FORMS OF VIOLENCE

Research paper

VAIDIKA YADAV, TISHA , MEGHA , KASHISH

YADAV, SANSKRITI SHRIVASTAVA

vaidika yadav
12/1/2023
What is defined as violence in international relations and what are its
different forms?
Violence in international relations is a complex and varied phenomenon that has historically been a
feature of the global political setting. Violence demonstrates itself in a variety of methods that range
from military conflicts and wars to acts of terrorism and human rights violations, having long-lasting
effects on governments, society, and individuals. This article seeks to investigate the topic of
violence in international relations, exploring its forms, and many expressions in the global arena.

WHAT IS VIOLENCE?
The use of force, coercion, or hostility by one state or non-state actor against another is referred to
as violence. Military operations, armed wars, economic sanctions, cyber assaults, terrorism, and
even diplomatic pressure might all be considered as violence. This is a constrained and outdated
definition of violence that concentrates on the observable and quantifiable features of violence while
ignoring the underlying causes and repercussions of violence as well as non-physical forms of
violence such as psychological, structural, or symbolic violence. The latter includes systemic
inequality, economic exploitation, and political oppression, all of which lead to instability and war.
However, violence can be defined as violation of human dignity, rights, or needs, which may or may
not involving physical harm. This is a broader and more critical definition of violence, which
challenges the state-centric and security-oriented view of violence, and recognizes the multiple and
diverse forms of violence that affect human well-being, such as poverty, oppression, discrimination,
or marginalization.

Violence has been a fundamental issue of International Relations (IR) since its beginnings as a
discipline in the aftermath of World War I. However, the way violence has been understood,
characterized, and investigated has evolved throughout time, mirroring the growth of IR theories
and paradigms. Some events like the emergence of the peace research movement in the 1950s
and 1960s, which challenged the traditional IR focus on war and security, the rise of critical and
postmodern approaches in the 1980s and 1990s, which questioned the objectivity and neutrality
of IR knowledge and the impact of the end of the Cold War and the 9/11 attacks, which
transformed the global security landscape are some of the historical and theoretical
developments that have shaped the topic of violence in IR. Scholars like Claire Thomas, Johan
Galtung, Hannah Arendt, Claudia Brunner, and many other scholars have researched and
wrote extensively on the topic of violence.
Claire Thomas' article 'Why don't we talk about 'violence' in International Relations?' asks two
questions to orthodox IR theory: why does it not employ the notion of violence more frequently,
and why does it not address the meaning of violence? The author asserts that violence is veiled
and legitimized in the way we talk about IR, and that a restricted definition of violence is most
effective for IR research. Thomas argues, ‘we need to talk about violence more often, and we
need to talk about what we mean by violence more often’.
Galtung, in his article "Violence, Peace, and Peace Research" noted that direct violence is
related to " somatic incapacitation, or deprivation of health, alone (with killing as the extreme
form), at the hands of an actor who intends this to be the consequence." According to Galtung,
direct violence is physically manifested, it is related to a discernible event, and it has to involve a
perpetrator and a purpose.
Hannah Arendt in her book ‘On violence’ has analyzed the complex question of violence. For
Arendt, power is too often equated with force and violence, when in fact it is a completely
different phenomenon, relying on different social processes. Arendt concluded from her studies
that violence is not the continuation of politics (albeit by other means), as some scholars have
defined it, but the opposite of politics. Only a regime that has lost all social support needs brute
force to enforce its will. Despite the brutal display of violence, however, such a regime is
politically weak, because it does not succeed in enforcing its will by law or persuasion. Violence
is an expression of powerlessness, rather than power. She writes: ‘Power and violence are
opposites; where the one rules absolutely, the other is absent. Violence appears when power is
in jeopardy’.
Another scholar of violence Claudia Brunner's ‘Conceptualizing epistemic violence: an
interdisciplinary assemblage for IR’ article offers an interdisciplinary concept of epistemic
violence or the harm caused by the development of knowledge and representation. The author
frames epistemic violence along the decolonial concept of a coloniality of power, knowledge,
and Being, and considers how we can undo epistemic violence while un/doing IR.
Paul Richards is an anthropologist who has studied violence in various contexts, has a
nuanced and critical perspective on violence, which he sees as a rational and strategic form of
collective action, rather than a pathological or irrational behavior. He also emphasizes the
importance of understanding the local knowledge, practices, and moralities of the people
involved in violence, and how they interact with the global and national forces that shape their
situations calling this as “people’s science”,. He argues that violence is not a simple problem
that can be solved by imposing external solutions, but a complex and dynamic phenomenon
that requires dialogue, collaboration, and adaptation between different actors and stakeholders.
Bonaventure Mkandawire in 'Ethnicity, Language, and cultural violence: Dr. Hastings Kamuzu
Banda's Malawi, 1964-1994' had discussed the language rights of Malawi (a country in East
Africa) political history. This paper uses Johan Galtung's theory of structural and cultural
violence under which the author had taken up the linguistic and cultural violence that had
happened during 1964 to 1994 against many ethnic groups in Malawi. This period saw serious
structural and cultural violence against Malawians and Tumbuka people in general.
There are also other scholars works like David Hoegberg’s “Principle and Practice: The logic of
Cultural Violence in Achebe’s Things Fall Apart”, Greg Wahl’s “’I Fought the Law (and I Cold
Won!)’”: Hip-hop in the mainstream”, Mary Kelly’s “Performing the Other: A consideration of
Two Cages” had tried to look towards cultural violence in different aspects.

