I am using critical discourse analysis and social relational institutional theory to interrogate a decison to sell parkland for housing sites under the guise of smart growth (i.e. more intensity).
How (exactly) are defining "structural violence?"
Since all politicians are "ideologically predisposed," which particular predispositions are you referring to?
Would not the sale of parkland to community land interests be just as ideologically predisposed, and therefore just as "structurally violent?"
I am using Johan Galtung who terms structural violence can occur when a social institution prevents someone from meeting thier basic human need. He uses sexism as an example. The benefits of parks to healthy individuals and communities is well documented. Sale of lands to a private developer for housing (i.e. seniors aging in place) I think may meet that same test. I am not a believer in sale to anyone, but it may depend on the focus of the organisation if public access and use is not compromised. What are your thoughts?
Would be helpful:
https://www.csu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/705034/Critical_Landcare.pdf
Structural Violence and Climate Change Discourse in
the States of Pernambuco and Paraíba in Northeast
Brazi
https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/28231/Gradu%20lopullinen.pdf?sequence=2
It can be a example of SV in the sense Galtung defined it, but what would be required is to analyse how people are negatively affected by it, meaning how this change in land use as a negative impact on their well-being, hindering them to fullfil their potentials.
What answers are you looking for with your question? Please allow me to speculate! Are you cntending that "selling public parkland to private individuals" perpetuates violence by replacing public access with private exclusion - which could lead to violence? Or What? You need to clarify your premises that underlie your question!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Urban/Rural Sociology