After dissecting the state apparatus and surveying the crucible of revolution, a reader accustomed to modern "peaceful" life might breathe a long sigh of relief. After all, the guillotine has long been sent to the museum, brutal civil wars seem like stories from distant lands, and the cold iron fist of state violence is, for most people in daily life, merely a vague background presence held in reserve. We live in a highly "civilized" society regulated by law, markets, and public opinion. Here, naked physical violence seems to have been replaced by gentler "negotiated consensus."
Yet this feeling of relief may be nothing more than a dangerous illusion. It stems from a narrow "observation" of "violence" -- a kind of "violence myopia" that can see only the blood-stained blade, but not the invisible shackles.
The task of Part Four is to correct this "myopia." We will argue that violence in modern society has not died, but undergone a profound "evolution." It has taken off its bloodstained military uniform, changed into a respectable suit, and learned to carry out its will of "forced convergence" through data reports, legal provisions, and cultural symbols. It no longer frequently acts upon our bodies, but instead operates more subtly and systematically upon the "environment" we inhabit and upon the very "possibility" of our actions. We may no longer feel the cold of chains, but we find ourselves imprisoned within an invisible "iron cage" woven from countless rules, standards, and expectations.
This chapter will focus on this evolved form of violence -- which we call "soft violence" or "structural violence." It is an indirect, impersonal, often "anonymous" form of harm, whose root cause is not some evil tyrant, but the operational logic embedded within social structures, economic systems, and cultural norms themselves.
Our analysis will proceed in three steps. First, "From Physical Coercion to Systemic Coercion: The Invisibilization of Violence" will outline the basic path and core features of this evolution from a macroscopic perspective. We will see how violence has moved from the "visible" to the "invisible," from the "person" to the "situation," thereby gaining greater legitimacy and lower resistance potential.
Next, we will delve into the core engine of modern society -- the market economy. "Systemic Exploitation Under 'Assessment Alienation': Economic Violence" will apply the concept of "assessment alienation" proposed in Advanced RC to analyze the hidden coercive forces within the modern economic system. We will argue that so-called "free exchange," under conditions of extreme power inequality, degenerates into a refined, systemic "economic violence."
Finally, we will explore the broader social and cultural manifestations of this violence. "Depriving 'Available Margin': Institutional Discrimination and Discursive Hegemony" will use the concept of "available margin" to measure the actual deprivation of individual possibility caused by soft violence. We will analyze how seemingly neutral institutions and mainstream discourses systematically "empower" certain groups while "disempowering" others, thereby creating deep, invisible harm at the levels of opportunity, dignity, and self-realization.
This journey will require us to possess an X-ray-like penetrating vision, to see through the glossy skin of modern society and look directly at the "structural fractures" within -- fractures that, though they do not bleed, cause no less suffering because of the unequal distribution of power.
From Physical Coercion to Systemic Coercion: The Invisibilization of Violence
In the classical model of power, the operation of violence was clearly visible. The king's guards, the landlord's whip, the swords on the battlefield -- perpetrator and victim encountered each other directly in the same physical time and space. Violence was a naked drama about the body. Its cruelty was straightforward, its oppressiveness undeniable. Precisely because of this, it also easily provoked equally direct, physical resistance.
The evolution of modern social power, however, has as one of its core trends the "invisibilization" of violence. Power discovered that the most effective domination does not stem from continuous, visible suppression, but from a diffuse, structural control that makes the ruled feel as though they are not being ruled at all. This revolution of "invisibilization," through a series of profound transformations, upgraded classical "physical coercion" into modern "systemic coercion."
Transformation One: From the "Person" to the "Situation" -- The Shift of the Target
Classical violence had as its direct target the "person." It forcibly changed individual behavior by inflicting pain, imposing imprisonment, or directly eliminating the physical body.
Modern "systemic coercion," however, deftly shifts its target to the "situation." It does not directly attack your body, but instead shapes the environment you inhabit, the resources you possess, and the rules you face, to indirectly but more fundamentally limit your choices and guide your behavior.
The Traffic Light Analogy: A police officer ordering you to stop with his baton is "physical coercion." A traffic light system at an intersection, by contrast, is a "systemic coercion." When the light turns red, there is no specific "person" commanding you, but you (usually) stop. Because the "system" is designed such that if you do not stop, you face extremely high physical risk (accident) and legal risk (fine) generated by the system itself. This system, by altering your "situation," makes "stopping" the only rational choice. You feel you have "freely" made this choice, but this choice was actually pre-set by the system.
