Structural violence framework's utility in analyzing international conflict

Structural Violence Framework in International Conflict

Structural Violence

A Structural Violence Framework for Understanding & Analyzing International Conflict

Introduction to Structural Violence

Structural violence is differentiated from direct violence both in terms of etiology and nature. Direct violence is a result of events or the actions of individuals that kill or harm people. Structural violence, on the other hand, is a phenomenon made manifest through social inequalities (Christie, 1997). The organizational structures of political and economic systems cause and sustain the sort of hierarchical relations that enable dramatic differences between and across sectors of societies. Within these hierarchies, the people at the top have privilege, wealth, and power, while those at the bottom of the hierarchy are dominated, oppressed, and exploited (Christie, 1997). People are harmed and killed as a result of structural violence but, unlike direct violence, it occurs more slowly. The harm or death of oppressed people may come about because "some people are deprived of food, shelter, healthcare, and other resources" (Christie, 1997). Because structural violence is embedded in a society's way of being, over the long-term, groups of people may not be able to meet their basic needs to the degree that normal development and growth is impacted.

In order for structural violence to become established in a society or geographic region, or under the particular conditions of war, people must necessarily rationalize and tolerate structural violence. One aspect of the tolerance for structural violence is militarization. While military action is idealistically utilized to protect those with the fewest physical or material resources -- children, women, and indigenous populations -- militarization often establishes conditions that result in the most harm coming to these vulnerable people (Christie, 1997).

Philosophical Grounding of Structured Violence Theory

This paper will argue that a structural framework substantively contributes to an analysis and understanding of international conflict. That the topic of structural violence has bearing on international conflict, per se, is crystallized in the work of Rittenberger (1973). Rittenberger argues that the construct of violence as held by international organizations, such as the United Nations, does not include the notion of structural violence, but rather is focused on direct violence. The problem, according to Rittenberger, is that international organization is "an adaptive outgrowth of the modern state system" (1973), characterized by the same skewed perceptions and the careful lens of the parent agent. It is not enough to examine violence with the macro context of the nation or the micro context of the culture, if the macro and micro contexts are viewed through the filters of the modern nation states. It would seem that Einstein's caution is born out, that "We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them" (Brainy Quote, 2011). A structural framework approach assumes -- and is informed by -- systems thinking in which violence is examined within the macro and micro contexts in which it occurs -- but that approach alone is insufficient. What makes a structural framework different, and what gives it capacity, is the thorough consideration of cultural influences and structural configurations that condition conflict. In this manner, as this paper will argue, a structural framework promotes separation from the confining paradigms of various disciplines and institutions, and moves it into the realm of critical theory.

Theories are grounded in their disciplines. The same holds true for theories supporting a structural violence framework which is intended to foster an understanding of international conflict. The structural violence framework is oriented toward critical theory, with "the goal of identifying and overcoming all the circumstances that limit human freedom" (Bohman, 2010) and that lead to violent conflict. Just as in classic critical theory, structural violence theories "could be furthered only through interdisciplinary research that includes psychological, cultural, and social dimensions, as well as institutional forms of domination" (Bohman, 2010). When considering theories of structural violence and conflict, and also the corollary theories of peace research, it is important to examine how the theoretical frameworks address both ontology and epistemology.

Patomaki argues that the ultimate task of these theories is the "transformation from politics to violence and vice versa" (2001, p. 1). In other words, if heterodoxical, or dissident, discourse is to occur, then theories must address the body of research and the praxis on which the research is based. Patomaki (2001) proposes a theoretical framework based on realist ontology with its inclusive open systems and open history base, and epistemological relativism. Realist ontology, here, is taken to mean that universals are real and that they exist independently of anything upon which they may be predicated, or that instantiate them. Epistemological relativism informs theories about structural violence, cultural violence, and peace, in that, it underscore the subjectivity of our thinking about the nature of the "thing" (Patomaki, 2001). That is, our thinking about the being or epistemology of violence which occurs as a result of the way society structures itself or the way in which members of society perceive the "rightness" of the structure, culture, and praxis.

