For decades, the field of peace studies has advocated understanding peace not merely as the cool absence of physical violence, but rather as a state of vibrant social justice. Inspired by critical peace scholars, the idea of “everyday peace” (i.e., an organic interpersonal peace that grows out of quotidian social interactions and civic relations and is not based solely on power-sharing arrangements or acts of grace by political decision-makers and elites) also gained traction as a normative goal. These visionary approaches to positive conceptions of peace are now being tested by reality.

In view of the intensity of violent conflicts worldwide, maximalist ideas of peace seem downright utopian. Whether in Gaza, Congo, Ukraine, or Sudan: Eighty years after Germany’s wars of annihilation in Europe, we are still living in a world where, in many places, a humanitarian ceasefire or the mere observance of basic standards of international humanitarian law would already represent a major leap forward from the current state of affairs. Against this background, understandably, calls for ceasefires or humanitarian truces are increasingly drowning out the pursuit of much more protracted efforts toward lasting reconciliation and warm peace.

Peace studies research is facing the challenge of trying to find a balance between these poles. While the desire to immediately avoid violence is understandable, short-term solutions to deep-rooted mechanisms of violence are fraught with risk. They threaten to cement structural injustices, normalize systemic oppression, and thus, unintentionally, promote resistance, including in its most extreme and inhumane forms. The brutal massacres of October 7, in particular, made it clear that superficial conflict management cannot sustainably resolve deep-seated conflicts over people’s sense of self-determination.

 Dr. Jannis Grimm is a research group leader at the Center for Interdisciplinary Peace and Conflict Research, Freie Universität Berlin.