galtung typology of violence-1

8/14/2019 Galtung Typology of Violence-1

1/4

Violence typology by Johan Galtung (direct,structural and cultural violence)

Forms of direct violence are instantly recognizable as such. According to peace researcher Johan

Galtung, however, there are also hidden forms of violence: "And it is for this reason thatresearch into peace needs a violence typology in a similar way that the field of medicine needspathology as a precondition of its work." Galtung understands violence as follows:

"I understand violence as the avoidable impairment of fundamental human needs or, to putit in more general terms, the impairment of human life, which lowers the actual degree to whichsomeone is able to meet their needs below that which would otherwise be possible. The threat ofviolence is also violence."

[Johan Galtung, Kulturelle Gewalt; in: Der Brger im Staat 43, 2/1993, p. 106]

This understanding of violence goes far beyond direct violence in which one or more people inflictviolence on other people. In addition to direct violence, Galtung emphasizes another form ofviolence, namely structural violence, which is not carried out by individuals but is hidden to agreater or lesser extent in structures. An example of this might be the injustices of the worldwidesystem for the trade in goods, which creates more and more starving people every year.

Violence typology by Johan Galtung 1 von 4


2/4

An encyclopedia article provides an explanation to the much-discussed term of "structuralviolence": "Violence is built into the social system and expresses itself in the unequaldistribution of power and, as a result, unequal opportunities (i.e. inequality in the distribution ofincome, education opportunities etc.). As far as Galtung is concerned, structural violence issynonymous with "social injustice." Galtung's analysis is similar to criticism of

capitalism in developing countries. This criticism legitimates the struggle against socially unjustsystems (guerrilla etc.), even when these systems largely forgo the use of oppressivemeasures."

[Taken from: Dieter Nohlen (Hrsg.): Lexikon Dritte Welt, Lnder, Organisationen, Theorien,Begriffe, Personen, Reinbek 1991, p. 621-622]

If we take the definition of violence according to Galtung ("impairment of fundamentalhuman needs") and add four need groups to the two forms of violence, we are left with thefollowing typology:

Violencetypologyaccording toGaltung

Need Groups

Survival

(Negation:death)

Well-being

(Negation:poverty,

illness)

Identity /purpose

(Negation:

alienation)

Freedom

(Negation:oppression)

Direct violence Killing Injury, siege,sanctions,poverty

De-socialization,re-socialization,underclass

Repression,imprisonment,expulsion,deportation

Structuralviolence

Exploitation A Exploitation B Penetration,segmentation

Marginalization,fragmentation

During the 1990s, Galtung supplemented his violence typology with another category andintroduced the concept of cultural violence: "Cultural violence should be understood asthose aspects of culture that can be used to justify or legitimate the use of direct or structuralviolence. The Stars and Stripes, Hammer and Sickle, flags, hymns, military parades, portraits ofthe leader, inflammatory speeches and posters are all included in this category."

[Johan Galtung, Kulturelle Gewalt; in: Der Brger im Staat 43, 2/1993, p. 106]



3/4

The last line of the Galtung's violence typology table is in need of a little explanation: What, forinstance, is to be understood under the terms exploitation (A and B), penetration andsegmentation and marginalization and fragmentation in this context? Galtung provides us with thefollowing explanation:

"In order to be able to discuss the structural violence category, we need to have some ideaabout a structure of violence as well as a vocabulary in order to identify the individual aspects ofthe violence structure and to determine how its individual aspects relate to the need categories.As far as I am concerned, exploitation represents the main part of a archetypical violencestructure. This means nothing more than a situation in which some people, namely the top dogs,draw substantially more profit from the interaction taking place within this structure (...) than theothers, the underdogs (...).

To use a euphemism, an 'unequal exchange' exists. In reality, the underdogs might bedisadvantaged to such a degree that they die (starve or waste away as a result of illness anddisease): This is categorized as exploitation A. The second type of exploitation (B) means leavingthe underdogs in a permanent involuntary state of poverty, which usually encompassesmalnutrition and illness. All this happens within complex structures and at the end of long andramified legislation chains and cycles.

A structure of violence not only leaves its marks on the human body, it also impacts on the mindand the soul. The best way to understand the next four terms is as a constituent part of the

exploitation, that is, strengthening components contained within the structure. Their function is toprevent awareness and mobilization of this awareness, which are two of the conditions needed tobe successful in fighting exploitation.

With the help of penetration, elements of the top dog ideology reach the consciousness of theunderdog; this penetration is linked to segmentation, which only allows the underdog a limitedview of reality. The latter is the result of two processes, marginalization and fragmentation. Thisinvolves forcing the underdogs increasingly to the edge of society, condemning them asinsignificant, dividing them and keeping them away from each other.

These four terms actually describe forms of structural violence. Indeed, they are all also linked tothe gender issue - even in circumstances in which death and illness figures for women are nothigher and in which they actually have a higher life expectancy than men. Or in other words, whileexploitation and oppression might go hand in hand, they are not identical."[Johan Galtung, Kulturelle Gewalt; in: Der Brger im Staat 43, 2/1993, p. 107]



4/4

"By making a fundamental distinction between personal and structural violence, it can beseen from two angles. Indeed, this is exactly the same as peace, which is understood as theabsence of violence. A more expansive concept of violence leads to a more expansiveunderstanding of peace: peace defined as the absence of personal violence and the absenceof structural violence. These two forms of peace are referred to as negative peace and positivepeace." [Johan Galtung]

[Author: Ragnar Mller]


galtung typology of violence-1

Documents