Johan Galtung's theory of evolution

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For Johan Galtung's theory of peace , the term development is of central importance, since development is the means to eliminate structural violence and cultural violence and thereby create positive peace. Here, "the minimum of development [...] consists in the elimination of misery, just as the minimum of peace consists in the abolition of war ." However, the elimination of misery cannot be thought of as a purely economic development, but includes cultural and other non- material dimensions. As a result, Galtung criticizes current development aid as being economic and growth-centered, and proposes an alternative approach, eclectic development.

Development Definitions

Galtung offers a variety of definition approaches for development. Three main approaches can be identified. On the one hand, they reflect the inherent plurality of the term and at the same time are the result of broader intellectual changes over time in Galt's work. In contrast to modernization theoretical, growth-centered definitions, he emphasizes that development is a self-determined process with locally determined goals and means. From the diversity of human goals and societies it follows that development theory and practice must be diverse. Galtung therefore does not offer a “correct”, final definition for development. Seclusion is exactly the opposite of development.

Development as Autonomy

Galtung made his first development-theoretical considerations in the early 1970s in the course of expanding his concept of violence to include structural violence. He focused on autonomy as a condition and goal of development. Influenced by a research stay in Latin America , he adapted the ideas of dependency theorists such as Raúl Prebisch and André Gunder Frank for peace research . The goal of development is, as in the theory of dependence, the abolition of the dependencies of the global periphery on the center and the creation of a world in which every part is a center. However, based on his theory of structural violence, Galtung also emphasizes non-economic forms of dependency and accuses dependency theorists of being too focused on trade relations, of not sufficiently considering the positive externalities of processing, of ignoring structural violence within developing countries and leave out psychological factors.

Skeptical of the ideal of a new world economic order (NIEO) propagated in the 1970s as being too economic and, above all, trade-centered, Galtung called for a development policy that, instead of national production and import substitution , was based on production according to a principle of subsidiarity , according to which the respective products always do so should be produced as close as possible to people and with the greatest possible autonomy and personal responsibility . Development is therefore not the process by which a supposedly successful (Western) model is imitated, but lies in local production that sets itself challenges and seeks solutions. Development in this sense is an economic , psychological and political process in equal measure , which is supposed to abolish cultural and political patterns of dependency as well as economic ones.

Development as the reproduction of systems

Galtung's intellectual starting point in the sixties was the structural-functional systems theory of Talcott Parsons . Although Galtung went his own way in the following decades, the analysis of functional systems, the assumption of a fundamental isomorphism , i.e. a structural equality or correspondence between systems, and an evolutionary theoretical view of the development of systems remained an important and constant part of his work. In combination with Galtung's attempts to give his concept of structural violence more substance through a theory of human needs, these assumptions form the basis for his systems-theoretical understanding of development.

Based on the six basic spaces of his systematics and the observation of natural development processes in the space of nature , Galtung develops a definition of development for the spaces of man , society and the world , which he wants to be understood as isomorphic systems with analog systemic codes , functional reproduction requirements and goals. Development is therefore a change in a positive sense, which increases the complexity and reproductive capacity of systems and whose goal is a balance in the sense of self-generating reproduction.

According to Galtung, one can deduce from this definition that development must always be needs-oriented, sustainable and diverse. Satisfaction of needs is by definition the prerequisite for the reproduction of any system. The satisfaction of human needs is of crucial importance for the spaces human and society, since without the satisfaction of human needs individuals and societies cannot survive. Sustainability is an additional condition to guarantee this reproduction over time. Diversity follows from the assumption that systems and subsystems have different prerequisites for their reproduction, that is, that different people and different societies have different goals and needs.

Three dimensions of development

In his synthesizing and summarizing book “Peace with Peaceful Means” , Galtung formulates 15 theses on development, at the center of which are three potentially contradicting individual definitions: one culture- centered, one need- centered and one growth- centered. What is new in this trinity are, above all, Galtungs considerations on the cultural dimensions of development. Based on his system-theoretical explanations, Galtung understands cultures as systemic codes of the space society, just as genetic codes and personalities define the respective systems of nature and man. According to this, development is the development of a civilization , its development in harmony with its cosmology, its deep culture. However, not all cultures are developing cultures. On the contrary, many cultures legitimize direct and structural violence . Therefore must the culture-centered definition provided by two additional conditions: the " progressive satisfying the needs of human and non-human nature, starting with the main needy ," and "economic growth but, on anyone costs." According to Galtung these three can dimensions in conflict occur but don't have to. Development consists precisely in finding an ideal balance between them, one that allows cultural development and development and thus plurality, but that measures the development of cultures by their ability to promote sustainable growth and to take human and non-human needs into account.

Common features

These three definitions should not be misunderstood as a purely historical progression. Galtung developed them one after another, but without wanting the newer definitions to supersede the older ones. All three can be found in Galtung's current considerations as complementary definitions, each with a different focus. What these definitions have in common is that they understand development as plural and self-determined, and they emphasize that imposing a development model on a different context or culture is inadmissible. Instead, development must primarily mean self-development, be it in the context of development as autonomy, the assumption of responsibility in local production processes, in the context of system-theoretical considerations, the different conditions for system reproduction or a result of cultural development.

In addition, Galtung emphasizes the non- material aspects of development by making it clear in all of his definitions that development has political, psychological and cultural dimensions. It is never just a question of social change, but always includes people and non- human nature . A "development" that leads to economic growth but destroys the environment , causes physical illness and mental illness and collective trauma , or encourages violence , is not a development worthy of the name. The end of structural and cultural violence is always the goal of development.

Galtung's criticism of development aid

Galtung criticizes the tendency in development policy to imagine the West as “developed” and to assume that this development should take place everywhere in the same way. These approaches, which are based on catching up development or based on modernization theories, determine the mainstream of development policy to this day . Galtung argues that Western civilization sees itself as universal and therefore universalizes its own history as a history of development for all. Current development policy is therefore limited to giving instructions on how certain “developed” societies can be imitated. It does not take into account that - according to Galtung - the logics of differentiation ( division of labor ) and growth (increasing production) propagated by this are not universal values , but represent a certain type of undesirable development.

Wrong and overdevelopment

On closer inspection it becomes clear that “the First World […] is also badly developed. The intensive participation in world trade creates dependencies on the world level and vulnerability to its economic cycles . ”For Galtung, these dependencies include, in particular, being dependent on fossil fuels , but also being sensitive to international economic crises . Furthermore, Galtung argues that the dominant logics of division of labor and growth inevitably lead to the logics of state and capital . As a result, they represent a form of structural and cultural violence. They prevent people from fulfilling their own basic human needs through voluntary actions, lead to anomie and alienation and legitimize this state of affairs as lawful and unchangeable. In addition to these idealistic undesirable developments, Galtung diagnoses a material overdevelopment of the industrialized countries , whereby he accuses the current development concepts of incoherence in the long term . Not only is it theoretically impossible for all states to have a trade surplus - which makes export- led development as a general development model contradicting itself - but the goal of enforcing western consumption patterns and opportunities everywhere inevitably leads to unsustainable overdevelopment. At current population and consumption habits the rich resources of the earth is not sufficient to allow all people a similar energy and resource-intensive life. A world made up of states “developed” in this way is therefore not at all desirable.

Development aid to secure western dominance?

With economists like Herman Daly , Galtung shares a criticism of economic growth as a yardstick for development and thus as a goal in itself. Unlike Daly, who draws attention to the sustainability and distribution of this growth, Galtung assumes that growth in itself - regardless of its distribution - is a problematic goal, as it is the sometimes negative and violence-promoting attitudes “hard work , saving / Investing , Greed and Recklessness ”. In his criticism of development aid, Galtung thus takes a position outside the critical mainstream of authors such as Jeffrey Sachs , Joseph Stiglitz or Herman Daly. He not only criticizes current development policy practice by criticizing the emergence of a competitive international market for development aid, which is about carrying out as many projects as possible “successfully” instead of promoting development. For him, development aid in itself is suspect ; “The legitimate child of a western imperialist father and a Christian missionary mother”, which aims first and foremost to secure western dominance . In this context, Galtung's considerations on structural imperialism are of particular importance . In it, Galtung examines the structural violence of neocolonial formations based on alliances between the “ center of the center” and the “center of the periphery ”. Through certain trade patterns , but also through its monopoly on education , culture and knowledge , the center creates harmonies of interest through cultural penetration . Development aid in its current form is often only the continuation of this dependency-generating constellation .

Based on his conceptualization of development as plural and self-determined, he instead calls for the dismantling of structural obstacles in order to enable self-development in the periphery and growth at lower costs in the center and calls for more reciprocity in development aid, in which the criticism of "developing countries" in the overdevelopment of the center and intercultural dialogue should play an important role. The most important thing, however, is to take seriously the grammatical restrictions already imposed on the verb "develop". Develop is primarily a reflexive verb , one can develop, but never others.

"Development means taking on challenges yourself and not leaving them to someone else [...] Development aid is a contradictio in adiecto."

- Johan Galtung (2007): Peace by Peaceful Means, p. 236.

Galtung Alternative: Eclectic Development

Eclectic development represents Galtung's attempt, based on his definition of development as peace-building , plural, self-determined and not limited to material aspects, to give instructions for development policy practice. His analysis of externalities and different economic schools are of particular importance . Accordingly, eclectic development is based on the consistent internalization of externalities in all spaces in order to achieve real sustainability , and on the combination of three economic schools identified by Galtung. The internalization of externalities must not only take place in the space of society, but must include the spaces nature, man, society, world and culture in order to ensure that development takes place at nobody's expense. The well-being of human society, however defined, is not the only measure of development. In addition, eclectic development is based on the combination of a local “ green ” economy, a social democratic “pink” economy and a “yellow” school borrowed from East Asian developments and based on an active industrial policy . Galtung justifies this combination with the fact that the green, pink and yellow schools represent the ideal solution for production at different levels and the combination of schools compensates for their respective weaknesses and thus prevents crises. In addition, eclecticism is positive in itself, as it meets the demand for plurality in development. In order for development to take place, the development process must never end. There must always be a moment of the imperfect and the creative , eclectic connection of different elements possible.

The first production priority in eclectic development is the basic needs of the most needy . They should be satisfied by a green economy. Disadvantages compared to centralized production such as efficiency losses due to economies of scale are offset by the advantages of local production. Local production guarantees the supply of basic goods , prevents unjust distribution of production through manageable production and living conditions and ensures that products meet local needs and possibilities. In addition, Galtung assumes that the decentralized distribution of production is a prerequisite for development, since this is the only way production factors can be effectively mobilized. In particular, human factors such as talent or creativity are underused in centralized systems, according to Galtung. He therefore calls for a general reform of factors in order to enable universal access to education , health and capital and thus to strengthen the productive and creative potential of a country. Another advantage of local production is that negative and positive externalities are brought to the local level. This internalizes these externalities to a large extent and creates incentives for local responsibility.

The second level of production in an eclectic development model are simple production and consumption instruments that are supposed to be produced in a pink economy at the regional level. These products include those that cannot be produced locally due to their complexity or high fixed costs , such as machines for local production, building materials or some pharmaceuticals that can be produced in a decentralized manner.

The third level of production is reserved for complex goods that serve national consumption or export. This production level should be based on a yellow economy, that is, combine state planning with market economy elements. The export represents an important source of income . By always exporting processed goods and never raw materials , positive externalities and the highest possible added value are to be kept in the country.

reception

Johan Galtung's considerations on development were decisive for the reception and further development of the Latin American dependency theory and the associated structural theories of imperialism in Europe. Galtung analyzed the structural violence inherent in the global economic system and, like few before him, made it clear that peace research must always be development research . His analysis of “ structural imperialism ” is also one of his most influential and most cited articles. Unlike many contemporary radical critics of the world economic system, Galt's theory of imperialism was not only focused on a critique of the USA and the former European colonial powers , but also identified the same exploitative center-periphery formations within the Soviet system.

Through his advisory work, in particular for the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) founded in 1964 , but also for other UN sub-organizations such as UNESCO , the WHO and the ILO , he helped implement and determined the development policy reorientation of the 1970s. His consistent insistence on the satisfaction of basic needs as an important element of development, his understanding of human development beyond economic growth and his early insistence that development requires the internalization of externalities - which today usually falls under the keyword of sustainability - influenced the in the North-South Commission and the Brundtland Report recorded consensus among contemporary international experts .

In current debates on development policy, Galtung plays a much more peripheral role, especially as a heterodox voice that is assigned to criticism of globalization . His fundamental criticism offers few points of contact with current policy-centered debates on reform possibilities of international development aid, such as those led by Paul Collier or Joseph Stiglitz. His fundamental criticism on both the aid and the free trade of the world trade regime to put him in the debate between advocates of trade (reduction of trade restrictions and subsidies , especially in the industrialized countries) as William Easterly or James Shikwati and supporters of more aid as Jeffrey Sachs in a Neither-nor-position. From Galtung's point of view, however, this position is by no means a difficulty, since reformism and either-or discussions are part of the problem because they understand development in purely economic terms and do not take into account the necessary fundamental change.

criticism

Peter Lawler accuses Galtung of a lack of examination of the normative foundations of his theory in general and his concept of positive peace in particular. This criticism has serious consequences for Galtung's development theory, since Galtung sees the achievement of a state of positive peace as the goal of development. The lack of examination of normative foundations leads to two main problems: firstly, the unchecked assumption that everything that is good must be compatible, secondly, the danger of emptiness at the center of Galtung's peace research. Galtung assumes, among other things in his system-theoretical and multidimensional definitions of development, that the positive goals of cultural development, individual (human) satisfaction of needs and global and constant (human and non-human) needs satisfaction are compatible. However , according to Lawler, this compatibility is by no means obvious. There is a fundamental tension in Galtic thinking between the meaning of communities and the rights of individuals; however, no attempt is made to check the implications of the respective goals for their (logical) compatibility. Galtung's possible to say that this was a result of an un dogmatic , healthy eclecticism, Lawler opposes the possibility of blur central galtungscher Categories Reflect a fundamental incoherence resist. The belief that human needs and a vision of positive peace are unproblematic to accept instead of an expression of a justifiable vision of the good life would permeate Galt's work and, despite Galt's attempts to develop cultural sensitivities, could also be found in his most recent writings.

From the perspective of postmodern and postcolonial debates, the accusation arises that Galten's emphasis on the cultural dimensions of development as the unfolding of a cosmology is based on an essentialist view of cultures and reproduces the basic assumptions and analysis patterns of a Huntington 's " clash of cultures ", albeit under other signs. Although Galtung repeatedly points to the dangers of an essentializing view of cultures, in his cultural analyzes he perpetuates the binary boundaries between good and evil, inside and outside, inclusion and exclusion, which he wanted to expose as totalitarian . This essentialization and culturalisation of Galtung's theory runs the risk through a focus on cultures as monolithic and unchangeable an actual important aspect Galtung's own project to cover: the emphasis on the diversity of human societies and, in relation to the world system fixation critical approaches in political economy , a critical look at structural violence and patterns of exploitation within countries and cultures. In addition, Galtung implies repeated equating of cultural exchange and change with imperialist penetration and his assumption that cultures have their own core - their code or cosmology - that there could be authoritative speakers for cultures and that hybrid forms are authentic .

