Just as ‘peace education’ was born in the 1920s as a reaction to the destruction and death caused during the First World War, in turn ‘peace research’ emerged in the 1950s as a response to the consequences of World War II. It seems that the horror of the greatest genocide in history, and the death and desolation caused by the atomic bomb, had to come before humanity desperately sought a definitive solution to the recurring problem of the violence of war.
The first investigations appeared in the United States with the publication of the Journal of Conflict Resolution (1957) and the Centre for Research on Conflict Resolution (1959). In that same year, a Conflict Research Department was created in Oslo (Norway), under the direction of Johan Galtung, which in 1966 became what is now the world-renowned International Peace Research Institute. In addition, in that same year, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) began to operate in Sweden. SIPRI funded by the Swedish Parliament publishes a variety of works including the ‘World Armaments and Disarmament SIPRI Yearbook’, which is considered an essential source of information on global arms build-up and its impact on ecology.
Johan Galtung accompanied by an interdisciplinary team of experts dedicated to researching peace- related problems began publishing the ‘Journal of Peace Research’ in 1964, which would soon become an indispensable source of reference for researchers from all over the world. Subsequently, another publication entitled ‘Bulletin of Proposals for Peace’ was included. In the editorial note of the first issue of the ‘Journal of Peace Research’, Galtung explained that the dominant concept of peace in the West was a limited and inadequate concept.
Traditionally, peace has been defined as the “absence of war”. However, he explained further that what conspires against peace is not exactly war, but all kinds of violence. For this reason, any analysis of peace should be linked to an examination of violence, because in this way more facts are revealed, which in turn allows us to make more conscious analysis. Galtung distinguishes two types of violence: “direct” or “indirect” violence. The former is when a subject commits a violent act against others. Whereas the later is usually less evident and widespread as direct.
War is a pure definition as a form of “direct violence” with physical aggression, murder, assault, etc. On the other hand, “indirect violence” is also labelled as “structural” because it is not created by a single entity, but rather embedded in social structures. This “indirect violence” is expressed through injustice or inequality of opportunity, whether this is in the distribution of wealth, education, health services etc. This violence is avoidable and prevents human self-realisation as it hinders the satisfaction of the basic needs of human beings in society. This concept saw Galtung establish a fundamental distinction between two types of peace: “negative peace” and “positive peace”.
“Negative peace” consists of an absence of direct or personal violence, while “positive peace” is an absence of indirect or structural violence. Consequently, this concept of “structural peace” proposed by Galtung is closely related to social justice and human development, and is positive, as it considers that peace does not consist in the mere absence of war but is the result of the existence of social structures in society.
This positive concept of peace is also found in the foundations of civil ethics and has been enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations (1945) which states that peace and stability amongst nations is based on democracy, respect for human rights and economic and social development. Ultimately it is this creation of structural peace that is enshrined in the development of social justice.
Yet the perception of peace is not universal, but rather varies according to culture. In Western culture, it is usually linked to the concept of “pax Romana”, a period of tranquillity between two wars. Yet realistically this was a period of a time simply preparing for the next war instead. For Galtung this notion of peace defined as a “period/absence of no war”, is just a ‘negative’ definition of peace. While an effort to train citizens for peace can be promoted, if the fight against the unjust structures of society does not follow during a “period/absence of no war”, then this is a misconception of peace. This false sense of security has been illustrated throughout history most noticeably during the timeline between the two world wars.
In this sense, structural violence is synonymous with social injustice. Said in a positive light it becomes a chain where: peace is synonymous with social justice; social justice is synonymous with development; development is synonymous with human rights and democracy. This theory of “positive peace” is already clearly expressed in the Charter of the United Nations and in numerous UNESCO publications on education for international understandings of peace.
Years later, Galtung introduced a third form of violence: “cultural violence” stating that peace must be built not only in the human mind and structure, but also in culture. An example of “cultural violence” he cites is gender violence, a topic of much more prominence in the 21st century. Such similar relevant cases of cultural violence, such as xenophobia, and all other kinds of discrimination would be included in this category such as social, ethnic, sexual, political, religious, etc. These global issues are something that we are much more aware of through the medium of the internet.
Ultimately, we must accept that conflict is a natural, necessary and unavoidable process for development and change in human society. Unlike violence, which is a negative or dysfunctional phenomenon for society, conflict is a fundamental factor for the survival and progress of humanity. The theory of “positive peace” and the research on which it is based do not seek to eliminate conflict, but rather violence in any of its forms. It is advocating education with an international understanding with cooperation where peace and education relates to human rights and fundamental freedoms, promoting an attitude favourable to the ideals of strengthening security and general wellbeing of not just ourselves but fellow citizens.
Sean Campbell
