|
I shall clarify various aspects of the concept of peace in order to arrive at a definition which can be used when discussing education as a peace
strategy. In the following, I have structured the discussion around three themes.
First, I shall discuss peace in terms of what it is and what it is not (negative peace). Second, I shall discuss peace in terms of its relevance to
close, intermediate and distant realities as seen from the perspective of the individual. Third, I shall discuss peace in terms of structural patterns and processes.
Integration of Negative and Positive Peace
Any concept can be defined in terms of what it is (positive definition) and in terms of what it is not (negative definition). This also applies to the
concept of peace. Peace is a very common word which is frequently used in most languages. Nevertheless, there is little clarity and agreement as to its meaning. There is neither agreement on what it is, nor on what
it is not. Many studies have shown that it means different things to different individuals. Hence, it seems that it is a highly subjective concept in the sense that its meaning depends upon individual preferences.
Also, the meaning of peace and its equivalents vary across cultures.
Only recently attempts have been made to define the concept in a more scientific way. Even though such scientific definitions are also coloured by the
scientist's subjectivity, they are much to be preferred because they are systematically thought out and argued for. As long as the values from which the definition is derived are explicitly stated and argued for, a
scientist's overt subjectivity is to be preferred to a concealed, implicit subjectivity that is taken for granted. The worst case might be when subjective viewpoints about peace (or any other issue) are presented
and masked as objective truth. When scientists commit this mistake, it must be regarded as more serious than when a non-scientist does the same. The latter usually does not claim his or her subjectivity to be
scientific.
Negative Peace
The idea that peace is the absence of war and/or any other form of organised physical violence has a long history and is quite predominant in common
sense definitions of peace. The idea has also been incorporated into scientific definitions.
Negative peace seems easy to exemplify and define. Negative peace certainly applies to cases where there is an absence of war between nations and of
civil war within a nation. In these cases, all that is needed is a definition of international wars and civil wars in order to know what negative peace is. Both international and civil wars involve organised
violence on the part of the state or of large organised groups of people within one state.
Whether or not other forms of organised violence such as politically motivated acts of terrorism, guerrilla warfare, and economically motivated
underworld violence (e.g. gangster violence) should be seen as breaches of negative peace, is less certain.
Even less certain is whether individually motivated physical crimes against other individuals should be included when defining negative peace.
Positive Peace
According to Galtung (1969), positive peace is the absence of structural violence or the presence of social justice. In contrast to negative peace,
positive peace is not limited to the idea of getting rid of something, but includes the idea of establishing something that is missing. While getting rid of structural violence or social injustice, positive peace or
social justice must also be created in its place.
Structural Violence or Social Injustice
These concepts are even more complex to define than personal (direct) violence. Galtung has defined structural violence as the distance between the
actual and the potential. This definition allows for many interpretations based on differing opinions about what is actual and potential. Every individual is entitled to have an opinion about this. On the other
hand, scientific research can greatly help to transcend the level of subjective opinion about what "is" (actual) and what "could be" (potential). The scientific monitoring of human society
produces systematic studies of the quality of life in any given society. Thus, we have data on drop-outs from school, infant mortality, unemployment, social security recipients and juvenile crime. Social science
research also shows how conditions of life vary from nation to nation and across social groups within one nation. Such empirical data on actual conditions are seen in the light of social theories which, to varying
degrees, help explain the causes of such empirical findings. Thus, our knowledge of the actual constitutes a large body of research. In the case of infant mortality, for instance, one might argue that if a main
cause of such mortality is lack of food, a simple remedy might be to provide it to those who are lacking it. If this is impossible, because the parents of those infants who need the food do not have the means
necessary to provide it or buy it, the question arises why these parents happen to be unemployed, poor and lacking in resources. Some might argue that they do not want to work, that they are lazy and have chosen to
be poor. Others would argue the opposite and suggest that barriers confronting the poor are built into society in a way that results in massive infant mortality. Excess food in one place is not made available to
those who need it for survival in another place. This is structural violence. A different structure in which basic needs would be given priority over buying, power or the possession of resources has potential both
between nations and within nations. Similar arguments would apply to other quality-of-life indicators (e.g. health, housing, education).