Direct Violence
Direct violence refers to the use of physical force or coercion by one state or non-state actor
against another, with the aim of achieving specific political, economic, or strategic objectives.
This type of violence can take various forms, including military aggression, terrorism, armed
conflict, war, torture, and physical abuse, etc. Many forms of direct violence are the result of
structure-based inequalities exacerbated by ethnic tensions, environmental degradation, and
economic desperation. Sometimes particular expressions of direct violence such as armed
violence cause damage and promote conditions for structural violence. It also weakens a
society’s capacity to resist or adapt to other life-threatening harm. Thus, armed violence and its
debilitating direct and structural effects threaten peace—both negative and positive peace.

Johan Galtung noted in “Violence, Peace and Peace Research”, direct violence is related to "
somatic incapacitation, or deprivation of health, alone (with killing as the extreme form), at the
hands of an actor who intends this to be the consequence." According to Galtung, direct
violence is physically manifested, it is related to a discernible event, and it has to involve a
perpetrator and a purpose.
He referred to direct violence as personal violence, and is described as there is an identifiable
actor who commits violence. In this case, the nation-state can be on either side of the violence
as the perpetrator or victim. For instance, Hillel Frisch mentioned in “Israel’s Security and Its
Arab Citizens” that firstly, Israel suffers attacks from the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO)
which has the purpose of liberating Palestine through the destruction of the existing state of
Israel. This can be classified as direct violence against the nation-state. Furthermore, the
creation and maintaining of Israel as the Jewish homeland required and continuously requires
direct violence against the Palestinians who object to Israeli rule. Francis Fukuyama in
“Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of
Democracy” claims that cultural units corresponding to territorial boundaries demand
determining the borders accordingly or expelling the populations, both of which require violence.
The nation-state then perpetrates direct violence to achieve the homogenisation of its
population and suffers from attacks due to this particular identity.
Laleh Khalili, for example, writes, "for me, violence as a field of study
encompasses the strategic choices of oppositional movements (guerilla warfare, violent
revolutionary action, anticolonial warfare, etc.) as well as, and perhaps especially, the violence
wielded by states and empires.” Similarly, Daniel Neep writes about organized state violence,
and while he argues that there is a need to explore war and state formation by incorporating
culture into the analysis of violence, his prime interest is physical violence perpetrated by
agencies of the state against its population.
There are some forms of direct violence as mentioned above like
military aggression where a state uses its armed forces to invade, occupy, or attack another
sovereign state. This can be driven by territorial disputes, resource competition, ideological
differences, or geopolitical considerations. Violence also manifests through terrorism, which
involves the use of violence or the threat of violence to instill fear and coerce a population or
government. Also, it is often carried out by non-state actors and lastly, direct violence can also
escalate into armed conflict, involving sustained and organized military engagements between
states or non-state actors. Like, war is also a part of armed conflict and in history, we have
many examples of such conflicts such as- World War I, World War II, the Cold War, the Gulf
War and the post-cold war conflict.

