Invisible Violence in Islam

 

Forms of Invisible Violence in Islam: An Analysis through Bourdieu’s Symbolic Violence, Galtung’s Structural Violence, Stark’s Coercive Control, and Gramsci’s Hegemony

Abstract

This thesis examines manifestations of violence within Islamic contexts through interdisciplinary lenses of power and domination. 

Drawing on Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic violence, Johan Galtung’s structural violence, Evan Stark’s coercive control, and Antonio Gramsci’s cultural hegemony, it argues that Islam, as a socio-religious system, perpetuates subtle forms of harm through discourse, institutions, and relational dynamics. These theories reveal how violence is normalized, internalized, and reproduced, often without overt physical force. 

Using examples from Indonesian religious discourse, Quranic interpretations, patriarchal family structures, and political movements, the analysis highlights the interplay of these mechanisms in maintaining hierarchies. 

The study concludes that recognizing these invisible violences is essential for fostering equitable reforms within Islamic societies.

Table of Contents

•  Introduction

•  Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework

•  1.1 Bourdieu’s Symbolic Violence

•  1.2 Galtung’s Structural Violence

•  1.3 Stark’s Coercive Control

•  1.4 Gramsci’s Cultural Hegemony

•  Chapter 2: Symbolic Violence in Islamic Religious Discourse

•  Chapter 3: Structural Violence in Islamic Social Structures

•  Chapter 4: Coercive Control in Islamic Patriarchal Relations

•  Chapter 5: Hegemonic Reproduction in Political Islam

•  Conclusion

•  Bibliography

Introduction

Islam, as one of the world’s major religions, encompasses diverse doctrines, practices, and socio-political expressions. However, beneath its emphasis on justice (adl) and community (ummah), scholars have identified embedded mechanisms of domination that align with theories of subtle violence. 

This thesis applies Bourdieu’s symbolic violence, where domination is misrecognised as natural, to Islamic discourses that marginalise minorities. Galtung’s structural violence, embedded in unequal institutions, illuminates systemic inequalities in Muslim-majority societies. Stark’s coercive control framework exposes gendered entrapments in family dynamics, while Gramsci’s hegemony elucidates how Islamic ideologies secure consent for power imbalances. 

These lenses, interconnected through their focus on non-physical coercion, reveal Islam not as inherently violent but as a site where power asymmetries produce harm. By integrating quotes and examples from scholarly sources, this analysis substantiates a critical yet constructive perspective, advocating for awareness as a path to emancipation.

Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework

1.1 Bourdieu’s Symbolic Violence

Pierre Bourdieu conceptualizes symbolic violence as a form of power exercised through misrecognition, where the dominated collude in their own subordination by accepting imposed meanings as legitimate. As Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) state, it is “the violence which is exercised upon a social agent with his or her complicity” (p. 167).  

This violence operates via habitusinternalized dispositions—and doxa—the unquestioned naturalization of social order—rendering inequality invisible. In religious contexts, language and symbols become tools of this imposition, as Bourdieu (1991) notes in Language and Symbolic Power: “language is an instrument of power and an object of symbolic struggles” (p. 105). 

1.2 Galtung’s Structural Violence

Johan Galtung extends violence beyond direct acts to structural forms inherent in social arrangements that prevent human potential. He defines it as “violence without this relation [to a personal actor], built into structure,” where inequality in power distribution is the core formula (Galtung, 1969, p. 171).  

Complementing this is cultural violence, which legitimizes structural harms through ideologies like religion. Galtung (1990) elaborates: “The general formula behind structural violence is inequality, above all in the distribution of power” (p. 291).  In Islamic societies, this manifests in institutionalised disparities, such as gender or sectarian inequalities.

1.3 Stark’s Coercive Control

Evan Stark reframes intimate partner abuse as coercive control, a liberty crime that erodes victims’ autonomy through isolation, surveillance, and exploitation, rather than isolated incidents. He describes it as creating “an unreal world… entrapped in a world of confusion, contradiction and fear” (Stark, 2007, p. 256).

Grounded in gender privilege, it treats abuse as a course of conduct subverting equality. Stark (2007) emphasizes: “Coercive control is a framework of abuse that erodes a victim-survivor’s autonomy and agency” (p. 5).  Applied to patriarchal religions, it highlights how doctrinal norms enable entrapment.

1.4 Gramsci’s Cultural Hegemony

Antonio Gramsci’s hegemony describes how ruling classes maintain dominance through cultural and ideological consent, rather than coercion alone. In Prison Notebooks, he argues that “every relationship of hegemony is necessarily an educational one” (Gramsci, 1971, p. 350).  Similar to symbolic violence, it involves organic intellectuals disseminating dominant ideas. In Islam, this appears in how political movements like the Muslim Brotherhood construct consent for Islamist governance.

Chapter 2: Symbolic Violence in Islamic Religious Discourse

Bourdieu’s framework illuminates how Islamic discourse in Indonesia perpetuates symbolic violence by naturalizing dominance. Alfian (2022) argues that discourses like “agama vs. kepercayaan” and “moderasi beragama” position Islam as the benchmark, marginalizing indigenous beliefs and dissenting sects. 

As Alfian notes: “The dominant class in the religious aspect in Indonesia is… Islam. This dominant class can impose all its views… and the views of this dominant class then justify their treatment and actions towards other classes” (p. 208). 

In “agama vs. kepercayaan,” Islam monopolizes legitimacy, labeling local faiths (e.g., Tolotang) as inferior, coercing conversions via ID card requirements. This echoes Bourdieu’s doxa, where victims internalize inferiority. Similarly, “moderasi beragama,” ostensibly anti-extremist, euphemistically represses groups like Ahmadiyya or HTI. Alfian quotes policy documents: “religious moderation was developed as ‘ammunition… in tackling extreme religious beliefs’” (p. 212), leading to textbook revisions removing “jihad” and “khilafah.”  

The 2021 burning of an Ahmadiyya mosque in Sintang exemplifies this: officials cited non-compliance with “Islamic criteria” (Alfian, 2022, p. 212). Thus, symbolic violence renders Islamic hegemony as “natural,” silencing dissent through misrecognition.

Chapter 3: Structural Violence in Islamic Social Structures

Galtung’s structural violence reveals how Islamic institutions embed inequalities, often justified culturally via Quranic interpretations. While some analyses apply this to anti-Muslim pogroms, the framework adapts to intra-Islamic harms, such as sectarian or gender disparities. 

In Violence Inflicted on Muslims, Chakravarti (2011) describes how “direct violence reinforces structural violence, and how cultural violence is used to justify both” (p. 15), a dynamic mirrored in societies like Pakistan, where blasphemy laws structurally marginalize minorities within Islam. 

Quranic teachings, per Ghaffari (2020), refute structural violence, emphasizing equality, yet misapplications perpetuate it. Ghaffari argues that verses on prophetic missions oppose “taghut” (oppressive structures) akin to pharaonic inequality, aligning with Galtung’s power disparities. 

However, in practice, patriarchal inheritance laws (e.g., Quran 4:11 favoring males) institutionalize gender-based deprivation, causing “unequal chances at living and thriving” (Galtung, 1969).  In Saudi Arabia or Iran, guardianship systems structurally limit women’s mobility, echoing Galtung’s inequality formula. Cultural violence, via hadith interpretations, legitimizes this as divine order, perpetuating harm without direct intent.

Chapter 4: Coercive Control in Islamic Patriarchal Relations

Stark’s coercive control applies to Islamic family law, where patriarchal norms entrap women through isolation and surveillance, often doctrinally sanctioned. 

In Muslim South Asian contexts, Thiaré (2020) documents how in-law abuse deploys coercion, exploiting religious ideals of obedience (e.g., Quran 4:34 on wifely submission). Stark’s model fits: abusers create “confusion, contradiction and fear” via fatwas threatening divorce or hellfire (Stark, 2007, p. 256). 

UK studies on Muslim domestic abuse highlight coercive tactics like monitoring veiling or mobility, grounded in gender privilege (Shah, 2023). As Stark (2018) updates: “Coercive control… obstructs the equality project by subverting… efforts” (p. 10).  

Polygamy allowances (Quran 4:3) enable exploitation, isolating wives economically. In mediation, Islamic evaluative processes can reinforce control, preventing divorce and entrenching dependency (Abu-Lughod, 2025). This “liberty crime” (Stark, 2007) underscores how religious patriarchy normalizes entrapment.

Chapter 5: Hegemonic Reproduction in Political Islam

Gramsci’s hegemony complements prior theories by explaining consent in Islamist movements. In Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, Kandil (2021) applies Gramsci: “hegemony and education are interlinked,” where the group educates masses to consent to Sharia governance (p. 350).  This mirrors symbolic violence, as ideologies like “revelation or revolution” secure dominance (Sayyid, 2003).

In Turkey’s AKP, Tugal (2025) describes an “Islamically toned neoliberal hegemony,” where cultural symbols co-opt dissent, akin to Galtung’s cultural violence. Gramsci’s organic intellectuals—clerics—disseminate this, naturalizing inequality. Al-Qaeda’s terrorism, per E-International Relations (2019), challenges Western hegemony but reproduces internal coercion, demanding consent through fatwas. Thus, hegemony sustains invisible violence by framing Islamist rule as consensual progress.

Conclusion

This thesis demonstrates how Bourdieu, Galtung, Stark, and Gramsci unveil invisible violences in Islam: symbolic misrecognition in discourse, structural inequalities in institutions, coercive entrapments in families, and hegemonic consent in politics. Quotes like Bourdieu’s complicity and Galtung’s inequality underscore their substantiation. 

While Islam’s core texts advocate peace, misapplications entrench harm. Future research should explore emancipatory counter-hegemonies, such as feminist ijtihad, to dismantle these structures. Ultimately, visibility is the antidote to these violences, enabling transformative justice.

Bibliography

•  Abu-Lughod, L. (2025). Muslim Women’s Experiences of Islamic Evaluative Mediation. Taylor & Francis.

•  Alfian, A. (2022). Symbolic Violence in Religious Discourse in Indonesia. ResearchGate Publications.

•  Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Harvard University Press.

•  Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. University of Chicago Press.

•  Chakravarti, U. (2011). Violence Inflicted on Muslims: Direct, Cultural and Structural. Economic and Political Weekly.

•  E-International Relations. (2019). Terrorism and the End of Western Hegemony: A Gramscian Perspective. E-International Relations.

•  Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research.

•  Galtung, J. (1990). Cultural Violence. Journal of Peace Research.

•  Ghaffari, M. (2020). An Investigation into Peace and Violence in the Quranic Teachings. Peace Dialogue Magazine.

•  Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. International Publishers.

•  Kandil, H. (2021). The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt: A Gramscian Re-Examination. Sage Journals.

•  Sayyid, S. (2003). Revelation or Revolution: A Gramscian Approach to the Rise of Political Islam. Taylor & Francis.

•  Shah, S. (2023). The Role of Religion in Domestic Violence and Abuse in UK Muslim Communities. Oxford Journal of Law and Religion.

•  Stark, E. (2007). Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life. Oxford University Press.

•  Stark, E. (2018). Coercive Control: Update and Review. Sage Journals.

•  Thiaré, A. (2020). Coercive Control of Muslim South Asian Women. University of Huddersfield.

•  Tugal, C. (2025). An Islamically Toned Neoliberal Hegemony Project. Springer.