The Multifaceted Meaning of Peace

When most people hear the word “peace,” they picture the silence after a war ends or a quiet moment of personal calm. But peace is far richer than that. It stretches across spiritual, ethical, political, and structural dimensions, and scholars have spent centuries debating what it truly means. Understanding these layers is the first step toward studying conflict resolution and peace building, because how you define peace shapes how you try to achieve it. Let us unpack the many faces of this idea.

Why peace resists a single definition 🔗

Peace is one of those words that everyone uses but few can pin down. It is highly emotive, and it has often been used as a tool of political propaganda. A dictator can claim to have brought “peace” by crushing all dissent, while a human rights activist insists that real peace is impossible under oppression. Both are using the same word to mean very different things.

This is why peace studies treats the concept as multidimensional rather than singular. Peace can describe a state of mind, a quality of relationships, a condition of society, or an arrangement between nations. Each tradition, religious, philosophical, and political, emphasises a different aspect. To study peace seriously, we need to hold all these meanings together rather than collapse them into one.

Peace as inner and spiritual harmony 🔗

The oldest understanding of peace is spiritual. Long before peace became a subject for political scientists, religious traditions described it as a state of inner balance and harmony with the divine and the cosmos.

The idea of Shanti 🔗

In Hindu thought, peace is captured by the word Shanti. It is not simply the absence of conflict but a state of inner balance and harmony that radiates to the external world. True peace, in this view, comes from within, achieved through self-realisation, righteous living, and a deep connection with the divine. This is why peace here is treated as a spiritual goal rather than a political outcome.

The Shanti Mantras of the Vedas extend this wish for peace beyond human beings. They pray for the well-being of humans, animals, nature, and all elements of the universe. Peace, in this framing, is cosmic and all-encompassing, not limited to relations between people.

The principle of Ahimsa 🔗

Closely linked to spiritual peace is Ahimsa, the principle of non-violence and respect for all life. The Sanskrit word means the avoidance of injury, and it is interpreted as reverence toward all sentient beings. Ahimsa is a shared value across Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, and it covers not just physical harm but harm caused through speech and thought.

Mahatma Gandhi transformed this ancient idea into a political force. For Gandhi, non-violence was not passive acceptance but an active spiritual discipline. The thinker Jonathan Schell summarised his meaning sharply: nonviolence is a means by which the active many can overcome the ruthless few. This shows how spiritual peace can flow directly into social and political action.

Peace as the rejection of violence: the pacifist view 🔗

Pacifism takes the religious commitment to non-violence and turns it into a clear ethical stance about society. Pacifists hold that violence is wrong and that disputes must be settled through non-violent means.

Scholars note that religious pacifism is often motivated by a broader spiritual vision than the thinking of secular pacifists. In Christianity, for example, this includes a doctrine of love connected to mercy and forgiveness that extends even to enemies, evoking the biblical image of the lion lying down with the lamb. In South Asian traditions, the same comprehensive vision appears through Ahimsa.

What unites pacifists is the belief that a peaceful society cannot be built on violent foundations. Peace is therefore not just a goal but also a method. The way you pursue an outcome must itself be non-violent. This insistence on consistency between means and ends is what distinguishes pacifism from those who would use force to impose order.

Peace as the absence of war: the international relations view 🔗

When we move from the individual and society to the world of states, the meaning of peace narrows considerably. In international relations, peace has traditionally meant the absence of war between nations.

This is the definition embedded in much of global diplomacy. As one UN framing puts it plainly, peace is defined as the absence of war and conflict, where silent guns signal peace. This understanding is intuitive and easy to measure, which is why it forms the basis of tools like the Global Peace Index that rank countries by their levels of violence.

Yet this narrow definition has a serious weakness. When peace is defined only as the absence of war, it can imply passivity and the acceptance of injustice. A country can be free of open warfare while millions of its citizens suffer poverty, discrimination, or repression. Critics argue that this is not genuine peace at all, but merely a pause between conflicts.

Kant and the vision of perpetual peace 🔗

The philosopher Immanuel Kant pushed the political idea of peace far beyond a temporary ceasefire. In his 1795 essay Toward Perpetual Peace, he argued that lasting peace required a fundamental change in how states are organised and how they relate to one another.

The three pillars of Kant’s plan 🔗

Kant set out three definitive articles for achieving durable peace. He proposed that the civil constitution of every state should be republican, the law of nations should rest on a federation of free states, and the rights of people as world citizens should be limited to universal hospitality. In plain terms, he believed in representative government at home, cooperation between states abroad, and basic rights for all human beings everywhere.

His reasoning was practical. Kant suggested that citizens of a democratic republic are less likely to support their government in a war because they themselves would bear the misery and cost. When ordinary people have a say, they are reluctant to send themselves to die.

