In Peace: Research, Education, Action. Johan Galtung

Johan Galtung, Peace researcher, explores different approaches in the constituting area of Peace Studies. In this work, the author revises and proposes different typologies for understanding the complex dimensions of the discipline. Galtung proposes to get into a broader framework for peace thinking that will take us beyond the balance of power thinking.
He begins by tracing the Law and Order tradition on peace studies which was based on the distinction between negative peace (absence of war) and positive peace (some type of cooperation). He continues offering a classification on Peace plans and recognizes three levels of peace plans. First, sub international peace plans which may be subdivided into three different approaches. Firstly, Intra-human approaches which focus on inner peace matters projection into another levels of interaction. Secondly, Inter human approaches which emphasize the idea of projection of inter human rivalry onto higher levels. Third, Intra societal approaches focused on the projection of the conflictive dimensions of a society onto higher levels. The major objection to these sub international approaches is that it confuses the levels of analysis.
On the other hand, Galtung build a typology of International Peace Systems, constructing the following dimensions of Analysis.
1. Model Based on the Distribution of Power. This model includes different sub models.
a. Model of Minimum equality
b. Model of Maximum equality
c. Model of stabilization at a low level.
d. Model of stabilization at a zero level.
2. Model base on the organization of conflicts (Criss-cross model).
3. Model based on Individual Loyalty Conflicts
a. Strategy of manipulation of Multiple National Loyalties.
b. Strategy of Building cross-cutting organizational loyalties.
4. Model based on the degree of homology
a. Model of minimum homology
b. Model of Maximum homology
5. Model based on International Stratification
a. High level of Interaction at the top and low level at the bottom.
b. Equal level of Interaction at the top and at the bottom.
6. Model based on the degree of Interdependence
a. Model of Minimum Interdependence
b. Model of Maximum Interdependence.
7. Model based on Functional Cooperation
Later, the author continues with a typology of World Peace Systems:
1. Based on the type of units.
2. Based on the Scope and Domain.
3. Based on the nature of compliance systems.
In order to build this concept of Violence, Galtung recurred to typology, which differentiated the following matters:
1. Physical and Psychological violence.
2. Negative and positive approach to influence.
3. Whether or not there is an object that is hurt.
4. Whether or not there is a subject or person that is hurt.
5. Violence that is intended or unintended.
6. Manifest Violence and Latent Violence.
Further observations:
He continues explaining a typology to understand how personal and structural violence are carried out. With the distinction between personal and structural violence, it becomes evident the multiple dimensions of Violence as well as Peace must be taken into account. He derives from this extensive concept of Violence an extended concept of Peace, with negative peace referring to absence of personal violence and positive peace referring to the absence of structural violence. The later one is associated with achieving social Justice. In this respect, I think that Galtung theory becomes very interesting in order to associate Peace Studies with Development Studies. One of the major problems with the definition of the area, may be that different professional and academic areas reclaim the same areas of study, leading to the lack of definition of the area and a lack of legitimate and consensuated theoretical approach among the epistemic community.
Galtung emphasizes the relevance of thinking beyond single-factor explanations and instead analyzing the multiple factors involved in a specific context. The author uses a very complex concept of violence, affirming that violence is present when human beings are being influenced so that their actual somatic and mental realizations are below their potential realizations. At the time this concept was defined, this extended concept of violence must have been innovative in the sense that it included what is currently conceptualized as “Symbolic Violence” (Pierre Bourdieu). This type of violence built into the social structure which exhibits certain stability. It is very important his distinction between personal violence and structural violence.
Symbolic violence is a concept created by the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu argues that social science is used to describe the forms of violence not directly performed by physical force, but through the imposition a world views, the social roles of the cognitive categories and mental structures. It is therefore an invisible violence, which is exercised with the consensus and the lack of those suffering, and that hides the power relations that underlie behind the configuration of social relations.