<![CDATA[This study critically examines how institutional authority, majoritarian cultural norms, and discourse-producing actors inadvertently reproduce symbolic violence within the social protection system. Grounded in theoretical scepticism rooted in Nietzschean conceptions of power and the Marxian concept of alienation, the study investigates the systemic failure of policy-making institutions to recognize the complex and nuanced realities experienced by both victims and perpetrators. Employing Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) by integrating Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic violence, Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction, and Paul Grice’s theory of conversational implicature, the study interrogates institutional narratives, evaluative frameworks, and bureaucratic interventions. Empirical data drawn from the Indonesian National Commission on Violence Against Women [1] and the Indonesian Child Protection Commission [2] are synthesized to demonstrate how formal interventions frequently rely on stigmatization, categorical imposition, and media-driven penal populism rather than genuine restorative empathy. The findings reveal that the current protection framework often perpetuates cycles of secondary victimization by confining individuals within rigid, majoritarian linguistic categories. Consequently, this paper advocates a paradigm shift toward a form of social work intervention that is reflexive, structurally sensitive, and genuinely restorative. In particular, the study argues that institutional labels such as Violence Prevention Unit carry negative connotations that may themselves constitute subtle forms of symbolic violence. Accordingly, it proposes replacing such terminology with Protection and Well-being Unit, a designation that is more consistent with the principles of positive discipline and restorative social protection.]]>
