Scienza e Pace
Science and Peace
The objective of this essay is to analyze the evolution of the political culture of the moderate left in the last decades. The starting point is the focus on values and strategies affecting domestic and foreign policy of the left in the phase of “modernity”: that is, during the Cold War. Johan Galtung has been the intellectual leader of the “constructivist” wing of political sociology, emphasizing values like peace, non-violence, participatory democracy, welfare state… After 1989, the left has partially modified its political strategies. The West was living a transition process from modern to post-modern societies. The left has chosen multi-culturalism as its core value in the decision-making processes over migration flows and conflict management among different nations. The politically correct ideology has become the new leftist “anchor” to post-modernity, and has played the role of “prevailing” (but not dominating) political culture in the West. This essay will evaluate if the political strategies of constructivist and politically correct lefts are compatible, starting from the teachings of Johan Galtung.
This paper illustrates Galtung's intellectual life against the background of the birth and development of non-violent thinking in Western society. His impressive ability to suggest decisive ideas for a theory of peace and non-violent conflict resolution pioneered structural non-violent thinking. However, after 1989 he did not complete his innovations, choosing instead an eclectic vision. Nevertheless, he was able to predict the fall of each of the two superpowers that dominated the world at his time.
"The past has to be taken seriously: it is too serious to be left to historians." Peace scholar Johan Galtung wrote that because he understood how intellectuals in the West "are trained to abstain from criticism, constructivism, and action unless they happen to be in certified applied sciences." For historians, this means writing as if unbiased and disinterested. There is no socio-political agenda allowed. Stay neutral (on a moving train). Peace Studies, though, as conceived by Galtung, is "an applied social science, with an explicit value orientation" — against violence. "Critical Peace Studies takes explicit stands."Peace scholars get to care. A Peace historian, then, is one who writes with the transparent intent of reducing violence. In that sense, a historian can be a Peace worker, understanding that an immense Peace is made of lots of little Peaces, including little Peaces of culture. [...].
Johan Galtung is a towering figure in the realm of Peace Research. For over six decades, he has passionately explored and meticulously investigated the complex facets of peace and conflict. Throughout this time, he has not only provoked thoughtful discussions and critical debates but has also actively engaged with diverse communities and audiences. By challenging established norms and pushing the boundaries of conventional thinking, he has educated countless individuals, fostering a deeper understanding of the root causes and solutions to global conflicts. His pioneering work introduced innovative concepts (such as structural and cultural violence, negative and positive peace, just to mention a few of the most famous concepts) which became foundational in the field. [...]. However, Galtung's intellectual journey throughout his life would not have been the same without the numerous encounters with influential and inspirational figures whose ideas and philosophies profoundly influenced his work. Among these individuals, each remarkable in their own realm, we have selected three who offered fresh perspectives, deep insights, and critical guidance to Galtung’s approach to peace and conflict studies. From the moral and social teachings of his father, August Galtung, to the ecological philosophy of Arne Naess, the practical wisdom and the spiritual values of Daisaku Ikeda, each played a vital role in shaping his vision and commitment to peace.
[...]. With his academic background in mathematics and sociology, Galtung was not only an exceptionally creative theorist but also actively applied his ideas in practice. This is evident in his successful interventions that helped facilitate negotiations between states that had been stalled for years. I had the privilege of getting to know Johan quite well during his time at Cesare Alfieri when he accepted my invitation to attend a series of meetings focused on Peace Research. I published The Nature and Orientations of Peace Research in 1978, to which Norberto Bobbio contributed, and I was eager to hear Johan’s perspective. What stood out was the enthusiasm he conveyed to his audience, even when, at times, he spoke in a language other than his own - Italian, to be precise. The manner of his teaching revealed a genuine missionary spirit. [...]
In contrast to the journalism defined as “war journalism”, “peace journalism” is entrusted with a delicate and crucial task: to go beyond, to transcend – in line with Galtung's theoretical framework – the reasons, dynamics, concepts, and sources closely linked to a war-oriented perspective, and to lay the foundations for mechanisms of understanding and the construction of solid peace scenarios. The objective of this work is to highlight the essential elements of the peace journalism paradigm, capturing its innovative content and the critical issues that have emerged in the scientific debate, comparing them with some of the central themes of media and journalism reflection, as well as with trends in textual analysis and critical discourse analysis, in order to contribute to an assessment of the prospects and relevance of Galtung's proposal.
