Galtung

What is structural violence, according to Galtung: "violence is here defined as the cause of the difference between the potential and the actual". while personal violence is direct - from person to person, - even even direct mental violence in some cases, structural entails indirect violence - meaning there is no actor who is committing the violence. It is violence by other means. Structural violence can be both latent and manifest, as expressed though cause and effect. Structural violence uses the vehicle of monopoly over decision making powers. This fans out into decisions over allocation of resources, of the laws - and other systems of governance, and especially the power over access to decision making powers. The effects from an inherently violence structure can be latent or manifest, manifest being more easily observable through poverty, inadequate resources, and inequality in all its manifestations - whether it is intended or not.
Identity based violence, as defined by Celia Cook- Huffman is a special case of structural violence as defined by Galtung. Access to decision making powers can be denied by identification with a specific group. Collective identities are used to justify social inequality. "In many post-colonial societies the structures of the state are dominated by and benefit one communal group or a coalition of groups and are unresposive to the needs of other groups. This inequality feeds frustration, fragmentation, a lack of system legitimacy, and ultimately, conflict" (HCAR Cook-Huffman,pg. 21) Cook-Huffman notes that identities are social constructs, rooted in history but lived out on a daily basic. Identities can also be salient, with the meaning as well as level of identification changinf over time. Identity as understood through structural violence is manifested usually through collective identities,and the exclusion or privileging of groups based upon their collective identity. Collective identites can be willfully chosen in a salient social structure, but in cases of exclusion are often imposed by those with decision making power.

The Rwandan genocide had many structural underpinnings that helped lead to the genocide of 1994. This took on two major components. Colonial domination aimed to solidify ethnic divisions and ingrain them into the social and political structures of society. Tutsi's were given decision making power Such things as identity cards, tutsi’s as the ruling class, superiority, inequality of resources on the basis of belonging to a defined category. Social and political relations were designed around these categories. These definitions were helped out by previous hierarchies of Tutsis as the ruling class, and domination over Hutus even before the Rwandan territory was colonized. However, as was pointed out in the article, tutsi was often used to describe a social class – referring to the amount of cattle one owned in contrast to differing histories, language, or physical features. The lived reality of social injustice helped and violence helped make genocide possible.