Cultural Violence (Galtung)

8/11/2019 Cultural Violence (Galtung)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cultural-violence-galtung 1/17

Cultural Violence

Johan Galtung

Journal of Peace Research , Vol. 27, No. 3. (Aug., 1990), pp. 291-305.

Stable URL:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3433%28199008%2927%3A3%3C291%3ACV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6

Journal of Peace Research is currently published by Sage Publications, Ltd..

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/sageltd.html .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.orgWed Feb 13 08:19:44 2008

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3433%28199008%2927%3A3%3C291%3ACV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6

http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html

http://www.jstor.org/journals/sageltd.html

http://www.jstor.org/journals/sageltd.html

http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3433%28199008%2927%3A3%3C291%3ACV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6



Journal of Pcacc Kcscarch, vol .27 no. 3 1900. pp . 291-305

Cultural Violence*

J O H A N G A LT U N GCollege of Social Science s, University of H awa ii, Mano a

This art icle introduces a concept of 'cultural violence'. a nd can he w enas a fo l l u ~ -u pof the author ' sintro duc tion of the concept ofstructural violence'over 20 ye'r rs ago ( ( i~ ~ l tu ng ,969). (l'ultural violence' isdefined here as any aspect of a cultu re that can be used to Iegitimirc violen ce in its direct or \tructu ral fo rm .Symb olic violence built into a cultu re do es not kill or maim Ilh-c dircct violence o r the violence bullt intothe structure. Ho wev er, it is used to legitimize ei ther o r bot h, ar lor Instance in the theoryofI Hrr r r t t tw lk

or a su perior race. Th e relations betmeen direct , s tructural and culturalviolence arc explored, using aviolence triangle and a violence strata image, with varlous typesof casual Rows. Examples of culturalviolence are ind icated, uaing a d iv~a ion f culture into rcliplona n d ideology, art and language, andempirical and formal science. The theory of cultural violence is then related to two basic polnts inGand hism, the doct r inesof unity of life and of unity of mea ns and end.;. Finall y. the inclusion of culture asa majo r focus of peacc research is seen not o nly as deep enin g the quest for pea ce, hut alsos a possihlccont ribu tion to the as yet non-existent general discipline of 'culturology'.

1 DefinitionBy 'cultural violence' we me an those aspectsof culture, the symbolic sphere of our exist-enc e exemplified by religion and ideology.language and art, empirical science andform al science (logic, mathe matics) thatcan be used to justify o r legitimize direct o rstructural violence. ' Stars, crosses andcrescents; flags, anthems and militaryparades; the ubiquitous portrait of theLe ade r; inflammatory speeches and posters-all these com e to mind. H ow eve r, let us post-pone the examples until section 4 and star twith analysis. T he features m entioned aboveare 'aspects of culture ', not entire cultures. Aperson encouraging a potential killer, shout-ing 'Killing is self-realization ', may provethat the English language is capable ofexpressing such thoughts, but not that the

English language as such is violent. Entirecultures can hardly be classified as violent;this is one reason for preferring the expres-sion 'Aspect A of cultur e C is an exam ple ofcultural violence' to cultural stereo type s like'culture C is violent'.

On the other hand, cul tures could beimagined and even encountered with not

Presented as a lecture at the Universi ty of MelbournePeace Studies Group. March 1989: a t t he summerSchoola in Peace S tudies at the Universi ty of Oslo andthe University of Hawaii. July 1989; and a t the In ter-national Peace Research Insti tute. Oslo. August1989.

am indebted to discussants at all these places.

only one but a setof aspects so violent, exten-sive and diverse, spanning all culturaldomains, that the step from talking aboutcases of cultural violence to violent culturesmay be warranted. For that, a systematicresearch process is needed. This article ispart of that process.

O ne place to star t would be to clarity 'cul-tural violence' by searching for its negation.If the opposite of violence is peace, the sub-ject matter of peace researchipeace studies,then the opposite o f cultural violence w ouldbe 'cultural p eac e'. meaning aspects of a cul-tur e that se rve to justify a nd legitimize directpeace and structural peace. f many anddiverse aspects of that kind are found in acultu re, we can refer to it as a 'peace cultu re'.A major task of peace research. and thepeace movement in general, is that never-

ending search for a peace culture proble-matic, because of the temptation to institu-tionalize that culture. making it obligatorywith the hop e o f internalizing it everywhere;And that would already be direct violence,-imposing a c ulture.

Cultural violence makes direct and struc-tural violence look . even feel. right o r atleast not wrong. Just as political science isab ou t two problem s the use of power andthe legitimation of the use of powerviolence studies are about two problems: the

use of violence and the legitimation of thatuse. T he psychological mechanism wouldbc



r i th lz I . Typology of Violence

Survival Well-beins IdentityNeed< Nceds Needs

Direct Violencc Killing Maiming Desoc ial~zatio nSiege. Sanctions ResocializationMisery Secondary Citizen

Structur;tl Violence Exploit;ttion i Ewploit;ttion H PcnctrationScgnnentation

FreedomNeeds

RepressionDetentionExpulsionMarginalizationFragmentation

in te rna ~iz a t ion .~ he s tudy of cu ltura lviolence highlights the way in which the actof direct violence and the fact of structuralviolence are legitimized and thus renderedacceptable in society. One way culturalviolence work s is by changing th e mora l colorof an act from rediwrong to greeniright or atleast to yellowiacceptable; a n examp le being'mu rder on behalf of the country as right, onbehalf of oneself wrong'. Another way is bymaking reality opa que , so that we do not se ethe violent act or fact, or at least not asviolent. Obviously this is more easily donewith some forms of violence than withothers; an example being abortus provocu-f i r s Hence, peace studies is in need of aviolence typology, in much the sa me way as apathology is among the prerequisites forhealth studies.

2. Tl yology of Directr n Str~icturalViolence

see violence as avoidable insults to basichuman needs, and more generally to l ife,lowering the real level of needs satisfactionbelow what is potentially p ossible. Th re ats of

violence are also violence. Combining theclistinction between direct and structuralviolence with four classes of basic needs weget the typology of Tab le I Th e four classesof basic nee ds an outc om e of extensivedialogs in many par ts of the world ( Ga ltung ,1980a) are : survival needs (negat ion: death.mortality); well-being needs (negation: mis-ery, morbidi ty) ; identity, merrning needs(negation: alienation); and ,freedom needs(negation: repression).

The result is eight types of violence withsome subtypes, easily identitied for directviolence but more complex for structural

violence (se e 'Table I). first com me nt couldbe that Table I is anthropo-centric. A fifthcolumn could be add ed at the beginning forthe rest of Nature. the sine qua non forhuman existence. 'Ecological balance' isprobably the most frequently found termused for environment system maintenance.If this is not satisfied, the result is ecologicaldegradation, breakdown, imbalance. Eco-balance corr espo nds to survival well-being freedom identity for human basic main-tena nce . If not satisfied. the result is hum andeg rada tion. T he sum of all five, for all, willdefine 'peace'.

