The Search for an Agreeable Definition of Peace

When our field begins to interact with the outside world, that is, the people in other disciplines and practices other than conflict studies, it runs into a significant number of issues. Primarily these issues revolve around making people understand what it is we are talking about! Even when, or perhaps especially when we talk about words that seem so commonplace. John Burton understood this as he attempted to define for the field “conflict” (a word that many of us use every day). Conflict is a term that is useful to define, primarily from an academic standpoint, as people generally understand what that is. However, a term that is perhaps even more ambiguous in many ways is “peace.”

“Peace” is something that seems to be a goal for many in the field. And, the connotation amongst the folk is that it is desirable. Furthermore, both in academics as well as folk understanding, “peace” is utopian (where utopian is something that, while perhaps a nice idea, doesn’t really exist). Were this to be true, the field would be one of folly and those in it very naive. Still it is not just a term used by us, but also others: Religions talk of peace, as do militaries and law enforcement agencies. All these fields and practices have a different, yet somehow related understanding of what “peace” is, as well as how “peace” may be achieved.

A quick search online revealed a definition of peace from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

1: a state of tranquility or quiet: as (a) freedom from civil disturbance, (b) a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom <a breach of the peace>

2: freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions

3: harmony in personal relations

4: a state or period of mutual concord between governments b : a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity

5: used interjectionally to ask for silence or calm or as a greeting or farewell – at peace: in a state of concord or tranquility[i]

While this dictionary definition is by no means exhausting, it does illuminate several points (primarily in how the folk view the term). First, a concept of “peace” exists for all levels of society. Second, outside of the intrapersonal, “peace” is relationship based (whether that is severing relationships, or the creation of non-hostile relationships). Third, “peace” seems to be a destination (or a fragile state of being). Finally, that peace is exists in subjective states relative to the level of society we are talking about; peace is not one thing.

Furthermore, of all these definitions offered up by the dictionary entry, I find greatest trouble with the first one: “a state of tranquility or quiet: as (a) freedom from civil disturbance (b) a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom.”[ii] This definition is troubling for a number of reasons. First, it supports pacification in favor of status quo (or law and order), and were this desirable, then the Civil Rights movement would have been undesirable and not peaceful. Therefore, in order to maintain peace, we would have to support injustice. Second, which is very much related to the first, it implies that the status quo is de facto peaceful providing there is no unrest and when there is unrest, it is not the fault of status quo, but rather a deviance of society. Therefore, as this definition of peace supports injustices and places the blame for lack of peace on those who are not duly represented in society, it leads me to conclude that this definition is an undesirable state of being, and unacceptable.

As mentioned earlier, these definitions of peace are subject to the level of society in question. However, if one is looking for a good working definition that encompasses systems thought and can therefore be universally understood and sought after, none of these definitions will work. Therefore, a more in depth search of academic publications was conducted. This search yielded diverse and interesting results.

In many of the journals, peace was not defined as a term. When they did, the definitions were primarily narrow in focus. Examples include:

Richard Ned Lebow: “the prevention of superpower nuclear war”[iii]

The implication here, is that anything less than total annihilation is peace! This definition is far too narrow, as it does not cover other atrocities, such as genocide, rape, or structural poverty.

Hilde Ravlo, Nils Peter Gleditsch, Han Dorussen: “That it is a product or byproduct of democracy”[iv]

While democracy appears to be more peaceful for those who live under its rule, there is no evidence to support that democracies actually bring peace.

Patrick J. McDonald: Peace is promoted by free trade[v] or commerce and capitalism[vi] whereas anything less promotes less than peace.

I find it ridiculous to assert that free trade and commerce, actions which (as currently practiced) depend upon the exploitation of resources and labor, is peaceful. Through the very exploitation it relies upon to create products it generates injustice. If this is peace, then peace seems to be less than desirable.

There were other definitions which yielded a more universal approach to what peace is:

Ervin Staub: “Conditions that help fulfill these needs in constructive ways and contribute to the development of peaceful relations and fully human lives.”[vii]

Essentially, this definition is good, however, it primarily supports particular social orientations to the world that are based on a certain philosophy regarding the nature of humankind and society. Furthermore, it denies the conception that agents of militarism and other forms of security can do peace. While this perspective may not be widely popular by the field, they can claim, with certain legitimacy, to be doing the work of peace based on an alternate philosophy about the world and human nature. Therefore, when dealing with culture that supports the use of military for the ends of peace, this definition still does limited good and may lead to confusion overall.

Johan Galtung:

“Peace is the absence/reduction of violence of all kinds.”[viii]

“Peace is nonviolent and creative conflict transformation.”[ix]

Galtung’s first two definitions suffer the same criticism as Staub’s. Further parsing peace into two forms: positive and negative – “By positive peace we mean a cooperative system beyond ‘passive peaceful coexistence.” [x] “Negative Peace is the absence of violence of all kinds”[xi] Galtung’s parsing of peace excludes participation by people who believe that due to fundamental aspects of human nature, there must always be force and “security” to ensure that peace exists; therefore appearing utterly utopian in design. For those that believe he structure must exist to keep humanity in line will never, by these definitions be able to do peace, or achieve peace.

While it may be true that peace must be accomplished without the use of force, coercion and other forms of ‘violence;’ a discourse on peace will never be successful across philosophical lines, if there can be no agreed upon definition of peace. Or, put simply, if the pacifists all believe the military is incapable of doing peace and the military believes it is essential to ensure peace, neither party is really going to be able to understand each other when they talk of peace. While on the other hand, it may be true that military or some sort of structural force is necessary for peace to exist. Whichever is ultimately true, if all want peace, then there must be some way to talk about it that makes sense to all people. Otherwise, we are merely talking past each other and accomplishing nothing.

History keeps unfolding and conflicts keep transforming, linking to other conflicts creating something different; there is no end. At least, there will be no happy end, as happy endings are always an omission of the final act that creates tragedy. As such, peace must not be a destination; it must be as Gandhi said “the way.” As “the way,” peace is an active state of being and the act of doing something.

Each philosophical side believes it is working towards peace. They may disagree with how the other side is doing it. They may also disagree as to what that future and that peace will best look like. However, they may be able to be convinced that on each side there are people who legitimately believe they are doing what they must to make peace. Each side may also be able to understand that the other is coming from a very different philosophical background than themselves, and as such will never quite hold the same understanding as the other. However, this still does not solve the issue regarding what peace is.

Given that peace is the desired state of being; and given each side has fundamentally different understandings on the nature of humanity and society that causes them to see this desired state of being manifest differently as a reflection of that core understanding of human nature and society. Furthermore, given that aside from utter annihilation there is never an end, which means there is only means, what we can deduce to be universally true, regardless of the philosophical starting point, that each is doing as they rationally understand they ought to do. Therefore, peace (the active state of desired being) is doing as one understands (s)he ought. Therefore, if one acts in such a way that is in line with how (s)he sees the ultimate state of desired being, that person is doing peace. However, were they to violate that code, they are creating violence.

Ultimately this means that if someone views this field as one composed of non-state actors addressing systems, institutions and structures within society that contribute to injustice in order to bring about peace, then that person must not accept money, or services of the systems, institutions and structures which create injustices.[xii][xiii][xiv]

Works Cited:

[i] Merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peace

[ii] Merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peace

[iii] I Richard Ned Lebow. Interdisciplinary Research and the Future of Peace and Security Studies . Political Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Sep., 1988), pp. 507-525

[iv] Hilde Ravlo, Nils Petter Gleditsch, Han Dorussen. Colonial War and the Democratic Peace. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 47, No. 4 (Aug., 2003), pp. 520-548

[v] Patrick J. McDonald. Peace through Trade or Free Trade? The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 48, No. 4 (Aug., 2004), pp. 547-572

[vi] Patrick J. McDonald .The Purse Strings of Peace. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 51, No. 3 (Jul., 2007), pp. 569-582

[vii] Ervin Staub. Notes on Cultures of Violence, Cultures of Caring and Peace, and the Fulfillment of Basic Human Needs. Political Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Mar., 2003), pp. 1-21

[viii] Johan Galtung. Peace by peaceful means: peace and conflict, development and civilization, page 9. Sage Publications, 1996.

[ix] Johan Galtung. Peace by peaceful means: peace and conflict, development and civilization, page 9. Sage Publications, 1996.

[x] Johan Galtung. Peace by peaceful means: peace and conflict, development and civilization, page 31. Sage Publications, 1996.

[xi] Johan Galtung. Peace by peaceful means: peace and conflict, development and civilization, page 31. Sage Publications, 1996.