johan galtung positive and negative peace pdf

If good effects have good causes and bad effects bad causes, then we can either keep, or throw out, the cause-effect bundle. Somewhere in our minds lurks another grammatical rule for the causal discourse. Rather than linear chains we get loops and all kinds of configurations, with no clear beginning or end a more adequate map of reality revealing side-causes and -effects. We could now introduce circular causation with the effect as a cause reinforcing the first cause which in turn reinforces the effect, in a positive feedback cycle, or reduces the first cause in a negative feedback cycle. Positive causes should be removed (primary prophylaxis) and negative causes introduced (secondary prophylaxis). Like an immune system conflict transformation creates resistance against such causes as war enthusiasm, hatred, desire for trauma revenge, or the hope for glory. Thus, a negative cause of war can be postulated: the absence of adequate conflict transformation whether the substance is mainly economic, political, military or cultural (usually a mix). The epidemic came like a tsunami, invaded, killed and left. But perhaps also something negatively not existing, like absence of adequate immunity whether brought about naturally or artificially (inoculation), absence of hygiene, early warning, health services for preventive and curative care. The cause? Some positively existing micro- organism, for sure.

Let us then make a distinction between positive and negative causes, the positively existing and the negatively not existing. The test of understanding is “whether it works”, as opposed to mathematics where the test is “whether it is valid”.

The causal discourse is highly pragmatic, result-oriented even though it also opens for neutral E’s that are neither pursued nor rejected. if we reject E, then negate E by negating SC+NC.if we pursue E, then realize E by realizing SC+NC, or.The basic idea, then, is to control the set SC+NC so that The result is a causal chain, often referred to as a “ mechanism”, from physical sciences and their application in engineering, to understand “how it works”. To get a better understanding we may insert intermediaries, or “steps”, between C and E, or E and C if we reason backward (the case of necessity). If E is war an example often used these days of a sufficient cause is “resource scarcity”, and an example of a necessary cause is availability of arms. And the connective relating them, an arrow, like C–>E, translated as “C causes/leads to/is followed by E”, or some synonyms, is two-way.Ĭ–>E is for a sufficient cause, SC, meaning that wherever C is present so will E immediately or with a time lag. In that discourse the two words “cause” (C) and “effect” (E) are subject to rules of speech: E cannot precede C in time. The causality discourseĬausality is, as often said, not a law but the form of a law a discourse used to bring some understanding to a chaotic world.

Johan Galtung, dr hc mult, Professor of Peace Studies įounder, TRANSCEND: A Network for Peace and Development 1. Uni Basel Soziologie, Öffnung: Krieg Aethiologie Abschaffung,12/9/07 Gipri, Ecole d’été: Les causes des guerrres à venir, Geneve 31/8/07

Johan galtung positive and negative peace pdf