Everyday Peace Power
Below are page-by-page study notes for Everyday Peace Power, organized as requested. Each page (Page 1 through Page 24) is summarized with major/minor points, key concepts, definitions, examples, and connections to broader themes. Inline citations to specific quotes or passages from the transcript are incorporated, and where numerical references appear, numbers are formatted in LaTeX-style markup as … to align with the instruction to present numerical references in LaTeX. mathematical expressions are kept minimal since the source is largely conceptual prose.
Page 1
Everyday Peace Power (EPP) introduction
Central question: how does everyday peace work in contexts with very powerful and violent actors (e.g., Syria, Israel–Palestine, western China)? Answer: space for everyday peace is limited; those with guns and repressive systems have more power than those without.
Peace persists in margins: acts of sociality, toleration, forgiveness, and reconciliation occur at opportune moments, under the radar.
Reframing power: EPP is a form of power rooted in individual initiative and emotional intelligence, not coercive state power.
Core concepts that EPP draws on: sociality, reciprocity, and solidarity (as discussed in Chapter 2).
EPP involves skills far removed from state deterrence (guns, riot gear, laws). It relies on self-restraint, participation, moral example, and leadership.
The chapter’s aim: to present a sociological notion of power—EPP—beyond orthodox power rooted in coercion.
Example anchors: Bosnian widow forgiving the Serbian community; northern Ugandan village accepting former LRA soldiers; Rohingya and Bamar farmers doing business post-violence.
Assemblages of power include state/institutional and individual/group power (brokerage, human capital, emotional intelligence, opportunism).
Distinction between orthodox power and EPP: orthodox power is “power over” while EPP is framed as “power to”, “power with”, and “power from” (components of integrative power).
Kenneth E. Boulding’s integrative power is highlighted as a positive power reliant on communication, love, respect, and reciprocity; includes an idea of welfare gain through others’ welfare.
Cautious stance: power should not be seen in strict binaries; real-world power is complex and often involves overlapping circuits of power.
The chapter previews a focus on circuits as a way to understand fluid, dispersed, and often hidden forms of power in everyday peace.
Contextual note: the literature on power spans disciplines and uses different terms (power vs. agency). The chapter emphasizes a plural ‘literatures’ approach.
Scope note: focus is on individuals and small groups and informal or non-formal forms of organization rather than formal peace groups or civil society organizations.
Prefixes of power in anthropological literature illustrate diverse framings (local, kin-based, elite, corporate, exclusionary, centralised, political, ritual, instrumental, creative, materialised, dominant, royal).
Key terms to remember (definitions):
Everyday Peace Power (EPP): a form of power based on sociality, reciprocity, solidarity, and emotional intelligence that enables peaceful interactions in everyday life, including conflict contexts.
Integrative power (Kenneth E. Boulding): power as “power to”, “power with”, and “power from” rooted in communication, respect, and reciprocity.
Power over vs. power to/with/from: orthodox, coercive domination versus emancipatory, relational, and collaborative power.
Connections to broader themes: EPP reframes power away from state-centric coercion toward micro- and meso-level social processes that enable peace through humane interactions and social norms.
Examples/metaphors from the page: the idea that small acts of tolerance or forgiveness can accumulate to patterns of peaceful coexistence; the image of peace as an emergent property of everyday social relations rather than a product of top-down interventions.
Implications (ethical/practical): Recognizes the legitimacy of ordinary people’s capacity to shape peace; highlights the limits of coercive peacebuilding in transforming everyday social life; suggests that nurturing emotional intelligence and social skills can contribute to durable peace.
Contextual note: This opening frames the rest of the chapter’s argument about different forms of power, especially in contexts where formal power is dominant and difficult to challenge.
Page 2
Reiteration of power as assemblages: state/institutions with coercive power plus individuals/groups with brokerage, human capital, emotional intelligence, and opportunism.
The aim is to move beyond orthodox power to understand how power is accumulated and deployed in everyday life, especially in conflict contexts.
The chapter outlines two sections: orthodox understandings of power vs. alternative readings (EPP).
Orthodox power is viewed as ‘power over’; alternative readings view power as ‘power to’, ‘power with’, and ‘power from’.
Integrative power (Kenneth E. Boulding) is a positive form that relies on communication, love, respect, and reciprocity, and it's defined as the logic of increases in one’s welfare when others’ welfare increases.