Theories of Structural Violence

A number of structural violence theoretical frameworks exist (Rogers & Ramsbotham, 1999), and the field is dominated by several, which will be briefly outlined in this section, and referred to in subsequent sections.

The most fundamental issue when discussing conventional views of violence is that they are incomplete in as much as the viewpoints attempt to explain the phenomenon of violence in terms of its particulars (Rogers & Ramsbotham, 1999). Like the blind men exploring the elephant in the room, these authors may seize on a particular element of violence and attempt to explain the corpus by discussing the part. As Barak (2003) points out, these one-dimensional explanations focus on the behavioral and interpersonal expressions of violence and fail to include the institutional or structural expressions of violence. Barak argues that a complete theory of violence must incorporate a "reciprocal integration of interpersonal, institutional, and structural violence" (2003, paragraph 1).

Most commonly held viewpoints of violence within particular disciplines, such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, and criminology, are based on a dualistic, non-critical structure. Barak (2003) provides an analytical framework that examines these discipline-grounded theories on the basis of four main factors: The etiology of violence is believed to internal or external, and either normative or aberrant, depending on the constructs held with regard to the relationship between violence and perceived human nature.

A new tier of theories about violence has emerged that goes well beyond the uni-dimensional and interpersonal theories, to more complex frameworks. According to Barak (2003), these second tier theories tend to cluster in three categories: Integrative, developmental, and life-course frameworks. Integrative theories of violence emphasize the dynamics between the internal and external influences of violence and non-violence, and the interplay of these influences with the constraints and motivations related to violence and non-violence. The life-course and developmental theories of violence focus on the behavioral trajectories of individuals during their life-spans. Barak is explicit in his description of the inclusiveness and interactive aspects of these second tier theories, saying that,

The application of these pathways to violence and/or nonviolence recognize the accumulative natures of these behaviors, the reciprocal consequences of abusive and non-abusive behavior and the integral relationships between events, situations, and conditions in the course of one's personal and social experiences. (Barak, 2003, paragraph 1)

Commonly held behaviorally-based theories about violence explain incidences of violence as problems of self-control or social control. The difficulty with these common theories, explains Barak, is that they tend to reduce the analysis of violence to explicative variable, even though the theories may discuss the influence of other variables. In his research, Barak set out a typology of theories of violence (2003). He identifies 12 current theories, eight of which offer a uni-dimensional structural framework. The 12 theories Barak identifies in his typology are: "Exchange theory, sub-cultural theory, resource theory, patriarchal theory, ecological theory, social learning theory, evolutionary theory, socio-biological theory, pathological conflict theory, psychopathological theory, general systems theory, and inequality theory" (Barak, 2003). The four theories that include multiple factors within their conceptual frameworks are: Pathological conflict (internally motivated and internally constrained variables); ecological theory (externally motivated and externally constrained variables); inequality theory (internally motivated and externally motivated variables); and general systems theory (externally constrained variables, and internally motivated and externally motivated variables) (Barak, 2003).

The Influence of Globalization on Structural Violence

In this section, the concepts developed by Galtung, Gillian, and Gilman, as well as the typology presented by Barak, will be applied to an exploration of the relation of globalization to structural violence. Globalization is presented here as the macro context for against which the micro level conflict of nations is examined.

Today, a structural violence framework applied to international conflict must consider the influence of globalization. According to Lerche & Tidwell (2004), globalization "is an accelerator of social change, and as such, may act as a catalyst for conflict, aggravating the tensions in any given society and even creating new ones. At the same time, it may catalyze and accelerate conflict resolution" (2004, p. 47-48). Inarguably, interpersonal connections are influenced when technology-enhanced communication promotes a sense of interconnectedness. In the same manner, globalization brings about 'intensifying interconnectedness" which can have both purposeful and accidental impact on international peace and conflict (Lerche & Tidwell, 2004, p. 13). Consideration of the interplay between 'marketization and democratization" in developing countries is useful for examining the impact of globalization. When a country engages in processes that lead to the development of democratic governance and also fixes an eye on competing in the global marketplace, the underlying goals are generally to "empower local populations" (Lerche & Tidwell, 2004, p. 57) but unintended negative outcomes may instead be the result. As Lerche & Tidwell emphasize, "[The actual] problematic area is not democratization or marketization per se, but rather their interactions with local circumstances" (2004, p.57).

Conflict diamonds. The disturbing events associated with "conflict diamonds' provides a solid example for evaluating the utility of a structural violence framework to examine conflict. Although direct violence typically occurs within the boundaries of the countries where the mines are located, the market for the conflict diamonds is global. The South African DeBeers cartel dominates the market with ownership in about 40% of the world's diamond mines (Goreux, 2001). Diamond mines are located in Australia, Canada, Russia, and South Africa. Extensive diamond polishing enterprises exist in Antwerp, Bombay, Dubai, and London. The primary markets for cut diamonds are Japan and the U.S. (Goreux, 2001).

The integrative theory posited by Barak, in which conflict theory is based on the "reciprocal integration of interpersonal, institutional, and structural violence" (2003, paragraph 1) fits well with this brief analysis of the impact of globalization on the dynamics surrounding conflict diamonds, particularly when the diamonds are the source of funds for military operations. About a decade ago, the trade in raw diamonds amounted to approximately $7.25 billion (Goreux, 2001, p. 3). Of this figure, trade in conflict diamonds is estimated to about $250 million, or 3.5% of the total diamond trade (Goreux, 2001, p. 3). This valuable commodity is traded on global markets and provides substantive funding for conflict in Angola and Sierra Leone.

The effect of several troublesome dynamics can be seen in the conflict diamond sector, all of which are related either directly or indirectly to globalization. There is tremendous global demand for diamonds which originate in areas fraught with extreme violence. Historically, insurgency campaigns have not been checked by an ineffective, failed central government (Goreux, 2001). Access to the mines is a given in these African regions and with no other sources of external funding available to the paramilitary troops, the military turns easily to a position from which mining activities can be controlled and funds will be assured. UNITA, the rebel force in Angola turned to diamond mining after the Cold War ended and the U.S. withdrew funding (Goreux, 2001). Diamonds were stockpiled by UNITA, basically in order to control the market, and as diamonds were sold, the money was used to buy weapons in order to continue attempts to overthrow the government in Luanda (Goreux, 2001). In Sierra Leone, a war has been going on between the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and the central government since 1991. This RUF military campaign is funded by proceeds from diamond smuggling. More than 20,000 people have been killed in this war, with nearly 2 million people displaced from their homes, and countless horribly maimed and disfigured.

Also, al-Qaeda is suspected of using money from smuggled conflict diamonds to fund terrorism. The allegation is that al-Qaeda operatives in Africa purchase conflict diamonds, have them exported, and then covert them into laundered cash (Farah, 2001, A-1). Ostensibly, "A diamond on the finger of a casualty of the attack on the World Trade Center may well have once been traded by al-Qaeda and mined by those working with the RUF" (Goreux, 2001, p. 51).

Conflict diamonds are central to the exploitation of people in Angola and Sierra Leone. The importance of culture and a hierarchical society are evident in this struggle. In addition, the impact of militarization and enduring conflict that has become a way of life (normalization) determine the nature of the struggle. Further, there is an embedded incentive to maintain the violent and chaotic situation in Sierra Leone. To the strength of the global diamond market has been added the lucrative global arms trade. As long as the mining continues, there will be funds available for weapons and a market for diamonds. As long as the war continues, there will be a market for guns. Absent the strong global markets, might the internal struggle in Angola and Sierra Leone be quite different from what it currently is?

