Structural violence can be defined as ‘a form of violence not caused by identifiable actors, but rather by a social structure, system or institution which prevents people from meeting their basic needs.’ This form of violence is often associated with the concept of positive peace as positive peace is created when there is an absence of structural violence. Additionally, it is important to note that, in general, people consider positive peace to be a much more stable, long-run and secure variant of peace – the other being negative peace which is simply the absence of conflict. In this essay, we will examine the claim that addressing structural violence is increasingly important to achieving lasting peace by examining violence prevalent in Northern Ireland, Singapore, Syria and the USA.
Arguably, this may be considered the most important form of violence to address as you can’t have positive peace without removing it. Positive peace is defined as the absence of structural violence, and is considered to be the sustainable peace that, from a liberalist perspective, all states should aim for. If structural violence is not addressed, only negative peace can be achieved which is defined simply as the absence of direct violence such as war and armed conflict. For example, although the Good Friday agreements in Ireland managed to limit direct violence by removing weapons from communities, it failed to address structural violence as sectarianism is still prevalent in those communities. Therefore only negative peace was achieved which has been unstable and prone to breaking down in recent years. As a result of this instability in the system, the structural violence present in Ireland may lead to increased direct violence in the future as tensions rise, showing how the failure to address structural violence leads to increased violence in the future. This demonstrates how in order to achieve lasting peace, solving structural violence is paramount.
Moreover, addressing structural violence allows a state to address multiple ingrained issues in society such as discrimination. From a liberal perspective, these are the most important issues to address as the failure to do so may prevent the development of societies. Singapore, although an economically rich and prosperous country continues to have notable social and political inequality regarding women, with them being unable to buy apartments unless they are married and continuing to be underrepresented in the political system. However, Singapore’s efforts to address this issue and therefore structural violence has led to increased growth, with the potential for the country to add $20 billion more to their GDP if they manage to achieve full gender equality. These steps towards addressing underlying structural violence in its system have created a more equitable system, therefore encouraging and facilitating peace, as all members of society are considered. Moreover, addressing these issues will lead to the development of human rights in a state which may increase their legitimacy and therefore soft power on a global scale.
However, others argue that focusing on other forms of violence should take precedence. One of which is that, like it’s argued that structural violence should be focused on instead of direct violence, it can be argued that cultural violence should be focused on instead of structural violence. Cultural violence is when the beliefs of society legitimise structural and direct violence. For example, the dislike for Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar legitimises the structural violence against them, therefore this social norm must be confronted before structural violence. On the other hand, it may be more important to tackle direct violence and therefore guarantee negative peace first. In places like Syria, it’s impossible to start having the talks that can bring about positive peace and the end of structural violence if both sides are still at war. An example where this approach is taken was in Ireland. Direct violence was first prevented with the Good Friday Agreement, paving the road for positive peace. However, it is important to note that (structural) violence was further alleviated through the establishment of Stormont which created/amended infrastructures to inhibit further dissemination of sectarian violence and discrimination. If paramilitary groups were simply demilitarised, there would have been no way to tackle the cultural norms which further cause sectarian violence and division in society. Therefore although often addressing direct violence should be prioritised, we must also ensure that we address structural violence through similar treaties.
Another issue is that addressing structural violence is a slow and difficult process. Identifying can be an issue in the first place as individuals with political power may be able to lobby against the discussion ever happening. Moreover, especially in democratic governments, laws have to be debated and passed through a legal system in order for them to be codified. This slows down the laws that could be put in place to reduce cultural violence. For example, the progress of solving racism in America is slow one because of the Democrats and Republican’s inability to agree on the policies. Latent violence from the 1600s (i.e. the beginning of slavery in the USA) often manifests in large altercations due to the cultural norms and structural beliefs – the institutoinalised and systemic racism – which perpetuates divisions in society. George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery and more were victims of the structures in society which cause racism: although addressing structural and cultural violence is a long and arduous process, it is incredibly important to address as, without addressing these norms, peace will never be instilled. Again and again, violence against Black people in America is incited and caused – without addressing the structures in society (such as Donald Trump enabling white supremacists in the presidential debate of 29/09/2020), peace will never be achieved.
In conclusion, although addressing structural violence may not seem like a short-term solution as it is a long and arduous process – one with much contention – it is wholly beneficial in the long-run. Without addressing the norms in society which perpetuate discrimination, violence and conflict, peace can never be achieved; this idea can be seen in the case study of Northern Ireland and the USA.