Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Approaching Complexity in Peace and Conflict

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Peace, Complexity, Visuality

Part of the book series: Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies ((RCS))

  • 99 Accesses

Abstract

The international system is complex and where there is complexity, there is also ambiguity; where there is ambiguity, there is neither only one problem-set nor only one path toward resolution (see Chapter 3). In ambiguous situations, many permissible interpretations compete with one another. To appropriately describe, think about and theorize international relations including peace and conflict dynamics means grappling with complexity and ambiguities. In this book, we argue for living with ambiguities rather than by reducing them to simple but often misleading solutions.

In this chapter, we take the first step by exploring complexity in the context of international relations and peace and conflict studies. We discuss diverse literature from IR and peace and conflict research and explore what complexity means for our understanding of international relations. Thinking in terms of complexity offers a profound basis for a critique of existing approaches and practices—a critique from which possible alternatives and spaces of possibility can be derived. The chapter ends with brief remarks on the relationship between complexity and visual representation in terms of photocomplexity that will be explored in detail later in the book.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    It is one of the ambiguities of digitization that, while it increases information immeasurably, it is precisely this increase in information that overwhelms us and makes it difficult to distinguish what is relevant in a given context from what is irrelevant, not to mention the facilitation of manipulation and deception enabled by digitization (see Jones 2022).

  2. 2.

    Unfortunately, space limitations do not allow us to elaborate on the genealogy of research of international relations inspired by complexity thinking and how these approaches challenge established IR theories. For this see Bousquet and Curtis (2011) and Kavalski (2007).

  3. 3.

    The discussion about the local turn does not go without critiques which we, however, cannot discuss in this chapter. Advancements of the concept that aim to overcome the local-international binary such as hybridity (Bargués-Pedreny and Randazzo 2018; Richmond 2015) cannot be discussed here, either.

References

  • Albert, Mathias. 2019. Luhmann and Systems Theory. Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics,. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bächtold, Stefan. 2021. Donor Love Will Tear Us Apart: How Complexity and Learning Marginalize Accountability in Peacebuilding Interventions. International Political Sociology 15 (4): 504–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bargués-Pedreny, Pol. 2015. Realising the Post-modern Dream: Strengthening Post-conflict Resilience and the Promise of Peace. Resilience 3 (2): 113–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bargués-Pedreny, Pol, and Elisa Randazzo. 2018. Hybrid Peace Revisited: An Opportunity for Considering Self-Governance? Third World Quarterly 39 (8): 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bargués-Pedreny, Pol. 2019. Resilience Is “Always More” Than Our Practices: Limits, Critiques, and Skepticism About International Intervention. Contemporary Security Policy 41 (2): 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bargués, Pol. 2020. Peacebuilding Without Peace? On How Pragmatism Complicates the Practice of International Intervention. Review of International Studies 46 (2): 237–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellmer, Rasmus, and Frank Möller. 2022. Active Looking: Images in Peace Mediation. Peacebuilding 11 (2). https://doi.org/10.1080/21647259.2022.2152971.

  • Bousquet, Antoine, and Simon Curtis. 2011. Beyond Models and Metaphors: Complexity Theory, Systems Thinking and International Relations. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 24 (1): 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brusset, Emery, Cedric de Coning, and Bryn Hughes, eds. 2016. Complexity Thinking for Peacebuilding Practice and Evaluation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, Danny. 2011. Facilitating Systemic Conflict Transformation Through Systemic Action Research. In The Non-linearity of Peace Processes: Theory and Practice of Systemic Conflict Transformation, ed. Daniela Körrpen, Norbert Ropers and Hans J. Giessmann, 97–110. Opladen & Farmington Hills, MI: Barbara Budrich Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, David. 1998. Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, David, and Gillian Callaghan. 2023. Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: The State of the Art. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, David. 2013. Peacebuilding and the Politics of Non-linearity: Rethinking ‘Hidden’ Agency and ‘Resistance.’ Peacebuilding 1 (1): 17–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, David. 2014. Resilience: The Governance of Complexity. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers, Paul. 1998. Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clemens, Walter, Jr. 2001. The Baltic Transformed: Complexity Theory and European Security. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, Sara. 2013. Speaking of Violence: The Politics and Poetics of Narrative in Conflict Resolution. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, Peter T. 2006. Conflict, Complexity, and Change: A Meta-Framework for Addressing Protracted, Intractable Conflicts—III. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 12 (4): 325–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, Peter T. 2011. The Five Percent: Finding Solutions to Seemingly Impossible Conflicts. New York: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Coning, Cedric. 2016a. From Peacebuilding to Sustaining Peace: Implications of Complexity for Resilience and Sustainability. Resilience 4 (3): 166–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Coning, Cedric. 2016b. Implications of Complexity for Peacebuilding Policies and Practices. In Complexity Thinking for Peacebuilding Practice and Evaluation, ed. Emery Brusset, Cedric de Coning, and Bryn Hughes, 19–48. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • de Coning, Cedric. 2020. Insights from Complexity Theory for Peace and Conflict Studies. In The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies, ed. Oliver Richmond and Gëzim Visoka, 1–10. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11795-5_134-1.