A type of perfect storm has taken shape in Angola and Sierra Leone where the vectors all come together in a way that is sure, all things remaining the same, to result in violence. Cuesta and Murshed argue that while "factors such as inequality, poverty, polarization, exclusion, ethnic tensions, natural resource appropriation all contribute to the risk of conflict, yet some societies having such conditions do not descend into conflict" (2008, p. 6). Cuesta and Murshed posit that, in addition to the presence of abhorrent conditions such as those listed above, "for greed and grievance to take the form of large-scale violence" (2008, p.6) some breach of social contract must have occurred. A social contract is an established set of conditional rules to which the parties widely agree and that, formally or informally, govern the way resources are accessed, divided, or distributed (Addison and Murshed, 2001). If the social contract works well -- is "viable, credible, and enforceable," then the group's behavior may effectively be restrained (Addison and Murshed, 2001). But if it is not effective, then opportunistic behavior will dominate and there are highly likely to be incidences of large-scale confiscation of resources and grievances will take violent expression (Addison and Murshed, 2001). Azam (2001) supports the social contract construct as a catalyst for violence, and argues that inter-ethnic conflict in Africa is "the result of the state's failure to make a fair provision of resources among ethnic groups, thus encouraging individuals to rely more on ethnic capital" or group-specific capital. Ulsaner (1999, 2003) refers to this hyper-focus on one's own ethnic group as "particularized trust," which is at the core of differentiated treatment of particular groups of people and at the core of structural violence theory.

Alluvial diamond extraction. Snyder (2005) presents a revenue-centered framework for examining political order that is relevant to an integrative theory of structural violence. Snyder studied countries in which the extraction of alluvial diamonds did and did not occur in association with violence outbreaks of civil war. Snyder (2005) argues that 60% of the nations that produce substantive amounts of alluvial diamonds have not had civil wars since shortly after the end of the Cold War. In Africa, 50% of the 10 significant producers of alluvial diamonds have not had civil wars during this same time period. Snyder performed an empirical analysis using a revenue-centered framework on Ghana, Guinea, and Sierra Leone, with regard to extraction of alluvial diamonds and their political outcomes. According to Snyder, "The focus on the contrasting political consequences of alluvial diamonds highlights the complexity of the resource-conflict relationship" (Snyder, 2005, p. 1). Snyder's research provides relationship patterns that illustrate how the individual behavior of the leaders in various countries both shaped and are shaped by the resources in the country. Specifically, Snyder argues that the ability of a ruler in a resource-rich country to obtain revenue to maintain political order depends on several factors. The first variable is that of the overall portfolio of the economy with regard to availability of "non-lootable resources" or goods that the leader can use as a revenue source, and for which there is a high barrier to entry. In other words, the economic or macro context is critical. The second variable has to do with the economic institutions -- a structural variable -- and how the lootable resources (in our example, alluvial diamonds) are extracted. Snyder's examples are extraction by large and taxable companies, or extraction by "artisans" from whom the government cannot derive taxes. This variable points to the importance of institutionalized practices which are at the core of a theory of structured violence. The third variable brings the individual behavior of the ruler to the forefront. Snyder's research indicates that the way rulers use and spend revenue is strongly related to the overall outcomes related to the extraction of alluvial diamonds. Fluctuations in political stability were seen to be related to a leader's tendency to spend revenue frivolously or use the money to strengthen the military, versus demonstrating an ability to consume prudently, for instance, in ways that would provide social welfare, or improve the nation's capacity for earning revenue in the future. The first and second variable may be fairly stable, but the third variable points to the importance of individual behavior with regard to the fluctuations in the political stability over the course of a nation's history.

Conclusion

A brief description of the context in which conflict diamonds are extracted, prepared for the market, and then traded has served as the nexus in this paper for examining structural violence theory and international conflict. Returning to Barak (2003, 2007), the importance of the accumulative nature of variables in certain African countries, the reciprocal consequences of individual behaviors of ethnic and military groups, and the integration of the personal and social experiences of the rulers in these countries become plain. At the same time, the complexities of the many variables related to the conflict are staggering in their capacity to combine and recombine. It is, in part, for this reason that the structural violence framework is helpful and lends clarity to the analysis.

STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE FRAMEWORK IN INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT

14