But 'ecological balance' is a very broadcategory encom passing abiota (non-life) andbiota (life) alike. Violence de fined as insultsto life would focus on biota, only indirectlyon abiota . Mo reover, the re a re difficult andimportant questions, such as 'balance forwhom?' For human beings to reproducethemselves'? At what level of econonlicactivity and what numbers? Or, for the'environment ' (what an anthropo-centr icterm ) to rep roduce itself? All parts, equally,at what level, wha t numbers' O r for both'?

Second, the mega-versions of the pale

word s used abo ve for violence should alsobecontemplated. For 'kill ing' read extermi-nation, holocuust, genocide. For 'misery'read silent holocal~sr.For 'alienation' readspirit~iul eath. For 'repression' read gulugiKZ. For 'ecological degradation' readeco-cide. Fo r all of this toge ther read 'omnicide'.Th e words might sound like someon e's effortto be apocalyptic were t not for the factthat the world has experienced all of thisduring th e last 50 years alone. closely asso-ciated with the names of Hitler, Stalin and~ e a g a n ' n d Ja pa ne se m i ~ i t a r i s r n . ~n short ,violence studies, an indispensable part of



peace s tudies , may be a horror cabinet : butlike pathology they reflect a reali ty to bek n o w n a n d u n d e r st o o d .

T h e n s o m e c o m m e n t s o n t h e c o n t e n t o fthe T able as i t s tands. T he f i rs t category ofviolence , kill ing. is clear e no ug h, as is maim-ing. A dd ed tog ether they const i tute casual-t ies , used in assessing the m agn itud e of awar. But war is only on e par t icular form oforchestrated violence, usually with at leaston e ac to r, government . How nar row i t is tosee peace as the opposi te of war. and l imitpeace s tudies to war avoidance s tudies , andmo re par t icular ly a voidan ce of big wars o rsuper-wars (def ined as wars between big

powers o r superpowers ) , and even m ore par-t icular ly to the l imita t ion, abol i t ion orcontrol- of supe r-weapo ns. Imp orta nt in te r-conne ct ions amon g types of violence are lef tout . par t icular ly th e way in which o ne ty pe ofv iolence mav be reduced o r con tro l led a t theexpen se of increase o r maintenanc e ofano the r. Like s ide-effects in heal th s tudies ,they a re very impor tan t and eas i ly over-looked. Peace research should avoid thatm i ~ t a k e . ~

Include d und er maiming is a lso the insul tto hum an needs b ro ugh t abou t by siege iblockade (c lass ical term) and sanct ions( m o d e r n t e r m ) . 1 0 som e. this is non-violence , s ince direct an d im med iate ki l lingi s avo ided . T o the v ic tims, however, i t maymean s low but intent ional ki l l ing throughmalnutr i t ion and lack of medical a t tent ion,hi t t ing the weakest f i rs t , the chi ldren. thee l d e rl y, th e p o o r, t h e w o m e n . B y m a k i n g t h ecausal chain longer th e actor avoids having toface the violence directly. H e even gives the

victims a chance . usually to subm it . mean ingloss of fre ed om a nd ide ntity instead of loss ofl ife an d l imbs, t rading the last tw o for th e f irsttwo types of direct violence. But the m echan -ism is the threat to the l ivel ihood broughtabou t by siege/boycott/sanctions.T h e G a n d -hian type of economic boycot t combinedrefusal to buy B ritish textiles with th e collect-ing of funds fo r the merchan ts , in o rd er no t toconfuse the issue by threatening theirl ivel ihood.

T he category of a l ienat ion can be def inedin terms of socialization. meaning the inter-nal izat ion of cul ture . There is a double

aspect : to be desocial ized away from owncul ture and to be resocial ized into anothercu l tu re l ike the prohibi t ion a nd imposi t ion

of languages . Th e on e does no t p resupposethe o th er. But they of ten come toge ther inthe category of second class cit izenship.whe re th e subjected gro up (not necessar ily aminori ty ) i s forced to express domin ant cul-

ture and not i ts own, a t leas t not in publ icspace. The problem is , of course , that anysocialization of a child in the family, atschool, by society at large is also force d, akind of brainwashing, giving the chi ld nochoice . Consequent ly, we might a r r ive a t theconclusion (not that far-fe tched) that non-

violent socialization is to give the childachoice , e .g . by o ffe r ing h i~n lherm o r e t h a none cu l tu ra l id iom.

Th e category of repress ion has a s imilardoub le def ini t ion: the f reedom from an dth e f reedom to of the Internat ional Bi ll ofHu ma n Rights , wi th historical an d cul turall imita t ions (Ga l tun g, 1988a). Tw o categorieshave been added explicit ly because of theirsignificance as conco mita nts of o the r types ofviolence: deten t ion , mean ing locking peoplerz (pr isons, concentrat ion camps) . and

expuls ion, meaning locking people ut

(banishing them abr oad o r to dis tant par ts ofthe count ry) .

T o discuss the categories of s t ructuralviolence we need an image of a violents t ructure , and a vocabulary, a discourse , inorder to iden t i fy the aspec t s and see howthey re la te to the needs categories . Thearchetyp al violent structu re, in my view, hasexploi ta t ion as a center-piece. This s implymeans tha t some, the topdogs , ge t much

more (here measured in needs cur rency) ou tof the interact ion in the s t ructure thano thers , the underdogs (Gal tu ng ,1978, parts1-111). Th er e is un equ al exc han ge , aeuphemism. The underdogs may in fac t beso disadvantaged that they d ie (s tarve, wasteaway from diseases) f rom i t : exploit tionA . O r they may be l e ft in a pe rma nent .unwanted state of misery, usually includingmalnutr i t ion an d i llness: exploi ta t ion B. Th eway people die differs : in the Third Wo rld,f rom diarrhea and immunity def ic iencies; inthe deve loped count r ies , avo idab ly andprematurely, f rom cardio-vascular diseases



and mal ignant tumors . Al l of th is happenswi th in complex s t ruc tures and a t th e en d oflong, highly ramified causal chains and

cycles.A violent s t ructu re leaves marks not onlyo n t h e h u m a n b o d y b u t a ls o o n t h e m i n d a n dthe sp i r it . The nex t four t e rms can be seen aspar ts of exploi ta t ion o r as re inforcing comp o-nents in the s t ructure . They funct ion byimpeding consc iousness fo rmat ion andmobil izat ion, two condi t ions for effect ivestruggle against exploi ta t ion. Penetrationimplant ing the topdog inside the underdogso to speak , combined wi th segmentationgiving the u nde rdo g only a very par t ia l v iew

of what go es on , will d o the f irst job. A ndmarginalization. keep ing the underdogs onthe ou t s ide , combined wi th fragmentationkeep ing the underdogs away f rom eachoth er, will d o the second job . How ever,these four should a lso be seen as s t ructuralviolence in their own r ight . and more par-t icular ly as var ia t ion on the general themeof s t ructurally bui l t- in repress ion . The y havea l l been opera t ing in gender con tex t seven if wom en d o no t a lways have h ighermortal i ty and morbidi ty ra tes but in factmay have higher l i fe expectancy than men,provided they survive gender-specificabortion, infanticide and the first yearsof ch i ldhood . In shor t , exp lo i ta t ion andrepress ion go hand in han d , as v io lence : bu tthey ar e not ident ical .

