1  Peace as absence of war and physical violence: Johan Galtung’s “negative peace”

Eliminating war is seen as a precondition for all other aspects of peace to become possible. When at war, all other aspects of peace tend to be neglected to focus attention on the war effort, which also co-opts the energy and resources of society from other peace efforts. War also necessitates dehumanizing one’s opponent (in one’s own mind) to psychologically justify killing them. In this way, war leads not only to a great loss of life, as well as to great physical damage to the environment and to a country’s infrastructure; it also inflicts deep psychological wounds on combatants and non-combatants on all sides in a conflict, which can take many years to heal.

This first perspective, peace as the absence of war, focuses on avoiding violent conflict and war between and within states (war and civil war, respectively). This became the predominant view of peace after two World Wars and is still widely held among general populations and politicians in most countries today. There are good reasons for this. The ravages of WWI and WWII did not end violent conflicts, which continued during the so-called Cold War, where two superpowers—the United States and the Soviet Union—often engaged in “Proxy Wars,” or wars in which one superpower had troops on the ground, while the other superpower funded the opposing side. Vietnam and Afghanistan are two such examples. Wars, including internal or civil wars, such as in Syria today, as well as those begun by outside intervention, such as the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, continue to rage around the globe. Every day the lives of millions are threatened by the specter of war. Under these circumstances, peace becomes the absence of war—at least until the killing stops and other aspects of peace can be addressed.

This first aspect of peace focuses primarily on eliminating the ravages of war, with eliminating physical violence also added later. All six subsequent aspects of peace (covered in Part II) also include absence of war as a goal, while also adding additional goals for peace, since each aspect of peace includes and builds on what came before).

During the Cold War, under the theory of Nuclear Deterrence, a number of people, on both the US and Soviet sides, advocated deterring nuclear war by stockpiling nuclear weapons, and building strong second strike or retaliatory capabilities, on both sides, leading to the US–Soviet arms race. Under this theory, if both sides had a strong second strike, retaliatory capability, then theoretically a nuclear war could be deterred. This theory was based on the somewhat crazy reasoning that if either side was attacked with nuclear weapons on a first strike, but had enough nuclear weapons left after this attack, so that they could then inflict back on their opponent with a second retaliatory strike, what was perceived by their opponent to be “an intolerable level of damage,” that then, under this situation, both sides would then be “deterred” from initiating a nuclear first strike attack against their opponent, and thereby nuclear war could hopefully be avoided! This situation was rather appropriately called MAD, standing for Mutually Assured Destruction. As crazy as this sounds, it guided nuclear policy and ongoing arms races on both sides throughout the Cold War and beyond. ⁵

In the nuclear area, “peace as absence of war” also seeks to reduce dangers of nuclear arms races—via periodic arms control and disarmament agreements, and via efforts to abolish nuclear weapons altogether—a longer term effort. ⁶ Here it is noteworthy that the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons—modelled after the 1990s International Campaign to Ban Landmines—won a Nobel Peace Prize in October 2017. Peace as absence of war also seeks to reduce dangers of: Nuclear proliferation (to countries such as Iran or North Korea); nuclear terrorism (where one seeks to prevent terrorists from obtaining nuclear weapons); and accidental nuclear war (where increasing tension and negative rhetoric between nuclear parties, or other unforeseen circumstances, could lead to accidental nuclear war). ⁷ This is also a great danger today with ongoing bellicose threats being exchanged between North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and US President Donald Trump.

Despite the craziness of nuclear deterrence theory—of nuclear parties stockpiling nuclear weapons with the goal of never having to use them—in general “peace as absence of war” seeks to reduce or eliminate dangers of different types of weapons systems and warfare. These include eliminating or reducing: Dangers of nuclear weapons and warfare—on earth and now in space; dangers of conventional weapons and warfare; and dangers of chemical and biological weapons (the poor man’s nuclear weapons) and warfare. It also seeks to eliminate the destructive effects of land mines, and any weapons endangering human life and taking resources away from other life-enhancing uses.

The famous peace researcher, Johan Galtung, called this first type of peace “negative peace,” a term later extended to include not only eliminating war, but also eliminating physical violence—within or between countries. Galtung distinguished “negative peace” from what he called “positive peace,” which was eliminating structural violence.

2  Peace as creating international institutions to balance multiple actors’ interests and keep the peace: Quincy Wright’s work

To prevent a return to war, once the fighting stops, international institutions must also be created to help keep the peace and provide a forum where all the different actors in the international system can come together, balance their different interests, develop joint policies—including peace and development goals—as well as resolve conflicts without going back to a state of war. This aspect of peace is based particularly on the work of Quincy Wright, and later writers. It views the UN system, set up at the end of WWII, and especially the UN Security Council, as the best hope for keeping the peace. Unfortunately the Cold War broke out in 1947, after the UN was founded in 1945, and the victors at the end of WWII—the US, UK, France, Soviet Union, and China, who were allies during the war— all received a veto power over UN peacekeeping operations in the UN Security Council. With the emergence of the Cold War, the US, UK, and France on one side, and the Soviet Union and China on the other side, ceased being allies and became Cold War adversaries instead. This made the original vision for the UN, especially for the UN Security Council, as the vehicle to help keep the peace, much more difficult and limited. Nonetheless, the UN has undertaken a number of important peacekeeping operations over the years, as in Angola, East Timor, and Cambodia. ⁸

Quincy Wright, in his path breaking work A Study of War (1941), stated that peace is a dynamic balance involving political, economic, social, cultural, and technological factors, and that war occurred when this balance broke down in the international system. The international system includes the overall pattern of relationships between states and International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and domestic public opinion within a state—the community level of analysis. Any significant change in one of the factors involved in the peace balance would require corresponding changes in other factors to restore the balance. ⁹

As one example, Robert Oppenheimer, the much misunderstood “father of the atomic bomb,” insisted on continuing to develop the atom bomb (based on a nuclear fission reaction), so that a global political institution, the UN, would have to be created to help control this new global military technology. Nonetheless, Oppenheimer did not support the later development of the hydrogen bomb (based on a nuclear fusion reaction), as Edward Teller did, who got Oppenheimer’s security clearance removed, leading to a later mental breakdown by Oppenheimer. ¹⁰

It is significant here that North Korea—as of September 2017—has just gone beyond testing atomic bombs (based on a nuclear fission reaction) to testing a hydrogen bomb (based on a much more complex and powerful nuclear fusion reaction). It is also working on developing an intercontinental ballistic missile delivery capability. These two developments have alarmed North Korea’s neighbors—including South Korea, Japan, and Guam, as well as the United States—an adversary of North Korea.

A systems view of peace sees the international system—if it can dynamically adjust to changes as they occur within the system—as the best solution for preventing war and preserving peace in the world. The numbers and types of actors in the international system have greatly increased since the UN was founded in 1945, as many former colonies got their independence and applied for UN membership, including representation in the UN General Assembly. Actors in the international system include not only nation states, but also international IGOs, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), multinational corporations (MNCs), grassroots local communities through a movement for a UN People’s Assembly, and also interested groups and individuals.

As the number of nation state actors in the international system, as well as different types of additional actors, has greatly increased over time, this has led to various proposals for reforming the UN system. These UN reform proposals over the years have included: Increasing the number of permanent member-state representatives in the UN Security Council (where UN peacekeeping operations must originate); changing the basis for how votes on policies are calculated in the UN system; as well as changing formulas for how the UN should be funded. These reform proposals have largely not passed, due to opposition from various vested interests, including those of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council with a veto power over peacekeeping operations there. ¹¹

Much discussion has also focused on issues of global governance, as increasing issues require global cooperation in our increasingly interdependent world—”if” solutions are to be found. (Important here is that “global governance” does not mean “global government,” since nation state members still retain their national sovereignty, which they have not given up to the UN.) A related issue focuses on creating civil societies and democratic participation within countries as the foundation for more peaceful relations between states and more citizen participation in the international system. ¹²

3  Eliminating physical and structural violence on macro levels: Galtung’s negative AND positive peace

In this third aspect of peace, Johan Galtung added the need to eliminate structural violence to the need to eliminate physical violence and war (Peace No. 1). Structural violence occurs when people suffer indirectly due to the structure of the system not meeting people’s needs when a different structure potentially could. The focus is thus on large scale, macro structural conditions—on international, national, and regional levels—that block people from getting their needs met when a different, more equitable structure potentially could. Such structural violence thus endangers human rights and makes social justice much more difficult to achieve.

This type of peace specifically views the international system and its structures—especially after years of colonialism and its aftermath—as inequitable and thus part of the problem, via perpetuating resource and human exploitation and unequal opportunities between developed and developing countries and peoples. In this type of peace, the structural inequities in the international system itself are seen as the major obstacles to creating world peace. This contrasts with Peace No. 2, where the international system (after two World Wars) was viewed as the best hope for maintaining world peace. (The outbreak of the Cold War after the UN system was created clearly made this more difficult, as discussed under Peace No. 2.)

Johan Galtung’s concepts of “negative peace” and “positive peace” are firmly accepted within the Peace Studies Field. Besides defining “negative peace” as the absence of war and physical violence, he defined “positive peace” (with a negative definition!) as the absence of “structural violence,” and further as avoidable deaths and suffering caused by the way large scale social, economic, and political structures are inequitably organized. Thus, to Galtung, if people starve to death when there is enough food to feed them somewhere in the world, or die from sickness when there is enough medicine to cure them (such as AIDS in recent years), then structural violence exists since alternative structures could, in theory, have prevented such avoidable deaths. ¹³

By opposing inequitable structures that block people from getting their basic needs met, when this theoretically should be possible—both within countries and regions and between countries globally—this type of peace strongly supports social and economic justice issues and the protection of basic human rights, as enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ¹⁴ This type of peace thus opposes racism and other forms of prejudice as antithetical to its goals of furthering social justice and more equal opportunities for all peoples.

A more recent update critiquing the international system and its international institutions as they relate to peace—as Galtung had done earlier—comes from the work of Oliver Richmond, who advocates a “hybrid, post liberal” or “local-liberal hybrid” approach to peace. He notes that the post-Cold War liberal peace experiment has “failed to connect with its [local] target populations,” who have thus sought ways to get their local needs met. The liberal effort, as viewed from local perspectives, is seen as offering “a universal normative and epistemological basis for peace,” via “top-down and distant processes” that appear to represent power interests over “humanitarian or emancipation” needs of local populations. This tension between local needs and universal liberal frameworks for peace has led to the creative emergence of a “local–liberal hybrid form of peace” that Richmond’s work has sought to document. ¹⁵

Beyond Richmond’s views, in further looking at the international system today, as well as many national and local systems, it is clear that many structural inequalities still exist, with the gap between rich and poor increasing, not decreasing, thereby making this third type of peace more difficult to achieve. Wealth is increasingly being concentrated in the hands of a very small percentage of people at the top, which is a very unhealthy situation for the body politic and for democracy, while also creating polarizing effects within many countries. This unhealthy wealth distribution is occurring not only in Western capitalist countries, but also in Russia today, after the fall of Communism, where some of the former top Communist Party leaders are now billionaire oligarchs. Some people have also become very wealthy in China, which calls its system “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” which means that a significant amount of capitalism exists.

While both capitalism and socialism are products of the industrial age, we have now moved on to the information age and beyond—based on a number of new technologies. ¹⁶ So far, while various experiments in alternative economics have occurred on micro levels (such as micro credit loans, printing local currencies, barter, and Mondragon Communities, as examples), a new, hopefully more equitable macro economic system has not yet emerged. When wealth is so inequitably distributed, democratic institutions are endangered (since democracy depends on a strong middle class), showing that creating the conditions for positive peace is more important than ever, but is not moving in the right direction at present.

