Compare and contrast direct and structural violence.

This question could be asked as part of the Peace and Conflict unit of the course, either as a short Paper 1 question (in relation to an article) or as an essay question. Students should first understand what is asked of them: the command term “compare and contrast” implies students need to give a detailed account of similarities and differences between the two objects, direct violence and structural violence. For paper 1, the student should express these similarities and differences in a systematic, methodological form. For paper 2, the answer requires a rigorous and logical use of examples, which I would discuss with the student throughout the lesson. Direct violence and structural violence refer to concepts devised by the Norwegian peace and conflict scholar, Johan Galtung. They refer to different manners in which violence is bred. The main difference Galtung discusses is that for direct violence, there is a concrete actor—an individual, a group, or an institution—which causes the violence, whereas for structural violence “the violence is built into the structure” (1969: 170-171). While the perpetrator is different, according to Galtung, both types of violence often lead to damage. He later formed a third type of violence, cultural violence, which is the way in which reproduced and unquestioned norms in society can be used to justify either direct or structural violence. Thus, both direct and structural violence are often grounded in culture. This is best represented through a triangle form, in which each two types of violence support the third. The division of the triangle into two halves (with the top being direct violence and the bottom structural and cultural violence) highlights another important difference: while direct violence is observable and measurable, the other two are not.