More handpicked essays just for you.
Advantages and disadvantages of structural violence
Advantages and disadvantages of structural violence
Advantages and disadvantages of structural violence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Structural Violence
Structural violence is a form of violence which corresponds with the systematic ways in which a given social structure or social institution prevents individuals from achieving their full potential as explained by Galtung (1969). Structural violence explained by Samantroy (2010) is “…believed to come from a lack of access to power to protect oneself from the detrimental effects of the economic, political and social order” (26). Based on the definition of these two authors (Galtung and Samantroy), structural violence means the inadequate capability to protect oneself in times of need as a result of a failed system. Structural violence refers to “systemic ways in which structures harm or otherwise disadvantage individuals…”
…show more content…
(Burtle 2010). Burtle (2010) in his further analysis on structural violence said it is “…subtle, often invisible, and often has no one specific person who can (or will) be held responsible in contrast to behavioral violence.” I agree to this as there is no visible subject-object relationship unlike physical violence (as explained by Galtung 1969).
However when there is a violation of the object’s psychological and physical capacity to fulfil its potentials by a structure (in this case Aboriginal women in Canada) this counts as indirect violence hence structural as explained by Galtung (1969). Burtle (2010) on his website pointed out “to fully understand structural violence; one must understand structural barriers or structural inequality.” He said, “If a citizen cannot receive government services because she cannot read the language the forms are printed in, that is a structural barrier” and “if an immigrant seeking asylum cannot renew his business license and loses his livelihood because he fell through the cracks in a state law, here we see more structural inequality.” I think structural barriers or inequalities limits the options to an extent that there are no possible ounces for human or group development. It creates patterns or a culture of interaction between groups of different strata (using Aboriginal women vs. non Aboriginal women in …show more content…
Canada as a case study). Samantroy (2010) agreeing with Farmer (1996) further likened structural violence with social injustice, she said “structural violence is something built into the way in which a society distributes resources, resulting in steep grades of inequality, also expressed in terms of racism and gender inequality” (26). I agree to this as various reports and authors show structural violence breeds inequality and inequitable distribution of wealth which are hidden in the structures of the society. Farmer (1996) explaining structural violence said it is “exerted systematically” which means that structural violence is indirect in our societies. “Structural violence is not only problematic but also dangerous because it sometime leads to direct violence” (Samantroy 2010). This means when people are constantly denied better means of survival (in terms of social infrastructure and services) there tends to be negative behavior and overt rebellion. The concept of structural violence cannot be easily quantified unlike direct violence, given the subjective nature of human‘s potential and the way that it is built into existing societal structures (Cross 2013). However there is no reason to assume that structural violence amounts to less suffering than personal violence as explained by Cross (2013). Cross (2013) and Farmer (1996) argues that there is a gendered dimension to structural violence. Cross (2013) explained that qualitative studies have long explored the correlations of individual, household, and structural factors with violence against women in individual cities and countries. However, quantitative studies have focused on structural factors associated with the onset of armed conflict without considering structural factors that correlate with domestic violence and other forms of violence against women that occur outside of armed conflict. She argued that this is as a result of reliable data on violence against women. Agreeing to this, Farmer (1996) said factors including gender, ethnicity (race) and socio-economic status may each be shown to play a role in rendering individuals and groups vulnerable to extreme human suffering and structural violence. Gender helps to explain why the sufferings of women are much more commonplace than that of men (Paul farmer giving an example of Acephie and Chouchou). Throughout the world, women are confronted with sexism, an ideology that designates them as inferior to men. Farmer (1996) discusses the particular impact that poverty a form of structural violence has upon women who are driven to accept jobs which put them in a position of vulnerability in Haiti. He argues that life experiences must be embedded in ethnography if they are to be understood. But he also claims that “…local understandings, in turn, are to be embedded in the larger-scale historical system…” (Farmer 1996, 273). In this paper, the concept of structuralism through a gender lens is used to explain violence against women, as structural studies focuses upon the embeddedness of violence within societies (Cross 2013). Gender Analysis, Violence and Structures Gender equity is a first step towards the goal of equality (Amnesty international, 2009). However gender equality is very difficult to achieve based on the power dynamics both sexes are trained on (Cockburn 2004). Gender analysis is a tool used to identify gender imbalance (Cross, 2013) and understand the relevance of gender roles (Mazurana & Proctor, 2013) and their dynamics in conflict studies and analysis. Gender analysis examines the differences in women’s and men’s lives (Ochola, Sanginga & Bekalo, 2010), including those which lead to social and economic inequality for women (Ochola, Sanginga & Bekalo, 2010). Gender analysis concerns itself with the underlying causes of these inequalities and aims to achiever positive change for the betterment of women and men’s lives (Ochola, Sanginga & Bekalo, 2010). Gender is the social and constructed differences in women’s and men’s roles and responsibilities, which are learned (postmodern feminists) (Confortini 2006) varying from one culture to another and change over time (The world’s women, 2010). There is a unifying narrative constructed around gender roles which cut across cultures and time (The world’s women, 2010), which is violence against women.
Violence against women and girls have been simplified and normalized in our societies today (and in history); they are not even recognized by humanitarian laws (Cross, 2013). More women are victims of physical and structural violence. High structural violence adversely affects women politically, socio-economically and culturally. Structural violence against women are built and maintain in the society through socio-cultural/political constructions and norms (Cockburn 2004) which are used to manipulate, dominate and control women (Canadian women
foundation). Structural inequalities correlate with violence against women and unequal structures are themselves violent (Cross, 2013). The unequal power of women to men yields unequal life chances (Cockburn 2004). Both sexes do not have equal access to socio-economic and cultural power; therefore this is seen as structural violence by Cross (2013). Most of the people living in poverty in the world are women; more than 70 percent according to the UN estimates live in poverty (Amnesty international, 2009). Over 1.22 million Canadian women live in poverty with their children (Canadian women foundation). Women account for two third of the world’s 774 million illiteracy (The world’s women, 2010). More women and girl child are uneducated than most boys, which marginalizes them from taking leadership roles and employment opportunities which will boost their economics (Amnesty international, 2009). There is gender inequality in decision making positions in most government of the world, only 35 percent of women constitute world government (GII). Only 7 of the 150 elected head of states in the world are women, and only 11 of 192 head of government (The world’s women, 2010). This marginalizes women from decision making for things pertaining to her well-being and human development. All this facts show the importance of using a gender lens to approach conflicts. Cockburn (2004) explains that “a gender analysis alerts us to an intentionality in differentiation between the sexes. It also makes us hesitate to take at face values other distinctions, such as those of biological sex and sexuality.” (6). Agreeing to this, Samntory 2010 said recognizing the intricacy of the forms of violence against women that exist, one cannot say a single factor is the reason for violence perpetrated against women. There are various social and cultural factors that have kept women vulnerable to violence. One of them is the manifestation of unequal power relations between men and women (Hegemonic masculinity) as explained by Cockburn (2004). “Factors contributing to these unequal power relations include: socio-economic forces, the family institution where power relations are enforced, fear of control over female sexuality, belief in inherent superiority of males, and certain cultural sanctions that have traditionally denied women and children independent social status.” (Samantory 2010, 27). This hegemonic structures show that women have been trained on different power dynamics from men, and as a result of this, it systematically led into violence against them. The socio-economic/cultural relationships between men and women shaped by hegemonic structures will not be completely understood if a gendered approach is not employed in conflict analysis and design and policy formulation.
Women are still seen as the property of men, and are protected as such. Men and women are still taught to occupy very different roles in today's world. Men are usually in power positions, especially of an economic nature, and women are seen as passive. Marxist-feminist and differential identification are two theories that can be used to effectively explain the cycle of sexualized violence in Canadian society today.
Institutional racism is a facet of structural violence—but is by definition restricted to structural violence or cultural violence for which race is the catalyst and with racial bias or bigotry the sustaining element. Structural violence is differentiated from direct violence both in terms of etiology and nature. Direct violence is a result of events or the actions of individuals that kill or harm people.... ... middle of paper ... ...
In the past century, America has made great leaps in terms of equality. With the efforts made by the civil rights and suffrage movements, all people gained the right to vote. We are even moving forward with marriage equality, and currently fifteen states recognize same-sex marriage. But regardless of all of our progressive institutional movements forward, we continue to socially oppress women. Men’s violence against women has grown to be an internationally recognized epidemic, and will continue to grow unless measures be made to stop it. Domestic violence continues to be prevalent in the lives of many families, and is the primary cause of homelessness in half of cases for women in children. Many women have been forced to alter their behaviors out of fear of being sexually or physically assaulted. One out of every three women is sexually or physically abused in their lifetimes. The first thing that comes to mind is, there are a lot of people abusing women out there. Many people with opposing ideas may claim that men can be victims of violence perpetrated by women, but in instances not used for self-defense, it is rarely part of a systematic pattern of power and control through force or threat of force. In fact, 99% of rape is perpetrated by men, but when confronting men about the issue of violence against women, it is often combated with denial. Jackson Katz writes in his book, The Macho Paradox, “We take comfort in the idea of the aforementioned child-rapist murderer as a horrible aberration. A monster. We’re nothing like him.”(Katz 30). The sad truth is that most women who are raped are raped by men they know, or even men they love. Many men have a hard time believing that saying that most violence is perpetuated by men does not...
Violence has become prevalent within society; it is something the western world has learned to accept. With every minute that passes Canadians come face to face with certain acts of violence they may not have previously encountered (citation). Although, violence is not a subject that one can escape, women and children have unfortunately become the prime victims of violent acts. The media glorifies violence in other countries around the world it fails to address the presence of violence within Canada. Although violence is usually associated with gangs and guns, Canada experiences more violence related to bullying, sexual, verbal, cyber and domestic abuse (citation). Amidst the changing societal views towards treating women equally and eliminating objectification, of all these types of violence and abuse in our society, the most common still happens to be domestic abuse, which is mainly targeted at women and affects children. Domestic abuse is described as a form of abuse that takes place in the confines of the household (Citation). Though 51% of Canadians have said to have experienced or witnessed domestic abuse only 20% of those cases related to domestic violence are ever reported (citation). Domestic abuse has become more prevalent in modern society; however, it is an issue that is left un-noticed simply because its effects are invisible outside the walls of ones home. In reality the effects of domestic violence have severe negative effects on women, children and the social structure of today’s society. Without any notification of domestic violence the re precautions of this abuse can be dire. When an individual thinks of domestic abuse, their ideas quickly relate back to women, simply because women are the usual and most common victims of domestic violence. And therefore is an issue that must be resolved rather than ignored.
In the single year of 2009, there were 460,000 reported incidents of sexual assault against women in Canada (“Criminal Victimization in Canada” 1). Amnesty International once stated that aggression against women “is so deeply embedded in society that it often fails to garner public censure and outrage.” This is evidenced by the fact that only roughly 10% of all sexual assaults are revealed, and to exacerbate the circumstances, women are frequently repudiated, blamed, and dispensed apathetic or cruel manipulation (“Violence Against Women Information” 1). Women’s rights are constantly defiled through domestic violence, and yet it is still abounding and ubiquitous in developed countries. Indeed, every six days, a woman in Canada is brutally killed by the one whom she considered her loving male partner. With every year that passes, approximately 362,000 children are witness to violent parental episodes in Canada. Witnessing violence can disturb the development of children and can eventuate in
Coady then claims that the structural view is counterintuitive; specifically, he points out that our ordinary usage of the term rarely refers to many non-physical acts, such as those of social injustices. For this reason it seems that the structural view appears to be overly general, in which it is confusing and unhelpful. Moreover it appears as if the proponents of the structural view over-moralize it when they endorse certain social reforms that will supposedly eliminate all structural violence. Claims like this seem to assume that all violence is morally wrong. This assumption is itself dubious if we are to trust the common intuition in cases similar to the active shooter case mentioned earlier.
Canada is one of the developed countries of the world to adapt to progress and embrace change but this does not limit the great nation to a perfect country. Problems are still eminent and need to be resolved. Over the course of previous decades, Women in Canada and the rest of the world, started to voice out their opinions. They demanded a complete change of the way the system negatively targeted and exploited women. These were brought on by the fact that female living in Canada, were forced to endure terrible conditions before the 1960s. Some of these issues were patriarchy, rape, abortion, childcare, and discrimination of women at work places and violence against women. These were all issues that were doing harm to women in the Canadian society but the most appalling of them all was violence against women.
National data gives us an indication of the severity of this issue. When 1 in 5-woman report being victims of severe physical violence (NISVS, 2010), we must ask ourselves if enough is being done to prevent this from occurring. From a historical point, there has always almost been a distinction from men on woman violence. Based on the disparity of cases reported, male inflicted violence on females is much higher and prevalent. When the perpetrators of DV, and IPV are predominately males, we can no longer dismissed this issue as a cultural, or
Kirk, Gwyn, and Margo Okazawa-Rey. "Violence Against Women." Women's Lives: Multicultural Perspectives. 5th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2004. 263-64. Print.
Gender-based violence is made possible by the ideology of sexism in Indian traditional culture which argues that women are worth less than men in the sense of having less power, status, privilege, and access to resources that is more prevalent in middle class and low caste families.
Violence is prevalent throughout the world, and millions of people die every year because of this. There are many forms of violence, such as violence in war, domestic violence, violence against women (VAW), children and intimate partner violence (Krug et al., 2002:3). This paper will investigate aspects of domestic violence. Many scholars use domestic violence and violence against women interchangeably, but VAW is one form of domestic violence. The United Nations (UN) defines VAW as "any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or mental harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life" (WHO, 2013) (Cheung et al., 1999: 2). Women are being harmed physically, emotionally, economically and psychologically on a daily basis, and reports filed regarding VAW each year are increasing rapidly. However, these reports do not represent the complete scenario, as most of the cases go unregistered or disregarded every day (Cheung et al., 1999: 2) because VAW is usually excused, allowed and overlooked (Amnesty International, 2009) (Merry, 2009: 5). Intimate partner violence (IPV) is one pervasive form of violence against women, which is usually committed by the husband or intimate male partners (Krug et al., 2002:89). This paper aims to explore patriarchal norms, social constructions and structural inequalities, which support IPV through the lens of masculinities, honor, and gender ideologies, as well as the concept of women as property in the context of Muslim communities.
During the 1980s and 1900s, domestic violence was one of the most unreported crimes that involve females and males getting hurt and dying. Kicking, choking, killing, and saying brutal or despise words that could hurt the victims physically or emotionally are considered domestic violence. In fact, many victims are afraid to seek for help. According to “The Domestic Violence Resource Center (DVRC), women account for approximately 85 percent of all intimate partner violence, with women aged 20-24 at greater risk” (Batten, par.16). Most pregnant women are at risk as well. “But underlying approach is still one that assumes the perpetrators are men and the victims are woman” (Haugen, par. 1). Moreover, both males and females believe that domestic violence is a solution to their issues.
Statistics like these outlines the severity and seriousness of the domestic epidemic in Canada. This is an epidemic with dramatic and negative effects not only affecting individuals, but communities as a whole, it is a crime that knows no economic, racial, ethnic or religious limits. “At some point in their lives, more than forty percent of women will experience violence, and in most cases this violence is in the hands of a man.” Although research may suggest that these statistics may be under-reported as many of these assaults go unrecorded, this is largely due to society’s refusal to recognize such violence as an infringement on women’s human rights. The violence Canada has experienced against women can be attributed to the result of a power structure that exist in society. While there has been a widespread recognition of this type of violence, it remains the case, that there are many areas of society where women are still subjected to this type of violence and in some way are seen as responsible for the man’s behaviour.
Who are the victims of structural violence? Often these victims are considered to be members of a low economic class. This does not necessarily mean they live in poverty. It is a miscomprehension that only people in third world countries or that the developing world is the only place we find structural violence. This violence happens in almost every country, the only reason we do not see it is (a) tha...
Violence against women appeared from a long time ago and happened in every country. It caused pain in both mental and physical for women. There were so many people trying to stop this problem but it was still not completely fixed. There are many reasons that lead to this issue all over the world. After many surveys and investigations, we realized that the main reason is Discrimination and Unequal power. Some legends and stories in the past made people think men’s role is more important than women’s role in society. And because men are stronger, more active than women so they can do more work. This also makes people think men deserve more rights than women. They soon forced on human’s mind that men are also...