This analysis summarizes and reflects on the following research: Kruger, F., & Zembylas, M. (2023). Theoretical and practical implications of agonistic peace for decolonizing peace education. Journal of Peace Education, 1-22.
Talking Points
- Peace education runs the risk of suppressing necessary conflict and making invisible forms of (Western) domination that may exist under the veneer of “peace,” possibly sidelining other local understandings of and approaches to peace.
- Agonistic peace allows for ongoing contestation that makes visible and resists dominant forms of knowledge or practice, along with their accompanying exclusions and forms of marginalization, making it a valuable resource for decolonizing the peace education field.
- An agonistic decolonization lens would prod the peace education projects examined in South Africa to create more space for “adversarial relations” and open-ended processes rather than encouraging consensus around particular historical narratives or resolutions; it would also encourage recognition of “emotions, affects and passions” and productively engage with them to mobilize transformative change.
- Peace education scholars and practitioners should take these contributions of agonism to heart as they think about how to decolonize the field, as cultivating nonviolent forms of conflict and dissent, framing opponents as adversaries instead of enemies, and valuing affective responses can enable necessary and ongoing transformation and new understandings of justice and peace.
Key Insight for Informing Practice
- Taking an agonistic approach in this political moment—at the beginning of Trump’s second administration—means being bold in our activism while also reaching out to, listening to, and building relationships with those who see things quite differently.
Summary
Peace education contributes to building a culture of peace by teaching kids and adults how to respond creatively and constructively to conflict. Yet, there is the danger that the field of peace education may suppress necessary conflict and make invisible forms of domination that may exist under the veneer of “peace.” Furthermore, as a field that emerged out of North America and Europe, peace education carries with it ways of being and knowing that stem from these contexts but are presented as universal, possibly sidelining other local understandings of and approaches to peace as it applies a unified set of models and prescriptions. Given these critiques, and recent efforts to decolonize the field, the authors propose thinking about peace education through the lens of agonism.
| Decolonization: |
“the ongoing efforts to expose and dismantle the historical and continuing effects of colonization as these manifest in political, social, and cultural life.” |
| Agonism: |
an orientation to politics, prominently discussed by political philosopher Chantal Mouffe, that “positions dissent, conflict and counter-hegemonic actions as foundational to political life” and that also sees “passions and affects…as inextricably entangled with political participation.” Political philosopher William Connolly contributes the idea of adversaries enacting “agonistic respect” in their conflicts/interactions with one another as they engage in “respectful strife.” |
| Agonistic peace: |
a conceptualization of peace developed by IR/political theorist Rosemary Shinko that is “not about seeking consensus but rather [about] understanding that conflict is an essential driving force of social change.” By creating space for ongoing contestation, agonistic peace ensures that forms of exclusion or marginalization that emerge in any particular order are temporary and subject to resistance and revision. |
| Hegemonic: |
characterized by hegemony, which is the dominance and wide acceptance of an actor, practice, or idea in a particular context. |
Rather than aspire to consensus, agonism centers and even celebrates the role of “dissent, conflict and counter-hegemonic actions”—along with “passions and affects”—in political life. Although agonistic politics highlights the ongoing contestation and struggle for power between different parties in the public sphere, the conflicting parties here are not seen as “enemies” who might act violently towards one another but rather as “political adversaries” who have a foundational respect for one another even as they may resist each other’s political projects and/or try to gain greater relative power in the public sphere.
Agonistic peace builds on these ideas, contending that ongoing conflict should be central to conceptualizations of peace. The open-ended contestation entailed in agonistic peace means that any consensus that emerges—along with the forms of exclusion contained therein—is always provisional, subject to ongoing dissent and critique. As such, hegemonic forms of knowledge or practice—including Western forms of “domination, exclusion, and marginalization” that can otherwise characterize “peace”—are continually challenged through the expression of counter-hegemonic perspectives. Wary of claims to universalism, agonistic peace is better equipped to address not only direct violence but also structural and cultural violence and is also more attuned to local practices and understandings. Because conflict is central and valuable to this agonistic conception of peace and its contributions to social change, the focus is on finding ways “to work constructively with conflict without resorting to violence.”
