PEACE AND CONFLICT: JOURNAL OF PEACE PSYCHOLOGY, 10(2), 101–116

Copyright © 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

A Definition of Peace
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Royce Anderson
International Center of Worcester

Although various definitions of peace appear in the literature, there is no consensus

on a conceptually clear definition to guide researchers in developing measurement
procedures and indicators. This article proposes a definition of peace and develops
guidelines for operationalizing the definition and establishing measurement proce-
dures with specific indicators. Peace is defined as a two-dimensional construct with
both objective and subjective measures that must be studied within specific micro to
macro contexts. A measurement model is proposed and direction is given to develop-
ing specific indicators for the elements of that model.

The Clark University Conference on Assessing Cultures of Peace, held in Septem-

ber 2001, focused on the issues outlined in the “Declaration and Programme of Ac-
tion on a Culture of Peace” (United Nations [UN], 1999). One conclusion drawn
from the animated discussion among the assembled scholars was that the notion of
peace should be distinguished from the notion of a culture of peace, and that a mea-
surement of peacefulness should be developed that is independent of an assessment
of culture. The question of how to define peace, however, was not resolved.
The following discussion emerges from this issue of defining peace. Although
the definition of peace has been discussed (see, e.g., the survey of definitions and
definitional issues in Rapoport, 1999) and a number of definitions have been pro-
posed (see, e.g., Fogarty, 2000; Galtung, 1969; Groff, 2001b; Peace Forum, 2000,
2001), there has been no focused effort to develop a conceptually rigorous defini-
tion that guides researchers to develop valid, reliable, and useful measures.
This article takes a purely conceptual approach, submitting a definition of
peace for analysis and evaluation. Based on this definition, guidelines for mea-
surement are proposed and suggestions are made for developing indicators of
peace. Although it is beyond the scope of this article to gather and analyze data, the

Requests for reprints should be sent to Royce Anderson, Executive Director, International Center of
Worcester, 138 Woodland Street, Worcester, MA 01610. E-mail: randerson@clarku.edu
 102 ANDERSON

guidelines and suggestions presented here are specific enough to lead to data
sources and to the development of survey instruments.

COLLOQUIAL DEFINITIONS OF PEACE

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Exploring a definition of peace might begin by outlining how popular understand-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

ings of peace differ across languages and cultures. Virtually all Western language
definitions emphasize the absence of war and other forms of overt violence as a key
component of peace. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary gives its first def-
inition of the word peace as “freedom from, or cessation of, war or hostilities; that
condition of a nation or community in which it is not at war with another” (1989, p.
383). All the definitions that follow in the Oxford English Dictionary include the
notion of “freedom from” civil commotion, individual perturbation, dissention be-
tween individuals, mental or spiritual disturbance, noise, movement, or activity.
The English word peace derives from the Latin word pax, which has a some-
what more legalistic meaning. The Oxford Latin Dictionary gives the first defini-
tion of pax as “a pact (to end or avert hostilities), settlement, peace” (1977, p.
1314). It goes on to point out that it “applies to relations between individuals”
(1977, p. 1314). Other definitions parallel the English definitions. The emphasis,
however, is on peace flowing from a civil or divine source that keeps the peace
through contractual relations. Peace is seen as a relationship among people based
on a common agreement or understanding.
The concept of peace takes on additional nuances when drawn from non-West-
ern languages and cultures. For example, the Hebrew and Arabic words for peace,
shalom and salaam, respectively, derive from the root shalev, meaning “whole” or
“undivided.” This is also the root for the word Islam. Hindi and Sanscrit have sev-
eral words for peace. Avirodha stems from the word virodha, which means “war,”
and is consistent with Western definitions of peace as the absence of war. How-
ever, other Sanscrit words for peace, shanti and chaina, reflect, respectively, a
spiritual or inner peace and a mental peace or calmness. In Chinese, peace is writ-
ten as a combination of two characters, one meaning harmony and the other mean-
ing equality or balance. Taken together, the symbols mean harmony in balance. In
Chinese there is no word for peace as the absence of war. The Japanese term for
peace, linguistically derived from Chinese but reflecting a distinct culture, is also a
combination of two characters indicating harmony, simplicity, and quietness.
Whereas most Western definitions of peace tend to emphasize the absence of
violence, Eastern definitions tend to be positive in the sense that peace means the
presence of certain characteristics rather than the absence of negative characteris-
tics. A truly global understanding of peace should include both the absence of fac-
tors such as violence and the presence of factors such as balance, harmony, and
unbrokenness.
 A DEFINITION OF PEACE 103

