Structural Violence: Hughes And Bourgois

Violence is a ubiquitous reality. It does not recognize borders, or realms. Because it is prevalent, violence is a difficult idea to conceptualize. Raymond Williams offers seven different definitions of violence, beginning with violence as physical force, then to emotional crossing, to violence as an expression of passion, and lastly “to be done violence to – to be wrenched from its meaning or significance.” (p. 181 – 182) Furthermore, Williams is the first to draw a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate force. Nonetheless, even these seven definitions and distinctions fail to highlight the violence’s complexity. Thus, Williams expands his definition, not of violence itself, but on how to understand violence through analyzing hegemony processes; therefore, opening the possibility for social critique. Likewise, Hughes and Bourgois, attempt to make sense of violence by defining structural violence and symbolic violence, “Structural violence [as] the violence of poverty, hunger, social exclusion and

As Hughes and Bourgois described it, “structural violence is generally invisible because it is part of the routine grounds of everyday life and transformed into expressions of moral worth.” (p. 4) Hughes and Bourgois establish how not all violence is the result of “deviant behavior,” but rather emphasize how social, economic, and political systems have the capacity for violent actions under accepted environments. Though Engle’s Anti-Dühring argues, the economic aspects of history are more relevant than the political aspects because politics change due to the economic circumstances. Engle continually claims the capitalist economic system has generated a dichotomy of the ruled and the rulers were the ruled are more numerous. (p. 42, 56) The ruled lack the ability to abstain themselves from such dichotomy because of economic