SARCHI Chair on peace and human development

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Chapter 3: Conceptual framework

This chapter discusses insights into conceptual frameworks and the terminology used. It is anticipated that these theoretical perspectives may be helpful in the task of exploring decisive mechanisms/thinking that correspond to the conquering or colonisation of the Barents Region and for creating theoretical and conceptual platforms for peace building and restorative action.
The most important pair of concepts that requires comprehensive clarification is peace and violence. Although they are explored in terms of how they stand in relation to each other, and that dissecting them may also lead us away from the holistic picture, the extent and complexity requires a more systematic review of each concept respectively. The chapter starts by discussing the concept of violence. It is hoped that the insight this would bring would then form a background for the discussion on the concept of peace. The concept of peace is thus discussed both in terms of its negative and positive dimension, and also from the perspective of peaceful conflict resolution theory. The last section of the chapter explaines and discusses important conceptual descriptors related to the distinction between modernity and Modernity’s Other.

The concept of violence

Violence according to Galtung

According to Johan Galtung´s definition, « violence is present when human beings are being influenced so that their actual somatic and mental realisations are below their potential realisations » (Galtung, 1975, p. 111). The words « actual » and « potential » are keywords in Galtung´s definition, placing violence as the cause of the difference between the potential and the actual, between what could have been, and what is. Violence is that which increases the distance between the potential and the actual, and that which impedes the decrease of this distance. The potential level of realisation is linked to a given level of insight and resources. However, if these « insights and resources are monopolised by a group or class, then the actual level falls below the potential level, and violence is present in the system » (Galtung, 1975, p. 111).
Galtung´s definition of violence breaks with a widely spread notion of violence according to which violence is defined only as the somatic incapacitation, or deprivation of health alone, at the hands of an actor who also intends this to be the consequence. However, if this is all violence is about, Galtung responds that « then too little violence is rejected when peace is held up as an ideal » (Galtung, 1975, p. 111). A peace concept built on this notion would, for example, involve overlooking highly unacceptable social orders. In other words, a narrow concept of violence builds a weak concept of peace. If peace is the ideal, then the challenge is to operate within the context of a concept of peace that functions as the negation of all types of violence, and not just the particular orchestration of violence known as war.
Galtung distinguishes between three main types of violence, namely, direct-actor, indirect-structural, and cultural violence. However, whatever the type, violence opposes basic human needs such as survival and wellness, identity and freedom.
Direct violence, physical and/or verbal, is visible as behaviour. Actor or direct violence is defined in person, social, and world spaces and is intended by individuals acting singly or collectively. It is only when there is a sender, an actor who intends the consequences of violence, that we may talk about direct violence and, if not, we refer to indirect, structural violence (Galtung, 1996).
Structural violence is widely defined by Galtung (1996) as « the systematic ways in which a given social structure or social institution harms people by preventing them from meeting their basic human needs and achieving their full potential” (p. 175). Structural violence is unintended and, in other words, it is not exerted wilfully by a person but by a structure which is created and perpetuated by a custom or a law. Structural violence is built into the person, social and world spaces while the central underpinning is inequality, especially the inequality in the distribution of power (Galtung, 1969, p. 175). Structural violence comes from the social structure itself – between human beings, between societies and between sets of societies (alliances, regions) in the world. The violence that is built into the structure gives the citizens unequal power and life chances (Galtung, 1996). Structural violence may be divided into political (repressive) violence and economic (exploitative) violence an; supported by structural penetration, segmentation, fragmentation and marginalisation. According to Galtung, using such « protective accompaniment » strategies renders the dominant group capable of “implanting the top dog inside the underdog … giving the underdog only a very partial view of what goes on … keeping the underdogs on the outside … keeping the underdogs away from each other” (Galtung, 1996, p. 199). We may also refer to structural violence in the case of deaths that occur in the lower classes because medical and sanitary resources are concentrated in the upper classes. A structure of violence not only leaves its marks on the human body, it also impacts on both the mind and the soul (op. cit.).
