Monologue | Reading Johan Galtung's 'Peace Theory for the Japanese' — What we can do to untangle 'pride'.

Johan Galtung identifies three aspects of violence.
Violence includes not only direct violence, but also
“structural violence,” which causes suffering through social systems,
and “cultural violence,” which makes that suffering appear legitimate.

Looking at it this way, I feel that violence is not so much a special event, but something that is normally embedded in our daily lives.

Within this context, he discusses the “thought patterns” that support America's belligerent actions.
This is the “DMA” framework, which combines Dualism, Manichaeism (the fixation of good and evil), and Armageddon (the final battle).

Dividing the world into “good and evil” and thinking that you are on the side of good.
And then, asserting that one must not negotiate with evil, and that evil should be eliminated.
While this way of thinking is simple and easy to understand, it appears to be a structure that easily deepens conflict.

Regarding the background of this ideology, Galtung presents a perspective from a religious viewpoint.
He points out that when Martin Luther, who led the Reformation, removed elements of Marian devotion from the center of faith, the aspects symbolizing “forgiveness” and “acceptance” within the Christian world relatively weakened, while the tendency to emphasize “righteousness” and “judgment” grew stronger.

However, this is not a simple evaluation of a specific denomination, but is presented as one perspective for considering how religious changes can influence the thought frameworks of people, especially those involved in social decision-making (the 1% elite). Of course, this view is open to debate.

Moreover, Johan Galtung himself does not lump all Protestant traditions together.
After emphasizing that Christianity has teachings that forbid retaliation, he also mentions that various Protestant denominations such as Quakers, Mennonites, and Anabaptists have made significant contributions to the theory and practice of peace.
It means that multiple directions coexist within a single religious tradition.

Looking at it from this perspective, one can also view the actions of a nation a little differently.
For example, the United States has justified preemptive strikes and preventive military actions to date.
In other words, it is the logic that “retaliation is forbidden, but prevention is okay.”

What this means is,
because Christianity has provisions prohibiting retaliation, such as “love your enemies” and “if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also,” it seems that retaliation is not possible in the real world.
However, by asserting that “evil must be prevented before it happens,” violence can be repositioned not as “retaliation,” which is forbidden by the Bible, but as a preemptive strike for “prevention.”

Of course, real international politics should not be this simple.
This is because various factors such as security, history, and the economy are intertwined.
Even so, Galtung's point that “thinking that divides into good and evil” and the idea that “evil should be excluded” are frameworks that support violence has a certain persuasiveness.

From here on, it's a slightly more personal story 😊

Things like “binary opposition,” “fixation of good and evil,” and the “legitimacy of exclusion” that are DMA-like are actually necessary for us to live our lives.
This is because it is more convenient to perceive the world simply to some extent in order to avoid danger, uphold morality, and set social rules.

But the moment that distinction becomes fixed, I feel like it becomes stifling.
When what should have been a temporary judgment becomes an absolute standard, one begins to treat people and events as unchangeable things.
At that point, conflict and exclusion intensify, and “suffering” is born there.

In Buddhism, this working of the mind is called “pride” (mana).
It is not just thinking that one is superior, but the hierarchical comparison itself—of “who is above and who is below”—as an axis of cognition where the ego has become fixed.

What would happen if we could shift this axis of cognition from hierarchical comparison to functional comparison?

In other words, not “who is above or below,” but
looking at “what is appropriate in this situation”is the attitude.

Even just doing that, I feel like it could become a little easier for me to live. This is because this perspective contains several elements.

• First, the “multidimensionality” where the axis of evaluation is not singular and can change depending on the purpose..

• And the “reversibility” where rankings are not fixed and the optimal choice changes depending on the context..

• Furthermore, “de-identification,” where evaluation is not tied to one's essence but limited to roles and situations..

Standing on this viewpoint, “pride” starts to seem not just as an individual's mental problem, but as a cognitive framework that is repeatedly reproduced within society.
At the same time, it also becomes visible that this framework is something that can be adjusted little by little.

Originally, “pride” is a personal mental problem.
And the “suffering” born from it should originally be something that the individual who created it must bear.
But when this reaches the family or national level, the suffering is usually directed toward those in a weak position.

They should just fight alone like Anpanman instead of mobilizing others!
I think they should just go to Armageddon by themselves.
Hmph ( ｀ー´)ノ

Not “who is above,” but “what is appropriate,” and toward “de-identification.”
I feel that even just shifting the focus slightly can change the world as seen.
At the very least, I think I can do this myself.