Peace & War Journalism & Reporting the world
From: The Security Approach and the Peace Approach
by Johan Galtung
10th of September 2004
The Security Approach is based on four components:
- [1] An Evil Party, with strong capability and evil intention;
- [2] A Clear and Present Danger of Violence, real or potential;
- [3] Strength, to defeat or deter the evil party ,in turn producing
- [4] Security, which is also the best approach to "peace".
The approach works when evil/strong parties are weakened through
defeat or deterrence, and/or converted to become good.
The Peace Approach is also based on four components:- [1] A Conflict, which has not been resolved/transformed;
- [2] A Danger of Violence to "settle the conflict";
- [3] Conflict Transformation, empathic-creative-nonviolent, producing
- [4] Peace, which is the best approach to "security".
The approach works through acceptable/sustainable outcomes.
What would favor a preference for the security approach?[1] A culture of dualism/manicheism/Armageddon, in other words ahard, absolutist, reading of the abrahamitic religions. The security approach is a secular version of Good/God/Christ vs Evil/Satan/Anti-Christ, with an Armageddon type battle as the final arbiter.
[2] Construction of the Other as evil, with no legitimate goal,driven by lust, greed or envy, somebody with whom one would nevern egotiate since there is no grievance and no basis for any solution; only for extermination/crushing, containment or at best conversion.
[3] The absence of "diversity with equality" as category, the Columbus fallacy (Todorov). There is an underlying social code of verticality, not horizontality, to be implemented, based on ascribed categories like gender, generation, race, class/caste, nation, state.
[4] A preference for a structure of inequality, in other words a hard, Hobbesian, reading of the "social order". The expression "the dangerous classes (genders/generations/races/nations/states" is an updating of evil/Satan with "witch"-burning as a prelude to the massive genocide of other races and nations during modernity.
[5] Monopoly on the "ultima ratio regis/regnum", in other words the concentration of the means of coercion in the hands of the state (or community of states) defined through that monopoly (Weber), giving legitimacy to upholding "law and order" by force. States and communities of states (like the EU) will work out lists of threats.
[6] "To He Who Has a Hammer the World Looks Like a Nail", in other words the self-propelling force of a security apparatus, with secret services to assess capability (how strong) and motivation (how evil), and cloak-and-dagger operations to "nip it in the bud" through extra- judicial execution, etc., police operations to round up the suspects, overwhelming force to defeat and thereby deter.
And what would favor a preference for the peace approach?
[1] A culture of unity of human beings, in other words a soft reading of abrahamitic and African (ubuntu) religions, mainstream readings of hinduism/buddhism and daoism, of women with a focus on compassion, of the secularism of liberte, egalite, fraternite. There is no Armageddon as final arbiter, but the ever-lasting effort of human beings to improve, individually and collectively.
[2] "There is that of God in everybody", meaning a legitimate goal in every party, however violent and repulsive. The way of identifying valid goals is by mutual inquiry, asking; in other words dialogue, and then using that as a basis for togetherness.
[3] Diversity as a source of mutual enrichment presupposes curiosity, respect, dialogue, for mutual exploration and learning. Reciprocity and symmetry have to be extended to any other party within the limits of reasonable legitimacy as defined by legality, human rights and basic human needs. Diversity with inequality is mutual impoverishment, and so is equality with uniformity.
[4] A preference for a structure of equality. Thus, "security" is located to the right politically and "peace" to the left. Peace is a revolutionary ("equality") proposition. Democracy and human rights are already great equalizers. Reciprocity is the norm. If you want peace, then give to others whatever they want that you also want.
[5] A culture and practice of nonviolent countervailing power, based on a strong identity, high level of self-reliance and much courage, to counter brainwashing, bribery and threats.
[6] A culture and practice of conflict transformation, not only for specialists, more like hygiene and healthy life styles for everybody, including ability to identify valid goals in all parties, bridge creatively the contradictions between valid goals, and build peace.
