Citation

Miller DB, Rudnick L. J. Peacebuild. Dev. 2010; 5(2): 62-74.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2010, University of San Diego, Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies, Publisher Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/15423166.2010.628686559959

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

A challenge in contemporary efforts to prevent conflict and build peace is how to fulfil universalist aspirations - for security, stability and development - in culturally diverse communities. In considering this challenge, this article proposes, as others have recognised, that peacebuilding is ultimately manifest as set of situated practices in a particular socio-cultural context. Because the form and meaning of social practices vary across (and in turn define) socio-cultural contexts, it follows that situated action in support of peacebuilding requires situated theories about what practices will work if they are to have the desired result. If these two propositions are accepted, it suggests a particular role for both research and theory in the design of peacebuilding activities. In thinking of the nexus between theory and action this way, this article revisits an agenda for the study of peace and security that was formulated in the 1950s and 1960s. The agenda was overshadowed by trends in political science and peace research, leaving it all but forgotten in contemporary discussions. It placed the study of meaning - and the comparative study of cultural meanings - at the forefront of policy research for the benefit of decision-making and design. This article argues that this 'lost agenda' should be reinvigorated as a guide for modern peacebuilding efforts and that new tools from the academy - particularly those in the field of communication - can be applied to the challenges of building peace and security where possible.