With an ongoing movement towards increasing automation of production by robotics, more jobs are undoubtedly endangered in future, leading to needed alternatives, such as a guaranteed minimum income or universal basic income (UBI). The full outlines of such a future alternative economic system are still emerging, but are vitally important to address. While this system would provide a basic income for everyone, and hopefully help eliminate homelessness and extreme poverty, it is no guarantee that extreme wealth gaps would be eliminated, since jobs would still exist for some people, for which they would be paid in addition to their minimum guaranteed income. ¹⁷

4  Gender/feminist peace: Eliminating physical and structural violence on macro AND micro (community and family) levels, and eliminating patriarchal values and institutions

Gender/feminist peace extends the goal of eliminating both physical and structural violence from just macro system levels to also micro (local community and family) levels. In short, how can one expect to create peace on larger system levels if one has physical and/or structural violence in one’s own community and family?

Gender/feminist peace is not just for women, but for all peoples. It is inclusive of different genders and minorities in any society, and seeks to provide opportunities for physical safety and other educational and occupational opportunities in life for all peoples and groups, so that people can also develop their creative potential and thereby be given the tools to contribute back to the societies and world in which they live.

An important part of eliminating physical and structural violence—on macro, as well as micro levels—involves the need to eliminate patriarchal values, attitudes, and institutions on all levels that keep certain privileged groups in power, while making access to better educational and occupational opportunities more difficult for others. Patriarchal values and institutions implicitly and often explicitly further racist, sexist, and prejudicial attitudes and behavior of all kinds, thereby blocking opportunities for women and minorities in any society. When war, violence, or social conflict occurs, the targets are often, not surprisingly, women and minorities.

Besides rape in wartime or in one’s own community or home, Gender Peace deals with real issues of human trafficking, as well as kidnapping of women in wartime to service soldiers on the other side. Examples include Korean comfort women for the Japanese in World War II, as well as the kidnapping of women by Boko Haram in Nigeria and by ISIS in the Middle East today. What women undergo in such situations is horrendous.

During the 1970s and 1980s, feminist peace researchers ushered in this fourth aspect of peace, and, in the process, extended both negative peace and positive peace to include the elimination of both physical and structural violence at local community, family, and individual levels. This new definition of peace then includes not only abolishing macro level organized physical violence, such as war, but also eliminating micro level unorganized physical violence, such as rape or domestic violence in war or in the home. The concept of structural violence likewise includes both macro- and micro-level structures that harm or discriminate against particular individuals, ethnic communities, races or genders, thereby denying them opportunities available to other groups. Protection of individual and group rights has thus been extended to protect not only the rights of women and minorities, but also LGBTQ rights, and rights of gay people to marry. ¹⁸

This gender/feminist peace model came to include the elimination of all types of violence (physical and structural) on all levels, from individual, family, and community levels on up to the transnational level, as well as the elimination of patriarchal values, attitudes, and institutions on all levels, as necessary conditions for creating a more peaceful planet. ¹⁹

5  Holistic intercultural peace—between the world’s peoples and their diverse cultural, civilizational, and religious traditions

The goal here is not homogenization, but unity and interdependence, as well as an honoring of the great diversity of humanity and the unique gifts that each cultural tradition can contribute to humanity as a whole today. The challenge is to find a larger umbrella under which all the diversity of humanity can come together and find areas of common ground to move humanity forward, while still honoring that diversity. Whole fields of dialogue have emerged to help facilitate this process—including interpersonal dialogue, intercultural communication, the dialogue of civilizations, and interfaith dialogue—which all recognize that humanity must find ways to come together, create greater understanding, and recognize our increasing interdependence.

The interaction between cultures (defined broadly as socially learned behavior shared by people with common identities, values, lifestyles, and histories) has accelerated dramatically during recent centuries and decades. Too often the militarily stronger or economically more powerful culture has subordinated the militarily weaker or economically poorer one. Yet the world is becoming more interdependent each day and an honoring of the rich cultural diversity of the planet is an essential component of a future peaceful world.

While internal wars and cultural and ethnic violence have become global phenomena and foci for social science and peace research, especially in the post-Cold War period, wars with outside intervention—as in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as Syria today—have also polarized the world and destabilized countries already suffering from internal divisions. ²¹ The consequences of these wars have been and will be with us for years.

Despite the above, relations between cultural, ethnic, racial, and religious groups can also be positive, creative experiences that enrich the lives of everyone involved. The fields of intercultural communication and interreligious dialogue as well as other prejudice reduction techniques, provide people with positive tools for dealing with cultural and religious diversity. ²²

A few principles of intercultural communication and interfaith dialogue follow. A basic principle in the intercultural field is that “the message sent is often not the message received.” In short, we speak or act with a certain intention and interpretation about what our words or actions mean within our own culture, but the person receiving those words or observing that behavior may interpret it differently, relative to how those words or behavior are viewed—as basically acceptable or not—within that other person’s culture. ²³

Two examples from US and Japanese cultures illustrate this point, where behavior that is appropriate and acceptable in one culture is not in the other culture. One example concerns the rhythm of communication in both cultures. In US culture, people often interrupt each other when speaking, while in Japan this is considered very rude. Instead one should wait until the other person has totally finished speaking, then pause and reflect on what they have said before beginning to reply. ²⁴

A second example deals with where one focuses one’s eyes. In the US, it is proper to look someone directly in the eyes when talking to them. Indeed, if one does not do this, the interpretation is often that they are hiding something or even lying. In Japan, in contrast, it is traditionally considered too direct and intrusive to look someone directly in the eyes. Instead one should look more at the other person’s Adam’s Apple to show respect, although behavior of young people or people who have lived in the West can diverge from this— especially when they are speaking with Westerners. ²⁵

To clarify the above points, the intercultural field also recommends learning to distinguish between D, I, and E, i.e., between describing the behavior of someone from another culture (just the facts of what they said or did); interpreting the meaning of that behavior (which, if one does not know the other person’s culture, will be based on what that behavior means within one’s own culture, which could be totally different, thus leading to misinterpreting the meaning behind the behavior of someone from that other culture); and finally evaluating or judging that behavior as negative or positive. Here a misinterpretation of the meaning of the behavior of someone from another culture can often lead to a negative judgment of their behavior because it was not understood within the context of the other person’s culture, where that behavior might have been seen as totally acceptable. ²⁶

In short, behavior that is acceptable in one culture may NOT be the desired, acceptable behavior in another culture, illustrating how important it is that people do a bit of homework before visiting another culture, to learn basic dos and don’ts of behavior in that other culture. Also recommended is to observe the behavior of leaders in that other culture concerning what is acceptable behavior or not, as well as finding a local person as mentor with whom one can consult about how to behave in different situations in that other person’s culture. ²⁷

Like the intercultural field, there are also principles that guide behavior in the interfaith and interreligious area, where people from different faiths come together to interact and dialogue with each other to seek greater understanding between them. A few of these principles include: Be open to listening, without judgment, to the spiritual journeys, views, and experiences of people practicing another religion; do not try to convert someone from their religion to your religion, since that does not show respect to their tradition; do not try to create one world religion, but respect the diversity of traditions; let people speak from their own experience about what it means to practice their religion; allow the possibility of some common spiritual experiences or principles—such as the Golden Rule—to emerge, that underlie diverse spiritual traditions; remember that the goal is to increase understanding, but not necessarily agreement on all issues between people from different faith traditions; realize that one can enrich one’s own tradition via being open to dialoging with people from other faith traditions without having to leave one’s own tradition; and realize that the search for deeper meaning in life, which religion addresses, has motivated human beings from all traditions from pre-history to today. ²⁸

In conclusion, Intercultural Peace requires that everyone realize that every culture is a different learned map or version of reality (not ultimate reality), and that every culture has particular gifts (based on their geographic and historical experiences and learning) that they can bring to the table of humanity today. Intercultural peace requires the positive co-evolution of cultures at both macro and micro levels and the recognition that the whole diverse global cultural mix is a cause of strength for humanity, in the same way that the rich diversity of living plants and animal species is seen as a strength for an ecosystem and for the Earth.

6  Holistic Gaia Peace—of humans with the earth and other species

If people can make peace with each other (Peace No. 5), then can humanity also make peace with the Earth, which is arguably in crisis for many reasons today? Many experts believe we are already in the sixth mass extinction of species on the planet, with the fifth mass extinction being the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. ²⁹ This extinction is being caused by human dominance of the Earth, in what is now being called a new geological age—the Anthropocene Age. ³⁰

Climate change and global warming are other huge problems, with extreme weather patterns increasing, as seen in recent earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. An ongoing shift from the use of nonrenewable fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) from the Industrial Age to renewable energy sources is also necessary, since fossil fuels release CO₂ into the atmosphere, which increases global warming and creates pollution. If humanity does not deal adequately with global climate change, the ice caps at the poles will keep melting, oceans will rise, threatening coastal cities around the world, which could lead to mass migrations of people and to increasing conflicts over scarce resources, food, and places to live. This is an enormous task facing humanity today. ³¹

It is also clear that the US must rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015 (which President Obama strongly supported and which President Trump withdrew US support for, making the US one of only three, and now two countries in the world not supporting this agreement). While this agreement is imperfect and based on voluntary goals set by countries, it is nonetheless an essential step in the right direction in terms of the world finally acknowledging how important the issue of limiting CO₂ emissions is for the future of humanity and the planet. ³²

Gaia Peace is named after Gaia, the ancient Greek goddess of Earth. In addition to the earlier types of peace, Holistic Gaia Peace—peace with Mother Earth and all her diverse ecosystems and species—also sees the Earth as a complex, self-organizing living system or being, of which humans are a part (not separate). It places all forms of peace between people within this broader ecological context. In some cases, the Gaia concept is interpreted scientifically, in terms of a complex biochemical, energy system, as in James Lovelock’s Gaia Hypothesis. In other cases, the inner, spiritual aspects of Gaia are also seen as essential, and Gaia or Earth is also seen as a sacred, living being or Goddess—in effect representing the soul of the Earth. ³³

Gaia Peace requires peace between people at all levels of analysis—from individual and family levels to the global cultural level, while also placing a very high value on the relationship of humans to bioenvironmental systems—the environmental level of analysis. Peace with the environment, sustainable development (that does not take from nature at a faster rate than it can replenish itself) and responsible stewardship of the Earth are seen as central to this type of peace. Without the food, energy, and resources provided by Earth, there could be no human or other life on the planet and also no human economic, social, or other systems.

It is significant here that the Earth can survive without humans, but humans cannot survive without the Earth! Too often, however, humans—especially in the West—mistakenly think they are separate from nature and can just take the Earth’s resources to further their human ends, without regard for the health of the Earth itself, or regard for the survival of the many other species now endangered or extinct from human dominance of the Earth. ³⁴ This is not a sustainable situation for our human and planetary futures.

In an effort to encourage countries and peoples around the world to deal more responsibly with how humanity relates to the Earth and other species, the UN first adopted, in 2000, eight UN Millennium Development Goals for 2000–2015, and now, in 2015, seventeen UN Sustainable Development Goals for 2015–2030. ³⁵ These seventeen UN Sustainable Development Goals indicate the large number of interrelated factors contributing to these Earth crises today, and what policies we humans must adopt if we are to have hope of dealing more effectively with all these human and ecological challenges. ³⁶

Indigenous peoples—who have always seen themselves as part of nature and also as caretakers and a voice for the Earth—also warn us that the Earth is in crisis and dying in various places today because of our neglect and greed. Thus human rights must be expanded to acknowledge both rights of the Earth (our life support system, on which all of our futures depend), as well as rights of other species to survive, realizing that the futures of both Earth and many diverse species now rest in human hands. For this to happen, humans must consciously set aside territory as habitats for many different species, if they are going to be able to survive. ³⁷

7  Holistic inner/outer peace

This last aspect of peace adds finding inner peace (using methods from all the world’s spiritual–religious traditions) to all the forms of outer peace covered above. Inner peace was the last aspect of peace added to Western peace research, but it is the central aspect of peace in Eastern traditions. The idea here is that finding peace within oneself first is a necessary precondition for creating any kind of lasting peace in the world. If a person has inner conflicts and negative feelings that they have not yet dealt with or acknowledged within themselves, then they can project those negative feelings out onto others and accuse them of having what one has not yet acknowledged or dealt with within oneself. This is the basis for prejudice in the world—another source of conflict. Using prayer and meditation to find inner peace and radiate love and interconnectedness out to the world is central here.

While inner peace can be just psychological, it frequently has a spiritual dimension that acknowledges some spiritual or transcendent aspect to life beyond just the physical world of our outer five senses. Inner peace then draws on the world’s rich spiritual–religious traditions, including their mystical aspects—with mysticism being defined as “a direct experience of ultimate reality,” and uses different forms of prayer and meditation (including breathing techniques, chanting, visualizations, and various forms of yoga) as tools to become centered within and reach deeper states of inner peace. ³⁸

This approach to peace recognizes different dimensions and levels of consciousness related to inner peace, just as different aspects of outer peace have been elaborated above. For example, Eastern spiritual traditions talk about seven chakras or energy centers in the body that are each related to different aspects and levels of consciousness. The goal is to move kundalini energy up through the chakras in one’s spinal column, experiencing a parallel evolution through different states of inner awareness and consciousness in the process. ³⁹

This spiritual dimension is expressed in different ways, depending on one’s cultural and religious background and context, and draws on centuries of experience by spiritual masters from the East, indigenous cultures, and some more ancient Western cultures, where such traditions were more developed and honored than in some modern Western culture. Even in the West, however, there is now much greater interest in such spiritual topics and practices, including a greater openness to exploring such inner dimensions of consciousness and peace. Western medicine and hospitals are also recognizing the important role of stress reduction techniques, such as meditation, in healing, due to an increasing recognition of the mind–body connection.

Eastern cultures and religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, have produced many mystics, avatars, and spiritual seers who have focused on the importance of inner peace as an essential condition for creating a more peaceful world. In this view, all aspects of outer peace, including one’s perception and experience of reality and the world, reflect one’s inner state of consciousness and must therefore be based on inner peace.

The emergence of more holistic peace paradigms within peace research—whether in intercultural, environmental, and/or spiritual areas—has included an increasing emphasis on positive conceptions of peace. In part, this is because of our realization that, whatever our nationality, culture, or religious tradition, we are all interconnected and interdependent. Viewed from space, planet Earth is a beautiful blue-green sphere, without national borders, but with land, water, ice caps, deserts, forests, and clouds supporting one interdependent planetary web of life based on multiple, interacting ecological systems. We as individuals and groups are but a part of the planet, as the planet itself is a part of the solar system, galaxy, and universe. This whole system’s mindset (of seeing reality as systems within systems within systems) enables an appreciation of the interdependence of species in regional ecosystems and in the global complex web of life; of particular cultural meanings in the context of the total global mix of humanity’s diverse cultural expressions; and of particular faiths in the rich diversity of global spiritual and religious traditions—all contributing to the tapestry of the whole. The whole is more than the sum of the parts, and the greater the variety of the parts, the richer the expression of the global whole.