Symbolic violence was invented by Pierre Bourdieu, a notable twentieth-century French sociologist, and first appeared in his writings in the 1970s. Non-physical violence reflected in the power disparity between social groupings is referred to as symbolic violence. It is frequently unknowingly agreed to by both parties and; manifests itself in the imposition of the norms of the dominant group on those of the subordinate group. Symbolic violence can occur in a variety of social contexts, including nationality, gender, sexual orientation, and ethnicity.
In the early 1990s, additional sociologists and authors began to utilize the word. Symbolic violence, according to Bourdieu, is usually not a planned act by a hegemonic authority; but rather an unconscious reinforcement of the status quo that is viewed as the “norm” by people who live within that social stratification.
- Social media- A quick evolution in technology led to the creation of many social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter in the decades following Pierre Bourdieu’s coining of the term symbolic violence. The introduction of these digital communities provided an additional medium for the spread of symbolic violence through the act of “trolling,” which is defined as “the sending or submission of provocative emails, social media posts, or ‘tweets,’ with the intention of inciting an angry or upsetting response from its intended target, or victim,” according to Claire Hardaker.
- Gender- We can apply symbolic violence to the problem of women’s subordination and repression. Symbolic violence, whether within or outside the family, maintains a domineering relationship with women, according to Beate Krais. “The societal construction of women as the ultimate ‘other,'” depicting female behavior as weak, female employment as less prestigious, female activities as of lesser worth, and so on, is a crucial part of women’s suppression. The importance of social reproduction in evaluating symbolic violence in women is crucial since both men’s and women’s adherence to socio-cultural norms plays a key part in insubordination. Cultural-linguistic phrases express the symbolic violence against women. Normative expressions such as “hit like a girl” and “run like a girl” quietly build beliefs about women’s subordination through language.
- Language- Dominance through the standardization of certain language usage could be another type of symbolic violence. Ana Celia Zentella conducted a study that illustrates how the Royal Spanish Academy creates symbolic violence through policies and activities aimed at producing a “clean” Spanish. According to Zentella, because there are many different types of English that sound and; are spelled differently (for example, English in the United Kingdom versus English in the Northeast of the United States), the Spanish language should have the same implications.
Institutional violence is a well-established form of interpersonal violence that arises from the existence of institutions; such as police and prisons, as well as repressive justice processes. Violence emerging from institutions that wield power may also affect the political, economic, and cultural spheres. In response to institutional violence, counter-institutions and counter-violence may emerge.
In the political domain, all political regimes have violent institutions such as prisons. Riots, revolutions, airline hijackings, diplomat kidnappings, and persistent terrorism are all examples of counter-institutional violence in this setting. Coercion, competitiveness, stock market speculation, new forms of credit, professional groups, and; unions can all lead to institutional violence in economic domains. Strikes, sabotage of production, the pillage of luxury department shops, and; we can use other forms of a work stoppage to fight various forms of violence.
Cultural violence can take the form of many forms of mass media and films, as well as condemnation and lifelong education; counter-institutional violence can take the form of the Cultural Revolution, but this is uncommon. The conclusion is that institutional violence is unavoidable in practically every regime and; that any institution’s brutality is likely to trigger counter-violence.
Structural violence is a term that means a type of violence in which a societal structure or; institution harms people by denying them access to fundamental necessities.
Johan Galtung, a Norwegian sociologist, used the phrase in his 1969 article “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research.” Institutionalized racism, sexism, and classism, to name a few instances of structural violence proposed by Galtung. Family violence, gender violence, hate crimes, racial violence, police brutality, state violence, terrorism, and; war are all considered structural and direct forms of violence.
Insofar as it impacts people differently in different social frameworks, it directly ties the social injustice.
Rather than transmitting a physical image, structural violence, according to Johan Galtung, is an “unavoidable degradation of essential human needs.”
Galtung distinguishes structural violence from “classical violence,”; which is defined as “direct” violence characterized by rudimentary, ephemeral “bodily harm” perpetrated by a single person. This is the first category of violence according to Galtung. The purest kind of structural violence, in this view, is violence that persists without a clear origin and; that lacks an “actor” to blame.
Read more blogs @advocatetanwar.com