Futures-Thinking

futures, peacebuilding, participation, conflict, decolonial

Futures-thinking encompasses a range of methods, tools, and practices designed to explicitly engage with possible and desired futures. The term “futures” is used in the plural to acknowledge the diversity of potential future situations that have yet to materialize. Both external experts and conflict-affected communities use futures-thinking for analytical purposes and to drive societal transformation in conflict contexts. While business and military planning professionalized the systematic development of futures-thinking methodology, anticipating and preparing for the future is inherent to all human societies. Therefore, systematic and power-critical futures-thinking lends itself to participatory, reflexive and constructive practices beneficial to conflict resolution and prevention.

“May the peace be like a feather… Beautiful, soft and resistant.”

The artwork was provided by (Un)Stiching gazes. The group is an interdisciplinary collective of reflection, research and praxis, which tells and collects stories of peace and encounters in Colombia, especially after the signing of the 2016 Peace Agreement. They do so through textile narrative, that is to say through threads, needles and fabrics.

Gelila Enbaye

Gelila Enbaye is a Research Associate at the Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) in Berlin, where she works on peace and security policy. She contributes to the Stabilization Lab project where she co-developed a simulation game designed to analyze political economy dynamics in conflict settings. Currently, Gelila is working on African perspectives on stabilization policy and conflict management as part of this project.

As a 2024 Think Tank School fellow, Gelila is exploring the potential of futures-thinking in peace mediation through her personal policy project.

Learn More

Upcoming

Fundamental to understanding the coloniality of peace is the history of the field of peace and conflict studies (PACS), the origins and evolution of which are deeply intertwined with the historical contexts of imperialism and colonialism, as well as disciplinary distinctions from international relations (IR). While both fields address war and conflict, PACS distinguishes itself through a normative dedication to advancing peace, viewing war as a pressing issue requiring (complete) elimination (Webel & Galtung, 2007; Lawler, 2008). At the beginning of the 20^th century IR emerged from concerns over global “race relations” (Vitalis, 2015, 1), with early scholars preoccupied with the maintenance of white hegemony and the threat of decolonisation movements. The similar holds true for origins of area studies or programme institutions such as SOAS (the School of African Studies at the University of London), which was established in 1916 with the purpose of training colonial officers in African, Asian and Middle Eastern languages and history. This background influenced the development of PACS, with some scholars advocating for nonviolence and the eradication of war while others focused on studying global conflict without necessarily taking a moral stance.

“Not only does whiteness represent rationality and reason, but whites are also positioned as civilised, while those deemed non-white are seen as violent and barbaric. Peace is seen as a ‘white privilege’ which is applicable to white Europeans and their descendants, but not to People of Colour.”

How to cite this entry:

Azarmandi, M. & C. Pauls 2024: “Coloniality of Peace”. Virtual Encyclopaedia – Rewriting Peace and Conflict. 25.09.2024. https://rewritingpeaceandconflict.net/2024/09/25/colonaility-of-peace/.