Comprehensive Study Notes on Violence, Peace, and Peace Research

Introduction and the Semantics of Peace

  • Use and Misuse of the Word 'Peace':

    • The term 'peace' is frequently used and abused because it serves as a mechanism to achieve verbal consensus; it is difficult to be openly opposed to peace.
    • When pleading for virtually any policy (such as technical assistance, increased trade, tourism, new forms of education, irrigation, or industrialization), proponents often assert that the policy serves the cause of peace, regardless of how tenuous past connections or theoretical justifications might be.
    • Excluding references to past data or future theories avoids analytical difficulties when linking arbitrary policies to peace.
    • Frequent usage of 'peace' can be peace-productive by creating a common feeling of purpose and communality that paves the ground for deeper social ties later on.
    • Precise terms drawn from the vocabulary of one conflict group and excluded from the vocabulary of an opponent group can cause dissent and manifest conflict precisely because of their clarity.
    • Projecting an image of harmony of interests via the term 'peace' can help bring about harmony by offering opponents a single-word language to express concern and togetherness, as peace is universally on political agendas.
    • Although frequent use of 'peace' might present an unrealistic image of a world dominated by non-harmony (where terms like 'violence', 'strife', 'exploitation', 'conflict', 'revolution', and 'war' are semantically more representative), a precise cognitive definition is necessary for research contexts.

  • Three Principles for Defining Peace:

    1. The term 'peace' shall be used for social goals at least verbally agreed to by many, if not necessarily by most.
    2. These social goals may be complex and difficult, but not impossible, to attain (meaning non-utopian, yet not on the immediate political agenda).
    3. The statement "peace is absence of violence" shall be retained as valid.

  • Conceptual Relationship Between Peace and Violence:

    • Linking 'peace' as the 'absence of violence' defines a peaceful social order not as a single point, but as a broad region of social orders from which violence is absent.
    • This broad region accommodates a wide variety of social orders, making a peace orientation compatible with various ideologies regarding other aspects of social structure.
    • Defining 'peace' is a critical component of scientific strategy: it should steer immediate attention toward pressing contemporary and future political, intellectual, and scientific problems.

Definition and Dimensions of Violence

  • Core Definition of Violence:

    • Violence is present when human beings are being influenced so that their actual somatic and mental realizations are below their potential realizations.
    • Violence is defined as the cause of the difference between the potential and the actual—that which increases the distance between the potential and the actual, or impedes the decrease of this distance.
    • When the potential realization is higher than the actual realization, the difference is by definition avoidable; when it is avoidable, violence is present.
    • If the actual level is unavoidable, violence is absent, even if the actual level is extremely low:
    • Tuberculosis example: Dying of tuberculosis in the eighteenth century was unavoidable and not considered violence; dying of tuberculosis today, despite existing medical resources, constitutes violence.
    • Earthquake example: Dying in an earthquake today is generally considered unavoidable (not violence), but if earthquakes become avoidable in the future, such deaths will be classified as violence.
    • Life expectancy example: A life expectancy of 30 years30\,\text{years} during the Neolithic period was not an expression of violence; a life expectancy of 30 years30\,\text{years} today (whether caused by war, social injustice, or both) is an expression of violence.

  • Potential vs. Actual Realizations:

    • Potential level of realization is defined as what is possible given the existing level of insight and resources.
    • If insight and/or resources are monopolized by a group or class, or redirected to other purposes, actual realization falls below potential realization, establishing indirect violence.
    • Direct violence occurs when means of realization are directly destroyed (such as direct bodily harm or killing during war).
    • Direct and indirect violence co-exist in war: direct violence destroys lives, while indirect violence diverts insight and resources away from constructive efforts that could bring actual realizations closer to potential realizations.
    • Determining mental potential realizations relies on consensual values (e.g., literacy is universally valued, so literacy deficits constitute violence; religious affiliations like Christianity are controversial, so lower levels of Christianity do not constitute violence).

