Random quote
All men by nature desire to know.

Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC)

Johan Galtung (1930-2024)

A few days ago I heard that the Norwegian peace researcher Johan Vincent Galtung had died, 93 years old. Galtung was certainly the most important peace researcher of his time, and one can say that without his energy and activism the field of peace research wouldn’t have been what it is now. This would already be sufficient reason to write a blog about him, but the main reason I do is that he had a clear influence on my thinking. Before I switched from sociology to philosophy, I have done some investigations in the field of peace research. I have also been a peace activist. Then it was impossible not to come across his name and not to be impressed by his ideas. However, it was not because of this interest that I stumbled upon Galtung’s name, but I first heard of Galtung when I studied sociology, for Galtung, originally a mathematician and sociologist, had written a thick and thorough book on methodology: Theory and methods of social research. Though not prescribed by the study program, I bought the book and used it often.
However, it was because of my interest in peace and peace research that I came most in touch with Galtung’s ideas and views. In 1959 Galtung was the co-founder of the Norwegian Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), and for ten years he was its first director. In 1964 he established the Journal of Peace Research, the first peace research journal in the world and still a leading journal in its field. Maybe the best article published by Galtung there is his “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research” (1969), which contains some of his best ideas. More than 50 years later, it still is worth to be read. Having left the PRIO after ten years, Johan Galtung got many functions inside and outside the academic world. Here I’ll mention them, nor will I give a list of his most important publications. They can easily be found on the internet (see for example the Wikipedia). Instead, I want to pay attention to three important ideas developed by Galtung that have had a big impact on my thinking and on the thinking of many others.

Structural violence
Violence is seen by many as a direct physical attack by one or more persons on one or more other persons. I think this does not need much explanation. We think here of intentionally hurting, beating, killing etc. of another person or persons. Also for Galtung such deeds are violence. However, according to him there is more than this, what he calls, “direct violence”. There is also a kind of violence that cannot be ascribed to individual perpetrators but that is as hurting and killing as direct violence: structural violence. Structural violence is clearly caused by humans but cannot be ascribed to individuals. It is a consequence of the social circumstances people live in, because victims of this type of violence have no access to the necessary resources that would improve their miserable circumstances; structural violence can even kill. The reasons why people cannot use the resources they need for improving their living conditions are not natural, but others prevent them from using them or don’t give them the means they should reasonably give to the victims. Galtung calls structural violence also “social injustice”. To quote Galtung (Violence, Peace, and Peace Research, pp. 170-1):

“Resources are unevenly distributed, as when income distributions are heavily skewed, literacy/education unevenly distributed, medical services existent in some districts and for some groups only, and so on. Above all the power to decide over the distribution of resources is unevenly distributed. The situation is aggravated further if the persons low on income are also low in education, low on health, and low on power - as is frequently the case because these rank dimensions tend to be heavily correlated due to the way they are tied together in the social structure… The important point here is that if people are starving when this is objectively avoidable, then violence is committed, regardless of whether there is a clear subject-action-object relation, as during a siege yesterday or no such clear relation, as in the way world economic relations are organized today… Violence with a clear subject-object relation is manifest because it is visible as action… Violence without this relation is structural, built into structure. Thus, when one husband beats his wife there is a clear case of personal violence, but when one million husbands keep one million wives in ignorance there is structural violence. Correspondingly, in a society where life expectancy is twice as high in the upper as in the lower classes, violence is exercised even if there are no concrete actors one can point to directly attacking others, as when one person kills another.”

Negative versus positive peace
In the article just quoted, Galtung makes a distinction between negative peace and positive peace. Often we say that there is peace, if there is no fighting; if there is no war. We call it also peace, if people ignore each other, even when they live together in some way. We call it also peace when the relations between people are tense, but if there is no open fighting. Sometimes we call this “armed peace”. But is peace really merely the absence of fighting? According to Galtung we can better call such a situation “negative peace”: the absence of personal violence. Against this negative idea of peace, Galtung developed the idea of positive peace: a situation in which people collaborate with each other and support each other. We can, following Galtung (p. 183), say it this way: Negative peace is the absence of direct (personal) violence, while positive peace is the absence of structural violence. Positive peace is a situation of social justice.

Peace building
Positive peace usually doesn’t develop automatically from a situation that once was a situation of violence and then has become a situation of negative peace. We must work on it. Unjust situations must be purposefully removed; people must learn to work together and to develop positive relations of cooperation and support towards those who once were their enemies. In other words, positive peace must be built. In 1975 Galtung coined the word “peace building” for this construction of positive peace in his “Three Approaches to Peace: Peacekeeping, Peacemaking, and Peacebuilding.” “In this article, he posited that ‘peace has a structure different from, perhaps over and above, peacekeeping and ad hoc peacemaking... The mechanisms that peace is based on should be built into the structure and be present as a reservoir for the system itself to draw up... More specifically, structures must be found that remove causes of wars and offer alternatives to war in situations where wars might occur.’ These observations constitute the intellectual antecedents of today’s notion of peacebuilding: an endeavor aiming to create sustainable peace by addressing the ‘root causes’ of violent conflict and eliciting indigenous capacities for peaceful management and resolution of conflict.” (from the peacebuilinginitiative.org website)

Galtung developed important concepts and ideas for a better world, but still much must be done to get them realized. In view of what presently is happening in the world, one wonders whether even the foundations of a peace building have already been laid.

Random quote
That which is for me through the medium of money – that for which I can pay (i.e., which money can buy) – that am I myself, the possessor of the money. The extent of the power of money is the extent of my power. Money’s properties are my – the possessor’s – properties and essential powers. Thus, what I am and am capable of is by no means determined by my individuality. I am ugly, but I can buy for myself the most beautiful of women. Therefore I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness – its deterrent power – is nullified by money. I, according to my individual characteristics, am lame, but money furnishes me with twenty-four feet. Therefore I am not lame. I am bad, dishonest, unscrupulous, stupid; but money is honoured, and hence its possessor. Money is the supreme good, therefore its possessor is good. Money, besides, saves me the trouble of being dishonest: I am therefore presumed honest. I am brainless, but money is the real brain of all things and how then should its possessor be brainless? Besides, he can buy clever people for himself, and is he who has [In the manuscript: ‘is’. – Ed.] power over the clever not more clever than the clever? Do not I, who thanks to money am capable of all that the human heart longs for, possess all human capacities? Does not my money, therefore, transform all my incapacities into their contrary?

Karl Marx (1818-1883) Source and translation

On obstinacy

When I reread Montaigne’s 15th essay “Men are punished for being obstinate in the defence of a fort without reason” in his Essays, immediately I had to think of Hervey Allen’s Toward the Flame, which I had recently read. Toward the Flame is Allen’s account of his experiences as a soldier during the First World War. As for Montaigne’s essay, he describes there the possible fatal consequences of obstinacy in war. Already in the first sentence Montaigne summarizes what he wants to tell us: “Valour has its bounds as well as other virtues, which, once transgressed, the next step is into the territories of vice.” If one crosses the boundaries of a virtue like bravery, it easily can lead to the opposite, in this case “temerity, obstinacy, and folly.” Montaigne illustrates his view with cases of fortresses that surrendered after a hard and obstinate resistance; however, after the surrender the losers were as yet killed by the victors. In his days this was not unusual. Rather it was a “custom”, so Montaigne, “in times of war, to punish, even with death, those who are obstinate to defend a place that by the rules of war is not tenable.” Montaigne thinks that the killing is not unreasonable, since “otherwise men would be so confident upon the hope of impunity, that not a henroost [chicken coop] but would resist and seek to stop an army.” However, what is “tenable”? For “the strength or weakness of a fortress is always measured by the estimate and counterpoise of the forces that attack it … where also the greatness of the prince who is master of the field, his reputation, and the respect that is due unto him, are also put into the balance. There is danger that the balance be pressed too much in that direction.” Even more, “it may happen that a man is possessed with so great an opinion of himself and his power, that thinking it unreasonable any place should dare to shut its gates against him, he puts all to the sword where he meets with any opposition”, so kills the resisters.
Happily, this cruel custom has changed since Montaigne wrote these words, and nowadays it is at least forbidden by international law to kill a soldier who has surrendered, let alone innocent civilians, although in practice this law often is violated.
Now to Harvey Allen, a lieutenant in the 28th division of the American Army in France during the First World War. His division had been added to the Sixth French army. At the end of Toward the Flame, Allen takes part in the battle of Fismette, a little French village on the north bank of the Vesle River, opposite the somewhat bigger village of Fismes on the south bank (west of Reims). Fismette was a bridgehead, surrounded by the German army and impossible to defend, according to his American division commander, who therefore ordered his soldiers to withdraw to the south bank. However, this order was countermanded by the French commander of the Sixth French Army. So, the fierce and cruel battle continued and the Germans conquered Fismette and killed or captured almost all American soldiers there. Later the French commander apologized to the American division commander, while general Pershing, the commander of the American army, said to him: “Why did you not disobey the [French] order?” In other words, this battle of Fismette is a clear case of Montaigne’s view that “men are punished for being obstinate in the defence of a fort without reason.” The difference between Montaigne’s cases from the 16th century and before and my case from the 20th century is that now the soldiers were not punished by being killed after the battle by the victor, but they were punished “only” – if not killed in action or being wounded – by being taken captive (and released after the war).
Although these cases are all military, the negative consequences of obstinate behaviour are certainly not limited to military affairs. They are found everywhere in politics and society. Obstinate behaviour sometimes leads to success, but most of the time it leads to failure and nasty consequences. That is what we can learn from Montaigne’s essay, if we want to give it a wider, non-military, meaning. Moreover, I want to add, with obstinacy you don’t make friends but only foes in society or in your personal relations. Being too often unreasonably obstinate makes that people who should be your friends or at least should help you, turn against you. However, the problem is: What is being obstinate? Montaigne mentions the case of persons who see others as obstinate, while just they themselves are arrogant. And is not-giving-in a matter of being obstinate or a matter of seeing reasonable chances? It’s sometimes difficult to judge if we have to assess single cases, like resistance to an enemy. Who didn’t see the resistance of the Ukrainian army against the Russian invasion as obstinate and unreasonable during the first days? Western powers even advised the Ukrainian president Zelensky to flee and to form an exile government. However, the facts proved him right not to do so and to resist. Theory often collides with practice. But if everybody disagrees with you or if the facts seem to turn against you, there is reason to wonder whether your stubbornness isn’t a matter of stupidity.
And what once you have lost because of your obstinacy? Was your stubbornness really unreasonable obstinacy? Others will judge. But also here Montaigne has a warning for us, in the last sentence of his essay: “Above all a man should take heed, if he can, of falling into the hands of a judge who is an enemy and victorious.” For the winner is always right, even if he isn’t.