Ho w about v io lence against n a tu re? Th ereis the direct violence of slashing, burning,e tc . , a s in a war. Th e s t ruc tura l fo rm of suchviolence would be more insidious, notintended to destroy nature but never theless

do ing so : the po l lut ion an d d ep le t ion asso-cia ted with modern industry, leading todying forests , ozo ne holes . g lobal warming,a n d s o o n . W h a t h a p p e n s is t r ans format ionof na ture th rough industrial activity leavingnon-degradab le res idues a nd d ep le t ing non-renewable resources , combined with aworld-encompassing comm ercialization tha tmakes th e consequences non-v i sib le to th eperpetra tors .x Two powerful s t ructures a twork, indeed, legi t imized by economicgrowth . Th e buzzword sus ta inable econ-omic g rowth may prove to be yet ano therform of cul tural violence.

3 . Relating Three Types of Violenc eWith these comm ents violence is def ined in

xt nsion by the types given in TableI , using

direct an d s t ructural violence as overarchingcategories o r super-types . Culturalviolence can now be added as the thi rdsuper- typ e and put in the thi rd corn er of a(vicious) violence triangle a s a n i m ag e . W h e nth e t r iangle is s tood on its di rect and s t ruc-tural violence feet, the image invok ed iscultural violence as the legitimizer of both.Standin g th e t r iangle on i ts di rect violencehead yields the image of s t ructural and cul-tural sources of di rect violence. Of course ,the t r iangle a lways remains a t r iangle but

the image produced is different, and all sixposi t ions ( three point ing downward, threeupward) invoke somewhat different s tor ies ,all wo rth tell ing.

Despi te the symmetr ies there is a basicdifference in the t ime rela t ion of the threecon cep ts of violence. D irec t violence is anevent; structural violence is a process withups an d do wns; cul tural violence is aninvar-iant a permanence (Gal tung ,1977, c h . 9),remaining essentia lly the same for long per-iods, given the slow transform atio ns of basiccul ture . Put in th e useful term s of the FrenchAnnales scho ol in history: CvCnementielle,conjoncturel le , la longue duree. Th e threeforms of violence enter t ime different ly,somewhat l ike the difference in ear thquaketheory be tween the ea r thquak e as an even t ,the m ovem ent of th e tectonic pla tes as aprocess and the fau l t line as a mo re perm a-nen t condi t ion.

This leads to a violence strata image (com-plement ing th e t r iangle image) of the phen o-

menology o f violence, useful as a paradigmgenerat in g a wide var ie ty of hypotheses . A tthe bot tom is the s teady f low through t ime ofcul tural violence, a substra tum from whichthe other two can der ive their nutr ients . Inthe next s t ra tum the rhythms of s t ructuralviolence are located. Patte rns of exploitationare bu ild ing u p , wear ing ou t , o r to rn d own ,with the protect ive accom panim ent of pene-tration-segmentation preventing conscious-ness fo rm at ion , and f ragmenta t ion-marg ina-lization preventing organization against

exp loi ta tion and repress ion . An d a t the top ,vis ible to the unguided eye and to barefoot



empiricism, is the stratum of direct violencewith th e whole record of direct cruelty perpe -trated by human beings against each otherand against oth er forms of life and nature ingeneral.

Gen erally, a causal flow from cultural viastructural to direct violence can be identi-fied. The culture preaches, teaches, admo-nishes, eggs on, and dulls us into seeingexploitation andlor repression as normal andnatural, o r into not seeing them (particularlynot exploitation) at all. Then come the erup -tions, th e efforts to use direct violence to getou t of the structural iron cage (We be r,1971),and counter-violence to ke ep the cage intact.

Ordinary, regular criminal activity is partlyan effort by the un derdog to get out , toredistribute wealth, get even, get revenge( blue-collar crime ), or by someb ody toremain or become a topdog, sucking thestructu re for what it is worth ( white-collarcrime ). Bo th direct and structural violencecreate needs-deficits. When this happenssuddenly we can talk of t raumu. When ithappens to a group, a collectivity, we havethe collective trauma that can sediment intothe collective subconscious an d b ecome rawmaterial for major historical processes andevents. Th e underlying assumption is simple:violence breed s violence . Violence isneeds-deprivation; needs-deprivation isseri o u s ; on e reaction is direct violence. B ut th atis not th e only reaction. T he re could also be afeeling of hopelessness, a deprivationlfrus-tration syndrome that shows up on the insideas self-directed aggression and on the outsideas apathy and withdrawal. Given a choicebetween a boiling, violent and a freezing,

apathetic society as reaction to massiveneeds-deprivation, topdogs tend to preferthe latter. They prefer governability totroub le, anarchy . The y love stability .

Indeed, a major form of cultural violenceindulged in by ruling elites is to blame thevictim of structu ral violence wh o throws th efirst ston e, not in a glasshouse but t o get outof the iron cage, stamping him as aggressor .The category of structural violence shouldmake such cultural violence tran spare nt.

However, the violence strata image doesnot define the only causal chain in theviolence triangle. There are linkages and

CuItural Violence 295

causal flows in all six directions, and cyclesconnecting all three may start at any point.This is a good reason why the triangle maysometim es be a better image than the three-tier stratum model. Africans are captured,forced across the A tlantic to w ork as slaves;millions are killed in the process in Africa ,on board, in the Americas. This massive di-rect violence over centuries seeps down a ndsediments as massive structural violence,with whites as the m aster topdog s and blacksas the slave underdog s, producing an d repro-ducing massive cultural violence with racistideas everywhere. After some time, directviolence is forgotten, slavery is forgotten,

and only two labels show u p, pale eno ugh forcollege textbooks: discrimination for mas-sive structural violence and prejudice formassive cultural violence. Sanitation of lan-guag e: itself cultural violence.

T he vicious violence cycle can also start inthe structural violence corner. Social differ-entiatio n slowly takes o n vertical characteris-tics with increasingly un equ al exchange, andthese social facts would then be in search ofsocial acts for their maintenance, and cul-tural violence for their justification togeneralize materialist (meaning structu ral)Marxist theory. Or, the vicious cycle couldstart in combined direct and structuralviolence, with one group treating anothergrou p so badly that they feel a need for justi-fication and eag erly accept any cultural ratio-nale handed to them. More than one thou-sand years ago Nordic Vikings attacked,cheated and killed Russians. Might that notbe a good enough reason for formulating theidea that Russians are dangerous, wild,

primitive meaning that on e day they maycome back and do the sam e to us as we did tothem?9 Even to the point that when G er-many attacked Norway in April 1940, theofficial conclusion becam e t hat the Russiansare dangerous because they may o ne day d othe same. And here we see the surpriseattack traum a.

Could there be still a deeper stratum,human nature, with genetically transmitteddispositions or at least predispositions foraggression (direct violence) and dom ination(structural violence)? The human potentialfor direct and structural violence is certainly



the re as is the potent ia l for di rect an d s t ruc-tu ra l peace . In my v iew, however, the mos timportant argument against a biologicalde te rmin i sm tha t pos tu la tes a d r ive in hum anna ture fo r aggression an d dominance , com-parable to dr ives for food an d sex. is the highlevel of variuhiliry in aggressiveness anddominance . W e f ind people seek ing food an dsex under (a lmost) a l l external c i rcum-stances . But aggression and do minan ce exhi-b it t r emendous var ia t ion , depen ding on thecontex t . including the s t ructural an d cul turalconditions. Of course, the drive may sti l l bether e , only no t s t rong en oug h to asser t i tsel funder a l l c i rcumstances . In that case , the

concern of the peace resea rcher would be toknow those c i rcumstances . and to exp loreh o w t o r e m o v e o r m o d i f y t h e m . H e r e m yhypothes i s would be tha t the two te rms's t ructure ' and 'cul ture ' can accommodatethis explorat ion very com fortably.

Le t us rea p an im por tan t ha rves t f rom thi staxono mic exercise: we can use i t to c lari fythe concept ofmilitarization as a process , andmiliturisrn as the ideology accompanying thatprocess . Obviously, one aspect is a generalinclination tow ard direct violence in th e formof real o r threatened mil itary act ion, whetherprovok ed o r not , wheth er to set t le conflict o rinit iate i t . This inclination brings in i ts wa kethe p roduc t ion and dep loym ent of the app ro-pr ia te hardware and sof tware . However, i twould be superficial to study militarizationonly in ter ms of past mili tary activity record s,and presen t p roduc tion and dep loym ent pa t -terns; ' this would lead to facile conclusio nsin t e rms of pe rsonne l , budge t and a lmscont ro l on ly. Good weeding presupposes

get t ing a t th e roots , in this case a t the s t ruc-tural and cul tural roots , as suggested by thethree-s t ra ta paradigm. Concrete ly, th ismeans ident i fying s t ructural and cul turalaspec t s tha t would t end to reproduce thereadiness for mil itary ac t ion, product ion a nddeploy ment . This would include mobbing ofyoung hoys a t school . pr imogeni ture ,unemployment and exp lo ita t ion in genera l .Further, the use of mil i tary product ion anddeployment to s t imula te economic g rowthand econo mic dis t ribut ion; heavi ly nat ional-ist. racist an d sexist ideologies,12 an d so o n.Th e comb inat ion of building mil i tary teach-

ing and exercise com ponen ts into high schooland univers i ty curr icula and s t ructure , '%nddisseminat ing mil itarism as cul tu re , shouldmeri t par t icular a t tent ion. Y et s t ructure andculture are usually not included in 'armscontrol ' studies, both being highly sensitiveareas . Those t aboos have to be b roken .

4 Exumples o Cultural ViolenceWe turn now to the l ist ing of six culturaldomains ment ioned in the int roduct ionrel igion and ideology, language and ar t ,empir ical and formal science giving on e ortwo exa mples of cul tural violence f ro m each

dom ain. T he logic of the sche me is s imple:identi fy the cul tural e leme nt a nd show h ow i tcan , empir ical ly o r potent ia l ly. be used t olegitimize direct or structural violen ce.

4 1 ReligionIn all religions there is somewhere thesacred. dus Heilige; let us call it 'god'. A basicdis tinction can b e ma de between a t ranscen-d e n t al G o d o u t s id e u s a n d a n i m m a n e n t g odinside us, m ayb e a lso inside all l ife.14 Th eJuda ism of the T orah , founded a lmos t4000years ago , env isaged God as a male de i tyresiding outs ide planet E ar t h . A catas t rophicid ea ; a clear case of transcend entalism as ametaphor f rom which many consequencesfo l low, t aken over by the o ther Semi t ic o roccidental religions, Christianity and Islam.Wi th god ou ts ide us , a s Go d , even ' above '( 'Ou r Fa ther, wh o a r t in Heaven ' ) i t is no tinevi table but indee d l ikely that som e peoplewill be seen as c lose r to tha t G od than o th ers ,even as 'h igher ' . Moreover, in the general

occidental tradition of not only dualism butManichaeism, with sh arp dichotomies be-tween go od a nd ev i l, the re would a l so haveto be something l ike an evi l Satan corres-ponding to the good God, fo r reasons o fsymmet ry. Aga in t ranscendenta l and imma-nen t represen ta t ions a re possib le , with G odand Satan possessing or a t leas t choosingt h e ir o w n ; o r w i th g od o r s a t an n o t t oment ion god utzd satan being inside us. Allcomb inat ions are found in a ll occidental re li -g ions . But the focus here i s on the hardvers ion. belief in a t ranscend ental G od and at ranscendenta l Sa tan .



298 Johan Galtung

or Stalinist extermination and Reaganiteexploitation A , this means that n o massviolence is going on, thus proving how

humane the Israelis are. Such perspectivesare also examp les of cultural violence, indi-cative of how moral standards have becomein this century.'

