Positive Peace, Paradox, and Contested Liberalisms

Abstract

Particular conceptions of peace can be associated with logics of dominance and imposition, but also human flourishing and emancipation. These dynamics have been amply explored in debates about liberal peacebuilding over the past two decades. Despite a recent renaissance of attention, however, the concept of positive peace has only rarely been problematized to the same extent. That is unfortunate because it has the potential to operate at both ends of this imposition-emancipation spectrum. This paper revisits Galtung’s early (1960s) articulation of positive peace in order to resurface its fundamental radicalism, together with some of its inherent tensions, paradoxes and politics, particularly insofar as one might try to operationalize the theory. It then explores the linkages between the concept of positive peace and the prevailing peacebuilding paradigm of our day: liberal peacebuilding. I argue that our understanding of both positive peace and liberal peacebuilding can be clarified when viewed through the lens of contested liberalisms and conflicting liberal values. Advancing peace theory and praxis at this stage would benefit from an increasing willingness to openly confront some of these conflicts and a greater degree of transparency about our liberal commitments, including in the hard, “real world” cases where tensions seem irreconcilable.