Twenty Five Years of Peace Research-Ten Challenges and Some Responses

8/11/2019 Twenty Five Years of Peace Research-Ten Challenges and Some Responses

1/48

a/

a;--"

j

TWENTY

FIVE

YEARS

OF PEACE RESEAR,CH

rFon

nhrl ' lahd6s,

and

SOme 1.eSpOnSeS

by

Johan

Gal tung

Berghof St i f tung

Winklerstr . 4A

lOOO

Berl in

33

Ju1y,

1984


2/48

fntroduct ion

The fnternat ional Peace Research Inst i tute Oslo got i ts f led-

gl lng

start i -n

January

1959

when

the present

author

was

given

a

grant

by the Inst j - tute

for

SociaL Research

in Oslo

t-o

draf t .a

research

pro-

gram

in

the f iel-d of

peace

studies.

The

program

was accepted,with

the

US

social

psychologist ,

Prof .

Otto

Kl ineberg as

a consuftant ,

and

adminj-strat ively the

work

started

on

1 June

1959,

with

f ive

researchers and

f ive

research

programs,

and

locat ion at

the home

of

Fridt jof

Nansen,

dt Polhogda outside

Osl-o,

Norway.

Hence, 1984

is the

twenty-f i f th

anniversary. Al though

peace

research

is as

old as humankind I

think

i t is fair

to

say that

this

was the

f i rst

inst i tute af ter

the

Second

World War

openly

professing

a dedicat ion

to

the

study of

"peace"

in i ts

very name.

Even

that

had been problemat ic. Peace was in those years

something

ident i f ied

in

the West with

communism,

a

very

radical

concern,

just

as ten

years

later-at

the

heigl-r t

of

neo-marxlsm in

Western

Europe-i t

became

the

symbol

of conservat ism.

From

"peace

in

the

world" as a Moscow

slo-

gan

to

"peace

in Vietnam" as a

Washington

slogan,. meaning

roughly

speaki-ng the

tr iumph of communism

in

the

f i rst

case

and

the victory

of the United States i-n the second, the t ime distance had been a short

one. The

Norwegian

establ j -shment

was

also

scept ical :

a

high

ranking

off ic ial

of the

Ministry

of Educat ion

was sympathet ic

in

general

but

told

the

present

author:

"peace

research",

what a horr ible name

Te

"war

research"there could

be

no'object ion.

I

myself had

a sl ightly dif ferent

worry: not

that condit ions

of

peace

were

not

more

than worthy

of

being studied,

but

that

"con-


3/48

f l - ic t"

as such afso

was worthy

of

bei-ng studied

without

researchers

necessari ly

having

to focus on

conf l ict

resolut ion

j-n

a

peaceful

^ ' r ' t &L^ * ime. The name, ds devised by the present author in

q 'y 4 f r L-rrv L-

January 1959, was

a compromise:

"conf

l ic t

and

peace

researchrr .

I t has stuck, and

can today

be

found

in a number

of

inst i tutes

in,

for instance,

Sweden

and the

Federal

Republ- ic of

Germany. Today

I

might

haye

lreferred

to

say

simply

"peace

studies";

"peace"

because

this

j-s

more than

broad

enough

and

does

not only

relate

to

conf l- ict

but equal ly

much to, for

instance,

development i

"studies"

because

t ' researchlr

is somewhat

l imit ing by

-

in

the minds

of

many

people

-

having

a connotat ion of empir ical research.

As

wi l l be

amply shown

Later on this is too

narrow.

Ours is not

the

only anniversary these years.

In 1964

the

Internat ional-

Peace Research Associat ion

(IPRA)

was founded

at

meetJ-ng

in

London with

important support

f rom

UNESCO, hus having

i ts twent ieth anniversary 1984.

And

in 1

983

IPRA had i ts tenth

internat ional conference in Gy6r

in

Western

Hungary, muster ing about

3OO researchers

from aI I over the

world,

beari-ng

test imony to

peace

research act iv i t ies

in at l -east

thir ty

countr ies,

and above al l

sel fconf idence,

a shared feel ing of

not

having tobe

defensive

alput

the term "peace research". Peace research is simply somethj-ng one

does; l ike everythlng

else,

i t

can

be wel l done

and

badly

done

and in

most

cases done

neither

part icular ly

wel l

nor

part icular ly

badly, but

something

inbetween.

So,

as they say:

peace

research

has come

of

dge,

f rom

the

f i n rz

'l

i t -1- ' l a }- z

errrr

-eginning

r '

O

me of the


4/48


5/48

I -egl i y. ,

t ry ing

to react direct ly

to that

world

in as

much

as

pos-

sible

a

way

not mediated by

others.

Unfortunately, I

of ten

sense

that other researchers start in the real world, then leave that

wor1d,

enter the worlo of books and

remain in that

world ever

af ter.

I f

anything

I

have

perhaps

done

that

journey

in the

opposite direc-

i^^

-

r^^^t

so far. Occasional-

excursions

back

to the worl-d

_L\Jr1

t

AL IgCr:)

of

books,

also meaning academia in

the t rad i t ional

sense/ as a resting

place

from

the considerably more

di f f icu l t

real

wor ld

have

great

charms,

however,

US

univ-ersities

are

good

at

that,

l,-eino

so self-contained.

Second,

in te l lectual

l .rork has

some

simi lar i t ies wi th

pol i t ical ,

even

mil i tary

work. I t

is a

quest ion

of

master ing intel-

lectual

terr i tory,

explor ing i t wi th

the

right

j -nstruments.

And

the instruments

are

never total ly

adequate?

in addit ion

the

terr i -

tory

changes the more

the

j-nstruments

are

appl ied.

Then,

threre

rnay

be

others

on

the

same

terr i tory,

even

many

of them,

some

prospect i-ng

for insight

with

the

same concept,

some using

total ly

different approaches.

This metaphor

defj-nes

conf l ic t among.

in te l lec-

tuals

of

three

kinds:

di f ferent

results

with the use of the same

instruments;

conf l icts

over

which instruments

to use;

and

the

most fundamental conf l ic t

over

whose intel lectual

terr i tory

this

is anyhow. Much of whaL intel- lectuals do is a quest ion of taying

claims to intel lectual

terr j - tory

by showing

that their

concepts

can

cover

more

area,

more deeply,

than others.

Often

there

wi l l

have

to

be a

trade-of

f

here. There

are those

pref

err ing more

". telg

av:

methods

covering

a large

terr i tory

and those preferr ing

more inten-

sive techniques,

going

much in

depth,

dr i11i_ng atpreclze

poinrs.


6/48

Obviously

there

are

many

who

do

both.

Intel lectuals

become

l ike

gladiators

throwing nets,

LryLng to catch

as

much as

possible. No

intel lectual enjoys being caught in the net of another, seeing his

own

problems reduced

to sub-problems

under the much more

general

opt ique developed

by

somebody

else.

Yet this is the nature

of

in-

tel lectual

pursui ts,

with

the

work of

mathemat j-c ians as

a clear exam-

ple,

always struggl ing

for

ever

higher

level

of

general i ty;

always

try ing

to see something

as

a

"special

case" of somethi-ng

more

qeneral .

Third,

the

importance

of

dialogue. The dialogue, not

only

wi th

other

researchers

but wi th

people

in

general,

i -s

absoJ-utely

crucial

in

in te l lectual work.

I t

is a way of try ing out oners own

strategies

and tact ics

in in te l lec tual

spaces, testing the

val j-dity

by

watching

careful ly

the reactions

from

di f ferent

corners.

Dlalogue

is only meanj-ngful

i f i t

can

happen

across

discipl inary, ideological '

natj-onal

and

civ i l izat ional

borders,

I f

none

of

these are br idged

chances

are

that what

passes

for

a

dj-alogue is more

l ike

looking

in the

mirror ,

as

so often happens-part icuJ-a r ly

in th ink tanks

and

places of

higher

learning

of

"excel lence"

because

the

"cr i ter ia"

makes

the

people

passing

those

fi l ters

homogenous Of courser

tro

intel lectual is obl iged to redj-rect his pursuit in the direct ion

suggested by

a cr i t ic

t

er

by a

fr iend

for that matter.

Rut

he

j-s

ob-

Iiged to be

sensitive,

to

pursue

inquiries

stjmulated

by dialog''e.

The capacity to

do so

is l imited

by

the

rigidi ty

of

the

paradigm. Hence, abi l i ty

to open the

paradiEr 'n

in new

direc-

t ions becomes

a

major

factor.

And at this

point

I

feel ,

in

general ,

that

the formula

is expansion rather

than reject ion. I f an

approach

is found unsat isfactorv when

confronted

with new chal lenses

the


7/48

response should

almost never

be

to reject

the

approach completely.

Rather,

the response

should

be

an

effort to

understand

under which

condit ions the former approach was val id. . not only to ident i fy the

condj-t ions

under which i t

j -s

not val id.

Instead

of asking

"which

one is t rue, l iberal ism or marxisf l " ,

the

quest ion

would

be

"

under

what

condit j -ons

is

the

l iberal

perspect ive

frui t ful ,

under

what

^^*,i

i + i

^. ^

oncl. rr l_ons

the

marxist , ' .

To

many

this

kind

of at t i tude leads to

very

eclect ic results, to a number

of

both

-

and rather

than ei ther

or.

This is t rue, and

by

the

present

author

seen as

a

great

advan-

tage

rather than as an accusat ion.

