{"id":2109,"date":"2025-12-04T18:12:29","date_gmt":"2025-12-04T15:12:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/?p=2109"},"modified":"2025-12-05T14:18:55","modified_gmt":"2025-12-05T11:18:55","slug":"the-multilayered-nature-of-peace-building-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/2025\/12\/04\/the-multilayered-nature-of-peace-building-1\/","title":{"rendered":"1 – The Multilayered Nature of Peace Building"},"content":{"rendered":"

Berfin G\u00fcne\u015f<\/em><\/p>\n

The process that began with Reber Abdullah \u00d6calan’s historic call for “Peace and Democratic Society” on February 27, 2025, opened the doors to a new social transformation and struggle for Kurdistan and the region. Following this call, many questions arose regarding both the nature of this process and its similarities and differences with peace experiences in different parts of the world.<\/span><\/p>\n

In line with these questions and discussions, we, as the Jineoloj\u00ee Academy, have initiated a study. Through research, seminars, and collective discussions, we are trying to think about, understand, and deepen our understanding of these experiences together. Our aim in this study is to examine the lessons learned from global peace-building processes and women’s experiences in these processes, and particularly by addressing women-led peace initiatives in Kurdistan, we are trying to examine the role and mission of women in sustainable peace. We plan to share brief evaluations emerging from this research and discussions as a series of articles. First, we will focus on the multilayered structure of the concept of peace.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"Rethinking the Multilayered Nature of Peace Building<\/span><\/h4>\n

Peace building is one of the most complex and multidimensional social processes of the 21st century. This phenomenon extends far beyond mere diplomatic negotiations or legal arrangements. It is closely tied to deep historical contexts, cultural codes, power relations, and social transformation struggles. In the post-Cold War period, more than 2,000 peace agreements, ceasefire protocols, and transitional arrangements were signed in over 200 countries and regions, and more than 150 peace processes took place. This clearly demonstrates that peace is not merely a diplomatic necessity. Peace has also transformed into a terrain of struggle shaped around social justice, equality, fundamental rights, memory politics, and resistance to the neoliberal global system. The simultaneous and contradictory multiple peace initiatives in Colombia, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and many other examples are striking illustrations of the non-linear and intertwined nature of these processes. True peace emerges not as a static agreement constructed at negotiation tables, but as a dynamic “relational ecosystem” that comes from the grassroots, is reproduced in daily relationships, and becomes institutionalized over time.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Problematic Nature of Universal Prescriptions and Liberal Peace Criticism<\/span><\/h4>\n

This factual diversity shows that peace processes cannot be explained by a universal “recipe.” The liberal peace model (multi-party democracy, free market, human rights, rule of law), which became a global norm especially after the Cold War, has therefore been subjected to intense criticism. The model has been seen as a top-down engineering project that excludes local socio-political realities and historical dynamics in many cases. Experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq, and various African countries have revealed that this mechanically applied approach, accompanied by neoliberal policies, has frequently failed or experienced deep legitimacy crises. Even more problematic is that peace is often compressed into three reductionist concepts: the absence of physical violence (non-conflict), maintenance of the existing order (return to normal), and integration into the old system. This technicized negative perspective weakens the essence of peace by making social justice and fundamental rights demands invisible.<\/span><\/p>\n

Redefining from Negative to Positive\/Transformative Peace<\/span><\/h4>\n

The critical transformation in peace studies redefined the concept. The traditional “negative peace” understanding (the end of war and physical violence) gave way to the “positive\/transformative peace” understanding that targets the radical transformation of structural violence (systematic inequalities, injustices) and cultural violence (othering ideologies). This radical approach conceptualizes peace as a dynamic process where social justice, women’s freedom, and fundamental rights are established and continuously negotiated, and as an ecosystem where social relations are democratized.<\/span><\/p>\n

From this perspective, peace is not only a conflict-free environment but also a social model where peoples’ right to self-determination is recognized, central power relations are horizontalized and community-based political structures develop. In this understanding, peace processes are related not only to the repair of the old order, but also to an egalitarian, ecological and gender-sensitive future imagination. As an essential component of social transformation, peace claims to lay the foundation for a new democratic form of life that transcends the boundaries of the modern state. Within this framework, peace is not only the ending of violence, but also an approach where communities develop their capacity for self-governance, pluralistic participation is institutionalized and centralized authority structures are questioned.<\/span><\/p>\n

Peace Literature Deepened by Critical Theories<\/span><\/h4>\n

Peace literature was enriched by critical theories in the 2000\u2019s. The feminist perspective emphasizes the patriarchal nature of violence and women’s struggle for the “right to life” by centering the gender dimension of peace and security. Local Peace Building points to the vitality of processes being fed from the grassroots. Postcolonial criticisms, on the other hand, bring up the question “whose peace?” by questioning Western-centered knowledge production, universalist claims and the ongoing effects of colonial legacy.<\/span><\/p>\n

