I bet you thought you knew what violence is!

Well, sure…if somebody hits you, that is an act of violence, most of the time. Still there could be many reasons for someone to hit you. They might be trying to do something for you, like hitting you on the back to help you stop coughing. So, intent comes into the matter somewhere. Or consider somebody cutting somebody else with a knife: could be a murderer, or could be a surgeon. Again, context and intent matter in identifying violence. Of course, if you go to a dictionary you will find several meanings, some of which are rather abstract: as in “doing violence” to something.

Here I would like to share with you one (of many) interesting (and somewhat controversial) ideas of Johan Galtung. He said there were three kinds of violence: direct, structural and cultural. The first is what we usually think of: doing things to other people (or ourselves, for that matter) which hurt or kill, with the intent to hurt or kill. The second is the harm that results from unjust social systems that systematically deprive some people of their needs for education, food, security, etc…This second form may work more slowly, but its overall effect, given the prevalence of poverty and deprivation of various kinds in our world, may be as great or greater than the first kind. Then, there is the third category, which refers to culturally entrenched forms of prejudice (racism, sexism, etc…) that justify and even “normalize” either of the other two kinds of violence.

I have always felt that Galtung’s categories make a lot of sense. However, he has often been criticized for the second, and by implication, the third, since those call into question aspects of the status quo in the society where they occur; and more particularly they may call into question the vested interests of those groups who happen to benefit from that status quo. Not to mince words, conservative thinkers don’t much like the idea of structural violence, since it seems to indicate the need for reform and reform means change, and probably some redistribution of wealth and other benefits to help the victims of unjust structures.

This is a very useful set of categories, and like all good typologies it gets you thinking about the relationships among the categories: what leads to what? That is too big a question for this post, but I will try to get back to it later

Peace Symbols: some thoughts

Hi, me again.  There are some pretty standard peace symbols, and you are probably familiar with most you can see here .  I like them all, even if some, again, are associated with AAH’s (Anti-government Aging Hippies ).  I would like to talk a bit about the dove, and maybe widening the images from the animal kingdom that we associate with peace.  First, I understand the background of this, originally at least, Judaeo-Christian symbol.  Noah sent out birds after the rains to see if they brought back any signs of land to the ark; and the dove brought back an olive branch (Genesis 8:11).  Then God made the rainbow to appear in the sky which symbolized that He would, as part of his covenant, never again destroy the earth with water.  So, the rainbow is also a symbol of peace.

Don’t get me wrong I love the dove as peace symbol.  I have several dove pins (brought to me by my wife from Lourdes, the center of Catholic pilgrimage in France), and even a dove on my key chain.  However, I also have a dolphin on my key chain, and I have to admit, that I really like the dolphin as a symbol of peace, harmony and tranquility.  They have come to represent ecological awareness, and they are often seen as playful and reflecting a kind of innocence.  They even, probably fortuitously of course, look happy.  These are qualities that I associate with positive peace (on all levels).

My goal is not to wax lyrical about the dolphins and detour into New Age thought (not a bad thing, by any means), but just to suggest that the dolphin has a place among those images that represent and conjure up feelings of peace.

(and, of course, for Douglas Adams fans…it was the dolphins who tried the hardest to save the planet–and even thanked us for all the fish! )

There are many nice dolphin images, and here is one I like.

Other suggestions?

Another basic issue: is conflict good, bad or just there?

One area of some confusion in peace studes and related fields, is how to view conflict (defined as two or more individuals or groups in contention over specific stakes).  This question has a long history (don’t they all?) and is related to whether societies and history in general are fundamentally about conflicts between between groups or about getting beyond those conflicts to achieve broader/higher levels of integration and cohesion.  Marx, as you might guess, was in the first category.  Again, I don’t want to go deeply into this, but you can see that if views of conflict are tied into such basic (and ideological) concerns then there is going to be divergence of perspective.  For some, conflict in itself is a problem, for others it is the very stuff of social and political life.  The latter view has a lot going for it since much of mainstream political discourse talks about interest group conflicts, party competition, national rivalries,etc…in short conflict seems to be everywhere.

I would suggest (being, at the end of the day, more practical than theoretical) what matters most is how we react and what we do when conflict arises.  Do we aggravate it, and run the risk of it turning violent, becoming self-reinforcing and going on a very long time with catastrophic consequences (and I’m not just talking about international conflict here–this dynamic also operates in communities, in marriages, and possibly even within the self). Or, do we see it as a sign that something isn’t working at some level, and view it as a point of departure, as an opportunity to creatively and positively change something in our societies and ourselves.  Sure, conflict can be all and any of these, depending who is involved, on their mindsets and world views.  However, it is important to make the distinction between conflict as such, which is an important indicator of a necessary direction, and violent conflict (we’ll get to the types of violence later), which can be seen as pathological and which needs to be stopped and its underlying dynamics and causes treated.

Thoughts?  I know this is just one “take” on these issues, and I would like to “hear” some others.

An interesting place

You know, there are lot of places (many, many, many) where you can study war, but there are far fewer places where you can study peace…though, fortunately, they are increasing.  Still, it is often suggested that if we (ie humanity) had spent as much time trying to understand and perfect peace as we have trying to understand and perfect war, the world would be a very different place.  Of course, you can also see this in evolutionary terms:  as humanity develops culturally and spiritually, the need for peace (and social justice) and the absurdity of violent conflict will gradually become evident to more and more people.  Some of you might be thinking: “but why does it seem to be taking so long?”  That is a very good question, and there are some good answers, which I will try to blog about later.  For now you could google Galtung’s 3 kinds of violence to get an initial idea.

What I wanted mainly to do today was indicate one of the places where peace and related subjects is the focus (as obviously, I think it should be!) of serious university level study.  It is the European University Center for Peace Studies, known by its old acronym: EPU .  Click on over there to have a look around!  You’ll see on the “About” page the following goals:

• spreading the idea of peace in the spirit of UNESCO
• giving scientific and educational support to global peace
• promoting a “world domestic policy” based on sustainable development, cooperative responsibility and ecological security
• contributing to the development of a global peace culture
• training and improving individual capabilities in peace-making and conflict resolution

I could (and probably will) write a lot about each one of these, but I think for now I’ll just let you think about what they mean.  If you are interested in the details of the current Master’s curriculum you can get it here.

I hope to add a brief interview with EPU’s director before long…So watch this space!

First post on “tools”

From time to time I will post information on what I think of as “tools” for peace:  sites, books and other stuff that can be useful in learning about and acting for peace.  The first one is a really biiiig one!  When you get the chance hop on over to CRinfo .  This is really the motherload of information about conflict resolution (I know, I know, I sort of dissed CR a couple of days ago, but it was in a good cause ) and peace.  You could spend the better part of a lifetime studying what is here.  Hats off to these folks for their superlative and outstanding work.  They even have something called the “Conflict News Browser” that “Simultaneously search 15 leading English-language newspapers from around the world for recent news stories on conflict-related topics” (notice all the headings beginning with “peace” ) .  Lastly, to get a hold on all this material, don’t over look the Introduction.

What perhaps should have come first

I probably should have started with what peace is (and isn’t).  Most people think they know, since they use the word all the time.  Journalists certainly must think they know, since they frequently report on the state of this or that “peace process” (another interesting subject we will hopefully get to in time).  But what most people say when asked what they mean by peace (and I’ve asked a few, believe me) is something like “the absence of war”.  Well, if you are in the middle of bombs, bullets and destruction this would probably seem like a pretty good definition.  However, it is far from adequate.   Again, there has been a lot written on this, but to sum up, “the absence of war” is, at best, a definition of what is often called “negative peace”.  It only tells us what we don’t want, which is war/violence.  It doesn’t tell us what to do to get a society or a world. where war and other kinds of violence don’t happen (or, at least, are greatly minimized).  Seen from this perspective, “peace” would be a bi-product of a way of organizing societies and international affairs that permitted us to deal with problems of diversity and social justice (among others) in ways that are creative and pacific.  Or, in other words, peace is an outcome of a successful civilization.  The sum of all the values and institutions incorporated in that model of civilization that make it work in a positive rather than a destructive way would be what we might call “positive peace”–a condition we want to realize, rather than one we want to avoid.

So what do you think of these definitions?

Day Two: does peace have a bad name?

Have you noticed that, at least to some extent, “peace” has a bad name?  Isn’t that curious?  I remember being in a discussion of course selections for a small, now defunct, college, and I was a bit surprised to learn that peace and peace studies were  in the minds of many associated with anti government activity and generally, anti-establishment aging Hippies.  Whereas “conflict resolution” was associated with problem solving and was seen as a positive force.  Of course, this was being explained by a lawyer who was promoting Alternative Dispute Resolution as a kind of macro science of problem solving.  Anyhow,I think “peace” deserves better, don’t you?  If nothing else peace has a much longer history and a better pedigree than conflict resolution–there’s nothing in the sermon on the mount that I know of about “Blessed are the conflict resolvers”…:-)..just kidding.  We’ll probably have a chance to get back to how peace got a bad name, but for now I want to say a little about another curious matter:  peace is seen as Utopian.

What does that mean?  Well in international affairs, if something is called utopian, that is a very bad thing indeed.  It means that the matter under consideration is not attainable, and that it is potentially dangerous to believe it could be attainable, since that may distract you from the hard realities of surviving in a hostile world.  This makes a kind of sense.  However, it can also mask some key questions, such as:  “how do you know something is unattainable?”; or “when do you decide something is unattainable?”; or, maybe more importantly “why are you in such a hurry so say [this or that] is unattainable?”.    There has been a lot written about this, and I won’t go into the details.  For now, I’ll just say that nothing I’ve read or seen–no matter how horrible or discouraging–has convinced me that peace is unattainable, a kind of utopia.  Just one example:  the European Union is at political peace, and the likelihood of international conflict among the members is close to zero.  Hellooo!  This is Europe we are talking about here….100 years war, 30 years war, War of the Spanish Succession, Seven Years War, World Wars I and II, etc…  So, it can happen.  How, when and under what conditions are the more interesting questions.

IG’s first post on peace

Welcome to my new blog! I plan to be writing about “everything and anything” relating to what I think of as the problem and challenge of peace. I have taught (and continue to teach) courses related to peace and I have published articles about peace and related topics, so I guess some academic-speak will creep in here from time to time. However, I am now becoming convinced that while there are many dimensions to peace, it is not, fundamentally, a complicated subject. Rather, it is, or should be accessible to everybody since it concerns everybody; and I hope what I discuss will be just that– accessible. For instance, have you ever wondered why, if just about everyone would rather live in peace, there is so much war and violence? To me this is one of the “big ones”…right up there with “why are we here”, “what is time”, etc…:-) As you might expect the question has been asked at many times, in many cultures, and answers vary, and keep evolving. Just to hint at some interesting things that have been learned in this area: human nature does not seem hard wired to behave like this. We’ll get back to this, but for now I leave you with the words of John Lennon (I think)…”Why in the world are we here? Surely not to live in hate and fear”

BTW…please leave comments if you feel like it…let’s get some discussions going!