From Kant to democratic peace theory 🔗

This insight gave rise to what is now called democratic peace theory, the claim that democratic states are far less likely to go to war with each other. The theory holds that democracies help to create a more peaceful international system, and Kant’s idea of a federation of free states later helped inspire the founding of the League of Nations and the United Nations. His concept of hospitality even foreshadowed modern refugee rights.

Galtung’s breakthrough: negative and positive peace 🔗

The most influential modern framework for understanding peace comes from the Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung, widely regarded as a founder of the discipline of peace studies. He argued that we must distinguish between two very different kinds of peace.

Negative peace 🔗

Negative peace is the simpler of the two. Galtung defined it as the absence of direct, personal violence. This is the kind of peace the international relations tradition focuses on: no war, no physical attacks, no open hostility. It is called “negative” not because it is bad, but because it is defined by the absence of something rather than the presence of anything positive.

Positive peace and structural violence 🔗

Positive peace goes much deeper. Galtung defined it as the absence of structural violence, a situation of social justice. To understand this, we need his powerful concept of structural violence, which describes harm that is built into the very structure of society rather than caused by an identifiable attacker.

Galtung illustrated this with a memorable contrast. When one husband beats his wife, that is clear personal violence with a visible attacker. But when a million husbands keep a million wives in ignorance, that is structural violence, harm woven into social arrangements with no single culprit. Poverty that exists when it could objectively be avoided, denial of education, and systematic exploitation are all forms of structural violence.

This means a society can enjoy negative peace while still being deeply violent in a structural sense. The two are separate dimensions, where one is possible without the other. A nation can have no war yet trap millions in conditions that crush their potential.

Peace must be built 🔗

Galtung’s crucial point is that positive peace does not appear on its own. It must be purposefully built by removing unjust situations and teaching former enemies to cooperate and support one another. This is the intellectual foundation of peace building as a field. Stopping the fighting is only the beginning; the harder work is dismantling the structures that produced the conflict in the first place.

The contemporary view: peace as dignity and justice 🔗

Galtung’s distinction has shaped how global institutions now think about peace. The United Nations has moved firmly beyond the narrow definition, stressing that peace is more than the absence of war and instead means a life of dignity and well-being for all. Former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon described it as a way of being and of interacting with others, noting that peace cannot be decreed through treaties alone but must be nurtured through the rights and capacities of every person.

This thinking is embodied in Sustainable Development Goal 16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies, provide access to justice for all, and build effective and accountable institutions. Notice how this combines all the threads we have discussed. It seeks the absence of violence, but also the presence of justice, inclusion, and strong governance, exactly Galtung’s positive peace expressed as global policy.

The need for this broader vision is urgent. The world is currently witnessing the highest number of violent conflicts since 1945, and recent years have seen sharp rises in conflict-related deaths. These figures remind us that even the most basic negative peace remains fragile and that the pursuit of peace, as the UN puts it, must be a constant process.

Bringing the dimensions together 🔗

So what does peace actually mean? The honest answer is that it means several things at once, arranged like layers. At the innermost layer is spiritual peace, the personal harmony described by Shanti. Surrounding it is the ethical commitment of pacifism and Ahimsa, which rejects violence as a method. Beyond that lies political peace, from the simple absence of war to Kant’s vision of a peaceful international order. And encompassing all of these is Galtung’s positive peace, which insists that genuine peace requires justice and equity, not just quiet.

The key insight for any student of conflict resolution is this: peace involves both the absence of conflict and the presence of justice. A definition that includes only one of these is incomplete. Stopping violence without addressing its structural roots leaves a society primed for the next eruption. Pursuing justice without reducing direct violence leaves people unsafe. Real, lasting peace requires both at the same time.

What do you think? Can a society truly be called peaceful if it has no war but tolerates deep poverty and injustice? And in your own community, which type of peace, negative or positive, feels more urgent to pursue right now?

References

1. https://blogs.gwu.edu/ccas-panamericanos/peace-studies-wiki/categories/theories/
2. https://www.newageislam.com/interfaith-dialogue/ghulam-ghaus-siddiqi-new-age-islam/the-philosophy-peace-harmony-hinduism-islam/d/134925
3. https://www.newageislam.com/spiritual-meditations/dr-zafar-darik-qasmi-new-age-islam/concept-peace-hindu-dharma/d/136013
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_spirituality_terms
5. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/13/11/1121
6. https://eswatini.un.org/en/node/125024
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Peace:_A_Philosophical_Sketch
8. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/perpetual-peace/
9. https://theconversation.com/guide-to-the-classics-immanuel-kants-toward-perpetual-peace-and-its-relevance-to-the-war-in-ukraine-179943
10. https://philosophybytheway.blogspot.com/2024/02/johan-galtung-1930-2024.html
11. https://www.transcend.org/tms/2024/07/johan-galtung-positive-and-negative-peace/
12. https://news.un.org/en/story/2014/09/476992
13. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/peace-justice/