Finally, the concept of agonistic decolonization “rejects the legitimacy of [colonial democratic] institutions” and is not content simply to integrate Indigenous groups into friendly relations with settler communities, as if they are just one more ethnic minority; rather, agonistic decolonization aims to create a “permanent state of discomfort” and to materially restructure relations between Indigenous and settler communities, including through land return.
Drawing on this previous scholarship on agonism, the authors use the case of peace education efforts in South Africa to flesh out the contribution of agonistic peace and agonistic decolonization to thinking about peace education. Despite the transition to a multiracial democracy in 1994 and the end of Apartheid, South Africa is still plagued by violence and persistent inequality, legacies of colonialism and Apartheid. Peace education in the country has focused mostly on social cohesion, conflict resolution, and violence reduction. The authors examine two such peace education programs—Facing History and Ourselves and Peace Clubs—to imagine how they might be “reframed through the lens of ‘agonistic decolonisation’.”
Facing History and Ourselves helps students think critically about history by reflecting on “racism, prejudice, and antisemitism,” how these came about, and what they can do to address these and other forms of violence in their society. Peace Clubs are spaces for students to meet regularly to learn to use conflict resolution skills in their interactions with one another in the school setting to improve relationships and build peace.
The authors argue that an agonistic decolonization lens would prod these projects to create more space for “adversarial relations” and open-ended processes that recognize “conflicting notions of ‘peace’ in South Africa,” rather than encouraging consensus around particular historical narratives or resolutions. Additionally, an agonistic decolonization lens would encourage recognition of “emotions, affects and passions” and productively engage with them to mobilize transformative change.
The authors close by exploring and summarizing the political and theoretical implications of agonism for decolonizing peace education. In addition to the points made above with reference to South Africa, they also mention how an agonistic perspective helps frame peace as “desired but deferred,” with its meaning perennially contested and “continuously reinvented” and open-ended. It reminds us that allowing for an ongoing process of (nonviolent) contestation between adversaries reveals and provides correction for the hegemonic norms and exclusions that will continue to emerge. Peace education scholars and practitioners should take agonism’s contributions to heart as they think about how to decolonize the field, as cultivating nonviolent forms of conflict and dissent, framing opponents as adversaries instead of enemies, and valuing affective responses can enable necessary and ongoing transformation and new understandings of justice and peace.
Informing Practice
As the second Trump Administration begins, peace practitioners, activists, and concerned Americans may all wonder how to move forward—to safeguard the rule of law, protect the rights of vulnerable communities, continue work towards racial equity and Tribal sovereignty, and maintain momentum in a just transition to renewable energy—amid new hurdles, but especially in light of toxic polarization, which holds additional dangers for democracy and peace. How do we resist mounting authoritarianism and advocate for justice while also acknowledging the humanity of—and building relationships with—those with whom we adamantly disagree and who may even support policies that threaten us or our neighbors?
The agonistic approach put forward in this research provides some useful resources for navigating this tension over the next four years (and beyond).
First, we can cultivate “adversarial” relationships with those with whom we disagree—granting them baseline respect as fellow humans with needs and fears—rather than making them into one-dimensional enemies. In doing so, we will be pushing against a strong current of social media siloing and righteous outrage moving us in the other direction; it is easy to get swept up in narratives that negatively stereotype all people of the other political party (or, in the case of Trump supporters, attribute to them Trump’s own qualities), especially when we experience as harmful the policies they may support.
Second, we can understand conflict, resistance, and dissensus as central to our living together—and even to peace. Re-framing conflict in this way—not as something to be feared or suppressed but as something to be celebrated and curious about—helps us see conflict as something to learn from. The fact that others disagree with us provides a clue that maybe there is something we may have missed in our assessment of an issue. It also reveals the norms, values, and solutions we may take for granted as universally “good” as particular somehow, as perhaps not fully representative and therefore exclusionary of some other people’s experience. At any point, power relations will be such that one group’s idea of the “good” predominates and another is marginalized. This is a problem that will never be fully fixed, as disagreement will remain. But that’s the beauty of conflict—it keeps going and going, always there to reveal new forms of domination and prompt us to respond and change.
When you take the first and second points here together, they reveal a third: when we are in a state of ongoing conflict and contestation with fellow human beings—whom we see as human beings and with whom we are in relationship—it becomes clear that we must find ways to conduct our conflicts nonviolently, as violence would require some measure of dehumanization or separation. We must find ways to dialogue with one another—even struggle against one another, mobilizing power for what we see as right—that do not involve using threats or acts of physical harm. This means fierce—and loving—nonviolent resistance when required.
Finally, as a corollary to this nonviolence, according to Gandhi, we can acknowledge our own fallibility as humans. We may sometimes be wrong, or at least not understand the complete truth of the situation. Acknowledging this possibility, we can struggle nonviolently and with complete conviction for those things we understand as true and just—until that moment when we may recognize that we were missing some piece of the truth through hearing or observing someone else’s deeply felt words or actions. We can thereby marry our conviction with a provisionality that expresses humility—a provisionality that is made possible by the nonviolence of our actions.
Taking an agonistic approach in this political moment means being bold in our activism while also reaching out to, listening to, and building relationships with those who see things quite differently. This approach may enable them to hear something we say in a new way, and we may even learn something new from them, making our movements for justice more responsive to their needs and fears, and more broad-based—and therefore more powerful—than we could have previously imagined. [MW]
Questions Raised
How would our movement organizing and resistance change if it were more informed by the needs, fears, and concerns of our political adversaries? Does listening to and building relationships with them run the risk of weakening or diluting struggles for justice, or does it simply strengthen them?
Continued Reading
Te Maihāroa, K. (2020). Decolonizing peace, conflict and justice studies through Indigenous ways of knowing and being. The Peace Chronicle. Retrieved January 29, 2025, from https://www.peacejusticestudies.org/chronicle/decolonizing-peace-conflict-and-justice-studies-through-indigenous-ways-of-knowing-and-being/
Walker, P. (2020). Decolonizing peace studies: Moving toward settler responsibilities for colonialism. The Peace Chronicle. Retrieved January 29, 2025, from https://www.peacejusticestudies.org/chronicle/decolonizing-peace-studies-moving-toward-settler-responsibilities-for-colonialism/
Shinko, R. E. (2008). Agonistic peace: A postmodern reading. Millennium, 36(3), 473-491. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/03058298080360030501?casa_token=H6Q5thworlkAAAAA:7WyQ0xnG9WAAWX572j8TcNi0Z5ZCR8uI7Mqt0pvyEBhBmNuArZekSp6Bj4ASSV667_IyRYyQ44t9
Guzmán, M. (2022). I never thought of it that way: How to have fearlessly curious conversations in dangerously divided times. BenBella Books.
Wallace, H. (2025, January 20). How to reach across a divide with curiosity instead of hate—an interview with Mónica Guzmán. RTBC. Retrieved January 22, 2025, from https://reasonstobecheerful.world/monica-guzman-building-bridges/
Engler, M., & Engler, P. (2024, November 9) A new wave of movements against Trumpism is coming. Waging Nonviolence. Retrieved January 29, 2025, from https://wagingnonviolence.org/2024/11/a-new-wave-of-movements-against-trumpism-is-coming/
Lederach, J. P. (2024). The pocket guide for facing down a civil war: Surprising ideas from everyday people who shifted the cycles of violence. Retrieved January 22, 2025, from https://www.johnpaullederach.com/2024/07/pocket-guide/
Organizations
Decolonising Education for Peace in Africa: https://www.decolonising-education-for-peace-africa.org/
Metropolitan Alliance for Common Good: https://www.macg.org/
Key Words: peace education, agonism, agonistic peace, decolonization, South Africa
Photo credit: iEARN-USA via Flickr
