Johan Galtung

Violence, War, and Their Impact
On Visible and Invisible Effects of Violence
The investigation pursued in this article seeks to contribute to a better, deeper understanding of violence, war and their effects – the visible and particularly also the invisible ones. Ultimately, this should assist to prepare the grounds for a lasting peace process. The formation of violence can be differentiated into direct violence (its visible aspect), and structural and cultural violence (its invisible aspects). These are the three corners of a »triangle of violence«. After discussing the role of reciprocity and revenge as well as intention and irresversibility when dealing with Summary trauma and guilt, central aspects of violence are thematised with the help of a table; this table lays out the material and visible effects of violence in opposition to the non-material invisible ones using the following six dimensions: nature, humans, society, world, time, and culture. In conclusion, an alternative conception of violence is sketched out, with reference to different ideas of conflict, violence, and peace. It is suggested that this conception will be able to indicate means of overcoming violence and lead to a culture of peace. 1

1. The Triangle of Violence
Transcend: Peace and Development Network for Conflict Transformation by Peaceful Means: Website Violence has occurred, in the collective form of a war, with one or more governments participating, or in the family, or in the streets. Material and somatic, visible damage is accumulating, deplored by parties and outsiders. But then the violence is abating: the parties may have run out of material and nonmaterial resources; the parties 1 converge in their predictions of the final outcome and more violence is seen as wanton, wasted; or outside parties intervene to stop the violence, keep the peace, for whatever reason, like preventing the victory of the party they disfavour. A truce, cease-fire (armistice, Waffenstillstand, cese al fuego) is initiated, an agreement is drawn up, signed. The word »peace« is used both by the naive who confuse absence of direct violence with peace and do not understand that the work to make 2 and build peace is now just about to start, and by the less naive who know this and do not want that work to get started. Thus the word »peace« becomes a very effective peace-blocker. Our purpose is to contribute to the worldwide effort to unblock that 3 process toward a peace beyond cease-fire so that »after violence« does not so easily become »before violence«. The first task after violence is

They tend to be structural. the displaced. exploiting and alienating minorities within a nation-state. The popular misunderstanding that »violence is in human nature« is rejected. the material damage. like love. all increasingly hitting the civilians. start searching for »political solutions«. but circumstances condition the realization of that potential. a wartorn world. the wounded. Violence is not like eating or sexing. is in human nature. Geographical fragmentation may substitute the horizontal structural violence of »too distant« for the vertical structural violence of repressing. 8 The direct violence.). and a structure that itself is violent by being too repressive. Left out is the cultural aspect. wreaking havoc within and between humans. But the violence triangle has built-in vicious cycles. using violent actors who revolt against the structures and using the culture to legitimize their use of violence as instruments. But distance may also lead to a new phase of external wars between . patriotic. like drawing geographical borders. The visible effects of direct violence are known: the killed. too tight or too loose for the comfort of people. and to more victories. groups. to understand better how the meta-conflict has run its diabolic course. People feel this. War is man-made disaster. Power also accrues to the men of violence. there are roots. not only in the »human mind«. war-torn societies. is visible as behaviour. found all over the world with slight variations. The big variations in violence are easily explained in terms of culture and structure: cultural and structural violence cause direct violence. producing war-torn people. To start this mapping of violence the following triangle may be useful: 4 5 6 Cultural and structural violence cause direct violence. But the invisible effects may be even more vicious: direct violence reinforces structural and cultural violence. Two roots are indicated: a culture of violence (heroic. which in turn may legitimize direct violence in the future. Obviously peace must also be built in the culture and in the structure. including the possibility that drawing borders in geography may cause and reinforce borders in the map its formation. Most important is hatred and the addiction to revenge for the trauma suffered among the losers. societies. etc. The potential for violence. exploitative or alienating. are sceptical about »military solutions«. patriarchic. glory among the winners. physical and/or verbal. We are now in a phase of internal wars of secession and revolution. But human action does not come out of nowhere. Direct 7 violence reinforces structural and cultural violence.

