Galtung 1969 Study Notes on Violence, Peace, and Peace Research by Johan Galtung

Violence, Peace, and Peace Research

Introduction

Johan Galtung's pivotal paper titled "Violence, Peace, and Peace Research" published in 1969 critiques the use and understanding of the term "peace". He emphasizes that 'peace' is frequently used in various contexts, often without rigorous basis. This phenomenon leads to its abuse, serving as a means of achieving verbal consensus among diverse policy proposals—ranging from technical assistance to industrialization—suggesting that such initiatives promote peace despite tenuous connections to actual outcomes.

Concept of Peace
  1. Misuse: The term 'peace' is so ubiquitous that it becomes a verbal tool for consensus, obscuring deeper meanings and causal relationships.
  2. Potential Benefit: Using 'peace' in dialogues may contribute positively by fostering a sense of community among conflicting parties.
  3. Need for Clarity: Though there are calls for increased mentions of terms like 'violence' or 'conflict' to reflect true sociopolitical turmoil, clarity in discussion requires established definitions for 'peace'.
Principles for Discussion
  1. The term 'peace' refers to socially accepted goals rather than universally agreed upon definitions.
  2. Achieving these goals may be complex but is not impossible.
  3. It is valid to define peace as the absence of violence, yet this definition should account for nuance, not oversimplification.

Defining Violence

Understanding Violence

Galtung puts forth a broadened definition of violence to reflect its complex nature. He posits that:

  • Violence occurs when people are prevented from achieving their full potential: their actual physical and mental states fall short of their possible states.
  • Narrow definitions of violence focus solely on physical harm, neglecting broader societal implications.
Dimensions of Violence
  1. Actual vs. Potential: The concept hinges on the gap between what people could achieve (potential reality) versus what they actually achieve (actual reality).
  2. Indirect vs. Direct Violence: This includes:
    • Direct violence (observable harm, e.g., war or murder).
    • Indirect violence (structural violence, where systems or structures perpetuate harm by limiting access to resources).
  3. Psychological Violence: This may include manipulation or indoctrination, influencing mental health without immediate physical harm.
  4. Structural Violence: This is embedded in societal structures that lead to systemic inequality and suffering even in the absence of overt harmful acts.

Distinctions in Violence

Key Distinctions
  1. Physical vs. Psychological Violence: The former inflicts bodily harm, while the latter affects mental wellbeing.
  2. Manifest vs. Latent Violence: Manifest violence is observable (e.g., riots) whereas latent violence refers to the potential for violence that is not currently active.
  3. Personal vs. Structural Violence:
    • Personal Violence involves identifiable actors committing acts of violence directly.
    • Structural Violence refers to systemic discrimination that results in unequal outcomes (e.g., disparities in health care, education, and wealth).
  4. Intended vs. Unintended Violence: Ethical considerations are often tied to the intention behind violence, with unintended violence raising questions about culpability.

Relationship Between Personal and Structural Violence

Interdependencies
  1. There arises debate on whether personal violence requires structural violence as a precursory condition or if personal violence can exist independently.
  2. Galtung suggests that concrete cases show both forms can exist independently and symbiotically, each reinforcing the other's permanence.
  3. Consequences: The focus of research and action should be on understanding how each form of violence affects societal structures and personal lives, with implications for policy and peace practices.

Conceptual Framework for Research

Galtung frames peace research as intimately connected to both conflict research and development theory. The dynamics of personal and structural violence underpin the efforts to understand, prevent, and create conditions for peace.

Negative vs. Positive Peace
  1. Negative Peace: Defined as the absence of personal violence, which can occur without societal fairness.
  2. Positive Peace: Conceptualized as the absence of structural violence, equating to social justice—an equitable distribution of power and resources.
  3. The dual aspects of peace must be addressed to achieve true peace in society: merely reducing violence does not suffice if injustices remain.

Ethical Considerations and Practical Implications

Addressing violence holistically rather than in isolation from context can enable more effective peace-building practices. Ethical stances in peace research should not simply reflect situational exigencies but aim for enduring structures that alleviate both personal and structural violence.

Galtung argues for rich conceptual tools to facilitate discussions that meet the needs of complex structural inequalities while also recognizing individual experiences of violence. Research and action must attend to these multi-dimensional narratives to create meaningful pathways to genuine peace.