  • The Six Key Dimensions of Violence:

    1. Physical vs. Psychological Violence:
    • Physical violence: Works directly on the human body, causing somatic hurt up to killing.
      • Biological violence: Reduces somatic capability below what is potentially possible.
      • Physical violence as such: Increases physical constraints on human movement (e.g., imprisonment, chains, or severely unequal access to transportation keeping segments of the population immobile while mobility remains a monopoly of the few).
    • Psychological violence: Works on the soul or mind, reducing mental potentialities through lies, brainwashing, indoctrination, threats, and serve to decrease mental capabilities. Words like "hurt" and "hit" natively express both physical and psychological violence.
    1. Negative vs. Positive Approach to Influence:
    • Negative influence: Influences through punishment when an individual acts against the influencer's desires (increasing constraints, reducing somatic or mental capabilities).
    • Positive influence: Influences through rewards when an individual acts in accordance with the influencer's desires (promising euphoria, decreasing constraints, extending capabilities).
    • Consumer society acts through positive influence by rewarding consumption, thereby narrowing the range of choice in a manipulatory, less overt, yet effective manner that prevents realization of full potential.
    1. Presence vs. Absence of an Object (Truncated Violence):
    • Truncated violence occurs when an object is absent, yet violence or its threat remains.
    • Displaying means of physical violence (e.g., throwing stones, nuclear weapons testing) contains the threat of physical violence and indirect psychological violence by constraining action (the basis of the balance of power doctrine).
    • Untruthfulness or lies represent psychological violence even if no one believes the lie.
    • Destruction of things: Represents psychological violence as a foreboding or threat of personal destruction, or as destruction of possessions dear to owners or consumers.
    1. Personal (Direct) vs. Structural (Indirect) Violence:
    • Personal / Direct Violence: Has a clear subject (actor) who commits the violent act directly on an object. It is visible, dynamic, manifest, and fits elementary linguistic structures (subject-verb-object).
    • Structural / Indirect Violence: Has no specific actor committing direct harm. Violence is built directly into the social structure, manifesting as unequal power and unequal life chances.
    • Resources and the power to decide resource distribution are unevenly distributed (e.g., skewed income distributions, unequal access to medical services or education).
    • Rank dimensions (income, education, health, power) correlate heavily due to structural ties.
    • Marxist critique of capitalist society: Focuses on how owners of the means of production monopolize decisions over surplus and convert money into high positions across all rank dimensions due to high convertibility.
    • Liberal critique of socialist society: Focuses on how a small group monopolizes decision-making power and converts power in one field into power in others due to lack of effective opposition articulation.
    • Avoidable starvation due to international economic organization is structural violence, just as a medieval siege is direct violence.
    • Example: One husband beating his wife is personal violence; one million husbands keeping one million wives in ignorance is structural violence. If upper classes have twice the life expectancy of lower classes, structural violence is present without direct individual murder.
    • Structural violence is often termed social injustice.
    1. Intended vs. Unintended Violence:
    • Judaeo-Christian ethics and Roman jurisprudence tie guilt to intention rather than consequence.
    • Focusing exclusively on intended violence creates a major bias, letting structural violence ("big fish") escape while catching only personal violence ("small fry").
    • Eliminating violence completely requires addressing both intended and unintended, personal and structural violence.
    1. Manifest vs. Latent Violence:
    • Manifest violence: Observable directly or theoretically through the difference between actual and potential realization.
    • Latent violence: Violence that is not currently manifest, but can easily come about; a state of unstable equilibrium where actual realization is insufficiently protected against deterioration.
    • Latent personal violence: Situations where a minor trigger produces massive killing or atrocities (e.g., racial tension before a riot occurs).
    • Latent structural violence: Egalitarian structures vulnerable to sudden feudalization or petrification into rigid hierarchies (e.g., egalitarian revolutions using hierarchical military organizations reverting to oppressive structures). Utilizing non-violent, non-hierarchical guerrilla organizations allows the means to reflect egalitarian goals.

