TFF director
October 28, 2026
Exactly one month has now passed since I published my criticism of the introduction to the special issue on Johan Galtung published by the Journal of Global Security Studies, JoGSS, and of Tor Egil Førland’s chapter about Galtung which serves as a preview to his forthcoming biography of Galtung to be published by PRIO.
See the original on The Transnational here and the same article on TFF Substack with many general and critical comments and, in particular, the people who decided to withdraw from the biography project in protest.
The special issue itself was extraordinary. It was devoted to the intellectual legacy of one of the founders of peace research and contained a number of strong assessments of his personality, scholarship, intellectual trajectory, and public role. Such assessments are, of course, entirely legitimate. No scholar is beyond criticism, and neither was Johan Galtung.
But what is remarkable is that my discussion about this project has been met with silence, which is not what one would expect from quality-seeking academic institutions.
To my knowledge, only the two guest editors, Nils Petter Gleditsch and Gerald Schneider, have responded publicly to the criticism raised (and I have posted my reply to them). The editors of JoGSS, Oxford University Press and the International Studies Association have chosen to not engage publicly or respond to my personal mail to them about my criticism.
I do not know their reasons, nor shall I try to guess them.
But after a month, the silence itself has become noteworthy.
Political framing: The silent editors urged the author to not whitewash the Galtung antisemitism “episode”
Academic publication is not the end of a conversation; it is rather often the beginning. The normal expectation in scholarly life is that arguments can be challenged, defended, clarified, revised, or, if necessary, corrected. This is particularly true when the subject is a deceased scholar whose reputation and legacy are being reassessed in a respected international journal.
One may agree or disagree with the authors’ evaluations of Galtung. That is not my point here. My views on that can be found in my original article.
The point is that substantial, legitimate criticism has been raised and substantial questions have been asked, yet those in the best position to answer those questions choose to remain silent.
Particularly noteworthy is a – revealing – statement by Schneider and Gleditsch (in their respponse, above) concerning Tor Egil Førland’s contribution. They write:
“Indeed, Førland was urged by the journal editors to discuss the antisemitism accusations in greater detail in order to avoid a whitewashing of this episode.”
Editors routinely suggest revisions, clarifications, and additions. Yet this statement raises serious doubts about the balance between academic analysis and political framework. Doing research on these accusations against Galtung could not wait to the final biography. They should be mentioned in this preview article so there would be no hint even that “the episode” (of Galtung as antisemit) could be “whitewashed.” Noteworthy, the blackwashing of him was not something the editors had urged the author to include.
Very regrettably, Førland, the author, accepted to go along with this clearly political directive; and neither he nor Gleditsch-Schneider did any analysis that could have ended in deviating from that directive. They only discuss to which extent those accusations have tainted his legacy, not whether they were true.
Since the editors behind this political, anti-academic framing keep silent, one can only speculate what motives they had, both by publishing the Special Issue on Galtung and by “urging” the author of the forthcoming Galtung biography to, in effect, side with non-analysed blackwashers.
What does it mean for editors to urge an author to expand a particular line of criticism in order to avoid “whitewashing”? How did the editors understand their role in shaping the moral framing of a legacy essay? Were comparable concerns expressed regarding other issues, “episodes” and balances and what could and could not be said in other parts of the portrayal of Galtung?
These questions are not accusations. They are questions arising directly from the editors’ own account of the editorial process. And in this light, it is reasonable to also question the kind and value of the peer review; how come peers did not ask questions about the effect of such a directive on Førland’s final product?
How come they let several character assassinating formulations pass their review, including for instance that only Trump’s self-aggrandizement is larger than Galtung’s (in his private emails, Førland has regretted that formulation, but the question is what/who drove him to write it in the first place and how it passed a peer review).
Yet here too there has been no wish to contribute to a public discussion.
Private email correspondence to reduce public exposure
Equally striking is the role of the principal author himself.
Tor Egil Førland has corresponded privately through email with a number of his critics, including myself. There is nothing improper in private correspondence. Indeed, such exchanges may be valuable.
But a public article, public criticism, and public questions would normally call for public engagement.
Academic arguments presented in public ought normally to be defended in public.
If, as Førland has indicated in private correspondence, some disagreements may be less substantial than they appear, one might ask why this has not been addressed openly. If concerns raised by former interviewees deserve consideration, one might ask why these issues are not discussed publicly. If criticism of the article is mistaken, one might ask why that criticism is not answered in the same public sphere in which both the article and the criticism – my own and many others, many of whom have withdrawn their interview) – appear.
Again, these are questions, not accusations. But what is difficult to understand is why so many of the central actors have chosen not to engage at all and only two in public.
Criticism, disagreement, debate about in- and excluded perspectives, theories and concepts, right or wrong fact are normal in healthy academic lives. So is criticism of criticism. But silence is not normal, and also not a sign of health.
The issue is the manifest reluctance to participate in an open discussion about publicised criticisms. To me, it speaks volumes about the state of scholarly dialogue in the security political field, in the securitised peace research field as well as in ISA and the Oxford University Press.
Førland asked for interviews but kept silent about already having written his article
Finally, the project has not developed with openness. It turns out from the email correspondance that Førland’s article was published without taking into account anything of what we whom he interviewed told him. In my case he visited us, had lunch and several hours of pleasant conversation; he said he wanted to interview many who knew Galtung personally because he did not. This was August 2025. The article I criticise appeared about nine months later in the JoGSS special issue.
If he had written and finished it before talking to us, why did he not tell us and why did he not send us the article with an explanation what everything we said was omitted?
The reason must be simple: He had already interviewed people who gave him the input to write the – consistently one-sided and negative – portrait of Galtung’s personality and work before he interviewed us. He must then also have decided that this biography preview article should be based on these and not on the interviews he made later which could have been included, given the time that passed.
A few of us who have withdrawn have suggest to Førland that he retracts his article or, at least, revise it. It is still there.
In summary, the substantive questions and the criticism remain.
The silence by those responsible also remains. And so does anyone’s hypotheses about what the real purpose of the biography might be.
In summary, that silence is now part of the story about what I maintain is an already miserably failed attempt to excommunicate Johan Galtung as a person and a scholar from peace and conflict research, dressed up in a biography.
The problem is that Førland’s first steps – for whatever reasons – are so wrong-headed, deliberately un-explained – and little but scattered potshots – that PRIO’s forthcoming “full-scale” Galtung biography can be only slightly more complete, open-minded and fair. But what has been printed has been printed.
Today’s PRIO has no monopoly on defining peace research or Galtung’s contribution to it
Substantial changes that have taken place at PRIO over decades. It’s intention to publish a biography of its founder’s academic work may sound nice and noble indeed, but I am more inclined to see as a continuation of a transformation of peace research that has also happened elsewhere into mainstream international relations, more or less military-focused security studies and a NATO/Norway-acceptable orientation. Ola Tunander’s account of this change, published in English on TFF’s homepage in 2021, is a credible must-read. Nils Petter Gleditsch’s account of Galtung’s importance for PRIO then and today (negligible) is another.
To do systematic research on how to reduce all types of violence and develop visions and strategies toward a more civilised future world – like medicine aims to reduce diseases and create health – is not what governments and corporations have funded since the end of the First Cold War. Johan Galtung remained independent of government- and corporate funding throughout his life; he valued academic, political and personal freedom higher.
Fortunately – also in this perspective – Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), the International Studies Association (ISA), the Journal of Global Security Studies (JoGSS), and Oxford University Press (OUP), have no monopoly on interpreting Galtung, neither on defining what peace research is.
🌅
