Peace & Violence
Johan Galtung is one of the foremost and prolific peace researchers of recent times. Having founded
in 1959 the International Peace Research Institute (PRIO) in Oslo, his thoughts on the nature of
conflict, peace & violence underpin much of conflict analysis today.
A Typology of Violence - Direct, Structural & Cultural Violence
Galtung’s first challenge is to broaden the understanding of our everyday notions of violence i.e. - the
direct, deliberate physical harm by one actor towards another. Galtung argues that such a notion of
violence would be very restrictive – if peace was simply the absence of harm imposed directly on
people, then many highly inequitable societies could not be challenged. Galtung suggests that
violence exists when an individual’s ‘realization’ (i.e. the extent of their progress and general
experience of life) is much lower than that of their potential (i.e. what they could have achieved without
any restraints). Thus, if somebody in a highly developed country died due to tuberculosis today in
their thirties, Galtung suggests their death is a violent one – the result of resources been inequitably
mobilised to meet their needs. Galtung notes:
“Violence is here defined as the cause of the difference between the potential and the actual, between
what could have been and what is. Violence is that which increases the distance between the potential
and the actual and that which impedes the decrease of this distance.”1
The term ‘Direct Violence’ is Galtung’s terminology for when the means of realization (i.e.
physical/psychological integrity, physical infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, land) are not
withheld but are destroyed, - an understanding more synonymous with a common understanding of
the term. An example Galtung gives is as follows:
“Thus when a war is fought there is direct violence where means of realization are not withheld, but
directly destroyed. Thus when a war is fought there is direct violence since killing or hurting a person
certainly puts his ‘actual somatic realization’ below his ‘actual somatic realization’ below his ‘potential
somatic realization’. But there is also indirect violence insofar as resources are channelled away from
constructive efforts to bring the actual closer to the potential.”2
Cultural violence is the third key type of violence. Galtung defines cultural violence as norms or
commonly held values which prohibit us from defining or seeing direct or structural violence. Galtung
defines cultural violence as:
“…those aspects of culture, the symbolic sphere of our existence – exemplified by religion, language
and art, empirical science and formal science that can be used to justify of legitimise direct or
structural violence.” 3
The relationships between these three types of violence can then be considered by placing the three
terms on each apex of a triangle. In the example below, we can see how cultural violence could be
considered to be the product of both direct and structural violence. If the triangle was rotated so that
the cultural and structural violence formed the base we could consider how these legitimise or allow
direct violence to occur.
Galtung, J., ‘Violence, Peace & Peace Research’, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 6, No. 3 (1969), p 168.
ibid. p 169.
3 Galtung, J., ‘Cultural Violence’, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 27, No. 3 (1990), p 291.
1
2
The interrelation of Cultural, Direct & Structural Violence
Cultural Violence
Direct Violence
Structural Violence
Positive & Negative Peace
Galtung argues that with a more nuanced notion of violence, we can correspondingly develop a more
nuanced understanding of peace. If we achieve the absence of direct violence in society but still have
systems in place that prohibit people from reaching their full potential then Galtung suggests we are
actually still living in a state of negative peace.
“The reason for the use of the terms ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ is clearly seen: The absence of personal
violence does not lead to a positively defined condition, whereas the absence of structural violence is
what we have referred to as social justice, which is positively defined condition (egalitarian distribution
of power and resources).”4
The extended concept of Violence & Peace
Violence
Personal
Structural
(direct)
(indirect)
Absence of personal violence
Absence of structural violence
or
or
Negative Peace
Positive Peace
Peace
If however, we also manage to dismantle systems that prohibit people from reaching their potential,
then we could say that we are progressing towards a state of positive peace. From a peacebuilding
perspective, this can help us to devise our programming so it has the intention of aiming towards a
society where people are able to resolve their conflicts without resorting to violence.
4
Op cit, Galtung (1969), p 183.