The Curse that Binds Us

In a world where power dictates destinies, do the powerful bear the moral duty to dismantle the hidden chains of structural violence, or will silence and inaction continue to perpetuate cycles of suffering and inequality? Unlike physical violence, which is overt and direct, structural violence is often invisible, typically a system of thought inherently biased and ingrained within norms and systems, profoundly influencing social dynamics and making it an overlooked aspect of everyday life. These inequalities have become embedded in social fabric over time, making them difficult to isolate and challenge. As we navigate a progressive 21st century, can we excuse complacency any longer, or is it time for those in power to confront and dismantle the entrenched injustices that bind us?

Indeed, legitimate governments derive their moral authority from their ability to uphold principles of justice, equality, and human rights. In failing to address structural violence, they forfeit their moral authority and credibility as representatives of the people. In the wake of George Floyd’s murder in 2020, it became more apparent than ever the institutionalized racism denying Black Americans the basic right to life, justice, and equality. The US government’s failure to address this undermined their duty to protect the rights of all citizens. To truly represent the people, governmental authorities have an obligation to identify and prevent structural violence.

However, governments face competing priorities and limited resources, making it challenging to address structural violence. Immediate issues like the cost of living, energy, and housing crises often take precedence over long-term structural reforms. During the COVID-19 pandemic, minority communities in the US faced higher infection rates due to systemic barriers. Whilst efforts were made to prioritize vaccine allocation to communities of color, vaccine rates amongst these populations remained low due to vaccine hesitancy, stemming from distrust of government and healthcare systems due to historical and present injustices. Developing trust relies on repenting for systemic discrimination and implementing wide-scale reform, to which there is often no straightforward solution. Hence, whilst governments ideally should be obliged to prevent structural violence, realistically it is incredibly difficult to implement viable, successful mechanisms for this, especially as systemic conflict has often been so thoroughly ingrained.

It cannot be justifiable to place all of the responsibility on governments to actively prevent structural violence, as this is not solely due to factors in the state’s control but further perpetuated by private corporations. The prevailing "casting couch" culture in Hollywood and the underrepresentation of women in leadership roles contribute to an environment where women are vulnerable to exploitation brought to light by MeToo. Hollywood, like any other employer, is bound by laws that prohibit discrimination and harassment and must take proactive measures to prevent and address it. The criminal charges and expulsion measures taken against Harvey Weinstein highlight the industry's capability to create a safe working environment, which is their duty.

Nevertheless, it is all well and good to argue for everybody’s duty to be eradicating structural violence, but arguably Hollywood's function is solely to entertain, not to serve as a vehicle for social change; while it's important to address workplace issues, the industry's main obligation is to produce compelling content for audiences, not to engage in social activism. It does not bear the same obligation as democratic governments who are under a mandate to ensure the protection and welfare of their population, as they have an obligation first to the success of their business. Hence, as illustrated in the case of Weinstein, industry professionals often must choose to remain silent or even collaborate with perpetrators of structural violence as the allure of working with a powerful and influential figure to advance economic interest (their primary duty) outweighs concerns about structural violence.

Perhaps most importantly, responsibility for addressing systemic violence lies with individual perpetrators: governments and corporations cannot solely be held accountable; surely, individuals must assess their own beliefs and alter their own behavior. Both Derek Chauvin and Harvey Weinstein bear direct responsibility for their actions. Ultimately, as autonomous beings, we possess distinct agency and the government as well as other figures in power cannot directly alter the way the individual behaves to prevent structural violence.

So whilst in an ideal world both the government and others in power would put the utmost effort into identifying and preventing structural violence to protect their people, in reality, this is both unfeasible and ineffective in many cases as either the root of the problem is too difficult to identify and solve in the short term, or that in the case of private corporations, their primary obligation is to their business, not to employees. Finally, most responsibility must be attributed to the individual who often holds ingrained biases or actively perpetuates systemic violence and must be responsible for themselves and preventing their own actions rather than relying on higher authorities to do so for them.