Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Western Dissensus, Non-Western Consensus: A Q Study Into the Meanings of Peace

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Visions of Peace of Professional Peace Workers

Part of the book series: Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies ((RCS))

  • 338 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter reports the results from a Q study amongst professional peace practitioners. It introduces five different visions of peace, that are compared along the dimensions identified in Chap. 2. The main argument developed in the chapter is that rather than a (Western) liberal peace consensus, a non-Western consensus can be observed. According to most of the Lebanese and Mindanaoan interviewees, peace is a personal endeavour. The Dutch, on the other hand, are divided over all five visions.

The chapter also trims down the seven dimensions found in Chaps. 2, 3 and 4: ontology (whether peace is seen as a process or a goal); domain (whether it is a personal or a political objective), its embedding in individuals or institutions and the scope of a vision. These four dimensions make up the peace cube that is used in the rest of the book.

What is peace? Well, that’s some question… Where can I start? It is a project, not a state of affairs. It means much more than not having war. Although that is also part of it, but it means more like having no sentiments of hate. And maybe to live a good life? […] It is always related to persons. Of course you can also talk of peace in society. Then one talks about security, being able to live under rule of law, justice, equality. But for me, peace is always something very personal.

(Anonymous interview employee #1 (Association Justice et Miséricorde (AJEM), Lebanon). Translated from French by the author.)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In Sect. 1.2.

  2. 2.

    Interview Rhea Silvosa (Mindanao Peacebuilding Institute, Mindanao).

  3. 3.

    Interview Fulco van Deventer (Human Security Collective (HSC), the Netherlands).

  4. 4.

    Interview Ramzi Merhej (Search for Common Ground (SFCG), Lebanon).

  5. 5.

    Interview Maysa Mourad (independent peace educator, Lebanon).

  6. 6.

    Interview Ziad Saab (Fighters for Peace (FfP), Lebanon).

  7. 7.

    Interview Elie Abouaoun (United States Institute for Peace (USIP), Lebanon).

  8. 8.

    Interview Assad Chaftari (Wahdatouna Khalasouna, Lebanon).

  9. 9.

    E.g. interviews Silvosa and Merhej.

  10. 10.

    Interview Manal Moukaddem (Center for Lebanese Studies, Lebanon).

  11. 11.

    Interview Chaftari.

  12. 12.

    Interview Merhej.

  13. 13.

    For the exact values, see Appendix D.

  14. 14.

    The error-bars indicate the 95% confidence interval. This is a statistical tool normally used to show the reliability of estimates, arrived at by including the values two standard deviations above and below the group average in the error-bar. However, since we are not interested in a precise estimate of how common a vision is amongst a certain group of peace workers (since we are building theory, not testing it) the confidence interval is used here merely as a measure to compare the coherence of the group averages. A large confidence interval means that some respondents in the group score relatively much higher or lower on the factor than others. A smaller confidence interval means that the Q sorts of most respondents in the group cluster around the average correspondence level. In statistical analysis, the difference between two average factor scores is perceived as significant (at p < 0.05) if the 95% confidence intervals of the two groups do not overlap. Here, this is clearly the case for Lebanese and Mindanaoans on the one hand and Dutch military and diplomats on the other.

  15. 15.

    Interview Sara Ketelaar (PAX, the Netherlands).

  16. 16.

    Interview anonymous Dutch pilot #1. See also (Carothers 1998: 99; Upham 2010: 84).

  17. 17.

    Interestingly, when the phrasing is changed to ‘what peace looks like depends on what the conflict is about’ (statement 36), the factor scores change to −2/−2/+2/−2/+1.

  18. 18.

    Interview André Carstens (Former director of Governance, Dutch ISAF mission, the Netherlands).

  19. 19.

    Interview Sara Ketelaar (PAX, the Netherlands).

  20. 20.

    Anonymous interview Dutch diplomat #2.

  21. 21.

    Anonymous interview Dutch army chaplain. ‘Relative non-poverty’ is an interesting addition in light of the ‘welfare’-critique on liberal peacebuilding (see Sect. 2.4.3), as well as discussions of broad vs. narrow interpretations of human security (e.g. Tadjbakhsh and Chenoy 2012: 40–41). However, it does not otherwise feature very prominently in this vision.

