Structural Violence

[WillJ]

I don't approve of this last snotty remark at all, all the more since so far I have been able to fool a good many with it.
Furthermore who the fool is, the one who upholds an old mystification about his/hers society for whatever reasons, or the one who tries to find solutions for important societal ills beyond individual moralizing or toadying for the privileged, is a question everybody can and should ask themselves.
I think the term structural violence originally comes from or at least is typically associated with my eminent compatriot Johan Galtung, from some articles or studies in the very late 60s.I should have this stuff somewhere, actually, but as usual our place is a mess.
It is a good attempt to demystify structures in society that prevents individuals from realizing their potential; and will typically focus more on the situation of under-privileged groups(poverty due to exploitation or unemployment, institutionalized racism etc), and also the ill effects on mentioned groups.
And no; contrary to what at least one person here tends to believe people with wealth and "abilities" are not the best examples of this (Off-topic remark: Those who believe that there was no wealthy people or people who were able to develop their talents must have been living their whole life in a tub.).Perhaps I just have a heart of stone, but my compassion for the suffering wealthy is rather limited.
To be trivial, the problem with this term is of course a common one in politics; the battle for language. The one who defines is master, and since we should all know that this is a board on which it is really hip to be square, there is a very slim chance indeed to get any wide acceptance for it in the nearest future. Frankly I don't think it is worth the effort, I prefer go out in the real world and try to find some more suckers to fool with my evil propagande.
And finally Ram, since you already have the link to TRANSCEND in your sig, I think you should be able to find a lot of material about it. Other people interested would also benefit from visiting that excellent site.

You've fooled people into thinking there's actual violence going on?

I hate racism, sexism, inequality of opportunity, etc. just as much as you do (or at least I think so). But I think calling those things "violence" is silly and intellectually dishonest, just like a lot of other sociopolitical terminology (calling abortion "murder" comes to mind). If you disagree, then I don't think I have anything good to say to convince you otherwise.

 

[Veritass]

My turn. Who wants to define "didactic misanthropy"?

 

[IglooDame]

My turn. Who wants to define "didactic misanthropy"?

I thought we were waiting for Ram to come back and enlighten us.

 

[Veritass]

Oh, we don't need that. There is a Wiki page on Structural Violence if you want to read it. That's why I am sarcastically objecting to the "...let's all take a shot at defining..." approach. This approach only serves to obfuscate the meaning of the term in question, kind of like "terrorism." If we make all killing into terrorism and have it lose its definition, that's half the battle to justifying it.

All right, we'll try another one. Who wants to define "non-linear steatopygia"?

 

[Richard Cribb]

You've fooled people into thinking there's actual violence going on?

It was an attempt at the famous Socratic irony.
I don't fool people, I leave that part to dominant media.

I hate racism, sexism, inequality of opportunity, etc. just as much as you do (or at least I think so). But I think calling those things "violence" is silly and intellectually dishonest, just like a lot of other sociopolitical terminology (calling abortion "murder" comes to mind). If you disagree, then I don't think I have anything good to say to convince you otherwise.

About the first I have no idea, and that is hardly the point.
This is not a competion about being mr.Compassionate, but it is a small exercise in rhetorics and politics.
And for some, some good food for thoughts.
The point is, however, that you can't expect everybody to agree on a political debate following the rules of elite discourse. The world is unfortunately far more complex than that.
And you certainly can't call everybody whose thoughts and ideas you don't like and/or not understand intellectually dishonest. The way I see it in this exact case, the euphemisms used by the ruling elites ("structural adjustments" comes to mind) is far less honest, but of course that is within the circle of the gentlemen's club.
Just have a look at the link to wikipedia that that silly teenager posted just above me ( those interested in more material are free to PM me, as I have absolutely no intention to revisit this thread), and ask yourself again why that is not violence, intended violence, against the people and groups in the receiving end. It is no doubt in my mind that a marauding gang of Huns couldn't have caused such amounts of suffering - by far - as brought about by the goons of neoliberalism in recent years.
Try also to reflect a bit about how language change,with the societal changes, and that perhaps being exactly one hour behind your time, is not necessary the most impressive or laudable position.
And finally, in the future please try to stick to the rule that you have laid down here; if you have nothing good to say to me, please don't say anything at all.
I wish you a pleasant evening.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Since luc has a habit of answering to threads that he's said he won't visit again, I thought I'd respond to this:

Just have a look at the link to wikipedia that that silly teenager posted just above me ( those interested in more material are free to PM me, as I have absolutely no intention to revisit this thread), and ask yourself again why that is not violence, intended violence, against the people and groups in the receiving end. It is no doubt in my mind that a marauding gang of Huns couldn't have caused such amounts of suffering - by far - as brought about by the goons of neoliberalism in recent years.

