ESTIMACIÓN DE LOS COSTOS Nombre del Nombre del

Academic inquiry and the quest to comprehend peace in a much broader perspective have led to what in peace research is called Negative and Positive Peace pioneered by Johan Galtung. In much of peace research discourse, peace has been categorized and institutionalized as positive and negative peace (Gregor: 1996: xviii). Negative peace connotes the absence of direct violence in peace research. Thus, the underpinning frame of Negative peace is marked by the absence of violence – direct or physical. While this interpretation is quite limited, in it is instructive in helping us comprehend peace, albeit in a very restricted manner. The thesis starts an inquiry by asking: what is violence whose absence leads to negative peace?

In Galtung’s point of view, violence “is the difference between the potential and the actual, between what could have been and what is” (Galtung, 1969: 168). Obvious manifestations of violence in its classic form are both physical and mental as in the case of killings, maiming, rape, denigration of others through insults and the like. However, when one conflates the understanding of Negative peace as marked by the absence of violence and Galtung’s theory of peace that “peace is the absence of violence”, then one comes to realize that “Galtung’s is much a theory that defines violence as it is a theory about peace” (Barnett, 2008: 77).

With regards to the above reasoning, one can deduce that Galtung’s theory of peace centers on his definition of violence. This interpretation leads to an oversimplification. As Barnett notes, “this peace/violence dualism tends to simplify the continuous nature of social conditions to polar opposites and so lacks sensitivity to the rather more dialectical character of social change” (Barnett: 2008: 77). A discerning interrogation of Galtung’s theory of peace reveals that, it speaks more of structures than agents (Boulding, 1977, Patomäki, 2001). Using the military industrial complex as a point of reference and in this case ‘structure’, Barnett argues that, Galtung theory is much silent on “choices” – agent that people make. He states:

His theory of violence accommodates the military-industrial complex, for example, but says little about the choices that people within these processes make; for example, is an unemployed migrant who joins the army in the absence of alternative career prospects an agent of violence? If (s)he smokes and this causes him/her to have a reduced life expectancy (a difference between the actual and potential), is this product of structure (circumstance, environment, tobacco marketing) or agency (personal choice)? (Banett, 2008:78).

As can be seen, there is a clear limitation with the theory of violence which in most cases, ignores agency and focuses more on structures. A critical reflection on the limitations of the peace/violence dualism, led Galtung to posit that “I have long argued for an expanded peace concept, building on a violence concept beyond direct violence so as to include structural and cultural violence” (Galtung, 1996: 256). Thus, limited as Galtung’s interpretation might seem, it is still very relevant and instructive as it helps in comprehending the “theoretically significant dimensions of violence” (Galtung, 1969: 168).

To capture violence in a much broader perspective we can say that, “violence is any physical, emotional, verbal, institutional, structural or spiritual behavior, attitude, policy or condition that diminishes, dominates or destroys ourselves and others” (Turningthetide, 2011…). Thus, this definition captures and also encompasses Galtung’s conceptualization of structural and

cultural violence. Further, it is essential to note that, there is a kind of mutual and recursive relationship between cultural and structural violence on one hand and direct violence.

Cultural and structural violence are the cause and source of direct violence, and in turn, direct violence, reinforces cultural and structural violence. At the apex of violence, we see direct violence, but beneath it are cultural and structural violence which are often invisible. In his book Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic, James Gilligan defined structural violence as "the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted with the relatively lower death rates experienced by those who are above them." (Gilligan, 19987:89)

Gilligan largely describes these "excess deaths" as "non-natural" and attributes them to the stress, shame, discrimination and denigration that results from lower status. Gilligan draws on Sennett and Cobb, who examine the "contest for dignity" in a context of dramatic inequality to shed an understanding of structural violence. In a succinct manner, a twisting of Cortright’s definition of positive peace as “transcending”… “conditions that limit human potential and assuring opportunities for self-realization” (Cortright 2008:7) will be worthwhile. This is so if we remove the word transcending from Cortrights’s definition.

It becomes apparent that structural violence is conditions that curtail human possibilities. It is indisputable that structural violence constrains human agency. While structural violence helps us in comprehending the unseen operational dynamics of societies – socio-economic, cultural and political, what it does miss is its inability to capture the failings of individual weaknesses. There is also a cultural twist to violence, and it refers to aspects of culture that can be used to justify or legitimize direct or structural violence, and may be exemplified by religion and ideology, language and art, empirical science and formal science (Galtung, 1990: 291-305).

Cultural violence thus legitimizes direct and structural violence (Galtung, 1990: 291). Understanding cultural violence sheds insight into the way in which the act of direct violence and the fact of structural violence are legitimized and thus made acceptable in society. One mechanism of cultural violence is to change the "moral color" of an act from "red/wrong" to "green/right," or at least to "yellow/acceptable"(Galtung, 1990: 292).

On a concluding note on Negative peace, the thesis maintains that a critical interrogation of negative peace reflects the realist thinking or school of thought which posits that this peace – Negative peace - is maintained through very surreptitious socio-economic and political oppression. This oppression is often not apparent, yet potent enough to deny the equitable well- being for all. In most cases, reactive responses such as peacekeeping, conflict management are some of the mechanisms to restore this peace. Viewed this way, negative peace is not enduring and durable enough in the quest for peace.

Finally, in discussing Negative peace, it is essential to realize that the use of the term Negative Peace in peace research does not mean or reflect a pejorative or a denigrating peace but it reflects a peace which could even be better ontologically. Rather than the superficial none existence of violence and war, peace could mean more and go even deeper. More importantly, the absence of war is necessary precondition if any meaningful socio-economic and political progress is to take place.