Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Culture, Anthropology and Ethnography in Peace Research

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies

Abstract

Current transformations within the field of peace studies such as the local turn require closer attention to culture as a specifier of the local and as a context that greatly influences how concepts such as conflict, reconciliation, justice, and peace are locally defined, perceived, adopted, rejected, or not existent. The chapter points at shortcomings in the recent local turn in peace research and the ethnographic turn in international relations and argues for a broader understanding of peacebuilding as something growing from within and a long-term endeavor that does not stop once violence ended and “peace” has been established, without looking into issues of broader structural violence and local societal and cultural complexities. The chapter outlines the relevance of an anthropological approach that embraces both the discipline’s methods and theoretical concepts and promotes a critical and creative interdisciplinary dialogue in the field of peace studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderl, F. (2016). The myth of the local. How international organizations localize norms rhetorically. The Review of International Organizations, 11(2), 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, H. A. (2012). Engaged anthropology in 2011: A view from the antipodes in a turbulent era. American Anthropologist, 114(2), 217–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballard, C., & Banks, G. (2003). Resource wars: The anthropology of mining. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32, 287–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barth, F. (Ed.). (1969). Ethnic groups and boundaries. The social organization of culture difference. Bergen-Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, S., & Maida, C. A. (2013). Toward engaged anthropology. New York: Berghahn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhabha, H. K. (1995). The post-colonial studies reader. In B. Ashcroft, G. Griffiths, & H. Tiffin (Eds.), Cultural diversity and cultural differences (reprint 2001) (pp. 206–209). London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Björkdahl, A., Höglund, K., Millar, G., van der Lijn, J., & Verkoren, W. (Eds.). (2016). Peacebuilding and friction. Global and local encounters in post conflict-societies. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borofsky, R. (2000). Public anthropology. Where to? What next? Anthropology Newsletter, 41(5), 9–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bräuchler, B. (2015). The cultural dimension of peace. Decentralization and reconciliation in Indonesia. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bräuchler, B. (2018a). Contextualizing ethnographic peace research. In G. Millar (Ed.), Ethnographic peace research: Approaches and tensions (pp. 21–42). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bräuchler, B. (2018b). The cultural turn in peace research: Prospects and challenges. Peacebuilding, 6(1), 17–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bräuchler, B. (2019a). From transitional to performative justice: Peace activism in the aftermath of communal violence. Global Change, Peace & Security, 31(2), 201–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bräuchler, B. (2019b). Local peacebuilding after communal violence. In S. Ratuva (Ed.), Global handbook of ethnicity (pp. 1445–1464). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0242-8_110-1.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bräuchler, B. (2020). Peacebuilding and resistance: Inequality, empowerment, refusal. In J. Kustermans, T. Sauer, & B. Segaert (Eds.), A requiem for peacebuilding? (forthcoming). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bräuchler, B., & Naucke, P. (2017). Peacebuilding and conceptualisations of the local. Social Anthropology, 25(4), 422–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, J. D., Hayes, B. C., Teeney, F., Dudgeon, K., Mueller-Hirth, N., & Wijesinghe, S. L. (2018). The sociology of everyday life peacebuilding. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brigg, M. (2008). The new politics of conflict resolution. Responding to difference. Hampshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brigg, M. (2010). Culture: Challenges and possibilities. In O. P. Richmond (Ed.), Palgrave advances in peacebuilding. Critical developments and approaches (pp. 329–346). Hampshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brondo, K. V. (2010). Practicing anthropology in a time of crisis: 2009 year in review. American Anthropologist, 112(2), 208–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. A. (2013). Anthropology and peacebuilding. In R. Mac Ginty (Ed.), Routledge handbook of peacebuilding (pp. 132–146). London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. (2010). The uncritical critique of ‘liberal peace’. Review of International Studies, 36(S1), 137–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chopra, J., & Hohe, T. (2004). Participatory intervention. Global Governance, 10, 289–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalsgaard, S. (2013). The field as a temporal entity and the challenges of the contemporary. Social Anthropology, 21(2), 213–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debiel, T., & Rinck, P. (2016). Rethinking the local in peacebuilding. Moving away from the liberal/post-liberal divide. In T. Debiel, T. Held, & U. Schneckener (Eds.), Peacebuilding in crisis. Rethinking paradigms and practices of transnational cooperation (pp. 240–256). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Debiel, T., Held, T., & Schneckener, U. (Eds.). (2016). Peacebuilding in crisis. Rethinking paradigms and practices of transnational cooperation. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donais, T. (2009). Haiti and the dilemmas of local ownership. International Journal, 64(3), 753–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donais, T., & Knorr, A. C. (2013). Peacebuilding from below vs. the liberal peace: The case of Haiti. Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d'études du développement, 34(1), 54–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, T. H. (2006). Engaging anthropology. The case for a public presence. Berg: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanthorpe, R. (2005). On the limits of liberal peace: Chiefs and democratic decentralization in post-war Sierra Leone. African Affairs, 105(418), 27–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkenbusch, P. (2016). ‘Post-liberal’ peacebuilding and the crisis of international authority. Peacebuilding, 4(3), 247–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finlay, A. (2015). Liberal intervention, anthropology and the ethnicity machine. Peacebuilding, 3(3), 224–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(1), 167–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, K., & Lewis, D. (2015). Anthropology and development. Challenges for the twenty-first century. Pluto: London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. (1993). The interpretation of cultures. London: Fontana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleditsch, N. P., Nordkvelle, J., & Strand, H. (2014). Peace research – Just the study of war? Journal of Peace Research, 51(2), 145–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A., & Ferguson, J. (1992). Beyond “culture”: Space, identity, and the politics of difference. Cultural Anthropology, 7(1), 6–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halbmayer, E., & Karl, S. (2012). Einleitung: Heterogenität des (Post-)Konflikts. Erinnerte Gewalt und multiple Friktionen in Lateinamerika. In E. Halbmayer & S. Karl (Eds.), Die Erinnerte Gewalt: Postkonfliktdynamiken in Lateinamerika (pp. 7–27). Bielefeld: Transcript.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hastrup, K., & Olwig, K. F. (1997). Introduction. In K. F. Olwig & K. Hastrup (Eds.), Siting culture: The shifting anthropological object (pp. 1–14). London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirblinger, A., & Simons, C. (2015). The good, the bad, and the powerful: Representations of the ‘local’ in peacebuilding. Security Dialogue, 46(5), 422–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, C., Öjendalb, J., & Schierenbeck, I. (2015). The struggle versus the song – The local turn in peacebuilding: An introduction. Third World Quarterly, 36(5), 817–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, T. (2014). That’s enough about ethnography! HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 4(1), 383–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Julian, R., de Guevara, B. B., & Redhead, R. (2019). From expert to experiential knowledge: Exploring the inclusion of local experiences in understanding violence in conflict. Peacebuilding. https://doi.org/10.1080/21647259.2019.1594572.

