Article Review: Peace Making

Article: Peace Making

Nathan C. Funk (2002) with a brief article has introduced a comparative summary of five “paradigms” of peace within a desire to bridge the gap between the peace “ideal” and the peace “real”. According to the author, this intellectually and personally challenging exploration of five paradigms is considered as intellectual and practical models for peacemaking based on different sets of explicit as well as implicit beliefs and assumptions; so that the learner of peace studies will not only attain the history and development of thinking about peace, but also their own deeply internalized beliefs and existential commitments. By this article, the author claims that there are many paths to peace and by many explorers, and that each paradigm should only help us to “lay the foundation for our own unique and original peace paradigm – a structure built of precepts and practices of our own choosing”.

Five paradigms of peacemaking are as follows:

  1. Peace Through Coercive Power (Power Politics)
    Macro-level and structural concern, the traditionally dominant framework in the field of international relations, the belief that states have no choice but to compete with one another for scarce resources and for the security that these resources are believed to provide, peace as a temporary absence of war within a self-help system of sovereign states with moral minimalism. “If you want peace”, argue proponents of the power politics paradigm, “prepare for war”.
  2. Peace Through the Power of Law (World Order)
    Macro-level and structural concern, the belief in possibility and necessity of sustained cooperation among states and other significant ac-tors such as non-governmental (activist) organizations and intergovernmental organizations,peace with presence of certain value conditions that are required for human flourishing and for long-term survival within a global context (non-violent conflict resolution, human dignity, development, ecological balance, and political participation). “If you want peace”, proposes the world order paradigm, “prepare for peace”.

3. Peace Through the Power of Communication (Conflict Resolution)

Pragmatic concern upon direct interaction with the “other”, peace as a continuous process of skill-fully dealing with and preventing or transform-ing conflict whenever possible with effective strategies of communication and  are often conducted with assistance of an external third party or mediator. “If you want peace”, protagonists of conflict resolution suggest, “train for the processes of peace. Develop skills for communication and coexistence”.

  1. Peace Through Willpower (Nonviolence)
    Often misconceived as passivity, an outlook that the power of any government derives primarily from the consent of the people, and only secondarily from coercion, an approach not only to counteract forms of social discrimination and political repression but also to resist foreign imperialism or occupation, a new way of seeing the reality around and to deny legitimacy to institutions and actions that violate human community and principle of ahimsa (“no harm”). “If you wantpeace”, assert nonviolence activists, “work for justice – justly”.
  2. Peace Through the Power of Love (Transformation)

Concern on the centrality of education, cultural change, and spirituality in all genuine attempts to make peace a reality in daily life, transformation involves the cultivation of a peaceful conscious-ness and character together with an affirmative belief system and skills through which the fruits of “internal disarmament” and personal integration may be expressed. “If you want peace, be peace. Be an instrument of peace”.
In order to get full reading of this article, please access to the following link:

Full citation of the paper: Nathan C. Funk (2002) Peace Paradigms: Five Approaches to Peace. Gandhi Marg Vol. 24, No. 3 Oct-Dec, pp 298-306.