Top-down and bottom-up narratives of peace and conflict

Abstract

Based on findings from the Everyday Peace Indicators project, the article considers how top-down and bottom-up narratives and understandings of conflict often differ. The article posits that top-down narratives are often the result of a peculiar framing system that imposes imaginaries on conflicts and those experiencing them. The bottom-up narratives, based on research in South Africa, South Sudan, Uganda and Zimbabwe, show that localised perceptions of peace, safety and security are not only articulated in different ways to top-down narratives but also raise different issues.

Beyond disaster framing: exploring multi-mandate INGOs’ representations of conflict

“…This approach can be criticised on the grounds outlined by Mac Ginty and Firchow, who have argued that international narratives of conflict or formal peace processes often hold little meaning for local people and can sometimes serve to obscure ongoing violence. 39 A smaller minority of press releases did explicitly seek to counter this 'elite' focus by highlighting the need for talks to be more inclusive, so at least in some instances, INGOs were explicitly challenging the domination of elites.…”

“…Based on these capacities and connections, MM INGOs are well positioned to bridge the gap between 'top-down' narratives of peace and conflict typically promoted by international governments and organisations and 'bottom-up' narratives generated by local people or communities, potentially fulfilling a progressive role in empowering 'bottom-up' voices and challenging dominant accounts. 5 NGOs communicate ideas about conflict through a range of channels including press releases, policy reports, media interviews, fundraising advertisements, and campaign videos. These representations are bound up with a range of activities including attempts to influence elite policymaking, public campaigns work, and efforts to raise public awareness about humanitarian conditions facing waraffected communities.…”

Peacebuilding, foodways and the everyday: a fragile confidence in post-intervention Solomon Islands

“…As such, a concern for everyday peace shifts the analytical focus from macro‐politics to the mundane, to individual decision‐ and meaning‐making within the immediate context of peacebuilding activities but also beyond. It acknowledges that the multiplicities of everyday experiences harbour the potential to undermine sustainable peace in perhaps unexpected ways (see Mac Ginty and Firchow : 309). In other words, an analytical focus on the everyday recognises the significance of shared places and the significance of mundane encounters in these shared places.…”

“…It highlights the importance of confidence‐building rather than institutional‐structural capacity‐building in a post‐conflict setting. More broadly, it (re‐)emphasises the importance of the everyday in peace (and development) research (see Autesserre ; Jamar ; Smirl ; Mac Ginty ) including a recognition of ‘how everyday bottom‐up narratives [of peacebuilding] might differ from those employed by international peace‐support actors’ (Mac Ginty and Firchow : 308).…”

Peace formation from below: The “mirëdita, dobar dan!” festival as an alternative to everyday nationalism

“…In recent years, the critical school of peace and conflict studies has focused on the local and the everyday at the heart of its critique of the liberal peace project (Mac Ginty & Richmond, ) and of discourses of stability (Mac Ginty & Firchow, ). The study of “everyday peace” seeks to recognise the agency and significance of actors at the sub‐state level ( ibid ., p. 309).…”