Keywords

Introduction

Forced migrants frequently contend with a spectrum of challenges, vulnerabilities, and encounters with violence, including sexual violence. Vulnerabilities and violence transpire across diverse phases of displacement, commencing with the initial crisis that forces individuals to seek refuge and extending to the adversities during transit as well as within host locations. Yet, the types of violence and vulnerabilities faced by forced migrants, such as the Rohingya, also vary. Moreover, the experiences of violence and vulnerability, are not uniform and can differ based on the specific circumstances of their country of origin and the country to which they are forced to migrate. The violence and vulnerabilities that forced migrants face are gendered. Forced displacement exacerbates existing gender inequalities, rendering women, girls, and sexual minorities particularly vulnerable to exploitation, discrimination, trafficking, domestic and intimate partner violence, and sexual violence. Gendered vulnerabilities are also embedded into the structure, norms, and culture of the society that shapes violence, both in the private and in the public sphere. However, much of the existing research lacks a multi-dimensional approach to understanding the intersecting nature of gendered forms of violence experienced by forced migrants, including direct, structural, and symbolic violence. For example, in the context of migration, some academics focus on the continuum of violence (Cockburn, 2004; Kostovicova et al., 2020; Phillimore et al., 2023; Phillimore et al., 2022; Yadav & Horn, 2021), intersectionality (Reilly et al., 2022; Stavrevska & Smith, 2020; Tastsoglou et al., 2022), or structural and symbolic violence (Cross Riddle, 2017; Hourani et al., 2021). However, violence, whether physical, sexual, structural, cultural, or symbolic, is associated with a gendered logic. This association becomes more intricate in the context of refugees and forced migration. Therefore, considering the complexity inherent in forced migration, violence, and gender, I combine different approaches to get a nuanced understanding of the gendered nature of violence experienced by the forced migrant.

The objective of this chapter is to offer an overview of the conceptual and theoretical framework of multidimensional gendered vulnerabilities and violence in the context of refugees and forced migration. The chapter elucidates and contextualises several crucial concepts utilised in this book. They include Galtung’s (Galtung, 1969, 1990, 1996) conceptualisation of violence (direct, structural, and cultural violence), Bourdieu’s symbolic violence (Bourdieu, 1979; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992), and sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and vulnerabilities. Additionally, it delves into the intersectionality (Cho et al., 2013; Crenshaw, 1991; Crenshaw, 2017b) and continuum of violence (Cockburn, 2004; Kelly, 1987; Krause, 2015) framework to gain a better understanding of gendered vulnerabilities and violence in the context of forced migration. This chapter also discusses how and why Johan Galtung’s conceptualisation of violence is relevant for comprehending violence against the forcibly displaced Rohingya. In order to understand and analyse the gendered violence against the Rohingya, I not only apply Galtung’s theory of violence, but also take into account the criticisms of his ideas.

Gendered Vulnerabilities, Violence, and Migration

Previous research has highlighted gender vulnerabilities and violence at various stages of migration. For instance, there has been an observed trend of an increase in pregnancy among Sub-Saharan African women migrants en route to Europe. Pregnancy is employed as a strategy to avoid repatriation, due to the misconception that giving birth in Spain automatically guarantees them the right to residence (Carling, 2007, p. 328). During irregular border crossings, both actual and attempted, women face violence, including sexual violence, perpetrated by multiple actors such as border guards, security and police forces, traffickers, and even individuals positioned as saviours, such as humanitarian actors, who are involved in different stages of irregular migration. In many instances, sexual violence results in unwanted pregnancies (Carpenter, 2006). This was also evident in research among the Rohingya women. Some studies reported a disproportionate number of deaths between male and female migrants while crossing the border (Pickering & Cochrane, 2013). Others have identified increased levels of domestic violence, including intimate partner violence, within refugee communities in host countries (Akhter & Kusakabe, 2014).

Recent research on LGBTQ asylum applicants has indicated that legal procedures do not necessarily prevent or eliminate fraudulent cases; instead, they turn into forms of legal violence. These processes operate as regulatory practices based on heteronormativity, subjecting LGBTQ asylum seekers to legal violence that has manifested ‘in four ways: isolation and loneliness, prolonged uncertainty, mental vulnerability, and physical vulnerability’ (Llewellyn, 2021, p. 202). Even when they arrive in the countries of destination, research has shown different forms of violence, including domestic violence, experienced by refugees and irregular migrants. For example, among the documented Rohingya refugees living in Bangladesh, there is an increased level of different types of violence, including sexual and domestic violence (Akhter & Kusakabe, 2014).

Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (SGBV)

One of the various types of gendered vulnerabilities is sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). Forced migration can heighten the risks of SGBV due to the increased vulnerabilities of displaced populations—including refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced persons—who may confront multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination based on factors such as gender, age, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. SGBV in forced migration can manifest in numerous ways, including sexual assault, rape, early and forced marriage, trafficking, and other forms of exploitation. Women, girls, and sexual minorities are particularly susceptible to SGBV and may face additional risks due to their gender or sexual orientation.

Gender-based violence (GBV) can be defined as:

an umbrella term for any harmful act that is perpetrated against a person’s will and that is based on socially ascribed (i.e. gender) differences between males and females. It includes acts that inflict physical, sexual or mental harm or suffering, threats of such acts, coercion, and other deprivations of liberty. These acts can occur in public or in private. Acts of GBV violate a number of universal human rights protected by international instruments and conventions. (Inter-Agency Standing Committee, 2015, p. 5)

SGBV has been used as a tool in war and conflict throughout history. Most frequently, rape has been used as a weapon of war (Gallimore, 2008; United Nations, 2014). Women and girl children have been almost exclusively targeted for SGBV. According to a recent UNHCR (2023) report, forcibly displaced and stateless women and girls are confronted with a heightened risk of gender-based violence, which now affects over 43 million individuals. Additionally, one in five forcibly displaced women experiences sexual violence, with the risk of intimate partner violence (IPV) increasing by 20 percent among this population. In the case of Rohingya refugees in Cox’s Bazar, a recent report suggests that a significant proportion of women (57 percent) have been physically assaulted. Moreover, 22 percent of women have been denied access to resources, opportunities, and services by their domestic partners. Some women reported instances of psychological or emotional abuse, while others experienced rape (2 percent) and sexual assault (16 percent) (International Rescue Committee, 2020).

Ozcurumez et al. (2021) conducted a review of the literature on SGBV in forced migration from 1993 to 2018 and found three trends in gender and forced migration research. The first trend focuses on the experiences of refugee women, men, youth, the elderly, the disabled, and LGBTQ individuals, although this group of researchers rarely focuses on the fluidity and consequences, both long and short term, of such experiences. The second group of researchers focuses on the male refugees who have been described as ‘perpetrators of violence and discrimination; as powerful gatekeepers and potential allies; and as emasculated troublemakers’ while women have been described as victims. Skjelsbæk (2001) classifies this line of research as ‘essentialist’. The third variant of research focuses on the ‘consequences of forced migration and internal displacement in Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans as case studies, ethno-political conflicts, terrorism and wars, rather than following the process of migration from displacement to settlement/protracted displacement’ (Ozcurumez et al., 2021, p. 75). To broaden the horizon, they propose to ‘encompass different spatial and territorial private and public experiences from reception centres to urban settlements’ in the conceptualisation of SGBV in forced migration (Ozcurumez et al., 2021, p. 67). This in turn would facilitate a more integrated policy approach to addressing its consequences for all, including migrants, their families and different service providers. In this book, I explain the different forms of violence experienced by the Rohingya forced migrants, including direct, structural, cultural, and symbolic violence, and elucidate how they are gendered.

Structural, Cultural, and Symbolic Violence

Definitions of violence are often contested and ambiguous. ‘Violence’ normally connotes four major elements: (a) an identifiable actor or groups of actors, (b) an identifiable physical action, (c) a clear harm psychological or physical or both, and (d) an identifiable victim (Brunk, 2012, p. 17).

For Galtung (1996, p. 197) violence is ‘avoidable insults to basic human needs and more generally to life, lowering the real level of needs satisfaction below what is potentially possible. Threats of violence are also violence’. He defined three types of violence: personal/direct violence, structural/indirect violence, and cultural violence. The first, personal or direct violence, is a type of violence where there is an identifiable actor that commits the violence. When we think of violence, we often tend to think about direct violence. DirectFootnote 1 or personal violence refers to the physical and psychological harm or damage caused by individuals or groups towards other individuals or groups. This includes actions such as physical assault, murder, war, and terrorism, wherein there is a clear and immediate perpetrator who inflicts harm on others. Yet, Galtung’s most significant contribution to the understanding of violence is the development of the concept of ‘structural violence’. Structural violence is a form of violence in which there is no identifiable perpetrator of the violence, it is rather ‘built into the structure and shows up as unequal power and consequently as un-equal life chances’ (Galtung, 1969, p. 171). One major challenge for this concept is that structural violence is subtle and often goes unrecognised.

