Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Peace has long been understood in political science in two quite distinct ways. The dominant conception of peace has been the absence of war. The very word peace (and the French paix) derives from the Latin pax, meaning an agreement—a pact—to refrain from hostilities. This is sometimes characterized as “negative peace” as opposed to “positive peace,” with the latter denoting not just the absence of direct violence but also the absence of indirect or structural violence, sometimes described as the presence of justice. This entry surveys the religious and normative context within which peace came to be understood, the various ways in which peace has been seen as a subject of research, and the diverse explanations offered by political science on the conditions for peace.

Given the implicit link between peace and war, peace was long understood largely through the lens of conflict and its management. During the Cold War, however, the “management” of conflict through mutually assured destruction and détente led to research on peace that meant more than just the avoidance of annihilation. This often embraced a constructivist perspective on peace, while realists tended to conceive of peace in terms of the interests of states, and idealists emphasized the role that norms and institutions could play.

Norms and Religion

Rules governing the conduct of war have existed in virtually every culture. The Aztecs, for example, developed elaborate rituals that preceded conflict, including dispatching ambassadors, providing an opportunity for a prospective foe to submit peacefully to Aztec rule. (Failure to accept three such offers was required before military operations could commence—even though the process meant abandoning all possibility of surprise and, since the ambassadors traditionally brought gifts of weapons, the opponent's military capacity was increased.) War itself, however, was typically regarded as a natural state. Early Western philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato gave relatively little thought to war as an atypical phenomenon. The seeds of what is now the just war tradition, limiting not only the conduct of war but the recourse to war itself, lay in the transformed perception of war from being the norm to being an exceptional state that required justification.

Christian theology contributed much of the content of the just war tradition but only after literal interpretations of Christ's injunction to “turn the other cheek”—on its face a doctrine of radical pacifism—could be rationalized by St. Ambrose and St. Augustine into a dualistic framework that separated inward disposition from outward action. This dualism lives on today in the principles of double-effect, right intention, and proportionality, each important to the modern legal framework for the use of force.

Religion has been significant at both ends of the spectrum of peace and war. Gandhi, among others, stuck to the utopian position of extreme nonviolence—adopted as a way of life rather than simply a tactic. Similar pacifist tendencies continue to inform much research on peace, despite some views relegating it to the margins of international affairs. At the other extreme, radical Islam has elevated the traditional Muslim notion of jihad (literally “struggle”) to a holy war against all infidels and any Muslim who collaborates with them.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading