Johan Galtung, a pioneering peace studies scholar, introduced the concept of structural

violence.

1. Definition:
○ Structural violence is a form of harm that occurs when social structures
and institutions perpetuate inequalities and prevent the satisfaction of
basic human needs. Unlike direct violence (physical harm), structural
violence operates subtly and often goes unnoticed.
○ Galtung emphasized that structural violence is built into the fabric of
society, affecting people’s life chances, well-being, and access to
resources
2. Key Characteristics:
○ Invisible Force: Structural violence is silent and tranquil, existing beneath
the surface. It doesn’t manifest as overt acts but rather as systemic
inequalities.
○ Unequal Power: It arises from disparities in power, wealth, and privilege.
These imbalances create conditions where certain groups suffer
disproportionately.
○ Avoidable Suffering: When people experience deprivation or suffering due
to preventable circumstances (e.g., hunger, lack of healthcare), structural
violence is at play
3. Examples:
○ Poverty: A society with extreme income inequality perpetuates structural
violence. Poverty denies individuals access to education, healthcare, and
opportunities.
○ Discrimination: Racial, gender, or ethnic discrimination leads to unequal
treatment, limiting life chances for marginalized groups.
○ Geographical Vulnerability: People living in areas prone to natural
disasters (e.g., hurricanes) face structural violence if they lack resources
to escape or recover.
○ Access to Basic Needs: When essential resources like food, clean water,
and housing are unequally distributed, structural violence persists1
4. Implications:
○ Recognizing structural violence is crucial for achieving genuine peace.
Addressing systemic inequalities requires dismantling unjust structures.
○ Advocacy, policy changes, and social movements are essential to combat
structural violence and promote equity.
 ○ By acknowledging and challenging these hidden forces, we move toward a
more just and compassionate world

Militarism and militarization are interconnected concepts, but they have distinct
meanings. Let’s delve into each of them:

1. Militarism:
○ Definition: Militarism refers to an attitudinal and behavioral element that
mobilizes masses through values or beliefs. It asserts that military
capability is the most meaningful and effective instrument for achieving
national goals. It propagates the idea that soldiers, weapons, and wars are
essential and noble tools for national protection and advancement.
○ Components:
■ Cultural and Psychological Aspects: Militarism is not solely based
on soldiers or weapons. It also encompasses non-material factors
such as moral values, behavior patterns, and emotional appeals.
■ Belief System: Militarism shapes public opinion, emphasizing the
significance of military strength.
○ Abstract Dimension: Militarism operates at an abstract level, influencing
perceptions and attitudes.
○ Example: When a society glorifies military service and prioritizes military
solutions, it exhibits militaristic tendencies.
 2. Militarization:
○ Definition: Militarization occurs when a society undergoes a military
build-up. It involves the gathering of arms, raising armies, seeking military
bases, and forming alliances. Militarization may or may not lead to a
military power position.
○ Concrete Manifestations:
■ Military Forces: The establishment and expansion of armed forces.
■ Weaponry: The acquisition and deployment of weapons.
○ Complex Process: Militarization affects various aspects of society,
including politics, economics, and culture.
○ Modern Context: In contemporary times, industrialization and
technological advancements have transformed militarization. Science and
technology play a crucial role in shaping military capability.
○ Global Reach: Militarization extends globally, impacting international
relations and power dynamics.

In summary, militarism influences attitudes, while militarization involves tangible

military preparations. Together, they shape a nation’s approach to security and conflict