What are the limitations of the current definitions of peace?

The current definitions of peace are limited by their focus on absence of conflict, neglecting structural and cultural aspects.

The most common definition of peace, often referred to as 'negative peace', is the absence of violence or war. This definition, however, is limited as it only considers peace in terms of what is not present, rather than what is. It fails to account for the presence of justice, equality, and other positive aspects that contribute to a peaceful society. This narrow focus on the absence of conflict can lead to a superficial understanding of peace, where the underlying causes of conflict are not addressed.

Another limitation is the lack of consideration for structural and cultural violence in the current definitions of peace. Structural violence refers to social structures that harm or disadvantage individuals, such as systemic racism or sexism. Cultural violence, on the other hand, pertains to aspects of culture that can be used to justify or legitimize direct or structural violence, such as certain beliefs or ideologies. These forms of violence can exist even in societies that are not experiencing direct conflict, and thus, a definition of peace that does not take them into account is incomplete.

Furthermore, the current definitions of peace often fail to consider the subjective nature of peace. Peace can mean different things to different people, depending on their personal experiences, cultural background, and societal context. For instance, for someone living in a war-torn country, peace might simply mean the absence of war, while for someone living in a stable, prosperous country, peace might involve elements of social justice, equality, and freedom. Therefore, a universal definition of peace may not accurately reflect the diverse understandings and experiences of peace.

Lastly, the current definitions of peace are often state-centric, focusing on peace between nations rather than within them. This overlooks the importance of intrastate peace, including social harmony and the absence of civil unrest. It also neglects the role of non-state actors, such as international organisations and civil society groups, in promoting and maintaining peace.

In conclusion, while the current definitions of peace provide a starting point for understanding this complex concept, they are limited by their focus on the absence of conflict, neglect of structural and cultural violence, failure to consider the subjective nature of peace, and state-centric perspective.