Galtung On Peace PDF
Galtung On Peace PDF
Galtung On Peace PDF
CHAPTER-III
Concept of Peace: Galtung's view and its implications.
The English connotation of the term 'Peace' is cessation of war, a state of
quietness. The term 'peace' may in itself be peace productive; it produces a
common basis, a feeling of communality in purpose that may pave the ground
for deeper ties. There are also two compatible definitions of peace -viz, peace is
the absence or reduction of violence of all kinds and peace is non-violent and
creative conflict transformation. If we analyse these two definitions we find that
'peace' is the negation of violence. So, the first definition of peace is violence
oriented. And if we analyse the second definition we find that peace is the
context for conflicts to unfold non-violently and creatively.
To define peace one has to know and understand the nature of conflict and
violence. Also the questions like 'how is conflict transformation possible?'
'What are the causes of conflict?', 'how can violence be transcended?' etc. are
important in this regard for forming the right and adequate theoretical
perspective for explicating the concepts of non- violence and peace.
So, any researcher or scholar who wishes to talk about peace has to explicate the
concepts of conflict and violence.
social philosophical connotations. Like Gandhi, Galtung would refrain from the
idea of countering violence through violence and sustaining cpnflict with its
potentiality to generate violence. For him, peace means 'non -violent and
creative conflict transformation''. Hence the means of 'peace' another definition
of which, according to Galtung, is that it is 'absence/ reduction of violence of all
kinds' has to be non-violent and peaceful.
Hence, in its existential and practical aspect, peace and non- violence is
interlinked with the experience of violence and conflict. Conceptually and
theoretically, peace and non-violence is explicable with reference to the
definition of violence and conflict.
In Galtung's philosophy of peace, non- violence has a wide coverage that
includes individual, social, cultural and political life of humans. This is for the
reason that he traces the genesis of violence not only in human mind and society
in its apparent shape but also in the structure of the society.
According to Galtung, a peace researcher cannot ignore the violence that
originates from the structure of a society. Therefore, there is a need to extend the
concept of violence to include in it the wider and subtle violence inherent in the
structure of a society.
Violence is structurally present in a society when human beings are so
conditioned that their actual somatic and mental realizations are below their
potential realizations. Violence is here defined as the cause of the difference
between the potential and the actual, between what could have been and what is.
Violence is that which increases the distance between the potential and actual,
and that which impedes the decrease of this distance. When the potential is
higher than the actual and the difference which is by definition avoidable
prevails, then violence is present. And when the actual is unavoidable, then
violence is not present even if the actual is at very low level. The potential level
of realization is that which is possible with a given level of insight and
62
safeguard for sustenance of peace and non- violence in every sector of human
life.
It can then be refen^ed to as a structure. In that structure an actor i.e., one nation,
may have high rank and another may have low rank, and so on. But if we turn
our eyes on one actor, i.e., on one nation, there are generally three major
interpretations according to Galtung, viz, in tenns of territories: a nation can be
seen as a set of districts, a local govt, and individuals. Likewise in an association
it can be seen as local chapters, and individual members.
In all the systems, there is interaction and as a result value is somehow
exchanged. And the value of distribution has been made between egalitarian and
inegalitarian distributions.
There are six factors according to Galtung for maintaining inegalitarian
distributions, and can be seen as mechanisms of structural violence, theses are-
1. Linear ranking order 2. A cyclical interaction pattern 3. Correlation between
rank and centrality 4. Congruence between the systems 5. Concordance between
the ranks and 6. High rank coupling between levels.
In the first factor i.e. in linear ranking order the ranking is complete and it leaves
no doubt as to who is higher in any pair of actors. In the acyclical interaction
pattern factor all actors are connected, but one way there is only one correct path
of interaction network. The fourth factor means the interaction networks are
structurally similar. Concordance between the ranks is that if an actor is high in
one system then he also tends to be high in another system where he participates.
Social systems have a tendency to develop all the six factors or mechanism
unless deliberately prevented fi'om doing so. Hence, the pattern is set for an
aggravation of inequality, in same structures so much so that the lowest ranking
actors are deprived not only relative to the potential, but indeed below
subsistence minimum. Inequality shows up in a chain of interlocking feudal
relationship. Inequality also shows up in different unhealthy rates between
individuals in a district, the states in nation, the nations in an international
organization. They are deprived because their structures deprive them of
65
chances to organize and bring voting power , striicing power etc., because they
are overwhelmed by all the authority top dogs present.
Inequality, which becomes a part of the system is one example of structural
violence. Can structural violence be removed in a non- violent, peaceful
manner? Galtung's explication of the concept of violence and its deeper stretch
even beyond the perception of the object of violence, that is, human sufferers
reveals the importance and enormity of the task of countering it with peace
process in a non- violent manner for the reason of structural violence is in an
inexplicable relationship with the vast project of modernization. One cannot
propose to use the apparatus of violence that is so friendly with this project to
counter this project itself in terms of setting the entire project within a value
perspective. It is interesting to note Rupesinghi's observation in this context;
"The modernization project has been accompanied by a highly centralized and
standardized bureaucratic system whose apotheosis has been the development
and articulation of a centralized state. The centralized state and its evolution was
the project which was seen as the best vehicle for the evolution of human
civilization. The evolution of the state has been the vehicle upon which violence
has been mediated between itself and the people, through the evolution of a
technocratic/bureaucratic structure which has taken upon itself the monopoly of
violence. The evolution of the state and the process of standardization have
meant that culture and languages have been, and continue to be, either
eliminated, absorbed or incorporated into the modern project."
Rupesinghe also points to the gradual erosion of state monopoly over violence
and the emergence of various trans national forces that are able to arm, equip,
and deliver lethal weapons of terror. Galtung defines violence "as any avoidable
suffering" or "avoidable reduction in human realization" which is possible by
initiating peace process shadding any fringe of violence in it. His contention that
indirect or structural violence needs to be checked and set in a gradual process of
66
A realistic time-table is the fifth requirement for peace process because the
facilitators must be able to devote their time to sustain peace. For various aspects
of the design, from the identification of the root causes and significant actors
through such phases to the elaboration of mechanism of political and social
accommodation a clear and distinct time frame is necessary.
The sixth step is sustenance of the effort .A comprehensive approach requires an
adequate investment of financial resources, patience and a sustained
commitment from sponsors.
The seventh step is very crucial. The facilitators should know the main interests
of the parties in conflict and they should also know the principles which were
used for the said purpose, whether the local body or the others are paying
interest or not, what type of obstacles came in the way in past and how the
obstacles were overcome solved by the facilitators, and what alternatives they
adopted to make the process successful. Without having knowledge of these
factors the facilitator's mission will stop in the midway, because there may be
lots of obstacles to settle the problem. The facilitators may time and again fail in
their mission but if they remain static in their position and if they study the
previous history of success and failure they can be able to sort out the lacunae in
their design. Hence evaluation of success and failure is of crucial importance.
The last element is strategic constituencies which imply that for designing a
peace process there should be a constituent body which should consist of
members from all levels of society. This constituent body is inclusive in nature.
Various types of people and organizations are included within it like business
personal, educationist, military official (ex), different govt, or non-governmental
benevolent organization like NGO, Human Rights Organization etc. The idea of
'doing good' is generated and regenerated in this body. With the skills from
various sectors of life members contribute to society in sustaining and their work
also will be faster. So inclusion of this type of agency has importance. In this
69-
constituent body, nominees from every sphere of the society are needed as every
one has a role to play in peace building. Sometimes, people give indulgence to
violence, but if they are involved in peace making they will automatically begin
to think in a positive manner.
The principal aim of strategic constituencies should be to help building the
political will to promote and maintain peace making. Their effort should be to
create a relational space between the conflicting parties and also to involve
different organizations and agencies in this relation so that they can contribute
towards conflict resolution. Even the business leaders sometime remain passive
in the face of violent internal conflicts, instead of their potentiality to influence
decision makers and people on all sides and despite the apparent loss to business
in the presence of violent social conflicts.
Galtung holds that external and internal inputs in peace designs should be
combined with particular strategies for particular conflicts because each conflict
situation or context should suggest from within itself how the process is to be
designed. A general peace making theory must also include the particular and
context-bound approaches by inventing in each specific case a strategy which
fosters sustainable reconciliation through the development of mechanisms,
institutions and attitudes rooted in accountability to citizens and which can
maintain the momentum of peace.
Besides the above mentioned eight steps for sustainable peace design there are
also some responsibilities of peace makers to establish peace in the society.
Every deed implies a doer and without the good role of a doer a good work
cannot be possible. Peacemaking is also a noble goal and for this noble deed a
good doer must be there. So, for peace making the role of local and outside
peace makers play a vital role.
Non-governmental peace makers from out side have important roles to play in
alleviation or resolution of violent internal conflict. Adam Curie and other
70
philosophy defining peace and non-violence in the context of what they should
be binarily negotiating conflict and violence. It is also a social scientific
programme on the one hand in which value of non- violence and peace prevails
all along. Presence of value within it straightway questions the concept of value
neutrality in social sciences .The concept of peace that he proposes is realistic in
the sense that it takes cognizance of the stark facts of conflict situations in
society's and conversion of conflict into violence. Conversion of conflict into
violence is the negative expression of conflict energy.
For Galtung there are three aspects of conflict, viz.attitudinal (A), behavioral
(B), and contradictory(C).The life history of conflict centers upon another
subsequent conflict between conflict as such and the combination of attitudinal
(A)and behavioural(B) aspects of it i.e. C and A+B. Contradictions produce both
happiness and suffering. One can call it 'conflict energy'.Contardiction between
A+B and C give rise to both "positive energy ,P, used to restore and enhance the
wholeness of life(love, non-violent, associate action)and negative energy N ,
used to separate and destroy life (hatred , violent,dissociative action)"^.As
energy does not die, conflict also continues as conflict energy. The value of life
is assumed in terms of sustaining the P or positive aspect of the conflict energy
through individual moral philosophical commitment to the value of peace and
non-violence and social scientific programme of peace making. Peace process,
for Galtung, is a never ending process. Built on a violence concept beyond direct
violence as to include structural (indirect) and cultural (legitimizing) violence,
Peace means " direct peace+structural peace+ cultural peace ." In its dynamic
sense, according to Galtung, "peace is what we have when creative conflict
transformation taken place non-violently"
the facts of violence (direct and indirect) and suggests that only on proper
understanding of the nature of violence and conflict, we can develop a
philosophy of peace and chalk out the programme for peace building. Unlike
Krishnamurti, Galtung points to conflict and violence occurring not only in
individual human mind but also outside it overtly in societal world. Hence,
Galtung's philosophy of peace, though amply indicative of a general concept of
man or philosophical anthropology, is primarily programmatic in nature. Its
practical importance is rather obvious. But when we try to glean a consolidated
wisdom regarding the practical importance of all three thinker's concepts of non-
violence and peace, we should develop or at least try to envision an alternative
standpoint,~a standpoint which may work at the deeper level and dimension of
our individual and social existence.
* * * * * 4 ; : ( : * * * * * * * *
-75