Yet, it could be argued that simply the absence of war and violence is still a good aim. Galtung, instead, argues that positive peace is preferable and more long lasting as it is about ‘the integration of human society’ (Grewal, 2003) and removes the ‘structural violence’ (Grewal, 2003) that causes conflict. For example, Gaudium et Spes states that ‘peace is more than the absence of war’ (GS, 1965, #78). Negative peace is merely the ending of violence and thus it could be argued that this is not real peace. However, the question remains- is this achievable? These two forms of peace are perceived as ‘two separate dimensions’ (Grewal, 2003) and not as one and the same thing. This distinction is key when considering whether peace necessarily entails the achievement of justice. He defines negative peace as ‘the absence of violence, the absence of war’ (Grewal, 2003) and positive peace as ‘the integration of human society’ (Grewal, 2003). Galtung splits his definition of peace into two parts. Yet, the question always remains as to whether this aim is realistic. Our ideal must be the achievement of a ‘justpeace’ (Lederach, 1999). Is peace simply the absence or war? Is peace inextricably linked to justice? Furthermore, is total justice needed before you can achieve true peace or is peace a process? Furthermore, what relationship is there between peace and justice? How do they intersect but we must also question whether both are always achievable. This is because peace itself ‘lacks an agreeable definition’ (Grewal, 2003). An important question relating to the relationship between peace and justice is the nature of peace. Injustice is a key factor in many conflicts. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that ‘Injustice…economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust and pride… threaten peace and cause war’ (CCC, 2012, #2317). A reflection on Peace and Justice by Joseph Nelson.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |