Peace Studies Fractured Into 61 Competing Definitions, Slowing Progress
Researchers have identified 61 different types of "peace" in academic literature—from "feminist peace" to "virtual peace"—creating conceptual chaos that blocks knowledge-building and policy consensus. The fragmentation suggests peace studies needs standardized frameworks to move from endless theorizing toward actionable insights for peacemakers and policymakers.
Originaltitel: Peace with Adjectives: Conceptual Fragmentation or Conceptual Innovation?
<p>What strategies can be employed to conceptualize peace? In recent years, scholars have introduced an impressive array of “peace with adjectives” in order to make sense of some of the normative and empirical underpinnings of peace. Negative, positive, everyday, virtual, illiberal, partial, insecure, relational, emancipatory, agonistic, and feminist are some of the qualifiers that have been associated with the concept. While the growing attention to conceptualization is a welcomed development, we argue that the proliferation of new terms has led to increased fragmentation in the field of peace studies. Conceptual fragmentation impedes cumulative knowledge production and generates missed opportunities for fruitful discussions across theoretical and conceptual divides. In this article, we aim to provide more clarity to our field by mapping existing peace conceptualizations and identifying the strategies employed by scholars to construct innovative new terms. In our review, we identify 61 concepts and suggest that these conceptual innovations in peace research belong to one of three analytical strategies: developing diminished subtypes, conceptual narrowing, and conceptual expansion. Building on this categorization, we make recommendations for how peace researchers can enhance clarity and deepen constructive discussions between different conceptual approaches.</p>