What Everyday Peace Really Looks Like and How People in Conflict-Affected Societies Understand It
What does peace actually mean in everyday life, especially for people living in places shaped by conflict, inequality, and social divisions? A new study led by Yale anthropologist Catherine Panter-Brick takes a close and grounded look at this question by exploring how different groups of people define and experience what researchers call everyday peace.
Rather than focusing on peace treaties, ceasefires, or international diplomacy alone, this research zooms in on how peace is lived, practiced, and sustained on a daily basis. The study shows that peace is not a single, shared idea. Instead, it looks very different depending on who you ask, where you stand in society, and what experiences you carry with you.
Understanding the Idea of Everyday Peace
In peace and conflict studies, everyday peace refers to the actions, habits, and ways of thinking that people use to get through daily life in societies marked by division or past violence. This might include how people handle disagreements, how communities maintain coexistence, or how individuals protect their sense of safety and dignity.
The study builds on this concept by asking a simple but powerful question: How do different groups imagine the pathways that lead to everyday peace? Understanding these differences matters because peacebuilding policies often assume that everyone wants and values the same things. This research challenges that assumption directly.
Why Mauritania Was Chosen for the Study
The research was conducted in Nouakchott, the capital and largest city of Mauritania, a country in northwest Africa. Mauritania sits at a crossroads between the Maghreb region of North Africa and the Sahel, the semi-arid belt stretching across the continent below the Sahara.
Although Mauritania is often described as politically stable, it faces serious pressures. These include the spillover effects of conflict in neighboring Mali, regional insecurity across the Sahel, human trafficking, migration flows, and rapid urbanization. At the same time, Mauritania is marked by ethnic diversity, historical inequalities, and social stratification.
This mix of stability and strain makes Mauritania a valuable place to examine how people work, consciously or unconsciously, to sustain everyday peace.
Who Took Part in the Research
The study brought together six different stakeholder groups, each representing a distinct social position and set of lived experiences:
- Mauritanian university students
- Student refugees
- Career diplomats
- University professors and scholars
- Community men
- Community women
These groups were selected to reflect a broad spectrum of voices, from people shaping policy to those navigating peace at the household and neighborhood level.
The Mapping Method Used in the Study
Instead of surveys or interviews alone, the researchers used a visual systems-mapping approach, often referred to as fuzzy cognitive mapping. Participants worked together in structured sessions to identify factors they believed influenced everyday peace.
They then visually mapped these factors and showed how they believed different elements were connected. Participants also highlighted which factors mattered most to them.
The result was a set of detailed visual maps that captured how each group understands causality, responsibility, and opportunities for change when it comes to peace.
How Different Groups Defined Everyday Peace
When the researchers compared the maps created by each group, clear and meaningful differences emerged.
Mauritanian students framed everyday peace in relation to systemic challenges such as corruption, economic instability, ignorance, and insecurity. Their perspective was strongly forward-looking, focusing on governance reforms, opportunity, and long-term national development.
Student refugees, many of whom had experienced war and displacement firsthand, defined peace in much more immediate and personal terms. Their maps centered on war, fear, safety, and freedom from violence. For them, everyday peace was closely tied to physical security and emotional stability.
University scholars and professors highlighted tensions between everyday peace, governance quality, and social intolerance. Their maps reflected concern about how institutional failures and exclusion can quietly undermine peaceful coexistence.
Diplomats viewed peace as a highly interconnected system. Their maps emphasized the close links between justice, regulation, safety, and state authority, suggesting that peace depends on coordinated action across multiple institutions.
Community members focused most strongly on daily lived realities. Men emphasized family harmony and stable income, while women gave greater importance to community relationships, social cohesion, and mutual support.
Together, these maps revealed distinct mental landscapes of peace, showing where each group locates responsibility and where they believe meaningful change can happen.
What These Differences Mean for Peacebuilding
One of the study’s central findings is that peacebuilding efforts often rely on the assumption that people share the same priorities. This research shows that assumption is flawed.
When policymakers or organizations focus only on high-level reforms or security measures, they may miss what everyday peace looks like for people on the ground. At the same time, community-level efforts may struggle if they ignore broader structural issues like governance or economic opportunity.
By comparing these different perspectives, the study highlights where dialogue is most needed and where misunderstandings are likely to occur. Understanding these differences is a crucial step toward designing peacebuilding strategies that are inclusive, realistic, and locally meaningful.
The Value of Visualizing Local Knowledge
One of the most important contributions of this research is methodological. The visual mapping approach does more than document opinions. It makes local knowledge visible, allowing researchers and policymakers to see how people think about cause and effect in their own lives.
This method can be used beyond Mauritania, offering a practical tool for peacebuilders, governments, and civil society organizations working in other conflict-affected settings. By identifying points of convergence and divergence, it becomes easier to design interventions that reflect how peace is actually lived.
Everyday Peace Beyond Mauritania
The idea of everyday peace has gained growing attention in peace and conflict studies over the past decade. Scholars increasingly recognize that peace is not only something negotiated at the top but something maintained daily through social norms, compromises, and informal practices.
This study adds to that body of work by showing how everyday peace is shaped by social position, lived experience, and scale, from personal safety to national governance. It reinforces the idea that sustainable peace depends on listening carefully to diverse voices rather than assuming a single definition fits all.
Research Reference
Catherine Panter-Brick et al., Pathways to Everyday Peace: Visualizing Local Knowledge to Model System Change, Frontiers in Political Science (2025).
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2025.1614779