Selected literature on Galtung's development theory

  • Johan Galtung: Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Culture . Opladen: Leske + Budrich 1998. In particular part III: Development theory.
  • Johan Galtung: The price of globalization. Structure and culture in the world system . Vienna: Promedia 1997.
  • Johan Galtung, Peter O'Brien and Roy Preiswerk: Self-Reliance: a Strategy for Development . London: Bogle-L'Ouverture Publications 1980.
  • Johan Galtung (1976): Trade or Development: Some Reflections on Self-Reliance . Economic and Political Weekly 11 (5/7) 1976: pp. 207-218.
  • Johan Galtung: Structural Violence: Contributions to Peace and Conflict Studies . Reinbek: Rowohlt 1975.
  • Johan Galtung (1972): A Structural Theory of Imperialism . In Dieter Senghaas (Hrsg.): Imperialism and structural violence: Analyzes of dependent reproduction . Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp 1972, pp. 29-104.

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Johan Galtung (2007): Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Culture . Münster: Agenda, p. 232.
  2. ↑ Peter Lawler (1995): A Question of Values: Johan Galtung's Peace Research . London: Lynne Rienner, pp. 77-85.
  3. ^ Johan Galtung (2008): Violence: Natural, Structural, Cultural and Direct. In: Johan Galtung: 50 Years: 25 Intellectual Landscapes Explored . Bergen: Transcend University Press, p. 108.
  4. ^ Johan Galtung (1976): Trade or Development: Some Reflections on Self-Reliance . In: Economic and Political Weekly 11 (5/7) 1976: p. 207.
  5. ^ Johan Galtung (1976): A Structural Theory of Imperialism . In: Johan Galtung (Ed.): Peace and World Structure: Essays in Peace Research IV . Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers 1976, p. 438, and the footnotes on p. 715 f.
  6. ^ Johan Galtung, Peter O'Brien and Roy Preiswerk : Self-Reliance: a Strategy for Development . London: Bogle-L'Ouverture Publications 1980. See also Johan Galtung (1976): Trade or Development , and Johan Galtung: Développement, environnement et technologie: vers une technologie de l'autonomie . New York: UNCTAD 1979.
  7. ↑ Peter Lawler (1995): A Question of Values, pp. 39-42.
  8. ↑ This also happened in response to criticism of his concept as too vague a category in which everything fits "what the author does not like" ["The cause of what the user of the term doesn't like"]. Kjell Eide (1971): Note on Galtung's Concept of Violence . In: Journal of Peace Research . 8 (1) 1971: p. 71.
  9. ^ Johan Galtung (2007): Peace by peaceful means . P. 323.
  10. ^ Johan Galtung: Development Theory — Notes for an Alternative Approach . In: Udo Ernst Simonis (Ed.): Development Theory - Development Practice. A critical accounting. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1986, ISBN 3-428-05973-5 , pp. 79-81. Galtung discusses a possible taxonomy of human needs in Johan Galtung (1980): The Basic Needs Approach . In: Katrin Lederer, David Antal and Johan Galtung (eds.): Human Needs: a Contribution to the Current Debate . Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain, p. 66. In none of his texts does Galtung deal with the problem that needs - understood broadly - are necessarily based on a certain vision of the good life. See review .
  11. ^ Johan Galtung (1980): Development Theory, pp. 73-89.
  12. ↑ Johan Galtung (2007): Peace by Peaceful Means, pp. 229–246.
  13. ^ Johan Galtung (1981): Western Civilization: Anatomy and Pathology, Alternatives 7: pp. 146-147. For a critique of this highly essentialist understanding, see Critique .
  14. ↑ See Galtung's remarks on cultural violence in Johan Galtung (1990): Cultural Violence, In: Journal of Peace Research 27 (3): pp. 291–305. The idea of ​​developing cultures and the productivity of a dialogue between cultures about different understandings of peace can be found in Johan Galtung (1981): Social Cosmology and the Concept of Peace, Journal of Peace Research 18 (2): 183–199, and in Johan Galtung (2007): Peace by Peaceful Means, p. 234.