This article applies Johan Galtung’s “Conflict Triangle” theory—traditionally used to analyze state and inter-group conflicts—to the underexplored realm of organized crime, with a focus on gender dynamics. Centering on the Ascione Clan, a Camorra group in Italy, it examines the often-overlooked roles women play in perpetuating and challenging violence within criminal organizations. Through qualitative analysis of secondary sources, the study highlights figures like Antonella Madonna and the mother of Natale Dantese, revealing how women, typically seen as marginal, are central to the clan’s operations and power structures. The research illustrates how cultural norms, structural inequalities, and direct violence interact to sustain the Camorra’s patriarchal systems. It particularly traces Madonna’s transformation from a participant to a leader and eventual collaborator with law enforcement, showcasing the complex relationship between gender, power, and resistance. By extending Galtung’s framework to the micro-level of organized crime, the study reveals its broader applicability in understanding gender-based violence. Combining insights from peace studies and political anthropology, it offers a nuanced analysis of how gender functions as both a stabilizing and destabilizing force in criminal organizations, urging future research to further explore these intersections within non-state violent entities.
Violence in Africa has often been analyzed through sociological, economic, political, and international relations lenses, while rarely through Johan Galtung’s Structural Violence framework. Yet, Galtung provides a more nuanced understanding of the region’s megatrends. This paper explores the relevance of his theory, particularly in the Sahel, by drawing from his 1969 work Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Structural violence focuses on systemic and institutional factors—such as inequality, ethnic domination, weak governance, and lack of the rule of law—that fuel unrest beyond direct physical violence. In the Sahel, these structural conditions have led to political instability, social unrest, coups, climate vulnerability, unemployment, and widespread suffering. Deprivation and marginalization become fertile ground for conflict. The paper argues that deviant political leadership and poor arms control are both products and drivers of these embedded structural issues. It also examines how climate change, as a “violence multiplier,” worsens instability and undermines adaptation strategies. While Galtung’s framework has limitations, especially when used in isolation, it offers a valuable lens for understanding violence rooted in colonial legacies, inequality, and political dysfunction. Structural, direct, and cultural violence are interlinked, necessitating holistic approaches for addressing violence in diverse geopolitical contexts.
Although Galtung is best known for his research on peace and conflict resolution strategies, his work also extensively addresses the issue of violence. In particular, he is credited with expanding the understanding of violence beyond physical aggression, identifying its cultural and structural dimensions. His analysis of structural violence has been especially significant, contributing to the work of scholars across various disciplines in examining systemic inequalities. However, Galtung’s concept of structural violence has also been criticized. In short, the literature suggests that it is too vague, with the relationships between power, inequality, and harm becoming blurred. This paper seeks to address these shortcomings, particularly by clarifying the characteristics of structural violence and its connection to power relations. This will establish a connection between structural violence and Foucault’s concept of states of domination - namely, specific arrangements of power relations marked by the lack of freedom. These clarifications will also enable a brief review of Galtung’s violence triangle, with a particular focus on the relationship between structural and direct violence.
Johan Galtung occupies a unique and foundational position in the field of Peace and Conflict Studies. Over more than six decades, his work has shaped Peace Research as both a scholarly discipline and a form of praxis. His contributions span conflict mediation, international relations, sociology and cultural analysis, but he is perhaps best known for two enduring conceptual frameworks: the distinction between positive and negative peace, and the Violence Triangle. These concepts did not merely introduce new terminology—they fundamentally redefined how scholars and practitioners understand the causes of conflict, systems of domination, and the prospects for sustainable peace. This special issue is dedicated to critically revisiting and creatively applying Galtung’s ideas, particularly in response to contemporary challenges. In a world marked by increasingly complex forms of violence—ranging from organized crime and gender-based oppression to climate instability and cultural polarization—it is crucial to reassess the conceptual tools we use to analyze and transform these realities. While Galtung’s frameworks have been critiqued, they remain strikingly relevant. The contributions in this issue explore his legacy through theoretical refinement, empirical analysis, and interdisciplinary dialogue, offering new insights into how Peace Research can respond to today's most pressing issues.