These definitions give validity to the definition proposed in this article. Al-
though a thorough literature review is beyond the scope of this essay, I have made
an effort to reflect the issues arising from that literature, giving special attention to
measurement issues. The goal is to clarify and stimulate further discussion of the
definition of peace and the nature of peaceful cultures.
It is important to distinguish, however, between cultures “of” peace and cul-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

tures “at” peace. Certainly it is possible for a culture of peace to be, sometimes, at
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

war—such as occupied Denmark during World War II. Likewise, a warlike culture
can certainly have times when it is at peace. A society’s adherence to peace as a
cultural value and behavioral norm is different from whether it, at a given point in
time, exhibits a peaceful condition. This difference can be expressed as peace as a
“trait” as opposed to peace as a “state.” Peace, as defined in this article, is state
peace. A peaceful culture, on the other hand, is one where peace is a cultural trait.
Without a clear definition of state peace, a conceptually clear discussion of peace-
ful cultures is severely handicapped.

DEFINITION OF PEACE

Based on an overview of the peace literature, a consideration of the definitions of

peace in various languages and subsequent collegial discussion, I propose the fol-
lowing definition of peace:

Peace is a condition in which individuals, families, groups, communities,

and/or nations experience low levels of violence and engage in mutually har-
monious relationships.

This definition reflects several essential characteristics that are discussed in this ar-
ticle. These characteristics are linked to the key words in the definition.

Peace Is a Condition or State

The definition indicates that peace is a condition, which, therefore, exhibits charac-
teristics that can be measured by what are traditionally referred to as “objective”
measures: statistics, including archival data, that measure levels of violence and in-
cidents of mutually harmonious relationships.
The view of peace as a state does not necessarily imply that it is a static concept.
In a simple sense, peace as a “process” simply acknowledges that states can evolve
over time. Peace can describe the state of a system that can fluctuate across various
levels of peacefulness. Measures can be taken, therefore, at various points in time
to show changes over time.
 104 ANDERSON

In a deeper sense, peace as a process might be interpreted as implying that peace is

the very process of working toward peace. Indeed, the September 2001 Clark Uni-
versity Conference proposed that peace be defined as “the settlement of conflict by
means that do not involve the use of physical violence.” I would caution, however,
that a distinction must be made between peace as a process and the precursors of
peace. Although peaceful cultures may indeed settle conflicts nonviolently, the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

characteristics of a peaceful condition should not be confused with the preconditions

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

or methods that lead to peace. In measurement terminology, the task is to distinguish

between indicators of peace and the independent variables that lead to peace.

Peace Is Experienced

The definition indicates that peace is experienced by people and can therefore be
measured by subjective evaluations. Though peace can be partially measured by
objective measures, comprehensive measures of peace should also include subjec-
tive indicators that reflect people’s personal evaluations and experience of peace.
Subjective measures present a greater challenge to data gathering and scale de-
velopment. They require the development of attitudinal surveys designed for this
purpose with individuals as the unit of measurement. Though theoretically possi-
ble, it may be difficult to find archival data or existing studies that provide subjec-
tive data in the appropriate form. Issues in developing such measures are discussed
in the following section.

Peace Exists Within Specific Contexts

The definition indicates that peace is a condition that is experienced by individ-

uals, families, groups, communities, and nations. It is, in other words, experienced
within any of several contexts or, as Groff (2001b) called them, “multiple system
levels” based on Galtung’s (1969) concept of “levels of actors” within a social sys-
tem. These contexts form a spectrum ranging from micro to macro. Although this
spectrum can be segmented in a variety of ways, the various typologies of peace in
the literature suggest the contexts shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 shows the spectrum from micro to macro and suggests seven divisions
from “personal” to “ecological.” The footnote explains the anomaly of “Gaia”
peace, which, although indicated in the literature, is problematic and perhaps
should not be included. If Gaia peace is not included, the remaining spectrum of
personal to international covers virtually all extant studies of peace.
In whatever way the contexts of peace are categorized, they dramatize the inter-
connectedness of peace from micro to macro. Comprehensive or “global” mea-
sures of peace should include the full spectrum. As a practical matter, however,
 A DEFINITION OF PEACE 105
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

FIGURE 1 Contexts of peace.

any single research study would probably have a more limited scope, focusing on
one or a few contexts. Researchers should define the scope of any particular study
by making explicit which context or contexts are its focus.

Peace Has Two Dimensions

The definition of peace indicates two dimensions. The first dimension is a “vio-
lence” dimension, consistent with the notion of “negative peace” in the literature
(see, e.g., Galtung, 1969; Groff, 2001b). The violence dimension is measured along
a continuum from low to high levels of violence, with lower levels of violence re-
flecting higher levels of peace.
Although this begs the question of how to define violence, it is not a problem for
the definition of peace proposed here: In whatever way violence is defined, peace
is defined as low levels of it. No one would disagree that war and killing are exam-
ples of violence. The debate is over where to draw the line between violence and
other forms of behavior. For example, is telling a child “no” an example of vio-
 106 ANDERSON

lence? Is disciplining a child violence? How about physical discipline? No one

would disagree that wantonly beating or killing a child is violence. But where
along this spectrum of behaviors does one cross over into violence? The answer to
this question influences the choice of possible indicators of violence.
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines violence as
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high
likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or de-
privation. (Krug et al., 2002)

The WHO considers violent death as a major health problem and identifies vio-
lence as the leading cause of death worldwide for people 15 to 44 years old. It col-
lects data on violent deaths from more than 100 countries around the world. These
data reflect the WHO’s conceptual definition of violence given here.
Galtung (1969) favored an even more extended concept of violence: “Violence
is present when human beings are being influenced so that their actual somatic and
mental realizations are below their potential realizations” (p. 168). He admitted
(and I concur) that “this statement may lead to more problems than it solves” (p.
168). For example, the problems around measuring “potential realizations” are
probably insurmountable. But his main point was to reject a narrow concept of vio-
lence as including only physical violence. He agreed that other, better definitions
of violence and peace are possible and should be explored.
By itself, however, the violence dimension does not provide an adequate defini-
tion of peace. The peace literature, colloquial definitions, and basic intuition agree
that the mere reduction of violence does not constitute peace. Cease-fires, cold
wars, and “Texas standoffs” do not describe genuinely peaceful conditions. The
term cold peace has recently entered journalism, describing the situation in which
violence is reduced but there is no genuine peace. Reduction of violence is a neces-
sary, but not sufficient, condition for peace. Other “positive” conditions must be
present before a situation can be considered genuinely peaceful.
The second dimension of peace indicated by our definition is a “harmony” di-
mension, which refers to the degree that individuals, families, groups, communities,
or nations are engaged in mutually harmonious relationships. This implies that those
in a peaceful relationship exhibit positive relationships. It is consistent with the no-
tion of “positive peace” in the literature. It is measured along a spectrum from lesser
to greater engagement in harmonious relationships. Galtung (1969) identified a pos-
itive dimension of peace with “cooperation,” “integration,” and “social justice,”
with higher levels of these factors indicating higher levels of peace.
An interesting metaphorical parallel to this two-dimensional concept of peace
is the two-dimensional definition of health given by the WHO constitution of
1948: “A state of complete physical, social and mental well-being, and not merely
 A DEFINITION OF PEACE 107

the absence of disease or infirmity.” The WHO and the Centers for Disease Con-
trol gather data on quality of life as an indicator of this positive dimension of
health. Just as health is defined as more than the absence of disease, peace has a
positive dimension that reflects more than the mere absence of violence. The core
concept in this positive dimension of peace points to the quality of the relation-
ships among those individuals or groups in a peaceful relationship.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

