Let's talk about violence - from the standpoint of the oppressed

Lets talk about violence - from the standpoint of the oppressed Sarah Henkeman http://www.criminology.uct.ac.za/news/lets-talk-about-violence- standpoint-oppressed My understanding of violence is rooted as much in my lived experience as an oppressed black body, as it is in academic knowledge produced mainly by white liberal minds and some black (diverse) minds on ‘additional reading’ lists. That is, until I could take charge of the knowledge I produced by drawing on a variety of voices inside and outside the academy using a unity-of-all-things (transdisciplinary) approach. Peace researcher Johan Galtung’s (1996) triad of ‘cultural-structural-direct violence’ provides a useful entry point, and can be adapted to fit South Africa’s unequal, transitional context. It is from this standpoint that I advance an approach to violence that goes beyond the legal fiction which places sole responsibility for violence on individuals. In the South African context, the legal definition of violence closes off an understanding, and the reduction of violence, in its invisible/visible structure (symbolic-structural- psychological-physical violence). Despite the stated move towards critical and post-colonial criminology, the narrow focus on prevention and reduction of interpersonal physical violence eclipses uninterrupted symbolic, structural, psychological and personal physical violence from view. In South Africa this means for example that gangsters and their activities become the focus of micro level ethnographic studies; but not the trans-historical, micro-macro mechanisms that produced these gangsters. In recent years in South Africa, several exploratory, and in depth studies were undertaken during which violent offenders tell their life stories. Depending on the reading taken of these narratives, key patterns emerge that point to the symbolic, structural, psychological and (both personal and interpersonal) physical violence suffered by these offenders. The conclusions reached here have shed some light on micro level processes, including the effects of apartheid, that influenced these offenders. However, these studies (including my own earlier work) have not sufficiently linked or explained the cumulative effects of the following invisible and visible aspects of violence which span pre-colonial, colonial, apartheid and market democracy eras, to provide a ‘deeper and longer’ understanding and appropriate societal action:  Symbolic violence as a form of cultural violence – what it is, and how it legitimises and justifies structural, psychological and physical violence.  Structural violence, specifically the intersection of trans-historical and trans-national (uninterrupted and growing) inequality, and the role it plays in producing symbolic, psychological and physical violence.  Psychological violence, specifically trans-, and inter-generationally transmitted trauma, how it intersects with lifespan trauma, and the 1  ‘constellation of features’ that accompanies it, nor how it is connected to symbolic, structural and physical violence.  Physical violence, specifically personal physical violence (self-harm) that is usually delinked from symbolic, structural and psychological violence. The focus, as stated above, is mainly on interpersonal physical violence (visibly maladaptive responses to a violent society), that inflicts visible harm on others. What is usually missing from the conclusions made in these studies is that these experiences are not unique to individual offenders and gangsters. All oppressed people have experienced - and many continue to experience - violence in its structure; but not everyone responds with interpersonal physical violence. Responses vary by what has problematically been dichotomised as ‘resilient/resistant’ and/or ‘pathological’ responses. These too, require further interrogation to widen the range of remedies that would reduce all aspects of violence experienced by all victims and perpetrated by all offenders in society. I focus on the structure of violence experienced by all oppressed people to break the silence about why black (diverse) people are disproportionately (African) over- (Coloured) and under-represented (White) in South Africa’s criminal justice system. Asian people are the outliers as this oppressed group is also under- represented. These facts alone should make the case for a deeper and longer analysis that includes pre-colonial, colonial, apartheid and market democracy eras. There are simply too many unanswered questions which serve to criminalise blackness. Some of the sharper questions we need to ask are: ‘Why do so many acts of interpersonal physical violence occur mainly amongst the descendants of colonised, oppressed and enslaved people? What are the mechanisms by which violence perpetrated by the powerful and privileged in society remain delinked and obscured? Is the very deployment of ‘deviance theory’ not a sign of deep denial in a violent society? What role does epistemic violence that emanates from universities play in rendering the structure of violence invisible? In sum, the discourse on violence in South Africa marginalises and dismisses the knowledge (epistemic claims based on lived experience) - and thus the standpoint of the oppressed - by placing the power to define and limit the study of violence in the hands of the powerful and privileged. The concrete ways in which black voices are silenced and derailed in the university context (epistemic violence), is a study on its own. As a result, South Africans have been conditioned to talk about violence as ahistorical interpersonal physical violence coded as ‘violent crime’ which is seen to be perpetrated by black people in general and black young men in particular. Symbolic, structural and psychological violence perpetrated by or via the powerful and privileged in society (now of all hues and to varying degrees), that give rise to personal and interpersonal violence, thus remain delinked and denied. 2