संरचनात्मक हिंसा : कुछ पहलू
Summary
The text defines structural violence as harm caused to individuals or groups by the discriminatory distribution of social resources or by the normal functioning of social systems. Galtung distinguishes two types of violence: one with a direct or indirect actor, and another without any identifiable actor, which he calls structural violence. This form of violence exists in all complex societies and is often seen in the unequal distribution of resources, education, income, and health, though some view it as natural. Kohler argues that wealth inequality promotes structural violence because wealth can buy not only a higher standard of living but also life itself. The concept of structural violence is controversial in peace and conflict research. Objectivists and subjectivists differ in their views on conflict. Subjectivists believe conflict exists only when affected individuals perceive it, while objectivists argue that conflict is an objective component of social structure, existing regardless of awareness, and is fundamentally a conflict of interests determined by social structure. This objectivist view resembles Marxist thought and faces similar criticisms. Adam Curle, a pacifist mediator, notes that peaceful, conflicted, and violent societies coexist; in some, behavioral violence is absent but inequality and economic-social disparities cause harm, making structural violence relevant when no clear perpetrator exists. The text cautions that the idea of structural violence must be used carefully, considering comparative units and whether inequality stems from group relationships. It also critiques objectivists for focusing on negative peace (absence of behavioral violence) rather than positive peace (harmonious relationships and structural change). While objectivists may sometimes advocate for escalating conflicts to achieve positive peace, subjectivists argue conflicts should be resolved through just means, as behavioral violence may not correct structural violence without rational expectation of success.
Conclusion
The document underscores that structural violence, rooted in unequal distribution of resources like wealth, education, and health, persists even without a direct perpetrator, challenging both objectivist and subjectivist views of conflict. Its implications are profound: peace efforts focusing only on behavioral violence fail to address underlying inequities, leaving societies in a state of negative peace. The analysis suggests that achieving positive peace requires transforming social structures, not merely mediating disputes. However, the text warns against endorsing behavioral violence to end structural violence, as outcomes are unpredictable and may worsen harm. Ultimately, the subjectivist position—that conflicts should be resolved through just means—emerges as more ethically sound, emphasizing that structural change must be pursued without triggering further violence. This calls for cautious, informed approaches to dismantle systemic inequalities.