Folks, thanks for your thoughts. I like the idea of Ranciere's equality as a starting point. Then we have the issue of all members of society actually imposing the structural inequality even within the same group. In this way we police ourselves...not consciously. So even the top down cannot be dissolved completely if we are the enforcers of the violence. Right?

I guess this sends us back to examining how within ourselves we replicate systems of inequality and then - perhaps via our own reprogramming - shift the structuring structures. This is why I like the work of "showing up for racial justice" in which white people consider how they may inadvertently be perpetuating racial inequality.

And, yes, Erica, thank you. I do partner with some non-profits doing good work. We cultivate hope in the classroom as well.

Thanks again...Any other thoughts out there?

I personally feel that there are several components in this. First of all, by having the language and the tools the individual can fight systematical violence more effectively. The more individuals understand systemic injustice, the more they will be able to act against it and fight for change.

So, for me it is not about denying or underplaying the reality of systemic oppression but about giving the tools to individuals to acknowledge, reduce the harmful effects, and fight systemic oppression. I also think that to counteract feelings of hopelessness few things are as effective as taking action. In general, studying structural violence can be extremely draining but putting that knowledge to use can help providing a positive reminder that knowledge is power. Do you already cooperate with no- profit organizations? Doing something practical and offering real help can often be the best medicine for the existential dread caused by theoretical studies that explore in depth the failings of our systems.

Also, by getting involved in real life communities, students can experience how very often systematic issues are more effectively dealt with with the interplay of compromise, political action, lobbyism, activism, and slow, constant changes.

Moreover, I think that using the knowledge they have acquired to counteract regressive points of view is a very effective way to 1. learn how to push forward for the ideas they believe in in a world that might not be receptive to them, and 2. see how their efforts are needed and how their studies are empowering them to resist these narratives.

Thank you for your interesting question! The question reminds me of a debate I just read between Jacques Ranciére and Pierre Bourdieu about concepts of In-/Equality as a starting point of sociological analysis in general.

My point would be, that on the one hand it seems important to me, that we have an elaborated vocabulary in terms of (structural violence, discrimination etc.), but it would be wise, on the other hand, to reflect on the fundamental conceptions within this perspective. From a conceptual point of view it makes a huge difference, if one sets inequality as a precondition in contrast to concepts who definie equality as a starting point of the analysis.

For example: when a concept sees inequality as a precondition it also reproduces the inequality in terms of ideas like people 'need' experts to be free or to free themselves from the structural violence. In this perspective 'change' can only accour from the outside, because people are seen as in need help, empowerment, in need of knowledge what seems to be 'best' to overcome those problems etc. - this is hierarchical, top-down, from a distant perspective which claims 'to know', but very often empiricaly fails to change the core structures. Thus the effect is politically depressing and frustrating.

When a concpet is based on fundamental equality (like in Ranciéres) those problems can be reflected by questioning such hierarchial concepts, by asking and involving the people who are affected in the first place to develop strategies to undermine such structural disadvantages. This seems even more important, since concepts based on equality don't focus that much on differences, rather on similarities that also emphasize the shades/nuances that exist between those strict distinctions (for example the possiblity when someone from a working class background can achiveve a bachelor- or mastersdegree or a PhD). Such concepts are IMO more able to give an (rather) positive political perspective without ignoring the empircal evident disadvantages a lot of people have to deal with on a daily basis.

Of course this is only a rough sketch, but I hope you get the idea, because to me this seems to be an important aspect related to your question on intersectionality and to convey (?) an rather optimistic (political) perspective on what could be possible.

Also see Jacques Ranciére (2004): The Philosopher and His Poor, ed. Andrew Parker, co-trans. John Drury, Corinne Oster, and Andrew Parker.

If course , the violence will increased with disturbance environment and community ethics has main role , A well-educated and quiet society give non violence generations, example we notice in children in Iraq like the fire games Both manual and electronic games,due to the previous and current situation in Iraq until yet

Folks, thanks for your thoughts. I like the idea of Ranciere's equality as a starting point. Then we have the issue of all members of society actually imposing the structural inequality even within the same group. In this way we police ourselves...not consciously. So even the top down cannot be dissolved completely if we are the enforcers of the violence. Right?

I guess this sends us back to examining how within ourselves we replicate systems of inequality and then - perhaps via our own reprogramming - shift the structuring structures. This is why I like the work of "showing up for racial justice" in which white people consider how they may inadvertently be perpetuating racial inequality.

And, yes, Erica, thank you. I do partner with some non-profits doing good work. We cultivate hope in the classroom as well.

Thanks again...Any other thoughts out there?

In this field of studies the challenge is to think properly about the interesección between the structural and the subjective. That space is subsumed by culture and its function of articulation. I have worked for twenty years in youth violence and for example art is an extraordinary resource to account for that articulation. You can see my book about the place of violence.

Ten years ago Baltimore was the centre of the TV series "The Wire", you know. There you could see, in my view as outsider quite realistic, how in urban communities structures of violence are efficacious, here in the context of drug trade and drug addiction. The problem of violence in principally liberral-democratic societies must be discussed again and again, and also examples of hope are important to mention.

Mine suggestions seem to be more like child like or simple but sometimes sticking to basics of child like purity, and selflessness and simplicity makes life less miserable and more able to live, as now a days we hear a lot to improve better sleep, sleep like a child; we hear a words, child like curiosity develop better learning outcomes and deeper understanding of concepts.

We can use second life virtual world to create avatars who in virtual reality can fight injustice and structural violence. It will make them feel better as they feel powerful in their virtual world .

Again we can create 5 to 10 minutes of time period in class rooms where we will forget about violence, injustice and inequalities for 5 to 10 minutes, and we will share jokes related to every day life; you see laughter and humor is best medicine.

Students can create charts and models, anything that let them out their own fear of violence, their own oppression, their own sorrows, sadness associated with these violence and importantly these activities must be conducted in non judgmental way. We all want space or platform where we can speak our heart and mind, and no one is there to judge, it will make their feelings vent out, and there realities of life could be little less disheartening.

Look when we see there is a lot of darkness around; still there is a light, there is a hope, and share stories of hope, courage and persistence to survive happily.

Hope it will help!

I really appreciate all these answers. They are all adding to my thinking...and will help enrich what happens next year in the classroom.

Any others?

This is a challenge ! I teach violence and oppression (feminist sociology) but I also teach collective action and mobilizations. Demonstrating the social construction of inequalities gives us hope that resisting this manufacturing and transforming social relations is possible.

Pardon me for stumbling into this discussion but I was fascinated by the term "structural violence." I teach a Criminal Street Gangs, Homeland Security, Global Terrorism; retired from the Navy initially trained as a combat medic; taught personal safety/defense to corporate clients and women homeless shelters; spent years in the marital arts, yet this is the first perspective I have read about the subject.

I am not sure I can offer anything without doing more reading on the subject. But a couple of things come to mind:

1. I make it a point to deeply examine the uncomfortable terms like terror or violence. For example, terrorism is a very vague term so I ask my students to define death, fear, and terror. Why? Because until one feels at least a minuscule form of raw emotion associated with these terms, we don't fully appreciate the subject. Most give me basic dictionary definitions. However, at times I get responses like, "defining the word death made me uncomfortable."

2. The exodus of Central Americans (particularly from El Salvador) North is part of the "structural violence" (if I am using this correctly) of the gang culture like MS-13 (13 is actually a misnomer) created by U.S. foreign policy during the civil wars of the 1980s.

V/r

J