Description
From the contact theory of the 1950s to Western conflict resolution approaches of the 1980s and the power-sharing agreements of the 1990s, the theory and practice of peacemaking have been geared towards mutual understanding, moderation and compromise. Yet, the interventionary tools to create a middle ground between conflict parties have faced a range of critiques, especially regarding their ability to alleviate structural violence and to generate more than fragile stalemates between local conflict parties. In the 21st Century, the international peace architecture is encountering a range of issues and movements that defy consensus-building approaches, from revolutionary movements to demands for global justice, and the multi-directional pressures emerging from the polycrisis. Hence, this paper explores the place of radical thinking and anti-systemic resistance in peacemaking and scholarship. It investigates, how radical ideas have affected thinking about peace, and how radical demands have transformed the international peace architecture. Moreover, this research analyses how the marginalisation of radical approaches has created contradictions and faultlines in scholarship and in practice. Ultimately, it aims to answer the following question: can radical thinking help Peace and Conflict Studies overcome its current impasse in the face of the polycrisis?
