as caused by challenges in change acquisition within structural institutions, in this case, the prison environment.
The Rationale of Understanding Conflicts and Violence
Understanding international conflicts and violence through the lens of structural violence makes it easier to put peaceful features into practice. This is due to the ability to lay the groundwork for peaceful cohabitation; awareness is crucial for those who study peace and conflict. Prevention is prioritized over treatment, and it is typically regarded as desirable. When this information is available, political regimes and decision-makers are more aware of the widespread structural violence issues affecting their local society. As a result, it is easier to handle the problems with more practical solutions that avoid global war.
Unlike direct and cultural violence, the ability to analyze the impacts of structural violence on global conflicts facilitates the establishment of the groundwork for peacebuilding. For instance, according to Galtung, direct violence is believed to be the worst type since it is the most prevalent and evident (Lee, 2019). However, this is not true because its exposure makes it simpler to recognize and, thus, combat (Lee, 2019). On the other hand, cultural violence is metaphorical aggression represented in many media –religion, belief, linguistics, artwork, technology, journalism, and schools, among others — and helps to justify direct violence and limit or repress the victims’ reactions (Keestra, 2021; Malešević, 2022). Understanding the link between violence and international conflict is an effective tool for stabilizing the economy, governance, and social systems. This is accomplished by using several ways to improve all systems’ interoperability. With an appreciation of the challenge posed by structural violence, cultural differences may be resolved with relative ease.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is plausible to assert that structural violence is a valuable and useful framework for comprehending conflict because the fundamentals of the emergence of conflict can be explained, creates a rationale for comprehending international laws, and acts as a tool for identifying challenges linked to change acquisition within a society. As previously stated, structural violence is interwoven into societal systems and may seem to be nothing more than the everyday challenges of life, as shown by Thomas’s situation. Understanding this sort of violence should result in reevaluating social movements and transformation to minimize or eradicate structural damage. Therefore, structural violence is not only the establishment of societal manipulation or subjugation but also a systemic and proven means through which the strong exploit the vulnerable. In this case, as compared to direct and cultural violence, structural violence is a useful way of understanding conflict.
References
Abdullah, M. A. (2019). Structural violence and Pakistan’s health situation. Journal of Islamabad Medical & Dental College, 8(1), 1-2. Web.
Alang, S. M. (2019). Mental health care among blacks in America: Confronting racism and constructing solutions. Health Services Research, 54(2), 346-355. Web.
BBC. (2019). Terrill Thomas death: Family to receive $6.75m settlement. Web.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022). Working together to reduce black maternal mortality. Web.
Christiansen, I. (2017). Commodification of healthcare and its consequences. World Review of Political Economy, 8(1), 82-103. Web.
Cusato, E. (2020). Beyond war talk: Laying bare the structural violence of the pandemic. EJIL talk. Web.
Cusato, E. (2021). The ecology of war and peace: Marginalising slow and structural violence in international law. Cambridge University Press.
Ercoşkun, B. (2021). On Galtung’s approach to peace studies. Lectio Socialis, 5(1), 1-8. Web.
Gilligan, J. (2020). Shame: The emotions and morality of violence. In Crime, inequality and the state (pp. 245-250). Routledge.
Grauer, A. L., & Buikstra, J. E. (2019). Themes in paleopathology. In Ortner’s identification of pathological conditions in human skeletal remains (pp. 21-33). Academic Press. Web.
Hamed, S., Thapar-Björkert, S., Bradby, H., & Ahlberg, B. M. (2020). Racism in European health care: structural violence and beyond. Qualitative Health Research, 30(11), 1662-1673. Web.
Herrick, C., & Bell, K. (2020). Concepts, disciplines and politics: On ‘structural violence’and the ‘social determinants of health’. Critical Public Health, 1(1), 1-14. Web.
Holmes, I., & and Boville, D. (2020). The Chase Key: How a Black man died of dehydration in a US jail. Aljazeera. Web.
Keestra, S. (2021). Structural violence and the biomedical innovation system: What responsibility do universities have in ensuring access to health technologies? BMJ Global Health, 6(5), 1-4. Web.
Kumar, S., & Sinha, N. (2020). Preventing more “missing girls”: A review of policies to tackle son preference. The World Bank Research Observer, 35(1), 87-121. Web.
Lee, B. X. (2019). Violence: An interdisciplinary approach to causes, consequences, and cures. John Wiley & Sons.
Lewis, D. G., & Sagnayeva, S. (2020). Corruption, patronage and illiberal peace: forging political settlement in post-conflict Kyrgyzstan. Third World Quarterly, 41(1), 77-95. Web.
Malešević, S. (2022). Why Humans Fight. Cambridge University Press.
Shore, M. K., & Kline, S. T. (2019). Religion and peacebuilding in the European Union. Religion and European Society: A Primer, 143-157. Web.
UNICEF. (2021). Under-five mortality. Web.
UNICEF. (2022). UNICEF’s commitment to ending child poverty and achieving the SDGs: measurement, advocacy and evidence based policies. Web.
Väyrynen, R. (2022). To settle or to transform: perspectives on the resolution of national and international conflicts. In Raimo V (Ed.), Raimo Väyrynen: A Pioneer in International Relations, Scholarship and Policy-Making (pp. 279-299). Springer.
Victor, D. (2017). Milwaukee inmate died after being deprived of water for 7 days. New York Times. Web.
Woehrle, L. M. (2022). Conflict Analysis. In Lester, R. K. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of violence, peace, & conflict. Elsevier.