4.2 deologyWith the decline, and perhaps death, notonly of the transcend ental bu t also the imm a-nent god through secularization, we couldexpect successors to religion in the form ofpolitical ideologies, and to God in the form

of the modern state, to exhibit some of thesame character traits. Religion and G od m aybe dead but not th e much more basic idea ofsharp and value-loaded dichotomies. Thelines may no longer be drawn betw een G od ,the Chosen, the Unchosen and Satan.Modernity would reject God and Satan butmight d eman d a distinction between Chosenand Unchosen; let us call them Self andOth er. Arch etype: nationalism, with State asGod's successor.

steep gradient is then constructed,inflating, even exalting, the value of Self;deflating, even debasin g, the value of O th er .At that point, structural violence can startope rating . It will tend t o beco me a self-fulfill-ing prophecy: people become debased bybeing exploited, and they are exploitedbecause they are seen as debase d, dehum a-nized. Wh en Ot her is not only dehumanizedbut has been successfully converted into an'it ' , deprived of hum anhoo d, the s tage is setfor any type of direct vio~ence, '~hich is

then blamed o n the victim. This is then rein-forced by the category of the 'dangerous it ',the 'vermin', or 'bacteria' (as Hitler de-scribed the Jews ); the 'class enemy ' (as Stalindescribed the 'kulaks'); the 'mad dog' (asReagan described Qadhafi); the 'cranky cri-minals' (as Washington ex perts describe 'ter-rorists'). E xtermina tion becomes a psycholo-gically possible duty . Th e SS guards b ecom eheroes to be celebrated for their devotion toduty.

Using the six dimensions of Table 11, wecan easily see how the chosen ones canremain chosen without any transcendental

god. Thus, only human beings are seen ascapable of self-reflection; men are stron ger/mo re logical than w omen; certain nations are

moderdcarriers of civilization and the his-torical process more than others; whites aremore intelligent/logical than non-whites; inmodern 'equal opportunity' society the bestare at the top and hence entitled to powerand privilege. An d certain t enet s of belief inmodernization, development, progress areseen as apodictic; not to believe in themreflects badly on t he no n-believer, not on t hebelief.

All of these ideas have been and still arestrong in W estern culture, although the faith

in male, Western, white innate superiorityhas now been badly shaken by the strugglesfor liberation by women, n on-Western peo-ples (such as the Japa nes e econom ic successover the West), and colored people insideWestern societies. The United States, themost Christian n ation on e arth , has served asa major battlegroun d, inside and outside, forthese struggles. Reducing US culturalviolence becomes particularly im portant pre-cisely because tha t coun try sets the to ne forothers.

These three assumptions all based onascribed distinctions, gender, race andnation already given at birth are hard tomaintain in an achievement-orientedsociety. But if m odern society is a meritoc-racy, then to deny power and privilege tothose on the top is to deny merit i tself. Todeny a minimum of 'modern orientation' is toope n th e field to any belief, including deny -ing power and privilege for the meritoriousand a strict border between human life and

oth er forms of life. In s hort , residual chosen -ness will stay on for a while as speciesism,'classism' and 'meritism', regardless of thestatus of G od and S atan.

Th e ideology of natiorzalism rooted in thefigure of Chosen People and justifiedthrough religion o r ideology, should be seenin conju nction with the ideology of the sta te,statism. Article 9 in the postwar JapanesePeace Con stitution, th at short-lived effort tomake some cultural peace, stipulated that'The right of belligerence of the [Jap an] statewill not be recognized'. Evidently Japan hadforfeited that right whereas oth ers, presu-



mably the victors, exited from the war withthe right intact, maybe even enha nced .

W here did that right of belligerence com e

from? There are feudal origins, a directcarry-over from the prerogative of the rexgratia dei to have an ultimo ratio regis. Thestate can then be seen as an organizationneeded by the Prince to exact enough taxes(and, after 1793, conscripts) to pay forincreasingly expensive armies and navies.The state was created to maintain the mili-tary rather than vice versa, as Krippendorff(1985) maintains. But the state can also beseen as one of the successors to G od , inherit-ing the right to destro y life (exe cution ), if not

the right to create it . Many also see the stateas having the right to control the creation oflife, exerting authority superio r to that of thepregnant woman.

Combine nationalism with steep Self-Other gradients, and statism with the right,even the duty to exercise ultimate power,and we get the ugly ideology of the nation-state, another catastrophic idea. Killing inwar is now done in the nam e of the nation ,comprising all citizens with som e shared e th-nicity. The new idea of democracy can beaccomm odated w ith transition formulas suchas voxpopuli, vox dei. Execution is also donein the name of the people of the stateX ; butlike war has to be ordered by the S tat e. Muchof the pro-life sentiment against abortion isprobably ro oted in a feeling that a bortio n onthe decision of the mo ther erod es the powermonopo ly of th e sta te over life. If anti-abor-tion sentiment were really rooted in a senseof sacredness of the fetus (homo res sacrahominibus), then the pro-life people would

also tend to be pacifists; they would beagainst the death penalty, an d be outrag ed atthe high mortality lev els of blacks in th e U SAand others around the world. Of course, thepriority for choice rather than life is anothertype of cultur al violence, based o n a denia l offetal life as human , making the fetus an it .17

Combine the ideology of the nation-statewith a theologically based Chosen Peoplecomplex and the stage is set for disaster.Israel (Yahweh), Iran (Allah), Japa n (Am a-terasu-okami), South Africa (a Dutchreformed Go d), the United States (the

Judeo-Christian Yah we h-G od) are relatively

uiturui Violence 299

clear cases; capable of anything in a crisis.Nazi G erman y (the Nazi OdinIWotan-God)was in the sam e category. The Soviet Union

unde r Go rbach ev who sees himself as thesuccessor to Lenin after 61 years of stagna-tion is proba bly still labori ng un der its call-ing as a Chosen People, chosen by History(capital h) as the first nation-state to enterSocialism. And France has the same superi-ority complex only that any idea of beingchosen by somebody would indicate thatthere is something above Fra nce, an intoler-able idea. ~ r a n c e hose herself , un peupleklu, mais par lui-mime, exemplified by thearchetypal act when Napoleon was to be

crowned by the Pope in 1804. He took thecrown from his hands and crow ned himself.

4.3 LanguageCertain languages those with a Latin basesuch as Italian, Spanish, French (an d modernEnglish), but not those with a Germ anic basesuch as Ge rm an and Norwegian makewomen invisible by using the same word forthe male gender as for the entire humanspecies. The important movement for non-sexist writing (Miller Sm ith, 1988) is agood example of deliberate cultural trans-formation away from cultural violence. Thetask must have looked im ~o ssib le hen somecourageous wom en got star ted , and yet it isalready bearing fruit.

The n the re are m ore subtle aspects of lan-guage where the violence is less-clear, moreimplicit. comparison of basic fea ture s ofIndo-European languages with Chinese andJapanese (Galtung Nishimura, 1983)brings out certain space and time rigidities

imposed by the Ind o-Eu rope an languages; acorres pond ing rigidity in the logical structu rewith strong emphasis on the possibility ofarriving at valid inferences (hence theW estern pride in being so logical ); atendency to distinguish linguistically be-tween essence and ap pariti on, leaving roomfor the immortalitv of the essence. and bvimplication for the legitimacy of destroyingwhat is only the apparition. How ever, this isdeep culture, the deeper layers of that bot-tom stratum in the violence triangle. Therelations to direct and structural violencebecome much more tenuous.