  15. ^ Johan Galtung (2007): Peace with Peaceful Means, p. 231. Galtung discusses this priority principle in more detail in Johan Galtung (1980): The Basic Needs Approach, pp. 55–125.
  16. ^ A b Johan Galtung (2007): Peace with peaceful means, pp. 321–322.
  17. ↑ Johan Galtung (2007): Peace by Peaceful Means, p. 321.
  18. ↑ Johan Galtung (2007): Peace by Peaceful Means, p. 314.
  19. ↑ See Galtung's statements in an interview with Spiegel Online on September 4, 2002: The oil animal has an oil brain at its tip
  20. ↑ Johan Galtung (2007): Peace by Peaceful Means, p. 237.
  21. ↑ a b Johan Galtung (2007): Peace with peaceful means, p. 242.
  22. ↑ a b Johan Galtung (2007): Peace with peaceful means, p. 243.
  23. ^ A b Johan Galtung (1976): A Structural Theory of Imperialism, pp. 437-481.
  24. ^ Johan Galtung (1976): Trade or Development, p. 209.
  25. ^ Johan Galtung (1987): Peace and the World as Intercivilisational Interaction . In: Raimo Väyrynen (ed.): The Quest for Peace. Beverly Hills: Sage .
  26. ↑ Johan Galtung (2007): Peace by Peaceful Means, pp. 317-318.
  27. ^ Johan Galtung (2007): Peace by Peaceful Means, p. 269; 308
  28. ^ A b Johan Galtung (1980): The Basic Needs Approach.
  29. ↑ Johan Galtung (2007): Peace with Peaceful Means, pp. 309–311, a similar idea can be found in Johan Galtung (1976): Trade or Development, pp. 213–214.
  30. ↑ Johan Galtung (2007): Peace by Peaceful Means, p. 312.
  31. ↑ Johan Galtung (2007): Peace by Peaceful Means, pp. 313-315.
  32. ^ Johan Galtung (1975): Structural violence: Contributions to peace and conflict research . Reinbek: Rowohlt.
  33. ↑ Hildegard Rapin (1987): Development Policy and Development Education: Analysis of Selected Case Studies . Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, pp. 151-152.
  34. ↑ See Galtung's detailed curriculum vitae (in Danish) on visdomsnettet.dk
  35. ^ Johan Galtung (1976): Trade or Development .
  36. ↑ Peter Lawler (1995): A Question of Values . This criticism is summarized on p. 223 ff.
  37. ↑ His definition of cultures - even in his most recent writings - in purely religious categories ignores historical, linguistic, political and economic network of relationships, reduces many similarities and differences and adopts the militaristic language of "axes" and "blocks." B. Johan Galtung (2007): Peace by Peaceful Means, pp. 241–42.
  38. ↑ See the criticism by Peter Lawler (1995): A Question of Values, especially pp. 191–219.
  39. ↑ When Galtung describes South Korea and other East Asian countries such as Vietnam and Singapore as "smaller editions of Japan or China " and thus brushes aside centuries of independent historical experience and merges different language areas, the question arises whether an essentialist view of cultures with the remaining theory applies is at all compatible. Johan Galtung (2007): Peace with Peaceful Means, p. 267. In this context, the question arises as to the extent to which Galtung's demand to revive religions and strengthen values ​​is compatible with his analyzes of cultural and structural violence. Johan Galtung (1995): On the Social Costs of Modernization. Social Disintegration, Atomie / Anomie and Social Development, UNRISD Discussion Papers 61. Geneva, p. 25. Retrieved on January 21, 2010 from: unrisd.org (PDF; 167 kB)
  40. ↑ This danger is particularly evident in Galtung's remarks on India . Not only does he ignore the religious diversity of India by using India and “ Hindu civilization” interchangeably, but in his praise for inter-civilization dialogue ignores “intra-civilization” oppression: India's nuclear armament and the everyday discrimination of “lower” castes , Sikhs and Muslims . Johan Galtung (1987): Peace and the World as Intercivilisational Interaction, especially pp. 340–341.
  41. ↑ See Johan Galtung (2007): Peace with Peaceful Means, p. 235, especially his praise of fundamentalism as the “most genuine” understanding of any culture.