Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

1 Introduction

Although William James has been referred to as the first peace psychologist (Deutsch, 1995), the term “peace” is a relatively new entry in the lexicon of psychology. For the greater part of the twentieth century, theory and practice in psychology was dominated by a Western perspective that ignored the study of peace and gave preference to an examination of the problem of aggression and other forms of direct violence (Buss, 1961; Berkowitz, 1962; Bandura, 1973). Emphasis was placed on the individual whose behavior was usually viewed as a result of personality and narrowly defined situational variables without regard for the larger “situational” context within which the individual was embedded. However, since the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s, the trend line in citations to the word “peace” in the field of psychology has grown exponentially (Christie, 2014) . This suggests that consideration of the wider context is beginning to be explored.

In recent decades, peace psychology has also become internationalized, global in scope, and more thickly contextualized (Bretherton & Balvin, 2012; Hamber, 2009; Montero & Sonn, 2009, Montiel & Noor, 2009). Three themes have emerged (Christie, 2006): (i) the concept of peace has become differentiated which is reflected in distinctions such as episodic and structural violence, and peacemaking and peacebuilding; (ii) recognition that the complexity of violence and peace requires a systems perspective in which violence and peace are viewed as a result of the interplay of experiences and processes across individual, relational, and structural levels of analysis ; and (iii) there is heightened sensitivity to geo-historical contexts, and therefore a growing awareness that focal peace and violence issues vary by region of the world and cultural context.

In the current chapter, we examine, elaborate, and extend these three themes.

2 Distinguishing Various Forms of Violence and Peace

2.1 The 2 × 2 Matrix of Violence and Peace

The differentiated nature of peace and violence was used as an organizing framework for the first book that had “peace psychology” in its title, Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology for the twenty-first century (Christie, Wagner, & Winter, 2001) . The authors defined peace psychology as “…seek[ing] to develop theories and practices aimed at the prevention and mitigation of direct and structural violence. Framed positively, peace psychology promotes the nonviolent management of conflict and the pursuit of social justice, what we refer to as peacemaking and peacebuilding, respectively” (p. 7). This definition is consistent with Galtung’s between direct violence and structural violence. When direct is differentiated from structural and crossed with peace and violence, a 2 × 2 matrix with four cells results: direct violence, structural violence, direct peace (also referred to as peacemaking), and structural peace (peacebuilding).

In the present chapter, we use this twofold classification system to organize some of the literature in peace psychology focusing primarily on content , concepts, and themes. The literature we used was chosen from a number of sources including three main journals: Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, Journal of Social Issues, and Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. We also used information from the three-volume set Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology, the Peace Psychology Book Series (which consists of 23 books at the time of this writing) and several books on peace psychology such as Peace , conflict, and violence: Peace psychology for the twenty-first century (Christie et al., 2001), Peace psychology: A comprehensive introduction (Blumberg, Hare, & Costin, 2006), The psychology of peace: An introduction (McNair, 2011), and a comprehensive entry in the Oxford Bibliographies entitled Peace Psychology (Christie & Noor, 2013).

We organized the literature with the 2 × 2 matrix that distinguishes between episodic and structural violence and peace . However, for purposes of clarity and consistency, we have chosen to substitute the term “episodic” for “direct” violence. The modifier “episodic” captures the intermittent quality of violence and contrasts with the term “structural” violence, which implies a relatively constant state and permanent arrangement in the access, acquisition, or distribution of resources that are necessary for human well-being. The term “episodic” has the added advantage of implying a cycle in which violence rises then falls and further suggests the prevention and mitigation of violence can take place either before, during or after a violent episode. In regard to peace, we have adopted the term “peacemaking” to imply the prevention or mitigation of violent episodes. The term “peacebuilding” will be used to refer to two complementary but potentially different processes: the mitigation of structural violence and movement toward greater equity in interactions, relationships, and structures. Table 3.1 tabulates the use of our terms in relation to peace and violence.

Table 3.1 Terminology
Full size table

Table 3.2 shows some of the main features of the four cells. As noted, episodic violence inflicts harm and kills people directly and quickly, whereas structural violence is more indirect, normalized and harms or kills people slowly by depriving them of their basic needs. To prevent and mitigate episodic violence, peacemaking interventions are proposed. Similarly, to reduce structural violence and promote a more equitable social order, peacebuilding interventions are used.

Table 3.2 Characteristics of the 2 × 2 matrix in peace psychology. (Adapted from Christie, 2006)
Full size table

Table 3.3 presents some of the more commonly researched concepts, theories, and themes extracted from the literature .

Table 3.3 Examples of common themes within the 2 × 2 Matrix
Full size table

2.2 Another Distinction: Integration and Differentiation

Some concepts and theories in peace psychology are sufficiently precise, specific, and narrow in their applications, they fit quite neatly within the 2 × 2 matrix. For instance, genocide is a particular kind of episodic violence; social dominance theory has explanatory power in relation to structural violence; antiwar activism is aimed at promoting peacemaking; conscientization is part of an emancipatory agenda that seeks to liberate the individual from oppressive structures, and therefore falls within the peacebuilding domain.

Other concepts and theories in peace psychology are more integrative and can be applied to both episodic and structural violence. For example members of one group could “dehumanize” members of another group and thereby legitimize either episodes or structures of violence. Similarly, some concepts and theories could be applied to both peacemaking and peacebuilding; an “apology” could take place in the wake of a violent episode or in the context of structurally violent relationships.

