INTRODUCTION There is a distinction between conflict and violence. Conflict is something natural. Everybody experiences conflict, and every single day people may experience many different conflicts of varying degrees of intensity, regardless of their age, sex or status. Conflict is an inevitable part of life. Violence is one way among many ways of dealing with conflict. As such, conflict is inevitable, but violence is a choice. Violence occurs when conflict has been mismanaged or neglected, and when violence is accepted and seen as a legitimate way of responding to conflict within society. Scholars and practitioners generally agree that competition for scarce resources is at the core of most conflicts. In a world where resources are finite, their supply is often distributed unevenly, with dominant groups enjoying adequate satisfaction of needs while nondominant groups suffer privation. Underlying this assumption are the basic-needs theories which posit that the satisfaction of basic needs is required for human development as well as for the survival of human beings in both physical and emotional terms. Johan Galtung, one of the founding scholars of the discipline of peace studies, whose pioneering work influences much of the contemporary work done so far, distinguishes between direct and indirect violence. Galtung (1996) elaborates on this distinction in a simplified way by describing direct violence as visible, with indirect violence being seen as invisible or structural and cultural. Direct violence entails physical or verbal abuse, or the threat of such abuse. This is the most commonly identified and visible form of violence, as it is a direct act. It is visible as behaviour displayed by a person, group or organisation that carries out the act of violence. It includes physical as well as emotional, verbal and psychological violence. Galtung argues that, because it is the most common form of violence, it is also the most feared. The cessation or prevention of direct violence results in what Galtung calls negative peace. Galtung coined the term ‘structural violence’ as a result of fieldwork undertaken in Zimbabwe during the period of colonial rule, when it was known as Rhodesia. He became increasingly aware of the limitations of defining peace as simply the absence of violence. He noticed that while there was little direct violence by the colonial authorities against the indigenous population, there were structures in society which had significant negative effects on this population: In a certain sense, there was harmony, cooperation and integration. But was this peace? With the blatant exploitation, with blacks being denied most opportunities for development given to whites, with flagrant inequality whereby whites were making about twenty times as much for exactly the same job as blacks? Not to mention the basic fact that this was still a white colony. (Galtung, 1985, p. 145) At a practical level, for those on the periphery, structural violence can mean low wages, landlessness, illiteracy, poor health, limited or non-existent political representation or legal rights, and, in general, limited control over their lives. If those who suffer structural violence resist or try to change things, they may be met with direct violence. The exploitation, neglect and exclusion that are features of structural violence kill slowly by comparison with direct violence, but kill vastly more people. xiv Community Healing: A training manual for Zimbabwe