Introduction
Peace is a concept that refers to a state of harmonious balance and understanding among different parties. It shows the absence of conflicts and war by creating calmness, security, and coexistence among various individuals. Over the years, the understanding of the concept of peace has changed significantly. Many scholars define peace as a vital concept in any society in terms of its development. The paper compares the works of Smoker and Galtung based on their conception of peace. The study concludes by stating the views of peace by different individuals as well as the writer’s opinion on the same. The study of these two scholars is vital in the deep understanding of peace as a social science.
Analysis of Peace
The articles Social Cosmology and the Concept of Peace and Small Peace, which are authored by Galtung and Smoker respectively, provide a firm basis for studying the meaning of peace. In his book Social Cosmology and the Concept of Peace, Galtung focuses on the concept of peace from different dimensions. He explains it as a positive and negative concept, east and west notion, oriental and west concept, and a material and non-material idea (Galtung 187).
Through the comparison of these dimensions, the meaning of peace becomes explicit. On the other hand, Smoker also explains the concept of peace from a different dimension by criticizing some of Galtung’s conceptions on the same such as structural violence. In his journal titled Small Peace, Smoker perceives peace from a small-scale or collective level as opposed to a macro level (Smoker 153).
The spiritual understanding of peace is of intense significance to many people since it reveals why peace constitutes a fundamental pillar of most spiritual lessons. Galtung explains peace by making east and west religious comparisons on the meaning of the concept. The western people view peace from the religious perspective of Abraham and Islam while their eastern counterparts base it on Buddhism, Hinduism, Sinduism, and Confucianism. Galtung focuses on religious thoughts in explaining how human beings should peacefully coexist with each other just as the religion emphasizes. Religious aspects such as calmness, agreement, as well as stillness form vital themes in religious views of Islam and Buddhism among others. However, Christians perceive tranquility as the condition of intellect via which they acknowledge the significance of deity through faith just as Abraham did.
These conceptions form the dimension of religious peace. In addition, Galtung explains peace from the west and orients’ viewpoint that focuses on peace as a concept of harmony and serenity (Galtung 184). Orients perceive peace from an individual level as internal and introverted. They further emphasize peace within the individual as it results in peaceful coexistence on a macro level. Galtung emphasizes this point by stating that the west focuses on peace from a macro level.
Positive or negative peace as explained by Galtung enables any social science scholar to develop a deep understanding of the actual meaning of peace. While peace from a positive perspective indicates the presence of social justice, harmony, and calmness, it indicates the “absence of personal violence, not necessarily a bad peace” (Galtung 187) peace from the negative perspective. He classifies violence as either intended or unintended when explaining the conception of negative peace.
According to him, violence can occur directly or indirectly to individuals through various ways such as shooting, thus causing the absence of personal peace. Positive peace thinking is cosmological in terms of place and time since some areas are worst hit by violence unlike others. Galtung states that focus on constructive peace pushes radicalism on the left to mean that brutality must be redefined so that its repudiation implies a satisfactory positive peace. The presence of peaceful coexistence on both the micro and macro level is an indicator of positive peace. He also states that peace can be material or non- material depending on one’s level of wealth.
Smoker’s views on the meaning and concepts of peace differ from those of Galtung, thus rendering a detailed comparison of the conceptions of peace. He criticizes Galtung’s idea of structural violence by finding the idea problematic in peace thinking. The social and cultural structure of society forms the basis for peace thinking. In addition, a peaceful society is the one that has structural and social order. Unlike Galtung’s alternative view that structural violence is the value system reflected in the basic social system of any society, Smoker focuses on peace from an insider and outsider’s perspective. The insider’s perspective is the micro group’s view that peace must exist within the individual.
The benefit of understanding the meaning of peace from an insider’s perspective is vital when individuals can view things from their perspectives. He indicates that peace prevails wholly in society when the individual is peaceful within because of his definition of peace as central on a small-scale or collective, as opposed to a macro level. The outsider’s perspective of peace is on a macro and national level since it focuses on the social order in society as a whole. Unlike Galtung, Smoker goes further to defend feudalism as a central pillar in peace thinking from an insider’s perspective. Feudalism stems from structural violence that causes social disharmony.
In addition, Smoker points out peace as a shared value by explaining it as a good and bad as well as a right or wrong value in the context of a micro and macro level. He challenges on this conception is that it is a shared value on a macro level. In fact, there can never be a shared sense of culture or value due to the presence of civil war among different communities. According to Smoker, many countries lack shared values that result in numerous conflicts, social, and cultural changes (Smoker 149) unlike Galtung’s ideas that focus on the vice of inequality especially in resource distribution that creates disorder and harmony. However, Smoker further suggests that religion plays a vital role in providing the base for structural cultural and a shared value, as well as small peace.
Opinion
In my opinion, peace is not necessarily the absence of physical violence since many other aspects also cause disorder. Principles such as cooperation and conflict inevitably bring out my view on peace. The greed for power fuels disharmony consequently affecting peaceful coexistence in society. Conflict, especially interpersonal misunderstanding, creates social disorder, which brings the presence of hostility. While so much effort is devoted in the study of conflict, war, and violence, little effort is dedicated in the study of the meaning of peace. Many people overlook the significance of peace until violence strikes hard.
However, the presence of healthy interpersonal and international relationships among people plays a central role in ensuring people living comfortable and happy. Benefits of scientific and technological advancement are only realized in times of peace to indicate how significant peace is to any nation. This situation causes both improved economic and government performance in society. Therefore, peace is an aspect of great significance since no state, society, or nation would stand the test of time without its prevalence.
Works Cited
Galtung, Johan. “Social Cosmology and the Concept of Peace.” Journal of Peace Research 18.2(1981): 183-199. Print.
Smoker, Paul. “Small Peace.” Journal of Peace Research 18.2(1981): 149-157. Print.