by Sohail Inayatullah
This piece is In memory of Johan Galtung (1930-2024), author and editor of over 150 books and considered one of the founders of the disciplines of Futures Studies and Peace Studies. The interview was originally published in the Prout Journal, (Vol. 4, No. 1, 1989), 16–20, we republish it with minor editorial changes.
Image from Transcend Peace University – www.transcend.org
INAYATULLAH: We would like to hear your views on the present crises facing humanity, your vision of the future and on your interpretation of PROUT – the Progressive Utilization Theory – especially as related to your work on macrohistory.
Image from www.metafuture.org
GALTUNG: Let us first start with some of the basic issues facing the world. To answer this question, we should always have as a point of departure two simple points; one is basic human needs, and the other is ecological balance.
Now human needs can be divided into four categories: survival, wellbeing, freedom, and identity. Survival is a question of avoiding large wars.
When it comes to well-being it is a question of avoiding mass ill health and starvation, and that is a question of economics for the people; local people not being penetrated and exploited from outside.
When it comes to freedom, it is a question of human rights. This is going to be an increasingly critical issue as the struggle for survival and wellbeing is going to, if you will, make the conflicts with the elites even sharper. The elites will then clamp down on those oppressed people who are trying to improve their conditions – so the human rights issue will become even worse.
The oppressed will respond with terrorism and civil disobedience and less and less with apathy.
The fourth, identity, is the one that we are least accustomed to talk about – it is the spiritual death of considerable millions around the world and fundamentalism has become one answer to this. Unfortunately, this fundamentalism, whether Christian/Muslim/ or other types very often carries in its wake so much belligerence and so much infraction of human rights that one would hope we find some better answers.
Ecological balance, the second point of departure, will have more disastrous consequences in the 1990’s.
INAYATULLAH: Do you think that it is possible to design a society with those five attributes, positively put?
GALTUNG: It is even easy! To give one example: In the past few weeks, I have had a small personal experience which tells me more than anything else. I am changing diets towards becoming a vegetarian. Because of this change, I will probably live ten to fifteen years longer. Most of the data point in that direction. It increases my chances of survival and improves my well-being. It also increases my freedom and the freedom of others by making for less dependent economies. It is a spiritual experience… that it contributes to ecological balance is obvious.
What we do in our culture is feast every day. Then, when our health becomes a problem, we hope to find a remedy. We look for a therapy, a cure, rather than prevention. Our usual food habits are indicative of how we approach the rest of the world. All it takes is a little bit of self-restraint, as with issues of peace and development. A little bit of self-restraint and we are amply rewarded. Unfortunately, the capacity, particularly of western countries, for self-restraint is limited.
INAYATULLAH: On a general level however, if you try to have people practice self-restraint, then you need some principles or laws that control the accumulation of wealth. Right? And the whole western sense goes against such a basic right.
GALTUNG: Surely, but not the whole western sense. It is the American sense, in particular. In the social democratic countries, we do have those laws. They are well respected principles of society…in PROUT terms, there is a ceiling and there is a floor. We can discuss how far the ceiling should be from the floor. And there is also the problem of permitting individuals to have more than one job, and accumulating riches along several dimensions at the same time. I think people should be encouraged to enrich themselves spiritually without limits; materially is another matter. That is what the socialist countries had hoped to do, and they have done it much more than people are aware of.
INAYATULLAH: What do you think are the actual prospects for peace and justice for the short and long term?
GALTUNG: I mentioned the need for survival, the need for freedom, the need for wellbeing and for meaning. These dimensions are part of the larger concepts of peace and justice. The steering of the dialectic in a direction that takes care of basic human needs and ecological balance is the key to the future.
I do not know. I was much more optimistic in the 1970’s than now. I am almost surprised by the extent of reactionary right-wing forces, extremist forces, a specific example being Reagan; fighting every hour of the day to get more money to kill pregnant women and children in Nicaragua. And ignorant, like most of the American people, of the real issues … not so easy to be optimistic. On the other hand, I have a feeling that the U.S. is on a losing track and is being beaten. That will help. I am encouraged by seeing in so many parts of the world what it means for a former colonial territory to become free, in terms of releasing creativity. Not all the creativity is for the good, but on the whole liberation liberates.
INAYATULLAH: You must be optimistic. Most of your work is trying to find ways to deconstruct the present system and alternative societies. How do you stay inspired personally?
GALTUNG: You can stay optimistic with your heart and yet be somewhat pessimistic with your brain. You can say while the peace forces will win out in the longer run, but we must be very much aware of the negative forces.
INAYATULLAH: Do you take a world systems perspective, or a larger historical, cyclical view to keep your optimism, intellectually speaking, even when the short-term trends seem negative?
GALTUNG: One certainly needs a world systems perspective. I am right now completing a book from a world systems perspective that looks at cyclical patterns. One can only have a world systems analysis; it must be global. And we can only have a wholistic one that tries to make sense of quite a lot of variables at the same time. The world is so indivisible that we need global and wholistic approaches but rooted in basic human needs and ecological balance.
INAYATULLAH: What are the key driving forces that cause social change?
GALTUNG: Sarkar is touching very real things. I think his theory, as all theories, can be improved. He sees some kind of circulation of elites. I would also see it as a change of paradigms; one elite comes into power, has a certain paradigm, it exaggerates and drives itself out of Power. The next one is knocking at the door and in this entire process there are brief interludes where people matter, and that is important. There are cyclical elements as well as other elements. Now the elites select the technology that fits into their worldview. Thus, if it is a military elite, you can easily predict what type of technology they would use. Economic elites, for example, would be interested in computers and banking technologies, which is what makes them (technologies) important.
INAYATULLAH: So, technology is part of the system, but it is not the key driving force. Some futurists argue that if you look at technology you can find out what is really happening in a culture.
GALTUNG: I would never say that. You must look beyond technology. You must look at the cultural and structural forces shaping technology. Society always has a wide range of technologies available; however, it selects only a minor portion. That selection is crucial. And some stage there, if you know the choice of technology, you can predict what comes later…you can then predict the range of technology from the phase in the social cycle.
INAYATULLAH: The other thing that Sarkar talks about in addition to physical clash and mental clash – the conflict between paradigms – is the deep attraction of the Great, the perennial inspiration. He sees that as the long-term driving force – humans constantly striving to achieve their highest potential which leads to some type of spiritual union.
GALTUNG: I see the same way. However, Sarkar has a couple of problems in his theory. Maybe coming from Indian aesthetics, intellectual craftsmanship, he makes the word a little bit more orderly than it is in the sense that the cycle always comes in the same order- – the rotation of the elites. I do not think he needs that. He needs the idea of the elites running out of power because they run out of ideas and because they exaggerate their perspective, their power, but he does not need the idea that they should always come in the same order. He has the tendency to make their rule about equally long, and he puts it in terms of personalities: you have the labour type, the brainy type, the acquisitive type, and the heroic type. Good and well, but these are organised into very concrete political groups. But these are minor points. Overall, I am positive about the basics. In the course that I am teaching this Spring at the Sociology Department (at the University of Hawaii) I am comparing the big macro-theoreticians, such as Marx, Toynbee, Khaldun, Sorokin and of course Sarkar is one of them. As I’ve said earlier, Sarkar will probably stand out as one of the truly great in this century, so much deeper and more imaginative than most of western narrow efforts to look into the future.
Image from Prout Universal. P.R. Sarkar (1921-1990).
INAYATULLAH: But you know he also talks about how the rotation does not always go directly into the next cycle. Sometimes there is a reverse in the cycle although it usually is short term; for example, there can be counter-revolution or counter-evolution.
GALTUNG: Yes, these are just minor points of critique. But the general thrust is fine. Sarkar’s brilliance is that he has brought to the centre the four-fold structures – military, intellectual, commerce and the people. These structures can be used fruitfully to shed light on all sorts of macro/micro events and processes.
INAYATULLAH: When Sarkar talks about spirituality, he talks about an inner awakening, but it does not become real until one deal with suffering. Spirituality only comes through loving humanity. How do you see the return of the spiritual today?
GALTUNG: I can certainly agree with that. But I am not sure that is what spirituality means in California. What I find looks more like “ego-tripping.” Certainly, Prout adds a spiritual dimension, and the beauty of the spiritual dimension is that we are all in it. Of course, there are issues of depth in spirituality but the main point is that …it is about positive growth. I find that beautiful.
INAYATULLAH: Much of the American spiritual movement is like that. But dealing with human suffering is…almost the test of it. It is more than a fast-food technique.
GALTUNG: A technique would be the American way. We should make a distinction between changing the world and changing America. The latter may be more difficult. Changing the Soviet Union may be a relatively easier task than changing America. America is saturated with self-righteousness; it has the inability to see its own problems because life is good and easy for many, and others somehow think it is their fault if they are not part of that good and easy life.
America is now going into a type of isolation. This will accelerate as America steadily declines economically and culturally. So, I would be more optimistic about the rest of the world than about America. We are probably heading for an American military withdrawal, something corresponding to the British East of Suez policy. But there is the problem of how the American people will react. I am afraid they will withdraw into bitterness and self-righteousness and be attracted to some kind of theocracy.
INAYATULLAH: But the basic American ideology is expansion.
GALTUNG: “Global responsibility” is what they used to call it. In any case, they cannot beat their basic enemy, Japan; the one that they are on a real collision course with. The U.S. runs a considerable risk. They had better adjust to the fact of being a declining empire.
Image from Transcend Peace University – www.transcend.org
INAYATULLAH: Wallerstein argues that world socialism is 100 or 150 years, one or two more long waves ahead; while Batra argues that we are in the midst of a transition which may lead to a new system within 20 or 25 years. What is your own sense of it?
GALTUNG: Wallerstein believes that socialism must follow capitalism. I do not believe that. Also, it depends on what you mean by socialism. What is much more likely is some type of green emphasis. I have a feeling that the fatigue with socialism in the form of big government is found all over the world. No one is very enchanted, overly impressed with this type of system. I doubt very much that will be the future in 50 or 100 years. However, we are in the midst of a world society, not in the limited sense that the decline of one stock exchange follows another. That the stock exchanges are connected is obvious since they are buying and selling the same goods. It would be very strange if they were not connected. But the important connection is at the level of basic needs and ecological balance. The basic needs of one person are related to the basic needs of another; ecological balance here means ecological balance there. At the basics we find significant integration, not at the celebrated level of stock exchanges.
INAYATULLAH: The socialism that I am referring to is the PROUT notion of self-reliance, of cooperatives. It refers to a people’s economy, not a state or capitalist economy.
Image from www.filmsforaction.org
GALTUNG: Yes, self- reliance on regional, national, and local levels. We will also see much more mixed forms of the economy. The American way of thinking is capitalism or socialism, most of the world has left that type of dichotomy behind. The Green emphasis is on neither one nor the other. The social democrats are 50/50 (they use state planning to soften market forces) and the Japanese emphasise all aspects (state and capital; bureaucracy and corporation). As the Japanese say, “there is so much to choose from.”
INAYATULLAH: PROUT talks about extra-cyclical leadership. Leadership that is spiritual in the deeper sense of the word, trying to move the social cycle onwards. What is your sense of leadership? I know it sounds interesting to have leadership that has aspects of all classes, but there is a negative side to it,
GALTUNG: I never liked the word “leadership”. It is only in this country that leadership is talked about so much. The thing to discuss is not leadership, but accountability. How do you set up a system so that those who are the executors, the CEO’S, are accountable? The way it is done in this country is so primitive, accountability only to the board of trustees, to the stockholders. But the way it is set up in Yugoslavia with manager being accountable to the workers is also primitive. No capitalist economy has managed the problem of accountability. The idea that people vote with their money, with what they buy is also a very crude concept of democracy. The consumer union movement, however, is an effort in a positive direction. What is needed is a broad dialogue and confrontation about what kind of products we need.
Any leader. is impermanent. The leader, of course, must have some qualifications: foresight and compassion, to begin with. More importantly, real dialogue with the people is crucial for leadership. But I would agree with Lao Tze in the idea that the best leader is the one who leads least.
INAYATULLAH: Do you think there are real possibilities, real alternatives, or is the future simply the continuation of the world capitalist system?
GALTUNG: No certainly not! But that does not mean that it is so obvious that the future is what Sarkar and others would like it to be. Everything ends. What goes up, comes down. What goes down, comes up. So that does not trouble me. The steering of the dialectic in a direction that takes care of basic human needs and ecological balance is the key to the future. I insist on that. Those are absolutes. Basic human needs and ecological balance; the rest are abstractions. Then, in a sense it is an empirical question; whether the nation-state system or some other system is better or some mix; whether capitalism or socialism or some mix, or other alternatives. That we can discuss. But we cannot quarrel about basic needs and ecological balance. Hang on to those!
Image from Transcend Peace University – www.transcend.org
INAYATULLAH: Those values are much more important.
GALTUNG: They are not even values. They are simply basics. Values imply that one can choose them; not to choose in favour of basic human needs is fascist. And not to choose in favour of ecological balance is some type of nature-fascism. So, we are up against very important things. I think the consciousness about these things is increasing. And that the world movements fighting for these things is also increasing. That is an optimistic sign. I would build on that!
