This is an opinion website which usually discusses violence from the outset. If you are affected by the topics discussed here, you may find this list of links of interest.

This is part of a longer article on pacifism that you can find here.

---

Sociologist Johan Galtung, known as the “father” of peace studies, spoke of violence as a triangle, with three different sides: direct, cultural and structural.

Direct violence is harm which is usually visible, and includes physical violence such as assault and verbal abuse. It incorporates torture, terrorism, homicide and war.

Cultural violence includes attitudes, beliefs and assumptions that can influence direct violence. Cultural in this context doesn’t mean in the sense that it’s only seen in certain communities or demographics, but violence that’s been normalised, even accepted, in wider society including at work.

It is often invisible, because it rests in what people think, like the opinions they have about certain groups. Here, violence is (wrongly) thought of as “natural” and “this is the way things are and how they have to be”, and can show up in militarist discourse.

Beliefs that form part of cultural violence may include dangerous notions of superiority/inferiority, as in the case of harms like racism, homophobia, ableism and misogyny, where it’s rooted in the ideology of supremacy.

It becomes visible when it leads to direct violence such as physical assault, though it can include comments that target looks, intelligence, strength and imply someone is “less than” or even just different.

Allport’s Scale of Prejudice highlights that violence starts long before we think it does, often because of such harmful words, and vocalised beliefs.

Structural violence is the injustice, discrimination and exploitation that can show up in a system, but may be described or disguised (or even becomes “invisible”) as “policy”.

It can be the scaffolding that holds up and sustains oppressive narratives, even if unwittingly. Remember, in this context violence doesn’t have to be physical, it can be the psychological harm caused by a structure that enables harm doing – what some people also refer to as institutional betrayal. This can include practices which reinforce prejudice and discrimination, or where the organisation protects the harm doer and not the harmed, when violence is disclosed.

Workplace directives, such as absence procedures which adversely affect or harm people with disabilities and/or those with children are another example. It could also include dress code policies that monitor, oppress and punish women for what they wear, and the type of sexist thinking that reinforces the gender pay gap.

Structural violence could also include the impact of stigma and stereotypes created by certain assumptions, bias or prejudice (cultural violence) which affects certain groups, and then shows up in decision making. Consider how workplaces may make recruitment or disciplinary decisions as a result of that stigma. They may make exclusionary welfare decisions about people with mental illness, who are often wrongly assumed to be “swinging the lead”, or lumped in with people who are violent, even though people with poor mental health are actually more likely to be victims of crime.

Structural violence can benefit people who have money while disadvantaging those with low-income. One example is how the system will allow some people to access counselling in a timely fashion because they can afford it, whereas others may have to go on long waiting lists. Yet society then enables the cultural violence* of spreading myths that wrongly imply all the problems of the world are caused by the poorest people.

*It’s important to note that cultural violence is not about one community or demographic, but the way society normalises harm-doing at home, on our streets and even at work, or simply blames the wrong people for it.

These can then lead to direct violence, where the narratives that have played out create division and “othering”, and, ironically creates more unrest.

Patriarchal and supremacist (cultural) views about people from certain demographics can lead to direct violence and sit within structural “norms”, especially where policy is made around those beliefs.

Identity violence, which sits across all three sides of the triangle, is particularly insidious because it can include racism, homophobia and misogyny, which can be ongoing and relentless and show up in a variety of ways. Medical misogyny is one example of how the system can adversely impact women’s health.

As alluded to above, where dominance-based narratives single out a certain demographic as “the problem”, this might lead to prejudiced immigration decisions or policy for example, which adversely affect the very people seeking help. Riots associated with opposition to immigration, as a result of harmful assumptions (cultural) reinforced by media rhetoric (structural) about those asking for refuge, demonstrate how this can turn to direct violence, and we can see how it’s all connected.

Structural violence ultimately privileges certain groups of people. This in turn creates inequalities, impacting the wellbeing of those most affected, and can result in long-term injustice. And because it becomes so normalised (for example, showing up as “policy”) it can even seek to “legitimise” certain types of harm; consider the atrocities of WWII done under the banner of “just following orders”.

By understanding these different types of violence, we can begin to see how parts of society may unwittingly perpetuate and even participate in harmful narratives and beliefs that endorse or enable it.

When we acknowledge how direct, structural and cultural violence interconnect, we can take healthy and meaningful steps to resist it, by challenging assumptions, attitudes and beliefs that lead to harm.

---

© The Peace Gap 2026 – All rights reserved. This is an opinion post which may appear on other websites affiliated with the author. For full terms about accessing this content, click here or to find out more about this website click here