4 4 ArtL e t m e m a ke just o n e p oi nt . im p or ta nt f ~ rthe present emergence of a Eu rope an Union

as the successor to the Euro pea n Comm unityof 1967 (Ga ltung , 1989c, ch. 2). How doesEur ope understand itself? Th e story tied t othe Euro pa of Gre ek mythology is not veryhelpful. The understanding of Eu rop e as thenegation of the non-European environmentcarries us much further. And that environ-ment at the time of the transition from theMiddle Ages to the Modern Period was thegigantic Ottoman Em pire to the east and thesouth, reaching the walls of Vienna (1683),conq uering Syria and Eg ypt (1517), vassaliz-

ing Tripolitania, Tunisia and Algeria after-wards, leaving only the Sulta nate of F ez andMorocco with the small Spanish Habsburgenclaves, two of them still there. The onlynon-Oriental (meaning Arab, Muslim)environmen t was Russia, poor, vast in spaceand tim e. Sleeping, but giant (La rsen, 1988,pp. 21,23).

Europe thus had to understand herself asthe negation of the enemy to the south andthe southeast. Thus developed the me taphorof orien tal despo tism , still very prom inentin the E urope an m ind. to com e to grips withthe environm ent . Typical of the orientaldespot was callousness and arbitrariness.Like the Euro pean Prince he killed: but heruled by his own whim , not by law. S exuallyhe enjoyed an access (the harem) his Euro-pean colleagues could only approximate bysneaking out a t night t o violate peasan t girls.So did Muslims not co nstrain ed by Christianmonogamy. In France a school of paintingemerged in the 19th century representing

oriental despotism in a setting of sex and/orviolence. H enri Regnault s Execution With-out Process and Eug ene Delacroix s TheDeath of Sardanapal are good examples.Hegel, copied by Marx, also saw orientaldespotism and oriental (or Asian) mode ofproduction as negative, homogeneous,stagnant.

It belongs to this syndrome that the non-Ar ab part of the semicircle around E urop e,Russia, also had t o be seen in terms of orien-tal despotism. That despotism could fit thetsars as a description is perhaps less objec-tionable but oriental? Th e figure has prob-

ably influenced the Europ ean image of Rus-sia and the Soviet Union for centuries, andstill does, as intended slurs on e ither.

4 5 Empirical ScienceOne example of cultural violence would beneoclassical econom ic doctrine, u nderstand-ing itself as the science of econ om ic activity.Strongly influenced by the Adam Smith tra-dition, neoclassical economics now studiesempirically the system prescribed by its owndoctrin es, an d finds its own self-fulfilling pro-phecies often confirmed in empirical reality.One part of neoclassical dogma or conven-tional wisdom is trade theory based on com-

parativ e ad vanta ges , originally postulatedby David Ricardo. developed further byHeckscher and Ohlin and by Jan Tinbergen.This is the doctrine that prescribes that eachcountry should enter the world market withthose products for which that country has acomparative advantage in terms of produc-tion factors.

In practice this m eans tha t countries wellendowed with raw materials and unskilledlabor are to extract raw materials, whilethose well endowed with capital and techno-logy. skilled labor and scientists, are to pro-cess them. A nd thus it was that Portugal gaveup its textile industry and becam e a m ediocrewine producer, w hereas England got the sti-mulus, the challenge needed to develop herindustrial capacity still further. The conse-quences of this doctrine in the form oftoday s vertical division of labor in the worldare visible for most people to see . Structuralviolence everywhere (Galtung, 1971,1988b): among countries and within

c o u ~ t r i e s .Thus, the doctrine of comparative advan-tages serves as a justification for a roughdivision of the world in term sof the degree ofprocessing which countries impart to theirexpo rt products. Since this is roughly prop or-tionate to the amount of challenge theyreceive in the production process, the prin-ciple of comparative advantages sentencescountries to stay where th e production-factorprofile has landed them, for geographicaland historical reasons. f course, the re is nolaw, legal or empirical, to the effect thatcountries cannot do something to improve



their production profile a basic point ma deby the Japanese economist Kaname Aka-ma tsu.lx But t o do so is not easy when th ere

are immediate gains to be made by notchanging the status qu o, for those who ownthe raw m aterials/commodities. And thus itis that the 'law' of comparative advantageslegitimizes a structurally intolerable statusqu o. In sh ort , this 'law' is a piece of culturalviolence buried in the very core ofeconomics.

4.6 Fo rma l ScienceBut surely this cannot be said of mathemat-

ics? This is not s o obv ious . If m athe ma tics isviewed a s a forma l game with one basic rule,that a theorem and its negation cannotboth be valid, then there may be violentconsequences. Even when mathematicallogic explores polyvalent logic, the tool usedis bivalent logic with its strict line betweenvalid an d invalid; t e rt ium n on da tu r. A nd it iseasily seen that it has to be that way, infer-ence being the mortar of the mathematicaledifice, with modus ponens and modus tol -lens being the key proced ures. No inferencecan be m ade with am biguous truth values forthe antecedents or the inference (Galtung,1988c, ch. 4 , e sp. section 4.4) .

This means th at m athem atics disciplines usinto a particular mo de of thought highly com-patible with black-white thinking and polari-zation in personal, social and world spaces.Th e either-or characte r of mathematicalthought makes it an exciting game: but as amodel for a highly dialectic human, socialand world reality it is far from ad equ ate. A nd

adequatio is the basic requirement for cul-ture, symbolic space, if it is to guide us invisioning a less violent potential reality.

4.7 CosmologyWe return to the problem of the transitionfrom cultural violence to violent cu lture. A smen tioned in section 1 abo ve, such globaljudgem ents could be arrive d at by identifyingan extensive and diverse number of culturalaspects, in religious and ideological thoug ht,

in language and ar t, in empirical and formalscience; all of them serving to justify

ul tural Violence 301

violence. However, there is also anotherapproach: to explore the substratum of theculture for its 'deep culture(s)', of which

ther e may be several. '%e would be lookingat the roots of the roots. so to sneak: thecultural genetic code that generates culturalelements and reproduces itself throughthem . Tha t this becomes very speculative isnot so ~ ro bl em at ic : t is in- the nature ofscience to postulate deeper layers, spellingout implications, testing the hard core of thetheory around the ragged edges.

