In my previous entries, I have explored with you why we should study peace and the many forms of peace. But what exactly is peace? The most common idea we think of when we think of peace is: the absence of war or violence. This definition is problematic for two main reasons. We will explore these reasons next and then name a different, if not better, definition for peace.
The first reason for this re-definition is simple. This is not an inherently desirable form of peace. The ancient Romans called this absentia belli--the absence of war. It is also known as Pax Romani or Roman Peace. Often, this peace was achieved by the sword. Those who stood in the way of public peace were punished either by imprisonment or death. This included political dissidents and heretics along side murderers, rapists and thieves. Jesus of Nazareth is one such example of the ancient Roman peacekeeping process. Peace theorists have come to call this “negative peace. It is the negation of violence—sometimes through the application of violence. While this may be the easiest form of peace, it is not lasting. Peace by the sword quickly can deteriorate into tyranny, fascism and authoritarianism.
The second reason for a new definition of peace is that is based on the negation of another phenomenon. Peace becomes in direct opposition to violence. They become like two similarly charged magnets. They are constantly pushing against one another until they slip. There is no room for re-imagining the dominant paradigms and power structures. Instead, peacekeeping becomes an endless uphill climb against conflict. We become like Sisyphus, forced to push the boulder up the hill, only to have it roll back over us.
Just as in the micro, meso and macro entry, we see that best peacemaking happens within interpersonal relations and in the questioning of structural violence. Roman absentia belli leaves no questioning of the status quo. In fact, it only reaffirms the status quo.
So if we want a peacemaking that questions and reconstructs power structures, we need a new definition for peace. Rather than “an absence of violence”, peace must be the production of justice. We cannot merely pit peace against violence, but use peace as a tool for ending violence—a subtle and yet important distinction.
If war is the violent resolution of conflict,
then peace is not the absence of conflict,
but rather,
the ability to resolve conflict without violence.
— C.T. Lawrence