Cultural violence is behind both structural and direct violence with all of it being symbolic of the function to legitimise direct or structural violence. Cultural violence may also be divided by content, namely, religion, law and ideology, language, art, empirical/formal science and cosmology (deep culture) and by carriers, namely, schools, universities and, media. Cultural violence may be epistemic in the sense that it violates the cognitive space while providing a knowledge base for legitimising the other violences. As a way of strengthening structural violence, “the culture preaches, teaches, admonishes, eggs on, and dulls us into seeing exploitation and/or repression as normal and natural, or into not seeing them” (Galtung, 1996, p. 198). Cultural violence makes direct and structural violence either looking or feeling “right” or, at least, not wrong (Galtung, 1996, p. 196). Cultural violence is a constituent part of structural violence in that it strengthens the components contained within the structure while it manifests itself in the dispositions of people, offering language and telling those who wield power that they have a right to do so, even a duty, for example, because the victims of direct and/or structural power are seen as pagans, savages, atheists, kulaks, or communists (Galtung, 1996). function is also to prevent either awareness and the mobilisation of such awareness, which are two of the preconditions required for the fight against structural violence to be successful. In this way, cultural violence deprives people of their human identity and freedom and reduces the victims to passive acceptors of oppression. Cultural violence is therefore a product, but also a source and maintainer, of structural and direct violence. Galtung: “With the violent structure institutionalised and the violent culture internalised, direct violence also tends to become institutionalised, repetitive, ritualistic, almost like a vendetta” (Galtung, 1996, p. 208).
It must be emphasised that cultural violence refers to those aspects of culture that may be used to justify or legitimise direct or structural violence, and not entire cultures themselves. Entire cultures may rarely, if ever, be classified as violent. We may assume that all cultures have aspects of violence, but also of peace. The empirical or potential legitimation of violence is the key to understanding cultural violence.
Direct, structural and cultural violence form a violence triangle of causality:
(Galtung, 1996)
The point of causality (cause and effect) is that the various types of violence are interrelated and they form casual chains and cycles that mutually strengthen each other. There is also a difference in the time relation of the three forms of violence. Direct violence is an event; structural violence is a process while cultural violence is the most permanent or invariant of the three forms of violence, remaining essentially the same for long periods of time given the slow transformations of the basic cultural structure. Cultural violence is a source of both structural and direct violence because oppressive contexts produce dispositions that accept and support direct and structural violence and also a product of both because the very existence of structural and direct violence requires the embodiment of the culture necessary for these types of violence to play such an important role (Haavelsrud, 2010).
Violence may start at any corner of the triangle and is easily transmitted to the other corners although the time relation of the different forms of violence ensures that the major causal direction for violence is usually cultural via structural (politics and economics) to direct violence. Cultural violence serves as a steady flow nurturing the rhythms of structural violence with patterns of exploitation being built up, worn out or torn down with the protective accompaniment of penetration-segmentation preventing consciousness formation and fragmentation-marginalisation, thus preventing organisation against exploitation and repression. At the surface, finally visible is the direct violence perpetrated by human beings against each other, and against other forms of life and nature in general. All types of violence breed violence of any kind. Cultural and structural violence are indicated as invisible roots: a culture of violence (heroic, patriotic, patriarchal, etc.), and a structure that, itself, by virtue of being too repressive, exploitative or alienating; too tight or too loose for the comfort of people (Galtung, 1996).
This means the rejection of the popular misunderstanding that “violence is in human nature”. However, the potential for violence, like love, is intrinsic in human nature although circumstances condition the realisation of this potential. Galtung understands the concept of violence as avoidable insults to basic human needs and, more generally, to life, lowering the level of needs satisfaction below what is potentially possible. By looking at violence as an insult on the levels of both basic human needs and life as a whole, the distinction between direct violence and structural violence may be perceived as insults which may divided into four groups of basic human needs:
The outcome of this classification is eight types of violence, which may be easily identified in the case of direct violence but which are more complex for structural violence.
The first category, killing and maiming together, constitute what is commonly referred to as « casualties », and used in assessing the magnitude of war (Galtung, 1996, p. 44). War is, however, only one particular form of violence which leaves out important relations between other forms of violence. Maiming would also include, for example, insults to human needs brought about by siege/blockage and sanctions, thus resulting in slow killing because of a lack of medical attention and malnutrition affecting the weakest first, namely, the children, the elderly, the poor and the women (Galtung, 1996, p. 44). By making the casual chain longer, Galtung continues, the actor avoids facing violence directly. He/she even gives « the victims a chance », usually to submit, although this may mean a loss of freedom and identity instead of a loss of life and limbs, trading the last two for the first two types of direct violence. With the exception of the Kautokeino Uprising (see Chapter 4), killing has not been identified in relation to the colonisation of the Sami people, thus implying that the direct violence in this case constitutes mainly opposing well-being needs, identity needs and freedom needs.