Random quote
Above all a man should take heed, if he can, of falling into the hands of a judge who is an enemy and victorious.

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592)

Changing views

Recently I visited the Teylers Museum in Haarlem, Netherlands. If you are not from the Netherlands, probably you have never heard of it, but in the Netherlands the museum is widely known. Founded in 1784, the Teylers Museum is the oldest museum of the Netherlands that still exists and one of the oldest museums in Europe. The museum is certainly worth to write about, but here I don’t want to write about the museum as such but about what this museum and museums in general say about us, about humans. For why do we make museums?
As said, the Teylers Museum is one of the oldest European museums that still exist. A few older ones are The British Museum in London (1753 / open to the public in 1759), the Amerbach Cabinet in Basel, Switzerland (1661/1671) and several museums in Vatican City. The Capitoline Museums there began in 1471 and it is the oldest still existing museum in the world. This doesn’t mean that there were no museums before 1471. The oldest museum known dates from c. 530 BC and was founded by the Babylonian princess Ennigaldi. It contained a collection of archaeological artefacts from different times and places, neatly organized and labelled, just as in modern museums. Some of the artefacts were already a thousand years old, when the museum was founded. Also ancient people studied history! However, apparently the idea that one could collect artefacts and objects and order them and show them to the public – and that’s what a museum does – was lost in some way, since the present museums date from the end of the 15th century.
I think that this has everything to do with our view on the world. Museums of the type as founded by princess Ennigaldi were unknown at the time of the ancient Greek and Romans. Collections existed, indeed, but they were either libraries or collections of art and objects brought together for religious reasons or for decorating houses, gardens and public buildings. Maybe one of the institutes that was most like a modern museum was the Mouseion (Μουσεῖον) in Alexandria in Egypt, which gave the modern museum its name. It was a building dedicated to the muses (the Greek divinities of art) used for the study of the arts, but it was also a centre for learning in general. Such Mouseia (Museums) could be found in many Greek cities. The Mouseion of Alexandria had a library that is still famous. However, a mouseion was not a museum in the modern sense, for the function of modern museums is much wider. To quote the Wikipedia: “The purpose of modern museums is to collect, preserve, interpret, and display objects of artistic, cultural, or scientific significance for the study and education of the public.” Just the “education of the public” is one of the most important functions of modern museums, although the other purposes certainly must not be underestimated. However, with the fall of the Roman Empire in the 4th century ancient style museums disappeared.
Also the oldest modern museum, the Capitoline Museums, was originally dedicated to the arts, like a mouseion, for it began when Pope Sixtus IV gave a group of important ancient sculptures to the people of Rome. However, two important social developments made that people (not only rich nobles like kings, dukes and counts or the church, but also wealthy citizens) began to collect all kinds of objects – curiosities – and not only pieces of art or books. These two developments were the rise of modern science since the end of the Middle Ages and the discovery of the world (“discovery” from a European perspective, but it is in Europe that the first modern museums were founded). These two developments brought people into contact with new worlds and with it with new objects; and they began to study them. So, people who could afford it began to collect “curiosities” and to present them in cabinets, and to order them and to show them to family and friends and also gradually to the public; to everybody who wanted to see their curiosities. These developments led to the rise of the modern museum. In this way The British Museum in London began with a private collection, and also the Amerbach Cabinet in Basel, and many other museums as well. Also the Teylers Museum is a case in point. Pieter Teyler van der Hulst (1702-1778), a wealthy cloth merchant and banker in Haarlem, had stipulated in his will that his collection of curiosities and part of his fortune should be used to establish a foundation for the promotion of art and science. Therefore, the executors of his will established a centre for study and education and a museum with scientific instruments, fossils, minerals, drawings and the like. The idea was revolutionary and based on the ideas of the Enlightenment. People could discover the world in the new institute without coercion by church or state. The idea was viable. For although there were already a few museums in the Netherlands, only the Teylers Museum withstood the ages. Also in other countries museums were established according to the same concept, and many still exist. This concept could only be developed, and for a part redeveloped, when and because people had got a new and broader view on the world: New worlds, new views, new institutions!

Random quote
We become philosophers rather than aggressive ideologues by always being underway towards discovering what everything is

Graham Harman (1968-)