3 comments

  1. This is well written piece with useful references for further reading. Since ‘structural violence’ has been extensively written discussed for some time (Galtung!), I wonder if it is now time to move back to concretely naming the ‘vectors’ that generate local suffering. I think this is crucial as one needs to go beyond structural violence, which runs the risk of being conceptualised as a disembodied category. Further exploration will help us determine in each specific case, what precisely are the local and global forces that shape both acute and chronic factors which in turn leads to the persistence of ‘structural’ violence. Or else we might end up in a situation where agency of those responsible is ‘relegated’ to an abstract ‘structure’ perpetuating ‘violence’ that is out there.

    1. This is precisely one of the advantages of ethnography and other research methods sensitive to meaning: to explore how abstract concepts (e.g., violence; health; illness) are embodied+operate in concrete context-bounded institutions, bodies and social interactions.

  2. Yet, in India, marginalised groups – particularly Dalits and Adivasis – suffer from some of the worst accesses to health care, engagement, and treatment at every level of care.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *