Violence, Peace, and Peace Research – Key Concepts (Sections 12–18)

The relation between personal and structural violence

• Core questions about the relationship between personal and structural violence:

  • Is there a real distinction between personal and structural violence?
  • Does one type presuppose the other?
  • If pure types exist, do they have a pre-history in the other type?
  • Could one type presuppose latent presence of the other?
  • Could one be the price we pay for the absence of the other?
  • Could one type be more important in its consequences than the other?

• Distinction in brief:

  • Personal violence: direct, type actions by individuals hitting human beings.
  • Structural violence: violence embedded in repressive structures upheld by the sum of actions by humans.
  • The qualitative difference is in the type of link: direct, personal vs indirect, structural; the primary concern is the objective consequences, not the subjective intent.

• Empirical independence: personal and structural violence can exist independently of each other.

  • Structures can be structurally violent regardless of who staffs them (e.g., feudal structures).
  • Individuals can be personally violent across contexts (e.g., bullies).
  • Therefore, the two forms are empirically independent, but they can influence each other.

• Cross-breeding and interaction:

  • Structural violence often breeds personal violence; personal violence can reinforce or reproduce structural violence.
  • Pure cases may be temporary if pre-history or context is forgotten, but in general there is interaction.
  • The sum of violence is not simply the sum of separate bits; absence of one type may accompany latent presence of the other.

• Latent vs manifest violence and defense strategies:

  • When a structure is threatened, those who benefit tend to defend it, sometimes via non-obvious means (e.g., mobilizing police, army, or mercenaries while staying physically distant).
  • Structural violence can be exercised through institutions and norms that function without direct personal violence, yet are upheld by social expectations and enforcement.

• Can one type abolish the other? four propositions with critiques:
  1) Structural violence is sufficient to abolish personal violence (short-term).

  • May hold between groups, but not necessarily within groups; the feudal structure can persist internally.
    2) Structural violence is necessary to abolish personal violence.
  • Not generally true; personal violence can be halted under other conditions, but it depends on context and mechanisms.
    3) Personal violence is sufficient to abolish structural violence.
  • May topple the top dogs, but the new power may reproduce the same structure; structural violence can re-emerge.
    4) Personal violence is necessary to abolish structural violence.
  • Revolutionary claim; empirical, theoretical, and axiological criticisms raise doubts about indispensability of personal violence.

• No absolutes: empirical regularities are not universal. It is possible (though rare) to have purely structural or purely personal violence without the other form being present at all times.

• Costs and benefits (caution against over-reliance on cost-benefit analysis):

  • One could attempt to quantify losses from both forms of violence and compare to gains from reducing them (e.g., Cuban revolution example).
  • However, such calculations should not be the sole basis for political action; they risk underestimating strategic and ethical complexities and may ignore future dynamics.
  • A normative standard is needed beyond simple cost reductions: aim for reducing both forms of violence and consider their future implications and gradients.

• Regional and temporal variability:

  • In space and time, the relative importance of structural vs personal violence can differ (e.g., Americas vs Europe) due to different political, social, and economic conditions.

• Summary takeaway:

  • Personal and structural violence are distinct but interconnected; both must be studied to understand peace dynamics. Neither type alone fully explains or dictates peace outcomes.

On the definition of 'peace' and 'peace research'

• Peace is two-sided, corresponding to two negative/positive dimensions:

  • Negative peace: absence of personal violence.
  • Positive peace: absence of structural violence, i.e., social justice and an egalitarian distribution of power and resources.

• Extended concept of peace (and of violence) leads to a two-sided peace theory:

  • Absence of personal violence (negative peace).
  • Absence of structural violence (positive peace) – often framed as social justice.

• Peace research defined as the study of past, present, and future conditions for realizing peace.

  • It is closely linked to conflict research (primarily for negative peace) and development research (primarily for positive peace), with important overlaps.

• Why a two-sided approach matters:

  • Focusing on only one side risks missing crucial dynamics and may lead to misguided policies.
  • A comprehensive approach considers both the reduction of overt personal violence and the transformation of structural conditions that produce inequality.

• Practical implication:

  • Research and policy should aim to reduce both forms of violence and promote conditions that support both negative and positive peace, recognizing their interdependence and region-specific dynamics.