A caveat: power should not be seen in strict binary terms; reality is complex with overlapping power types.
The idea of overlapping circuits: different types of power can circulate in the same space and influence each other.
The three concepts from Chapter 2 that shape everyday peace: sociality, reciprocity, solidarity; each is a form of power in its own context.
The focus on individuals/small groups suggests everyday peace emerges from micro-level interactions rather than formal institutions.
Note about the term “circuits” as a way to conceptualize how multiple forms of power move through different layers of society.
Key distinctions:
Orthodox power: power over; coercive, hierarchical, material power focused on ends/means alignment with domination;
EPP/integrative power: power to/with/from; relational, non-hierarchical, and oriented toward humane outcomes.
Examples to remember: Bosnian widow’s forgiveness; Ugandan village accepting ex-LRA soldiers; cross-community business between Rohingya and Bamar.
Connections to previous material: Builds on the chapter’s earlier framing that power is not solely state-centric and that social relations can produce powerful outcomes beyond coercion.
Page 3
Acknowledgement of the expansive and plural literature on power; a warning that discipline silos have limited interaction; power is best understood as multiple literatures.
Distinction between power and agency: in sociology, agency is often linked to individual capacity, while power may reflect structural constraints; this debate is long-standing.
A practical note: the word power yields many prefixes and meanings depending on discipline (local, kin-based, elite, corporate, exclusionary, centralized, political, ritual, instrumental, creative, materialised, dominant, royal).
The chapter borrows from multiple disciplines and practitioner work to craft a coherent notion of EPP.
The primary focus remains on individuals and small groups operating outside formal peacebuilding institutions; peaceful action may be enacted by charismatic individuals rather than formal organizations.
The introduction reiterates the central triad of sociality, reciprocity, and solidarity and their role as forms of power that can counter conflict norms.
The concept of circuitry is introduced as a way to understand power as fluid, dispersed, and often hidden.
Key takeaways:
Power is not solely about large institutions; everyday life contains powerful social dynamics that can enable peace.
The text argues for a multi-disciplinary, holistic approach to power, incorporating sociology, anthropology, gender studies, and history.
The notion of circuits will be crucial for understanding how power moves across scales and actors.
Examples/notes: The idea that formal peace organizations are not the only agents of change; everyday peace can emerge from informal acts and relationships.
Page 4
Orthodox Understandings of Power section begins; aims to contrast with alternative views (EPP).
The orthodox view is framed as ‘power over’ or ‘threat power,’ associated with rules, hierarchy, command, and results (ends justify means) and linked to capitalist, authoritarian, and Marxist systems that tolerate competition and strong leadership.
Realist canon in international relations: states must maximize power; power measured in military capabilities, economic strength, natural resources, and the ability to transform these assets into influence.
Classic definition: power is the ability to make someone do something they otherwise would not do.
Power is hierarchical; states seek to convert power into authority over subjects; legitimating discourse (protection, welfare, myths) justifies state power.
Examples illustrating coercive power: a propagandistic or genocidal speech context (Hitler quote) used to demonstrate the coercive logic of power-over.
The argument that power-over aligns with competition, ends-justify-means logic; mainstream in capitalist and authoritarian regimes.
The state’s coercive power is complemented by a political theatre: elections, rights, independent judiciary, but often these are limited and theatre-like in some states (e.g., Saudi Arabia’s apparent institutions vs. actual repression).
The “consenting to domination” view (Rafanell & Gorringe) posits that oppression can be reproduced because subaltern populations co-create regimes of power; power is not completely external but part of a complex assemblage including bottom-up elements.
The mass participation dynamic of exclusion and violence (Goldhagen) shows how culture can embed exclusion as a norm that makes extreme violence more likely.
Foucaultian insight: power is systemic and embedded; power is not just one actor’s domination but a system of domination that permeates thought and social organisation.
Michael Karlberg’s analysis: liberal liberal societies structure political, justice, economic, and educational systems as sites of contestation; power is embedded in everyday life and institutions, reinforcing domination unless challenged at multiple levels.
The need to examine substate, relational power and not only sovereign power.
Key arguments:
Orthodox power explains many conflict dynamics and peace interventions but may entrench domination and miss the organic social infrastructure needed for deep peace.
Power is systemic and embedded; individuals can contribute to or resist domination, but structural restraints exist.
Examples: Saudi Arabia’s governance vs. perceived rights; Hitler’s regime as example of “consent” to domination; subaltern Agency debates; feminist perspectives that highlight gendered power relations.
Connections to later sections: Sets up the critique of top-down interventions and the need for EPP approaches that account for micro- and relational power dynamics.
Page 5
Further elaboration on orthodox power. The discussion links power-over to realism and the dominant paradigm in international relations, including its emphasis on resources and capability.
The idea that power is hierarchical and measured by military, economic, and natural resource assets; ends-justify-means logic; ends justify means.
The state seeks to maximize power and build legitimacy, often through discourses that justify top-down control (e.g., protection of citizens, welfare, myths).
The UK example: public rhetoric about unity and security; though states have formal participatory mechanisms (parliament, elections, judiciary), these can be limited and theatre-like.
The text notes that even liberal-democratic or reformist regimes practice coercion and control; sovereignty remains stable due to mutual reinforcement from other states.
The subaltern question: even in ostensibly liberal systems, coercive power persists; the argument that power is exercised through a mix of coercion, incentives, and ideology.
Rafanell & Gorringe’s idea of consents to domination and the role of everyday complicity; a critique of purely external analyses of power.
Goldhagen’s argument on mass participation and the normalization of exclusion; how social conditioning can enable state violence.
Karlberg’s work emphasizes that power is not only top-down; social hierarchies and practices become normalised through everyday life.
Key takeaway: The orthodox view provides important insights into how power operates and legitimates interventions, but it risks ignoring the social infrastructures and everyday practices that sustain or challenge domination.
Examples/notes: The section includes references to the political economy literature and to the ways that power is embedded in everyday life; the discussion of “ends justify means” and the Hobbesian view of human nature as distrustful.
Page 6
Continuation of orthodox power critique and real-world examples.
The section discusses state legitimacy and the use of coercive or coercive-like governance (e.g., Saudi Arabia) alongside limited political participation and rights.
The argument that elites often rely on discourses of protection, security, and national unity to justify power; legitimation is part of maintaining power.
Rafanell & Gorringe’s point that oppressive regimes depend on the collusion of many people; the regime’s functionality depends on the acceptability of domination within society.
Goldhagen and other scholars illustrate how normative systems can embed exclusion deeply into culture, enabling mass participation in violence.
Karlberg’s analysis: liberal societies are structured as ongoing contests, which reinforces power dynamics rather than dissolving them; many peace-support interventions do not fundamentally alter local power configurations.
The role of substate and relational power in understanding everyday life; micro-level power is critical.
Key points to remember:
Power is systemic and often involves complicity across society, not just oppressive regimes acting alone.
Everyday life contains multiple layers of power, including cultural, social, and symbolic forms.
The normative frameworks of liberal peace can unintentionally reinforce existing power structures if they do not engage with local power relations.
Examples: The idea that even in “free” states, coercive dynamics can exist in social life; examples referencing Saudi Arabia and other regimes.
Page 7
The section continues with empirical and theoretical examples of how power operates in complex societies.
The idea that mass participation in oppressive systems is not merely top-down; local populations can collaborate with regimes or be complicit in their workings.
The text highlights Goldhagen’s argument on the cultural embedding of exclusion (Hitler’s regime) and suggests that individuals participate in a system even when they might not personally believe in it outright.
Daniel Goldhagen’s work is cited to illustrate how the system normalizes exclusion and becomes a form of collective action.
The chapter notes the importance of considering systemic, embedded power alongside overt coercion.
It argues for examining substate relations and relational power to understand how power is distributed and exercised in everyday life.
Key takeaways:
Power is not just about direct coercion; it is also about the social and cultural systems that enable or constrain action.
Subaltern participation shapes the very texture of power in societies, often making domination more resilient.
Examples: The discussion references Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners and the concept of mass complicity; contemporary examples of embedded power in modern regimes.
Page 8
The section shifts to international peace-support interventions and their relationship to power.
Peace interventions are placed on a continuum from violent regime change to soft power forms (cultural diplomacy, symbolism, patient mediation).
Liberal peace literature critiques: capitalist/liberal ideas diffusion, rights-based governance, and market-oriented reforms accompany interventions; power is exercised through coercion and the diffusion of liberal norms.
Governance interventions (e.g., electronic cash registers) illustrate how seemingly mundane policy tools can transform power relations by increasing transparency and tax revenue, often under donor conditions; this exemplifies coercive power exerted by international actors.
Coercion and “power over” are often at the heart of international interventions; conditions frequently accompany aid or financial assistance (e.g., IFIs mandating reforms).
Historical examples of regime change: Taliban in Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Gaddafi in Libya (2011); initial military success of top-down interventions contrasted with governance vacuums and long-term instability.
Outside regime change, international efforts frequently promote power-sharing arrangements (as a governance mechanism) but are criticized for managing rather than transforming identity-based conflicts (e.g., Lebanon, Northern Ireland).
Women’s empowerment and other rights-based interventions can risk reinforcing exclusion if they don’t address underlying power structures (Rashid’s Bangladesh example).
ISAF’s Afghan mission is cited as an example where external power underwrote existing power figuration and indirectly supported warlord- or tribal-chief dominance.
Key themes:
Liberal peace interventions diffuse liberal norms but may reinforce existing power structures if not aligned with local dynamics.
Power-sharing can institutionalize identity-based politics rather than challenge it.
The interventions’ impact on local power configurations is variable and context-dependent.
Examples/notes: Electronic cash registers as a micro-level example of power diffusion; ISAF’s role in Afghanistan; power-sharing in Lebanon and Northern Ireland; Rashid’s critique; Münch & Veit’s study on Afghan and Congo interventions.
Page 9
The chapter continues the discussion on liberal peace and power-sharing, emphasizing its limitations and unintended consequences.
The critique emphasizes how interventions can fail to alter fundamental power relations and may even entrench local hierarchies (e.g., the power of warlords or tribal chiefs reinforced by external funding and military presence).
The narrative notes the coercive roots of many governance reforms and how local actors may resist or subvert them.
The section stresses the need to analyze power as dynamic and relational rather than purely formal or institutional.
Key idea: International interventions often redistribute power in uneven, diffuse, and sometimes counterproductive ways, reinforcing top-down power structures rather than transforming everyday social relations.
Page 10
The orthodox/top-down version of power is reinforced by a number of examples and arguments; this section continues to argue that everyday peace requires a broader understanding of power that includes bottom-up dynamics.
The text notes that coercion and state power are not the only forms of power at play; even peaceful societies exhibit coercive features in everyday life through social sanctions, rules, and mobilization narratives.
The discussion leads into the need to examine substate actors and everyday practices that sustain or disrupt power relations.
Key takeaway: Power is not solely a feature of states; everyday life includes coercion, sanctions, and mobilization that shape peace and conflict.
Page 11
The introduction to the core elements of EPP’s framework: three key elements that help understand EPP.
Element 1: Level of analysis – many studies (IR/political science) take the state as the natural unit and focus on formal institutions; however, EPP requires multi-scalar, transversal, sociological understandings that go beyond formal institutions and the “civil society” label as a simplistic shorthand.
The note emphasizes the danger of mislabeling religious, tribal, and traditional organizations as a monolithic “faith-based organizations” category; ground-level vibrancy is lost in shorthand.
Picq’s observation that IR remains an “epistemologically confined space,” signaling the need for a broader lens.
Element 2: EPP as a skill set and mode of reasoning – traditional power emphasizes material power; EPP emphasizes human skills, situational awareness, emotional intelligence, resilience, and the ability to let insults pass or to extend friendship.
The description of a real-life Northern Ireland Protestant who crosses into a mixed workplace and experiences a positive cross-community exchange as an example of EPP in practice.
EPP’s third element: EPP as an assemblage or package of factors – relational, contextual, and never operating in isolation; it coexists with other forms of power and can be more or less visible depending on the context.
Key concepts:
EPP requires multi-scalar analysis, not just formal institutions.
EPP as a skillset includes emotional intelligence, situational awareness, and moral imagination.
EPP as an assemblage acknowledges interdependence with other power forms and the contextual nature of peace.
Implications: Building EPP requires attention to micro-level social infrastructures, not only institutional reform.
Page 12
The second part of Element 1 reaffirms the need to move beyond formal institutions and to think about power in multi-scalar, transversal terms; EPP is embodied in everyday life and circulates through social networks, religious institutions, cultural spaces, and charitable organizations.
The concept of circuits is tied to how power circulates beyond formal circuits (state, government) into informal spheres (family, kin groups, identity groupings).
IR literature on the everyday and ontological security can provide some helpful angles, but the main challenge is to study power across levels of analysis and circuits.