Alienation is defined by Galtung in terms of socialisation, which includes both the aspect of being desocialised away from own culture and the aspect of being resocialised into another culture, for example, the prohibition and imposition of languages. These aspects of alienation often come together in the category of secondary citizen, where the subjected group is forced to express the dominant culture and not its own (Galtung, 1996). This is the type of violence that the Norwegian and Swedish education systems acted out when they created boarding schools for Sami children and forbade to speak the Sami language and Joik (Sami singing) at school. In view of the fact that the teachers who taught at these institutions spoke Norwegian and Swedish only, many Sami children also became illiterate in the sense that they neither learned how to write Sami or the Norwegian/Swedish language (see Chapter 4). In this sense the Sami children were not only desocialised away from own culture, but they were also given little opportunity to resocialise into another culture.
Repression is defined by Galtung in terms a double definition, namely, the « freedom from » and the « freedom to » of the International Bill of Human Rights. The categories of detention, referring to locking people up in prisons or concentration camps, and expulsion, referring to locking people out by banishing them abroad or to distant parts of the country, have been added because of their significance as concomitants of the other forms of violence. This violence is illustrated in the Barents Region as the sustained, combined and conscious efforts of the surrounding nations to prevent the Sami peoples from mobilise any type of formation needed to affirm their right to land and freedom. Another variant of repression is illustrated by the heavily subsidised re-settlement of people in this region, concentrating them in so-called centres of development and small areas with a town at the centre. This process may also be seen as a form of repression: “By reward amplify those who go in for consumption based on the promise of euphoria, while not positively rewarding those who do not, the consumer’s society narrows down the range of action” (Galtung, 1975, p. 113). Although this form of repression is, perhaps, better than a system that limits the range of action in terms of giving pleasure rather than pain it is, however, worse in terms of being more manipulatory and less overt.
Exploitation represents the main component of an archetypical violence structure. It refers simply to a situation in which some people, namely, those at the top, draw substantially more profit from the interaction taking place within this structure than the others, the underdogs. Thus, exploitation means unequal exchange and is, in fact, a euphemism. In case of the underdogs being so disadvantaged that they die (starve, waste away from diseases) we refer to exploitation A while being left in a permanent, unwanted state of misery, usually including malnutrition and illness, is exploitation B. By using such strategies, the dominant group is capable of implanting the top dog inside the underdog either as a mentality or as discourses (penetration), thus giving the underdog a very partial view only of what is happening (segmentation) and keeping the underdogs on the outside (marginalisation) and also away from each other (fragmentation) (Galtung, 1996, p. 199). All these sub-terms of violence function by impeding consciousness formation and mobilisation – two preconditions for the effective struggle against exploitation. For Galtung, these four sub-terms of violence should be seen as structural violence in their own right and as variations of structurally built-in repression (op. cit.).
Consequently, all four forms of structural violence have to be overcome in order to be able to approach, creatively, the basic issues of repression and exploitation. Both direct and structural violence create need-deficits. When this happens to an individual suddenly we talk about trauma. However, in the case of a group, a collectivity, we have the (less recognised) collective trauma that may sink into the collective sub-consciousness of a people. The underlying assumption linking violence and basic needs is simple: “Violence breeds violence; violence is needs-deprivation; need deprivation is serious; one reaction is direct violence, the efforts to get out of the structural iron cage, and counter violence to keep the cage intact, but there could also be a feeling of hopelessness, a deprivation or frustration syndrome that shows up on the inside as self-directed aggression and on the outside as apathy and withdrawal” (Galtung, 1996). Based on this notion, the deprivation or frustration syndrome is seen as a symptom (not the disease) of the deeper, more invisible and often unintended mechanisms of violence and thus it brings to the inquiry not only the importance of recognising the atrocities that have affected the Sami population, but the need for a profound examination of it using an analytical approach that could span the whole bottom stratum of the violence-triangle.

