Violence typology by Johan Galtung (direct,

structural and cultural violence)

Forms of direct violence are instantly recognizable as such. According to peace researcher Johan
Galtung, however, there are also hidden forms of violence: "And it is for this reason that
research into peace needs a violence typology in a similar way that the field of medicine needs
pathology as a precondition of its work." Galtung understands violence as follows:

"I understand violence as the avoidable impairment of fundamental human needs or, to put
it in more general terms, the impairment of human life, which lowers the actual degree to which
someone is able to meet their needs below that which would otherwise be possible. The threat of
violence is also violence."

[Johan Galtung, Kulturelle Gewalt; in: Der Bürger im Staat 43, 2/1993, p. 106]

This understanding of violence goes far beyond direct violence in which one or more people inflict
violence on other people. In addition to direct violence, Galtung emphasizes another form of
violence, namely structural violence, which is not carried out by individuals but is hidden to a
greater or lesser extent in structures. An example of this might be the injustices of the worldwide
system for the trade in goods, which creates more and more starving people every year.

Violence typology by Johan Galtung 1 von 4

An encyclopedia article provides an explanation to the much-discussed term of "structural
violence": "Violence is built into the social system and expresses itself in the unequal
distribution of power and, as a result, unequal opportunities (i.e. inequality in the distribution of
income, education opportunities etc.). As far as Galtung is concerned, structural violence is
synonymous with "social injustice." Galtung's analysis is similar to criticism of
capitalism in developing countries. This criticism legitimates the struggle against socially unjust
systems (guerrilla etc.), even when these systems largely forgo the use of oppressive
measures."

[Taken from: Dieter Nohlen (Hrsg.): Lexikon Dritte Welt, Länder, Organisationen, Theorien,
Begriffe, Personen, Reinbek 1991, p. 621-622]

If we take the definition of violence according to Galtung ("impairment of fundamental

human needs") and add four need groups to the two forms of violence, we are left with the
following typology:
Violence Need Groups
typology
according to
Galtung
Survival Well-being Identity / Freedom
purpose

(Negation: (Negation: (Negation:

death) poverty, (Negation: oppression)
illness) alienation)
Direct violence Killing Injury, siege, De-socialization, Repression,
sanctions, re-socialization, imprisonment,
poverty underclass expulsion,
deportation
Structural Exploitation A Exploitation B Penetration, Marginalization,
violence segmentation fragmentation

During the 1990s, Galtung supplemented his violence typology with another category and
introduced the concept of cultural violence: "Cultural violence should be understood as
those aspects of culture that can be used to justify or legitimate the use of direct or structural
violence. The Stars and Stripes, Hammer and Sickle, flags, hymns, military parades, portraits of
the leader, inflammatory speeches and posters are all included in this category."

[Johan Galtung, Kulturelle Gewalt; in: Der Bürger im Staat 43, 2/1993, p. 106]

Violence typology by Johan Galtung 2 von 4

The last line of the Galtung's violence typology table is in need of a little explanation: What, for
instance, is to be understood under the terms exploitation (A and B), penetration and
segmentation and marginalization and fragmentation in this context? Galtung provides us with the
following explanation:

"In order to be able to discuss the structural violence category, we need to have some idea
about a structure of violence as well as a vocabulary in order to identify the individual aspects of
the violence structure and to determine how its individual aspects relate to the need categories.
As far as I am concerned, exploitation represents the main part of a archetypical violence
structure. This means nothing more than a situation in which some people, namely the top dogs,
draw substantially more profit from the interaction taking place within this structure (...) than the
others, the underdogs (...).

To use a euphemism, an 'unequal exchange' exists. In reality, the underdogs might be

disadvantaged to such a degree that they die (starve or waste away as a result of illness and
disease): This is categorized as exploitation A. The second type of exploitation (B) means leaving
the underdogs in a permanent involuntary state of poverty, which usually encompasses
malnutrition and illness. All this happens within complex structures and at the end of long and
ramified legislation chains and cycles.

A structure of violence not only leaves its marks on the human body, it also impacts on the mind
and the soul. The best way to understand the next four terms is as a constituent part of the
exploitation, that is, strengthening components contained within the structure. Their function is to
prevent awareness and mobilization of this awareness, which are two of the conditions needed to
be successful in fighting exploitation.

With the help of penetration, elements of the top dog ideology reach the consciousness of the
underdog; this penetration is linked to segmentation, which only allows the underdog a limited
view of reality. The latter is the result of two processes, marginalization and fragmentation. This
involves forcing the underdogs increasingly to the edge of society, condemning them as
insignificant, dividing them and keeping them away from each other.

These four terms actually describe forms of structural violence. Indeed, they are all also linked to
the gender issue - even in circumstances in which death and illness figures for women are not
higher and in which they actually have a higher life expectancy than men. Or in other words, while
exploitation and oppression might go hand in hand, they are not identical."
[Johan Galtung, Kulturelle Gewalt; in: Der Bürger im Staat 43, 2/1993, p. 107]

Violence typology by Johan Galtung 3 von 4

 "By making a fundamental distinction between personal and structural violence, it can be
seen from two angles. Indeed, this is exactly the same as peace, which is understood as the
absence of violence. A more expansive concept of violence leads to a more expansive
understanding of peace: peace defined as the absence of personal violence and the absence
of structural violence. These two forms of peace are referred to as negative peace and positive
peace." [Johan Galtung]

[Author: Ragnar Müller]

Violence typology by Johan Galtung 4 von 4