Direct violence in international relations has profound humanitarian consequences, including

displacement, loss of life, and the disruption of communities. Its interpretation involves
assessing the human impact, potential war crimes, and the responsibility of actors involved.
Humanitarian interventions may be considered in cases of mass atrocities or violations of
international humanitarian law.

STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE
This form of violence was first coined by Johan Galtung in his 1969 seminal article who
differentiates it from direct violence stating that “this violence is present when human beings are
being influenced so that their actual somatic and mental realizations are below their potential
realizations”.He named it structural since this form of violence develops within the structures
showing unequal power which leads to unequal life chances. Through which he meant that
social relations are violent in their actions when it deprives certain individuals from realizing their
full somatic and mental potential.
Ashrafuzzaman Khan defines it as a “systematic form of oppression that produces suffering
and harms the individual over time and is more subtle in nature, more common and more
difficult to repair.”As illustrated in the instance of Domestic Violence, where an individual
becomes a victim of domestic violence is direct violence however if it is common against a
particular gender within the whole of the society it becomes structural violence. It is described
as a silent, subtle kind of violence which is essentially static and seems as natural as air.
However, these features of Structural Violence given by Galtung were not entirely accepted.
The second feature seems problematic to Rob Nixon who termed Structural violence as Slow
Violence describing it is a gradual process which does come in anyone's view and causes
delayed destruction as powerful as direct violence. He goes further describing it by the
environmental disruptions faced by Global South due to the Industrial activities of Global North
and the burden of preserving the environment is doubled for Global South.
The other features constitute there is neither an actor nor agent
responsible for violence nor it is an intentional act. It broadens the remit of security studies
as illustrated by Claire Thomas the damage done by economic issues such as poverty is
similar to damage done by direct violence. It is omnipresent and embedded in social structures.
The feature of No actor responsible for structural violence is argued by Roberts who claims that
since structures are created by people, this kind of violence can be prevented and if not, then it
does have responsible actors such as avoidable civilian deaths.
However, this approach is debatable since one could also consider various unavoidable
instances of violence.
Thus, these features indicate that each scholar has its own perception of structural violence and
there's no demarcation created for defining structural violence but structural violence as per this
research paper is taking structural violence related to international politics in terms of unequal
access to resources, education and health care ,political power, social representation
and legal standing and which result into social injustice, human rights violation, etc.
The question
arises how this form of violence occurs then, as described by Waltz is the difference between
actual use of violence and potential use of violence by the state structures. This has been
studied by various scholars who relate it with different fields of study. Such as Paul Fulmer
describing the unequal power dynamics of Global North and Global South by analyzing the
extreme forms of impoverishment and suffering of people of Haiti where most of his patient's life
choices were structured by Racism. Haiti is an independent nation in the Caribbean where the
population could be demarcated into two: European and African descent in which African
descent population suffers from differential treatment on the basis of race. Another scholar,
Yesim Arat tries to draw intersectionality of structures of inequality leading to visible violence
where she demonstrates how direct violence is supported by structural violence which is
the crucial factor of occurrence of direct violence. This view is supported by Banu Bargu who
argues the necessity to study the root causes of direct violence which lies in structures of
inequality and the unequal relations of power existing in institutions and agents. A similar
argument is made by Žžiek who argues that “systemic or structural violence must be taken into
account to make sense of subjective or direct violence.”
As Ashrafuzzaman Khan mentions that Structural violence is justified through cultural violence.
He further explains the adverse effects of structural violence which is subjugation, stigmatization
and psychological terror which impacts the entire community for generations.
There are various forms of structural violence as mentioned earlier. Dáire Mcgill categorized
into three pillars: social marginalization, political exclusion and economic exploitation.
Social marginalization is explained as differential treatment of certain social groups by the
dominating group, political exclusion is exclusion of some members of society from political
participation and economic exploitation refers to poverty, inequality on the basis of financial
resources.
The examples for these forms of violation are as follows:
Social Marginalization is evident in Argentina where latin americans differentially treat the
african descent population who is in minority in that country excluding them from political and
economic power within the society.
Political Exclusion is evident in Estonia where the Russian descent population comprises 24%
of the total population in Russia who are minimally represented in the parliament of Estonia.
Economic Exploitation is evident in Bangladesh where the Ahmadiyya community in
Bangladesh is socially excluded from the society and is prohibited to trade their products in the
local markets. This is represented in the case study of “Religious Minority Ahmadiyya
Community” in Khan's article.
Another example of structural violence is emerged in the form of new wars. According to the
'New Wars' Debate: A Historical Perspective Is Needed by EDWARD NEWMAN, the new wars
can be contrasted with earlier wars in terms of their goals, the methods of warfare and how they
are financed. A number of variables can be used to approach the concept of the 'changing
nature of conflicts. For example, first, the main protagonists and units of analysis of war, such
as states or non-state actors, public or private actors, terrorist groups, and warlords. Second,
the primary motives of protagonists, such as ideology, territorial secession, or material
aggrandizement. Third, the spatial context: interstate, 'civil', regional, or global. Fourth, the
technological means of violence - the weapons and strategies of war. Fifth, the social, material,
and human impact of conflict, including patterns of human victimization and forced human
displacement. Sixth, the political economy and social structure of conflicts.
Most wars today are intrastate rather than interstate, and interstate wars have declined in
number while intrastate wars have increased in number, civilians are increasingly deliberately
targeted as an object of new wars; atrocities and ethnic homogenization are key hallmarks of
contemporary conflict and civilian casualties and forced human displacement are dramatically
increasing, the new wars are characterized by state failure and a social transformation driven by
globalization and liberal economic forces; this gives rise to competition over natural resources
and illegal commercial entrepreneurship, private armies, and criminal warlords, often organized
according to some form of identity and a breakdown of public authority blurs the distinction
between public and private combatants, and between combatants and civilians.
This form of violence has gathered attention of the world over a period of time which has
resulted into formulation of policies for the welfare of people and reducing structural violence
within the societies. The policy makers are focusing on promoting social equality, preventing
economic inequality and participating in formulating egalitarian policies for the citizens to
combat Structural Violence.