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1985. Die neue Unübersichtlichkeit. Kleine Politische Schriften V. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, Bryn. 2012. Peace Operations and the Political: A Pacific Reminder of What Really Matters. Journal of International Peacekeeping 16 (1–2): 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Marc Owen. 2022. Digital Authoritarianism in the Middle East: Deception, Disinformation and Social Media. London: Hurst & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Wendell, and Scott H. Hughes. 2003. Complexity, Conflict Resolution, and How the Mind Works. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 20 (4): 485–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, Mareile. 2013. Emergent Self-Organisation in Emergencies: Resilience Rationales in Interconnected Societies. Resilience 1 (1): 53–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavalski, Emilian. 2007. The Fifth Debate and the Emergence of Complex International Relations Theory: Notes on the Application of Complexity Theory to the Study of International Life. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 20 (3): 435–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavalski, Emilian, ed. 2015. World Politics at the Edge of Chaos: Reflections on Complexity and Global Life. New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korosteleva, Elena A., and Irina Petrova. 2022. What Makes Communities Resilient in Times of Complexity and Change? Cambridge Review of International Affairs 35 (2): 137–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederach, John Paul. 2005. The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Loode, Serge. 2011. Peacebuilding in Complex Social Systems. Journal of Peace, Conflict & Development 18: 68–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, Robert, and Scott Straus. 2006. Intimate Enemy: Images and Voices of the Rwandan Genocide. New York: Zone Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mac Ginty, Roger. 2021. Everyday Peace: How so-Called Ordinary People Can Disrupt Violent Conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, Donella H. 2009. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, Gearoid. 2019. Toward a Trans-Scalar Peace System: Challenging Complex Global Conflict Systems. Peacebuilding 8 (3): 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, Gearoid. 2021a. Ambition and Ambivalence: Reconsidering Positive Peace as a Trans-Scalar Peace System. Journal of Peace Research 58 (4): 640–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, Gearoid. 2021b. Trans-Scalar Ethnographic Peace Research: Understanding the Invisible Drivers of Complex Conflict and Complex Peace. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 15 (3): 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moe, Louise Wiuff. 2015. The Strange Wars of Liberal Peace: Hybridity, Complexity and the Governing Rationalities of Counterinsurgency in Somalia. Peacebuilding 4 (1): 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möller, Frank. 2010. Rwanda Revisualized: Genocide, Photography, and the Era of the Witness. Alternatives 35 (2): 113–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, Errol. 2014. Believing Is Seeing (Observations on the Mysteries of Photography). New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orsini, Amandine, Philippe Le Prestre, Peter M. Haas, Malte Brosig, Philipp Pattberg, Oscar Widerberg, Laura Gomez-Mera, Jean-Frédéric. Morin, Neil E. Harrison, Robert Geyer, and David Chandler. 2019. Forum: Complex Systems and International Governance. International Studies Review 22 (4): 1008–1038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paffenholz, Thania. 2021. Perpetual Peacebuilding: A New Paradigm to Move Beyond the Linearity of Liberal Peacebuilding. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 15 (3): 367–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pylyshyn, Zenon W. 2003. Seeing and Visualizing: It’s Not What You Think. Cambridge and London: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rancière, Jacques. 2009. The Emancipated Spectator, trans. Gregory Elliott. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randazzo, Elisa. 2017. Beyond Liberal Peacebuilding: A Critical Exploration of the Local Turn. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Randazzo, Elisa, and Ignasi Torrent. 2021. Reframing Agency in Complexity-Sensitive Peacebuilding. Security Dialogue 52 (1): 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, Oliver P. 2006. The Problem of Peace: Understanding the ‘Liberal Peace.’ Conflict, Security & Development 6 (3): 291–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, Oliver P. 2015. The Dilemmas of a Hybrid Peace: Negative or Positive? Cooperation and Conflict 50 (1): 50–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchin, Fred. 2009. After Photography. New York: Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Jerry L. 2003. Truth and Photography: Notes on Looking and Photographing. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urry, John. 2005. The Complexity Turn. Theory, Culture & Society 22 (5): 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visoka, Gëzim. 2016. Peace Figuration after International Intervention: Intentions, Events and Consequences of Liberal Peacebuilding. London and New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R.B.J. 1993. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Winslade, John M., and Gerald Monk. 2006. Does the Model Overarch the Narrative Stream? In The Blackwell Handbook of Mediation: Bridging Theory, Research, and Practice, ed. Margaret S. Herrman, 217–227. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Berghof Foundation, Berlin, Germany

    Rasmus Bellmer

  2. Tampere University, Tampere, Finland

    Frank Möller

Authors
  1. Rasmus Bellmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frank Möller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rasmus Bellmer .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bellmer, R., Möller, F. (2023). Approaching Complexity in Peace and Conflict. In: Peace, Complexity, Visuality. Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38218-5_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation