Anti-Police Violence Discussion Should Move Beyond Negative Peace

​Can we find a way to stop the police from killing black people?  The question is a simple and powerful one.  As an African American male, it is also one that I have been waiting to hear for most of my life.  While overjoyed to have people from all parts of the nation as well as the world calling for this, at the same time I am a little disappointed at the limited nature of the ask.  Limited you say?  Yes, limited.  I think that trying to find a way to stop the police from killing black people is analogous to what is often referred to as “negative peace” (i.e., when violence has stopped).  In my book with Erik Melander and Pat Regan called the Peace Continuum, we noted that most scholarship on political conflict and violence maintained a focus on this form of peace and it has thus been “conflict-centric”.  This is clearly understandable as life is something to be treasured and sustained.  Following from this, we see discussions of training, demilitarizing, defunding, prosecuting, socializing and essentially scaring the police in an effort to reduce their violence.   
 
In the right direction, there is something more to peace.  What we should aspire to is more than just stopping violence and this something more should be incorporated directly into the discussion. Within our book, this something more is often referred to as “positive peace”.  Rooted in the work of individuals such as Dorothy Thompson, W.E.B. DuBois, Karl Deutsch, Quincy Wright, Johan Galtung, Kenneth as well as Elise Boulding and Martin Luther King Jr., the concept involves structuring relationships in such a way that there is not only no violence but also a degree of harmony or what we preferred to call "mutuality".  I fear that if we begin this conversation framed around negative peace than we don’t get to the richer, more gratifying and deeper positive peace.  As I state in the book,
 
At the (far) end of the (peace) continuum is “mutuality” — the clearest and most extreme example of quality peace. This refers to where distinct actors make claims for an overarching, mutually respectful relationship with another actor, and they use diverse noncoercive strategies to achieve the relevant end. As conceived, a situation can be said to be mutual when the relevant groups engage in behavior together that is intended to create, continue, and deepen a sense of common purpose, as well as identity. This includes celebrations, parades, programs, discussions, and so forth. The creation of organizations with all relevant groups being included (as well as directed toward the same ends) captures an institutional manifesta­tion of mutuality. A third concerns language; situations of mutuality put forward constant references to a shared sense of identity and a common mission. Clearly, there needs to be mutual consideration of what is being discussed, as well as what is done to discern cheap talk from substantive behavior, but nevertheless it is important to acknowledge that even if talk does not correlate with action, it is still an advancement over not talking at all. With regard to values, individuals from the respective groups come to envision themselves as part of a shared community. This involves some­thing analogous to what could be labeled positive “shared direction,” when identifying that one’s life is intricately connected with another. This dimension is clearly less observable than others.
 
As one can tell from the definition, the current discussion in the US about what should be done regarding the police and their violence is far from mutuality.  We are clearly in the realm of negative peace seemingly afraid to venture too far into the realm of positive peace.  I suggest that we dream that dream.  I suggest that we venture into the unknown and think about a world where mutuality is the norm not simply not killing one another.  In short, I suggest that we try to build the world that we actually wish to live in, not the world that we believe will be better than the one that we just came from.