Typology and Temporal Characteristics of Violence

  • Summary Typology of Violence:

    • Based on combinations of direct/indirect (personal/structural), physical/psychological, manifest/latent, intended/unintended, and presence/absence of objects.
    • Personal vs. structural violence forms the primary taxonomy.

  • Visibility and Dynamics over Time:

    • Personal violence: Dynamic, visible, represents sudden change ("waves on otherwise tranquil waters"). Highly noticeable in static societies.
    • Structural violence: Static, silent, stable ("tranquil waters"). Harder to perceive in static societies as it is treated as natural; highly noticeable in dynamic societies as an obstacle to progress ("an enormous rock in a creek").
    • Historical development of personal violence theories (Judaeo-Christian-Roman tradition) emerged from relatively static social orders; theories of structural violence (Marxist tradition) developed in dynamic northwest European societies.
    • Personal violence fluctuates drastically over time (war vs. inter-war periods), whereas structural violence shows high temporal stability. Focus shifts to personal violence immediately post-war, and toward structural violence during extended peaceful periods in dynamic societies.

Mechanisms and Tools of Personal and Structural Violence

  • Mechanisms of Personal Somatic Violence:

    • Focussed on Anatomy (destroying the physical structure):
    1. Crushing (fist fights, catapults)
    2. Tearing (hanging, stretching, cutting)
    3. Piercing (knives, spears, bullets)
    4. Burning (arson, flame throwers)
    5. Poisoning (water, food, gases)
    6. Evaporation (nuclear explosions)
    • Focussed on Physiology (preventing functional operation):
    1. Denial of air (choking, strangulation)
    2. Denial of water (dehydration)
    3. Denial of food (starvation via siege, embargo)
    4. Denial of movement:
      • Body constraint (chains, gas)
      • Space constraint (prison, detention, exile)
      • Brain control (nerve gases, brainwashing)
    • Explosions: Combine anatomical methods (Standard bomb = 1 + 2; Shrapnel = 3; Chemical fire bomb = 4; Chemical gas = 5; Nuclear = 6).

  • Mechanisms Upholding Structural Violence:

    • Structural violence is driven by inequality in power distribution.
    • Basic structural components: Actors, Systems, Structures, Ranks, and Levels.
    • Actors operate across multiple interaction systems (political, economic, cultural).
    • Structures exhibit "Chinese boxes" organization (levels of actors):
    • Territories: Nations →\rightarrow Districts →\rightarrow Municipalities →\rightarrow Individuals.
    • Organizations: Factory →\rightarrow Assembly line →\rightarrow Sub-factories →\rightarrow Workers.
    • Associations: National body →\rightarrow Local chapters →\rightarrow Individual members.
    • Six Specific Structural Mechanisms Maintaining Inegalitarian Distributions:
    1. Linear ranking order: Complete ranking leaving no ambiguity about relative status between any pair of actors.
    2. Acyclical interaction pattern: One-way connected interaction pathways with a single "correct" interaction route.
    3. Correlation between rank and centrality: High-rank actors occupy central positions in interaction networks.
    4. Congruence between systems: Interaction networks across political, economic, and cultural spheres share identical structural forms.
    5. Concordance between ranks: High rank in one interaction system correlates with high rank in all other system involvements.
    6. High rank coupling between levels: Representation at level n\text{level } n from level n−1\text{level } n-1 occurs strictly through the highest-ranking actor of level n−1\text{level } n-1.

  • Eradicating Structural Mechanisms:

    • Negating these six factors introduces flexibility, rank discordance, decentralized interaction, and non-linear partial ranking orders, reducing structural violence.
    • Unchecked social systems naturally develop all six mechanisms, entrenching feudal relationships, atomizing underdogs, preventing collective bargaining/striking, and producing differential morbidity and mortality.