Bourdieu and Passeron on symbolic violence

Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) have contributed to the aspiring pool of analytical concepts that serve to bring structural and cultural violence out of obscurity. By the term « symbolic violence », Bourdieu and Passeron developed an understanding of the complex sociological mechanisms that accompany the form of cultural violence that forces subordinated groups not just to internalise the dominant culture but also to proactively support the illegitimacy of own cultures.
According to Bourdieu and Passeron, symbolic violence is epitomised by what they refer to as genesis amnesia, which finds expression in the collective and individual genesis disposition that we tend to perceive as « natural » and « normal ». Genesis amnesia is at work when we accept the naive notion that things have always been as they are. It is part of the cultural violence which prevents people from identifying violent relations in the society as products of history but, instead, naturalise and eternalise violence by suppressing it below the level of cultural consciousness. Once this link has been buried in the social structure and internalised as normal and natural, the misrecognition of reality and truths is then imposed on the dominated group by the positing of the ideology of the dominant culture as the only authentic or universal culture. The purpose of this imposition is to make the dominated groups internalise the disciplines and censorships that best serve the material and symbolic interests of the dominant groups. The imposition of another culture is also accompanied by the imposition of the legitimacy of the dominant culture and by the illegitimacy of the dominated culture through inculcation or exclusion. This is decisive in ensuring that the dominated group proactively recognise the illegitimacy of their own cultural situation and they are persuaded both to recognise the new definition of « legitimate knowledge », and to devalue the knowledge and values they effectively command (such as complex, indigenous social relations, ethical systems and laws, technology, art and language).
The techniques that are in play when symbolic violence is imposed and sustained are multi-faceted. The most important of these techniques include the following:
• concealment of the actual power relations
• concealment of the truth of the contents being inculcated
• concealment of the truths of its nature
• conferring some form of « legitimacy » on itself
• infusing altruism as a device in such concealment;
• delegation of the crude functions to agents and institutions
• establishing durable training to establish an amenable and fresh repository/conservatory of traditions that are more pliant and amenable, on the one hand, and to ensure radical conversion in the long term, on the other (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977, cited in Hoppers, 1998, p. 53).
For Bourdieu and Passeron, every power that manages to impose meanings and, in addition, to impose these meanings as legitimate by concealing the power relations which are the foundation of its force, adds its own specifically symbolic force to those power relations. In such an instance, education, in its broadest sense, becomes a key instrument. The various pedagogical agents mediate the effects of the domination by objectively or indirectly collaborating in the dominating function of the dominant group. Bourdieu and Passeron point out that the pedagogic authority, as a power of symbolic violence, continues without protestation and therefore it succeeds in reproducing itself because the arbitrary power, which renders the imposition possible, is never seen in its full truth (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977; Hoppers, 1998, p. 54). In other words, the dominant culture uses the pedagogic field to inculcate the cultural arbitrary of own culture by presenting a content that is never seen in its full truth.
Entrenched in this « authority » to exert symbolic violence is a power which manifests itself in the form of a right to impose legitimately, and which reinforces the arbitrary power which establishes it, and which it conceals. Bourdieu and Passeron point out that the recognition of the legitimacy of a domination always constitutes a force which strengthens the established balance of power because, by obstructing the identification of power relations as power relations, this force prevents the dominated groups from identifying and mobilising their own strength that is needed to fight against domination. This form of symbolic violence therefore makes it extremely difficult to locate the essence of violence. The social significance of pedagogic action is camouflaged by techniques that conceal power relations under the guise of an altruistic or purely psychological relationship. At the same time, the system of authority employs techniques that hinder the agents shaped by this form of imposition from realising their arbitrary character. This guise is sustained because the agents or institutions function as the delegated holders of the right to exercise symbolic violence. The task of the agents is to initiate a process of inculcation which must last long enough to ensure durable training (i.e. the internalisation of the principles of the cultural arbitrary to the extent that it is capable of perpetuating itself after the pedagogic action has ceased) (Hoppers, 1998, p. 54). Once the project of inculcation is complete, that is, the complete substitution of one habitus13 by another, or the primary habitus confirmed, the pedagogic action has fulfilled its role as a « conservatory of inherited traditions » (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977, cited in Hoppers, 1998).

Lindner’s theory of humiliation

Lindner (2006) introduces the theory of humiliation into the issue of how to understand violence and, thereby, takes us one step further in understanding how violence may be transformed constructively. Traditionally, humiliation was « a universally accepted and honourable tool » which was used to maintain the stability, law and order which was the order of « vertically ranking human value and essence » (Lindner, 2006, p. 34). In a society characterised by verticality, each hierarchical level is characterised by its own sense of honour. Underlings may be assisted by what may be called « voluntary self-humiliation, » concealed in various definitions of honour (Lindner, 2006, p. 34). In such situations, anguish and pain were valued as honourable medicine rather than as something which is unfortunate. Lindner labelled the humiliation practised in hierarchical honour societies honour humiliation.
The opposite of honour humiliation is an understanding of humiliation in a human rights context, which Lindner labels dignity humiliation. Individuals may not define themselves as victims unless they make the long mental and emotional journey from honour humiliation to dignity humiliation. When people are given the opportunity to compare themselves with others, expectations of equal dignity and opportunity arise from the ruins of honour humiliation while the unawareness of absolute deprivation may be replaced by an awareness of relative deprivation with what used to be accepted as « normal » and « natural » being rejected as inequalities.
In short, Lindner (2006, p. 31-32) describes the following three possible outcomes of the effects of humiliation:
• Acquiescence, or depression and apathy.
• Antagonism, anger, rage, and the violent pursuit of change. Often hierarchy is not abolished but merely reversed.
• Antagonism, anger, rage, and the non-violent pursuit of change, including forgiveness and reconciliation, and the dismantling of hierarchy in favour of human rights based system of equal dignity for all.
In outcome (1) the victims of humiliation turn their rage inwards, transforming it into a state of apathy or frustration. Nothing changes. In outcome (2) the humiliation is reversed by inflicting humiliation on the supposed humiliators and bringing about yet another cycle of humiliation. The third outcome, however, adds non-violence and systems of forgiveness and reconciliation together with the rejection of the hierarchy
– the root causes of the humiliation itself (op. cit.).