b. linear. b. freedom and identity for the majority or the minority (in the latter case majoritarian democracy may legitimize the status quo) – then the politics of nonviolence. Reconstruction without removing the causes of violence will lead to its reproduction. and democracy (which may be violent in its consequences) more so than nonviolence. exploitative) structure can only be changed by violence«. A feeling of hopelessness follows as people start realizing the vicious circle: violent structures can only be changed by violence. The problem of resolution of the underlying. with a cease-fire the motivation for serious action often suffers a dramatic decline. it means synchronic rather than diachronic. But what does »combined« mean? Assuming violence has already 14 happened.Virtuous cycle in conflict resolution: a. – rebuilding after the material damage. But both are spreading rapidly. Resolution of the underlying. – restructuration after the structural damage. root conflict. and also reinforce a culture of warfare. 13 without resolution. – reculturation after the cultural damage. one-afterthe-other. the problem of reconciliation of the conflict parties. c. well-being. following the lead of Gandhi. then such cultures and structures also reproduce direct violence. but that violence will lead to new violent structures. may be the answer. the problem of reconstruction after the direct violence: 12 – rehabilitation after the damage to humans. root conflict. The obvious thesis would be: if violent cultures and structures produce direct violence. 9 becomes nothing but a between-wars period. and so is the suffering in terms of the basic needs of survival. Marx argues resolution without any reconciliation. In that sense it is possible to understand Hegel's position as an attempt at arguing reconciliation between master and servant. the thesis that »the (oppressive. reconstruction after the direct violence. In this complex of vicious cycles we can now identify three problems that can only be solved by turning the vicious cycles into virtuous cycles: a. newly created states. and do not exclude each other. an illusion perpetrated on people with too much faith in their leaders. If the contradiction is very sharp – meaning that the vested interests in the 10 status quo are considerable for some. then the politics of democracy is an answer. In addition. If the contradiction is not too sharp. reconciliation of the conflict parties. Badly needed is theory and practice combining all three problems. A way out lies in denying the first horn of the dilemma. The cease-fire. A major problem is that (parliamentary) democracy and (extraparliamentary) nonviolence are parts of the political culture in only 11 some parts of the world. itself a part of a culture of violence. That opens for two models: three separate tracks for each . If you do only one of these three without the other two you will not even get that one. c. then.

with major implications for the afterlife. harmful. I am guilty of hurting you. a well-balanced interaction is required. but also guilt suffered by the perpetrator. The first model refers resolution to jurists-diplomats-politicians. Some acts are beneficial. sender and receiver. In Buddhist discourse beneficial acts carry merits to the author. between the two. both guilty.task. we are equal you and I. The norm of reciprocity demands that the harm is equalized. or the extension of an arm. retaliation balance for trauma (you both accounts. »You are guilty of hurting me. I). no act is neutral. The relation is not only Self-Other. arms. based on a fundamental hypothesis: reconciliation can best take place when 15 the parties cooperate in resolution and reconstruction. But when tension and 16 emotions are high. The capacity to handle conflict gets lost in war. or perpetrator and victim if the act is violent. The second model would fuse the tasks into one. if peace is defined as the capacity to handle conflicts with empathy. Both discourses agree on one point: a harmful act implies not only trauma suffered by the victim. Revenge. There are also neutral acts. and guilt exchange: when the perpetrator suffers a trauma of (about) the same for guilt (we are magnitude. Both have major consequences for the quality of the rebirth. nonviolence and creativity. Violence and War. and when the victim suffers a guilt of (about) the same equally bad you and magnitude.« By this logic the traumatized party has an asset: the right to have a trauma inflicted on the perpetrator. trauma Hamburg after the Second World War. X has done horrible violence to Y. If Y also does something horrible to X the two become that the harm is equally guilty as when Germans equalized Auschwitz with Dresdenequalized. Other acts are harmful: a punch with an arm.1 Reciprocity and Revenge In the beginning was the act. physical movements were followed by verbal acts. And this may also be where the road to peace is located. one track for all three tasks. If the act is beneficial the bond may be friendship. they enhance others. even love. The act is a transaction. but Self-Self. armies. In the act of retaliation the two approaches blend into one. not the word. and guilt for guilt (we are equally The norm of 18 bad you and I). It must be rebuilt. In Christian discourses good deeds may 17 lead to salvation and evil deeds to damnation. or the extension of bad-mouthing. propaganda. reconstruction to »developers«. and harmful acts carry demerits. 19 both traumatized. and with no appeal. 2. the actor. suffer my According to this logic there are two ways of getting equal in a violent suffering). In either case reciprocity is the norm. trauma for trauma (you suffer my suffering). And the guilty . the guilt is reciprocity demands unbearable. and reconciliation to theologians and psychologists. Trauma and Guilt 2. a word that hurts. no doubt a reason why revenge is so frequent.

If X has to be traumatized. function of the the rule »do no do to others what you do not want others to do to you« harm. . and wounds to the spirit never. the let us now assume problem is difficulty in knowing in advance whether action is harmful that the guilt is a 24 or not. at the risk of inflation gnawing at the capital. some harm being 23 unavoidable in normal social interaction. can do so. with all its consequences. There may be unknown consequences. And so on. the intent and is problematic: tastes may be different. The traumatized has a violence credit. vendettas. not thereby releasing own guilt since the authority is guilt-free. trauma. 21 lower down on the pecking order. but not recreate. Both trauma and guilt may be deposited in the world trauma and guilt banks. opening for the possibility of a chain of violence winding upwards in 22 social space. and the guilty a violence 20 debit. Was the harm. A special case is known as »punishment«. Others. the irreversibility: As a rule of thumb let us now assume that the guilt is a function of the Guilt = f(Harm x 25 harm. time and space? Traumatization done by somebody else. may doubt this and do the same unto W. there is also the possibility that W. fully intended? Was the harm irreversible. Nonlethal violence also has elements of irreversibility: wounds rarely heal completely. the victim. more importantly. X may simply be too powerful. But two traffic rules in social or world (between states or nations) interaction may be useful: – Never intend to do any harm to others! – Never do to others what cannot be undone! As a rule of thumb The latter may be modified to apply to harmful action only. Amortization is long term. in turn opens for two new. V and U. or can it be undone? The harm is in the eyes (and many other senses) of the beholder. the intent and the irreversibility: Intent x Guilt = f(Harm x Intent x Irreversibility) Irreversibility) This is what makes lethal violence to persons stand out: it is irreversible. life. and. Y may find it too risky to inflict a trauma on X. has a deficit: »One day he may come back and do to me what I did to him. a reason why the killer of a child in some cultures had to give his own child in return (or 26 have it killed). still more powerful. as psycho-analysis informs us. the latter to a politics of paranoia. and a chain of violence winding downwards through social space. W is the »authority« entitled to inflict pain.2 Intention and Irreversibility Let us now introduce two more dimensions of violence: intention and irreversibility. This. We can create. well-known scenarios: Traumatization done to somebody else.« The former may lead to trauma-chains through history. How about Z. and through time and space. Both carry interest over time.

number displaced. as when both German and French troops mutinied against approaches to guilt their generals at the end of World War I. general depression. under Humans number wounded. The same applies to all forms of violence to the body as any violence is violation. chronic and acute insanity in the moment of action. Western jurisprudence seems to have developed more in the former direction. higher for the restitution. the Nature damage to diversity and reinforcing »man over more hesitation symbiosis 32 nature« there should be somatic effects: spiritual effects: before a war is number killed. everything mentioned above 29 remains valid. the privacy 27 of the body. And this in spite of the fact that even if harm 28 wrought by crimes of violence and sexualized violence may be irreversible. visible Nonmaterial. Money can be earned and paid back. Orchestrated violence. launched. rationality. covering six »spaces«. number bereaved. but Space effects effects manageable. the house can be restored. not only material. invisible effects: are considered costs Material. nature. and both material. sexualized violence doubly so. etc.Sexualized violence may leave no wound on the body. How does all of this change the moment X and Y are not individuals but collectivities. invisible are high. number traumatized. invasion of the sanctum. opens for two But one difference is significant: a collectivity may be divided over the additional violent acts. with some terminology differences as when »restitution« The formula above is referred to as »reparation« after wars. the harm wrought by property crimes is not. On the other hand there is a difference in risk-taking. with pleas of ignorance. Mapping the Violence Formation In our next effort we shall illustrate the violence formation in a more When only visible 31 complete map. . with a very any evil intent. The less respect for non-human more complete the depletion and pollution. 3. The formula above opens for two additional approaches to guilt release: denial of any evil intent. To some extent this also applies to property as body extension. assumptions of number raped. and reversibility through 30 asymmetric chain of command (as opposed to a guerrilla movement). accounting. general hatred. requires unconditional obedience. However. and reversibility through restitution. destroyed cultural monuments might not be restorable at all because damage is symbolic. but irreversible trauma on the spirit. as release: denial of exercised by armies. at war? Actually. soldier in the combat zone than for the ranking officer in the bunker. not to mention the politicians back home setting the parameters for the war. visible and effects of violence nonmaterial. and to burglary as invasion of the family sanctum.

Culture human cultural heritage. soldiers unemployed the material damage to buildings. The use of . widows. adding up to net and gross national products. The syndrome serves a rather obvious function: when only visible effects of violence are considered costs are high. We are up against a general cultural syndrome which makes struggles to have invisible effects taken seriously even more problematic. orphans. rather than the effects of direct violence. the more hesitation there should be before a war is launched. The case is reminiscent of mainstream economic analysis with its focus on material factors only (nature/land. sometimes similar to warfare. The more 34 complete the accounting. to governance. kairos points of trauma and glory violence culture of trauma irreversible damage to and glory. deterioration of conflictto sacred points in space resolving capacity It is telling evidence of the materialism of our culture that the first column is taken so much more seriously than the second. transmitted violence: genetic damage to offspring general apathy. number wounded. un-exploded ordnance.Society World number in misery. education the material damage to infra-structure: breakdown of trade. the damage to social culture: to law and order. under assumptions of rationality. the human spirit. revenge addiction. victory addiction the damage to social structure: to institutions. electricity. the material damage to infra-structure: road. but the costs are the effects of structural violence built into the economic and political structure. mail. leaving out the enormous costs of »modernization« on nature. to human rights the damage to world structure. telecommunication. but manageable. health. The same goes for unfettered economic growth. material damage« reports about wars: the number of women raped. international exchange delayed violence: land-mines. The left hand column has an air of the obvious except for one more 35 recent entry in the callous »number killed. water. the damage to world culture structure transfer to next generation. social and world structure and culture in general. culture transfer to next Time generation. rail. labour and capital) and their effect in 33 producing concrete goods and services.

unknown to a number of societies. The damage may be deplored. . megaviolence to nature makes lower. accept their losses: – the sacrifice was for a just. – victory proves that God. The damage may be deplored. natural or social. general national bereavement. not the legitimation. Because war. »conventional« levels of violence look almost innocent. e. also a part of the rape syndrome. Like megaviolence to humans. far from trivial. colonialism and patriarchy. for History (as instrument for 40 the course of History). 3.. as in general when catastrophe strikes. however.1 Nature One thing is damage to the eco-system and eco-deterioration. But old-fashioned kinetic and incendiary military insults to nature. knowing somebody bereaved: the condolences. Most damaging is the use of ABC-weapons. self-exculpatory German »War is a law of nature« (»Der Krieg one. not the legitimation. the frequent mention in reports these years is also due to the recent rise of feminism. even holy. is a social institution. bringing us to 10³. If social = structural + cultural then we have already Rotterdamus two handles to limit war. or for the Nation. History. The right hand column is. Law is on our Nation's side. going up in flames. as a collectivity defined culturally by the sharing of (kairos) points of glory and trauma. as a low estimate. Then comes the tertiary order. individual and collective. – war is justified by Law as defensive war against aggression.women's bodies as battlefields between gangs of men is probably as old as war. »The war is only As Erasmus Rotterdamus said long time ago: »The war is only sweet to sweet to those who those who never experienced one« – an important point against the never experienced naive. We can safely multiply the number 38 killed during a war by 10. another is reinforcement of the general cultural code of domination over nature. Countless millions watch on TV not 36 only people killed and wounded but also nature destroyed. colleagues) we come closer to the order of 10². Erasmus war is avoidable. in time and space. the sharing in the sorrow. 3. counting other primary groups (friends. The war is legitimated. when done on a large scale (including peacetime 37 manoeuvres) can make civilian insults look innocent.2 Humans The number of people bereaved through warfare is unknown. Added to that comes second order bereavement. poisoned. cause usually meaning for God (as instrument for his will. like slavery.g. Deus volt). Of course. neighbours. A modern family of two or three generations means the order of 10¹.« 39 ist ein Naturgesetz«). The war is legitimated. Auschwitz and Hiroshima-Nagasaki. a war culture includes ways of making the bereaved. capable of also wreaking genetic havoc.

How long42 lasting is another matter. But the result may be a lasting over-employment of the under-qualified. discipline. high social positions after the war. complex. and often get. in the sense of easily accepting war as an alternative. The awareness of these consequences would erode the commitment to God. fragmentation. Culturally. History. team-work. History. as a means for the restitution of community – today perhaps particularly pronounced in advanced democracies with eroded traditional sources of cohesion: outgroup aggression.4 World If we now define the world as a community of nations in addition to a community of states. 3. What does war do to them? Nobody will dispute that wars bring about cohesion both on the military and the civilian sides because of the single-minded devotion to one cause: winning.3 Society At the social level of the human condition we find as mentioned. At do we see the result the deeper level they share chosenness. And that leads to the same question: does this mean that post-war society is organized like an army. The war may be used by societies threatened by general atomie. But these community: 43 virtues are embedded in a casing of violence and contempt for life that outgroup also may carry over to civilian life.– defeat shows that the Nation has betrayed God. The war may be Nor is there any question that wars bring out such positive traits as used by societies as dedication. and continuity to pay homage to sacred dates. War provides mobility for the aggression. the more 45 clearer. the absence of compelling norms. war-prone. solidarity. glory and trauma. – war is in human nature anyhow. expressing a law of nature. Law and Nation. Those who prove themselves along such lines will restitution of demand. At the superficial level nations share religion and language. project the . atomization. or – failing that – to bring the war to an honourable end. Contiguity around sacred places. does that not mean a belligerent cosmovision (Weltanschauung). With rationalizations such as these no wonder that major causes and effects of wars are kept in the dark – Law is basically silent about 41 structural and cultural violence. filled with friend-foe ideas? If so. History. a reason why soldiers are often from the underclass of cohesion. Nation. 3. Law. structure and culture. sacrifice. ingroup cohesion. Wars are help define these kairos points. war may also cure society of anomie. then the effect of wars becomes even have had. the CGTas normal. in other words as an inter-nation system in The more wars we addition to an inter-state system. society (including the unemployed and the unemployable). Law so the sacrifice is only meaningful if the Nation wins next time. society never demobilizes but remains militarized. good a means for the administration. substituting war-time norms about God. responding to military 44 culture? If we assume military culture to be to culture what military music is to music. ingroup downtrodden.

old conflict symbols. Better still is a long. 50 unabated. A kairos of war may have to be confronted with a kairos of peace. much like violent behaviour patient khronos of 49 is transmitted in the family. After the guns have become silent the war in the minds is still there: the Dichotomy of nations into two camps. A national army. like in a placid river.nation into geography and history. the DMA-complex. Wars wreak havoc with structures and cultures. and culture. And the more wars we have had. But in addition to that structure and culture also possess certain inertia. The basic point about time is the inertia of structure and culture. those public dreams of the collective subconscious. There are waterfalls. into action. the Armageddon battle as the defining event. the Manichean view of the 46 camps as good–evil. the more do we see the result as normal. and arms including nuclear weapons. archaeology. All this is transmitted through family and school. also bring out this clearly. And further down the river the water tends to be about the same. Major vehicles for transmission are the work for peace. largely unchanged 48 at the level of deep structure and deep culture. Each new war reinforces the image of war as normal and confronted with a natural. new enemies of the Nation (or super-Nation) are being excavated from History. We live in an inter-state. The end of the Cold War is by now a classical 47 case: the evaporation of the »East« as a conflict partner was unexpected. as the struggle between God and Satan on earth. 3. for short. Any sign that the enemy is still alive will trigger ready-made responses. They both drift through vast stretches of time. The nations are vehicles for the transmission of structure Better still is a long. friend–foe. they will continue. with poorly defined peace as between-wars may have to be periods. as a layer sedimented on top of the other in the national kairos of peace. with the help of God and Law. the myths expressed in popular art and the monuments dedicated to the sacred points in time and space. »revolutions« for structures and »change of ethos« for cultures.5 Time As mentioned. The DMA-complex in the minds survives the end of the war. Studies of national holidays and anthems. and the well-embedded conflict. below surface ripples and eddies. national language and religion. Unless something deliberate is done to counteract them. as clearly seen by watching the names of metro stations and squares in a country referring to itself as la grande nation. a war serves to equip time with the glory and trauma points that in turn serve to define nations. inter-nation system. patient khronos of work for peace till the . in the absence of such signs other enemies will be found to complete the Gestalt formed by this type of cultural violence. including the pattern of war. is telling evidence of the readiness to translate the myths. The pattern becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. but they are far between. to a large extent shaped A kairos of war by well-defined wars.

khronos. There are many misunderstandings and unfortunate Violence and war conceptions of conflict. conceives of conflict as an organism with birth. creativity. otherwise we would have extinguished long time ago. or cultural peace as opposed to cultural 52 violence: nonviolence. On Images of Conflict. among researchers eruption with a and people in general. and then a decline. even »them«. then we evidently also have some great conflict-transforming capacity. That discourse has quantitative time. and substitute a culture of secrets and deceits. External causes become good reasons.6 Culture Through each war humanity dies a little. the capacity to understand Other from the inside. or less pathetically. with something constructive. 4. forcing them to stop. in promoting Other. The end is then often called »peace«. of a peace culture: That wars are not nonviolent is more than a tautology. the useless to continue destroying each other. till in the end the conflict end and no other dies out. a khronos flow. on the consequences than horizontal axis and on the vertical axis the level of direct violence. the violence: the killed. beginning and an growth to a turning point. . is high treason. and the context chosen is 56 »conflict«.1 Conflict as Organism Violence must be seen in a context. in the sense of incompatibility of goals. empathy. are seen as an A common discourse about conflict. Wars rule out that response as treason. operating on one or more sides. that great Creator and great Destroyer. More precisely. If 51 conflict.vicious cycle is broken by a transition from quantity to quality. humanity must have great reservoirs of the three major components of a peace culture. 3. But we are a sturdy species. parties may coincide in their prognosis about the outcome and find it the wounded. lies and propaganda. There is more to us than the sad story told by focusing on war and violence only. or making them agree to stop. in the qualitative sense. The conflict may have »burnt out«. In doing so Other's 55 behaviour becomes a consequence of his history. intra-global. inter-stellar for that matter. both ad creativity bellum and in bello. Wars and violence are travesties on these virtues and reduce human conflict-transforming Major components capacity. the kairos points of at the end of the time. Violence. There is no denial that wars may be highly creative in their destructiveness. of life and 54 property. Creativity in life-enhancement. at all levels of human organization. The will to kill »them« may be subverted. is ubiquitous. in the media. from the intra-personal to the interregional. But the point about nonviolence is to respond to 53 empathy violence and destruction with love. is also ruled out as treason. And the same applies to the third virtue: empathy. and Peace 4. There may be nonviolence self-imposed restraints in wars. or a third party has damage. those that are visible 57 from the first sign of »trouble« to »cease-fire«. intervened. But the bottom line remains destruction.

