Contested meanings: peace, conflict, violence, non-violence

A contested idea — not just the absence of war, but for many a just, fair society with no hidden violence. It splits into negative and positive peace.

The absence of direct violence — the fighting has stopped (a ceasefire) — but poverty, injustice and oppression may remain.

The absence of all violence, including hidden structural violence (unfair systems) and cultural violence (ideas that justify it) — a genuinely just society.

Johan Galtung, a peace researcher, who also developed the idea of structural and cultural violence.

If a ceasefire leaves the injustices that caused the war, violence tends to return — so lasting peace requires removing the structural and cultural causes too.

Harm built into unfair systems — poverty, discrimination, exclusion — that damages people without a direct attacker.

Ideas, beliefs and norms that justify or normalise violence and injustice, making them seem acceptable.

It can have no war yet be deeply unjust (poverty, repression) — that is only negative peace; positive peace requires justice too.

It may be an ideal no society fully reaches, since some injustice always remains — but supporters see it as a direction to aim at, not a finish line.

Because tackling only the fighting leaves the grievances that cause conflict, so without justice the peace is fragile and violence can reignite.

A ceasefire or truce that stops the fighting while the injustices that caused the war remain unresolved.

A clash between groups over interests, values, resources or needs — a normal part of politics that is not the same as violence.

No — conflict is a clash of interests; violence is one way it can be expressed. Conflict can be handled peacefully.

Hidden or simmering conflict — tensions and grievances not yet in the open, so a society can look peaceful while conflict brews underneath.

Open, visible conflict — protests, disputes or fighting that everyone can see.

When grievances are ignored, hidden tensions can erupt into open protests, riots or war, sometimes triggered by a single event.

Protests, debates and disputes are how societies change and injustices get challenged — the danger is not conflict itself but whether it turns violent.

Dignity, belonging and values cannot easily be split or compromised, unlike dividable resources — so their stakes are indivisible.

Resources like land, water or money can be divided or shared, so a compromise is more possible than over identity or values.

A country with no open fighting can still have a serious conflict simmering, so real stability depends on whether hidden grievances are addressed.

Not to ban conflict (it is normal and can be constructive) but to keep it non-violent and address the grievances behind it.

It strongly shapes difficulty (identity is harder than resources), but leadership, will and third-party mediation also matter, so type is not destiny.

Direct (visible physical harm), structural (harm built into unfair systems) and cultural (ideas that justify the other two) — from Johan Galtung.

Visible physical harm — war, assault, killing, torture — with a clear attacker.

Harm built into unfair systems — poverty, discrimination, denied healthcare — that damages and kills people without any single attacker.

The ideas, beliefs and norms (ideology, religion, propaganda) that make direct and structural violence seem normal or acceptable.

Cultural violence justifies structural violence, which breeds the grievance that fuels direct violence — so they reinforce each other.

Because it has no single attacker and is built into how society is organised, so it is easy to overlook — yet it harms far more people than war.

The injustice it represents — poverty, exclusion — breeds grievance that can erupt into direct violence, so it is often the hidden root of conflict.

Positive peace means the absence of all three types of violence, so removing structural and cultural violence is what makes peace lasting.

A child dying of a preventable disease because of poverty, or a group locked out of jobs, schools and political voice.

It is a major, often underlying cause, but power, identity, greed and leadership also drive conflict, so it is not the sole root.

Because it tackles conflict at its source — the injustice and grievance — rather than just stopping the fighting.

Pursuing change and resisting injustice without physical force — through protest, civil disobedience and non-cooperation. It is an active strategy, not passivity.

Peaceful protest, marches, strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience (peacefully breaking an unjust law) and non-cooperation.

Deliberately and peacefully breaking an unjust law to challenge and expose it, usually accepting the punishment to highlight the injustice.

The belief that violence is always wrong, even in self-defence — a deeper commitment than tactical non-violence.

Its strength is mass participation and moral legitimacy: peaceful refusal is hard to crush, and violence against peaceful protesters exposes a regime.

It is active resistance — organising protests, strikes, boycotts and disobedience — that has toppled governments and won rights.

The Indian independence movement, the US civil rights movement, and 'people power' movements that toppled dictators.

It wins broad participation and legitimacy, so change is more widely accepted, and it avoids the cycle of revenge and militarised power violent revolutions create.

Against a regime willing to use hidden extreme brutality, or where there is no free press or outside pressure, it can be crushed.

When a regime attacks peaceful protesters, it exposes its own injustice and loses legitimacy at home and abroad.

It is usually more effective and durable, but its success depends on the opponent and context, so it is not guaranteed against every regime.