Peace Studies Theory
Peace studies theory concentrates on the eradication of violence in the society. This is achieved through setting up structures that promote peaceful co-existence. Iain Atack analyzed the peace studies as theory and action. Positive versus negative peace structures are compared, citing the benefits of maintaining international peace. This article intends to discuss the critics of the theory and its implication in today’s world.
Through the critical examination of the theory by Johan Galtung, three levels of violence are analyzed. The direct, cultural and structural categories have been discussed and their effects on world peace analyzed. The structural violence is critical because it is very broad and important analyses of the issue are not met. There has been much diversity in the economic status in many nations. Government’s political structures are associated with eruption of political violence towards some groups in the society.
Structural violence has been criticized has a misguiding term. This is because, the process to eradicate poverty in the society is less emphasized compared to the process to groom violence. Violence entails the undertakings that hinder the peaceful co-existence of human beings. The government structures to fight human injustices are just theoretical and are never put in practice.
The concept of negative peace is also under criticism in many nations. Peace is associated with absolute absence of war in the society. Contrally, the international peace has been challenged by the continuous rise of antagonistic groups. Different communities view peace in various perspectives and are applied differently.
In today’s world, this theory is unrealistic. This is because peace is necessitated by the willingness of people to develop good ethics and values. There is lack of awareness about the political phenomenon among the citizens. This has been a crucial challenge to the attainment of international peace.