Citation

Apunen O, Rytovuori H. J. Peace Res. 1982; 19(1): 61-82.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1982, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/002234338201900106

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The authors proceed from a postulation of a dialectical relationship between means and ends: the essence of available means is taken to constitute the nature of the desired end state. Survival is defined as an end state pursued with human action indicative of two conceptions of power: repressive and progressive. With a con ceptual framework centering around these notions two fields of research in Finland are analyzed: the tradi tional foreign policy thought and peace research. The question asked by the authors is to what extent two schools or modes of thought indicated by the repressive and progressive concepts of power can be discerned and what is the state of the postulated dialectical relationship between means and ends within the two fields. Analysis is carried out from two angles: the cognitive aspect manifest in research substance and the persua sive aspect referring to the role of the scholar in social settings. As the study is at a preliminary stage, the pur pose of the article is to elaborate the analytical framework and to provide illustrations in the first category. On the basis of the pilot study it is concluded that the two schools tend to exhibit distinctive cognitive features of their own. Within the traditional pattern, there is a cognitive distance to global problems; amongst the peace researchers, a persuasive handicap exists as to the means in the immediate social environ ment. Instead of a mutual dialogue or a confrontation, the two schools show tendencies of cognitive insula tion. Nevertheless, a non-discrimination of the use of violent means would seem to provide some meeting ground for the two schools.