JOHAN GALTUNG

It is both possible and meaningful to be

anti-hitlerism without being anti-German,

anti-stalinism withour being anti-Russian.

anti-US imperialism without being anti-American,

anti-expanionist zionism without being anti-semitic,

anti-quislingism without being anti-Norwegian,

anti-Japanese militarism without being anti-Japanese.

I have stood and will continue to stand by these

Johan Galtung, Founder Of The Academic Discipline Of Peace Studies

convictions.

WHAT HE DID FOR PEACE THEORY?

Starting with founding the Peace Research Institute in Oslo (PRIO) in Norway when he was
only 29 years old, Johan Galtung became the 'founding father' of peace research in Europe
and ultimately had a worldwide impact on our modern understanding of peace and the
structure of conflict.
Quite properly regarded as one of the -- if not the -- key founder of conflict and peace
research, especially in Scandinavia, Johan Galtung comes from several widely varied
intellectual traditions, with links to mathematics, the physical sciences, medicine and
sociology -- all of which give him an eclectic background from which to think and write about
peace, conflict, and injustice and their transformation into what might become a better world.
Oslo (PRIO), which under Galtungs leadership, became the leading international center for
systematic and scientific research into peace.
PRIO started to produce the Journal of Peace Research in 1964 as a vehicle for the publication
of results from research in Oslo -- many of Galtungs early and highly influential writings saw
the light of day in its pages -- but the journal rapidly became a place in which quality research
from all over Europe, East as well as West, could find a space. Together with the Journal
of Conflict Resolution from the University of Michigan, these two publications became for
the next twenty years, the chief academic means of exchanging ideas for the emerging field of
conflict and peace research.
After PRIO, Galtung took up the new Chair of Peace Studies at the University of Oslo and
solidified his reputation as one of the leading scholars in the new field. His subsequent
writings are voluminous and always exciting and challenging. However, he also played a
major role in the development of the International Peace Research Association and in bringing

ideas and scholars from non-Western countries into the mainstream of peace research. He was
thoroughly involved in the establishment of the United Nations University for Peace in Japan
and partly as a result of building this network of institutions spends much time teaching new
generations of students throughout the world.
Johan Galtung has also developed an enviable international reputation as a consultant and
practitioner, always ready to apply theoretical and conceptual approaches to practical
problems, ranging from boundary disputes to complex, multi-party conflicts within fragile
states.
There is 27 books which is written by him. One of his books Peace Mathematics is about
two friends who have dedicated their lives to peace theory and practice, but also have a love
for mathematics. It brings mathematics and peace closer, as peace mathematics; showing what
such concepts as numbers, sets, probability, logic, relations, matrices, graphs, games, systems,
calculus, chaos and catastrophe can contribute to peace theory and practice. Peace Studies is
not about only International Relations. It is about economics, mathematics, medicine and too
much branches.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN VIOLENCES
We understand that Violence is any physical, emotional, verbal, institutional, structural or
spiritual behaviour, attitude, policy or condition that diminishes, dominates or destroys others
and ourselves. Violence is one of the possible responses to specific conflict situations. This
does not imply that violence is unavoidable. Violence is not inevitable and it must not be
confused with conflict.
In other words, Violence consists of actions, words, attitudes, structures or systems that cause
physical, psychological, social or environmental damage and/or prevent people from reaching
their full human potential (Fisher et al. 2000). Violence can be deeply structured into the
system of relationships, within socio-economic and political arrangements, and even in the
culture of a society and of a global system. Therefore, systemic violence can in turn be a root
causes of conflict, as well a behavioural response to a specific conflict situation.
Johan Galtung (1969), made a clear distinction between Structural Violence, Cultural
Violence and Direct Violence. These ideas are connected to his distinction depending on how
it operates between three inter-related forms of violence (Structural-Cultural-Direct) where
Structural Violence is at the left end and Cultural Violence is at the right end of the base of a
Triangle invisibly while Direct violence is on the vertex visibly.
According to Galtungs Violence Triangle (1969), Cultural and Structural Violence cause
Direct Violence. Direct Violence reinforces Structural and Cultural violence. Direct Violence,
Physical and/or verbal, is visible as behaviour in the triangle. However, this action does not
come out of nowhere; its roots are cultural and structural.
Direct violence can take many forms. In its classic form, it involves the use of physical force,
like killing or torture, rape and sexual assault, and beatings. Further, we understand that verbal
violence, like humiliation or put downs, is also becoming more widely recognised as

