Cultural Violence: How Beliefs Justify Oppression

Why do certain societies accept poverty as the natural lot of some people? Why does discrimination based on birth continue to thrive even in modern democracies? The answer often lies not in overt acts of aggression but in something more insidious-the beliefs, ideologies, and cultural narratives that make such violence seem normal, acceptable, or even deserved. This is what peace researcher Johan Galtung termed “cultural violence”, a concept that reveals how the deepest forms of injustice are often hidden in plain sight, woven into the very fabric of our shared consciousness.

Understanding cultural violence
The violence triangle
Examples and mechanisms of cultural violence
Religion and ideology
Victim-blaming and caste
Language and representation
Gandhian parallels to cultural violence
Unity of life
Unity of means and ends
Challenging cultural norms
Moving toward cultural peace

Understanding cultural violence

Cultural violence refers to any aspect of culture that can be used to legitimize violence in its direct or structural form. Unlike direct violence (physical acts like war, assault, or murder) or structural violence (systemic inequalities embedded in institutions), cultural violence operates at the symbolic level. It shapes how we perceive reality, who we consider worthy of respect, and whose suffering we deem acceptable.

Galtung introduced this concept in 1990 as a complement to his earlier theory of structural violence. He argued that cultural violence changes the “moral color” of an act from “red/wrong” to “green/right,” or at least to “yellow/acceptable.” Through religion, ideology, art, language, and even science, cultures construct frameworks that make oppression seem inevitable rather than constructed, natural rather than political.

Consider how beliefs about racial inferiority once justified slavery, or how notions of gender hierarchy have long restricted women’s participation in public life. These weren’t simply held by individuals as private prejudices-they were embedded in laws, taught in schools, preached from pulpits, and celebrated in art. Cultural violence operates in the deep background, making other forms of violence possible and sustainable.

The violence triangle

To understand cultural violence, it helps to see it within Galtung’s broader framework of the “violence triangle.” This model interconnects three forms of violence: direct, structural, and cultural. Direct violence represents behaviors that threaten life or diminish one’s capacity to meet basic human needs-examples include killing, assault, or emotional manipulation. Structural violence represents systematic ways in which certain groups are hindered from equal access to opportunities, goods, and services-think of apartheid, discriminatory laws, or limited healthcare access for marginalized communities.

Cultural violence completes the triangle by providing the ideological foundation that makes direct and structural violence seem “natural” or “right” or at least acceptable. Without cultural violence, oppressive systems would face constant resistance. With it, the oppressed often internalize their subordination, and the privileged feel entitled to their advantages.

Galtung provided a powerful illustration through the history of the Atlantic slave trade: millions of Africans were captured, transported, and enslaved over centuries. This direct violence eventually solidified into structural violence, with rigid hierarchies placing whites above blacks. But underpinning both was cultural violence-racist ideologies that depicted Africans as inferior. Over time, as direct violence receded into history, what remained were sanitized terms: “discrimination” replaced structural violence, and “prejudice” replaced cultural violence.

Examples and mechanisms of cultural violence

Cultural violence operates through multiple domains of symbolic expression. Galtung identified several cultural spheres where legitimization of violence becomes entrenched: religion and ideology, art and language, and empirical and formal science. Each sphere contributes to normalizing inequality.

Religion and ideology

Religious doctrines have historically been used to justify hierarchy. Concepts like “chosen peoples,” divine mandates for conquest, or teachings that naturalize social stratification all function as cultural violence. One particularly important example is the doctrine of karma as used to justify caste-based discrimination. When karma is interpreted to mean that one’s birth circumstances reflect past-life actions, it can lead to the conclusion that the poor or oppressed deserve their condition.

Research has shown that belief in karmic causality affects how people evaluate victims of misfortune. When participants in cross-cultural studies were prompted to think about karma, they tended to rate victims of hardship as possessing more negative traits and being more personally responsible for their situations. This represents a classic mechanism of cultural violence: blaming the victim for systemic injustice.

Victim-blaming and caste

The caste system in India provides one of the most extensively documented examples of cultural violence. Differences in status were traditionally justified by the religious doctrine of karma, a belief that one’s place in life is determined by deeds in previous lifetimes. This made caste position appear to be the result of cosmic justice rather than human-created hierarchy.

Those born into lower castes, particularly the Dalits or “Untouchables,” faced severe discrimination-exclusion from temples, denial of access to public wells and schools, and forced residence in segregated areas. Yet cultural violence made this appear natural. The law of Karma states that the present condition of your soul is based on moral actions in past lives, effectively placing blame on victims for troubles rooted in systemic oppression.

Similarly, the concept of Herrenvolk (master race) operated as cultural violence in Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa. The belief in racial superiority made genocide and systematic discrimination seem not only acceptable but necessary for the preservation of cultural purity. These ideologies transformed victims into threats and oppression into self-defense.

Language and representation

Cultural violence also operates through language. When certain groups are consistently represented as dangerous, lazy, or intellectually inferior, violence against them becomes easier to justify. Media representations, educational curricula, and everyday speech patterns all contribute to cultural violence when they normalize stereotypes or erase the experiences of marginalized groups.

Gandhian parallels to cultural violence

Though Johan Galtung developed the concept of cultural violence in 1990, Mahatma Gandhi had long been engaged in practices and philosophies that directly challenged cultural violence. Galtung himself noted that his theory of cultural violence relates to two basic points in Gandhism: the doctrines of unity of life and of unity of means and ends.

Unity of life

Gandhi’s belief in the unity of all life directly contradicts the hierarchical thinking that underlies cultural violence. His understanding of Hinduism and the teachings of Jainism, Buddhism, and Christian principles emphasized love and equality. For Gandhi, discriminating against others based on caste was a form of violence that hurt both the individual and society as a whole.

Gandhi’s concept of ahimsa (non-violence) extended beyond physical violence to include verbal and psychological harm. Ahimsa meant treating all individuals with the same level of respect, regardless of their social status or caste. This vision directly challenged the cultural violence that dehumanized “untouchables” and justified their mistreatment.

His famous declaration that “the removal of untouchability is one of the highest expressions of ahimsa” demonstrates his recognition that ending structural violence required dismantling the cultural beliefs that legitimized it. He called untouchables “Harijans” (Children of God), asserting their spiritual equality in direct opposition to doctrines that portrayed them as deserving their fate.

Unity of means and ends

Gandhi’s doctrine that means and ends are inseparable offers another challenge to cultural violence. Unlike many political leaders who believed that the end justifies the means, Gandhi argued that the means and ends are so intrinsically connected that they cannot be separated.

Cultural violence often justifies present harm by pointing to future goods-war for peace, oppression for order, discrimination for stability. Gandhi rejected this logic. He held that different means will lead to different ends, and a country freed through violence would remain a violent country, while one freed through truth and non-violence would embody those values.

This principle undermines the cultural violence that presents oppressive systems as necessary for achieving desirable outcomes. If the path itself matters, then brutality cannot be masked as a necessary step toward justice.

Challenging cultural norms

Gandhi actively worked to dismantle cultural violence through direct action. He invited untouchables into his home, promoted their education, and advocated for their access to temples and public spaces. These actions challenged the cultural assumptions that made segregation seem natural.

His insistence that untouchability was a spiritual failing rather than cosmic justice struck at the heart of cultural violence. Gandhi declared that regarding any person as untouchable because of birth was to deny God. By reframing the issue as a violation of spiritual truth rather than an expression of it, he sought to transform the very cultural foundations that supported caste discrimination.

Moving toward cultural peace

Recognizing cultural violence is the first step toward transformation. Galtung envisioned a “virtuous triangle” where cultural peace fosters inclusive narratives and shared dignity, structural peace creates equitable systems, and direct peace promotes cooperation and non-violence. This vision resonates with Gandhi’s holistic approach to social change, which understood that lasting transformation requires addressing the beliefs that make oppression possible.

The challenge remains urgent. Victim-blaming, discriminatory beliefs, and ideologies of superiority continue to justify structural and direct violence around the world. Whether manifested in caste discrimination, racism, sexism, or religious intolerance, cultural violence provides the moral cover for practices that would otherwise face universal condemnation.

Understanding cultural violence invites us to examine not just overt acts of harm but the stories we tell, the beliefs we hold, and the assumptions we never think to question. As Gandhi demonstrated through his life’s work, changing these cultural foundations is essential to building a more just world.

What do you think? Can you identify beliefs in your own culture that function as cultural violence by making inequality seem natural or deserved? How might Gandhi’s doctrines of unity of life and unity of means and ends guide efforts to dismantle such beliefs today?

References

PDF 📄

Cultural Violence: How Beliefs Justify Oppression

Table of Contents

Understanding cultural violence 🔗

The violence triangle 🔗

Examples and mechanisms of cultural violence 🔗

Religion and ideology 🔗

Victim-blaming and caste 🔗

Language and representation 🔗

Gandhian parallels to cultural violence 🔗

Unity of life 🔗

Unity of means and ends 🔗

Challenging cultural norms 🔗

Moving toward cultural peace 🔗