Chronology of Peace Psychology

Word “peace” is derived from the old French “pias” and the Latin word “pax” (pac). Peace is
often defined in terms of what it is not: “Peace is the absence of war and violence.”
However, psychologists defined it in terms of what it is: “the presence of qualities, values and
approaches in human relationships that build greater harmony” (Handwerker, n.d.).
Peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peacebuilding are in practice since day one, but there was no
solid establishment to endorse this concept and practice. Thus, it remained either in shadows or
little to nothing.
Definition
Peace psychology can be defined as "the study of mental processes that lead to violence, that
prevent violence, and that facilitate nonviolence as well as promoting fairness, respect, and
dignity for all, for the purpose of making violence a less likely occurrence and helping to heal
its psychological effects" (MacNair, 2003). Roots most historians
of psychology trace the founding of modern psychology to a specific event, Wilhelm Wundt's
establishing the first experimental laboratory in 1879. Yet psychology has philosophical roots
going back to ancient times.
In ancient Judah and Israel, several prophets proposed (to put it in psychological terms) that
the cause of war was continued adherence to unhealthy social norms which included exploitation
of the poor, greed, lying, and worship of multiple gods that approved such behavior.
They advocated that the establishment of peace required adherence to standards of behavior that
were universal and involved justice, care for the poor and attention to only one divine authority.
The ancient Greek
Play wright Aristophanes suggested in his play Lysistrata that the psychology of war
was that of the arrogance of men and their lust for political power. The play was a comedy in
which the women of the opposing sides, lacking the same arrogance, coordinated a sex strike to
stop the fighting. First-century Middle Eastern Christian writer James, one of three leaders in the
Jerusalem Church, author of an epistle, and by tradition the brother of Jesus, proposed as
a psychological cause of war that people had excessive desires for material wealth or prestige
that they could not get, and that people were bent on murder when envious and wanting
something they cannot have.
17th Century
Czech education reformer Jan Amos Comenius (1592-1670) proposed that the means to peace is
education which is international and universal. Beginning in 1628, he published a series
of books on educating for understanding between countries of different religions,
languages, and ways of life. He argued that all should be educated with universally-shared
knowledge regardless of gender or social class. He was invited to several European countries to
help reform schools, and earned the title "Teacher of Nations."
19thCentury
English Quaker writer Jonathan Dymond(1796-1828) wrote a treatise on the causes and effects
of war, collecting and articulating in a coherent framework the ideas of many Quakers and other
pacifists of the time (Dymond, 1824). He used philosophical reasoning that foreshadows many
current psychological concepts. Quotations from his work could be used to illustrate, among
other things, the psychological dynamics of arms races, the effect of war on violent behavior of a
community after it is over, the pressures of destructive obedience to authority, habits and
associations, the sequential steps or "slippery slope," the dynamics of noncooperation, stress
causing over-simplified thinking in policy-makers, and even the use of war as a diversion from
scandal as portrayed more recently in the Hollywood movie Wag the Dog (Levinson, 1998).
World War 1
With World War I on the horizon, James talked about his belief that war satisfies a deeply felt
human need for virtues such as loyalty, discipline, conformity, group cohesiveness, and duty. He
also observed that individuals who belong to a group, whether military or otherwise, experiences
boost in self-pride when they are proud of their group. Most important, he argued that war is not
likely to be eliminated until humans have created a “moral equivalent of war,” such as public
service that allows people to experience the virtues that were associated with war making.
World War 2
World War II naturally brought about much more intense interest in the subject of war
and peace. In 1944, while the war was still raging, conversations among 25 psychologists led to
the issuance of a statement: "Human Nature and Peace: A Statement by Psychologists." With
funding from SPSSI, it was mailed to all 3,803 members of APA. Of the 50% who responded,
99% agreed with the statement. On April 5, 1945, the Statement was released to the press and
public officials with 2,038 signatures. The statement (Murphy, 1945) had ten principles, which
are summarized:
1. War can be avoided, and is not inevitable.
2. The coming generation (children) should be a focus of attention.
3. Group hatreds can be controlled through education and experience
4. All branches of the human family – all races – need to be allowed equal participation in
collective security.