Violence and deep culture

A central presupposition in this study was that the colonisation problem is linked to cultural violence, namely, to intended or unintended ways of justifying direct and structural violence. One approach to dealing with cultural violence would be to identify various cultural aspects, for example, in religious and ideological thought, in language and art, in empirical and formal science, all of them serving to justify the violence. There is also the approach which involves exploring the substratum of the culture to find its deep culture. In so doing we look at the roots of the roots, so to speak: the cultural genetic code that generates cultural elements and reproduces itself through these elements (Galtung, 1996, p. 211). However, what exactly is meant by deep culture and how is this concept relevant to the discussion on peace and development in this context?
The concepts of peace and development depend on the way in which collectivities behave and act. In this sense collectivity means a collectivity, as in a shared civilisation with a civilization being conceived of as a macro-culture, extended in space and time. Culture may be conceived of as the symbolic aspect of the human condition, informing us what is true and false, good and bad, right and wrong, beautiful and ugly, sacred and profane, etc (Galtung, 1996, p. 211). In other words, culture offers a code, « a world view on nature, humans, society, world, time, the beyond, and how to come to grips with all that” (Galtung, 2008a, p. 206). At a deeper level, a culture informs us not only about what is true or good, but why it is either true or good. Thus, deep culture, also the collective sub-consciouses, in a given civilisation, comprises the shared deep assumptions about reality, about what is, in the sense of being true, the case. In other words, it refers to the collectively held subconscious ideas about what constitutes normal and natural reality (Galtung, 1996, p. 211). However, despite the fact that the deep culture is shared and obvious, it is not necessarily conscious and, hence, it belongs to the subconscious. They refer to those assumptions about reality that are available on recall. These assumptions are present in everybody – like a cultural « reflex » navigating individuals more or less in the same direction – are shared to the point that everybody assumes that others harbour the same assumptions (Galtung, 1996).
In the case of the Barents Region, there are cultural aspects legitimising the imposition of the majority culture on the minority culture because the imposing culture sees itself as « higher », more « civilised » than the minority culture (Chapter 4). Thus, there is violence built into that culture, in other words, cultural violence. Consequently, a central task of this study was to explore the cultural violence revealed in the way in which the colonisers/oppressors “see the Other”. This ultimately touches upon certain aspects of the deep culture within the culture in question.
However, the purpose of including the concept of deep culture in this study was not to portray a complete list of codes but, rather, to serve as a tool for enlargement. For example, from the notion of deep culture there emerges the possibility of exploring the sphere of moral philosophy from a peace and violence perspective by drawing attention to the basic cultural structure of the tradition in question, for example, by examining how the Other is located and perceived within the ethical systems prevailing in the Barents Region (see Chapters 5 and 8). The notion of deep culture also opens up the possibility introducing “space mentalities” as an alternative approach to discuss the framework for promoting peace and human development in the Barents Region (see Chapter 7).

The concepts of peace and human development

Based on the understanding of violence perceived as insults to basic human needs and life in general, the implication for the challenge of peace building and human development in the Barents Region must involve the challenge of reducing violence, analysing its forms, causes and effects, making predictions in order to prevent it, and then taking preventive and curative action. Striving for peace based on the definition of peace as the negation of violence would mean mobilise resistance to, and not the acceptance of, violence in the context in question. This mobilisation process relies on the ability to reveal structural and cultural violence, which often escapes deep scrutiny when all eyes are fixed on the surface of violence (Galtung, 1996, p 2). Clearly, the task of confronting the extensive scale of the atrocities which took place requires a profound analysis of violence. However, it is as important to note the urgent need for something peaceful to replace the violence. Accordingly, the following key question arises: How to construct the best possible conceptual platform to prevent violence while, at the same time, fostering the restorative antidotes that bring about the prosperity required for mediation, forgiveness, healing and reparation?