  • Kappler, S. (2015). The dynamic local: Delocalisation and (re-)localisation in the search for peacebuilding identity. Third World Quarterly, 36(5), 875–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kent, L. (2019). Transitional justice and the spaces of memory activism in Timor-Leste and Aceh. Global Change, Peace & Security, 31(2), 81–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreikemeyer, A. (2018). Hybridity revisited. Zum Stellenwert von Hybriditätsperspektiven in der Friedensforschung. Zeitschrift für Friedens- und Konfliktforschung, 7(2), 287–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington: United States Institute of Peace Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lottholz, P. (2017). Critiquing anthropological imagination in peace and conflict studies: From empiricist positivism to a dialogical approach in ethnographic peace research. International Peacekeeping, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2017.1350576.

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2010a). Gilding the lily? International support for indigenous and traditional peacebuilding. In O. P. Richmond (Ed.), Palgrave advances in peacebuilding. Critical developments and approaches (pp. 347–366). Hampshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2010b). Hybrid peace: The interaction between top-down and bottom-up peace. Security Dialogue, 41, 391–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2014). Everyday peace: Bottom-up and local agency in conflict-affected societies. Security Dialogue, 45(6), 548–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2015). Where is the local? Critical localism and peacebuilding. Third World Quarterly, 36(5), 840–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R. (2016). What do we mean when we use the term ‘local’? Imagining and framing the local and the international in relation to peace and order. In T. Debiel, T. Held, & U. Schneckener (Eds.), Peacebuilding in crisis. Rethinking paradigms and practices of transnational cooperation (pp. 193–209). London/New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, R., & Richmond, O. P. (2013). The local turn in peace building: A critical agenda for peace. Third World Quarterly, 43(5), 763–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, G. (2014a). Disaggregating hybridity: Why hybrid institutions do not produce predictable experiences of peace. Journal of Peace Research, 51(4), 501–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, G. (2014b). An ethnographic approach to peacebuilding. London/New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, G. (2018a). Conclusion: The constructive tension of interdisciplinary endeavours. In G. Millar (Ed.), Ethnographic peace research: Approaches and tensions (pp. 253–271). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, G. (Ed.). (2018b). Ethnographic peace research: Approaches and tensions. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, G. (2018c). Ethnographic peace research: The underappreciated benefits of long-term fieldwork. International Peacekeeping, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2017.1421860.

  • Millar, G. (2018d). Introduction: The key strengths of ethnographic peace research. In G. Millar (Ed.), Ethnographic peace research: Approaches and tensions (pp. 1–19). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nordstrom, C. (1997). The eye of the storm: From war to peace – Examples from Sri Lanka and Mozambique. In D. P. Fry & K. Björkqvist (Eds.), Cultural variation in conflict resolution: Alternatives to violence (pp. 91–103). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortner, S. B. (1995). Resistance and the problem of ethnographic refusal. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 37(1), 173–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paffenholz, T. (2015). Unpacking the local turn in peacebuilding: A critical assessment towards an agenda for future research. Third World Quarterly, 36(5), 857–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. (2009). Becoming liberal, unbecoming liberalism: Liberal-local hybridity via the everyday as a response to the paradoxes of liberal peacebuilding. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 3(3), 324–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. (2011). A post-liberal peace. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. (2015). The dilemmas of a hybrid peace: Negative or positive? Cooperation and Conflict, 50(1), 50–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, O. P. (2018a). Peace and the formation of political order. International Peacekeeping, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2018.1511374.

  • Richmond, O. P. (2018b). Rescuing peacebuilding? Anthropology and peace formation. Global Society, 32(2), 221–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schierenbeck, I. (2015). Beyond the local turn divide: Lessons learnt, relearnt and unlearnt. Third World Quarterly, 36(5), 1023–1032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sillitoe, P. (Ed.). (2015). Indigenous studies and engaged anthropology: The collaborative moment. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sponsel, L. E. (1994). The mutual relevance of anthropology and peace studies. In L. E. Sponsel & T. Gregor (Eds.), The anthropology of peace and nonviolence (pp. 1–36). Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strang, V. (2009). What anthropologists do. Oxford/New York: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tax, S. (1975). Action anthropology. Current Anthropology, 16(4), 514–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsing, A. (2005). Friction: An ethnography of global connection. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Valbjørn, M. (2008). Before, during and after the cultural turn: A ‘Baedeker’ to IR’s cultural journey. International Review of Sociology, 18(1), 55–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrasti, W. (2008). The strange case of ethnography and international relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 37(2), 279–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanis-St. John, A. (2013). Indigenous peacebuilding. In R. Mac Ginty (Ed.), Routledge handbook of peacebuilding (pp. 360–374). London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiang, B. (2013). Multi-scalar ethnography: An approach for critical engagement with migration and social change. Ethnography, 14(3), 282–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    Birgit Bräuchler

Authors
  1. Birgit Bräuchler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Birgit Bräuchler .

Section Editor information

  1. No affiliation provided

    Sandra Pogodda

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Bräuchler, B. (2020). Culture, Anthropology and Ethnography in Peace Research. In: The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11795-5_75-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11795-5_75-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-11795-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-11795-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Political Science and International StudiesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation