This is an opinion website which discusses violence usually from the outset. If you are affected by some of 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, structural and cultural.
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 – not in the sense that it’s only seen in certain communities, but potentially violence that’s been normalised, even accepted, in wider society. 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”.
Beliefs that form part of cultural violence may include dangerous notions of superiority/inferiority, as in the case of racism, homophobia, ableism and misogyny, where it is 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 (ie. 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. This can include practices which reinforce prejudice and discrimination.
Workplace directives, such as absence procedures which adversely affect or harm people with disabilities and/or those with children are one example. It would 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, or how exclusionary welfare decisions may be made 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 they 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 which may add more harm.
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.
Another is where dominance-based narratives single out a certain demographic as “theproblem” which 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. (See also section on “Protection and Oppression” below).
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.
We can close the peace gap.
© The Peace Gap 2026 – All rights reserved. This is an opinion post which may have appeared on other, affiliated websites. For full terms about accessing this content, click here or to find out more about this website click here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.