The literature on peace (see, e.g., Galtung, 1969; Groff, 2001a) speaks of the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

elimination of “structural violence” as an aspect of a positive dimension of peace.

Structural violence is described as those social, economic, and political conditions
embedded in the social structure that systematically contribute to the violence, in-
equality, injustice, or lack of access to social services that contribute to the deaths,
poor health, or repression of individuals or groups of individuals within a society.
Establishing social institutions that reduce structural violence has, therefore, been
identified with the concept of positive peace.
This captures to some extent the notion of positive peace in the harmony dimen-
sion proposed here: Reducing structural violence does imply positive relationships
within and between social groups. But the concept of structural violence needs to
be further clarified in the context of the definition of peace proposed here. There
are two confounding issues.
First, to the extent that peace is viewed as the elimination of factors that can be
subsumed under the term violence, the elimination of structural violence simply
reflects the first “negative” dimension of peace. If one accepts an expanded defini-
tion of violence that includes all suggested aspects of structural violence, peace
merely involves the reduction of this type of violence along with other forms of vi-
olence. The WHO definition of violence given above does cover many of the pro-
posed aspects of structural violence. How, then, does structural violence relate to
the second, positive dimension of peace?
Second, to the extent that eliminating structural violence means creating posi-
tive conditions and institutions that lead to peace, these conditions and institutions
are better viewed as prerequisites to peace (i.e., independent variables of peace)
rather than characteristics of peace itself. It is important to distinguish between the
concept of peace and other correlated concepts that are necessary preconditions of
peace.
Structural violence is a key concept in the peace literature, and it does support
the notion of the second dimension of peace as proposed in this article. It is neces-
sary, however, to untangle from it those aspects that point to the violence dimen-
sion of peace and those aspects that indicate preconditions and correlates of peace.
The definition of peace proposed in this article indicates that well-balanced
measures of peace must include indicators of both violence and harmonious rela-
tionships. Both dimensions are essential components of peace. Our definition also
implies that peacemaking efforts and programs must strive in two directions: the
reduction of violence and the building of harmonious relationships.
 108 ANDERSON

OPERATIONALIZING THE CONCEPT OF PEACE

Summarizing the previous discussion, a comprehensive measure of peace should

include objective and subjective measures of the violence and harmony dimensions
within one or more contexts. The main considerations in measuring and explaining
peace are, therefore
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

1. Peace is measured within one or more specific contexts, micro to macro.

2. Peace consists of two continuous dimensions: Violence and Harmony.
3. These dimensions are measured both objectively and subjectively.

Expressing these propositions as a mathematical model

1. Peace is measured within specific contexts, micro to macro. Comprehen-

sive or all-pervasive Peace (Π) is a function of all contexts from micro to
macro.
Π = f(P1, …, Pc)

where c is the total number of contexts.

2. Within a given context, c, Peace is a function of two dimensions: Violence
and Harmony.

Pc = f(–V, H)

3. These dimensions are measured both objectively and subjectively.

V = f(VO,VS)

H = f(HO,HS)

Combining these functions (considering only one context, c) yields the following
measurement model:

Pc = f(–f[VO,VS], f[HO,HS])

Selecting Indicators of Peace

This model needs to be translated into practical methodologies for measuring

peace. This requires developing indicators of the fundamental elements of the
above model.
 A DEFINITION OF PEACE 109
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

FIGURE 2 Reduced contexts of peace.

