JOHN GALTUNG:

‘Peace is something you construct with your enemies, not with your friends”. –
GALTUNG

In his 1969 publication “Violence, Peace and Peace research”, johan galtung offers
his conflict triangle hypothesis, a framework used in the study of peace and conflict
with the goal of distinguishing the three fundamental elements of violence that
comprise this triangle.

The thesis is founded on the idea that peace must be defined by broadly accepted
social goals and that any condition of peace is distinguished by the absence of
violence. When all three kinds of vilence are present in a conflict, the consequence is
a more consolidated, static state of violence, but the absence of all three types of
violence results in peace.

Conflict, as Weber says is a ‘violent dispute or incompatibility of positions’. Conflict

can be both intrastate and interstate as well. The conflict escalation model defines
well how a conflict emerges from difference, then culminates into war, followed by
agreements and resolution.

But what does peace connote as part of an academic discipline?

‘Peace is the absence of physical and structural violence’ –JOHAN GALTUNG

The most accepted explanation of peace is harmony in personal relations, freedom

from oppressive thoughts or a state of tranquility. Peace is defined not just as the
absence of war, but also the availability of the circumstances for lasting peace.

Galtung classified peace into Negative and Positive peace. Negative peace is focused
on absence of manifest violence such as war. It may focus on present or near future
goals. Due to the fact that stability and order can be maintained by an oppressive
system, negative peace is compatible with the structural violence.

Positive peace is defined as peace with justice for all. Often peace is mistaken simply
as absence of negative force. But peace is not merely absence of tension, but the
presence of justice.
1. Galtung’s conflict analysis model:
In his book, ‘Peace by peaceful means’, Johan Galtung characterized conflict as a
‘triadic’ construct, made up of three fundamental factors: attitudes, behavior and
contradictions.
In 1969, he proposed a conflict analysis model, in which the disagreement can be
viewed as a triangle, with three vertex; attitude, behavior and contradictions.
Let’s name them A,B AND C respectively. The three aspects are interrelated and
any one of them can be the starting point of the conflict.
Here C (contradiction) which is the main point of contention is the opposing
party’s actual or perceived “incompatibility of goals”. These incompatibilities may
lead to hostile attitude, then behavior. Likewise, hostile attitude can also lead to
hostile behavior and contradiction; similar for behavior.
Attitude encompasses the party’s perceptions and misperceptions of themselves
and each other. It is made up of emotive and cognitive elements.
Compulsion, opposition, threats, etc are all instances of aggressive encounter
behavior.
Galtung argues that all three components have to be present together to create a
conflict. According to him conflict is dynamic process and all three A/B/C keep in
changing and influencing each other.

2. Galtung’s violence triangle:

Galtung explained violence in terms of its three dimensions: direct violence,
structural violence and cultural violence. These three dimensions are depicted as
the three angles of the triangle.
Direct violence, may be any kind of physical violence such as killing, assault etc. it
can also be psychological violence or behavior like anxiety or stress. It is the most
evident with both the victim and perpetrator easily visible. Direct violence is
closely intertwined to structural and cultural violence. They create direct
violence, which strengthens the former.
Cultural violence, refers to prevailing attitudes or beliefs pf public used to
legitimize the direct or structural use of violence. These include stereotypes,
prejudices, etc of the society.
 When some group/class/ethnicities are considered inferior or discriminated
against in comparison to others, structural violence develops. Structural violence
is built into the social structure which shows up as unequal power or life chances.
Unequal distribution of resources, decision making and opportunities can be
some area of measurement. This violence is not always ingended and visible at
earlier stages. Eg. 842 million people with no food to eat, 2013 Maharashtra
water crisis.
Galtung suggests that all these three forms of violence feed each other. While
direct is visible, structural and cultural is not visible. We can use the triangle to
examine whether the violence is confined to individual or related to structures of
society as a whole.
3. Galtung’s peace model:
This model proposed by Galtung defines the way to achieve peace and how does
it relates to sustainable development. Peace is about building prosperity and
well-being, creating value which goes beyond monetary gain and economic
growth. We need to access all elements of conflict.

Peacekeeping, i.e. cessation of direct violence can be used to address

physical/direct violence through change in behavior. It is not about forcing peace,
rather building it over consent of all parties in conflict.
Peacemaking, i.e. transformation of contradictory attitude through mediation;
can be used to address cultural violence through a change in attitude. It is about
educating people, resilient power building, and building up relations among
different divisions of society.
Peacebuilding, is a process of establishing positive peace after war, including
ceasefire, reconciliation, etc. it can be used for structural violence by removing
barriers/contradictions and promoting equality.

EVALUATING GALTUNG’S WORK:

John Galtung in his book “Peace by peaceful means” published in 1996 gave a
broad view of ideas, theories and assumptions about peace, conflict,
development and civilization. He became one of the important thinkers in his
century and his works are still relevant.
His work provided RATIONALITY OF THOUGHT. He claimed that violence that kills
through bullet or violence that kills through hunger is equally evil. He was
optimistic that violence can be eradicated, and peace can definitely prevail. He
also praised Gandhi’s ideals of satyagraha and non-violence. Galtung thinks in the
line of radical feminists. He claims that patriarchy to be structural and cultural
form of violence.
The conflict triangle and peace research article by Galtung are however not
without criticisms. Galtung employs very broad definition of violence, conflict and
peace and employs phrases such as negative and positive, direct and indirect, and
violence in which perpetrators and victims couldn’t be distinguished.
He takes a positivist approach, assuming that every rational premise of the theory
can be confirmed.
“Galtung is infact a lifetime enemy of freedom” remarked Bruce Baver, firmly
refuting his ideas.

CONCLUSION:
Thus Galtung’s model shows altered perceptions and causes of conflict. But it
portrays the relation as well as the ways to imply peace in refutable conditions.
Despite several criticisms, his work is considered as a hallmark in peace and
conflict studies.