CULTURAL VIOLENCE
According to Kevin Avruch, culture “to some extent is always situational, flexible and
responsive to the exigencies of the world that individuals confront” and that “cultural attributes
may vary from person to person within a single culture because of overlapping group
memberships.”

Johan Galtung in his article titled “Cultural violence” has described it as any aspect of the
culture that can be used to legitimize direct or structural violence. It makes the direct and
structural violence appear less wrong or right. It is neither like direct violence which includes
killing or maiming nor like violence that is built into structures. For Galtung “‘cultural violence’
means those aspects of culture, the symbolic sphere of our existence- exemplified by religion
and ideology, language and art, empirical science and formal science- that can be used to
justify or legitimize direct or structural violence.” He also clarifies that these are aspects of
culture and does not denote entire cultures as aspect A of one culture could be violent but not
the entire culture. Cultural violence changes the moral color of an act from wrong to right and
Galtung gave an example in this regard as ‘murder on behalf of the country as right, on behalf of
oneself wrong.’ It makes exploitation and repression as something normal or just turns a blind
eye towards it. David N. Gellner links cultural violence to structural violence and argues that
structural violence gradually and slowly changes and is frequently reinforced by cultural violence
or symbolic violence that inferiorize others using cultural means. People can evidently live with
high levels of cultural and even structural violence, without it leading necessarily to physical
violence. But physical violence is much more likely to break out where there is a background of
cultural and structural violence. According to Pierre Bourdieu “cultural violence is the unjust
distribution of opportunities for determining the symbols and cognitive components prevailing in
the society.” He argued that the imposition of a certain kind of education is an example of
symbolic violence. The unequal access to power and resources is thereby justified through
followed and normative ideological beliefs, cultural practices. The hierarchy within the cultures
had emerged due to the differences between the different groups on the basis of equal access.

Galtung in his article titled “Cultural Violence” had categorized religion, ideology, language, art,
empirical and formal science as the aspects of culture and tried to explain cultural violence and
how it legitimizes the direct and structural violence.