This all plays together holistically and synergistically. But this image counteracts both prevention and aftermath care. ex nihilo.3 Conflict Formation and Conflict History Violence cannot be Nor can violence be detached from its space-time context. not in the disease-patient interface. nutrition and living standard. and with the first violent act. – The impression is given that violence and war have their origin at precise space and time points. not only the body. proximate and distant. for instance to tuberculosis. let us compare violence to disease. 4. including all parties involved. the damage. compatible with the idea of evil at work. More particularly. Thus. peace only as a point. – The impression is given of a single-peak conflict life-cycle. leaving room for empathy with the individual patient and his total environment and history. – A point not to be underestimated: violence and war are seen as a variable. which in turn has to do with the immune 60 system. clothing) than because of artificial strengthening of immune systems through inoculation. and early diagnosis (X-ray). the wounded.2 Violence as Disease Before an alternative image is developed. A disease cannot be detached from patient and context as an abstract entity with a life-cycle of its 61 own. space-time context. as zero violence or war. Key aspects of exposure and resistance may be in the context in a broad sense. therapy and rehabilitation. Of course. and the cycles may even be global (AIDS). studies show how TBC rates decreased more because of improved living standards (nutrition. The context detached from its 62 in space is the conflict formation. nobody is 59 quite that naive. a considerable literature exists about »causes of war« and the »aftermath«. violence and war are seen as an eruption with a beginning and an end and no other consequences than those that are visible at the end of the violence: the killed. A fruitful way of conceiving of any human pathology is in terms of interplay between exposure and resistance.A list of major shortcomings of this discourse includes: – The impression is given that violence and war arise out of nothing. mind and spirit. Of course some generalities can be identified. but they will never completely cover any individual case. combining the generalizing and the Key causes may be individualizing. Causal cycles pass bodymind-spirit. calling for generalized prevention. and macro-historical (flu). 58 – The impression is given that violence and war end with no aftereffects. far away from the symptoms. And key causes may be far away from the symptoms. multiple peaks etc. 4. and not of long periods of latency. with all goals relevant for the conflict. compatible with ideas of »conflict termination«. TBC. Include the full context. . and the level of immunity of the body. in casu between micro-organisms operating under the right conditions (for them) of temperature and humidity. housing.

Article c. parties may be crucial. A first mistake in conflict practice is to include only parties in a limited violence area. 68 – Social: as deepening of conflict – as healing of conflict. confusing symptoms with causes. in unbounded areas and intervals. »Rwanda«. »Intercultural b. and after67 Johan Galtung: history. – Culture: as deposits of trauma or glory – as deposits of peace. as: · vertical structural violence: repression and exploitation. like a physician referring to a swollen ankle as an »ankle disease«. 69 – structural violence – structural peace: in social and world spaces. rooted in empiricism and beyond that in behaviourism: violence is behaviour and can be observed.consciously held values as well as positional interests. Causal cycles outside areainterval might include very powerful actors who prefer to remain unnamed and unmentioned. Conflict Resolution: – Human (body. the 64 »Yugoslav debacle«. »terrorists«. Articles Database. In: Transcend – World: as deepening of conflict – as healing of conflict. Remote. not as a social problem. Another is political: violence may escalate not only inside but also »out of area-interval« and become dangerous to others by contagion. A second mistake made in conflict practice is to equip conflict 63 history with beginning and end. Or to hunger as »insufficient food intake«. mind. An Introduction«. Direct (overt) violence is seen as having a pre-. conflict is more abstract. and tabulated in research long on data and short on understanding. but also on the aftermath? Here is one tentative answer: a. back-stage. Mainstream media tend to fall into all these traps. These histories can be traced in six spaces: Dialogue and – Nature: as ecological deterioration – ecological improvement. · horizontal structural violence: parties too close – too remote. spirit): as traumas-hatred – as glory-love. focusing not only on the aetiology of a given outbreak 66 of violence and war and on meaningful intervention. . – Time: as the kairos of trauma or glory – as the khronos of peace. These six spaces can be summarized into three: – direct violence – peace: to nature and human body-mind-spirit. Hence the 65 focus on proven carriers of the germs of disease and violence. The context in time is the conflict history. 2003. coinciding with a limited violence interval. 4. side-. like an epidemic disease. not as a possible heart disorder symptom. One reason for this is no doubt epistemological. like germs. from the first eruption of violence till the cease-fire confused with peace. including the history of the future.4 An Alternative Image of Violence What kind of discourse would we recommend to accommodate these considerations. the »Gulf War«. to be eradicated. A violence area-interval is then detached from formation and history and reified as in the »Manchurian Incident«.

because Y is low«. Thus. but »X is high on both. not only relative. even if multi-peaked rather than singlepeaked violence processes may be more realistic (as for diseases). Only one type of violence is included: direct violence. both phenomena easily pass unregistered. like direct. Third. But whereas direct violence is usually seen as a process with kairos points. Violence is easier to understand and conveniently confused with conflict. being 75 permanent for long intervals of time. and peace. maturity and death. If positive and high. and machismo interpreting direct violence as catharsis. are more like step functions at those kairos points. but »Y was killed by a bullet 76 fired by X«. Article · structural peace: freedom and equity. 2003. and the event is difficult to catch (it is too sudden). a more adequate conflict analysis would start with a social formation. Structural. as zero violence. As the permanent is difficult to see (there is no contrast). But there are three problems: This represents violence as a variable and the absence of violence as a point. Not only »Y was killed by a bullet. structural and cultural violence. so why not have peace on the positive 74 side of the Y-axis. Not only inequality. This resistance may 77 not only be disturbingly low but negative. How would we now depict a conflict process? There is no denial that the violent aspect of conflict is a function of time like an organism with 71 birth. don't worry. warning. There is an event that brings about a lower or higher 70 level. and then assess the levels of structural and cultural violence or peace. reflected among other places in the level of positive. after which the level is more permanent. and violence on the negative? With three types of violence and peace this means three Y-axes. very early. violence is relational. in terms of more peace or less peace. – cultural violence – cultural peace: legitimizing – delegitimizing violence. But if both are low we have an early. meaning there is structural and cultural violence operating.Johan Galtung: »Cultural Peace: Some Characteristics«. not the 73 underlying structural and cultural violence. Both have considerable inertia. but to level of health in general. . But peace should also be seen 72 as a variable. In: Transcend Articles Database. as »cease-fire«. X was not«. adequate distance. like the level of repression and exploitation of indigenous people combined with Western and Christian contempt for primitives-pagans. Structural and cultural peace correspond not only to immunity in disease analysis. and this is more psychological than logical: »up« and »down« have evaluative connotations. Time enters as a medium in which this all unfolds. but inequity: not »Y is low on wellbeing and human rights« and »X is high on both«. cooperative interaction and the level of friendship.

. is often seen as an event although the famous drop that leads to an overflow may be a better image. an additional act. than the structural and cultural damage wrought. Violence therapy has to learn from disease therapy: 80 include prevention – build cultural and structural peace – and include rehabilitation. instrumental act for basic change. A final provocation. and then into peace. one surgical error. and then »hospitalitis« if only in the form of long-lasting back-sores. The patient offers one disease and gets two or three iatrogenic diseases in return. but the structural and cultural violence have increased in the process. misery. The direct violence may be the lesser evil. passing zero = cease-fire. But then comes the basic point: after the cease-fire the situation may be worse than before the violence erupted. until the curve turns upward. Direct violence may have come to a celebrated end. The direct suffering is over. with repression. meaning build cultural and structural peace again. And again. and the process unfolds. And again. But it will probably provoke a counter-violence.The exposure. The violence may be 78 expressive of despair and frustration rather than a calculated. hunger and alienation at an intolerable level. downward in this image. It is like the way being hospitalized is seen in 79 some societies: like a market. less violence. like the shot in Sarajevo. one infection. at least in the longer term.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.