Ecology and Peace Research
| Date | 01 June 1967 |
| Author | Gutorm Gjessing |
| DOI | 10.1177/002234336700400203 |
| Published date | 01 June 1967 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
ECOLOGY
AND
PEACE
RESEARCH
By
GUTORM
GJESSING
University
of
Oslo
1.
Introduction
Some
years
ago,
Johan
Galtung
pub-
lished
an
important
article,
in
which
i.a.
the
slogans
of
UNESCO
(’war
starts
in
the
minds
of
men’)
and
of
FAO
(’war
starts
in
the
empty
barrel’)
both
were
im-
paled
as
based
on
faulty
premises
and
consequently
leading
to
problematical
re-
sults
if
followed
(GALTUNG,
1964).
Galtung
is
obviously
correct
in
his
assertion
that
the
weakness
of
such
theories,
as
also
of
Dollard’s
frustration
theory,
lies
in
their
non-structural
character.
Consequently
these
do
not
take
the
social
context
suffi-
ciently
into
consideration.
Aggression
and
war
are
structural
phe-
nomena.
From
this
assumption
Galtung
builds
up
fruitful
theoretical
architecture
with
’rank-disequilibrium’
as
its
central
theme,
a
theoretical
structure
apparently
applicable
to
various
concrete
situations.’
The
distinction
between
inter-personal
conflicts
and
group
conflicts
is
basic.
It
would
be
a
retrograde
step,
and,
in
fact,
render
structural
studies
impossible,
if
the
social
sciences
were
to
dismiss
the
holistic
postulate,
’the
whole
is
more
than
the
sum
of
its
parts’.
The
structure
of
any
social
system
depends
on
organized,
trans-
actional
interrelationships
of
its
members,
and
these
intra-system
interactions
will
provide
group
conflicts
with
a
character
different
in
principle
from
inter-personal
conflicts.
The
intensity
and
effect
of
the
conflict
will
increase
owing
to
the
cooper-
ation
within
the
contending
parties;
so
much
the
more
so
because
in
regional
con-
flicts
(for
instance
inter-state
wars),
strong
emotional
factors
will
contribute,
since
adherence
to
group
territory
is
a
prehuman
inheritance
(BATES,
1952).
We
shall,
how-
ever,
return
to
this
question
later
on.
For
the
moment
let
us
rather
look
at
one
factor
which
may
be
of
considerable
interest
to
peace
research,
but
which,
to
my
knowledge,
has
been
too
much
neg-
lected :
namely
the
ecological
systems
to
which
groups
have
been
adapted -
or
misadapted.
Such
an
investigation
will
be
of
relevance
to
another
of
Galtung’s
ar-
ticles,
’Belligerence
Among
the
Primitives’
(BROCH
and
GALTUNG,
1966).
The
term
ecology
will
be
used
here
more
or
less
in
Ernst
Haeckel’s
original
sense,
as
the
inter-
relatedness
and
transactions
of
organisms
within
their
geographical
environment.2
2
The
specifically
sociological
concept
of
ecology
is
useless
in
this
context,
and
is,
on
the
whole,
more
confusing
than
clarifying.
The
social
sciences -
peace
research
included -
must
re-discover
the
state-
ment
of
the
great
Greek
physician,
Galen
(2nd
c.
A.D.),
one
of
the
most
important
figures
in
medical
history:
’Man
is
a
whole
together
with
his
environment.’
Yet,
since
an
ecological
type
of
reasoning
seems
to
have
been
so
little
exploited
in
peace
research,
we
start
with
some
purely
ecological
prob-
lems,
which,
little
by
little,
will
converge
towards
aspects
relevant
to
peace
research.
2.
The
ecological
background
Apart
from
some
minor
exceptions,
all
energy
man
is
capable
of
utilizing
derives
in
the
last
resort
from
the
sun.
Apparently,
scarcity
of
energy
per se
does
not
delimit
human
activity,
because
the
solar
energy
reaching
the
earth
is
incomprehensibly
To continue reading
Request your trial