The implicit assumption here seems to be that what the "goons of neoliberalism" are doing is violence because it creates suffering. To me, this makes no sense - violence does not necessarily cause suffering, and suffering is not necessarily caused by violence.


Hell, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd think the phrase "structural violence" were invented by conservatives to prevent debate about societal inequities.

 

[Arcadian83]

...this makes no sense - violence does not necessarily cause suffering, and suffering is not necessarily caused by violence....

I second this, and also agree with WillJ about the term "Structural Violence" as being intellectually dishonest.

In business this happens a lot. Pointy-Haired-Bosses (PHB's, see the comic Dilbert ) seem to think they can change peoples' mind about an issue by controlling the language. They change "firing" because no one likes it to "letting go", and soon no one likes that phrase either. They change "firing many people" to "layoffs", and soon people get that it's the same idea and no one likes that word anymore, either. People can see through the language to the ideas, and soon a rose by any other name has the same meaning. Furthermore, the people don't appreciate the shallow attempt at deception.

Likewise, I'm thinking that the concept of a "RT4X" Game (see other discussion) is just a gimmick to make a certain new game look not like 'yet another RTS', although likely it is just that.

 

[WillJ]

It was an attempt at the famous Socratic irony.
I don't fool people, I leave that part to dominant media.

And I was simply playing along, of course.

About the first I have no idea, and that is hardly the point.
This is not a competion about being mr.Compassionate, but it is a small exercise in rhetorics and politics.

I thought you thought that I didn't care about the poor, that I was okay with "structural violence." If that's not the case, then forget I said anything.

=luceafraul] And you certainly can't call everybody whose thoughts and ideas you don't like and/or not understand intellectually dishonest. The way I see it in this exact case, the euphemisms used by the ruling elites ("structural adjustments" comes to mind) is far less honest, but of course that is within the circle of the gentlemen's club.
Just have a look at the link to wikipedia that that silly teenager posted just above me ( those interested in more material are free to PM me, as I have absolutely no intention to revisit this thread), and ask yourself again why that is not violence, intended violence, against the people and groups in the receiving end. It is no doubt in my mind that a marauding gang of Huns couldn't have caused such amounts of suffering - by far - as brought about by the goons of neoliberalism in recent years.

What TLC said.

I think President Bush has caused a good amount of suffering, but I wouldn't call him a "violent man." Any journalist from a reputable newspaper who wrote a headline, "Bush Shows Violent Tendencies Yet Again" would be instantly fired. But I guess that's just because The Times is run by the elite, eh?

Try also to reflect a bit about how language change,with the societal changes, and that perhaps being exactly one hour behind your time, is not necessary the most impressive or laudable position.

Well, your mother is a whore.

Of course, by "whore" I mean "good cook." You see, language change!

Yes, language changes, but like you said, with societal changes. Not on the whims of a couple professors.

And finally, in the future please try to stick to the rule that you have laid down here; if you have nothing good to say to me, please don't say anything at all.

I said I have nothing good to convince you otherwise, as this is just a semantics debate. I feel my opinion on the semantics behind "structural violence" is on equal debatable footing as my opinion on the best ice cream flavor. It's worth discussing in a thread like this, but not debating. I'm not sure how I got involved in a debate with you on ice cream; I am sorry.