Th e cosmology concept is designed to har-bor that substratum of deeper assumptionsabout reality,* defining what is normal and

natu ral. A ssump tions a t this level of depth inthe collective subconscious are not easilyunea r thed . no t t o men t ion u~roo ted .Andyet, it is at this level that occidental cultureshows so many violent features that thewhole culture sta rts looking violent. Th ere ischosenness, there are strong center-peri-phery gradients. There is the urgency, theapocalypse now syndrome precluding theslow, patient building and enactment ofstructural and direct pea ce. Th ere is atomis-tic, dichotomous thought with deductivechains counteracting the unity-of-means-and-ends. There is arrogance toward naturecounteracting the unity-of-life. There is astrong tendency to individualize and rankhumin beings,. breaking up the unity-of-ma n. An d there is a transcend ental, absoluteGod with awesome successors. The wholeculture possesses a tremen dous potential forviolence that can be expressedi t the moremanifest cultural level and then be used tojustify the unjustifiable. That there is also

neace in the Occident. som etimes even ema-kit ing from th e O ccident, is something of amiracle, possibly d ue to the softer strand s.

The problem is that this type of thinkingeasily leads to a sense of hopelessness.Changing the cultural genetic code looks atleast as difficult as changing the biologicalgenetic code . Mo reo ver, e ven if it were poss-ible, 'cultural eng ineering' might be a form ofviolence as problematic as genetic engineer-ing is proving. Sh ould it be left to 'chance'meaning to those with power and p r iv i~ eg e? ~ '

This is a very difficult and im por tant field forfuture peace research.



302 Johan Galtung

5 . Ga nd hi and Cultural ViolenceWh at did Gandhi himself have to say abo utthese tricky problems, open as he was to

exploring alternatives to both direct andstructural violence? His answer was to repro-duce, from his ecumen ism, two axioms thatin a sense summarize Gandhism :unity of lifeand unity of means and ends. The firstfollows from the second if it is assumed thatno life, and particularly no hum an life, can beused as a means to an end. If the end islivelihood, then the means has to be life-enhancing. But how d o we understandunity ? A reasonable interpretation, usingthe ideas developed in the precedingsections, would be in terms of closeness,against separatio n. I n ou r menta l universe allforms of life, particularly hum an life, shouldenjoy closeness and not be kept apart bysteep Self-othe r gradients that drive wedgesin social space. Any justification derivedfrom th e hard core of a culture, e.g . a callingas a Chosen Peo ple, would be rejected whenit conflicted with this even higher, evenharder axiom.

We can understand unity-of-means-and-ends as bringing oth er m ental elem ents, suchas acts, and facts brought abo ut by acts, closetogether. They should not be kept separateby long causal chains that drive wedges insocial time. T o initiate long social sequencesleading to take-off o r revolution, investing inindustry or the industrial proletariat, is notgood enough. The means must be good inthemselves, no t in terms of distant goals, waydown the road as witnessed by the millionssacrificed on th e altars of indu strialism in th enam e of growth/capitalism and revolution/

socialism . Justification derived from empiri-cal confirmation, it works , is rejected whenit conflicts with this even higher, evenharder axiom.

Any Self-o ther gradient can be used tojustify violence against those lower down o nthe scale of worthiness; any causal chain canbe used t o justify the use of violent m eans toobtain non-violent ends. Ga ndh i would be asskeptical of Marxist ideas of revolution andhard w ork, of sacrificing a genera tion o r twofor presumed bliss the day after tom orrow , ashe would of 1iberaYconservative ideas ofhard w ork and en trepren eursh ip, of sacrific-

ing a social class or two for the bliss of theupp er classes even toda y.

The conclusion drawn by Gandhi from

these two axioms was respect for the sacred-ness of all life (hence vegetarianism) andacceptance of the precept take care of themean s and th e ends will take care of them-selves . Th us th e unity-of-life doctrin e is verydifferen t from a doctrin e of ecologicalbalan ce , since it means e nhan cing all life,not just human life; and all human life, notjust the categories chosen by some (toGandhi, distorted or misunderstood) reli-gion or ideology. And the unity-of-means-and -ends would lead to a doctrine of synch-rony, calling for work on all issues simul-t a n e ~ u s l y ~ ~ather than the diachrony of onebig step that is assumed to trigger theforcemotrice. Archetype: the Buddhist wheelwhere elements of thought, speech andaction te nd t o be at the s am e level of priority,not a Christian pyramid with more focuson some than others (e.g. faith vs. deeds)(Galtung, 1988 ch. 1 1 esp. pp. 25f.).

6. ConclusionViolence can start at any corn er in the direct-structural-cultural violence triangle and iseasily transmitted to the oth er corners. Withthe violent structu re institutionalized and th eviolent culture internalized, direct violencealso tend s to becom e institutionalized, repe-titive, ritualistic, like a ven detta. This trian-gular syndrome of violence should then becon trasted in the mind w ith a triangular syn-drome of peace in which cultural peaceengenders structural peace, with symbiotic,

equitable relations am ong diverse partners,and direct peace with acts of cooperation,friendliness and love. It could be a virtuousrather than vicious triangle, also self-rein-forcing. This virtuous triangle would beobtained by working on all three corners atthe same time, not assuming that basicchange in one will automatically lead tochanges in the oth er two.

But does this inclusion of culture not broa-den the ag enda for peace studies considera-bly? Of course it does. Why should peacestudies be narrower than, for instance,health studies (medical science)? Is peace



easier than health, less complex? And howabout biology, the study of life; physics, thestudy of m atter; chemistry, the study of th e

composition of matter; mathematics, thestudy of abstract form -all of these ar e fairlybroad. Why should peace studies be moremodest? Why draw borderlines at all in afield so terribly important in its conse-quences, and also so attractive to theinquisitive mind? If culture is relevant toviolence and peac e, and surely it is, then onlythe dogmatic mind will exclude it from ex-plorations as penetrating and tenacious asthe countless studies devoted to the manyaspects of direct and structural violence. Th e

only thing that is new is that the field opensfor new areas of competence, such as thehumanities, history of ideas, philosophy,theology. In other words, an invitation tonew disciplines to join the quest for peace,and to established researchers in the field toretool a little.

In so doing, maybe peace research couldeven make some contribution to founding ama jor scientific enterp rise still conspicuouslyabsent from the pantheon of academic pur-suits, the science of hu ma n culture, culturo -logy . Today the field is divided between'hum anitie s' for 'higher' civilizations and cul-tural anthropology for 'lower' ones; withphilosophy, history of ideas and theologyfilling in some pieces. C once pts like 'cultura lviolence' span all of that, just as 'structuralviolence' spans the whole spectrum of socialsciences. Peace research has to much tolearn, so much t o take, to receive. Perhap swe shall also in due time have som e contribu-tions to make: in the spirit of diversity,

symbiosis and equity.

NOTES

1. Th us, 'cultural violence' follows in the footste ps ofthe concept of 'structural violence', introduced inthis journal over 20 years ago (Galtung , 1969). For arecent very constructive critique and effort to de-velop the idea further see Ro th (1988). similarconce pt is introduce d in Saner (1982).

2. There have been many efforts to create the 'newman ' (and woman?). In the West each new branchof Christianity is an effort, so is humanism, so issocialism. But any inculcation in othe rs of any singleculture is in itself a n act of direct violence (mean ingintended by the ac tor) , usually implying desocializa-

Cultural Violence 303

tion from one culture and resocialization intoano ther including the very first socialization of theyoung (defenseless) child. How eve r, if culture is aconditio sine qua non for a human being, we are

born with none (only predispositions). and incul-cation is an act of violence, then we a re faced withthe basic problem of education: is 'educate' atransitive o r intransitive verb? Of course it is both,related hermeneutically. Peaceful education,including socialization would probably imply exp o-sure to multiple cultures and then a dialogue, asargue d below. Neithe r Christianity nor humanism isgood at this; in fact, we still do not knowhow t o doit . I t should be noted that to impose a culture onsomeb ody, whe ther d one directly or structurally, isnot wha t is meant h ere by cultural violence. Cultura laspects legitimizing that imposition, however, forinstance because the culture is 'higher' (m onotheis-tic, mo der n, scientific, etc .), would be violence builtinto that cultur e, in other wo rds, cultural violence.'Empirical o r potential legitimation of violence' isthe key to cultural violence.

3. We then schematically divide control mechanismsinto internal and external, positive and negative:identifying 'internal, bo th positive and negative' asgood and bad conscience respectively; externalpositive as reward a nd ex ternal negative as punish-me nt. 'Internalization' is conscience deeply rootedin the pe rson system, 'institutionalization' is punish-mentireward deeply rooted in the social system.Both serve to m ake the act come forth 'naturally,normally, voluntarily'. This piece of elementarysocial science may serve to loc ate cultural and struc-tural violence centrally in general social sciencetheory construction.

4. For an attempt to compare the three systems (notjust Hitlerism and Stalinism, as is now very commonunder glasnost revisionism), see G altung (1984).

5. There are strong similari t ies buil t aroundshintothemes of chosenness. For an analysis see Ienaga(1978), particularly p. 154 for the c oncep t ofhakkoichil~(the eight corners of the world under oneroof) .

6. T he easy approach is to du mp all 'side-effects' at thedoorstep s of some oth er disciplines dema nding thatthey shall clean it up conceptually, theoretically,and in practice as economists are wont to do.

7. docum ent consisting of the Universal Declarationof 1948, the two C onven ants of 1966 and anOption al Protoc ol. The Bill has not yet attained thestanding it deserves, am ong oth er reasons becauseof US failure to ratify the Co nvena nts.

8. Hence it is at this level environmental degradationhas to be counteracted, through de-industrializingand de-comm ercializing processes, not by convert-ing one type of pollution or depletion to anotherthrough patchwork approa ches to this major globalproblem.

9. Rather, it is almost incredible how peaceful thatborder high up in the North has been betwee n such asmall and such a big country, supposed by some to

be eager to fill any 'power va cuum '.10. This, of course , is the genera l approa ch taken by the



C ulrural Viole nce 305

Rrsrarch Perspective. Honolulu. HI: University ofHawaii Press.

Galtung, Johan. 1989b. No n~ io1 ence nd Israrl1Palr.s-tine. Hono lulu, H I: University of Hawaii Press.

Galtung, Johan. 1989c. Europe in the Making. NcwYork and Lond on: Taylor Francis.Galtun g, Johan Fumiko Nishimura, 1983. Structure,

Culture and Languages: An Essay Comparing theIndo-E uropea n, Chinese and Japanese Languages ,Social Science Information.vol. 22, no. 6 December.pp. 895-925.

lenaga , Saburo, 1978.The Pacijic Wa r: 1933-1945. NewYork: Random H ouse .

Krippendorff , Ekkehart , 1985. Sraat unrl Krirg. Diehistorische Logik politischer UnvrrnunJt.Frankfurt:Suhrkamp.

Larsen . Moge nsTro lle. 1988. Eu rop as Lys , pp . 9-37 in

Ha ns Boll-Johanscn Michael Harbs meier. eds.Europas Opdagrlse. Copenhagen: Ejlers.

Miller. Casey Kate Smith. 1988. The Handbook ofNonsex-1st W riting .New York: Harper Row (2nd

ed . ) .Koth, Michael. 1988. Strukturelle und personale Gew-alt : Problemc d er O pcrationalisierung des Gewaltbe-griffs von Johan Galtun g ,HSFK Forschung.~hericht,no . 1 April 1988.

Sane r, Hans. 1982. Personale, strukturelle und symbo-lische Ge wa lt . p p. 73-95 in Hoffnung und Grwalt .Zur Frrnr drs Frirdrns. Basel: Lenos Verlag.

Web er. Hans Kuedi. 1971. The Promise of the Land,Biblical Interpretation and the Present Situation inthe Middle East , Study Encourzti~r,ol . 7. no. 4, pp.1-16.

J O H A N G A LT U N G . b orn 1930 dr.hc.mult ; founder of P RI O andJou rna l o f Peace Resea rch andEdito r (1964-75). Cu rrently Olof Palme Professor in Stockholm and Professor of Peace and Co ope r-ation Research at the Universitat W itten-H erde cke. His works in peace studies includeEssays rz PeaceR e s e a r c h , vols. I VI (Ejlers, 1975-88).



You have printed the following article:

Cultural ViolenceJohan Galtung Journal of Peace Research , Vol. 27, No. 3. (Aug., 1990), pp. 291-305.Stable URL:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3433%28199008%2927%3A3%3C291%3ACV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6

This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from anoff-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Pleasevisit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.

[Footnotes]

1 Violence, Peace, and Peace ResearchJohan Galtung Journal of Peace Research , Vol. 6, No. 3. (1969), pp. 167-191.

Stable URL:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3433%281969%296%3A3%3C167%3AVPAPR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P

References

Violence, Peace, and Peace ResearchJohan Galtung Journal of Peace Research , Vol. 6, No. 3. (1969), pp. 167-191.Stable URL:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3433%281969%296%3A3%3C167%3AVPAPR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P

A Structural Theory of ImperialismJohan Galtung Journal of Peace Research , Vol. 8, No. 2. (1971), pp. 81-117.Stable URL:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3433%281971%298%3A2%3C81%3AASTOI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C

http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS- Page 1 of 1 -

NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3433%28199008%2927%3A3%3C291%3ACV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3433%281969%296%3A3%3C167%3AVPAPR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P&origin=JSTOR-pdf


http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3433%281971%298%3A2%3C81%3AASTOI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3433%281971%298%3A2%3C81%3AASTOI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C&origin=JSTOR-pdf



http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3433%28199008%2927%3A3%3C291%3ACV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6&origin=JSTOR-pdf

Cultural Violence (Galtung)

Documents

Transcript of Cultural Violence (Galtung)