Everyone talks about peace, but nobody teaches it. In this world, we teach competition, which is the root of all wars. The moment we start teaching cooperation and support for one another will be the day we educate for peace.
(Montessori, 1970)
This is one of the most difficult yet important questions of our time. It’s not just because we are living in a historical period marked by daily news of wars, but also because our society and communities are far from peaceful. In fact, they represent the opposite. Why do I say this? After all, since 1945, countries like Italy, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, and even Japan—if we consider perspectives beyond the typical Western context—have not been officially at war. The United States, too, has not fought a war within its borders since the end of the Civil War, aside from the attack on Pearl Harbor. Therefore, why do I claim that our society and communities are not at peace? I make this claim for one specific reason. Among its various meanings, the word “peace” signifies “to tie, to bind together, to seal” (Harper, n.d.; Pianigiani, 2018; Treccani, n.d.). When we reflect on our society and our daily interactions with others, can we honestly say that we are members of a society that is “tied, bound together, and sealed to one another”? I would argue that we cannot, and I will now explain why.
Communication that divides
As quoted above, in 1970, Maria Montessori argued that while many people spoke about peace, no one was truly teaching it. She pointed out that instead, people were being educated about war through competition. This observation remains valid today, as we are constantly pushed to compete in all aspects of our lives. This isn’t limited to typical sports competition, which carries a different meaning, although even that field has been affected by skewed interpretations and practices. The competition we often experience serves to divide people and promote the idea of defeating others—both metaphorically and literally. One way to recognize this distorted understanding of competition is by examining how we communicate with ourselves and with others, specifically the language we use. Psychologist Marshall Rosenberg, known for his work in conflict mediation, spent his life trying to understand where violence, in its various forms, originates, and why human beings sometimes choose it as a way of interacting with one another. He focused especially on communication and explained the significant role language plays in creating an environment conducive to violence, prompting individuals to choose that path.
Specifically, Rosenberg (2003, 2015) identified a type of communication he termed life-alienating language. This type of language relies on moralistic judgements of ourselves and others, which stem from a Manichaean perspective that divides actions into categories of right (and thus good) and wrong (and therefore evil). In practical terms, this means that in the real world, we classify ourselves and others according to levels of goodness and badness. Furthermore, Rosenberg noted that we also tend to view individuals perceived evil as a principal cause of the world’s wrongs and injustices (ibid.). Honestly, if we take a moment to reflect, we may notice that we frequently describe ourselves and others using moralistic labels. For instance, when a colleague fails to complete their tasks or when siblings neglect to tidy their rooms, we might label them as “lazy” or “untrustworthy.” On the contrary, we might refer to someone who consistently completes their work as “efficient,” “trustworthy,” or even “good”. We also apply this same type of judgment to ourselves. For example, how often have we called ourselves “lazy” for not wanting to exercise, go to work, or even just go out? And most likely, we may feel “good” about ourselves after finishing a task or achieving a good grade in school.
Moreover, if we think about it carefully, Rosenberg’s second point is also valid: when things go awry, we tend to blame others, looking at what is wrong with them or even at what is wrong with ourselves. This is because we habitually assess ourselves and others according to degrees of goodness and evil. Thus, if something goes wrong, it must be because someone else failed to do something or did something wrong; or because I didn’t do something or made a mistake. In other words, it has gone wrong due to a fundamental flaw in others or within ourselves. The outcome of this reasoning – the wrong outcome of this reasoning, as Darsi Pace would have it (Guzzi, 2011) – is that, if we were to eliminate what does not function properly in ourselves and others, namely what we deem as wrong and evil, or even if we were to eradicate others and ourselves altogether, or even parts of others and parts of ourselves, the world would be a better place.
This reflection highlights how our relationships—both with ourselves and with others—are often clouded by judgment. Judgments distance us from ourselves and from one another. When we attach moralistic judgments to each characteristic and action, we attempt to clearly separate what is considered good from what is seen as bad in human beings. This process leads to three significant separations: first, we become divided from others; second, we create divisions among people; and third, we end up alienating ourselves. This last point may seem paradoxical, but it makes sense when we consider that we tend to suppress those parts of ourselves and others that are viewed as negative. This is exactly why Rosenberg describes this type of communication and language as alienating: it makes us feel like strangers to ourselves. Psychiatrist James Gilligan (2001) uses even stronger language, calling this form of language “inhuman” because it progressively distorts our humanity, our being human. Although I won’t delve into Gilligan’s reasoning here, or Rosenberg’s, which is somewhat different, I want to emphasize two important points.
First, when we apply moralistic judgments to ourselves and others, we effectively rank individuals based on who is “better” and who is “worse” (Gilligan, 2001; Rosenberg, 2015; Sandel, 2021). Typically, those deemed “better” are considered superior and therefore deserving of more rights and privileges (Gilligan, 2001; Rosenberg, 2015). In essence, being seen as “better” equates to being more human (Gilligan, 2001). Conversely, those labelled as “worse” are viewed as inferior; they are seen as deserving less, or even nothing, and may end up with few or no rights. Ultimately, they are perceived as less human—or not human at all (Gilligan, 2001).
Second, and strongly related to the first point, this very ranking that measures the degree of humanity in everyone increasingly divides people, progressively pitting them against one another as well as against themselves. This occurs because, on one hand, individuals attempt to eliminate those parts and/or those aspects perceived as evil and the cause of the world’s ugliness. On the other hand, as Gilligan (2001) explains, being subjected to moralistic judgements causes significant inner pain, as establishing who is human and who is not, as well as the extent to which one is human, undermining individual dignity. Consequently, following the logic of striking, keeping at bay, distancing, and eliminating what is identified as the source of one’s inner pain, individuals will become increasingly distant from one another and from themselves. This makes the use of violence against themselves and others increasingly likely and justifiable, as it is perceived as a necessary means to oppose what causes pain and evil.
In conclusion, at the beginning of this short article, we asked ourselves whether peace is actually possible. Following the reasoning of Rosenberg and Gillian, among others – e.g., Gandhi and more recently, philosophers and intellectuals from various disciplines, such as Marianella Sclavi (2003, 2008), Roberto Mancini (2015, 2017, 2021), and Michael Sandel (2021) – the answer to this question is certainly positive: yes, peace is possible. However, as we say in Italian, it cannot simply fall from the sky. In other words, peace is attainable if we change the way we relate to and interact with ourselves and those -people, things and situations- around us. This relational change could very well begin with reflecting on our own manner of communication and language we use, as the words we direct towards ourselves and others carry specific meanings and interpretations of the world and relationships, ultimately influencing our behavioural choices towards ourselves and others (e.g., Goodman, 1978; Sarbin, 1986; Sclavi, 2003).
References
Gilligan, J. (2001) Preventing Violence. New York: Thames & Hudson.
Goodman, N. (1978) Ways of Worldmaking. Hassocks: Harvester Press.
Guzzi, M. (2011) Darsi Pace. Gruppi di liberazione interiore. 3rd edn. Milan: Paoline Editoriale Libri (Crocevia, 1).
Etymonline (no date) ‘Peace’, Harper D. Online Etymology Dictionary. Available at: https://www.etymonline.com/word/peace
Mancini, R. (2015) La rivolta delle risorse umane. Appunti di viaggio verso un’altra società. Verrucchio, fraz. Villa, Rimini: Pazzini Editore.
Mancini, R. (2017) ‘From Conflictual Systems to a Society of Peace: Nonviolence facing organized evil’, Diogenes, 61(3–4), pp. 59–70. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0392192117701056.
Mancini, R. (2021) Gandhi. First. Milan: Feltrinelli (Eredi).
Montessori, M. (1970) Educazione e Pace. Garzanti Libri.
Pianigiani, O. (2018) ‘Pace’, Vocabolario Etimologico della Lingua Italiana Online. Forgotten Books. Available at: https://www.etimo.it/?term=pace&find=Cerca.
Rosenberg, M.B. (2003) Le parole sono finestre [oppure muri]. Introduzione alla comunicazione non violenta. Reggio Emilia: Edizioni Esserci (Dire, fare, comunicare).
Rosenberg, M.B. (2015) Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life. 3rd edn. Encinitas, CA: PuddleDancer Press.
Sandel, M.J. (2021) The Tyranny of Merit. Can We Find the Common Good? Picador. New York.
Sarbin, T.R. (1986) Narrative Psychology: The Storied Nature of Human Conduct. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
Sclavi, M. (2003) Arte di ascoltare e mondi possibili. Come si esce dalle cornici di cui siamo parte. Milan: Bruno Mondadori (Sintesi).
Sclavi, M. (2008) ‘In Theory. The Role of Play and Humor in Creative Conflict Management’, Negotiation Journal, 24(2), pp. 157–180.
Treccani (no date) ‘Pace’, Enciclopedia Treccani. Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana Fondata da Giovanni Treccani, S.p.A. Available at: https://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/pace/ (Accessed: 24 March 2025).