Galtung’s theory of peace

Galtung has worked with the question of peace for more than sixty years. He formulated the essence of his theory of peace (2013) in the following, very brief formula:
Peace = equity x empathy14
trauma x conflict
This formula addresses four tasks. The numerator denotes equity multiplied with empathy and which is divided by the threats to peace, namely, trauma multiplied with conflict. Positive peace is understood as a relationship between equity and harmony whereas negative peace is the relationship between the presence of unsolved conflicts and unreconciled traumas.
Equity may be defined as cooperation for mutual and equal benefit. Galtung (2013) emphasises that it is not sufficient to speak just about cooperation and the important point is equal benefit.
Empathy is related to harmony. Empathy means understanding the other as the other understands himself/herself. However, it does not mean agreeing or disagreeing, sympathy or antipathy. Instead, it simply means being « inside the other ». Empathy establishes harmony. Harmony means feeling the sorrow of the other, feeling the joy of the other, sharing sorrow, sharing joy and emotional resonance. For example, we imagine the case of two persons and these two persons have managed their cooperation, often termed partnership, for their mutual and equal benefit. At the same time they have a deep understanding of each other, knowing what causes sadness and what causes for joy but, more than that, feeling the sadness of the other and feeling the joy of the other. This may sound good but there are two factors lurking in the denominator of the fraction, namely, unreconciled trauma and unsolved conflict.
Traumas are the residues of the violence of the past. Traumas may be reconciled by clearing the past and creating a future through conciliation which wishes the violence undone and proposing future cooperative joint projects.
Conflict is not violence although it may lead to violence. A conflict has three dimensions. The first dimension is behaviour, which is observed at the manifest, empirical, overt level and which is represented by the letter B. There is evidently something underneath the behaviour in all cases, something hidden, which is referred to as assumptions (cognitions), and as attitudes (emotions), wrapped up together by the letter A. There is also the content, a contradiction, which refers to incompatible goals in a goal-seeking system. The only systems that are acceptable as goal seeking are living systems which are capable of experiencing the realisation of a goal as happiness and deprivation as suffering. Consequently, we may never assume that a gender, a generation, a race, a class, a nation, a region, a state etc have own goals as these are all abstractions. Both the happiness derived from goal-fulfilment and the suffering derived from goal-deprivation presuppose a subject. Conflict is therefore about life, pointing to contradiction as both life-creative and life-destructive. In other words, conflict = A (attitudes/assumptions) + B (behaviour) + C (contradiction/content). The conflict is a triadic construct as illustrated in Figure 3.2 below.

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Abstract
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 The Barents Region and the Sami people
1.2 Rivers of conflict and transformation
1.3 The problem statement
1.4 Aims of the study
1.5 Objectives of the study
1.6 Limitations of the study
1.7 Summary of chapters
Chapter 2: Methodology
2.1 The problem of occlusion
2.2 The methodological response
2.3 The philosophy of the response: hermeneutics
2.4 Research methods
Chapter 3: Conceptual framework
3.1 The concept of violence
3.2 The concepts of peace and human development
3.3 SARCHI Chair on peace and human development
3.4 Methodological and conceptual confrontations: a SortingMat perspective
Chapter 4: The wounds: colonialism and the Sami people
4.1 Imposing empire mythologies
4.2 Nation building
4.3 Conclusion
Chapter 5: Ethics and the demise of the Other
5.1 Ethics and the challenge of getting it out of the box
5.2 The constitutive rules
5.3 Ethics and its historical relations with Europe
5.4 Conclusion
Chapter 6: Social cohesion and regional capacities for peace building
6.1 The Barents Region cooperation
6.2 Two types of political approach
6.3 The Pomor zone
6.4 Who are the carriers of peace strategies?
6.5 Conclusion
Chapter 7: Indigenous resources for peace building and restorative action
7.1 Getting the word ‘peace’ right
7.2 Getting the story right
7.3 Getting the civilisational puzzle right
7.4 Upgrading the level of co-existence
7.5 Conclusion
Chapter 8: Ethics and the restoration of the Other
8.1 Ethics in a hermeneutical perspective
8.2 The Other – according to Levinas
8.3 Hospitality and fundamental ethics
8.4 Conclusion
Chapter 9: Summary of conclusions and pathways to the future
9.1 Summary of conclusions
9.2 Pathways to the future
Bibliography
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT