A Typology of Violence, from Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191.
I was looking for this image to insert into my research slides and found it on Tumblr of all places. (Didn’t want to take a screenshot of the PDF I have… Even though it’d turn out like this? Anyway.) This is probably one of my favorite ideas in social justice/peace and conflict and reading this paper for the first time was one of the rare occasions where I was really excited about theory.
You should definitely check out Achille Mbembe’s article Necropolitics. I’m not on my laptop at the moment so I can’t check out the details but he brings in Foucault and Bataille in regards to violence and it’s really good. Very different style to Galtung’s but you’re missing out if you don’t read it.
Can we talk about violence when no physical or biological object is hurt? This would be a case of what is referred to above as truncated violence, but nevertheless highly meaningful. When a person, a group, a nation is displaying the means of physical violence, whether throwing stones around or testing nuclear arms, there may not be violence in the sense that anyone is hit or hurt, but there is nevertheless the threat of physical violence and indirect threat of mental violence that may even be characterized as some type of psychological violence since it constrains human action. Indeed, this is also the intention: the famous balance of power doctrine is based on efforts to obtain precisely this effect.
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191.
philosophy-of-praxis replied to your post: philosophy-of-praxis replied to your post: If you…
Nope. Robespierre got shit done. Gandhi betrayed strikes and other liberation struggles.
Robespierre got shit done and then oppressed the French population once he got shit done, causing a reign of terror and thus the phrase reign of terror was coined.
When they turn your life into just another industrial process, you industrialise the democratic justice system.
When 72% of your victims are the working class I’d hardly call that democratic.
also it wasn’t democratic. it was Robespierre being a batshit dictator.
Does France have a monarchy though?
so it’s okay to replace one system of oppression with another?
Without Robespierre you wouldn’t have Civil Rights leaders because the idea of civil rights would never have survived the counterrevolution. I don’t give a fuck whether or not you agree with what he did or how he did it, you wouldn’t have the chance to have this conversation about whether or not Gandhi was a good civil rights leader because the concept of civil rights wouldn’t have become a hegemonic force within liberal ideology able to solidify itself within the constitution of France and couldn’t have spread from there.
But wah wah waaah he was very nasty. O noes.