To cr i t ics

who might

hope

that

posi t ions

would

be

given

up

rather

than

serve

as

a basis for further

expansion into intel lectua1 terr j - tor ies

the conclusion

might

be

more

negative.

And I

would

agree if

i t can

be

convincingly

shown that

this

intel lectual

strategy rnakes

intensive

intel lectual

act iv i ty,

in rranrh imnlssj-ble

or at least

unl ikely.

The cont rar lz

is ntore t ike ly.

rrY\

And with these three remarks

permit

me

Lo start

with the ex-

plorat ion

of ten chal lenge-response

dimensj-onsr

ds I

have experienced

them.


8/48

On the definit ion of

peace

research.

From the very begJ-nning i t was clear that th is def j -n i t ion

had to contain

three

components,

at

l-east:

"peace"

as

the expl ic i_t_

rz:l tro nf cJ_ rrr ' l r r

qruE

v

DLuu)/,

approached

in

an i l ter-discipl inaly

and

l1lgr; lg :glg}. '

manner. The

last

two condit ions,

were,

of course,

directed against

what

was seen as the t radi t ional-

approach

in peace

studies: ef forts

to

capture a

very

compl icated

phenomenon

within the intel lectual

f rameworks

of one

discipl ine on1y,

and

often

very

classical

disci-

^1.i-^^ ^,,^1-

rJ-nes

sucn

as history and

j-nternational

law;

and

effor ts

to

study

phenomena

that

are international

in

thelr

character

f rom the

van-

tage

point

of

one

nat ion

only .

Thusr" inter-d. iscipl inary"

meant

frorn

the very

beginning effor ts to

br idge

the

gap

betweenrftradit ional

and

"modern"

social scj-ences

(br inging

into

the

picture

sociology

pol i to logy

and so on);

and

"inter-national"

also meant" inter- j-deo-

logical"

,

" inter-bl-oc

",

" inter-class",

" inter-gender".

An

inter-discipl ina-

ry

Norwegian

team

is

interesting

but very

far

f rom

suff ic ient ;

ex-

panding

i t

to

become

a

Nordic

team

does

not

add much

of interest in

our

confl ict- rJ-dden,

highly

unpeaceful

wor1d.

The

vvlcr ld

is the l imit.

Also, f rom the

very

beginning, i t

was

assumed

that the concept

"peace" was and should always cont inue to be consid.ered problemat ic.

The next

dimensions are

indicat lve

of

what

such explorat ions

might

lead

to i f

i t is taken as

axiomat lc

that

"peace"

has

to

be

explored. .

An

ocplicit value-orj-entation

implies oplicit

problon-ori-entation;

not

keepinq

the

values

hidden under

the

mystifying

slogan

of

"objectivity".

However, the two

other parts

of

the

working

def in i t ion,

con-

'{ - r ' ihrr i- ina'- inimum

to the

d.escr ipt ion

of .

hcw

the

research

on

the

condit ions

for

i leace

is

tc

te carr iei

ou- ,

' , , ;ere

also

problemat j_c

and


9/48

underwent

changes.

At the very

minimum

"inter-discipl inary"

could

be

interpreted as

an

inst i tute where researchers

from

various

disci-

pl ines would have some contact or even a ' 'society for peace research' l

that

could faci l i tate

al- l contacts

of thd

kind. And

"inter-nat ional"

could

point

in

the

direct ion of occasional

meet j-ngs

to discuss

views

on

dif f icul t

matters. Al though

preferable

to

single-discipl i -

nary approaches

by highly uni-nat ional

researchers

more of ten

than

not in

l ine

with

the

pol icy

of thej-r

establ j -shment

in

a rather un-

quest ioning

manner

(whether

this

is due to

value commitment or more

to mater ial interests

l inked

to their

salar ies)

-thi-s verv

quickly

proved

to

be

highly insuf f ic ient .

Ult imately

inter-disci-pl inar i ty

would

have

to

lead

to t rans-discipl inar i ty,

to the

integrat ion of

the

perspect ives

and

approaches

of

several

discipl ines

inside

the

mind of the indiv idual

peace

researcher.

Ult imately

the indiv idual

peace

researcher is

the unit ,

hovrever

much

he

may benef i t

f rom

inter-

discipl inary networks.

I t is

inside

one researcher

that

new synthe-

ses

are

'most

l ikely to emerge,

certainly

st j -mulated

by dialogue

in

the

network.

And the same appl ies

to

the

dimension

of

inter-nat iona-

l i ty: ul t imately i t has to lead

to

some

kind

of

researcher

with-

out a

fatherland,

a

person

that

can

neither

be

counted

upon to mir-

ror

the

vj-ews

of the countr ies

establ ishment,

nor the

opposite v iews.

I-rom inter-disciplinary and iqter-national to l5Clq-disciplinary and trans-national.

f t may be

objected that

this

is

asking

for

much.

Essent ial ly

i t means that the or iginal discipl ine

and

nat ional i ty

of

the

peace

researcher

would

tend

to

wash out

as

the researcher

matures. I t

means

that

when

the

researcher

speaks

or

wri tes

the

l isteners and

readers

wi l l

have

and

should

have

great

d. i f f icul t ies

ident i fy ing


10/48

whence he

or she comes.

"Aber

wer

s ind

Sie eigentl i -ch"

was

a

question

I could

remember

from

a

german

dlp lomat

when I i ntroduced

mysel f as peace researcheq and the question I very of ten heard later

on

when

an

audience uneasi ly

tr ied

to f ind

out wl th in

which

estab-

l ished social scj-ence

disc ip l ine

I

was operating.

And the

same

goes

for national i t y, although

in

th is

case

f

am afraid f have

more

di- f f i -

cult ies concealing

my

or igin.

They

somehow

show"

Of course,

the

problem

should

dictate how the

problem

1s

ana-

I r rcad nnf t- ro

d isCip l ine

in

which one

happens to

be

trained

or

the

nat ional locat ion in

g lobal

terr i tory.

But Lhis makes the

peace

researcher

less

predictable,

f rom

a discipl inary

or national

angle.

He

may, however,

s t i l l

be

predictable

from

the f i rs t

po int

in the

def in i t ion: how he

conceives

of

"peace"

which

necessar i ly

wi l l

be

close to an

ideological

pos i t ion.

To th is

we sha11 turn

immediate ly ,

Here some words

should only

be

added

on a

para] le l

which is of ten

used, not the least by

the

present

author,

to medica l

scj-ence.

I th ink

i t can

be argued

that

medical

science is

based

on

the

erma t- i -n:- r - i_te

def in i t ign

Or

point

of departure.

There is an

un-

ashamedly expl ic i t

valueJcias

from

the

very

beginning, in favour

of

health rather then disease. Medica l sc ience, however, is more than

the exploration

of

the condj- t ions

of

heal th ; the

idea

is a lso

to

teach

(medical

education)

and

to act

(medical

practise)

. As

we

shal-1

see

peace

researchers have

been moving

in exact ly the

same direct-

ions,

a l though

with

less

success

but then the f i rs t 25

years

of

medical

science

were

perhaps

not

that

successful either.

And

medi-

cal

people

have

also' found

- i t

extremely

useful-

to

explore fur ther

the

concept

of

"heal th" ;

they

are

st i l - l

do ingt

so,

in

fact .


11/48


12/48


13/48

IZ

Sal isbury)

i t became

clear

that

there

had

been very

l i t t le

inter-

raclal

v iolence in the

period

between

domest ic and nat i -onal indepen-

dence, f rom 1923-65. In a certain sense there was harmony, coopera-

t ion

integrat ion.

But was this

peace?

With

the

blatant

exploi ta-

t lon,

with

blacks being

denied

most

opportuni t j -es

for

development

given

to the

white, with f lagrant inequal i ty

whereby

whites

were

ma-

king about

twenty t imes

as much

for

exact ly the same

job

as

blacks

not to ment ion, ;

with the

basic

fact

that

thi-s

was st i l l

a

whlte

colo-

ny,

regardless of

how

independent

in a technical

sense those whj-tes

were?

The

Gerrnan

wcrd

for

ceneterlz is Friedhof

r

pdc

yard

The concept of

I 'structural

viol-ence"

was

born

out of

that

encounter,

but

deeply inspired

by Gandhi 's

approach

to

the

same

subject

althoughhedil

not use

that term. For

a long

t ime

I had t r ied

to

l iberate mysel f f rom the

bui l t -

in

actor-or iented

perspective

of so

much

Western

socj-al science,

basing

analyses

very much

on the

capabi l i t ies

of the actors,

and also on

their

mot ivat ions.

That

the

motivation is important

in

judging,

rel igiously

or legal11'

ethical

qual i ty

of an individual

act

goes

without

saying.

But

in

so doing

the character ist ics

of the

structures

are

of ten

dlsregarded,

because these are sett ings

wi th in which

individuals

may do enormous

amounts of harms to other human beings without ever intending to do

sor

just

performii ig

their regular

dut ies

as

a

job

defined

by

the

structure.Social

political

consciousness

is to understand

from the structure

vorks.

Structural

v iolence

was

then

seen

as unintended

harm

done

to

human beings. Usual ly this

takes

place

as

a

process,

working

slowly

as the way

misery in

general ,

and

hunger in part icular,

erodes

and


14/48

t

Twenty Five Years of Peace Research-Ten Challenges and Some Responses

Documents

Transcript of Twenty Five Years of Peace Research-Ten Challenges and Some Responses