This is an opinion website which usually references violence from the outset.

---

Johan Galtung, the “father” of peace studies, discussed the Violence Triangle; the idea that violence has three distinctive sides – direct (like physical and verbal abuse), cultural (the harmful views that some have about others), and structural (the way a system can uphold this violence, through policy and practice).

He also spoke about negative and positive peace.

Galtung suggested that any peace which relies on instilling fear, or where citizens remain living in tension, is not true peace. (Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., also referred to that as negative peace, as did Jane Addams who founded what became known as the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) in 1919. She argued that the absence of war does not necessarily mean peace, as we see today).

If we take the example of male violence against women (which this website centres), we can see how negative peace (and structural violence) might exist within our current Criminal Justice System in the UK, even if with good intentions.

Laws generally are designed to prevent the next crime, but without necessarily delivering justice or continued safety; this leads to poor wellbeing, especially for those subjected to it. A harm doer may be held to account in one way, but this doesn’t prevent the next violent man harming a woman (or anyone else), or even stop the one held accountable if his mindset doesn’t change.

Law or “defensive action” that doesn’t deliver stable, lifelong security or tangible safety is not “protection”. It’s not justice. It’s not peace. And that’s not conducive to wellbeing.

When dealing with male violence from a more holistic, broader approach, positive peace – or what Maya Angelou referred to as “Amazing Peace” – would ask us, as a society, to take a level of social accountability for what we choose to tolerate and what we stand up against. It means, for example, being willing to stand up to – or even reject – someone from the group, until their behaviours change, rather than excuse them.

It requires meaningful support for the harmed (safety), alongside consequences for the harm doer (justice) which can help them “feel better” (wellbeing).

Positive Peace as described by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) is:

… “a transformational concept, which places peace at the centre of national wellbeing regardless of a country’s current state of development.

What makes Positive Peace transformational is that it fosters harmonious societal relations while also generating many of the other qualities that societies aspire to, including higher levels of per capita income*, better measures of wellbeing and happiness, stronger development outcomes, and improved ecological health. Positive Peace therefore describes an optimal environment for the flourishing of human potential.”

(*The Peace Gap website does not endorse the idea that people generating wealth is a measure of worth or wellbeing, or that output and contribution is only reflected through paid work. Many people find meaning and purpose through volunteering for example. However it recognises the IEP definition in the context that money is needed in order to eat, clothe and shelter a family, essential for people to “be well”).

Working for peace

Peace is not passive; pacifism is a daily practice.

To what extent do we, as citizens, model nonviolence in our interactions with others? Do we enable, endorse and even uphold narratives and behaviours that allow violent men (in this context) to continue to harm, even when some of that violence is against other men?

When a man engages in displays of misogyny, when he demonstrates a level of entitlement that seeks to objectify, subjugate, oppress or possess women, who (outside of law enforcement) will step in (safely), and steer his behaviour another way? Any one of us can decide to help create a different world.

We can also see how this discussion can extend to negative and positive peace in the context of war.

It requires a significant paradigm shift though; a deep societal metanoia about how the world views women and their worth, and by extension how we think about peace. It requires men to do their part to reject – and conscientiously object – to violence and harm. To move from a mindset of entitlement to learning, and behaviours of domination to connection.

It relies on peace education; MLK suggested in his Nobel Lecture in 1964 that “the philosophy and strategy of nonviolence become immediately a subject for study”. It means learning conflict transformation skills, as John Paul Lederach discussed, not just “resolution”, meaningful discussion that not only stops violence today but helps prevents violent conflict in the future.

It means joining the dots between militarism and male violence (Cynthia Cockburn describes this in her continuum) – and the hierarchy of supremacy that seeks to keep others small. Challenging dangerous rhetoric that suggests violence and war are in any way “justified” or “honourable”, when it comes with a huge cost. It means rejecting the idea that there is only one type of “masculinity” or that violence makes him a “real man”.

We must learn upstandership, and how to call out the false sense of right to own or inflict harm (whether over land or women), especially if decisions are in the hands those motivated by greed, status and power.

We must also interrogate how some profit from war and violence, while others – and disproportionally women and children – feel the impact of the care burden, strain on health services and the reality of sexual violence in conflict zones.

An industry that is built entirely around violent conflict, is neither dependable nor sustainable, unless that is there is a continuous push for violence to exist. One that centres wellbeing, justice and safety through peace building and renewable industries could be just as profitable (if money is what motivates change).

The key point is we now know violence is neither “natural” nor inevitable. So if we want something different we have to do something different.

“It is what we have hungered for.

Not just the absence of war. But true peace.

A harmony of spirit, a comfort of courtesies.

Security for our beloveds and their beloveds.”

Dr. Maya Angelou, Amazing Peace

Nothing changes if nothing changes.

---

© The Peace Gap 2026 – All rights reserved. This is an opinion post. For full terms about accessing this content, click here or to find out more about this website click here