5. Peoples must participate in planning their own destiny.
6. Rewards and punishments in defeated peoples should be clear and consistent.
7. Relief and rehabilitation done well can increase self-respect and self-reliance; done poorly,
dollar imperialism can bring resentment.
8. The root desires of common people are the safest guide for framing peace
9. The trend of human relationships is toward ever wider units of collective security.
10. Commitments now may prevent post-war apathy
Cold War (1957)
In 1957, as the Cold War continued to take shape and the threat of global war seemed imminent,
scholars from a variety of disciplines, including psychology, organized around the idea that
disputes could be resolved through dialogue and conflict resolution rather than violence. As the
field of conflict resolution gained legitimacy in the United States, “peace” remained obscure in
the academic lexicon largely because “peace” was suspect, especially during the McCarthy era
(Kelman, 1981). Historically, American psychologists have generally supported the overall
direction of U.S. foreign policy, but during the Cold War a number of psychologists broke ranks
with U.S. policymakers.
1960s
In the 1960s, a raft of publications signaled an incipient shift from war planning to peace
promotion (Wagner, 1985) as psychologists (such as Gordon Allport, Hadley Cantril, and
OttoKlineberg) argued that the atomic age required a new form of diplomacy and the abolition of
war (Jacobs, 1989). The Journal of Social Issues featured a number of articles by distinguished
psychologists who argued for a new direction in U.S. foreign policy (Russell, 1961). Deutsch
described how the U.S.–Soviet relationship could move from mutual terror to mutual trust.
Bronfenbrenner introduced the concept of “mirror images” based on his surveys that revealed
Soviet and U.S. citizens had similar negative views of each other. Even “deterrence,” the
centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy, came under scrutiny as Milburn pointed out logical and
empirical inconsistencies of a policy that could not be proven until it broke down (i.e., an enemy
attacked). Katz argued for more research on conflict resolution, national imagery, and public
opinions about nuclear war and disarmament. In addition to journal articles, two edited volumes
offered a critique of U.S. foreign policy and proposed avenues for
preventing nuclear war (Schwebel, 1965; Wright, Evan, & Deutsch, 1962). Morawski and
Goldstein (1985) assessed the significance of changes that took place in the 1960s
 First, the level of analysis was shifted from an exclusive focus on the behavior of
individuals to a more inclusive focus on the behavior of nations.
 Second, psychologists began to emphasize the prevention of war rather than preparations
for war.
 Third, whereas previous research had attempted to document or generate public
consensus with government policy, the new work was critical of U.S. foreign policies.
1970s
In 1970s, domestic concerns took precedence over foreign policy. U.S. psychologists examined
topics such as student activism, population growth, changes in sex roles, and a range of issues
related to race relations. Psychologists had a significant impact on the desegregation of schools,
but the issue of social justice was not yet integrated with the discourse of
peace psychology. M. Brewster Smith seemed to capture the views of peace psychologists
during the height of the Cold War when he wrote in the foreword to the first book with “peace
psychology” in its title: “(During the Cold War) I regarded it as a distraction to include the
agenda of social justice under the same banner as avoidance of nuclear war.”
Hence the current theme of peace psychology is the investigation of processes that lead to
violence, unfairness, inequality, discrimination among people, and the evaluation of techniques
that encourage nonviolent acts, promote fairness, respect to all.
Peace psychology can be defined as "the study of mental processes that lead to violence,
that prevent violence, and that facilitate nonviolence as well as promoting fairness,
respect, and dignity for all, for the purpose of making violence a less likely occurrence and
helping to heal its psychological effects" (MacNair, 2003).
Peace Psychology is a subfield of psychology and peace research that deals with the
psychological aspects of peace, conflict, violence, and war. Though peace psychology has links
within all branches of psychology, there are especially strong links to social
psychology, political psychology, community psychology and positive psychology.
Peace psychology seeks 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.
Our working definition of peace psychology is used to frame the organization of the book, which
conforms to a four-way model focusing on direct violence, structural
violence, peacemaking and peacebuilding.
Core concepts of peace psychology
Direct Violence
The current topic retains the traditional focus of peace psychology on international relations by
applying psychological concepts and theory to problems of interstate violence and the threat of
nuclear war. In addition, because direct violence does not neatly follow the contours of the
sovereign state system, it reflect a wider radius of violent episodes that vary in scale from
two- person intimate relations to the large-scale violence of genocide. While different in scale
and complexity, these varied forms of violence share several features: They all engender direct,
acute insults to the psychological or physical well-being of individuals or groups, and they erupt
periodically as events or episodes.
The analytic tools of peace psychologists are central to understanding many forms of direct
violence. For instance, many of the contributors from around the world underscore the
importance of social identity processes, which are manifest when individuals begin to identify
with particular groups and favor their in groups over outgroups. Quite naturally, the basic need to
have a sense of who we are is inextricably woven into the fabric of our identity groups. Conflict
and violence often erupts when two or more groups of individuals have different identities and
see each other as threats to their identity group’s continued existence. These
identity- based conflicts are central to many forms of violence including hate crimes,
gang violence, ethnic conflicts, and even genocide. Sovereign states have been woefully
inadequate in dealing with identity-based problems.
Also reflected throughout the text is peace psychologists’ growing appreciation for the structural
roots of violent episodes. For example, patriarchal structures in which males dominate females
play a role in intimate violence. Similarly, cultural narratives that denigrate gays, lesbians, and
other marginalized identity groups are predisposing conditions for direct violence. closer at some
forms of violence that are deeply rooted in the structures of a society, what were calling
“structural violence.”
Structural Violence
Today, an increasing number of peace psychologists are concerned about structural violence
(Galtung, 1969), an insidious form of violence that is built into the fabric of political and eco-
nomic structures of a society (Christie, 1997; Pilisuk, 1998; Schwebel, 1997). Structural violence
is a problem in and of itself, killing people just as surely as direct violence. But structural
violence kills people slowly by depriving them of satisfying their basic needs. Life spans are cur-
tailed when people are socially dominated, politically oppressed, or economically exploited.
Structural violence is a global problem in scope, reflected in vast disparities in wealth and
health, both within and between societies. Section II examines a number of forms of structural
violence, all of which engender structure-based inequalities in the production, allocation, and
utilization of material and non-material resources. Galtung (1969) proposed that one way to
define structural violence was to calculate the number of avoidable deaths. For instance, if
people die from exposure to inclement conditions when shelter is available for them somewhere
in the world, then structural violence is taking place.
Similarly, structural violence occurs when death is caused by scarcities in food, inadequate
nutrition, lack of health care, and other forms of deprivation that could be redressed if
distribution systems were more equitably structured. The chapters in Section II make it clear that
Galtung (1969) proposed that one way to define structural violence was to calculate the number
of avoidable deaths. For instance, if people die from exposure to inclement conditions when
shelter is available for them somewhere in the world, then structural violence is taking place.
Similarly, structural violence occurs when death is caused by scarcities in food, inadequate
nutrition, lack of health care, and other forms of deprivation that could be redressed if
distribution systems were more equitably structured. The chapters in Section II make it clear that
structural violence is endemic to economic systems that produce a concentration of wealth for
some while exploiting others, political systems that give access to some and oppress others, and
hierarchical social systems that are suffused with ethnocentrism and intolerance.
Difference between direct and structural violence
Direct violence refers to physical violence that harms or kills people quickly, producing somatic
trauma or total incapacitation. In contrast, structural violence kills indirectly and slowly,
curtailing life spans by depriving people of material and non-material re- sources. Direct
violence is often dramatic and personal. Structural violence is commonplace and impersonal.
Direct violence may involve an acute insult to the physical well-being of an individual or group.
Structural violence is a chronic threat to well-being.
Direct violence occurs intermittently, as discrete events, while structural violence is ongoing and
continuous.
In direct violence, the subject-action-object relationships are readily observable while political
and economic structures of violence are not directly observable, though their deadly results,
which are delayed and diffuse, are apparent in disproportionately high rates of infant and
maternal mortality in various pockets of the world.