At the highest level of integration , there are concepts and theories in peace psychology that are useful in conceptualizing and explaining both violence and peace. “Collective efficacy,” for example, could occur under violent (e.g., war) or peaceful (nonviolent social justice movements) conditions. Figure 3.1 presents some concepts and theories, organized according to the degree to which they offer integrative versus differentiated conceptions and explanations in peace psychology.

Fig. 3.1
figure 1

Some concepts and theories in peace psychology from highly integrative to highly differentiated

Full size image

In addition to organizing concepts and theories by degrees of integration and differentiation , Fig. 3.1 suggests that highly differentiated or specific kinds of violence and peace can be understood by drawing on other concepts and theories at the same level of differentiation as well as higher-level concepts and theories that have more integrative power. For example, restorative justice is a highly differentiated peacebuilding concept that could draw on another highly differentiated theory, such as equity theory for explanatory purposes. In addition, “empathy” and “altruism” (moderately integrative/differentiated concepts) could apply to the process of restorative justice even though empathy and altruism are more integrative and are often involved in not only peacebuilding but also peacemaking. At an even higher-level of integration, “collective victimization,” a concept that could apply to all forms of violence and peace, could add explanatory power to our understanding of restorative justice.

A few more examples may be helpful: an instance of “common in-group identity” (peacemaking) may be explained by drawing on “intergroup contact theory” and a host of moderately integrative/differentiated variables including, for instance, empathy, trust, and forgiveness. At the most integrative level, social identity and ideologies may be in play.

In relation to violence, moving bottom to top, that is, from highly differentiated to highly integrative: “conflict escalation” (highly differentiated) may involve a “destructive ideology” (moderately differentiated/integrated) that applies to a particular category of persons (i.e., social categorization theory, a highly integrative theory). “Just world thinking” (highly differentiated) may be driven by “social exclusion” activities (moderate level) combined with a narrow scope of justice in which the target is victim of “moral exclusion” (moderate level) and “social representations of history” (highly integrative) in which the current perpetrator was once a victim. In short, Fig. 3.1 suggests potentially useful ways of drawing on a range of concepts and theories when attempting to conceptualize and explain instances of peace and violence.

2.3 Levels of Analysis

Lewin (1951) raised a key question for scholarly inquiry in the social and behavioural sciences when he noted: “The first prerequisite of a successful observation in any science is a definite understanding about what size unit one is going to observe at a given time” (p. 157). Psychologists typically focus their observations and measurements on the individual unit of analysis though some specialties in psychology include considerations of the social and political context within which behavior is embedded. Although the field of psychology is typically associated with research and practice at the individual level or unit of analysis, when engaged in peace research, the term “peace” tends to imply larger units of analysis. Thus, the question arises: how many levels of analysis should be considered, two, three, four, or more?

Three levels have been examined in analyses that view the individual as functioning within a group, which in turn is embedded in the larger society (Suedfeld, Cross, & Stewart, 2012; Christie & Noor, 2012). These three levels—individuals, groups, society—have been conceptualized as interdependent so that the functioning at one level affects that of other levels. Many research endeavors in peace psychology attest to this interconnectedness between the individual, group, and the wider society. Take racism as an example. At the societal level of analysis , “racism ” is manifest in norms and policies that promote prejudice and discrimination and eschew the fair and equal treatment of the “other.” At the group level, racism is seen in the collective narratives and actions of groups. And, at the individual level of analysis, racism involves the individual’s subjective states and behaviors toward the “other.” Thus, in the case of racism , what is observed and experienced at the individual level comports with the actions and policies at the other levels. Indeed, a mutually reinforcing relationship exists between and among all levels.

Peace psychology research has also examined four levels that include the individual, interpersonal, within-group, and between-group levels of analysis. An even larger unit, the international unit could be included by viewing the “inter-nation” unit of analysis as a special case of between-group or inter-group relations and interactions. To be more precise, from a psychological perspective, a key question is the identification of influences that play a role in the actions and subjectivities of political elite and other actors who are recognized as legitimate leaders of sovereign nations. Conversely, the macro to micro question addresses the impact of inter-nation relations on the actions and subjectivities of individual elite and nonelite members of a society.

In the multidisciplinary field of Peace and Conflict Studies, the term “peace” is seldom examined at the individual level of analysis . Because “peace” is typically associated with large units of analysis, it is not surprising that college level course work in Peace and Conflict Studies often includes a great deal of information from international relations, a specialty in political science. The study of psychology in this context is useful through (i) its applicability to understanding peaceful and violent individuals, and (ii) its contributions to the transdisciplinary feature of Peace and Conflict Studies.

Indeed, a great deal of research in peace psychology has examined the characteristics of peaceful and nonviolent individuals (cf. Sims, Nelson, & Puopolo, 2014; Mayton, 2009) and in regard to transdisciplinary contributions, nearly all of the concepts and theories identified in Table 3.3 while typically examined at the individual level have applications and implications at multiple levels of analysis. Events that take place at the micro level of analysis can impact macro-level processes. For example, people who have a highly agreeable disposition (individual level) are more likely to engage in empathic concern, cooperation, helpfulness, and elicit less conflict (interpersonal level) than people who are low in agreeability (Graziano & Tobin, 2009).

The concept of “collective efficacy” also can be used to illustrate the interplay among levels. Collective efficacy is often measured by aggregating individuals’ appraisal of their groups’ capability in relation to some task. High-levels of perceived collective efficacy (individual level) are causally linked to high-levels of group-level motivation and performance (Bandura, 2000). Cognitive complexity is another variable measured at the individual level, quantified by scoring the extent to which individuals engage in thinking that differentiates and integrates events. In contrast, low-levels of cognitive complexity are reflected in more simplistic one-dimensional kinds of analysis. When political leaders reduce the complexity of their rhetoric (i.e., move toward low-levels of integrative complexity) the shift is often followed by the outbreak of war between nations, a transdisciplinary finding that relates individual cognition to international relations (Conway, Suedfeld, & Tetlock, 2001; Suedfeld, Tetlock, & Ramirez, 1977).

Events that take place at larger or macro units of analysis, such as the national (group) level for instance, can also affect the individual. For instance, as interethnic violence broke out in the former Yugoslavia, the national identity of individuals became less salient than ethnic identity. Individuals who once identified themselves as Yugoslavians observed an ethnic division in their country, and duplicated that division in their own sense of social identity . Individuals lost their common identity as Yugoslavians and adopted or were assigned to an ethnic category: Bosnian, Croat, or Serb (Simic, 2014).

Some peace psychologists have found it useful to draw primarily on two levels of analysis: macro and micro . Moghaddam (2008), for example, has invented the concept of “cultural carriers” or symbolic containers that consist of a society’s sociocultural narratives as well as values, norms, rules, and ways of thinking that inform and shape an individual’s identity and subjectivities . Hence, macro-level cultural carriers have the ability to maintain and sustain conflict, animosity, and prejudice at the individual level long after the actual hostile event has taken place.

2.4 Objective and Subjective Violence and Peace: 2 × 2 × 2

Past research in peace psychology has used the 2 × 2 matrix depicted in Tables 3.1–3.3 extensively, but in this chapter, we go beyond this matrix and add a third dimension that captures the objective versus subjective properties of violence and peace. The term “objective” refers to actions by individuals or groups that are overt, directly observable, and measurable. In contrast, the “subjective ” property of violence and peace refers to internal thoughts and feelings of individuals and groups. Subjectivities are covert, inferred and only indirectly observable or measurable.

At the individual level of analysis, subjectivities that are examined in peace research often take the form of beliefs, values, and attitudes. At the group level, collective subjectivities may cohere around symbols or shared meanings or memories. Monuments, rituals , and stories are some of the observable manifestations of subjectivities or symbols that have meanings attached to them.

The subjective property of humans exist in individual and collective beliefs, ideologies , shared narratives , collective memories , shared meanings, symbols, and other cognitive and affective states that may serve to maintain, exacerbate, or mitigate observable forms of violence or peace.

Psychology has yet to contribute fully to the transdisciplinary agenda of Peace and Conflict Studies even though the subjective existence of humans is central to both the field of psychology and peaceful processes. A key challenge for peace psychologists is to begin mapping relationships between directly observable phenomena and the subjectivities of individuals and collectives . For example, “ideology” is a highly integrative subjective concept that has broad applications to violence and peace across multiple levels of analysis. In a more differentiated form, the concept of “ideology” would bear on either violence or peace but not both. In the case of violence, an ideology that “delegitimizes the other” would not promote peace but could accompany either structural or episodic violence. “Belief in Just World” is an even more differentiated ideology that bears on violence and is typically associated with the justification of enormous differences in well-being, that is, structural violence but not necessarily episodic violence. Both concepts, delegitimizing the other and believing in the notion of a just world, may lead to subjective forms of violence undertaken either by an individual or a group of individuals who share these destructive beliefs.

In regard to violent episodes, the philosophy of “just war theory” is a set of beliefs that supports organized episodes of violence because, according to the theory, violent actions are morally acceptable under certain conditions (e.g., self-defense). Another example: in recent years, one of the most challenging issues for peace scholars and practitioners is the problem of intractable conflicts. The objective properties of intractable conflicts are directly observable cycles of violence that, by definition, are repeated, overt, and transmitted across generations (Bar-Tal, 2007; Coleman, 2003). The subjectivities that accompany intractable conflicts take place within individuals and groups and consist of shared beliefs that the conflict is irreconcilable and involves goals, needs, and values that are perceived as essential for each group’s existence or survival. The zero-sum subjectivity that accompanies intractable conflicts at the individual and collective levels of analysis means that any loss suffered by one side is viewed as a gain for the other side. Because intractable conflicts are central to the lives of group members, thoughts about the conflict are readily accessible in a cognitive sense and relevant to many individual and collective choices and decisions. A host of emotions accompany intractable conflicts including fear, insecurity, and animosity (Bar-Tal, 2012).

The notion of subjectivities is important in peacemaking and peacebuilding. For example, a shared belief in the power of dialogue can accompany, support, encourage, and justify nonviolent conflict resolving actions. Similarly, a belief in the efficacy of nonviolence as a means of producing structural change can contribute to nonviolent actions in the pursuit of socially just ends.

In short, subjective violence and peace may accompany, support, amplify, encourage, or legitimize overt forms of violence or peace. Figure 3.2 illustrates the third dimension, objective and subjective, that we have added to the 2 × 2 matrix .

