Peace culture: the problem of managing human difference

Cross Currents, Winter, 1998 by Elise Boulding

Peace culture, neither a fantasy nor accident, is as central to human nature as war culture.

The creative management of differences is at the core of peace culture; in other words, it is not a culture without conflict. Since every human individual is different from every other, conflict is a basic part of any social order. Each of us sees, hears, and experiences the world uniquely, and we spend our lives bridging the differences between our perceptions (and the needs and wishes they generate) and the perceptions of others. Even though it is reasonable to ask why we do not fight constantly, given our differences, much of the time we do this work peacefully. The explanation lies in the two opposing needs for bonding and autonomy. Every human being needs to bond with others. We need to be part of a community; we need others to care for us; we need to care for others. Children who do not experience this caring have trouble dealing with others throughout their lives. At the same time, we need autonomy, our own space - room enough to express our individuality.

A peace culture maintains creative balance among bonding, community closeness, and the need for separate spaces. It can be defined as a mosaic of identities, attitudes, values, beliefs, and patterns that leads people to live nurturingly with one another and the earth itself without the aid of structured power differentials, to deal creatively with their differences, and to share their resources. Although peace cultures exist as separate, identifiable societies, they are not common. They may be found among some, but not all, indigenous peoples, and in faith-based communities totally committed to nonviolence. Purely aggressive cultures, in which everyone is actively defending his/her own space at the expense of others' needs, also exist; they are not common either. Usually, we find coexisting clusters of peaceableness and aggression. Each society develops its own pattern of balancing the needs for bonding and autonomy.

The balance may change over time, with periods of more peaceable behavior following periods of more violent behavior. It cannot be said that humans are innately peaceful or aggressive. Both capacities are there. It is socialization, the process by which society rears its children and shapes the attitudes and behaviors of its members of all ages, that determines how peacefully or violently individuals and institutions handle the problems that every human community faces in the daily work of maintaining itself.

We might think of problem-solving behavior as a continuum. At one end lies war in its various forms: extermination of the other, limited war, threat systems, and deterrence. One then comes to arbitration, mediation, negotiation (exchange), and mutual adaptation. Toward the far end from war is cooperation, integration, and, at the greatest remove from extermination, union. Understanding the wide range of alternative approaches to conflict in this way can help to clarify choices.

The Culture of Peace

Because religious traditions and teachings are important shapers of societies, it is important to identify two contrasting themes in religions: holy war culture and holy peace culture. The holy war culture is a male-warrior construct based on the exercise of power. Often headed by a patriarchal warrior God, it typically demands the subjection of women, children, and the weak to men, the proto-patriarchs. The social structure of patriarchy continues to mold generations of the major religious traditions - Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

In the holy peace culture, by contrast, love is the prime mover of all behavior. It is a gift from the Creator, or Creative Principle. Women and men share with one another, as brothers and sisters, each person equal to every other. The weak are cared for and trouble-makers reconciled. Nonviolent holy peace communities do exist as minority presences in the major religious traditions. In Christianity there are the Anabaptists and in Islam, Sufis - to mention only two - but they are minorities.

The holy war culture has tended to encourage the exercise of force at every level, from family to international relations. The holy peace culture might work to restrain the use of force, but historically its voice has often been muted. This century has been characterized by rising, increasingly intrastate, violence that has left little room for the workings of a peace culture. In fact, globally, society is out of balance.

This situation need not be permanent, however. Each society contains in itself resources that can help to shift the balance from a preoccupation with violence toward peaceful problem-solving behavior. These include a perennial, utopian longing for peace, both secular and faith-based peace movements, environmental and alternative-development movements, and women's culture.

A utopian longing for peace shows up in the variety of visions of the Isles of the Blessed, Paradise, and similar havens of delight that inhabit every human tradition. It is remarkable that even the most warlike people can imagine gentle and peaceful ways of living. This ability to imagine a better way of life never disappears. When other social conditions permit, these images of a different future can empower social change movements and produce a new dynamic toward nonviolence.