The "Invisible Walls" of the Slum: A young person living in a slum has life choices that, to a great extent, are not determined by his personal talent or effort, but "forcibly converged" by the "situation" he inhabits. The schools he can attend offer poor education; the social networks he can access are filled with crime and drugs; the jobs he can find pay meager wages with no prospects. No physical wall prevents him from leaving the slum, but the "invisible walls" of education, economics, and social capital jointly construct a "situational cage" he can barely escape. This intergenerational transmission of poverty is a typical form of "structural violence." It has no perpetrator, yet harm is everywhere.
Transformation Two: From the "Individual" to the "Anonymous" -- The Blurring of the Perpetrator
Classical violence had clearly identifiable perpetrators -- "individuals" or "groups" (king, lord, soldier). You knew who was harming you; your hatred and resistance had a definite target.
In "systemic coercion," the perpetrator becomes extremely "anonymous" and "impersonal." Harm seems to come not from anyone's "malice," but merely from the "neutral" operation of the "system" as a "natural outcome."
The Verdict of the "Market": When a factory closes due to "market competition," throwing thousands of workers out of their jobs, who is the perpetrator? Is it the CEO who made the decision to close? But he would say he was acting in the interest of shareholders, compelled by "the merciless law of the market." Are the consumers who bought cheaper products from competitors? But they were merely exercising their "free choice." Here, the creator of the harm seems to be the invisible, impersonal "market." You cannot raise your fist against the "market"; your anger finds no target to focus on.
The Indifference of the "Bureaucratic System": A poor family applying for emergency relief may need to shuttle between countless government departments, fill out countless complex forms, wait in countless long lines -- only to be rejected in the end for some trivial "procedural flaw." In this process, no individual bureaucrat intended to make things difficult for them. Everyone was merely "following the rules," executing the internal regulations of the vast, indifferent "bureaucratic system." Yet the suffering and despair this family endures are real and profound. The "impersonality" of the bureaucracy becomes the perfect "alibi" for violence.
This "anonymization" of the perpetrator makes resistance extremely difficult. For what you must confront is no longer a concrete enemy, but a "system," "structure," or "principle" that is everywhere yet nowhere to be found. This is the root of the modern nightmare depicted in Kafka's novels: you are caught in an absurd and oppressive net, yet you can never find the spider that wove it.
Transformation Three: From "Illegal" to "Legal" -- The Camouflage of the Legitimacy Garb
Classical violence, in many cases, had obvious "illegality." Invasion, slaughter, unjust punishment -- their wrongfulness easily provoked moral outrage.
The most cunning aspect of modern "systemic coercion" is that it is often completely "legal." It does not produce its coercive effects by "breaking" the rules, but precisely by "executing" them.
"Legal" Eviction: A bank, through entirely legal procedures, evicts an unemployed person and their family from their home when they can no longer pay their mortgage. Every step the bank takes complies with the law. Yet for that family, left on the street with their children and all their belongings in the cold wind, what essential difference is there from the harm caused by a violent robbery? Here, law -- the tool meant to protect the weak -- becomes the most effective weapon for the strong to inflict "legal violence" upon the weak.
"Neutral" Standards: A company, in its hiring process, requires all applicants to possess an expensive professional qualification that only children from wealthy families have the opportunity to obtain. This hiring standard appears completely "neutral" and "professional." Yet its objective effect is to systematically exclude all applicants from poor backgrounds. This seemingly "equal opportunity" competition had its starting point unequal from the very beginning. By setting a seemingly "neutral" threshold, the institution noiselessly accomplishes the reproduction of class, disguising discrimination as a "fair" selection process.
When violence is cloaked in the garb of "legality" and "neutrality," it gains its most powerful self-defense. Anyone who protests against it can easily be accused of being "a sore loser," "irrational," or even "trying to break the rules." The system, by disguising its own bias as universal, indisputable "axioms," disarms the legitimacy of resistance.
Through these three transformations -- the shift of target, the blurring of the perpetrator, and the camouflage of legitimacy -- violence has successfully achieved its "invisibilization." It has evolved from a visible, bloody "hot war" into an invisible, frog-boiling "cold war." This "cold war" acts directly upon our possibilities for existence, and its most central, most everyday battlefield is that domain we regard as the beacon of "freedom" -- the market economy.
Systemic Exploitation Under "Assessment Alienation": Economic Violence
In the "temple" of modern social ideology, the "free market" is undoubtedly one of the deities enshrined at the very center. It is portrayed as the most efficient and most just mechanism for resource allocation. In this mechanism, countless independent individuals engage in "equivalent" exchanges based on the principle of "voluntariness." Price, this "invisible hand," automatically coordinates the complex relationship between supply and demand, ultimately achieving a "Pareto optimal" state beneficial to all. In this beautiful picture, coercion and violence seem to have no place.
Yet if we use the conceptual lens of "assessment alienation" proposed in Advanced RC to re-"observe" this "free market," we will see a completely different picture, full of hidden coercive forces.
"Assessment Power": The True Source of Market Power
First, we must clarify that the core of market exchange is not the exchange of objects, but the exchange of "value." And "value" is not an inherent attribute of an object, but the result of an "assessment" made by a subject within a particular "observational consensus." Therefore, in the market, true power does not come from how many "things" you own, but from how much "assessment power" you possess to influence or even determine the final "value" of the transaction.
In an ideal, fully symmetrical model of the "free market" (for example, two peasants exchanging potatoes and eggs at a village market), both parties have relatively equal "assessment power." Through face-to-face, repeated "negotiation," they can jointly "converge" on an exchange ratio both consider "fair."
However, in the actual, highly complex modern capitalist market, this "symmetry" has long disappeared. "Assessment power" has undergone a systematic, large-scale "alienation" -- it has been stripped from the direct participants in the transaction and concentrated in the hands of a few "macro-assessors" with structural advantages. This "assessment alienation" constitutes the core mechanism of modern "economic violence."
Three Forms of Assessment Alienation:
- Capital's Assessment of Labor: This is the most classic form of assessment alienation, as revealed by Marx. In a capitalist labor relationship, the worker and the capitalist nominally sign a labor contract "freely." Yet their "assessment power" is extremely asymmetric. The capitalist, by virtue of his structural advantage of owning the "means of production" (factory, machinery, capital), monopolizes the ultimate "assessment power" over the commodity of "labor." He can decide: whom to hire, whom not to hire; how much to pay; what intensity of work to set. The worker, apart from "agreeing" to this assessment result or choosing "unemployment" -- an option that poses a direct existential threat -- has almost no independent space for "assessment." How much "real value" his labor creates for the enterprise is a process completely "invisible" to him. He can only passively accept the value share "assessed" by capital, called "wages," systematically depressed. The so-called "labor contract" is, to a great extent, a document of "forced consensus" unilaterally drafted by the strong assessing party, with the weak having no choice but to sign.
- Monopoly Platform's Assessment of Producers/Consumers: In the digital age, assessment alienation appears in a more refined form. Large technology platforms (such as Amazon, Taobao, Meituan, Didi) have become new, more powerful "macro-assessors." For a small merchant selling on Taobao, the "value" of his goods is, to a great extent, no longer determined by direct negotiation with customers, but assessed and determined by Taobao's "algorithm." The algorithm, through mechanisms such as ranking, recommendation, and traffic allocation, holds the power of life and death over which merchant can "be seen" and which goods can "fetch a good price." To cater to this impersonal assessor, merchants are forced to invest heavily in purchasing traffic, engaging in "fake orders," and even compelled to participate in "price wars" initiated by the platform at the expense of their own profits. Similarly, a delivery rider's labor "value" (the delivery fee per order) is also assessed and priced in real time by the platform's algorithm, based on a series of complex parameters such as distance, weather, time of day. He cannot "negotiate" with the algorithm; he can only passively "accept" or "decline" orders. The platform, through its monopoly on "assessment power," locks countless atomized producers and workers into a meticulously designed "system" aimed at maximizing its own interests.
- Financial Capital's Assessment of the Real Economy: At the apex of contemporary capitalism sits financial capital, holder of ultimate "assessment power." The "value" of a listed company is most directly reflected not by how many quality products it produces or how many jobs it provides, but by its "stock price" on the stock market -- that vast assessment machine. And the stock price is "assessed" and "expected" by a handful of rating agencies (such as Moody's, S&P), analysts at large investment funds and banks. To cater to these financial assessors' preference for "short-term profitability," company managers may be forced to take actions that harm the company's long-term development and employee interests (such as mass layoffs, cutting R&D investment, engaging in high-risk financial speculation). Here, the "value" of the entire real economy is hijacked and defined by financial capital -- the most abstract, most reality-detached "ultimate assessor." Financial capital, through the exercise of its assessment power, quietly inflicts the deepest "economic violence" on the entire society.
Systemic Exploitation: When "Consent" Becomes "Coercion"
Under this structure of "assessment alienation," the meaning of so-called "voluntary consent" has undergone a fundamental distortion. When all your other options have been preemptively stripped away by a more powerful "system" you cannot resist, can your "consent" to the single remaining unfavorable option still be called "free"?
- A programmer forced to accept the "996" work system to support his family gives his "consent" coerced by the fear of "unemployment" and "inability to pay the mortgage."
- A delivery rider pushed to his limit by the platform's algorithm to make a living, with every "order acceptance," makes a helpless choice between the "violent" exploitation of his body and the risk of a "traffic accident" he may face.
- A CEO conducting mass layoffs to avoid being "punished" by financial markets makes his "decision" coerced by the entire game rules of financial capitalism.
In these situations, we see no direct physical violence. No one puts a gun to their heads. Yet a deeper "systemic violence," embedded within the economic structure itself, is pushing them, ceaselessly, toward those no-option "consents." This violence, by exploiting and preemptively occupying their "assessment power," systematically and continuously transfers the value share they should rightfully receive to the few who occupy structurally advantageous positions.
This is the essence of "structural exploitation." It is a highly civilized "economic violence" cloaked in the garb of "freedom," "voluntariness," and "fair trade." It is difficult to detect and resist because it has successfully inscribed its coercive logic into the most indisputable "economic common sense" and "natural laws" of our age. And the ultimate harm of this violence is reflected not only in the loss of money, but in the systematic deprivation of individual "possibility."
Depriving "Available Margin": Institutional Discrimination and Discursive Hegemony
If "economic violence" primarily acts upon the material survival of individuals, there is also a broader, less detectable form of soft violence. It does not directly deprive you of property, but instead systematically and silently deprives you of those immaterial yet vital resources in life: opportunity, dignity, confidence, and most importantly -- the possibility of choosing your future.
To measure this immaterial deprivation, we need to introduce another core concept proposed in Advanced RC: "available margin."
"Available margin" refers to the time, energy, social capital, and psychological energy that an individual or group has left over -- after meeting basic survival needs -- that can be freely used to explore different possibilities, withstand unexpected risks, and invest in and realize themselves.
The larger a person's "available margin," the more elastic, resilient, and open their life. They can bear the cost of trial and error, plan for the future with ease, and have more room to maneuver when facing difficulties. Conversely, the smaller a person's "available margin," the more fragile, rigid, and passive their life. They are locked into immediate survival, unable to cope with any unexpected shocks; their future, to a great extent, is merely an endless repetition of their current situation.
The deepest harm of "structural violence" lies in its systematic, differential deprivation of the "available margin" of specific social groups through two main mechanisms -- institutional discrimination and discursive hegemony.
Institutional Discrimination: The "Ceiling of Possibility" Locked by Rules
"Institutional discrimination" refers to discrimination that does not originate from the biases of individual officials or persons, but is embedded within the seemingly "neutral" and "fair" rules, procedures, and practices established by an organization or society. These rules are, by design, systematically favorable to a dominant group and unfavorable to other marginalized groups.
The "Web of Opportunity" in Education: In a society with a vast gap in educational resources, a child born in a wealthy neighborhood enters, from kindergarten onward, a "web of opportunity" composed of quality schools, expensive extracurricular tutoring, rich social practice, and a powerful alumni network. A child born in a poor area may only barely receive enough educational resources to complete the state-mandated basic curriculum. When they ultimately meet on the "single-plank bridge" of the college entrance exam or the job market, even if the latter has exerted a hundred times the effort, the gap in their "available margins" is already as wide as heaven and earth. This system, which appears to offer "fair competition" to all, has actually pre-set completely different "ceilings" for the "possibility" of different groups through the extremely unequal distribution of initial resources.