 

[Sidhe]

Hmm interesting, thanks Rambuchan and the linksters. I'd say the only crime in the modern world isn't wealth or intolerance or blinkered elitism per se. It's ignorance of anything that differs from your own social position; being rich is fine, being elitist is fine. None of this thinking would exist if you were educated informed and above all else cared about something other than your own generally pointless existence, the world is about common ground, about finding who and what and where you can fit your ideology, and if it's senseless changing it, take the holistic approach, no ones impressed by selfish self congratulatory fatuousness, except your average insular crowd. You know mediocrity fools; Sheep, plebian slaves, laughable unflickering devoted mindless prisoners. You are not a number you are a free man

 

[Rambuchan]

Sorry to have forgotten about this thread for so long, I'm not very good with CFC on a weekend. Here is some comment:

--------------

It is indeed about the contest for language.

There does seem to be a problem with the phrase, not only with its assumptions about cause and effect regarding violence and suffering. Quite alright to point that out. But I think those who do so are wrong.

In fact, bringing up that seeming mismatch makes me wonder ~ why are folk so lazy and dishonest all the rest of the time? Why get uppity about it now?

I think it is equally valid to point out that we generally swallow shaky language every day, not just those phrases that are perceived to muddle cause and effect. We swallow them even without a spoonful of sugar or a fair fight for the terminology:

"obligatory overtime", "voluntary redundancy", "positive discrimination", "illegal combatant", "state secrets", "peace through superior firepower", "physical persuasion" and those obvious ones such as “terrorist state” and “war on terror” etc.

These are just a few examples of phrases with ‘problems’. But try and log the amount of doublespeak, meaningless jargon and illusionary terminology you consume in a day and you'll be startled at how happy we tend to be with swallowing questionable language in general.

So why are some suddenly so wizened and wary? Why is the meaningful and consistent language police only on patrol in this thread?

--------------

I would say there are two crucial differences here.

Firstly, “Structural Violence” is not quite as dishonest as many are concluding here, see comments below for more. Secondly, if it is so misleading, it is failing to mislead many people in this day and age, for not many speak openly of ‘the violence’ inherent in the system. This contest for rights to use such phrases has not been won by those who support its usage and there are some methods below as to how that battle seemingly remains won. The phrase is shunned whilst we get our heads pumped full of other illusionary nonsense.

Now, I happen to accept that there is a mismatch to be seen (but I don’t accept it as a mismatch). Those finding a mismatch are in fact displaying symptoms of an illness that causes highly selective reading and acceptance of misleading phrases. It certainly is not an illness I tlike to acquaint myself with and the symptoms (when I do suffer them from time to time) do not stop me from seeing the insights and value that the phrase “structural violence” affords. That’s largely because I also happen to think that there is a meeting point between the two words.

--------------

Here is where I find the meeting point between structure and violence:

The structure and system referred to in the phrase does in fact underwrite the status quo with violence. Ask yourselves when a police force first came into being and under what kind of political and economic system. Try and protest in numbers today, what do you get? Riot police. Want to challenge the cosiness of the world’s seven, now eight, wealthiest nations? Again, find the police ready to greet you at their summit. Those who have been out on the streets in such a fashion are well aware that the baton and riot shield is to be found on the front line of challenging such terminology and all that it leads to.

Violence underwrites it all. And the absence of meaningful channels that don’t push protestors to get out on the streets implies it all the more.

Don’t have the cash to front a political party? Tough. Want to try anything different? Find banning, censorship, imprisonment and silencing, whether this is through active response or by default of the system, it happens. And once more, the police and their implements are there to make sure it does.

Let’s widen it some to a global rather than national scale. Don’t agree with the recent invasions? Think they are illegal and unjust? Tough shi!t, might is right. And because the most powerful military is behind it, no one can change the status quo. Again, their might, their capacity towards greater violence than any other, is what underwrites the world order in today's world (but today's world does not exist in isolation from history).

So, I see a meeting point between the meanings of the two words in today's society alone.

That’s something of the violence that is present in the system (the cause) but what of the effects? Those are sadly all too familiar and, as has been said above, this kind of systemic, structural, institutionalised violence brings far more damaging and long lasting effects than marauding armies ever do. Look into your tomes of history and witness the tumbled life expectancies, literacy rates, national incomes, levels of self sustenance and so on of colonised nations and continents.