  22. 22.

    Although it is not the most prominent vision amongst them either. Military respondents score highest on factor V, political peace, and approximately as high on factor I, peace as a personal endeavour. See Fig. 3.6 in Sect. 3.2.

  23. 23.

    Anonymous interview (Ministry of Defence, evaluations division, the Netherlands).

  24. 24.

    Anonymous interview Dutch army chaplain.

  25. 25.

    E.g. anonymous interview (Ministry of Defence, evaluations division, the Netherlands).

  26. 26.

    Interview Major Lenny Hazelbag (Dutch Army).

  27. 27.

    Interview Major Daan Boissevain (Dutch Air Force).

  28. 28.

    Interview Major Martijn Hädicke (Dutch Army).

  29. 29.

    See Chap. 8, Sect. 8.2.1.

  30. 30.

    Interviews Joost van Puijenbroek (PAX, the Netherlands) and René Grotenhuis (independent consultant, formerly director of Cordaid, the Netherlands).

  31. 31.

    Interview Grotenhuis.

  32. 32.

    Interview Grotenhuis.

  33. 33.

    Interview anonymous Dutch diplomat #2.

  34. 34.

    Interview Jasper van Koppen (Dutch Army, national reserve).

  35. 35.

    Interview Van Koppen.

  36. 36.

    Which was more of an occupation than an actual war and ended with a (military) liberation by the allied forces that is still celebrated widely each year. Especially military interviewees often still mention this as a constitutive idea of the peace they are defending. E.g. interview General Mart de Kruif (Dutch Army), Eric Overtoom (Dutch Army, national reserve) and Maj. Hazelbag.

  37. 37.

    Its average level of support amongst diplomats is 26%, vs. 8% for Dutch military. See Appendix D.

  38. 38.

    With the exception of Lebanese support for the vision of peace as politics. Which is quite interesting, because it directly contradicts what they say in semi-structured interviews. This contradiction will be explored in Chap. 7.

  39. 39.

    See Sect. 1.2 above.

  40. 40.

    As was explained in the introduction, ‘concourse’ is the technical term in Q methodology for a collection of statements about a certain topic from which the Q set is drawn.

  41. 41.

    E.g. interviews Gabriella Vogelaar (Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC), the Netherlands), Mathieu Hermans (PAX, the Netherlands), anonymous former Dutch diplomat #2 and anonymous diplomat #5 (Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), North Africa and Middle East Department (DAM).

  42. 42.

    Idem.

  43. 43.

    Interviews Chaftari and Merhej.

  44. 44.

    Statement 48, scores of respectively +1, +4, +5, +3 and +2.

  45. 45.

    See Chap. 2, Sects. 2.3 and 2.4.

  46. 46.

    E.g. interviews anonymous diplomat #3 (Dutch MoFA, Stabilization and Humanitarian Aid Department (DSH)), Michel Rentenaar (Dutch MoFA, former Political Advisor to ISAF), Theo Brinkel (Royal Military Academy, the Netherlands), anonymous programme officer (Cordaid, the Netherlands), Jan Jaap van Oosterzee (PAX, the Netherlands), Saab and Mourad.

  47. 47.

    It should be stressed here that the cube is a visualization of a certain way of conceptualizing peace, not a three-dimensional graph plotting the outcome of some quantitative study.

  48. 48.

    In Sect. 9.4.

References

  • Advisory Group of Experts (2015). The challenge of sustaining peace. Report of the Advisory Group of Experts for the 2015 Review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autesserre, S. (2010). The trouble with the Congo: Local violence and the failure of international peacebuilding. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Babo-Soares, D. (2004). “Nahe Biti: The philosophy and process of grassroots reconciliation (and justice) in East Timor.” The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 5(1): 15–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Björkdahl, A., K. Höglund, et al. (2016). Peacebuilding and friction: Global and local encounters in post conflict-societies. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boege, V., M. A. Brown, et al. (2008). “States emerging from hybrid political orders: Pacific experiences The Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies Occasional Papers Series.” Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies. The Occasional Papers 10(11): 1–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. R. (1993). “A primer on Q methodology.” Operant Subjectivity 16(3/4): 91–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carothers, T. (1998). “The rule of law revival.” Foreign Affairs 77: 95–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. (2017). Peacebuilding: The twenty years’ crisis, 1997–2017. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charbonneau, B. and G. Parent, Eds. (2013). Peacebuilding, memory and reconciliation: Bridging top-down and bottom-up approaches. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, C., E. Melander, et al. (2018). The peace continuum: What it is and how to study it. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Coning, C. (2018). “Adaptive peacebuilding.” International Affairs 94(2): 301–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Graaf, G. (2001). “Discourse theory and business ethics. The case of bankers’ conceptualizations of customers.” Journal of Business Ethics 31(4): 299–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De la Rey, C. and S. McKay (2006). “Peacebuilding as a gendered process.” Journal of Social Issues 62(1): 141–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, W. (2012). Interpretations of peace in history and culture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Firchow, P. (2018). Reclaiming everyday peace: Local voices in measurement and evaluation after war. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilhorst, D. and M. Van Leeuwen (2005). “Grounding local peace organisations: A case study of Southern Sudan.” The Journal of Modern African Studies 43(4): 537–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krijtenburg, F. (2007). Cultural ideologies of peace and conflict: A socio-cognitive study of Giryama discourse (Kenya). Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2010). “Hybrid peace: The interaction between top-down and bottom-up peace.” Security Dialogue 41(4): 391–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2011). International peacebuilding and local resistance: Hybrid forms of peace. New York and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2013). “Indicators+: A proposal for everyday peace indicators.” Evaluation and Program Planning 36: 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. and P. Firchow (2016). “Top-down and bottom-up narratives of peace and conflict.” Politics 36(3): 308–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. and O. P. Richmond (2013). “The local turn in peace building: A critical agenda for peace.” Third World Quarterly 34(5): 763–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. and O. Richmond (2016). “The fallacy of constructing hybrid political orders: A reappraisal of the hybrid turn in peacebuilding.” International Peacekeeping 23(2): 219–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmoud, Y. and A. Makoond (2017). Sustaining peace: What does it mean in practice. Issue Brief. New York: International Peace Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, G., J. Van Der Lijn, et al. (2013). “Peacebuilding plans and local reconfigurations: Frictions between imported processes and indigenous practices.” International Peacekeeping 20(2): 137–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paarlberg-Kvam, K. (2018). “What’s to come is more complicated: Feminist visions of peace in Colombia.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 21(2): 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, R. (2004). At war’s end: Building peace after civil conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. (2005). The transformation of peace. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. (2011). A post-liberal peace. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. (2013). “Peace formation and local infrastructures for peace.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 38(4): 271–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spivak, G. C. (1988). “Can the subaltern speak?” In Can the subaltern speak? Reflections on the history of an idea. New York: Columbia University Press: 21–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tadjbakhsh, S. and A. M. Chenoy (2012). Human security: Concepts and implications. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tasew, B. (2009). “Metaphors of peace and violence in the folklore discourses of South-Western Ethiopia: A comparative study.” In Department of social and cultural anthropology. Amsterdam: VU University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Upham, F. (2010). “Mythmaking in the rule of law orthodoxy.” In Promoting the rule of law abroad: In search of knowledge. T. Carothers (Ed.). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press: 75–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen, M., W. Verkoren, et al. (2012). “Thinking beyond the liberal peace: From utopia to heterotopias.” Acta Politica 47(3): 292–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Tongeren, P., M. O. Ojielo, et al. (2012). “The evolving landscape of infrastructures for peace.” Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 7(3): 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Clausewitz, C. (1984 [1832]). On war. Indexed edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Gijsbert M. van Iterson Scholten

Authors
  1. Gijsbert M. van Iterson Scholten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gijsbert M. van Iterson Scholten .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

van Iterson Scholten, G.M. (2020). Western Dissensus, Non-Western Consensus: A Q Study Into the Meanings of Peace. In: Visions of Peace of Professional Peace Workers. Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27975-2_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation