Bypass the Barriers: The Structural Violence of 'Accidents'Bypass the Barriers: The Structural Violence of 'Accidents'
四个人死了，包括两个孩子。在典型的西方新闻叙事里，这被描述为一场“惨剧”：蓝天白云下的扭曲车身，总理和欧盟委员会主席的深情哀悼。这种叙事最阴险的地方在于，它迅速将焦点转移到个体的“错误”上——比如巴士司机试图冲过已经降下的道闸。一旦我们开始讨论司机是否违规，这起事件就从一个结构性问题变成了一个道德或操作问题。
但这正是加尔通暴力三角中的 structural violence。比利时拥有欧洲最古老的铁路网络之一，这意味着它的安全漏洞是系统性的。Infrabel 宣称事故率在下降，但这不过是另一种用数据掩盖现实的 scam。对于死掉的孩子来说，所谓的“历史低点”毫无意义。如果一个平交道口在物理上允许车辆在道闸下降后依然能冲进去，那么这个设计本身就是一种潜在的暴力（potential violence）。
我们习惯于将这种事称为“意外”，但这其实是一种共谋。政府通过表达哀悼来完成表演性让步，而铁路运营商通过展示“移除平交道口”的进度表来证明自己在努力。在这种 masculine-centered 的管理逻辑中，效率和成本永远优先于绝对的安全性。他们接受一个“可接受的死亡率”，然后把超出这个率的个体死亡定义为“悲剧”。
真正的暴力不在于那次碰撞，而在于一个社会允许这种风险在结构中长期存在，却在血案发生后，用一套充满人文关怀的叙事将其合法化。下次当政客说“我们深感痛心”时，请问他：那个道闸为什么没有物理拦截功能？
Four people are dead, including two children. In the classic Western news narrative, this is framed as a "tragedy": crumpled metal under a cloudless blue sky, accompanied by the heartfelt condolences of the Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission. The most insidious part of this narrative is how it rapidly shifts focus to individual "error"—such as the driver attempting to cross lowered barriers. Once we debate the driver's compliance, the event transforms from a structural failure into a moral or operational lapse.
This is precisely the structural violence defined in Galtung's Violence Triangle. Belgium possesses one of Europe's oldest railway networks, meaning its safety loopholes are systemic. Infrabel claims accident rates are declining, but this is just another scam of using data to mask reality. For the children who died, a "historic low" is meaningless. If a level crossing physically allows a vehicle to enter despite lowered barriers, the design itself is potential violence.
We are conditioned to call these "accidents," which is a form of complicity. Governments perform their roles through expressions of grief, while rail operators point to schedules of crossing removals to prove their diligence. In this masculine-centered management logic, efficiency and cost always take precedence over absolute safety. They accept a "tolerable death rate" and then define any individual death exceeding that rate as a "tragedy."
The real violence is not the collision, but the fact that a society allows such risks to persist structurally, only to legitimize them later with a humanistic narrative. Next time a politician says they are "deeply moved," ask them: why did that barrier lack a physical interception mechanism?