Why Peace and Conflict Are Hard to Define
Analogy
- Understanding terms like “peace” is like interpreting a painting.
- Everyone sees the same image, but what it means depends on the viewer’s background, emotions, and perspective.
- Some see serenity; others see emptiness.
- Just like with language, the meaning is not fixed, it’s shaped by interpretation.
- Defining terms like “peace”, “conflict”, and “violence” is difficult because their meanings change depending on context, culture, and perspective.
- Words have both:
- Denotations: literal meanings (e.g. “peace” = absence of war)
- Connotations: implied ideas (e.g. “peace” = harmony, safety, inner calm)
- Language is ambiguous and vague, with no universal understanding of key terms.
- Some cultures/languages lack words for concepts like “peace”, highlighting cultural differences.
- Four reasons for contested meanings:
- Vagueness
- Ambiguity
- Denotation vs. connotation
- No equivalent word in some languages
Self review
- Reflect on a recent conflict in the news.
- How do different perspectives shape the understanding of its causes and solutions?
Case study
Israel–Palestine Conflict
- Why it’s relevant:
- The region has experienced multiple ceasefires and peace accords (e.g. Oslo Accords 1993), but none have brought lasting peace.
- Contested meanings:
- Israel may define peace as security from rocket attacks and recognition as a sovereign state.
- Palestinians may define peace as freedom from occupation, statehood, and equal rights.
- International actors, media, and citizens all define “peace” and “conflict” differently based on political, cultural, and historical perspectives.
- Result:
- Even during periods of “peace,” violence, inequality, and injustice persist, illustrating the difference between surface-level peace (negative peace) and deep, structural peace (positive peace).