The first step is to specify the context in which peace is being measured. The
column in Figure 2, labeled “Extended Contexts,” shows the contexts of peace
given in Figure 1.
In an effort to simplify this typology, the column labeled “Reduced Contexts”
shows three general contexts of peace: global, cultural, and personal. These con-
texts also reflect the level of specificity at which measurements are taken. For ex-
ample, personal peace is measured at the individual level of measurement. In
contrast, measures of cultural peace, even if gathered from individual question-
naires, are averaged across individuals and analyzed at the group or cultural level.
Many studies of peace focus on the peacefulness of nations. For purposes of il-
lustration here, I have used national peace as an example of how to develop mea-
sures of peace. In accordance with my measurement model, the first step is to
specify the context. Following the reduced contexts of peace in Figure 2, do I mean
cultural peace or global peace? That is, do I mean peace within the country or be-
tween countries? Domestic peace and peace with other nations represent two dis-
tinct contexts that should be analyzed separately.
Recognizing the distinction between these two contexts, the next step is to find in-
dicators for the four basic components of the measurement model discussed above:

VO—objective indicators of violence

VS—subjective indicators of violence
HO—objective indicators of harmony
HS—subjective indicators of harmony
 110 ANDERSON

TABLE 1
Indicators of Peace

Two Dimensions of Peace

Violence Harmony

Context Objective (VO) Subjective (VS) Objective (HO) Subjective (HS)

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Global Statistics on deaths Individual Statistics on cooperative Individual

and injuries assessment of agreements, assessment of
caused by levels of international travel, levels of
international international and ongoing international
violence. violence communication harmony
between countries
Cultural Statistics on deaths Individual Statistics on programs Individual
and injuries assessment of promoting social assessment of
caused by levels of violence integration, free levels of
violence within within one’s own travel, and active harmony within
a country country communication a country
within a country

To ensure a good balance between these four measurement components, Table

1 provides a matrix that can be filled in with indicators for the four components. In-
dicators of each of the four components are placed in the body of the table.

VO—Objective indicators of violence. The best objective indicators of vi-

olence would be statistics on violence. In the contexts of cultural and global peace,
it would include the degree of violence within nations (cultural context) and be-
tween nations (global context).
Earlier I touched on the issue of how broadly violence should be defined.
Clearly, statistics on deaths caused by intentional violent acts would be included.
Other forms of violence such as numbers of people injured, tortured, incarcerated,
displaced, or otherwise victimized by overt violence should also be included. Ad-
ditional indicators could be suggested, based on expanded definitions of what con-
stitutes violence. Any choice of indicators must conform to a specifically stated
definition of violence.
If one follows the WHO definition of violence, one then has online access
through the WHO Statistical Information System (WHOSIS) to the WHO Mor-
tality Database (http://www3.who.int/whosis/menu.cfm), which provides data on
violent deaths for a large number of countries. In the WHO World Report on Vi-
olence and Health (Krug et al., 2002), these data are combined under the desig-
nation “mortality caused by intentional injury,” which includes homicide,
suicide, war-related injuries, and legal interventions. Though these data can be
 A DEFINITION OF PEACE 111

disaggregated by returning to the raw data, “intentional injury” provides a good

indicator of levels of violence within a nation (cultural violence).
The WHO also gathers data on violent deaths caused by “collective violence,”
which includes war, terrorism, genocide, repression, involuntary disappearance,
torture, and organized crime. These statistics relate to global peace to the extent
that they indicate international violence.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

It is important to identify the number of deaths inflicted by a country on another