Fig. 3.2
figure 2

A 2 × 2 × 2 matrix of key concepts and theories in peace psychology

Full size image

A real-world example can be seen in the case of Hindu–Muslim relations in India, where the Babri mosque in Ayodhya is used as a symbol of Hindutva or Hindu nationalism (Khan & Sen, 2009). This symbol of Hindu nationalism was created out of the country’s rich multi-layered past to make sense of how secularism and democracy could have failed to uplift Hindus and the great civilization they created, a failure that was attributed in part to the Muslim minority community who once dominated the Hindu population. Babri mosque in itself is a dilapidated monument, but the belief that the mosque was built on the site of the temple of Lord Rama and the historic Hindu march that culminated in the destruction of the mosque had enormous symbolic value. Communal violence spread through many parts of India and the symbol of the mosque was a rallying point for Hindus to strengthen a national identity in opposition to Muslims . Political leaders have also used the Babri mosque, a Muslim symbol, to mobilize support for Hindu nationalism, an effective strategy that was repeated when a fire broke out on a train in Gadhra and took the lives of many Hindu pilgrims. The incident, blamed on Muslim terrorists whose responsibility was never proven, sparked violent riots because Hindu political leaders successfully associated the fire with the symbol of the mosque (Khan & Sen, 2009), further strengthening Hindutva as the champion of the threatened Hindu religion .

These symbolic representations can be seen as part of a society’s collective narratives—its collective experiences, belief system and shared identity (Bar-Tal, 2007; Salomon, 2006) but they are malleable and many times have been manipulated to mobilize sectarian conflict and justify crimes against the other (see also Liu & Sibley, 2009). That is one reason why conflicts, such as the Hindu–Muslim conflict, Palestinian–Israeli conflict, the Northern Ireland conflict, are protracted and intractable—the collective narratives are entwined with the historical memories of the groups’ sense of identity. Of course there are other factors, but collective memories and narratives that are part of a group’s identity , can be a strong contributing source of conflict and violence.

Two special issues of Peace and Conflict (see “Of Narratives and Nostalgia” edited by Duncan, Stevens, and Sonn, 2012 and “Museums as Sites for Historical Understanding, Peace and Justice: Views from Canada” edited by Dean, 2013) have provided more insight into how these subjectivities of the past—personal and collective histories, memories, narratives, identities—may play out and promote peace or violence. For instance, in the case of South Africa , if there is denial of apartheid’s racist history coupled with the nostalgic idealization of its past, then reconciliation will be difficult (Gobodo-Madikizela, 2012). However, if these painful, suppressed, and oppressed memories are remembered, they may assist individual and group reconciliation and healing (Sonn, 2012) and provide opportunities for future possibilities (Bradbury, 2012). Clearly, individual and collective subjectivities of the past can support violence or peace. Museums, for example, can offer contested narratives that have the potential to amplify past injustices or promote peace through historical understanding and consciousness (Dean, 2013) .

3 A Systems Perspective in Peace Psychology

A systems perspective seeks to take into account the distinctions we have introduced and flesh out the ways in which parts of the system interact with one another, along with the functioning of the system as a whole. In relation to violence, a systems perspective recognizes that episodes and structures of violence have objective and subjective qualities, operate within and across levels, and form an interlocking system of violence. For example, gender inequalities in economic well-being exists globally, and economic dependency makes it difficult for women to extricate themselves from violent relationships (Bunch, 1990). This problem can be analyzed at the individual and collective levels of analysis and has objective as well as subjective qualities. In regard to war, more than 50 years ago, Eisenhower (1961), warned Americans about the structural roots of wars that can be traced to a number of standing institutions that together formed what he called “the military-industrial complex.”

In short, peace psychologists appreciate that societal conditions—historical, social, cultural, political—may give rise to either violence or peace and their accompanying subjectivities, such as ideologies , collective memories and the like. Because violence and peace are inextricably woven into the fabric of societal conditions, by identifying and understanding these conditions, opportunities for prevention and constructive social processes can be initiated.

A systems perspective can be useful in attempts to understand a wide range of violence. In an effort to shed light on the origins of extreme violence between groups, such as mass killing or genocide , Staub (2013), argued that certain social conditions, such as difficult life situations and continuous group conflict—about land, for example, may privilege some groups, while frustrating and threatening the material and psychological needs of individuals who belong to other groups. These conditions when coupled with certain cultural characteristics (like past victimization, a history of aggressive behavior, and devaluation of out-group), result in psychological processes, such as in-group favoritism and identification (or ethnocentrism) . In addition, these destructive processes are facilitated by the messages and behaviors of group leaders who may use conflict-related emotions of anger and fear (Leidner, Tropp, & Lickel, 2013; Lerner, et al., 2003) that can give rise to moral disengagement , moral exclusion, (Opotow, 1990, 2001) and dehumanization of the other (Haslam et al., 2005; Leyens et al., 2000). Taken together, these destructive processes conspire to make violence against an out-group more easily condoned and supported (Castano & Giner-Sorolla, 2006; Maoz & McCauley, 2008). Further, in regard to perpetrators of violence, those having certain personality dispositions, such as authoritarian personalities, or those who endorse right-wing authoritarianism have been found to be more likely to harm others (Benjamin, 2006). Research has also found that leaders with less cognitive complexity or those who view crisis situations in overly simplistic terms are more likely to send their nation to war as opposed to those who think complexly during a crisis (Conway & Gornick, 2012; Conway, Suedfeld, & Tetlock, 2001). Hence, episodic violence on a large scale can be conceptualized as the interplay of factors across levels with particular emphasis on societal conditions and psychological processes.

On the other hand, mitigation of certain social conditions can be used to bring peace and harmonious relations among people. To illustrate, contact via joint projects that apply the principles of intergroup contact theory (where groups meet on the basis of equal status, cooperate toward a common goal, and have institutional support, see Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006) have enabled people to engage and form positive relations with others outside their group (Hewstone & Swart, 2011). Direct contact has been shown to have a significant negative relation with prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), and has been found to be most effective when cross-group friends provide optimal contact, although still maintaining their respective group memberships (Brown & Hewstone, 2005).

Ashoka Fellows (or social entrepreneurs) have utilized contact principles (Praszkier, Nowak, & Coleman, 2010) by encouraging members of hostile groups to work cooperatively toward common goals and build trust. Over time, the conflict becomes less relevant and people tend to see themselves and others as part of a common in-group , resulting in more positive attitudes toward others and more help for members of the other group (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2009). In another example of ongoing contact via joint ventures, Varshney (2002) showed that despite instigating events, Hindus and Muslims did not resort to violence in some Indian cities that had vibrant civil society groups in which Hindus and Muslims had regular and frequent contact prior to an event that triggered the spread of intergroup violence in other Indian cities. These real-world contact experiences demonstrate that when groups experience appropriate contact, positive long-term effects may ensue.

Intergroup contact can also facilitate empathy and perspective taking (Al Ramiah & Hewstone, 2013; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). Empathy has been shown to be positively associated with out-group support (Malhotra & Liyanage, 2005) and mediates the relationship between contact and the reduction of prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). Empathy has also been associated with increasing trust (Kelman, 1999), a prerequisite to resolving conflict, and beliefs that out-group members do not harbor harmful intentions toward the in-group (Lewicki & Wiethoff, 2000). Similarly, taking the perspectives of others is related positively to intergroup attitudes (Vescio, Sechrist, & Paolucci, 2003), and the ability to challenge the in-group members when they engage in violence toward the out-group (Mallett et al., 2008).

Thus, a systems perspective is able to inform psychological research and theory in peace psychology and deepen our understanding of the origins and nature of peace, conflict, and violence .

4 Geo-Historical Contexts of Peace Psychology

Systematic reviews of scholarly sources often entail a number of steps: explicit search strategy (including published and unpublished publications and reports), strategies for data extraction and synthesis, clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, systematic coding and analysis of included studies, rules for resolving disagreements between coders, etc. (cf. Hemingway, 2009; Kitchenham, 2004). Such an approach is well suited for controlling certain variables and identifying the correlates of various phenomena. In contrast, our aim in the current review is to be descriptive, drawing on the major sources of literature in peace psychology and recognizing that geo-historical contexts and corresponding focal issues are not fixed, but fluid phenomena that vary with time and place. Thus, we offer a selective survey of geo-historical contexts and focal issues with the modest aim of providing some examples of how peace psychology is nuanced by geo-historical contexts.

Peace psychology emerged as an independent field of inquiry in the West during the Cold War , a period when the two superpowers—the USA and Soviet Union—contested for global hegemony via the nuclear arms race. Widespread fear of nuclear annihilation led to a backlash among psychologists who started questioning the US foreign policy (notably the policy of deterrence that created a security dilemma in which efforts to increase one’s own security, results in the adversary also increasing its security), and the destructive nature of the superpower relationship (Christie, 2012) . During this time, peace psychologists offered scholarship that emphasized the psychological nature of adversarial relations, such as destructive communication patterns as well as mutually distorted perceptions. After the Cold War, there was increasing recognition that geo-historical context plays a central role in the meanings and types of peace (Christie, 2006).

This internationalization of peace psychology identified that the focal concerns of peace and violence vary in different regions of the world. Hence, in contrast to the West’s concerns with direct violence like nuclear annihilation, terrorism, and militarism, for example, in Asia, violence is entrenched within the society’s cultural and structural systems. An awareness of Asia’s rich and complex history—foreign colonization, a destructive WWII, ethnic pluralism, and authoritarian regimes—is required to understand the nature of conflict and peace in the region (Montiel, 2003; Montiel & Noor, 2009). Here, violent events are seen as manifestations of the interactions among the many social, cultural, and historical factors that are embedded within the society. In addition, despite the recognition that many of the issues of peace psychology in Asia are rooted at the macro-structural level of society, and the interconnectedness between macro- (societal norms and policies), meso - (groups and their narratives), and micro-level (individual-level states and behaviour) phenomena, the field is still dependent on subjectivities at the meso- and micro-levels. In this case, efforts at peacebuilding that are directed at addressing and redressing structural roots of social violence, like inequalities and oppression are the preeminent concerns for peace psychologists in Asia. Thus, themes of foreign colonization, memories of WWII, ethnic conflicts and identities, authoritarian abuses, and Asian collective values, are among some of the dominant themes of peace psychology in the Asian context.

In many parts of Asia, religion plays a central role in people’s lives. Indeed, Asia boasts a multiplicity of religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam , Christianity, Taoism, and many others (Confucianism is a philosophy, not a religion that is practiced by many Chinese in East Asia and Southeast Asia). Religion has often been associated with conflict, but in many cases, religion has also been exploited as a convenient explanation. For example, Malik and Muluk (2009), examined the violence in Maluku, Indonesia that was perceived by many to be caused by religion—specifically by adherents of Islam and Christianity. They showed that the violence had deeper roots in the long history of structural inequalities that could be traced back to the colonial period. Such violence, according to the authors, cannot simply be explained by religion or ethnicity, but needs a multilevel examination that includes the historical, political, and social. In these cases, religion is intertwined with already deep-rooted inequalities. In difficult times, religious differences may become a sufficient trigger to provoke the groups into violent actions .

But, religion can also be used as a pathway for peacemaking and peacebuilding. For example, Pohl (2009) demonstrated that Islamic educational institutions are agents in the network of civil Islam, promoting justice and peacebuilding and fostering values that are essential for peaceful coexistence in the plural society of Indonesia . Noor (2009) further suggested that similar religious values can provide the common ground to initiate dialogue between ethnic Malay and Chinese in Malaysia . Thus, religion can also be part of the solution, particularly when constructive relationships exist among the religious institutions, civil society, and the state. Within these Southeast Asian countries, themes of peace psychology include ethnic and religious conflict, religious peacemaking, dialogue, and peaceful coexistence.

In contrast to Southeast Asian countries, in East Asia themes of peace psychology revolve around the narratives of the Japanese invasions during WWII and the issues of memorializing and forgiveness. For example, issues of forgiveness in relation to China–Japan as well as Japan–Korea (Atsumi & Suwa, 2009; Ohbuchi & Takada, 2009) that includes themes of reparation , apology , Pacific War, Nanjing massacre, reconciliation, social representation of history, and national identity (Chinese first identity vs Taiwanese only identity) have been emphasized.

Table 3.4 highlights the kinds of themes in peace psychology research and writings pertaining to these different geo-historical contexts.

Table 3.4 Focal concepts and themes in peace psychology by geo-historical contexts
Full size table

In the African context, violent events can be examined as manifestations of the underlying structural violence, the result of multiple problems mainly from the remnants of colonization, such as ethnopolitical conflicts and other intrastate intergroup strife, oppression and trauma, racism, the legacy of Apartheid in South Africa , the subjugation of women and children , HIV/AIDS, refugees, etc. (Hamber, 2009; refer also to the 2012 special issue on “Of narratives and nostalgia,” edited by Duncan, Stevens & Sonn, Peace and Conflict: A Journal of Peace Psychology). Peacebuilding efforts to address these injustices have included the truth and reconciliation commission (TRC) to deal with past atrocities, reparation, reconciliation, transitional justice, forgiveness, healing, post-war reconstruction, and promoting the rights of women and children. For example, the South African TRC, which was charged with uncovering the nature and extent of the human rights violations from 1960 to 1994, was meant to bring some closure to victims. However, follow-up research indicates that because the TRC was also set up to grant amnesty to those who provided disclosures of their complicity in violence, reconciliation between perpetrators and victims was often not realized largely because truth does not equate to justice (Hamber, 2002, 2009). Whereas, amnesty was granted to many perpetrators , justice (both social justice and justice through the courts) remained elusive for many victims. Thus, it was not surprising that Chapman (2007) found a lack of enthusiasm for forgiveness among the victims. Furthermore, among those who were willing to consider forgiveness, the majority placed conditions on doing so.

Similar to the TRC, the gacaca courts in Rwanda served as justice tribunals after the 1994 genocide , sharing the goals of promoting reconciliation and uncovering the truth. In their study examining women’s experiences as witnesses in the gacaca courts, Funkeson et al. (2011) found that those who testified, reported psychological ill health, emotional distress as well as relief, and increased hostility or reconciliation toward the perpetrator, depending on different factors within the gacaca process: like the physical presence, and experience of being face-to face with the perpetrator; listening to the vivid description of atrocities committed by the perpetrator; or when the perpetrator rejected the testimony of the witness .

In Sierra Leone , the process of truth-telling within the country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission was experienced by the locals as redundant due to their religious beliefs. Though proponents of truth commissions claim that such processes promote postwar reconciliation, Millar (2012), via qualitative ethnographic analyses of local experiences of truth-telling performances, found that due to the country’s violent past combined with fatalistic beliefs in God’s omnipotence, the people of Sierra Leone were disempowered and viewed man-made processes, such as the TRC as unable to provide much in the way of reconciliation. This finding points to the importance of understanding the local cultural experience, and emphasizes that peacemaking and peacebuilding have to be carried out through a context-sensitive lens.

In addition, intergroup contact theory has been utilized in several divided African countries that have witnessed violent intrastate conflict to improve intergroup relations (e.g., see the 2010 special issue on Intergroup Relations in South Africa , Journal of Social Issues, volume 66, notably the Commentary by Pettigrew). Table 3.4 presents some of the themes within this geo-historical context.

The “Middle East” was a term initially used by the British colonial power to refer to countries situated in the east of London and midway between the UK and India (the Far East). It is now commonly accepted that the Middle East is the region that encompasses Western Asia and Egypt. The region is well known for its conflicts, ranging from intrastate violence (sectarian violence) to interstate violence (Iran–Iraq war) to the intractable Arab–Israeli conflict, most notably between Palestinians and Israelis. Some themes related to peace psychology include Arab–Jewish relations, ethos and cultures of conflict, terrorism, beliefs of victimization, legitimization, emotions (of fear, hate, anger, hope) , intergroup contact, coexistence programs, peace education , peace process, trauma, forgiveness, among others (Abu-Nimer, 2012; Bar-Tal, 2012, 2013).

Since the Palestinian–Israel conflict is protracted and multigenerational, the way in which children develop in such a context may have implications for continuing cycles of violence . In one of the few studies that have considered Palestinian children , Punamäki et al. (2011), examined the prevalence of resilience among these children together with their parents and teachers living under conditions of war and military violence. In this study, 21 % of the children were found to be resilient (high level of trauma and low level of disorders), about an equal number experienced disorders of various kinds (23 %, high level of trauma and high level of disorders). In another study, Nasie and Bar-Tal (2012), studied the writings of Palestinian children and adolescents as expressed in a youth newspaper, and noted their daily distress and suffering that result from living amidst the violent conflict . But, the long-term effect of such continuous traumatic stress on children’s physical and mental health has not been discerned. For example, to what extent are children in these situations more likely to be willing to reconcile and to show empathy toward the enemy, or continue to play an active role in repeated cycles of violence?

In another study, Nasie, Bar-Tal, and Shnaidman (2014), investigated the personal stories of members of four radical peace organizations (characterized either by radicalism in their ideology or in their actions) in Israel to understand the factors that made them join these organizations and become social activists. A qualitative content analysis of the interviews revealed that these activists shared specific experiences in their earlier socialization that contradicted the dominant narrative in society. For males, it was the feelings of dissonance created by the difficult experience in the military service, whereas for females it was their experience of being socially marginalized in their younger days that prompted them to empathize and identify with the weak in resisting the status quo. Joining these radical peace organizations provided these young activists (21–32 years) with a place to identify and express their newfound identity of a radical activist. Radical peace organizations, such as these are a form of social movement that aims to change the prevalent social beliefs regarding the conflict. Thus, an understanding of these radical peace organizations can create awareness and promote social peace by providing an alternative ethos of conflict, whereas at the same time helping to facilitate a peace process by opening a window for a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

The articles in the special issue of Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology on Continuous Traumatic Stress (2013), edited by Kaminer, Eagle, Stevens and Higson-Smith, are also relevant. Recent research is beginning to piece together how political violence impacts not only individuals, but also whole families and communities. In politically unstable countries, danger and threat is an ongoing stress and individuals suffer from continuous traumatic stress. Such ongoing trauma is associated with multiple antisocial behaviors (aggression, behavior problems, conduct disorders, school violence) and other mental health problems (stress, post-traumatic distress, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)) in both the young and old. Table 3.4 shows some of the themes related to peace and conflict from this region .

Similarly in Latin America, violent events are perceived to be manifestations of the underlying structural violence, marked by oppression and exploitation (Montero & Sonn, 2009). To redress this social injustice , Latin American psychologists have utilized the liberation movement to change the society by working with the oppressed through engagement and solidarity with them to denounce what is wrong and construct an alternative social reality. This social change process based on the work of Martin-Baró is carried out by endorsing the occupation of the public space by the oppressed majority (or conscientized victims), promoting the development of civil society, strengthening democracy, and exercising the rights and duties of the citizenry (Montero, 2007, 2009). The liberation psychology movement is a bottom-up process that aims to empower the oppressed majority to understand and change their lives and the conditions they live in. Thus, themes that resonate around these concerns constitute the focus of research of peace psychology in this region (see Table 3.4).

In addition, a post-war Latin American country like Columbia, for example, is still struggling to come to terms with the emotional ramifications of war in the country. Nussio (2012), in interviews investigating postwar disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of former paramilitaries, found that past conflict (1998–2002) in the country, impacts upon the present lives of former members of paramilitaries. According to Nussio, these emotional legacies can either foster a desire for a peaceful life or push some members back to armed violence and drug trafficking as in the past.

The geo-historical context of Australia reveals the importance of issues of peace and violence. The country has moved from an indigenous population to one of White settlers, to the present multicultural society (Bretherton & Balvin, 2012). Issues of violence and peace in the country reflect this transition, from contestations and reconciliation between its indigenous and non-indigenous population to the present majority “White” attitudes toward asylum seekers. There is structural violence and social injustice toward the indigenous people and immigrant population. Indeed, following the 9/11 incidents in the USA, Australian Muslims have been portrayed by a defamatory media as the “culturally Other,” a culture that is incompatible with the non-Muslim White Australian culture (Dunn, Klocker, & Salabay, 2007). Thus, themes of racism , Australian identity , Australian values, refugees, asylum seekers, are interspersed with more positive peacebuilding initiatives such as conflict resolution, mediation, reconciliation, reparations, apologies, the promotion of rights and justice to facilitate social and political change. In crafting a future together, peacebuilding efforts should not only celebrate diverse cultures, but seek answers from these cultures in the hope of a more peaceful, sustainable future.

In Europe, recent research has taken place in the context of European unification and the political transformations that accompany this change. For example, ethnic group relations are becoming more important with the increasing number of immigrants moving from one country to another within the EU (moving from Eastern to Western European countries), as well as from outside the EU (non-Europeans, past colonies of Western European nations). Thus, themes of peace psychology in this region include not only prejudice against nonethnic minorities such as the homeless, homosexuals, Gypsies, and other groups within the EU countries, but also negative attitudes toward other ethnic and social minorities (see Zick, Pettigrew, & Wagner, 2008, special issue on Ethnic Prejudice and Discrimination in Europe, Journal of Social Issues, volume 64).

The conflict in Northern Ireland has been the focus of a great deal of research and practice in peace psychology that has taken place in the European context. Most of the research and practice focuses on intergroup relations between Catholics and Protestants, the prevention of violent episodes via intergroup contact, post-conflict reconciliation, and forgiveness (e.g., Hewstone et al., 2006; Tam et al., 2008; Tausch, et al., 2007). Research in Northern Ireland also has provided insights into concepts and themes such as nature of stereotypes, prejudice, cognitive biases, and discrimination, whereas also contributing to our understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of peace and conflict drawing on social identity theory and relative deprivation theory, for example (e.g., Tajfel, 1982). Table 3.4 shows some of the peace and conflict themes that are concerns of peace psychologists in this region.

Finally, the USA, as the current global superpower, in both economic and military terms, has enormous investments in the military-industrial complex. Astore (2013) astutely states that “the business of America is war” where war is seen as a form of “politics,” commerce or even “disaster capitalism.” Thus, peace psychology in the US focuses on the uses and abuses of power, militarism, militaristic attitudes, patriotism, nationalism, terrorism, religious fundamentalism, consumerism, post-traumatic stress syndrome, intimate partner violence, and gun violence. Peace psychologists in the USA also have been instrumental in highlighting that war and its accompaniments have resulted in structural violence to the poor, homeless, or non-Whites, where little is left of the national budget to fulfill their needs (Schwebel, 2012). This has given rise to health disparities between the socially advantaged and disadvantaged groups (Major, Mendes, & Dovidio, 2013). Together with European psychologists, American peace psychologists have contributed significantly to the discipline’s understanding of the underpinnings of conflict, violence, and peace (see Table 3.4).

Though issues of concern in the different geo-historical contexts may vary, one theme that underlies these issues is that many cases of violent events are manifestations of deeper, underlying structures of violence. For example, the special issue of Peace and Conflict on Continuous Traumatic Stress, edited by Kaminer, Eagle, Stevens, and Higson-Smith (2013), showed that during political violence, people and whole communities are faced with trauma on an ongoing or continuous basis. The studies in the special issue also indicate that the construct of “ongoing traumatic stress” is rooted in the structure of the society; thus, opening the door to a broader and deeper sociocultural and political understanding of trauma. In addressing intervention strategies, the influence of these structural factors—social, cultural, political—alongside with culturally and contextually appropriate approaches needs to be considered. More importantly, however, because the construct is rooted within the structure of the society, finding a more systemic solution that can bring about some changes to conditions causing the traumatic stress would be preferable over individual or group-based interventions.

Thus, the concerns of peace psychology depend on geo-historical contexts with different concerns in different regions. Table 3.4 shows the main themes of violence and peace that have been examined. New issues have been added such as ongoing traumatic stress that may require different ways of coping in the different regions .

5 Conclusion

In this chapter we have organized concepts, themes, and theories of research and practice in peace psychology within a 2 × 2 × 2 matrix that considers not only episodic and structural violence and peace, but also a third dimensions that takes into account objective versus subjective forms of violence and peace. This third dimension is important considering the subjective nature of many aspects of the human experience. These subjective or symbolic representations of the world can take the form of individual and collective memories , narratives , beliefs, and ideologies . We have also suggested that these concepts, themes, and theories in peace psychology may vary by degrees of integration or differentiation with some concepts highly integrative, whereas others apply to the psychological components of specific kinds of violence and peace. In addition, using a systems perspective , we have demonstrated how violence and peace are inextricably woven into the fabric of societal institutions and structures resulting in episodes of peace and violence. We offered examples of the kinds of violence and peace that are focal in various geo-historical contexts around the world, and noted that underlying many of the violent episodes are structures that are themselves violent as well as collective narratives and individual beliefs that support and sustain violence. Hence, sustainable peace would need to go beyond mere peacemaking strategies and include peacebuilding to transform violent structures in society.

New issues and concepts may evolve from time to time based on developments in the world, leading to new challenges in peace psychology research and practice. For example, the fact that continuous traumatic stress is experienced not only in politically unstable countries, but also in developed countries within people who dwell in poor urban areas and experience marginalization and exclusion , has only received recent recognition. With globalization and immigration, continuous traumatic stress may be more common than initially thought. The twin processes of globalization and immigration have occurred in tandem with growing inequality and power differences between groups within some societies and between countries. These factors have added new triggers of conflict due to overconsumption of the world’s natural resources—resulting in environmental pollution, overfishing, the destruction of habitats, and climate change. Indeed, the depletion and scarcity of resources is likely to continue to challenge global efforts to move toward the sustainable satisfaction of human needs for all people. These and other challenges are likely to pose enormous barriers to human well-being because structural violence by its very nature is pervasive, subtle, and normalized.

Finally, the definition and scope of peace psychology was initially proposed by Western scholars in the context of the Cold War , an historical period when the threat of nuclear war seemed to be the preeminent threat to human survival and required efforts to reduce tensions in relations between adversaries. Today, as peace psychology becomes more global, the emphasis on tension reduction is complemented by socially transformative approaches that place social justice at the center of peacebuilding processes . Peace movements and uprisings around the world are making it abundantly clear that while tension reduction is desirable, sustainable peace requires the continuous crafting of nonviolent approaches aimed at more equitable relations and structures in societies.