The chapter emphasizes the need to integrate anthropology, ecology, feminism, sociology, etc., to capture lived, everyday aspects of life.
The term “circuits” is central: power circulates through multiple, interconnected levels (international, national, municipal) and through the social infrastructure of life.
Key ideas:
EPP is embedded in networks and social spaces; it travels through everyday activities and institutions, both formal and informal.
A multi-disciplinary approach is essential to understand circuits of power.
Connection to prior material: Sets up the analytic tool of circuitry to study how various power forms intersect in everyday peace.
Page 13
Element 2 elaboration: EPP as a skill set; contrasts with material power; EPP is less reliant on material assets and more on human skills and emotional intelligence.
EPP requires situational awareness, recognizing opportunities, and the intuition to defuse insults or extend a sign of friendship; these are often seen as “unconscious skills” arising spontaneously in individuals (per Boulding).
The Northern Ireland Protestant worker example is revisited to illustrate EPP as a practical, humane decision that defies communal suspicion and demonstrates trust-building across identities.
EPP’s third element (assemblage) is reiterated, noting EPP is relational, contextualized, and part of broader power configurations.
EPP can be observable in everyday acts (small acts of disruption and defense of humanity) or in public or private acts; EPP is not necessarily authority.
EPP can be brokered by informal mediators who bridge communities, acting as social connectors rather than as formal peacebuilders.
The concept of tertius iungens (brokerage focused on collective benefits) vs. tertius gaudens (brokerage profiting from gaps) is introduced; EPP favors iungens brokerage that builds social networks and cooperation.
Examples include football coaches who bridge ethnic groups, villagers who integrate abducted persons, and workplace interactions (Protestant inviting Catholic colleague for drinks).
Lederach’s idea of “critical yeast” is introduced: certain people catalyze pro-social links and inspire others.
Key terms:
Brokerage (tertis iungens vs. tertius gaudens): the former seeks to connect and sustain social networks for long-term cooperation; the latter profits from gaps between groups.
EPP as social entrepreneurship: bottom-up, organic, risk-taking, and creative; not necessarily formal or donor-driven.
Peace entrepreneurship: individuals who take initiatives that benefit society; not necessarily with a formal office or reporting obligations.
Important aside: The Belfast City Hall example (later in Page 16) illustrates how counter-hegemonic acts (skateboarders in a divided city) demonstrate EPP—disrupting dominant identity-based power by creating new, peaceful social spaces.
Page 14
EPP is framed as social entrepreneurship that is bottom-up and often informal; it is not necessarily organized through formal civil society structures.
The informal, organic nature of EPP is contrasted with neoliberal critiques of social entrepreneurship that marketize pro-social activities.
The “market” disruption concept: EPP disrupts the dominant market of identity-based politics by offering an alternative social arrangement and different measures of success (e.g., friendship across divides rather than political victory).
EPP can disrupt the dominant market by showing that coexistence across identities is possible and desirable.
EPP can take the form of social organization and decision-making in workplaces via consensus and reflective practices; the Peace and Power concept involves continual critique and reflection on lived experiences in light of patriarchal contexts.
Indigenous approaches: Taiaiake Alfred’s indigenous perspective emphasizes power as participatory, balanced, dispersed, situational, non-coercive, and respectful of diversity; power is about enabling those who have suffered domination to participate in decisions affecting them.
EPP aligns with indigenous approaches to peace, conflict transformation, and self-determination; nonviolent movements are a key example of EPP.
Rick Wallace’s call to decolonize narratives and reposition authority; post-structuralist, postcolonial, feminist, and indigenous-inspired thinking supports EPP’s broadened epistemology.
Key lessons:
EPP is not merely anti-power; it is a form of constructive power that can reframe social relations and inspire new norms.
EPP ideas echo indigenous and feminist critiques of power, emphasizing participation, egalitarianism, and non-coercion.
Important caveat: EPP must be understood with a critical eye—bottom-up approaches can still reproduce patriarchal or identity-based exclusion if not attentive to their own internal power dynamics.
Page 15
EPP as a multi-faceted concept: it can be a single act or a broader social process.
It emphasizes a mode of thinking and acting that is counter-hegemonic and transgressive in the sense that it challenges the dominant conflict-narrative.
EPP actors can be brokers who create new social assemblies across lines of difference and produce new norms that diverge from the mainstream conflict logic.
The concept of social networking and the broader idea of social integration through everyday acts (e.g., intergroup contacts in everyday life) contribute to long-term conflict disruption.
The text emphasizes that EPP can be counterhegemonic and involve risks, especially when crossing the dominant in-group norms.
EPP is inherently contextual and reliant on situational awareness and courage; its effects can be short-lived or additive over time to create lasting social change.
The interplay between EPP and the broader peace process is discussed: EPP acts as a form of social entrepreneurship that can produce social networks and new norms over time.
Examples: Repeated references to brokered social links like cross-identity friendships, bridging across groups, and the potential to scale up small acts into broader social change.
Important concept: EPP is a form of power that emerges from social networks and personal initiative rather than formal institutions; it relies on trust, reciprocity, and solidarity to transform social relations.
Page 16
Belfast City Hall example (Saturday afternoon): City Hall’s history of politico-sectarian discrimination contrasts with a counter-hegemonic space where youth—Catholic and Protestant—gather around a common cultural activity (skateboarding).
Emergence of counter-narratives: skater gatherings create a space where identity boundaries are less salient; intergroup sociality occurs around shared interests rather than politics.
The example demonstrates several powers in action:
Disruptive and defiant power: ignoring the dominant narrative of identity politics.
Initiative power: early movers who started the gathering and organized space.
Emotional intelligence: participants tacitly avoid political topics and manage intergroup relations with civility.
The Belfast example illustrates four forms of EPP powers: disruptiveness, initiative, emotional intelligence, and the emergence of new social norms across communities.
EPP as social entrepreneurship is described as bottom-up, organic, and not necessarily formal; it’s civil society but not necessarily formalised in a donor-driven project.
The section links to the broader critique of the liberal peace and reinforces the idea that EPP operates at margins and in opportune moments, offering a different form of social organization than formal institutions.
Key takeaway: Everyday peace leadership can occur in unlikely spaces—such as a city hall’s grounds turned into a counter-hegemonic socializing space—and demonstrates power with/for/from rather than power over.
Page 17
The Belfast skateboard example continues to illustrate EPP as social entrepreneurship and a form of counter-hegemonic social organization.
EPP is framed as a form of social entrepreneurship that is bottom-up and often not formalized; it relies on innovation, risk-taking, and leadership that challenges the dominant market of identity politics.
EPP may involve deviant or norm-breaking acts, but these acts can be instrumental in creating new social norms and bridging across divides.
The text connects EPP to indigenous approaches (peace and power through participation and non-coercion) and non-violent movements as forms of powerful protest that challenge the state’s coercive approach.
Zunes’ view of non-violent action as “the ultimate asymmetrical warfare” highlights how non-violent forms of resistance can force states and orthodox power actors to reassess their methods.
The idea of conflict disruption: non-violent action unsettles the assumptions and norms of conflict.
Key implications: EPP involves not only individuals but also social movements that pursue different social and political arrangements; non-violent action can be strategically effective against heavily armed adversaries.
Context: The effectiveness and reach of EPP depend on the conflict context; extremely violent environments reduce space for everyday social practices, while post-peak or post-violence periods may provide more opportunities.
Page 18
The chapter emphasizes that context shapes EPP: character of the conflict, its stage, and the ability to impose costs on those engaging in EPP activities.
The level of violence affects the space for sociality, reciprocity, and solidarity; extreme violence reduces opportunities for everyday peace.
Stage of the conflict matters: pre-peak, during peak, or post-conflict periods each present different opportunities for EPP.
The micro-level nature of EPP: acts occur in small-scale settings—elevators, stairwells, or close proximity—as well as in communities.
Media reporting can generalize conflicts, but there can be spatial variation where some towns experience less violence than others.
Costs of EPP: social sanctions, legal penalties, or mob backlash; visibility is contingent on context; some actions must stay on the margins to avoid sanction or harm.
Key factors shaping EPP’s visibility, extent, and issue significance: how many people participate, how public acts are, and the perceived importance of the issue.
Example: a mother-and-toddler group in Northern Ireland could involve intergroup contact but be easily compartmentalized from larger inter-communal dynamics.
Summary of contextual factors:
Visibility: public vs. private acts; elections and political rhetoric can influence when intergroup contact is acceptable.
Extent: broader participation increases potential sanctioning by authorities; narrower, marginal actions may be safer but less scalable.
Issue significance: marginal issues can be used as starting points for contact; scaling up could threaten the conflict system.
