Structural Violence

I just finished reading a very interesting article in the November, 2008 edition of the journal called Archaeologies, put out by the World Archaeological Congress. A SUNY Binghamton professor, Reinhard Bernbeck, gave a very interesting discourse (pp. 390 to 413) on what structural violence is and how it is propagated in academics.

I am very interested in discussing how structural violence is propagated through the academic sphere, it was an eye opener for me. However, I would like to start discussion on structural violence first, as this was the first time I was ever introduced to this vocabulary. Also, the issue, in and of itself, has implications FAR beyond the academic sphere.

So, here is my shoddy attempt to discuss what Professor Bernbeck eloquently put forward in his journal article. I will also heavily rely on quoting him in order to make sure that his point is correctly brought forward.

I am going to focus on Berbeck's introduction in his paper, as it is a good summary. I'll start with quoting parts of his introduction (p. 391 to 392)...

"September 11, 2001 has weaned the West from the fascination with an "end of history"..., an idea that was taken to mean an end of major instances of collective violence and war. The radical reversal of tacit expectations on that day has led to a backlash, an over-focus on physical violence and aggression. Lonely voices...pointed out that [western] political structures of inequality were co-responsible for this event. Such opinions were sternly repudiated in an otherwise unisono public discource about "America's enemies". This climate made it all to easy to forget that anonymous structures of brutal socio-economic diaparities in a context of late capitalist exploitation could have anything to do with these attacks. Since then, the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq have been accompanied by proclamations and comments by politicians and intellectuals that frame these events in terms of personalized acts of direct aggression. In the present climate, the workings of faceless repression through underlying larger systems remain silenced. Some 40 years ago, the Western world was confronted with another war, but then, public discourse took a decidedly different turn. Opposition to the Vietnam war and the search for peace were driven by a discourse and vocabulary that recognized the working of large-scale structures of inequality...

Hannah Arendt had coined the well-known term "banality of evil" in her attempt to explain Adolf Eichmann's behavior as a... desk-bound murderer. He obeyed the law in order to make a career in the Nazi system. Arendt vividly described how doing one's secretarial job "normally" in the context of larger structures that include mechanisms for annihiliation can mean becoming a mass murderer without ever committing a direct act of violence (Arendt, 1964). Arendt's main point was that "obeying the law" cannot morally legitimize one's actions or inactions. This dark example of a link between violent structures and those who support them serves as a reminder that we ourselves need to reflect on how we are involved in large-scale structures, and what kinds of effects these structures may have." End of quote.

Soooo...that is a cut and paste quote from Bernbeck's article. While I always had an, "in the back of my mind' concept of what Bernbeck describes as structural violence, I never had a term to apply to it, nor had I given the concept much thought (until at least during the Bush administration, that is). I have become increasingly aware of how western capitalism (like most socio-economic institutions, I suspect) have an aspect to them where certain parts of the local, or global, population are not treated in an equal fashion under such institutions. While in the comfort of my nice warm home, while snoozing due to my well-fed belly, I never gave much pause to think about how this "way of life" may be damaging to other people, until of course I lost 2 friends in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11th. While my first gut reaction was, "how dare they", once the adrenaline wore off and I had some time to think, my next thought was the very unpopular "why"?" Why are these people so pissed off with us that they would wage war on America? That led me to question America's role in the events that have gone down in history as 9/11. A story is never one-sided and we, as a country, have given precious little thought to how our way of life may be damaging (i.e. causing local violence, starvation, death) to other people.

I think the individual does need to take stock and consider their role in a system that may hurt other people. I don't think people intentionally go out trying to hurt people, but I do think people intentionally bury their heads in the sand to avoid the very uncomfortable moral questions that inevitably surface when you start to dig too deep into such topics. All too often folks "forgive" the wrongness of their actions, or inaction, by claiming they are following the law; ignoring the fact that the law may be unjust or morally wrong. As long as it's legal, it OK (until it comes home to roost that is, as we are finding out with the Wall Street bail-out, hmm..). In an educated society such as ours, and in a society that claims to be as religious and faith based as we flaunt ours as being, I think it is long overdue for this nation to consider the collateral damage our way of life and policies are having on people outside our borders (and in our borders as well). It is long overdue for individuals to take stock as well.

I welcome your comments and the pointing out of ideas that I may have overlooked.

-M