{"id":128769,"date":"2019-03-04T12:00:24","date_gmt":"2019-03-04T12:00:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=128769"},"modified":"2019-03-02T11:29:48","modified_gmt":"2019-03-02T11:29:48","slug":"structural-violence-and-health","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2019\/03\/structural-violence-and-health\/","title":{"rendered":"Structural Violence and Health"},"content":{"rendered":"

Structural Violence Makes Peace\/Healthy Living Obtainable only for the Wealthy Few<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Health is determined by a combination of factors, including the availability and quality of foods, the fresh air\/pollution (air, water, foods), the ability to exercise, contact with nature (earthing, negative ions, plants, scenery, sunshine), social relations (family, identity, belonging), freedom of choice (movement, education, work, travel, selection off goods, pursuit of interests) and feeling of security\/absence of direct violence. The idea is to have not only a long life, but also quality of life, living in peace with oneself, one\u00b4s family and friends and neighbors.<\/p>\n

Quality of life is unequally distributed even in rich countries, where life expectancy is not necessarily high compared with less rich countries. For instance, life expectancy in the US now ranks as number 53 in the world, with Norway as number 26 and Japan number 2 and Singapore number 3.[1]<\/a> Number 1 is Monaco with 89.32 years. Longevity data do not are not so impressive for the richest countries, where the US is ranked 11 and Norway number 9, while for Singapore is 2nd<\/sup> on the list of the highest per capita income.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n

At the same time, the richest countries are becoming more unequal within their populations,[3]<\/a> with the gap widening between rich and poor. Poverty strikes many even in very rich countries.<\/p>\n

In the \u201cfree\u201d world, the US is seen as a \u201cmodel state\u201d to be copied by others. In principle, entrepreneurs and industrialists are allowed to produce anything, regardless of what people need or how they impact on the environment. The choice of which goods to purchase is left to the individual consumer, who often lack information about how they directly and indirectly affect health. In addition, many consumers value the present more than the future, preferring to eat foods which instantly satisfy their cravings, but which have long-term deleterious consequences for their health.<\/p>\n

Strategies to avoid radical change<\/strong><\/p>\n

In most social democratic states, the worst sides of raw capitalism are controlled in order to make it more palatable to consumers, as a safeguard to regime changes in a more human and ecologically sustainable direction. This prevents popular uprising to topple the pyramid on which capitalism is based. Most social democratic governments from left to right on the political scale issue guidelines for healthy living and restrict the marketing of products with obvious detrimental health effects, like cigarettes, alcohol or toxic chemicals. Regulations may take the form of age limits (18 to drive a car or buy cigarettes, 20 to buy hard liquor, etc.), limitations on advertisement for specific age groups or setting limits how much of different poisons products may contain in order to be sold legally.<\/p>\n

In principle, any product for which a demand can be established, regardless of usefulness or need, may be produced and sold on the marked. If a given product is unhealthy or causes environmental damage, it is up to the individual not to buy and use it until regulations are in place. Mild restrictions on the production method may be enforced, such as dumping wastes in places not seen by the public, while consumers in general are admonished to recycle diligently to avoid material waste and pollution. A better way would be to make structural changes which would make such behavior redundant.<\/p>\n

Governmental campaigns are the most frequently used method to discourage the use of unhealthy or unnecessary products, even if experience shows that if a product is allowed on the marked, many will buy it regardless of needs. However, a class gradient in unhealthy behavior exists in most societies \u2013 the more wealthy and highly educated will buy healthier products and engage in more health-promoting activities than the poor and uneducated. Part of the reason for this is unequal access to information, coupled with the desire mentioned above for instant gratification.<\/p>\n

The mechanism to encourage healthy behavior is often the induction of guilt<\/em> \u2013 \u201cThou shalt not\u201d\u2026 smoke, drink too much alcohol, be lazy and not exercise, have unprotected sex, etc. Failing to avoid such (often) unhealthy behavior has established a marked for private \u201chealth coaches\u201d who for a price may help clients make healthy choices and for private hospitals which benefit from such behavior. Many voluntary associations play on people\u00b4s feelings of guilt when asking for donations or to take part in voluntary work to make a better world. This is nice and dandy, but given the class structure of most capitalist states, basically only the wealthy \u2013 who need it the least \u2013 can afford to buy products and services, which are exempt from personal initiative. An example is the wealthy Stordalen couple who helped finance the recent massive EAT-Lancet study on world food policies,[4]<\/a> who in public are portrayed as being in the forefront of the environmental movement, in private pursue a lavish lifestyle.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n

Below is a picture of the Bombardier Challenger 350 private jet like the one used by the Stordalen couple to jet around the world.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Market-oriented, liberal capitalist societies are not violent per se<\/em>, in contrast with most dictatorships, secular or religious. However, the very rich still cause structural violence <\/em>in that the way they live, cause poor health, alienation, lack of freedom and insecurity in providing welfare to a large part of the population. This is how these societies work, the worst offenders in the OECD being the US, the UK and France on one end of the scale, with the Nordic countries and Japan on the other. Being a little better than bad, does not make them stand out as \u201cmodel societies\u201d. During the last decades, the gap between rich and poor has widened rapidly also here, incurring structural violence to an increasing part of the population.<\/p>\n

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.<\/p>\n

The figure below defines four categories, based on the dichotomies Market economy-Planned economy and Limited choice-Unlimited choice (of goods, services, etc.)<\/p>\n

Choices in market and planned economies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
 <\/td>\nMarket economy<\/strong><\/td>\nPlanned economy<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Healthy choice\/<\/strong><\/p>\n

limited options<\/strong><\/td>\n

1) Unlimited options,<\/p>\n

based on demand by citizens, regardless of health consequence<\/td>\n

1) Options\/choice based on elitist\/ leaders definition of human needs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Unhealthy choice<\/strong><\/p>\n

\/unlimited options<\/strong><\/td>\n

3) Few restrictions\/ official warnings\/<\/p>\n

health advice, public \u201cexperts\u00b4\u201d advice, moralizing for \u201chealthy choices\u201d<\/td>\n

4) Banning some health-detrimental products\/\u201dleakage\u201d of products by popular demand, smuggling\/theft<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

One may envisage four types of societies:<\/p>\n