Because it is possible to infer whether intentionality is present in cases of physical violence, the
morality of an act can be judged and sanctions can be applied. Direct violence is often
scrutinized by drawing on religious dicta, legal codes, and ethical systems. Intentionality is
not as obvious in impersonal systems of structural violence, and considerations of punishment
are seldom applicable. Finally, direct violence can be prevented. In contrast, structural violence
is ongoing, and intervention is aimed at mitigating its inertia.
Fundamentally, structural violence occurs whenever societal structures and institutions produce
oppression, exploitation, and dominance. These conditions are static, stable, normalized, serve
the interests of those who hold power and wealth, and are not self-correcting.
Table
Direct Violence Structural Violence
Kills people directly Kills people indirectly
Kills quickly Kills slowly
Somatic harm Somatic deprivation
Dramatic Commonplace
Personal Impersonal
Acute insult to well-being Chronic insult well- being
Intermittent Continuous
Episodes may be prevented Inertia may be mitigated

A psychological question, posed in structural violence, is how people, who are

morally principled, can live their lives without giving much attention
or thought to the pervasive problem of structural violence. To answer this question, research is
presented that identifies psychological processes people employ routinely and by so doing, limit
their scope of justice to include only certain people, thereby perpetuating the socially unjust
conditions of structural violence. Author sin Section II also look carefully at the targets of
structural violence, especially women and children, because they are disproportionately harmed
by structural violence world- wide. An emerging problem of the twenty-first century is
globalization, which refers to the worldwide push for free markets
that leave in their wake enormous inequalities on a large scale.
Globalization is fueling vast disparities in wealth and a global division of labor in which people
in some countries profit and engage in the work of the head while others suffer and toil with their
hands. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, militarization continues to be an important source
of structural violence, generating vast inequalities in coercive power and fueling the potential for
episodes of violence, as big powers supply arms to smaller countries around the world.
Although we have highlighted distinctions between direct and structural violence, the
relationship between direct and structural violence is circular. For example, the man who
physically abuses a woman is enacting a dominance hierarchy that is supported by patriarchal
narratives in a society. At the same time, his violent act reinforces the structural arrangement that
puts men in a dominant position over women. Hence, direct violence is not a stand-alone
phenomenon; in- stead, direct and structural violence operate together forming an interlocking
system of violence.
The challenge for peace psychologists is to become systems analysts, which requires an effort
to simultaneously focus on the individual as the locus of the problem while also transforming the
structural and cultural context within which violent behavior is embedded. we look at two kinds
of peace processes which form a system of peace that is well suited for the prevention and
mitigation of direct and structural violence. We begin with peacemaking, an attempt to prevent
or mitigate direct violence by promoting the nonviolent management of conflict.
Peacemaking
Peacemaking is designed to reduce the frequency and intensity of direct violence. The section on
peacemaking begins with a chapter on U.N. peacekeeping, an approach in which would-be
combatants are separated by neutral forces. Peacekeeping may be used flexibly,
either before or after episodes of direct violence, that is, to prevent or mitigate episodes
of violence. Peacekeeping has traditionally focused on managing, rather than resolving, conflicts.
Several topics are discussed to the topic, “conflict resolution,” reflecting the emphasis
in peace psychology on the prevention of violent episodes by using procedures that encourage
dialogue, empathy, and win/win outcomes.
Contemporary theorists and practitioners in conflict resolution view conflict as a perceptual
event, arising when two or more parties perceive their goals as incompatible with one another.
By convention, psychologists separate thought and action, which allows conflict practitioners to
decouple the perception of incompatible goals (conflict) from violent behavior, and deal with the
former before the outbreak of the latter. Therefore, although conflicts may lead to direct physical
violence, the perception of incompatible goals does not make violence inevitable. What matters
most is whether or not the parties in a conflict use the situation as an opportunity for
creative problem solving that can benefit both or alternatively mismanage the conflict
in ways that damage the relationship (Rubin & Levinger, 1995). Because the meanings of
conflict and resolution are always embedded within the context of a particular culture, we also
have included a chapter that highlights the importance of cultural contexts.
Although conflict resolution procedures attempt to prevent episodes of violence, in many
instances, when violence is not prevented, other efforts are needed that are better suited
for postwar interventions. Several topics address the aftermath of violence and the importance of
addressing psychological, political, and economic dimensions of the problems that arise in the
wake of violent episodes. Topics include the problem of post-war trauma, reconciliation in
divided societies, and the broader problem of societal reconstruction. Even though these post-war
interventions take place after-the-fact, they can interrupt repeated episodes or cycles of violence,
and thereby serve as a form of violence prevention. Although peacemaking is often very useful,
the approach has limitations, not least of which is the problem that peacemaking can be used as
a tool by those with power who can insist on peaceful means of resolving disputes, while
ignoring socially just ends. The dialogue process that characterizes peacemaking approaches is
important but a sustainable peace requires structural and cultural peace building, actions and
supporting narratives that redress the deeper and more permanent roots of the problem.
Peacebuilding
While preventing and mitigating episodes of destructive conflict and violence are familiar
moorings for peace psychologists, we seek to enlarge our scope of inquiry and practice by
mitigating the inertia of structural violence. Just as we found it useful to distinguish direct and
structural violence, we also see merit in distinguishing peacemaking (Section III)
from peacebuilding, the latter of which refers to the pursuit of social justice (Section IV).
The issue of social justice and resolution are always embedded within the context of a particular
culture, we also have included a chapter that highlights the importance of cultural contexts.
Although conflict resolution procedures attempt to prevent episodes of violence, in many
instances, when violence is not prevented, other efforts are needed that are better suited for
postwar interventions. Several topics address the aftermath of violence and the importance of
addressing psychological, political, and economic dimensions of the problems that arise in the
wake of violent episodes. Topics include the problem of post-war trauma, reconciliation
undivided societies, and the broader problem of societal reconstruction. Even though these post-
war interventions take place after-the-fact, they can interrupt repeated episodes or cycles of
violence, and thereby serve as a form of violence prevention. Although peacemaking is often
very useful, the approach has limitations, not least of which is the problem that peacemaking can
be used as a tool by those with power who can insist on peaceful means of resolving disputes,
while ignoring socially just ends. The dialogue process that characterizes peacemaking
approaches is important but a sustainable peace requires structural and cultural peacebuilding,
actions and supporting narratives that redress the deeper and more permanent roots of
the problem. Section IV: Peacebuilding While preventing and mitigating episodes of destructive
conflict and violence are familiar moorings for peace psychologists, we
seek to enlarge our scope of inquiry and practice by mitigating the inertia of structural violence.
Just as we found it useful to distinguish direct and structural violence, we also see merit in
distinguishing peacemaking (Section III) from peacebuilding, the latter of which refers to the
pursuit of social justice (Section IV). The issue of social justice (Deutsch,1985) and positive
approaches to peace that emphasize human interdependence and the satisfaction of needs is not
new to the field of psychology (Wagner, 1988), nor to the interdisciplinary field of peace studies
(Smoker, Davies, & Munske, 1990). But once again, we are particularly indebted to Galtung’s
(1996) work in the multidisciplinary field of peace studies, where the distinction between
peacemaking and peacebuilding is central to the discourse. In Table 2, we delineate a number of
differences between peacemaking and peacebuilding. As noted in Table 2, the term
“peacemaking” refers to a set of actions that reduce the likelihood of violent episodes.
In contrast, peacebuilding is designed to reduce structural violence. Peacemaking emphasizes
nonviolent means while peacebuilding emphasizes socially just ends. Peacemaking tends to be
reactive, arising from the threat or actual use of direct violence. Peacebuilding can
be proactive, addressing long-term structural inequalities that may become antecedents of violent
episodes. Peacemaking is temporal and spatial, satisfying the current interests of
conflicted parties who occupy a particular geopolitical space. Peacebuilding is ubiquitous
and less constrained by time and place. Peacemaking emphasizes the prevention of violence
while peacebuilding emphasizes the promotion of social justice. Peacemaking may support the
interests of the status quo while peacebuilding often threatens the social order.