Relationships Between Personal and Structural Violence

  • Empirical and Logical Independence:

    • Personal and structural violence are logically and empirically distinct.
    • Feudal structures perpetuate structural violence without needing active personal violence or threats.
    • Individuals with violent propensities ("bullies") exhibit personal violence regardless of structural context.

  • Interplay and Cross-Breeding:

    • Pre-history connection: Historical personal violence (invasions) often establishes structurally violent systems (caste or race hierarchies). Violent socialization inside structural violence breeds personal bullies.
    • Neither form strictly requires a pre-history of the other; spontaneous generation of both personal and structural violence is possible under baseline human conditions.
    • Structural violence acts as a built-in mechanism for conflict control; eliminating feudal hierarchies can bring latent conflicts into the open.

  • Latent Personal Violence as Structural Defense:

    • When structural violence is threatened, beneficiaries (topdogs) mobilize latent personal violence (police, military, mercenaries, enforcement bodies) to protect the status quo.
    • Police violence is personal by definition, but executed through institutionalized structural expectations.
    • Conversely, maintaining an egalitarian structure through personal violence can yield structural violence if personal enforcement crumbles.

  • Four Political / Revolutionary Propositions:

    1. Is structural violence sufficient to abolish personal violence? Limited short-term validity between segregated groups by keeping underdogs isolated; fails long-term as structural instability leads to massive personal violence outbursts.
    2. Is structural violence necessary to abolish personal violence? False; personal violence ceases when actors decide not to practice it, though structural pressure offers an alternative control mechanism.
    3. Is personal violence sufficient to abolish structural violence? Short-term validity by physically eliminating topdogs; fails long-term because eliminating power-holders does not eliminate the structure itself ("fallacy of misplaced concreteness"), leading to re-emergence of identical hierarchical roles under new names.
    4. Is personal violence necessary to abolish structural violence? Famous revolutionary thesis; challenged on empirical grounds (structural changes occurring without personal violence), theoretical grounds (structural changes require structural interventions like altering interaction networks and ranks, avoiding "fetishization of personal violence"), and axiological grounds (need to discover conditions making personal violence obsolete).

Redefining Peace and Peace Research

  • The Extended Concept of Peace:

    • Peace is two-sided, mirroring the extended definition of violence.
    • Negative Peace: The absence of personal (direct) violence.
    • Positive Peace: The absence of structural (indirect) violence, also defined as social justice (egalitarian distribution of power and resources).

  • Theoretical Connections:

    • Negative peace links directly to conflict theory and conflict research.
    • Positive peace links directly to development theory ("vertical development") and development research.
    • Peace research must encompass conditions (past, present, future) for realizing both negative and positive peace.

  • Consequences of One-Sided Peace Definitions:

    • Focusing exclusively on negative peace leads to accepting "law and order" oppressive regimes where structural violence is suppressed like a compressed mattress spring. Rationalizes right-wing extremism.
    • Focusing exclusively on positive peace rationalizes personal violence to achieve social justice. Rationalizes left-wing extremism, which often leads to post-revolutionary regimes maintaining gross social injustice through manifest personal violence.

  • Four Approaches to Navigating Both Goals:

    1. Utopian definition adjustment: Restrict 'peace' to achievable targets by picking either negative or positive peace; rejected as asymmetric.
    2. Abandoning the word 'peace': Working for values directly without using the term; rejected because 'peace' carries vital secular-religious feelings of universal brotherhood and community.
    3. Capitulation to lesser evils: Accepting either "law and order" oppression or repressive post-revolutionary violence as a lesser evil; rejected as morally limited.
    4. Integrated Commitment to Both Goals (Preferred Approach): Demands simultaneous pursuit of negative and positive peace.
    • Utilizes nonviolent action:
      • Dissociative nonviolence: Keeps conflicting parties apart so the weaker party can build autonomy and identity.
      • Associative nonviolence: Brings parties together when a basis for equal, non-exploitative partnership exists.
    • Integrates symmetric/egalitarian organizational structures, vertical development, participation, decentralization, codecision, and structural approaches to arms control and disarmament.