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

country rather than merely the number of deaths suffered by a country. For exam-
ple, to measure the global peacefulness of the United States, it would be an unbal-
anced measure to count only the number of American casualties. It is also
important to measure the number of deaths suffered by other countries caused by
American military activity.
How broadly researchers define violence is key to determining the number
and range of peace indicators. But there is also a measurement issue: Do addi-
tional indicators add information to the understanding of peace? If, for example,
researchers wish to rank various nations in order of how violent they are, they
could begin by using statistics on violent deaths. This would give a ranking.
Now, if the researchers were to include more indicators, such as nonfatal injuries
due to violence, would this provide a different and more valid rank-ordering of
nations (and thus explain more variance)? In other words, could there be nations
that, even though they have relatively fewer violent deaths, should be classified
as more violent because they have relatively higher levels of intentional injuries
or other types of violence? The WHO (Krug et al., 2002) indicates that mortality
does not give a complete picture of violence and advocates gathering data on in-
jury and other factors (see the aforementioned WHO definition of violence). The
best combination of indicators for violence can be determined only by gathering
and testing actual data.

VS—Subjective indicators of violence. Subjective indicators of violence

measure individual perceptions of violence. In the contexts of cultural and global
peace, these include people’s assessments of levels of violence within their country
(cultural context) and of the levels of violence due to conflict between their own
and other countries (global context). For this there is no substitute for individual sur-
vey data consisting of single- or multiple-item measures with an attitudinal response
scale indicating relatively higher or lower levels of subjectively experienced vio-
lence. These types of subjective indicators of violence are included in Table 1.
The task of scale development goes beyond the scope of this article, but a sin-
gle-item assessment in the context of cultural peace might be a phrase such as, “How
do you assess the level of violence in your country?” followed by a 5-point scale
ranging from 1 (not at all violent) to 5 (very violent). A multiple-item scale would in-
clude separate items covering various aspects of violence assessed separately.
 112 ANDERSON

Subjective evaluations of violence may vary widely among groups of people

and may differ from actual statistics on (actual likelihood of) violence. It is an in-
teresting point of analysis to see whether people’s subjective evaluations underes-
timate or overestimate objective indicators. There may be wide differences among
groups as to these differences. Some Americans, for example, may rate the threat
of violence much higher than do other Americans. These differences may correlate
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

with individual differences such as age, education, economic status, geographical

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

location, and various attitudinal measures. For example, would more educated
Americans give higher or lower estimates of the probability of violence than
would less educated Americans?

HO—Objective indicators of harmony. The harmony dimension of peace

is a more subtle and textured phenomenon and is therefore a greater challenge for
conceptual development and measurement. It should capture incidents and efforts
to establish and cultivate mutually beneficial relationships. In the context of global
peace, objective indicators of harmonious relationships would include the number
of efforts between countries to establish and improve mutually harmonious rela-
tionships. These efforts might be indicated by the amount of cooperative agree-
ments, international travel, and ongoing communication between countries.
These indicators could include international agreements between govern-
ments (federal, state, and local), communities, businesses, and nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs). Travel could include the number of people on academic
and professional exchange programs, those traveling for business, and tourists.
Communication would include phone, mail, and e-mail–Internet communica-
tions. These indicators reflect the degree of harmony, cooperation, and integra-
tion between countries—between their governments, communities, groups, and
individuals.
In the context of national peace I would include similar indicators reflecting
harmonious relationships within a country: programs promoting cooperation, so-
cial integration, free travel, and active communication.
Higher levels of these indicators reflect more harmony; lower levels indicate
less harmony. The implication is that a genuine peace cannot be established by
separation, isolation, or building barriers between conflicting parties. Though this
may reduce violence and establish a “cold peace,” it will not establish harmony.
Without incidents and efforts to promote harmony, peace is incomplete.

HS—Subjective indicators of harmony. Subjective indicators of the har-

mony dimension would include a set of indicators reflecting people’s perceptions
and experience of mutually beneficial, harmonious relationships. De Rivera (2002)
suggested “perception of positive relationships” as a possible type of indicator. In
 A DEFINITION OF PEACE 113

the context of cultural peace researchers could include individual perceptions of

harmony within a country. Subjective indicators of global peace would include in-
dividual perceptions of harmony between one’s own and other countries.
A single-item measure of cultural peace might be a question such as “How har-
monious are the relationships among people within your country?” followed by a
5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all harmonious) to 5 (very harmonious). Alter-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

nately, a multiple-item scale could include separate questionnaire items covering

