INTRODUCTION TO PEACE PSYCHOLOGY

Submitted to: Mam Tayyaba

Submitted by
17501 Arslan Tahir
17502 Zeeshan Farooq
17503 Hamna Nadeem
17505 Zaryab Ayoob
17509 Meha Arshad
17510 Sana Butt
BS PSYCHOLOGY Semester 8
GOVT. M.A.O College Lahore
 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.

Tey advocated that 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 playwright 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."

19th Century

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 pacifsts 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 afer 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-simplifed 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, experience

a 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. Te 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 Otto

Klineberg) 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 differ ent 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 identi

ties 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 we

are 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 vio-

lence 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. Authors

in 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 fuelling 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 fuelling 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 peacebuilding,

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 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 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.
MCQS

1. Peace psychology can be defined as "the study of mental processes that lead

to____________:

a. Violence b. Mental Process

c. Behavior of person d. Different activities

2. The purpose of Peace Psychology is to heal___________:

a. Social effects b. Psychological effects

c. Gender effects d. Cognitive effects

3. There are ___________ types of violence :

a. 2 b. 3

c. 4 d. 7

4._____________type of violence kill people directly:

a. Direct violence b. Structural Violence

c. both a and b d. none

5.___________ violence immortal and unintentional:

a. Peacemaking b. Structural violence

c. both a and b d. none

 Answer these Questions:

1. Define Peace Psychology?

   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).

2. What is the four way of violence in Peace Psychology?

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

 PeacemakiIng

 Peacebuilding.

3. How many types of identity based conflicts?

These identity- based conflicts are central to many forms of violence :

 Hate crimes

 Gang violence

 Ethnic conflicts

 Genocide

4. When does structural violence occur?

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.

5. Difference between Direct violence and Structural Violence?

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 to well-

being Intermittent Continuous

Subject-action-object observable Subject-action-object

unobservable Intentional immoral Unintentional and

amoral

Episodes may be prevented Inertia may be mitigated