There are peaceful societies in our world. How have they managed to live together in peace with their neighbors? A multidisciplinary group of scholars began gathering in 2014 to find answers. Social entrepreneurs and professors, Peter T. Coleman and Joshua D. Fisher, are part of the Advanced Consortium on Cooperation, Conflict and Complexity, and The Earth Institute at Columbia University. Their Sustaining Peace Project involves psychologists, anthropologists, philosophers, astrophysicists, environmental scientists, political scientists, and communication researchers. Just bringing such diverse disciplines together peacefully orchestrates a model for peace systems.
America currently is tuned into war systems. Globally, military spending is speeding up as more countries encounter violent conflict than in the previous 30 years. Peace systems are “clusters of neighboring societies that do not make war with each other.” For example, none of the 5 Nordic nations have made war inside or outside their borders for over 200 years. Unfortunately, this cannot be said for the U.S.
A possibility roadmap for peace was found by the collaborative scholars. It seems intuitive, but somehow people are not aware of the simple power of peace or how to get “there.” The inclusive work of the Sustaining Peace Project suggests that “sustaining peace can be understood as a high ratio of positive intergroup reciprocity to negative intergroup reciprocity that is stable over time.”
On a micro-level, family systems co-exist peacefully with the same positivity-fueled reciprocity. Marriage researchers John and Julie Gottman study couples intensely. John Gottman began longitudinal work on couples in the 1970’s. Gottman Institute research finds that stable, happy couples have at least a 5:1 ratio of positive interactions to negative interactions, especially necessary in trauma and conflictual situations. Unhappy couples exhibit fewer positive interactions that might counterbalance negative communication. If their positive-to-negative ratio is 1:1 or less, a couple may be headed for break-up. High conflict, unhappy couples in their relationship’s end time engage in what Gottman refers to as “The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse:”
- Criticism – An attack on one’s partner and their character, not just a complaint comment.
- Contempt – Disrespect that goes further than criticism; sarcasm or ridicule spews out, denoting a moral superiority over one’s partner.
- Defensiveness – An excuse-making response to criticism that often includes reversing the blaming.
- Stonewalling – A response which involves one individual withdrawing, often acting “busy” or engaging in obsessive and/or distracting behaviors.
While peaceful couples and countries have differing ways in which they cultivate peace, there are some commonalities. Peaceful groups have an overarching common identity (a shared national or regional identity that seeks commonalities between ethnic differences). There is focus on positive interconnectedness in terms of economics, ecology, and security. Peaceful societies commemorate successful peacemakers. Public spaces and institutions bring members of different groups together. The single-most critical contributor to peace is identified in non-warring norms, rituals, and values. Peace language and peace leadership call for dialogue and consensus-building.
Pearls of Peace (PoP) Quiz
466. How might you incorporate more peacefulness in your relationships?
467. What consensus-building success have you ever experienced?
Pearls of Peace: A Family Psychologist’s Circle-of-Life Blog 