Critique Of The Galtung 's Concept Of Structural Violence

violence people have a hard time getting out of the situation and many continue to cling on and

“The practice of violence, like all action, changes the world, but the most probable change is to a more violent world” (Arendt pg 80). Violence is contagious, like a disease, which will destroy nations and our morals as human beings. Each individual has his or her own definition of violence and when it is acceptable or ethical to use it. Martin Luther King Jr., Walter Benjamin, and Hannah Arendt are among the many that wrote about the different facets of violence, in what cases it is ethical, the role we as individuals play in this violent society and the political aspects behind our violence.

For as long as humanity has existed, men have committed violence against one another. Assuredly, Nancy G. Guerra’s and Lyndee Knox’s entry on violence in the Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice affirms that, “As historical and cross-cultural records demonstrate, our evolutionary history is laced with examples of violence. Indeed, paleontological data reveal a rather continuous stream of human violence dating back thousands of years.” It is clear that violence is a part of human nature that has always existed and will likely never be eradicated. One of the aspects that all forms of violence seem to share is that, societally (in terms, at the very least, of Western societies), they are looked down upon. Consequentially, those who commit violent

Violence is one of the most exaggerated forms of physical aggression and it can exist for a series of reasons. It involves a person or a group of persons acting against another person or groups of persons with the purpose to achieve one or several diverse goals. In many cases violence results from individuals perceiving the acts of other people as hostile and thus wanting to act against these people before it is too late. Depending on the situation, more or less individuals might get involved in an act of violence, especially when they consider that it would be essential for them to do so.

In Cohen’s article,“Culture, Social Organization, and Patterns of Violence,” he examined a study, based on the use of violence. Whether it was seen as more culturally appropriate within South and West communities as opposed to less violence seen in tighter, more organized states within the North, he stated that it is a trend of commonplace within these areas and communities following this norm as it is part of that area 's

Violence is an unavoidable terror that has played one of the, if not the most, important roles in all of history. Without violence, lands wouldn’t be conquered, empires wouldn’t fall, and people wouldn’t have any limits or restrictions. The French Revolution is one example of a violent uprising because the people of France revolted against the rule of King Louis XVI by raiding, storming, and slaughtering for their natural equal rights. The revolution marked the end of a government ruled by monarchy and the start of the Republic of France. One important reason of why the revolution was successful in bringing political change was because it was violent.

In Cohen’s article,“Culture, Social Organization, and Patterns of Violence,” he examined a study, based on the use of violence. Whether it was seen as more culturally appropropriate within South and West communities as opposed to less violence seen in tighter, more organized states within the North, he stated that it is a trend of commonplace within these areas and communities following this norm as it is part of that area 's culture(“Culture” par. 4.) He cites that

Substantiating and quantifying this violence has proved quite difficult, as there

There are two sides to many things, one could argue that there are two sides to everything. Violence is not excluded from this argument. The two possible sides, or viewpoints, that are a result of violence can easily be seen as extremes of either side. One side could argue that violence is something that is necessary and the other argue that violence is only a tool for destruction. People who insist that violence is necessary in order to move forward view it as a way to sway the outcome to their benefit. For those who see violence as a cowardly tactic to control people, violence is a useless display of power and dominance. Yet violence has also been a way to defend oneself from people who pose a threat. This can lead people who have good

You must also take a look at the reasons for violent acts and what constitutes as such. In the “Meanings of Violence” by Dov Cohen and Joe Vandello, they examine the difference in the meaning of insults between the Southerners and Northerners in the United States. They talk about the importance in social status and the concept that anthropologist have called “Culture of Honor”. With the concept individual is based on their social position and how tough they are or what courage they carry. There is also the idea that if a persons social standing in reduced for whatever reason that there is belief that violence could be used to restore their position. The idea of culture-of-honor is that an incident may occur over something as “trivial” as being glanced at wrongly, or showing a threatening insult. The individuals may not see it as being a trivial circumstance but a threat to stand their ground and prove their

Theoretically significant to conflict is social identity theory. It allows “predictions to incorporate who is likely to perceive and act in group terms, to remain committed to the group in times of crisis” Turner (1999), Doosje & Ellemers, (1999). Bar-Tal stresses conflict exists when an incompatible goal exists between two groups. The question of when incompatibility sets become important in understanding the cause of inter-ethnic or communal conflicts for instance, even more importantly; conflict within ingroup. Inter-ethnic or communal conflict because within the scope of peacebuilding, that is the point where building peace thrives the most. There is an assumption that for peacebuilding to be

In order to discuss the modes of violence inherent in any symbolic order, a discussion of violence must precede its effects. It is easy to observe what I will call ‘subjective’ violence; however, doing so taints an ‘objective’ assessment. By subjective violence, I mean acts that we can describe as breaking the status quo or utterly unacceptable; spewing a spit ball, punching a friend, engaging in armed conflict, and so on. Objective violence is the status quo, or systemic acts maintaining the existing order; profit schemes enabling the last recession, government institutions that motivate resistance, etc. For the sake of brevity, I only wish to note that I am conceptualizing the notion of violence in an operative sense, as, I believe, it is the only way to provide an effective critique of

Violence is a behavior involving physical force that is intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. Also, violence can be against rights or laws of any government or state police. When thinking of violence, many people associate it with being aimed towards the black race. However, it goes beyond the black race and it is seen among teens, communities, and families of both the black and white race. For each of these different groups, I hope to show the triggers of this behavior, so we can identify them early and not reach the point of violence.

Violence can be described as a behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. Violence has been around from the beginning and can be seen through history in writing and events that occurred. In Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, violence’s jarring effects on societal members are evidenced through various relationships and partnerships, portraying society’s corrupt ideologies and ethics.

Structural violence can come from individual, social and political bearings. Although structural violence is not derived from anyone