Feel free to send in requests for tools you would like us to illustrate. Maybe we will get to them...

Hey Monica, great to hear from you. I think you are doing the most wonderful work there in Kenya, and East Africa - showing us the way!

@@BrynHiggs1 Thank you for the complements

I am glad to hear that you find this little video helpful.

Thank you so much. I am glad to hear that you find this little video informative and helpful!

Glad you like it!

Galtung's triangle is often called Galtung's Conflict Triangle, so no.

I suggest you pick a few conflicts that you know something about, and consider firstly the direct violence that presents itself, and then the deeper types of violence that are more hidden, so that the conflict is better understood. You might then go on to consider who benefits when a shallow understanding of violence (principally just direct violence) is promoted; and who might benefit from a deeper understanding in each case, observing any common threads between your examples. Lastly you might consider how an approach founded upon (for example) basic human rights principles shared by all parites, might strengthen the case for a deeper understanding of the conflict, and form some common ground for those on the ground to start to consider ways out of the conflict.

I'd suggest that Galtung's triangle is most useful for analysing events and dynamics where violence is central to the actions taking place. Whatever type of violence is involved, it most commonly concerns infringement of the rights of others, through an abuse of power, often by powerful actors. In the case of panic buying we are seeing a behaviour that does infringe the rights of others, and it does involve an abuse of power. But it is undertaken by individuals who are in the main not powerful in this context, and its primary purpose is not the violence inflicted. Most commonly it is an ordinary shopper adding one or two extra items to a trolley. So in response to your first question, I agree that it can be viewed as a violent act, but because the violence/harm is a secondary and unintended effect of the action. Galtung's triangle is less powerful a analytical tool in this instance than it would be if violence was the central dynamic. And so in response to your second question, the triangle is most useful where violence is most central to the actions taking place.

@@BrynHiggs1 gee i appreciate your answer a lot! my lecturer keeps saying that its better if you can see a violence triangle in every action, but I believe still that NOT every action is meant to be analyzed with this triangle

Not quite. The argument is that violence can have three forms - the direct violence that we can see, and the underpinning violence that is often not seen, that is structural or cultural. So, for example, if a person who is hungry steals a loaf of bread, that is violence to the baker. But if the thief is outcast from the community by discrimination, their hunger is caused by another kind of violence. The violence then is not just the theft, but also the discrimination that leads to hunger. Try running through the video slowly to fully appreciate this point.

BrynHiggs1 qq