Abstract

Over the past forty years, Johan Galtung has extensively employed a broad definition of peace that incorporates the notion of structural violence. Roughly, structural violence is violence that results in harm but is not caused by a clearly identifiable actor, and positive peace is the absence of structural violence. Galtung’s account of structural violence, while highly influential, has recently been subjected to a surprisingly hostile critique by C. A. J. Coady in his 2008 study, Morality and Political Violence. In this paper I show how a careful reading of Galtung’s work undercuts each of Coady’s criticisms. I conclude that the notion of structural violence remains a fruitful tool for peace researchers within the twenty-first century.