In contrast to the great emphasis in the social sciences on problems of the actual, our knowledge of the potential is less extensive. Questions about
what "could be" have not been dealt with in social science to the same degree as what is actual. When futures research deals with questions of the potential, the underlying values are most often
contradictory to those values that are fundamental to present violent realities. Thus the potential is seen in light of other values than those that are predominant in the actual. If infant mortality is caused by a
structure in which the value of property (ownership of food) is rated higher than the value of life, one may conceive of a potential structure in which the value of life would be given priority to the value of
property. A potential structure might have built-in mechanisms for making food available to those who need it, regardless of the recipients’ buying power.
Conclusion
Personal as well as structural violence often produces the same results in terms of death and human suffering. In a sense, one might argue that
structural violence is worse than personal violence because its victims are often people who are not directly involved in any manifest conflict, but who are at the receiving end of a global structure of violence
which might be more or less hidden to its victims.
Galtung (1969) integrates the concepts of negative and positive peace in the following way:
|
|
Violence
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personal
(direct)
|
|
Structural
(indirect)
(also referred to as
social injustice)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
absence
of
personal violence
|
|
absence
of
structural violence
|
|
or
Negative peace
|
|
or
Positive peace
(also referred to as
social justice)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peace
|
|
|
Diagram 1: The extended concepts of violence and peace
This diagram summarises my argument for the integration of negative and positive peace.
One without the other would lead to an insufficient conception of peace. Basic to this understanding is that the opposite of peace is not war, but violence. I shall now turn to the
discussion of the concept of peace as it relates to various levels of society, ranging from the individual to the global.
Integration of Micro and Macro
Only 15 years ago, it was noted that if the state of North Dakota were to secede from the
USA, it would be the third largest nuclear power in the world. This state was "a land-based territory of plowshares and swords, giant combines and huge ICBMs, with resources to feed
the world or destroy it" (Goodman, 1983).
It is hard to find a better example of how close and distant realities are interwoven. The
close reality of the 630,000 North Dakotans has been turned upside down during the last hundred years. While the Sioux Indians depended on nature and their mythology for their
survival, the modern population depended on decisions made in Washington and Moscow for their survival during the Cold War. Both in Washington and in Moscow, nature had given way
to technology, and we had a new, modern mythology of deterrence that was designed to enhance security by constantly increasing insecurity (cf. e.g. Myrdal, 1978).
As we are all aware, North Dakota was one of a large number of nuclear targets in the world.
If North Dakota were to be blown up, so would be the rest of the world. The decision to do so lay with a small group of old men, ultimately two old men, one in Washington and the
other in Moscow. It is conceivable that such a decision might be made by only one old man, in Washington or in Moscow.
Our introductory example shows that the situation in one locality at a certain time is highly
dependent upon distant circumstances. In diagram 2, I shall present a framework for the understanding of such relationships between micro and macro.
The space axis (diagram 2) is horizontal and the time axis is vertical. Their crossing point
illustrates the "here and now context" of each individual. This context is constantly changing as time progresses and as situations outside the "here and now" develop. The diagram thus
puts each individual in the centre of time and space.
Time
Time is usually seen in terms of the past, the present and the future. The past is indefinite
and so is the future. The present may be defined in terms of measurable time such as seconds, hours, days, weeks or months. It is not necessary for my purpose here to specify
the outer limits of what should be regarded as present time. It would seem that the limits of the present are often drawn by individuals with reference to events such as change of
location (e.g. moving from home to school), change of activity (e.g. getting up in the morning means to change one’s behaviour from sleeping to eating breakfast) or change of
social context (e.g. a guest arrives or leaves).
Departing from such "now" contexts, the time axis can be traced back into the past and into
the future. I have arbitrarily indicated three points in both directions to illustrate that time can be seen in terms of its distance to each individual, viz. close, intermediate and distant.
The two arrows along the time axis illustrate causality over time. The arrow pointing upwards
illustrates the fact that the context at one time will influence the context at a later time (i.e. the past causes the present and the present causes the future). The arrow pointing
downwards illustrates the idea behind the self-fulfilling prophecy: expectations, hope, visions of the future influence human behaviour at earlier time-points (e.g. visions of the future
influence our present tactics or strategies for transforming the present towards our visions).
Space
Space can be measured in physical terms (e.g. meters and kilometres). Such geographical
measures are important even in today’s world, because only a few have the resources to overcome large geographical distances by air travel.
Space can also be seen in terms of societal dimensions, such as social, cultural, economic
and political realities. As we know, there is a great variation in these realities from context to context. Each individual is closely interwoven with specific social, cultural, economic and
political realities and distantly separated from others. Social science research often uses such dimensions as gender, level of income and education, occupation, geographic location
(centre vs. periphery), and ethnic status in determining an individual’s social position in relation to others. A marxist would focus on an individual's relationship to the means of
production (ownership and control) in attempting to render a class analysis. Whatever dimensions are used, the everyday reality of individuals and groups is very varied in terms of
social, cultural, economic and political facts. In a comparative perspective, specific realities can be seen in terms of their similarity or dissimilarity with other realities.
Although dissimilarity between everyday contexts seems to increase as a function of physical
distance, there is no simple linear relationship between physical distance and type of social, cultural, economic and political characteristics of two or more everyday contexts. Actually, in
one and the same place, for instance in a large city, there may be greater dissimilarities between two contexts than between a specific context on one continent and a specific
context on another continent. Thus, there may be more corresponding characteristics between the contexts of upper class families in New York and London than between these
two contexts and the contexts of poor families in Harlem and East London. The latter may have more in common with each other than with their upper-class counterparts in the same city.
As it is not my purpose here to compare contexts in terms of similarities and dissimilarities, I
shall not elaborate further on this point. For my purpose here, it will suffice to point out that each specific and everyday context in which people are in direct interaction with each other
has certain links to the higher levels of some society which has, in its turn, certain social, cultural, economic and political characteristics. This is illustrated by the space axis in the diagram.
The extreme left is the position of the individual, and the arrow pointing to the right signifies
indefinite space in physical terms. As human life (with only a few exceptions) is limited to our planet, the crossing point of the outer circle and the space axis points out the physical limits
for global society. Thus, this point represents planet earth in physical terms and the social, cultural, economic and political characteristics of global human society.
The arrow pointing to the left along the space axis, illustrates the influence of society upon
individuals living in it. The arrow pointing to the right along the space axis illustrates the fact that society is a human product. Thus, the diagram points out that there is a dialectical
relationship between world society and each individual. Each individual is involved in an everyday context which has linkages to contexts that are outside this everyday context of
the individual. "Outside" contexts have been called intermediate and distant realities in the figure.
Relationships between Micro and Macro
When time and space are seen together, it becomes apparent that there are possible causal
chains arriving at each individual from any time in the past and future and from any place along the space axis. In turn, there are possible causal chains departing from each individual
to any point in the future. This possible influence is not restricted to the individual’s own future, but includes the future of society and of the world. Thus, the individual can
potentially influence the future world as well as any part of it, including himself or herself. Thus the area of influence lies in the area above the space axis, i.e. in the future. Past and
present have already been created and cannot be changed. Only our understanding of the past and present realities can change, not the realities themselves.
Macro produces micro. As the past interactions among individuals, social groups and
institutions have created present society, it seems clear that one important relationship is that macro produces micro. It is the task of the science of history to explain how the micro
context in North Dakota during the Cold War was the product of past interactions which had occurred within and outside the communities and state of North Dakota. It is the task of
sociology and political science to explain how macro conditions influenced the North Dakotan micro contexts concerning the maintenance or change of these contexts. Although it can be
stated that history is mainly concerned with past developments and sociology and political science with present developments, the three disciplines overlap in many instances. Some
critiques maintain that history is too asociological and sociology too ahistorical. Some would call for an integration of the two disciplines as a contribution towards more holistic understanding.
If micro contexts can be seen as resulting from the macro contexts, one might argue that macro isin micro. For instance, the Cold War between the two superpowers found some
empirical manifestation in the micro context all over the world. Thus, the Cold War was in the "here and now" contexts. Although such manifestations varied a great deal, they were
nevertheless products of the cold war and they would not have existed if the Cold War had not been an historical fact at the macro level. To exemplify, it seems that the marks of the
arms race were stamped on the micro context in North Dakota: the physical presence of ICBMs is such an empirical manifestation.
One might trace linkages between the wars after World War II and the facts of the Cold War.
Thus, the cold war produced its micro contexts in a direct way all over the world. The empirical manifestations varied from military build-ups to acts of war and physical violence.
Along with such concrete militaristic results, come all kinds of militaristic attitudes and opinions that were necessary in order for that idea of deterrence could become the
cornerstone of the Cold War security doctrine.
Micro produces macro. This leads over to the impact of micro upon macro. The
characteristics of the larger context are dependent upon the existence of similar characteristics in the micro context. Without the existence of attitudes, opinions and
valuations among people at large in the thousands of micro contexts in which people are daily involved, the idea of deterrence would simply be a phenomenon at the top of society without
any roots in people’s everyday lives. Such roots in the micro are a necessary condition for the continual maintenance of the characteristics of the larger macro society. Thus, the
trunk, branches and leaves of the societal tree would fade away without the support of energy channelled through the roots. In this sense, each small root is a mediator of the
energy necessary for the tree as a whole to continue its existence. In other words, micro produces macro. This production can be limited to reproduction, but it can also be creation
when news roots are established from seeds that have fallen down from the old tree. In both cases, one might argue that the influence of micro upon macro is such that micro is present in macro.
Conclusion
The concept of peace cannot be isolated to any specific time or context (place). The
concept of peace is relevant to all times and all places (contexts). If peace is limited to a specific time and context (place), the result would be that the relationships between micro
and macro as suggested above would be excluded from consideration. Such exclusion might lead to a distorted view of peace, because it is hard to find a context which is completely
isolated from the rest of the world. Only in the case of ancient historical times could it be possibly argued that a certain context was a world within a world which had no impact on or from the rest of humanity.
Integration of Structure and Interaction
A third way of approaching a definition of peace is to view peace as meaning structure (state) and interaction (process).
Peace as Structure
A peace structure involves a social building or system that is meant to enhance the values of
peace. Just like any building, its basic features would allow for certain interactions and make other interactions difficult or impossible. To stick with our example from architecture, one
extreme type of building might be the one that is designed for individualism. This building would have no common rooms and each individual unit would be separated from the others
and completely independent. A singles condominium might be the closest example in the real world. Another extreme might be the commune which is designed to serve the value of
collectivism. This structure would have large areas for common activities and few, if any, rooms for individual or private activity. In between, there are all kinds of structures that
allow for certain interactions and exclude others. The most common structure is the core family home.
A structure is taken to mean the presence of relatively permanent relations between specific
units (Mathiesen, 1979, p. 24). The units can be any social actors ranging from the individuals and groups at the micro level to nations and transnational organisations such as
the UN at the macro level. A structure for peace would be a structure that enhances peace values, both those values that enhance negative peace (absence of direct violence) as well
as those values that affirm peace (social justice). In order to test whether a specific structure enhances peace, one must study the interactions among two or more units within
the structure in terms of the values of peace. Let us take the relationship between two individuals as one example and the relationship between social groups in a country as another example.
