Atomic Phil: Structural Violence

ATOMIC THEORY OF THE WEEK: STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE

Can you guys believe it? Atomic Philosophy is finally back! For our unfamiliar subscribers, this is a series of philosophies commonly used in debate and talking about them in short 5-minute reads. Hence the “Atomic” part of the series title. Without further ado, let’s unpack this philosophy

The Philosophy of Structural Violence

Definition:

Structural violence stems from the idea that harm is not always direct or intentional. Unlike overt violence, structural violence operates subtly, in ways that are normalized by societal or cultural norms.

e.g., disparities in life expectancy between different socioeconomic groups. Such disparities may not result from deliberate harm but from systemic inequalities like a lack of access to nutritious food, quality education, adequate healthcare, etc. Structural violence does not have to refer to policies

In debate, this framework is typically used as a prerequisite to other frameworks that the opponent must account for. It is also based on the justification of your opponent, who could either be deontic or consequential.

Structural violence as a framework is often used to:

• Contextualize Harms: Debaters use structural violence to illustrate how systemic inequities amplify harm in a consequentialist case. For instance, in a healthcare debate, a structural violence framework might argue that privatized systems inherently disadvantage marginalized communities, in turn causing harm.

• Prioritize Value Judgments: Structural violence in many instances is linked to frameworks like utilitarianism or justice. For example, a debater might argue that addressing systemic inequities creates more net benefits than targeting isolated harms, as the former tackles root causes and that their opponent isn’t truly maximizing utility due to the existence of outgroups, which are implicitly excluded from their case

Quick AFF and NEG

AFF:

Structural violence understands the distinction between subjects that traditional frameworks deem worthy of recognition and those that are not. The primary moral ground is then in favor of granting recognition to the oppressed. Subjects presumed by frameworks are characterized as belonging to a certain identity which is not fully representative

NEG:

Structural violence frameworks operate on the implicit premise that other frameworks inherently ignore systemic harms. This assumption ignores the validity of competing frameworks. Most standard frameworks—such as utilitarianism, deontology, or even rights-based approaches—can and do address systemic issues by virtue of their ethical nature. If you’re using Util, then you are treating all well-being the same—failure to consider certain groups would be an incorrect application of the framework. By positioning itself as the "only" lens through which systemic harms can be addressed, structural violence creates an artificial exclusivity that skews other valid approaches.

Conclusion

It’s been a while since this series has been up but it’s finally back and here to stay. That means you should stay tuned because it only gets better from here on out!

All the best,

The Forensic Funnel Team