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
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS