The nature of humanity as either violent or peaceful has been a matter of scholarly scrutiny in various fields including law, ecology, religion, art and language, and formal and empirical science. People from different walks of life engage in violence either consciously or subconsciously. This postulation is deeply rooted in the conceptual framework developed by Johan Galtung: it states that violence does not only occur in its common forms: structural and direct. To him, violence can be cultural, and it takes a broader perspective of ecological degradation. While culture itself is perceived nonviolent, it has significant impacts on the society. This implies that it is only the aspects of a culture that determine either violence or peace. For instance, one can use the English language to transpire hatred but that would not imply that the language itself is in fact violent.
Based on the description provided above, I would readily accept their general hypothesis. It is important to note that both articles term cultural violence as an indirect means of discriminating human beings through cultural beliefs in the fields of art, religion, science, and politics. Nevertheless, Moore’s approach has been inclined to religion compared to Galtung’s general view of culture. On reading his article, I gained insight on the colossal effect religion has on cultures. Taking an example of the Christian, Jewish, Islam, and Buddhist doctrines, it becomes obvious that all have a prevalent notion of the power controlling the universe
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
However, what I have failed to understand is the intense impact religious impact poses on the society at large. Does it mean that people are naturally born with an ego? Sincerely, one can only create a negative impression of one’s religious superiority if he or she is too concerned with the other person’s affairs. I believe that rather than focusing on the entire doctrine as a cause for passive violence, the authors could have focused on human nature as the primary inspiration for violence.
To support my argument, I highlight the current income disparities in the world. It is obvious that people do not want to be considered lesser than the others in the society; as a result, they engage in hedonistic means of raising their social status. As Galtung states, some engage in both blue and white collar crimes while the rich individuals oppress the poor to prevent them from rising to their financial levels. In some extreme cases some will shed the bloods of their victim to maintain the superiority tag. This is a clear illustration of how a person’s ego precipitates violence in all its forms (structural, cultural, and direct). Therefore, how does one define violence as a cultural matter if it has not been addressed on an individual level? I urge academicians to explore the impact of human personality in the development of violence since it is the only proactive strategy to mitigation.
Since the damage has already been done cultural violence can be gradually mitigated by creating awareness among individuals in the society regarding their ultimate purpose on earth. Such an approach will allow them to understand the need for integration. A successful implementation of the proposed ideology would prevent the society from withdrawing to any type of violence as the world culture will be focused on peace and oneness. In conclusion, I would like to get additional learning resources regarding the solution to the problem since the two authors have managed to set the foundation for global awakening.