This questioning finds a response not only in non-Western geographies, but also in the intellectual efforts of local actors who develop alternative peace quests against centralized nation-state structures. Particularly in the Middle Eastern context, new peace epistemologies based on local peoples’ coexistence experiences, cultural plurality and nature-compatible life forms are emerging. Within this framework, peace is being redefined not on the basis of the\"\" nation-state’s monistic security understanding, but on a pluralistic ground based on free and equal relations between peoples. In some regions, forms of inter-peoples alliance and collective self-organization conceptualize peace not only as a result, but also as a way of life.<\/span><\/p>\n

Breaking free from the West’s colonial perspective is essential for peoples to create their ownunderstanding of peace, because true peace cannot be built with ready-made theories from the West, but with the historical experiences of local peoples, their accumulated resistance and their culture of coexistence. Therefore, peace is not a pattern imposed by states or international institutions, but a living process shaped by communities’ own knowledge, collective memory and solidarity methods. This process brings up the questions of “who is the subject?” and “for whom it is done?” in knowledge production, making dialogical and mutually learning-based models that center local actors and peoples necessary. Ultimately, peace is lived not only in documents but also in memory, bodies, recollections and daily relationships.<\/span><\/p>\n

Inclusivity: The Sine Qua Non of Peace<\/span><\/h4>\n

Inclusivity is one of the cornerstones of peace processes. The meaningful participation of women, youth, indigenous peoples and the oppressed, is not only an ethical necessity, but vital for the legitimacy and sustainability of the process. Despite the United Nations’ Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, this participation often remains at a symbolic level. The impact of women’s movements on the Havana negotiations in Colombia (even if the results were not implemented), the role of wise women mediators in Rwanda, and the moral and political dimension brought by women’s testimonies in the South African Truth Commission, all show that peace requires “relational justice.” The past must be repaired not only legally, but also socially and emotionally.<\/span><\/p>\n

Although women are disproportionately affected by wars, they are not only victims of peace, but also its subjects and carriers. Unfortunately, in many peace processes, from Colombia to Chiapas, from the Philippines to Nepal, women have been subjected to attempts at objectification. The increase in gender-based violence in the post-war period shows that peace is not only a legal process, but also a social struggle. Women’s struggle for peace, democracy and freedom represents a continuous, autonomous and political line.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ecological Justice and Peace<\/span><\/h4>\n

Ecological justice is increasingly gaining importance in peace studies. Land, water and natural resources are both the cause of conflicts and the key to lasting peace. The Zapatistas’ autonomous governance in Chiapas, land distribution commitments in Colombia and indigenous land struggles in the Philippines, are attempts to show that “ecological peace” is a sustainable, community-based alternative to neoliberal plundering policies and eco-destruction. Although neoliberal restructuring (privatization, resource extraction, infrastructure projects) in post-agreement periods has led to new dispossessions and re-ignition of conflict dynamics in many examples, the struggle in this area is seen to be increasingly widespread.<\/span><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/span><\/h4>\n

Experiences extending from Latin America to Africa and Asia show that sustainable peace cannot be built with uniform formulas. Peace building is a multi-actor, multilayered struggle shaped by opportunities, tensions and unexpected transformations, rather than a linearly progressing process (Conflict \u2192 Negotiation \u2192 Agreement \u2192 Constitution \u2192 Elections). The rote application of solutions taken from other contexts can create superficial results and new conflicts. Lasting peace is only possible through approaches based on mutual learning that take the historical, cultural, and political originality of the local as the basis, and center the knowledge and autonomy of local actors. The resolution of economic inequalities and land problems, the active participation of women and the oppressed, and security guarantees are fundamental components of this process.<\/span><\/p>\n

Peace is not a static reconciliation, but a living structure whose roots extend to collective memory; whose body extends to daily resistance; and whose branches extend to common dreams. This structure flourishes through the overcoming of neoliberal domination and the free self-organization of the local. This approach, expressed through the understanding of “building life,” sees peace not as a project, but as the essence of the democratization of life.<\/span><\/p>\n

Source: https:\/\/www.newayajin.net\/baris-insasinin-katmanli-dogasi\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Berfin G\u00fcne\u015f The process that began with Reber Abdullah \u00d6calan’s historic call for “Peace and Democratic Society” on February 27, 2025, opened the doors to a new social transformation and struggle for Kurdistan and the region. Following this call, many questions arose regarding both the nature of this process and its similarities and differences with […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":2133,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[93,1,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2109","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-academy-of-jineoloji","category-article","category-in-the-medias"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2109","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2109"}],"version-history":[{"count":18,"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2109\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2147,"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2109\/revisions\/2147"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2133"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2109"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2109"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jineoloji.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2109"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}