First, let us examine the structural pattern in the case of two children, a 14 month old boy
and a 5 year old girl. The parents of the two children are long-time friends and their frequent meetings allow interaction between the children. When the two children interact, a pattern
soon emerges in which the girl dominates the boy, takes both his and her own toys and monopolises those toys that the boy wants the most. After collecting all the most wanted
toys, she establishes physical barricades between herself and the boy by means of chairs and tables or moves to a high level (e.g. a table) which the boy cannot reach. Then she
plays in solitude while all the time watching the boy’s attempt to enter the game. At any successful attempt on the part of the boy to enter her territory, new barriers are
constructed. There is no direct violence involved, but certainly structural violence. The infant finds the situation rather surprising, and seems to be bewildered as he does not really
understand what is happening. He keeps on attempting to change the situation to his benefit without any success. After having watched this game from a side, the parents intervene in
order to break the deadlock whose consequences might be undesirable for both children. Whenever the two meet, the same interaction pattern seems to emerge to varying degrees
and in different fashions. There is a continuity in the interaction patterns. A structure has been established in the interaction patterns between the two based on the domination of the
older and most capable over the younger and least capable. This is an example of structural violence.
I have described this case of structural violence in order to illustrate not only what a violent
structure looks like, but also to suggest what a peace structure looks like. Fortunately, I have more examples from my own individual experience of the latter than of the former. A
structure of peace between individuals is characterised by co-operation, joy and enthusiasm in working towards, or playing towards, a common goal. This has been the predominant
experience of the 14-month old boy in question, not only with adults but also with children of the same or older age. But what characterises such interactional patterns is that the adults
and older children who are interacting with the young child, do so on the child's premises. This means that the child has the prerogative of getting hold of the toys he likes, and is free
to move the way he wants as long as his wishes do not lead himself or others into physical danger.
The other example of peace as structure applies to the interactions between social groups within one nation. As we know, apartheid meant legal racial discrimination. This was
structural violence in which one group was hindered in developing its potential to the advantage of the other group. This principle had been embodied in the legal structure, and
allowed those interactions that were conducive to exploitation and structural violence. Structural violence does not have to be legalised through the judiciary. More often, the law
appears to uphold fairness and justice for all social groups, even though some social groups are discriminated against de facto.
Examples of this are abundant. Educational sociology, for instance, has shown how the
formal school system produces winners and losers. The uneven distribution of losers and winners over social groups shows how it is more likely for children of certain social
backgrounds to be successful and for children from other social groups to be unsuccessful. This, according to most theories, is caused by the fact that the schools reflect the style and
values of the dominant social groups. This is to the detriment of those who do not belong to the dominant group. Research shows that male values are more dominant than female values,
middle-class values are more prevalent than working-class values, and that the values of cultural minorities are less respected. Such characteristics of formal schooling leads to the
uneven development of the potential of each social group and is, according to theories in the sociology of education, caused by the unfair characteristics of the school structure, which
fosters interactions favouring specific groups and inhibits, or even excludes, interactions favouring other group values.
Peace as interaction
As the discussion on peace as structure has already shown, a structure is defined in terms of
interaction over time between specific units. The structures established through interactions can be maintained or changed through new interactions. Therefore, a non-peaceful structure
can be changed to a peaceful structure through new interactions. Such peaceful interactions can occur within a non-peaceful structure. If such peaceful interactions are allowed to
develop over time into new patterns, they will in the end become structures of peace within the overall structure of nonpeace. At this moment, the new structures may be so powerful
that their confrontation with the violent structure may lead to an overall peaceful structure. The opposite might also be the result, viz. repression of the peaceful structure by the violent structure.
History abounds with examples of such processes. One rather recent example was the
emergence of Poland’s "Solidarity". This was a structure of peace within an overall totalitarian regime created through years of interactions among Polish workers, starting from a small
group. The establishment of "Solidarity" confronted the non-peaceful structure of the communist regime with such force that the latter found repression necessary. Another
example is the non-violent movement led by Gandhi in the independence struggle of India. Actually, it seems that most interactions based on the value of independence and autonomy
during the decolonisation period have led to new structures that in the end were successful in dismantling the status quo. Today, we are witnessing liberation movements on the part of
women, ethnic minorities, groups suffering from human rights violations, the working class and the poor all around the world. Such interactions among various groups are often based
on values of peace and have started as interactions among members of these groups beyond the control of those in power. Such interactions will, if continued over time, involve more and
more people, and in the end become structures of peace confronting existing violent structures.