Bonaventure Mkandawire in an article titled ‘’Ethnicity, language, and cultural violence: Dr.
Hastings Kamuzu Banda’s Malawi, 1964-1994” conceptualized Johan Galtung’s theory of
cultural and structural violence by discussing the linguistic and cultural violence committed by
political hegemony from 1964-1991. The President’s nationalist policies favored his ethnic group
Chewa and language ChiChewa and imposed it on Malawians. During this period there was
serious marginalization and cultural violence against the Malawians and Tumbuka people in
general. There was intense structural violence against Malawians. This continued till the political
hegemony collapsed in 1994. The cultural violence was most against the northerners and
ChiTumbuka language which stopped its usage for print, schools and public broadcasting
media. The form of cultural violence here was where violence is so obscure and opaque that no
one can actually see the act or fact and know that violence had been committed. The national
unity was used as a weapon in disguise to eliminate all non- Chewa cultures and their
languages. The Quota system in education further was based on cultural violence and under
this also the northerners were targeted. This whole system created corruption, laziness,
reduction in academic standards and inefficiency. The political life in Malawi has changed a lot
since 1994. The task of the new political leaders is to avoid the repetition of the previous cultural
and structural violence against selected group remains.

Since the discipline's inception, violence has played an important role in the study of
international relations. However, in the early phases of the study and research, violence was
portrayed as a traditional and conventional phenomena characterized by the use of force or
military aggression, in other words, by causing physical harm to a state or a person.
Nonetheless, recent research and studies enlarged the spectrum of violence, identifying it not
just in terms of physical injury but also psychological, structural, or symbolic violence. While
direct violence is very apparent in state conduct, scholars such as Galtun have gone out of their
way to emphasize the societal frameworks that produce violence, such as patriarchy, gender
discrimination, poverty oppression, and marginalization. Religion, ideology, language, art, and
empirical evidence are all aspects that contribute to cultural violence. We have also included a
perspective on how the nature of conflict has changed and emerged in this explanatory
research piece. However, violence is a large field of study, and fresh discoveries might
undoubtedly disclose new facts and conclusions concerning violence and international relations.

Bibliography
Zehfuss, Maja, ed. Global politics: A new introduction. Routledge, 2013.
Galtung, Johan. "Violence, peace, and peace research." Journal of peace research 6, no. 3 (1969): 167-
191.

Arendt, Hannah. "On violence." In Democracy: A Reader, pp. 566-574. Columbia University Press, 2016.

Thomas, Claire. "Why don't we talk about ‘violence’in international relations?." Review of International
Studies 37, no. 4 (2011): 1815-1836.

Brunner, Claudia. "Conceptualizing epistemic violence: an interdisciplinary assemblage for IR."

International Politics Reviews 9, no. 1 (2021): 193-212.

Mkandawire, Bonaventure. "Ethnicity, Language, and Cultural Violence: Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda's
Malawi, 1964-1994." The Society of Malawi Journal 63, no. 1 (2010): 23-42.

Galtung, Johan. "Cultural violence." Journal of peace research 27, no. 3 (1990): 291-305.

Newman, Edward. "The ‘new wars’ debate: A historical perspective is needed." Security dialogue 35, no.
2 (2004): 173-189.

Gellner, David. Asian Journal of Social Science , 2017, Vol. 45, No. 6, Special Focus: Spaces of Violence
in South Asian Democracies (2017), pp. 779-788

Weinstock,Jeffrey and Riedner Rachel.”Introduction:Cultural Violences ”College Literature , Winter, 1999,

Vol. 26, No. 1, Cultural Violence (Winter,1999), pp. 1-7

Kaufman, Asher. “THINKING BEYOND DIRECT VIOLENCE.” International Journal of Middle East
Studies 46, no. 2 (2014): 441–44.

Khan, Ashrafuzzaman. “Structural Violence: A Tale of Three Women from Marginalized Communities in
Bangladesh.” International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 21, no. 4 (2014): 547–56.

Dáire McGill. “Different Violence, Different Justice? Taking Structural Violence Seriously in Post-Conflict
and Transitional Justice Processes.” State Crime Journal 6, no. 1 (2017): 79–101.