violence. Johan Galtung, further, describes direct violence as the avoidable impairment of
fundamental human needs or life which makes it impossible or difficult for people to meet
their needs or achieve their full potential. Threat to use force is also recognised as violence.
Cultural violence is the prevailing attitudes and beliefs that we have been taught since
childhood and that surround us in daily life about the power and necessity of violence. We can
consider the example of telling of history which glorifies records and reports wars and
military victories rather than peoples nonviolent agitation, movements, rebellions or the
triumphs of connections and collaborations. Almost all cultures recognise that killing a person
is murder, but killing tens, hundreds or thousands during a declared conflict is called war or
killing of innocent people by the security forces are often declared as caught in the crossfire.
Structural violence exists when some groups, classes, genders, nationalities, etc are assumed
to have, and in fact do have, more access to goods, resources, and opportunities than other
groups, classes, genders, nationalities, etc, and this unequal advantage is built into the very
social, political and economic systems that govern societies, states and the world. These
tendencies may be overt such as Aparthied or more subtle such as traditions or tendency to
award some groups privileges over another. Constitutional privileges of Job reservations and
financial supports in the name of the welfare of the tribes or backwards and non-uniform
land law, which bans one group to own landed property in their own land while other groups
are free to own landed property wherever they want are also examples of structural violence.
Theories of structural violence explore how political, economic and cultural structures result
in the occurrence of avoidable violence, most commonly seen as the deprivation of basic
human needs (will be discussed later). Structural theorists attempt to link personal suffering
with political, social and cultural choices. Johan Galtungs original definition included a lack
of human agency; that is the violence is not a direct act of any decision or action made by a
particular person but a result of an unequal distribution of resources.
Here, we must also understand institutional violence. Institutional violence is often
mistaken for structural violence, but this is not the case. Institutional violence should be
used to refer to violence perpetrated by institutions like companies, universities, corporations,
organisations as opposed to individuals. The fact that women are paid less at an establishment
than men is an act of direct violence by that specific establishment. It is true that there is a
relationship with structural violence as there is between interpersonal violence and structural
violence. And Structural violence is the most problematic area to be addressed for conflict
transformation.

He tries to understand different ideas and look the case as a whole for example he went to
Afghanistan and talked with Taliban and he said about something related with this
conversation in an interview:
JOHAN GALTUNG: Well, its the coalition of the unwilling, you see. They know
perfectly well thatI mean, I talk with them, I talk with many, and Ill tell you the
result of my talking with Taliban. They know that it is a lost cause, they have no
chance at all. You have to understand what kind of country Afghanistan is. As Taliban

tell me, its a very, very decentralized country, 25,000 very autonomous villages, and
let us say six to eight nations, depends on how you count it. And I remember when we
in Transcend, an NGO for mediation, had our first effort there in February 2001, long
before 9/11. Then, I was asking myself, "What country does this remind me of?" which
I always do when I mediate. And the answer was Switzerland. Switzerland is the
model. Switzerland is a very federal country with very high autonomy down at the
local community. Let us say they have 5,000, not 25,000; they have four nations, not
six or eight. And Swiss policy is to be neutral, non-aligned, and to be a very, very deep
federation. I think Afghanistans future will be heading in that direction.
The Taliban tells me that this is a very Muslim country. "We hate secularism. We hate
people coming, trying to win hearts and minds by digging wells and giving us water
not blessed by Allah." I think, of the 57 members of the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation, Afghanistan may be among the countries with the highest percentage of
Muslims. To win heart and minds through secular activity is a nonstarter. It has been
from the beginning.
Now, in addition, they hate Kabul as an overblown, over-bloated kind of capital
carrying the illusion of a unitary state. It isnt. And I think that they would prefer to
see a very small center of the country and very high level of autonomy.
In addition, they are sick and tired of being invaded. It started with Alexander the
Great. You know, this is the place where he became Alexander the Small. And they
were invaded by the Mongols, three times by the Britons, one time by the Soviets, and
now by the U.S.-led coalition, as you said, NATO forces. So, for them, this is also a
war to fight being invaded, the war to end wars.
And finally, very important, the Durand Line drawn by the British Empire through
Pashtun territory, 40 million Pashtuns, maybe the highest minority in the world which
doesnt have a state. They dont recognize that line at all. They are not foreigners
crossing from Afghanistan into Pakistan. Thats some kind of Washington illusion.
Theyre in their own territory, Pashtun territory. Now, how do solve that one? Pakistan
is not going to give territory to Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not going to give it to
Pakistan. You solve it by having a Central Asian community, making the border
irrelevant. So, Central Asian community, a deeply federated Afghanistan, neutral, non-

aligned, with security forces cooperating from OIC and the United Nations Security
Council, I guess thats the future.
Now, Im sitting here in the U.S., a country I love, and its so sad to see that the U.S.
sees only enemies everywhere, instead of putting its wonderful minds to solving the
conflict. They could sponsor a conference, without running it, to explore a Central
Asian community, non-alignment and things of that kind. And they could cooperate
with Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, China, in doing so, somewhat less India because
there the concerns about Kashmir come up. Why does the U.S. have to see enemies
everywhere and always react violently? The solution is at hand. Its not at all
complicated.
And these people, Taliban, they dont want to kill people in the U.S. They want to
preserve their own autonomy and be themselves. And theyre struggling for that. I
must say, when I talk with them, I find them rational. Sometimes their Muslim
terminology is difficult for me to understand, but I find it very easy to talk with them. I
have more difficulties getting good contacts in Pentagon and State Department.
SABONA
Sabona builds theoretically and methodologically on TRANSCENDs conflict transformation
concept, developed by Professor Johan Galtung, in light of his experience with international
conflict transformation over many years, in many countries, and many different cultures.
Sabona helps us to see that all conflicts are at a basic level the same, whether large or small,
personal or global. Sabona builds upon our deep humanity with a starting point in the nature
of human beings. From that point of departure, a framework for understanding and a set of
tools for interacting have been developed. Sabona builds on fundamental respect both for
self and for the others and provides language and methods for meeting conflict in a
creative, solutions-oriented and innovative way. Sabona includes tools that can be learned
quickly, are easy to use, and which are reinforcing because they give a rapid payback. The
tools provided in Sabona make active participation in conflict transformation processes
possible, even for children and youth, resulting in the development of feelings of
responsibility, solidarity, and empowerment.
Conflicts arise because we have different, and very often contradictory, desires or goals;
because we use sometimes good and sometimes not so good means for achieving what we
want; and because we in general lack words/ a good language for managing situations where
differing goals or destructive means are revealed. One could say that whether situations lead
to conflict or peaceful coexistence, they are still made of the same thing the will. People
want things. When people have goals that dont collide, a round of wills is not likely to be
problematic. What create conflicts are incompatible goals, or goals that negate each other.
Conflict is for most of us a negatively charged word. It is generally related to

unpleasantness, violence, hurt feelings, broken relations, and deadlocked situations. Yet,
collisions of wills are a natural part of life, an everyday occurrence, and arent necessarily a
problem unless we lack useful concepts for understanding what is happening, or lack training
in creative and future-oriented conflict transformation. Sabona is training in conflict
transformation, a form of conflict hygiene; by practicing simple steps that become our natural
routine, we are better prepared to meet conflicts, large and small.
The venture of introducing SABONA to schools happens in three phases:
Learning: Firstly, teachers and staff need to gain an understanding of SABONA and make it
their own.
Teaching: Pupils will acquire knowledge of SABONA as a part of social practice and school
norms.
Applying: When teachers and students have internalised the conflict tools, it can be applied
actively in conflicts that arise in the classroom or at the playground. The knowledge enters as
a part of the schools culture and as a part of everyday language.

REFERENCES
http://scar.gmu.edu/parents-of-field/johan-galtung , JB/CRM interview
https://www.transcend.org/tup/
https://www.transcend.org/galtung/statement-may-2012/
http://kanglaonline.com/2012/07/understanding-violence-triangle-and-structural-violence-by-rajkumar-bobichand/
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/17/norways_johan_galtung_peace_conflict_pioneer
http://resources.old.cisv.org/export/sites/resources/education/Other/Sabona_Kortversjon-Eng-Sept09.pdf

Ayenur Parmak

21117368