Germany may have been bombed to smithereens in WW2, but they received reparations, trading rights, representation in world institutions etc and are back on their feet again. We cannot say the same of the working class in England, for example. They remain under the boot heel. Turn to Africa or India and witness the long history of violence being used to put many more people under a political and economic boot heel. It is not only in toda's world that we must look for the violence.

Once that (historical) violence has been dished out and the destabilising of a people has been achieved, the powers that be need only dish out a little more violence (so little and so infrequent that it can fool some it is not violent) to maintain it.

See, the violent causes of what I speak of here should be searched for all the way back in history as well today. Such an inspection tends to "un-fool" people about the phrase “structural violence.”

 

[Rambuchan]

I think President Bush has caused a good amount of suffering, but I wouldn't call him a "violent man." Any journalist from a reputable newspaper who wrote a headline, "Bush Shows Violent Tendencies Yet Again" would be instantly fired. But I guess that's just because The Times is run by the elite, eh?

Correct me if I am wrong, but this, I believe, sums up where you are coming from and the point you are making.

Are you really suggesting and leading us to believe that Bush is a man in isolation? Are you really saying to us that his "facilities" are not part of him as a person, as a president of a nation, as a commander in chief of the world largest military? Really?!

Now that, good sir, is dishonesty!

(But I suppose you'll just say you're playing a game with us....)

 

[Rambuchan]

Oh, we don't need that. There is a Wiki page on Structural Violence if you want to read it. That's why I am sarcastically objecting to the "...let's all take a shot at defining..." approach. This approach only serves to obfuscate the meaning of the term in question, kind of like "terrorism." If we make all killing into terrorism and have it lose its definition, that's half the battle to justifying it.

All right, we'll try another one. Who wants to define "non-linear steatopygia"?

I have no problem with you posting your definition or any wiki links. Read post#3 more carefully for detail, especially the second to last sentence. But your other phrases are not welcome. Kindly start another thread for those.

PS. I see your sarcasm really stimulated the debate...
PPS. I also see that you've really settled the matter beyond question and given us a truly deep and rich understanding...

 

[The Last Conformist]

"obligatory overtime", "voluntary redundancy", "positive discrimination", "illegal combatant", "state secrets", "peace through superior firepower", "physical persuasion" and those obvious ones such as “terrorist state” and “war on terror” etc.

I can't imagine what problem you have with "positive discrimination" and "illegal combatant". How do they not accurately describe what they denote?

 

[Rambuchan]

TLC: I am being prefectly honest with you here, I fully expected someone to get sidetracked by some of those. Thanks for realising my little personal prophecy. Now please, deal with the thread topic.

 

[The Last Conformist]

TLC: I am being prefectly honest with you here, I fully expected someone to get sidetracked by some of those. Thanks for realising my little personal prophecy. Now please, deal with the thread topic.

I've explained why I think "structural violence" is a poorly-chosen phrase, and that I think that "progressives" are basically shooting themselves in the foot by continuing to use it. Is there anything more you want to know?

 

[Rambuchan]

Yes there is. I'd like to hear your refutations of my points about how it is NOT a poorly chosen phrase.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Yes there is. I'd like to hear your refutations of my points about how it is NOT a poorly chosen phrase.

Post #30 is rather rambling, but the essential thrust seems to be that "structural violence" is violence because social, political, and legal structures are kept in place with the use or threat of violence. Correct?

That still doesn't make any sense. My computer monitor is held in place by gravity - it does not follow that it is gravity.

 

[Rambuchan]

Structural violence addresses the relationship between social structures and violence. Not the structure alone. Not the violence alone.

So, you'd have to come up with some analogy that is in someway relevant to that. May I suggest "Computer Monitor Gravitational Action"?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Structural violence addresses the relationship between social structures and violence. Not the structure alone. Not the violence alone.

Instead of me guessing what you're trying to say here and probably getting accused of misrepresentation, I suggest you try to explain this again a bit more clearly - I honestly do not understand what you're trying to say.

 

[Rambuchan]

If you want me to rewrite my rambling post, then you will have to wait till tomorrow, as I'm off to bed now darling*. Or simply re-read it more carefully in the context of this little exchange (esp. the post you just quoted). I hope it all makes sense as it stands.


*Those wishing to get their post count up may wish to whisper sweet nothings like this to other posters more often.