Paths To Peace By Margaret Mead

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has." This quotation by Margaret Mead is no less than a mantra for the activists, who, in spite of continuous disappointment, continue working towards their cause. At the same time, there is another group of people who are equally concerned about the current situations however believe too strongly in the belief that one person can not, and never has, made a difference. Similar to this struggle of beliefs, on whether to take the apathetic approach or to work actively to create the change you want to see, is the struggle of ideas on how to achieve peace. While one dominant group believes that the only way to achieve peace
Are we simply referring to the lack of direct violence such as a war, or are we talking about something more implicit and oblivious, such as structural violence? The authors in "Patterns of Conflict, Paths to Peace" explore this issue of defining peace in great detail, and the definition I will be using from here on is the one pitched by Johan Galtung. According to him, true peace has not being achieved if "human beings (and) … their actual (physical) and mental realizations are below their potential realization." So, according to this Scandinavian peace researcher, "positive peace" can only be achieved by working towards social justice, and justices of other kinds. However, this definition of positive peace does, in no way, under-value the lack of actual war, which is referred to as negative peace. However, while negative peace is what we can realistically aim for, this peace is simply not sustainable until and unless backed up by the presence of positive peace. Why refer to the presence of justice and equality as positive peace? Because even though a particular individual or group can not be blamed for the oppressive action, "there is a clear victim who is being in some way in the situation, or by the situation." Therefore, any unjust action qualifies as indirect
It differs according to the actors, and therefore, it lacks consistency. As opposed to measuring our preparation for war, which can be quantified, the concept of measuring the preparations for peace is something very complicated, to say the least. How do you quantify the changes made to the social net of a country? How do you calculate the positive consequences of investing more in the education system, granting immigrants and refugees equal rights, and providing income supplements for the low-income group? Due to the long-term nature of all these actions, it is almost impossible to see how much progress is made in the short-term. In addition, while it is certainly a noble idea, one country can not take this approach solely and hope to remain safe; if the rest of the world is racing to acquire weapons and military strength, any state has to take at least a nominal part in this race in order to protect its borders from the evil intent of others. So, this approach needs to become part of a global movement where an increased number of states agree to and abide by these principles. This idea of working towards positive peace will certainly work to eliminate inter-state conflicts as the primary cause behind such conflicts is the application of double standards by the elite, or the group in power. However, this approach does not seem to address the intra-state conflict arena, where problems