Disparities in Judicial Outcomes: Consider the U.S. Sentencing Commission's analysis of cases from fiscal years 2017–2021: after controlling for several case and personal variables available in its data, average prison terms and probabilities of receiving noncustodial sentences still differed across demographic groups. Observational results of this kind cannot by themselves identify the specific causal source of discrimination, nor can they guarantee control of every stage—including arrest, charging, quality of defense, plea bargaining, and the way criminal history is recorded. A more rigorous conclusion is that judicial inequality may accumulate across several institutional stages and therefore requires stage-specific data, causal analysis, and procedural audit. “The same offense necessarily receives a different sentence” should not be written as a universal fact across all jurisdictions.
The "Glass Ceiling" in the Workplace: The "glass ceiling" phenomenon faced by women or ethnic minorities in many enterprises and organizations is a classic example of institutional discrimination. No explicit rule states "women cannot hold executive positions." But a series of informal yet deeply entrenched institutional practices -- such as male-dominated "drinking culture" and social circles, "concerns" about career interruptions due to childbirth, and stereotypical notions of "leadership" (often associated with masculine traits) -- jointly construct a "soft" barrier that makes it extremely difficult for women to advance on the promotion path. These barriers constantly consume the psychological energy and career capital of women in the workplace -- that is, their "available margin."
The insidiousness of institutional discrimination lies in its "depersonalization" of discrimination. It allows the dominant group to enjoy their structural advantages with a clear conscience, bearing no moral guilt for their privilege. For everything appears "compliant," "reasonable," and "fair."
Discursive Hegemony: The "Value Cage" Defined by Language
If institutional discrimination primarily operates at the level of "opportunity," then "discursive hegemony" operates at the deeper levels of "cognition" and "self-identity." It refers to the process by which the dominant group in society successfully shapes its own "observation" methods, value standards, and worldview into society's "self-evident" "common sense" and "truth," thereby systematically devaluing, distorting, or "silencing" the experiences and voices of marginalized groups.
The Power to Define "Normal" and "Abnormal": Discursive hegemony first controls the power to define "what is normal." For example, in a discursive system centered on "heterosexuality," heterosexuality is regarded as "natural" and "normal," while all other sexual orientations are "observed" as "abnormal," "unnatural," even "pathological." This discourse inflicts enormous, sustained psychological harm on non-heterosexual individuals. They grow up forced to live in an environment that defines their very existence as a "problem," vastly consuming the "psychological available margin" they need to build confidence and self-identity.
The "Internalization" of Stereotypes: When a negative "stereotype" about a certain group (for example, "people of a certain race are naturally lazy," "women are not good at math") is endlessly repeated by mainstream media, cultural products, and everyday language, it not only influences how the dominant group views this group, but more frighteningly, it may be "internalized" by the group's own members. A girl who grows up in an environment where "girls are bad at math" is constantly repeated may give up more easily when facing a difficult math problem -- not because she genuinely lacks ability, but because she has accepted this discursively constructed "self-limitation" at a deep level. Discursive hegemony, here, becomes a "self-fulfilling prophecy," genuinely and physically limiting your potential by shaping your self-perception.
The "Silencing" of Experience: Discursive hegemony can also render the suffering and struggle of marginalized groups "unspeakable" and "invisible." For example, within a "patriarchal" discursive system, the harassment women experience in public spaces may long go unrecognized as a serious social issue, dismissed as "jokes" or "misunderstandings." Women who try to speak about their experiences may be accused of "making a mountain out of a molehill" or being "oversensitive." This discourse systematically deprives them of the right to transform their personal suffering into a "social issue" that can be publicly discussed and sympathetically understood. Their experiences are "silenced"; their "available margin" is consumed in a solitary pain that cannot be spoken or understood.
Institutional discrimination and discursive hegemony -- these two powerful forces of "soft violence" -- are like the two main beams of an invisible iron cage, together locking the boundaries of a person's "possibility." The former limits "where you can go"; the latter defines "who you think you are."
This iron cage is more terrifying than the physical cages of old because its bars are made of the seemingly "normal," "natural" rules, standards, and concepts of our daily lives. We are inside it, yet often unaware of its existence. We may even mistake the boundaries of the iron cage for the boundaries of the entire world, and mistake our own limitations for our innate destiny.
This is the deepest and most successful "forced convergence" of modern "structural violence." What it converges is no longer merely our bodies, but our dreams, our potential, and our very imagination of a more just, more diverse, and more possible world. And to challenge this invisible iron cage, what we first need is perhaps a new observational weapon that can make it "visible." This leads us to the discussion of the next chapter: the algorithmic age -- the new form of power that is pushing all these soft violence to their extreme.