One of the aims of All Azimuth [the Turkish journal in which this essay originally appeared] is to ‘publish pieces bridging the theory-practice gap; dealing with under-represented conceptual approaches in the field; and making scholarly engagements in the dialogue between the “center” and the “periphery” ‘. I cannot pretend to bridge the theory– practice gap in these pages. Instead I devote considerable attention to a legendary scholar who, early in his career, made a stunning contribution to peace research theory and has, since then, dedicated himself to bridging the gap between theory and conflict settlement. I do deal with an under-represented conceptual approach to the field of International Relations. In the field, this conceptual approach is a version of constructivism identified with me (hence underrepresented); it emphasizes the importance of rules and conditions of rule in social relations generally. Finally, I argue that rule always manifests itself as the domination by those whom we may style the ‘centre’ over those whom we may then style the ‘periphery’. I have elsewhere expressed my reservations about speaking this way. Nevertheless, I realize that many scholars see me in the centre and themselves in the periphery and that it is important (for me, at least) to engage them in dialogue.

The scholar in question is Johan Galtung. A Norwegian by birth, he was educated as a mathematician and sociologist. He was instrumental in founding the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) in 1959, which he directed for a decade, and the Journal of Peace Research in 1964. A few years later, Galtung published two pieces in that journal, together constituting the core of his contribution to peace research theory, here emphasizing the term theory. Judging from the thousands of times that these two pieces have been cited, I am not alone in reaching this conclusion.

In the first, called ‘Violence, Peace and Peace Research’, Galtung argued for ‘an extended concept of violence’— one that included violence where there is no one actually engaged in violence, where violence is ‘structural or indirect’. Galtung's incisive description of violence in this form lends itself to empirical assessment and thus leads directly to practical improvement in the welfare of vast numbers of people. In my view, this alone accounts for the extraordinary reception accorded the notion of structural violence.