Twenty years after the introduction of structural violence, Galtung introduced the concept of ‘cultural violence’ which includes ‘those aspects of culture, the symbolic sphere of our existence—exemplified by religion and ideology, language and art, empirical science and formal science (logic, mathematics)—that can be used to justify or legitimize direct or structural violence’ (Galtung (1990, p. 291). Galtung presents these three types of violence in a triangular form where violence can start at any corner of the triangle and be easily transmitted to the other corners. ‘With the violent structure institutionalized and the violent culture internalized, direct violence also tends to become institutionalized, repetitive, ritualistic, like a vendetta’ (Galtung, 1990, p. 302). Galtung’s conceptualisation of structural and cultural violence has some similarities with Bourdieu (1979) notion of ‘symbolic violence’. Both theories provided valuable insights into the nature and forms of violence, but they each offer unique perspectives and focus on different aspects of violence.

Symbolic violence, ‘to put it as tersely and simply as possible, is the violence which is exercised upon a social agent with his or her complicity’ (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 167, emphasis in original). Symbolic violence operates through ‘symbolic systems’, such as language and cultural practices through which the dominant groups impose values and norms onto others in a manner that leads the targeted group to internalise what is referred to as legitimate knowledge, thus perpetuating the existing social order. As Bourdieu (1979, pp. 80-81) puts it, ‘the dominant fractions, whose power is based on economic and political capital, seek to impose the legitimacy of their domination either through their own symbolic production (discourse, writings, etc.) or through the intermediary of conservative ideologists who serve the interests of the dominant fractions—but only incidentally’. In symbolic violence, power, social hierarchies, and inequalities are produced and sustained not primarily through physical force but rather through various forms of symbolic domination. Yet, hierarchies and systems of domination persist when both those in power (dominant) and those subjected to power (dominated) view these systems as legitimate. In this context, legitimacy relies on consent, complicity, and misrecognition (Morgan & Björkert, 2006; Thapar-Björkert et al., 2016). Consequently, individuals on both sides think and act in alignment with their perceived best interests within the framework of the system (Schubert, 2014). ‘Hierarchies and systems of domination are then reproduced to the extent that the dominant and the dominated perceive these systems to be legitimate, and thus think and act in their own best interests within the context of the system itself’ (Schubert, 2014, p. 182).

Here, social agents could misrecognise violence, meaning they do not perceive it as such and think it is natural. As Bourdieu and Wacquant (2004, p. 172) put it, ‘“recognition,” then, is the set of fundamental, prereflexive assumptions that social agents engage by the mere fact of taking the world for granted, of accepting the world as it is, and of finding it natural because their mind is constructed according to cognitive structures that are issued out of very structures of the world’ (emphasis in original). Gendered violence is an example of such symbolic violence in which women are taught and socialised to regard themselves as less intelligent, unreliable, incapable, etc. and their lives can be hence dominated and controlled. As a result, men’s dominance over women, or any violence rooted in patriarchy, may be felt as ‘natural’ and go unchallenged. For example, instances of wife-beating and men’s multiple marriages among the Rohingya could be regarded as symbolic violence, wherein women, despite being victims of spousal bodily violence, express that they never felt insulted by their husbands’ actions. Although much academic research and many non-academic reports exist on direct violence against the Rohingya (e.g., killings, murder, torture, and rape), research is scarce on how unequal power relations, traditional gender norms, a patriarchal social structure, marginalisation and inequitable access to resources and services—including justice, and hate speech and Islamophobia against the Rohingya results in structural, cultural, and symbolic violence.

Both symbolic violence and cultural violence are valuable concepts for comprehending the nature of violence. In both cases, Galtung’s (1990) cultural violence and Bourdieu’s (1979) symbolic violence can make direct and structural violence look and feel natural. Also, both conceptualisations share a common focus: the insidious and invisible nature of violence. In the case of cultural violence, as argued by Galtung, it is ‘used to legitimize violence in its direct or structural form’ (Galtung, 1990, p. 291). Bourdieu regards symbolic violence as instruments used to legitimise the ‘domination of one class over another’ (Bourdieu, 1979, p. 80). Yet, one relevant distinction is that Bourdieu’s theory places a strong emphasis on power relations and the ways in which dominant groups use symbolic violence to maintain their dominance. Galtung’s theory, while acknowledging power imbalances as a form of structural violence, does not focus as explicitly on the dynamics of power. Another interesting point is that, while Galtung’s theory of violence has been criticised for the lack of a gender perspective, Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic violence has been used more extensively in feminist theory. This is because symbolic violence can help explain how gender inequalities are reproduced and legitimised in everyday practices and common understandings.

Gender in Structural, Symbolic, and Cultural Violence

My research focused on all four types of violence as they were experienced by Rohingya women and men. Direct or personal violence is the most visible one, while structural violence and cultural and symbolic violence are not. The primary distinction between the two forms of violence is in how they manifest and are sustained. Structural violence is generally carried out through societal structures and institutions, whereas symbolic violence is maintained by individuals who have internalised societal norms and expectations. Despite their differences, both types of violence play a role in perpetuating gender violence and are often deeply interconnected. In my research, I explore how and why the Myanmar military and the ultra-nationalist Buddhists have used cultural logic to justify direct and structural violence. I applied the concept of structural violence to my analysis of how differentiated access to power and resources (social, economic, political) intersects with gender and sexual identity, ethnicity, and class position to produce vulnerabilities and violence against the Rohingya. Galtung’s theory of violence, while addressing direct, structural, and cultural violence, does not explicitly consider how these forms of violence are influenced by gender. Although Galtung’s violence triangle offers a ‘unified framework within which all violence can be seen’, his theory needs to ‘incorporate notions of gender as a social construct’ (Confortini, 2006, p. 333) to comprehend the complexity inherent in the nature of violence. Thus, Confortini (2006) argues that Galtung’s theory of violence could be enhanced by considering gender as a social construct embedded with power dynamics, rather than equating it with biological sex. It is imperative to acknowledge that the various social categories that shape our understanding of the world are deeply influenced by gender and are implicated in the reproduction of violence. Violence can, therefore, produce and define ‘gender identities and, in turn, is produced and defined by them’ (Confortini 2006, p. 333). Confortini argues that violence plays a significant role in constructing and sustaining gender relations, particularly in the context of hegemonic masculinity. Galtung’s main point, as Cockburn (2004, p. 30) argues, ‘prompts us to look again at male-dominant gender relations. Long before a man uses physical violence against a woman, she may experience “structural violence” in a marriage in which her husband or a constraining patriarchal community holds power over her’. Gendered violence and male domination, as Bourdieu argues, is an example of symbolic violence (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 2004) where the dominance of men is legitimated as the natural ‘order of things’ and in which women are ‘consigned to inferior social positions’ (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, pp. 168, 173).

Structural Violence, Intersectionality and the Continuum of Violence

There is still limited research that delves into the frameworks and mechanisms responsible for generating particular gender-related vulnerabilities for refugees. Some research tends to focus on SGBV in forced migration as a source or push factor in migration and thus can overlook various other manifestations of gender-based violence (GBV) against migrants or those associated with migration. Moreover, these studies may also fail to recognise links between different forms of GBV and their underlying structural and systematic inequalities in the forms of the structural, cultural, and symbolic violence that refugees experience at the different stages and processes of migration (Freedman et al., 2022). In my research, I explored the different forms of violence (direct, structural, cultural and symbolic) experienced by Rohingya forced migrants at different stages, both in the country of origin (Myanmar) and in the country of destination (Bangladesh). To address this, I asked the question presented by Jakobsen (2014), ‘What’s gendered about gender-based violence’ in the refugee and forced migration context?’ I also applied intersectionality as a conceptual framework to understand the violence and gendered vulnerabilities of the Rohingya refugees. A comprehensive analysis of the vulnerabilities and insecurities experienced by forced migrant women necessitates a deeper exploration of the current crisis. Intersectionality, as coined by Crenshaw (1989), a US critical legal race scholar, emphasises that violence and oppression against women of colour originates from multiple systems of oppression and inequalities. In a recent interview, Crenshaw (2017a) said,

Intersectionality is a lens through which you can see where power comes and collides, where it interlocks and intersects. It’s not simply that there’s a race problem here, a gender problem here, and a class or LBGTQ problem there. Many times that framework erases what happens to people who are subject to all of these things.

I used intersectionality as an analytical tool to explore the experience of oppression and violence by the Rohingya refugees, based on multiple intersecting axes of social division, in particular race, religion, ethnicity, language, age, gender, and class (Reilly et al., 2022; Stavrevska & Smith, 2020). As Crenshaw (1989, p. 140) argues, any analysis that does not take intersectionality into account fails to adequately capture the particular manner and ways in which any ethnic, sexual and gendered minority group is subordinated. Applying an intersectional viewpoint to migration and refugee studies encourages a nuanced comprehension of the vulnerabilities and subordinate positions of migrants and refugees. This involves acknowledging diverse forms of precarious situations arising from elements like immigration status, unpaid labour, unstable employment, the perpetuation of stereotypes and biases about women refugees, the racial background of refugees, the age and skills of the refugees, etc.

In this research, I explored the intersectionality of the cultural and structural dimensions of violence. As Cross Riddle (2017) says, ‘just as structural violence situates harm in a matrix of social forces, intersectionality situates women’s life experiences in a “matrix of domination”’. The concept of intersectionality provides a more comprehensive understanding of how a structure functions in social dynamics. It elucidates how the accumulation of various social identities (gender, religion, sexuality, ethnicity, etc.) can act as a barrier, impeding individuals from accessing spaces, knowledge, and fundamental human rights. Yet, intersectionality theory, while providing valuable insights into the complexities of violence and peace, has been criticised for its absence in practice, its focus on multiple identities at the expense of broader structural factors, its complexity, the risk of essentialism, and potential Western biases (Salem, 2018).

In addition to intersectionality and the concepts of violence propagated by Galtung and Bourdieu, I also employed the concept of the ‘continuum of violence’. This approach allowed me to comprehend the experiences of violence among the Rohingya, examining how gendered vulnerabilities persist from the conflict zone to the so-called safe zone. My objective was to comprehend violence within the context of history, prevailing social and institutional structures, and the experiences in their country of origin (Myanmar). This understanding extends to their so-called safe destination (Bangladesh) across different time periods, forms, and scales of violence. Many academics have analysed violence as a continuum, in particular gendered violence (Cockburn, 2004; Kelly, 1987; Kostovicova et al., 2020; Krause, 2015; Phillimore et al., 2023; Phillimore et al., 2022; Yadav & Horn, 2021).

Through the ‘continuum of violence’ we can understand how different forms of sexual and gender-based violence in forced migration are ‘connected across scope, forms, and conditions of violence and throughout conflict, flight, and displacement’ (Phillimore et al., 2022, p. 2208). It is an important way to see violence through its temporal dimensions (i.e., pre-, during and post-refugee journeys), locational dimensions (i.e., bedroom, home, street to the battlefield), scalar dimensions (i.e., personal to international), and through the forms it takes (i.e., structural/cultural violence legitimising direct violence) (Cockburn, 2004).

I investigated gender violence against the Rohingya by engaging with the intersectional nature of the continuums of violence. This effort involved examining how various dimensions of social division—such as race, ethnicity, class, age, religion, gender, and sexualities—contribute to different experiences of violence in different time periods, forms, and scales. This endeavour recognised the institutionalisation and legitimisation of structural inequality and gendered power relations, or more broadly, structural violence.

Conclusion

Understanding and analysing gender violence in the context of forced migration requires a multi-dimensional approach that takes into account the complex ways in which social categories, statuses, and structures of power and oppression interact to result in, what Galtung referred to as, direct or structural violence. Forced migrants—in my case, the Rohingya—are often subjected to interconnected structural and symbolic violence throughout different stages of their journey as forced migrants, from their country of origin through their transit to their country of destination. Gendered violence, including sexual violence, explicitly demonstrates how structural and symbolic violence manifests an interconnection in all stages of forced migration. Therefore, it is imperative to view the various forms of gendered violence experienced by refugees as part of a continuum where women and men encounter different forms and scales of violence. For instance, a woman who was raped by the military in Myanmar continued to face trauma upon reaching Bangladesh, along with the social stigma associated with it. If these same women become victims of violence by their partners, the existing community structure could potentially ostracise them. Differentiated and limited access to resources makes it difficult for women to seek and obtain formal justice. In the subsequent chapters, I will illustrate how I applied the concepts discussed in this chapter.