Conclusion
In defining the concept of peace, it is important to consider both its structural and
interactional aspects. A peace structure means the presence of relatively permanent relations that enhance peace values (both negative and positive values) between specific
units. The idea of "relative permanence" implies that peace is a state, as opposed to a process. But peace is also the process of interaction between specific units as long as the
interaction is geared to the enhancement of negative or positive peace values.
What is Peace
Any proper definition of peace will, in my opinion, have to incorporate the essential points that have been made so far.
Peace is:1. The opposite of violence. There are two major forms of violence, direct and
structural. The absence of direct violence is negative peace and the absence of structural violence is positive peace or social justice.
2. Peace is a concept that can be relevantly analysed on levels ranging from the individual to
the global. It is also a concept applicable to all contexts and times as well as to the relations between contexts and times.
3. Peace denotes a structure which enhances the values of peace. It also denotes processes
of interaction which are intended to build structures of peace.
Integration of Peace Issues
On the basis of the general definition given above, I shall now discuss three important peace
issues of our time. My contention is that issues of peace depend upon a specific historical context. One can approach the problematic of peace from a universal and philosophical
standpoint. Nonetheless, every historical epoch has its own specific manifestations of violence and peace. Therefore, it is necessary to apply the analysis of peace as a universal
concept to the peace issues of each specific historical context.
Let me suggest a few examples. It would be difficult to study the question of peace during
the time of the great discoveries without including the violence inflicted by European colonisers upon the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America. It would be unacceptable
peace research to study the slave trade period without including the violence inflicted by the slave traders. It would be unacceptable peace research to study the period between 1940
and the present while excluding the autonomy struggles that led to the autonomy of Third World nations from their colonisers.
In the following, I shall discuss three important peace issues of our time, viz. disarmament,
development, and human rights. First, I shall present a model for their integration under the umbrella of peace. I do not purport that these three constitute an exhaustive list of current
peace issues, but I would argue that they are among the most important. The reason for this is that most of the violence (direct and structural) that victimises a large part of the world
population today is connected with these three issues.
Any scenario of the future has to take a stand concerning such basic questions of human
existence as disarmament, development, and human rights. Although these questions seem to be different and distinguishable from each other to the extent that a solution to one or
two of them is possible without a solution to the other(s), the purpose here is to show that they are in essence interdependent and unified. These three basic problems of human
existence are only separate in the minds of people, including some researchers and educators who have found it necessary to keep them apart. The French professor René-Jean Dupuy is
emphasising the dialectical relationships between these three concepts when he writes: "Without disarmament peace is impossible; without development human rights are illusory;
without human rights peace is violence" (quoted in Marks, 1983). This means that we cannot have only one of these without the two others. This is illustrated in diagram 3, which is
developed from an earlier diagram presented by Marks (1983):
Diagram 3 shows three major areas: disarmament, human rights and development. Some
peace research, some peace education and some peace movements focus primarily on only one of these. Some try to integrate two of them, like, for instance, disarmament and human
rights. Some try to integrate human rights and development, while others are trying to integrate disarmament and development. I think all of these approaches are valid and sound.
But the goal should be the integration of all three, dealing with preferred futures of the world related to all three values.
We should understand that some people are primarily interested in disarmament because they
are experiencing militarism and war. Some people are primarily interested in human rights because they are daily experiencing the violation of human rights. The citizens of
authoritarian regimes, for example, are denied even their civic and political rights. It is understandable that people in developing countries who are lacking food and water would
primarily approach peace in terms of development.
The "Peace Cone" shows seven possible areas of focus on current peace issues. The third
dimension illustrates the possible levels of analysis and the relationships between them, ranging from the global (the front of the cone) to the individual level (the point at the back).
Between these extremes, there are a multitude of actors (e.g. nations, organisations, communities and social groups) which are relevant to the understanding of the three issues
and the various combinations between them.
Peace
In the central area of the peace-pin, area number 7, we have an overlapping of all three
circles. The vision of peace thus involves a world in which disarmament, development and human rights have been implemented. This probably means that the peoples of the world
would have reached agreement on the meaning of these three goods, not only in theory but also in practice, and not only on the global level but also on the individual level. I say
"probably" because it is possible to restrict the "agreement" in question to how the content of these concepts is to be decided, without (rather than) including the content itself. This
means that agreement would have been reached on ways of ensuring the peaceful settlement of disputes over peace-issues. These procedures would have to be built up
around the principles of non-violence and the non-use of physical force.
Given such an interpretation of the central area of the peace-pin, it would probably not be all
that surprising if people were to shrug their shoulders and push off, mumbling that "Such a utopia belongs to the hereafter". And I must admit that I am worried that such an "ideal"
definition of what is meant by the development of visions of peace might hinder the actual development of the vision. It is important to have a feeling for what is feasible. It might be
appropriate here to introduce the concept of "realistic utopia" (originally used by Saul Mendlovitz). The concept implies that the development of knowledge regarding the utopia
should not be too idealistic and improbable. I recall that Mendlovitz once said in a lecture that there should be about a 70-90% chance of the utopia being realised. The higher the
probability, the more realistic the utopia is and the lower the probability, the less realistic.
The enthusiasm and energy with which almost all of us go to meet the future, that which
Ernst Bloch called the "principle of hope", must be harnessed for use in the pedagogy of peace. It will then be possible for the question of peace, in all its breadth and complexity, to
be everybody's business. It will then also be possible for our knowledge of peace to develop according to the lines suggested by George Bernhard Shaw's famous words: "Some people
look at the world as it is and ask: Why? Others look at the world as it could be and ask: Why not?"
Summary
In this chapter the three main components of peace (disarmament, development and human
rights) have been seen in the light of the manner in which they relate to each other. One of the main points has been that they are so dependent upon one another that they must be
analysed and solved together. Yet we have also seen that it is natural for people to approach this large complex of problems on the basic of their own unique experiences of life.
Some people might have a more intense experience of one of these areas than of the others. It is therefore natural that the angle of approach to peace-issues differs from person to
person, from group to group and from country to country. Regardless of approach, it will be important to develop successively our understanding of the relationship between the three
main issues. The final goal of this development of knowledge should be to move towards the central area of the "peace-pin" i.e. the area where the three peace-issues overlap.
The third dimension in the "peace-pin" has repeatedly been given special attention in the
above. A peace-issue does not just have relations with other peace-issues. It is also subject to the dynamics of the cause and effect relationships between the different levels, (varying)
from the individual to the global.
References
Ishida, Takeshi :"Beyond the Traditional Concepts of Peace in Different Cultures", Journal of Peace Research, No. 2, 1979, p. 133-145.
Goodman, Ellen: "Heat, missiles: crop conflicts", The Honolulu Advertiser, April 26, 1983.
Galtung, Johan: "Violence, Peace and Peace Research", Journal of Peace Research, Vol. I, 1969.
Marks, Steve :"Peace, Development and Human Rights Education: The Dilemma between the Status Quo and Curriculum Overload", International Review of Education, forthcoming, 1983.
Paige, Glenn: "Non-violent Political Science". Paper presented at the XIth World Congress of
the International Political Science Association, Moscow, Aug. 12-18, 1979.
Mathiesen, Thomas: Law, Society and Political Action, Academic Press, London, 1981.
Wiberg, Haakan: "Dilemmas of disarmament education" in Magnus Haavelsrud (ed.): Approaching Disarmament Education, Westberg House, 1981, p. 129-146.
Myrdal, Alva: "The game of disarmament", in R. Jolly (ed.): Disarmament and World Development, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1978.
I. Kende, K.J. Gantzel, K. Fabig: "Die Kriege seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg". Weltpolitik, Jahrbuch No. 2, Campus, Frankfuirt and New York, 1982
top
|
