Notes on Galtung’s Approach to Peace Studies

Johan Galtung and Peace Studies

Introduction

Johan Galtung is considered the founder of peace studies due to his extensive work and international efforts in conflict resolution. He has inspired many in the field since 1957, mediating in over 150 conflicts worldwide. Galtung has an impressive body of work, including 156 books and over 1600 articles and book chapters. He also established significant institutions such as:

  • The International Peace Research Institute in Oslo (1959).

  • The Transcend International Foundation (1993).

  • Transcend Peace University (2000), the world’s first online peace studies university.

Galtung’s research spans various fields, including human rights, sustainable development, basic human needs, macrohistory, civilization history, globalization, sociology, and ecology.

His contributions to peace studies can be understood by examining his theoretical and practical works, focusing on how he brings theory and practice together.

Defining Violence

In his 1969 article, “Violence, Peace and Peace Research,” Galtung emphasizes the need to define violence to understand the relationship between violence and peace. He defines violence as:

The effects applied to people that prevent them from reaching their physical and mental potential.

This definition encompasses a wide range of issues, from economic inadequacies to wars and ideological pressures. Galtung distinguishes between different forms of violence, focusing on:

  • Physical and psychological violence.

  • The presence of an object.

  • The subject involved.

Galtung views violence as any avoidable assault on basic human needs, which include:

  • Survival

  • Well-being

  • Freedom

  • Identity

Threats against these needs are also considered violence because individuals need to meet their basic needs to establish a meaningful relationship with their environment, including emotional and spiritual aspects (Galtung, 2009, pp. 2-5).

Galtung categorizes violence into three types:

  • Direct Violence:

  • Structural Violence:

  • Cultural Violence:

Structural violence is caused by political mechanisms, processes, and institutions that fail to ensure the satisfaction of identity, reputation, and security needs.

Cultural violence stems from anger, fear, and hatred arising from misunderstanding between parties. According to Galtung (2004, p. 18), structural and cultural violence are the sources of invisible conflicts, which can directly turn into visible violence. Conflict is thus a variable process in which structural, cultural, and direct violence affect each other.

Galtung’s views on violence form the basis for his concept of peace, emphasizing the connection between direct, structural, and cultural violence.

Understanding violence is a prerequisite for achieving peace.

Negative and Positive Peace

Galtung's concept of peace is widely accepted in international relations. He distinguishes between:

  • Negative Peace:

    • The absence of human violence and war (Galtung, 1964, pp. 1-4).

  • Positive Peace:

    • The absence of structural violence (Galtung, 1964, pp. 1-4).

Galtung's views on negative and positive peace evolved over time. He initially struggled to fully articulate positive peace.

By 1967, he defined negative peace as the absence of organized, collective violence between large groups, emphasizing that violence in this context refers to physical force. However, he considered negative peace insufficient, advocating for achieving positive peace through cooperation and integration between human societies (Galtung, 1967, p. 14).

In 1969, Galtung linked positive peace to the absence of structural violence, noting that the concept of violence has both personal and structural dimensions. He stressed that the absence of personal violence alone is insufficient for positive peace; structural violence must also be absent (Galtung, 1969, p. 183).

In 1981, Galtung argued that the concept of peace is sometimes used by the powerful to protect the status quo, advocating for an enriched understanding of peace (Galtung, 1981, p. 183). He criticized the idea of “fair war,” asserting that peace should be achieved through peaceful means. He introduced the concept of cultural violence to explain how direct and structural violence are justified (Galtung, 1990, p. 291), emphasizing the absence of different forms of violence for the existence of peace.

Positive peace is tested through cooperation, cultural freedom, and peace movements in the face of violence. Fairness, equality, development, and cultural coexistence create conditions conducive to positive peace. An understanding rooted in humanist art, democracy, and human rights indicates the potential for achieving positive peace (Galtung, 1996, p. 33).

The Nature of the Conflict

Galtung defines conflict as a dynamic process where structure, attitudes, and behaviors continuously change and affect each other (Galtung, 1958, p. 24). Understanding conflict requires recognizing that individuals and groups have interests that may be incompatible. Incompatibility leads to contradiction and subsequently to conflict. Parties experience tension, which can turn into hate, manifesting as aggression, hatred, or physical violence. Ultimately, violence and hatred emerge to protect, achieve, or destroy goals, resulting in conflict.

Galtung's ABC triangle model illustrates the dynamics of conflict:

  • Attitude: Psychological conditions and feelings (religious and ethnic hatred, fear of losing power, prejudices).

  • Behavior: Positive or negative actions.

  • Contradiction: General situation (political, economic, and social terms, such as resource allocation, land disputes, or unequal political representation).

Behavior is observable, while attitude and contradiction are inferred (Galtung, 1996, pp. 71-72).

Life Cycle of Conflict

Conflicts consist of interrelated stages: pre-violence, a period of violence, and post-violence processes. The intensity of conflicts changes throughout these stages. Understanding the conflict cycle is essential for prevention, management, and determining strategies and measures (Galtung, 2000, p. 2).

Galtung’s life cycle of conflict includes:

  1. Pre-Violence Stage:

    • A culture of violence exists, with actors seeking power through oppressive structures. Violence is likely to occur. Resolution requires empathy, creativity, and nonviolence.

  2. Violence Stage:

    • The primary goal is to stop the violence through peaceful means, such as UN peace missions or structures dominated by women.

  3. Post-Violence Stage:

    • This stage is complex due to potential traumas and desires for revenge. It involves:

      • Reconstructing material losses

      • Reaching a consensus on the conflict

      • Resolving underlying structural and cultural issues

Failing to address these issues can lead back to the initial stage (Galtung, 2000, pp. 2-8).

Galtung’s life cycle is the basis for conflict resolution by transformation.

Transforming Conflict

Conflict transformation aims to change the differences of individuals and communities through collaborative problem-solving. It involves structural change-oriented and long-term peace-oriented studies. Conflict is a continuous process (Galtung, 1996, pp. 89-90). Transformation occurs at multiple levels to empower individuals and promote peaceful coexistence.

Conflict transformation involves:

  • Changing events, people, and relationships that create conflict.

  • Addressing personal, structural, relational, and cultural aspects of conflict.

  • Overcoming fear and insecurity

  • Removing misperceptions

  • Improving communication

  • Establishing justice and equality

Galtung's transcend method, introduced in 1998, is inspired by the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment (DPT) process of a disease. It identifies the source of the conflict, predicts possible outcomes, and intervenes to reduce violence (Galtung, 2000, p. 5).

Conclusion

Galtung's work is centered on establishing lasting peace. He focuses on:

  • The typology of violence

  • Negative-positive peace distinction

  • Conflict cycle

  • Conflict transformation

His theoretical views permeate his studies on practical issues, emphasizing the effort to bring theory and practice together. Galtung’s approaches matured over time, leading him to revisit and refine concepts in his later works. His perspective is valuable in discussing peace as a reality.