In the 1960s, peace and conflict studies pioneer Johan Galtung proposed the thought-provoking concept of “structural violence.” Structural violence refers to a kind of social structure under which, although there may be no direct physical violence by one group of people against another, one group of people does not have the same access as others to the conditions needed for existence and this constitutes a threat against the less privileged group. Although this threat to survival is not caused by direct violence, such a social structure and environment can be said to constitute structural violence against those in a weaker position.
The Chinese Communist Party differs from the right-wing authoritarian forms of government that prevail in many other developing countries in that, at least as far as its political slogans are concerned, it wants not just “development” but “peaceful development.” Government slogans call not for serving the interests of capitalists, but for taking care of disadvantaged groups so as to create a “harmonious society.”
Despite these slogans, however, in reality the Chinese economy has become deeply integrated with the global capitalist system. It is therefore unavoidable that the immense structural violence of the capitalist system should penetrate into China. The structural violence of global capitalism is expressed in the production conditions of every factory and in workers’ living environment.
Although Foxconn’s factories cannot honestly be called sweatshops, the so-called military-style management employed there is no different from that of real sweatshops in terms of generating structural violence. The purpose in both cases is, under the ruthless conditions of the global capitalist system, to maximize profits by cutting costs. No matter whether factories are owned by Chinese, Taiwanese or other foreign capital, they all form the driving force of what is called the “Chinese model” of development. All of them have quietly given rise to this structural violence.
But why should the structural violence of capitalism be especially obvious in China? After all, harsh working conditions are to be found in factories all over the world. The difference is that such conditions come to light more easily in many countries than they do in China. It could be because of protest actions by the workers themselves, or thanks to monitoring and whistleblowing by local civic groups, or exposure by international organizations. Most importantly, it is because the government in those places has to deal with the problem, so that in the end legislative or judicial bodies will impose limits on work conditions that are too harsh.
In China, however, there are no independent labor unions and civic groups have very little influence. Moreover, local governments in China lack independent judicial and legislative structures. The government generally acts as the motivator for local regional economic development and therefore has an intrinsic tendency to look after the interests of local businesses. There are probably few examples around the world of such business-friendly “service-oriented governments.” Intentionally or otherwise, China’s party-state authoritarian form of government provides a favorable environment for the structural violence of global capitalism.
The interesting thing is that what has drawn worldwide attention to the events at Foxconn is the Chinese media and the Internet. The appearance in these places of reports about Foxconn indicates that, whatever the motivation, China’s government and society seem to be becoming aware and cognizant of the negative implications of such occurrences. This awakening consciousness could be a start and a turning point in getting rid of this structural violence.
Commoditized and alienated labor conditions are a form of immense indirect violence, but this violence is concealed in the formless structure of the production conditions and so can easily be overlooked. Eliminating this structural violence is not something that can be achieved simply by penalizing employers and companies. It can only be done through structural adjustments.
Responsibility for this lies not only with China. As Taiwan deepens its trade and economic relations with China, our government and society should recognize that we, too, bear some of the responsibility. In a global economy, businesses’ social responsibilities and everyone’s responsibilities as global citizens should not be bounded by national borders because the flow of capital crosses borders too.
Therefore, serious consideration must be given to including provisions concerning human rights and corporate social responsibilities in the soon-to-be-signed cross-strait economic cooperation framework agreement.
Hsu Szu-chien is an assistant research fellow in the provisional office of the Institute of Political Science at Academia Sinica.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and