Conceptualising peace and its preconditions: The anti-Pelagian imagination and the critical turn in peace theory

Abstract

This article examines the conceptualisations of peace and its preconditions manifested in the critical turn in peace theory: bottom-up approaches which begin with particular contexts and postulate diverse local actors as integral to the process of peace-building. This article argues that the turn is at an impasse and is unable to address the crucial charge that its conceptualisation of peace is inconsistent. To explain the persistence of inconsistency and to move us forward, the article analyses, evaluates and responds to the turn through the lens of Nicholas Rengger’s work on the anti-Pelagian imagination in political theory. This is defined as a tendency to begin theorising from non-utopian, anti-perfectionist and sceptical assumptions. Through this examination the article argues that the critical turn is anti-Pelagian but not consistently so because it often gives way to perfectionism, adopts naïve readings of institutions and postulates demanding conceptions of political agency and practice. This inconsistency with its own philosophical premises makes the turn’s conceptualisation of peace and its preconditions incoherent. Finally, the article sketches an alternative account of peace which draws upon a number of anti-Pelagian scholars and mobilises Rengger’s particular defense of anti-Pelagianism. The suggested alternative, the article argues, provides us with a more coherent theory of peace and a way out of existing dead ends.

The peace/violence nexus: Fundamental, multiple, contingent

“…Agency, as it characterizes human beings, is marred by the brittleness of human virtue. Murad Idris may be wrong to abandon the pursuit of peace, but critical peace researchers may equally be mistaken to cling to a “deep teleology of peace” (Dingli, 2021; Klem, 2018) We may have to settle for— and cherish— (more or less extended) moments of peace and (more or less expansive) islands of peace. 15 This is what human beings are capable of.…”

“…Klem (2018: 235) observes about critical strands in peace research that their proponents “take issue with the supposed harmony and inclusivity of peace” and that they acknowledge that “peace-building is prone to hegemonic and counter-hegemonic forces,” but Klem simultaneously finds that (critical) peace researchers continue to value and promote peace. “The deeper teleology of ultimately getting to peace is not written off” (Klem, 2018: 235; see also Dingli, 2021) and neither is the basic belief in the possibility of establishing a peace untainted by violence. The situations of compromised peace that peace researchers describe and theorize should “be [.…”

The Presidential Speeches and the US-Iran Nuclear Deal: Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy Percepts on Freedom, Dignity and Independence

“…This section briefly explored the universal conceptualisation of Freedom, Dignity and Independence, as they served as pillars for envisioning harmonious international relations (IR) that seek not to expel and replace but to create spaces for states with different power capabilities (Dingli 2020;Mahiet 2019;Richmond 2021;Galtung 1964). Understanding harmonious IR to celebrate individual state hardships and suffering enriches our worldviews of universal shared values and ideals that policymakers often cherry-picked not to materialise but deny realisations of positive Peace.…”