Important caveat: EPP should not be romanticized; bottom-up approaches may still reproduce exclusionary norms; must be critically examined for potential reinforcements of patriarchy or identity-based particularism.
Page 19
The section continues the discussion on contextual factors and the potential costs and risks of everyday peace actions.
It emphasizes spatial differentiation: peaceful acts can occur in some locales while others remain highly violent, even within the same country or region.
The text notes that EPP actions often take place on margins to avoid broad sanction or backlash, making it difficult to scale up.
Key takeaways: EPP is context-dependent and often operates in limited spaces, yet it can lay groundwork for larger transformation if scaled and supported over time.
Page 20
This page cautions against romanticizing EPP; bottom-up, indigenous, consensual, and participative forms of power can be co-opted by exclusionary or discriminatory elements.
The risk that EPP could replicate patriarchal or identity-based restrictions if not carefully managed is acknowledged; this is a theme that will be developed further in Chapter 6.
Takeaway: While EPP provides a hopeful framework, it must be critically assessed for potential biases and co-optation; power dynamics within bottom-up approaches require careful scrutiny.
Page 21
Introduction to Power and Circuitry (the analytical device)
The chapter emphasizes that power is not solely formal/institutional; informal, hidden, and relational powers exist as part of a large circuit.
The main circuit of state power is visible through governing institutions and coercive apparatus; this circuit connects to sub-circuits like schools, clinics, etc., where the state’s reach is felt and sometimes welcomed.
Beyond formal state circuits, there are informal, micro-level circuits created by families, kin groups, and identity-based groupings; these may not wield formal material power but have the power of obligation, social conformity, and cultural norms.
Circuits are not mechanical path-dependencies; they are complex, messy, emotionally charged, and sometimes irrational in appearance.
The concept of multilevel circuits and circuits-within-circuits: different spheres of life overlap to create complex circuitry.
Example: a policeman in northern Uganda lives in multiple circuits – formal state duties, potential informal revenue extraction (bribes), and personal networks (tribal, church) that grant legitimacy and influence beyond formal law.
The policeman’s authority is derived from formal state allegiance, but informal circuits (tribal ties, local respect, and personal reputation) enable him to perform informal policing and conflict mitigation.
The presence in multiple circuits can lead to a blended form of power (formal, informal, social, and personal) and enable EPP when used to mediate and reduce tensions.
Key concepts:
Circuitry: a network of interacting power circuits at multiple scales (international, national, local) and in formal and informal spaces.
Multilevel identities: individuals belong to multiple circuits (e.g., family, tribe, municipality) that influence actions and power dynamics.
EPP can operate across circuits via brokers and everyday peace actors who navigate formal/informal spaces to reduce conflict.
Example: A Northern Uganda policeman who adheres to oath of allegiance but also engages in informal dispute resolution through tribal and community networks; his power is distributed across circuits and used to promote EPP when possible.
Page 22
Continuation of the policeman case and the concept of multilevel circuits.
The policeman case shows how formal authority and informal ethics can align to support EPP, or, conversely, how informal circuits can undermine formal authority (e.g., if bribes occur or if informal peace work substitutes formal mechanisms).
The policeman’s actions may help reduce tensions among youth (e.g., ex-LRA abductees returning to the community) through informal chats and role-models; he may still refer to formal channels if necessary.
The policeman’s identity across multiple circuits (tribal affiliation, regional ties) can influence his decisions and shape EPP outcomes.
The chapter emphasizes the intricacy of circuitry and the social and emotional intelligence required to navigate it effectively.
The discussion notes that most of these circuits involve both formal and informal power, and people are implicated in multiple circuits with varying degrees of agency.
Takeaway: Circuits illustrate how power is distributed and exercised across different layers of society; EPP frequently emerges at the intersections of these circuits via brokers who bridge otherwise disconnected groups.
Page 23
Conclusion of the chapter: The central argument is that everyday peace is a plural form of power (EPP) that circulates through circuits and is exercised by individuals and groups in diverse contexts.
EPP can be formal, informal, visible, invisible, material, immaterial, established, or emergent; it circulates to form complex assemblages.
EPP’s actions can be small-scale or scalable; they may disrupt single-identity worldviews and norms, and in some cases enable broader peace processes.
Three key skills of EPP (in the conclusion):
1) The ability to read a situation and think through possible actions; a modest but significant skill in contexts with prescribed enemy/other narratives.
2) Identifying opportune moments to act; emotional intelligence and snap judgment to demonstrate friendship or extend a positive gesture in tense times.
3) Resilience to defend against in-group criticism and to persist with out-of-norm actions; willingness to scale up as appropriate.EPP is not just about one-off acts; some actions can be replicated and scaled (e.g., a market trader expanding cross-group friendships beyond one instance).
The final point: The chapter, along with Chapters 1 and 2, has laid out the conceptual bases for the book; circuitry is proposed as an analytical tool to capture multi-scalar, relational agency in peace and conflict.
It foreshadows Chapters 4 and 5, which test EPP in difficult warfare contexts and examine the intensities of everyday peace along a spectrum from weak to strong.
Key takeaways:
EPP is a multi-faceted form of power that operates through circuits and social relations; it can be modest or transformative depending on context and scale.
Three core capabilities underpin EPP: situational reading, opportunity recognition, and resilience against critique.
EPP can be both micro and macro in impact; a single action can become an exemplar that reshapes social norms over time.
Page 24
Final wrap-up: The book’s first three chapters have established the conceptual bases for Everyday Peace Power.
Emphasizes the integration of the everyday and the local with wider municipal, national, international, and transnational frames.
Circuitry is proposed as an analytical device to capture the complex and relational nature of agency involved in peace, conflict, and everything in between.
Everyday Peace is defined as made up of sociality, reciprocity, and solidarity, constituting a form of power (EPP).
Chapters 4 and 5 will test the concept by focusing on difficult warfare contexts to explore the extent to which everyday peace disrupts war dynamics.
The concluding note reiterates that EPP ranges from weak to strong in its manifestation and that its study helps illuminate how peace can be built from below.
Final synthesis: EPP reframes power as a plural, relational, and context-dependent set of skills and social practices that can contribute to peace, especially in conflict-affected settings, when understood through circuits and a sociological lens.
Everyday Peace Power (EPP) offers a sociological understanding of power that moves beyond coercive state power, particularly in contexts of intense violence. Unlike orthodox “power over” (which is hierarchical, state-centric, and relies on military/economic strength), EPP is conceived as “power to,” “power with,” and “power from,” drawing on Kenneth E. Boulding’s integrative power, which emphasizes communication, love, respect, and reciprocity. EPP is rooted in individual initiative, emotional intelligence, self-restraint, participation, moral example, and leadership, leveraging core concepts like sociality, reciprocity, and solidarity.
The notes critique orthodox views for often entrenching domination and highlight how international peace interventions, despite promoting liberal norms, can fail to alter fundamental power relations, sometimes even reinforcing local hierarchies. Power is seen as systemic, embedded, and complex, involving both top-down coercion and bottom-up complicity or resistance.
A key analytical tool proposed is “circuitry,” which views power as fluid, dispersed, and circulating through multilevel, interconnected networks—both formal (state, institutions) and informal (families, kin groups, communities). Individuals, like a policeman in northern Uganda, navigate multiple circuits, blending formal authority with informal influence to mediate conflict. EPP requires a multi-scalar, transversal understanding, operating often at the margins, in opportune moments, and through “critical yeast” individuals who act as “tertius iungens” brokers, fostering social connections for collective benefit.
EPP is also described as a form of social entrepreneurship: bottom-up, organic, risk-taking, and creative, challenging dominant identity-based politics by creating alternative social arrangements (e.g., Belfast skateboarders). It aligns with indigenous and feminist critiques of power, emphasizing participation, egalitarianism, and non-coercion, and can manifest as non-violent action against heavily armed adversaries.
Context is crucial for EPP; the level and stage of violence, spatial variations, and potential costs (social sanctions, legal penalties) significantly influence its visibility and effectiveness. It's cautioned that EPP should not be romanticized, as bottom-up approaches can still reproduce exclusionary norms if not critically examined.
Ultimately, EPP involves three key skills:
The ability to read a situation and think through possible actions, especially against prescribed narratives.
Identifying opportune moments to act, demonstrating emotional intelligence and making swift judgments to extend friendship.
Resilience to defend against in-group criticism and persist with actions that deviate from the norm, with the willingness to scale up.
EPP highlights how peace can emerge from everyday social relations and small, often hidden, acts of sociality, toleration, forgiveness, and reconciliation, laying groundwork for broader transformation.