POLITICS OF CONFLICT:
CLARIFICATIONS
CLASS 1 BEYOND BARABARITY: A RELATIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF VIOLENCE
- The class centers on issues related to sexual violence, particularly in the context of conflict
and the implications of this violence on societal structures and norms. It introduces a case
study focused on Peru during the Shining Path/Maoist rebellion in the 1980s and 1990s,
highlighting the complex dynamics between state and non-state actors and the massive
sexual violence that occurred during this period.
- The class discusses definitional challenges surrounding sexual violence, noting that it
encompasses all unwanted sexual acts and is subject to varying interpretations. It
differentiates between gender-based violence and violence specifically against women,
framing these issues within broader societal norms and values that often normalize such
violence. Furthermore, it critiques the notion of "rape as a weapon of war," arguing that
this perspective can obscure other forms of sexual violence that do not fit this narrative,
leaving them largely invisible.
- The discussion extends to the performative nature of sexual violence, positing that it can
serve to reinforce existing social hierarchies related to class, race, and gender. This type of
violence works not only to perpetuate these hierarchies but also normalizes them through
societal narratives and norms related to masculinity and gender roles. Moreover, beyond
being an act of violence, sexual violence is analyzed in terms of its relational dynamics
and the societal implications it brings forth, prompting a deeper examination of what
such violence produces within social contexts.
- In addressing the aftereffects of political violence, the class critiques the concepts of
reconciliation and closure, suggesting that they often sidetrack the need for redistributive
justice in societies transitioning from conflict. It explores the ongoing violence that can
persist post-conflict, emphasizing that this violence is often rooted in the same structural
inequalities that existed prior to the conflict. The notion of a "continuum of violence" is
proposed, encouraging students to confront the complex interrelations between different
forms of violence, whether political or criminal.
- Ultimately, the class underscores the importance of critically evaluating violence within a
broader societal framework, emphasizing that widespread violence continues to occur
often unnoticed and unchallenged within everyday life. This perspective encourages a
rethinking of how violence is engaged with academically and socially, highlighting the
need for greater awareness and action against the normalization of such violence.
1
,- Galtung's Concept of Structural Violence
Galtung, a pioneering scholar in peace studies, introduced the concept of structural
violence to describe a form of harm that is embedded within social, economic, and
political systems. Unlike direct violence, such as physical harm or war, structural violence is
systemic and often invisible, arising from inequitable social structures. It manifests in
unequal power dynamics and results in disparities in life opportunities. For instance,
unequal access to healthcare, education, and economic resources systematically
disadvantages certain groups, leading to reduced life expectancy, poor quality of life,
and limited potential for self-actualization.
o Positive vs. Negative Peace. Galtung distinguishes between two forms of peace:
§ Negative Peace refers to the absence of direct violence, such as war or
physical conflict. While it eliminates overt harm, it does not address the root
causes of inequality.
§ Positive Peace goes further, representing the absence of structural
violence. It involves the creation of systems and structures that promote
justice, equality, and the full development of human potential.
o Examples of Structural Violence
§ Structural violence manifests in various forms across societies, including:
§ Myanmar: Systematic oppression and persecution of ethnic minorities, such
as the Rohingya.
§ Police Brutality: Disproportionate use of force against marginalized
communities, often rooted in systemic racism or discrimination.
§ Racism and Sexism: Discriminatory practices that limit opportunities and
perpetuate cycles of inequality.
§ Ethnocentrism and Classism: Institutionalized bias that favors certain
cultural or socioeconomic groups over others.
o Critiques of Structural Violence
§ Bourgois and Hughes – Violence in Peace:
They argue that violence persists even in times of peace. Systems that
appear stable and conflict-free often mask underlying harm and
oppression. This challenges the notion that peace, defined narrowly as the
absence of direct violence, is sufficient for a just society.
§ Amartya Sen – Broadening the Concept of Violence:
Amartya Sen highlights the role of inequality and discrimination in limiting
individuals' abilities to fully develop their capabilities. For instance, poverty,
gender discrimination, and social exclusion act as barriers to realizing
potential. While Sen’s perspective broadens the concept of violence to
include these dynamics, critics caution that labeling all forms of inequality
as "violence" could dilute the term. However, proponents argue that such
terminology illuminates hidden injustices and encourages systemic reform.
o Conclusion
§ Galtung’s concept of structural violence provides a powerful lens to
examine the systemic roots of inequality and injustice. By contrasting
positive and negative peace, it emphasizes the need for transformative
change to dismantle oppressive structures. While critiques of the concept
highlight its broad application and potential to overgeneralize, they also
underscore its utility in uncovering hidden dynamics of harm in ostensibly
peaceful societies. The discourse on structural violence remains vital for
advancing global efforts toward a more equitable and just world
2
,- Bourgois and Scheper-Hughes: Expanding the Lens on Violence
o Understanding Violence as a Fluid Concept
Anthropologists Bourgois and Scheper-Hughes argue that the concept of violence
is deeply shaped by cultural, ideological, and contextual factors. Violence is not a
fixed or universally understood phenomenon; its meaning, legitimacy, visibility, and
necessity depend on the perspectives of those involved and the socio-historical
context. It can be interpreted as:
§ Legitimate or illegitimate: For example, state-sanctioned actions may be
deemed lawful but can still be oppressive.
§ Visible or invisible: Structural violence, such as poverty or systemic racism,
often goes unnoticed compared to direct acts of physical harm.
§ Rational or gratuitous: Violence may be employed as a strategic tool or
seen as senseless brutality.
o Critique of Dichotomous Thinking
Bourgois and Scheper-Hughes challenge the conventional dichotomies through
which violence is often understood:
§ Victim vs. Perpetrator: These roles are not always clear-cut. Perpetrators of
violence are frequently former victims themselves, a pattern observed in
post-colonial societies or liberation movements that turned violent after
achieving their goals.
§ Political vs. Criminal: Violence labeled as "criminal" often has political roots,
and political violence can have deeply personal and criminal dimensions.
o The Continuum of Violence
They propose the concept of a “continuum of violence” to describe how violence
persists and evolves across time, even during periods of peace. This idea captures:
§ The legacy of violent times in peacetime: Societies transitioning from
colonialism or conflict often retain systemic violence, such as economic
oppression or police brutality.
§ Perpetuation of harm: Liberation movements or revolutionary groups that
once fought for justice may adopt violent methods themselves after
gaining power.
§ Masculine bonding and misogyny: Forms of gendered violence, including
toxic masculinity and systemic misogyny, are often ingrained within
societies and perpetuate cycles of harm.
o comparissons of Bourgois and Scheper-Hughes
§ Johan Galtung – Negative Peace:
emphasizing that structural violence persists even in the absence of direct
violence (negative peace). He argues for addressing the roots of systemic
harm to achieve positive peace.
§ Frantz Fanon – Violence as Necessary:
Fanon views violence as a potential means of liberation from oppressive
systems, particularly in anti-colonial struggles. This contrasts with Bourgois
and Scheper-Hughes’ emphasis on the damaging legacies of violence,
even when framed as a tool for justice.
3
, § Hannah Arendt – Violence as Useless:
Arendt critiques the efficacy of violence, arguing that it often fails to
produce lasting change. This critique aligns with the anthropologists’ view
of violence as cyclical but questions whether it is ever strategically
beneficial.
§ Ann Stoler – Everyday Violence and Grey Zones:
Stoler emphasizes the blurry lines and “grey zones” of violence, highlighting
its pervasive nature in daily life. Her perspective aligns with the continuum
of violence but challenges overly simplistic classifications.
§ Mahmood Mamdani – Critique of the Human Rights Approach:
Mamdani critiques the human rights framework for categorizing violence
as either political or criminal, ignoring its complex and overlapping
dimensions. This resonates with Bourgois and Scheper-Hughes’ rejection of
rigid dichotomies.
o Conclusion
§ Bourgois and Scheper-Hughes’ exploration of violence broadens our
understanding of its forms and implications. By rejecting binary
classifications and emphasizing the continuum of violence, they reveal
how harm persists across time and space, often embedded in everyday
life.
- Boesten: Systemic Gender-Based Violence and Its Implications
o Gender-Based Violence in Peace and War
Boesten examines the pervasive nature of gender-based violence, emphasizing
that it is not confined to periods of conflict but is deeply embedded even in
ostensibly peaceful societies. Examples include domestic violence, which is often
normalized and goes unquestioned, reflecting entrenched patriarchal norms.
o During war times, this violence escalates significantly, becoming even more
extreme and pervasive. The normalization of violence against women during
conflict is not merely incidental but rooted in deeper systemic flaws within social
and masculine constructs.
o Rape and Sexual Violence: Beyond the Weapon of War Framework
Boesten critiques the limited framing of rape as merely a "weapon of war," arguing
that sexual violence is not exceptional to wartime but an extension of systemic
social inequalities and masculine power structures. Key insights include:
§ Reinforcing Social Hierarchies: Rape serves to reproduce and reaffirm
existing power relations and social hierarchies, rather than solely being a
destructive act.
§ Dehumanization and Dominance: It is a tool to assert dominance,
dehumanize, and demoralize individuals and groups. Women, in particular,
are often seen through a gendered lens that commodifies them as
providers of sexual satisfaction, reinforcing their subordinate position in
patriarchal systems.
§ Intersectionality of Class and Race: Sexual violence does not occur in
isolation but intersects with broader structures of oppression, such as
classism and racism. This relational analysis is essential to understanding its
full scope.
4
