Peace is not the absence of war, nor the opposite of war. Defining peace as the absence of war reduces peace to an empty, passive, incomplete and distant vision. The field of peace is much wider, because the field of violence is much wider than that of war. But peace is not the absence of violence either; it is the opposite of violence.
Peace is an activity, not a passivity. It is a commitment that is practiced every day in all our interactions. Being a passive bystander to the violent interactions of others kills peace. Remaining passive sends the wrong signal. It allows the violent to increase the violence. It’s by forming a counterbalance, a majority, where peace prevails in human interactions, that we can make the violent question themselves and awaken them to their best selves. By remaining passive, we disassociate ourselves from this counterbalancing effort, choosing the violence of others, even if we are the gentlest of beings.
Peace demands a positive combativeness in our relationships, and just as much in the face of our own impulses. But to define peace as the won battle of reason against instinct is false. Inner peace is not achieved by fighting, but by cultivating an inner state of appeasement. The opposite of a battle, it’s a relationship to be built – with oneself, then with others – where reason is not enough, the heart is needed too.
Peace is a perpetual weaving of warm, neighborly relations based on human values and the creativity of all to overcome difficulties, clashes and their own frustrations.
Peace is a solid, lasting relationship of living together well, based on respect, serenity, cordiality and good intelligence between human beings. It is founded as much on the expression of the heart as on reason. It is through human warmth that violence can be transcended.
Peace is a choice of life in which human interactions are based on human impulses capable of reversing the violent tendencies of the powerful, the vindictive and the angry, by touching their hearts and their minds. A choice of life that is at once individual, collective, economic and political.
If violence seems omnipresent, then the fields of peace are omnipresent too. It’s up to us to cultivate them.
Delia Mamon, for Graines de Paix, March 6, 2007
Read other definitions along these lines
NB: The evolution of the definition of the words peace and violence is the subject of several recognized scientific studies. See, for example, David Adams and Johan Galtung on this site. The non-inherence of violence is also addressed by the 2006 Luarca Declaration, discussed at the UN in 2008-9, to introduce the demand to establish the human right to peace.