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

various aspects of harmony such as social integration, freedom of travel, and wide-
spread communication. Similar measures could also be developed for the global
context.
Bogardus’s (1925) Social Distance Scale has been used to measure subjectively
the relative integration versus alienation among social groups. It is usually applied in
studies of perceptions and relations among racial groups. It is a self-administered
multiple-item scale asking people to rate their willingness to engage in various lev-
els of interactions with other groups of people, ranging from shaking hands to mar-
riage. This scale may have potential applications in peace research as well. It is not
usually valid to apply scales outside of the context in which they were developed.
But it may be possible to develop a similar scale in the context of cultural and global
peace that would include behaviors such as intergovernmental agreements, commu-
nity ties, businesses relationships, NGO programs, academic and professional ex-
changes, business travel, tourism, phone communications, mail, and
e-mail–Internet communications. Such scales would measure individuals’ comfort
with or willingness to have themselves or their country engage in these behaviors.
Subjective indicators of harmony are, perhaps, the greatest challenge to de-
velop, judging from the indicators suggested by the current literature. The adapta-
tion of the Social Distance Scale to contexts of peace requires further
investigation.

Additional Methodological Considerations

It may eventually be possible to develop a standard measurement scale for

peace. Because no commonly accepted scales have yet been developed, how-
ever, it is more likely that scales will initially be developed within specific set-
tings and then tested across other settings. For universally applicable
standardized scales to be developed, they must be valid across cultures and
within all contexts, micro to macro.
It would be appropriate to begin scale development within a specific, socially
relevant setting. Many such settings are possible. Staying within the scope of this
article’s example of international and cultural peace, a study of interethnic or inter-
tribal conflict within the cultural context (cultural peace) would provide a relevant
setting to apply the methodology I have suggested. This defines the context, or
scope, of the study.
 114 ANDERSON

The task of developing objective indicators of violence and harmony (VO,

HO) would begin by exploring available archival data. Violence indicators
would include statistics on homicides, suicides, and other intentional injuries.
Additional indicators could be developed depending on the working definition
of violence posited by the researcher. Harmony indicators would include pro-
grams and incidents of efforts to build and maintain mutually beneficial relation-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ships between the conflicting groups. The usual difficulties of analyzing archival
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

data would apply here: reliability of data and equivalence of measures with dif-
ferent ranges and dispersions. Such measures may violate the assumptions of
statistical analyses such as multiple regression or other linear analyses:
independence of measure, equal variances, etc. Data need to be normalized or
analyses with looser assumptions need to be applied to overcome these statisti-
cal issues.
The task of developing subjective measures of violence and harmony (VS, HS)
would follow the usual process of scale development. A typical first stage would
be to apply subjective techniques such as focus groups, depth interview, or
ethnographic techniques representing all conflicting groups in the study. Ques-
tionnaire scale items could then be generated and compiled into violence and har-
mony scales to be validated on the relevant populations.
Individual studies, such as one on interethnic conflict, can generate some in-
sights into that particular situation. But more relevant insights can emerge from
comparisons across situations. For example, a single study can indicate a level of
peace. But is that level relatively high or low? Comparisons between settings gen-
erally regarded as high and low in peacefulness would establish some baselines for
comparisons. In these cases, the issue of equivalence of measures is a lingering
one. Are objective measures reflective of equivalent levels of underlying peaceful-
ness? Are subjective measures equivalent across cultures and languages?
These are some of the issues that face researchers as they begin to develop reli-
able and valid measures of peace. They are not insurmountable and they offer the
prospect of many interesting and productive studies. It is hoped that the method-
ological recommendations offered here will facilitate the efforts to study, measure,
understand, and promote peace.

NEXT STEPS

The goal of this article has been to arrive at a conceptually clear, simple, and man-
ageable definition of peace that will provide structured guidance toward a workable
set of indicators of peace. The literature contains a plethora of suggested indicators
for peace and cultures of peace. UNESCO’s (UN, 1999) discussion of cultures of
peace proposed concepts such as education, sustainable economic and social devel-
opment, respect for human rights, equality between women and men, democratic
 A DEFINITION OF PEACE 115

participation, understanding, tolerance and solidarity, participatory communica-

tion, and free flow of information and knowledge. Others have suggested justice,
security, ethnic relations, economic disparity, various personality traits, emotional
climate, and ecological conditions as relating to cultures of peace.
This article invites a discussion of the definition of peace proposed here, testing
it against the literature and against the practicalities of data gathering and analysis.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

It also provides a conceptual foundation to examine whether other indicators in the

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

literature are, indeed, indicators of peace or indicators of correlates to peace. The

task of sorting out indicators of peace from indicators of independent variables, de-
pendent variables, or covariates of peace is crucial to an understanding of peace.
These conceptual foundations are essential to guide those who are working to
achieve peace.
The next step is to gather data from the sources, using the methodologies pro-
posed here, to see if the conceptual definition proposed in this article leads to ana-
lyzable and intuitively valid results. Without a clear conceptual foundation, it will
be difficult to achieve consensus in the search for indicators of peace. Peace is too
important a goal to be without a firm conceptual basis for both research and posi-
tive social action.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Joseph deRivera and a group of graduate students in the Peace
Studies Program at Clark University who, in an ongoing colloquium extending
over 1½ years following the Conference on Assessing Cultures of Peace, examined
the issues around defining peace. The colloquium included international students
from a variety of Eastern and Western nations who brought their cultural perspec-
tives to the discussion. These discussions contributed significantly to the definition
of peace given in this article.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Royce Anderson is executive director of the International Center of Worcester

(ICW) in Massachusetts whose programs include U.S. State Department profes-
sional exchange programs and ongoing community-based membership activities.
He has lived and worked in Russia and Israel, and grew up in India. He holds a PhD
from the City University of New York with a specialization in marketing and con-
sumer behavior research. He has taught at Baruch College, Rutgers University, and
Clark University. Prior to being full-time at ICW, he was Associate Director of
Graduate Programs, College of Professional and Continuing Education at Clark
University.
 116 ANDERSON

REFERENCES

Bogardus, E. S. (1925). Measuring social distances. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9, 299–308.

de Rivera, J. (2002). Assessing cultures of peace. Manuscript in preparation, Clark University, Worces-
ter, MA.
Fogarty, B. (2000). War, peace, and the social order. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 3, 167–191.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Groff, L. (2001a). Education for a holistic, integrative view of peace. Manuscript in preparation.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Groff, L. (2001b, September). Indicators for a culture of peace and nonviolence. Paper presented at
Clark University, Worcester, MA.
Krug, E. G., Dahlberg, L. L., Mercy, J. A., Zwi, A. B., & Loazno, R. (Eds.). (2002). World report on vio-
lence and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Retrieved January 26, 2004,
from http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/en/
Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition. (1989). J. A. Simpson & E. S. C. Weiner, Eds., Vol. XI. Ox-
ford, England: Clarendon Press.
Oxford Latin Dictionary. (1977). P. G. W. Glare, Ed., Fascicle VI. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
Peace Forum. (2000). World culture of peace index 2000. The Munhwa Ilbo Daily, Seoul, Korea.
Peace Forum. (2001). World peace index 2001. The Munhwa Ilbo Daily, Seoul, Korea.
Rapoport, A. (1999). Peace, definitions and concepts of. In Encyclopedia of violence, peace, conflict
(Vol. 2, pp. 667–678). San Diego, CA: Academic.
United Nations. (1999). Declaration and programme of action on a culture of peace. Resolutions
adopted by the General Assembly. (Resolutions 53/243). New York: Author.
World Health Organization. (1948, April 7). Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organi-
zation. Adopted by the International Health Conference. Official Records of the World Health Orga-
nization, 2, 100.