Department of Psychology, Hebrew University, 9190501 Jerusalem, Israel;
Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace, Hebrew University, 9190501 Jerusalem, Israel.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Aug 4;117(31):18378-18384. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2005928117. Epub 2020 Jul 20.
We often talk about peace as if the concept is self-explanatory. Yet people can have various theories about what peace "is." In this study, we examine the lay theories of peace of citizens embroiled in a prolonged ethnonational conflict. We show that lay theories of peace 1) depend on whether one belongs to the high-power or low-power party and 2) explain citizens' fundamental approaches to conflict resolution. Specifically, we explore the link between power asymmetry, lay theories of peace, and preference for conflict resolution strategies within large-scale samples of Palestinian residents of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and Jewish residents of Israel. Results reveal that members of the high-power group (in this case Jewish-Israelis) are more likely to associate peace with harmonious relationships (termed "positive peace") than with the attainment of justice (termed "structural peace"), while members of the low-power group (in this case Palestinians) exhibit an opposite pattern. Yet both groups firmly and equally interpret peace as the termination of war and bloodshed (termed "negative peace"). Importantly, across societies, associating peace with negative peace more than with positive or structural peace predicts citizens' desire for a solution that entails the partition of land (the Two-State Solution) whereas associating peace with structural or positive peace more than with negative peace predicts citizens' desire to solve the conflict by sharing the land (the One-State Solution). This study demonstrates the theoretical and policy-relevant utility of studying how those most affected by war understand the concept of peace.
我们经常谈论和平，似乎这个概念不言自明。然而，人们对于和平“是什么”可能有各种不同的理论。在这项研究中，我们考察了陷入长期民族冲突的公民对和平的朴素理论。我们表明，和平的朴素理论 1）取决于一个人属于强势方还是弱势方，以及 2）解释了公民对冲突解决的基本方法。具体来说，我们在西岸和加沙地带的巴勒斯坦居民以及以色列的犹太居民的大规模样本中，探讨了权力不对称、和平朴素理论和对冲突解决策略的偏好之间的联系。结果表明，强势群体（在这种情况下是以色列犹太人）的成员更倾向于将和平与和谐关系（称为“积极和平”）联系起来，而不是与正义的实现（称为“结构性和平”）联系起来，而弱势群体（在这种情况下是巴勒斯坦人）则表现出相反的模式。然而，这两个群体都坚定地、平等地将和平解释为战争和流血的终止（称为“消极和平”）。重要的是，在不同的社会中，将和平与消极和平的联系多于与积极或结构性和平的联系，预示着公民渴望通过分割土地来解决问题（即“两国解决方案”），而将和平与结构性或积极和平的联系多于与消极和平的联系，则预示着公民渴望通过共享土地来解决冲突（即“一国解决方案”）。这项研究表明，研究那些深受战争影响的人如何理解和平概念具有理论和政策相关性。
