Agonistic peace: advancing knowledge on institutional dynamics and relational transformation

Abstract

This introductory article presents current conceptualisations in the field of agonistic peace and how they relate to studies of war-to-peace transitions in developing countries and post-colonial contexts. It argues for a need for analytical approaches to agonistic peace, which has thus far mainly been advanced in terms of theory and conceptual refinement in the field of peace research. This collection of case studies represents a first attempt at putting together a broad range of studies based on different analytical strategies for analysing agonistic peace. This introductory essay unpacks the main conceptual developments in the field, starting with Mouffe’s concept of agonistic democracy, which subsequently has been moved to the field of peace studies. We present the proliferation and application of the agonistic peace concept in recent years and show how agonistic peace links to and differs from broader developments in critical peace research. Moreover, we present the different themes and contributions examined by the articles: inclusion, dialogue and power as well as identity, recognition and reconciliation, which we cluster around the two overall themes of institutional dynamics and relational transformation. Lastly, we point to broader implications for the field and avenues open for future research.

Keywords:

• Agonistic peace
• dialogue
• decolonisation and colonisation
• identity
• institutions
• reconciliation

Introduction

Ever since Shinko (2008) wrote her pathbreaking article ‘Agonistic Peace: A Postmodern Reading’, the concept of agonism has slowly yet steadily made its way into the fields of international relations (IR) and peace studies. The gist of Shinko’s argument is to strive for a transformation of violent enemy relations within conflict, away from relationships characterised by antagonism, which is understood as inherently destructive and unconducive of peaceful relations. Instead, these malfunctioning relations could be subsumed and channelled into agonistic encounters between adversaries, which supposedly paves the way for more constructive relations between former enemies (Mouffe 2013; Shinko 2008). Agonistic peace has indeed developed into its own strand of peace research following Shinko, Mouffe and others. However, it is closely related to and draws on broader insights from critical peace research (Mac Ginty 2021; Richmond 2021), where peace is seen as inherently relational and a need to transform unequal relationships is underscored. While most research on agonistic peace remains highly theoretical, this volume takes the agonistic peace agenda further and explores the limits and potentials of agonistic peace in very different cases of war-to-peace transitions, such as Colombia, Israel‒Palestine, Lebanon, Nagorno‒Karabach, Northern Ireland, Turkey, Australia and Greek‒Turkish relations. Beside conceptual development, all of the authors of the volume have aimed to provide readers with practical pointers and tools to further knowledge about how different strands of agonistic peace research can be used for empirical analysis. To that end, this collection brings together analyses of agonistic encounters at different social levels, from local to national to global, transforming abstract concepts and making them applicable to the analysis of conflict-affected societies. In light of the cases mentioned above, agonism is merged with theories of memorialisation, consociationalism, sectarianism, artwork, identity politics, transitional justice, gender relations, ontological security, dialogue, political inclusion and activism, recognition, and colonial settler relations. The authors share an interest in the (de)construction of antagonistic identities in conflict processes, and in peace efforts directed towards the transformation of enemy relations into constructive agonistic encounters. The various agencies, mechanisms and discursive formations that are engaged in attempts to move away from antagonistic relations in conflict societies are placed in focus. Different forms of agonistic ambitions and their relevance for peace processes are thus investigated on micro to macro levels through in-depth as well as aggregated methodological strategies. Some of the contributions also point to the limits of agonistic peace and how it may prove difficult to alter the underlying power relations, which are based in the unequal distribution of material resources, despite benign attempts to shift former antagonistic discourses and dialogues into more dialogic ones.

Some contributions to this collection engage in the micro-level analysis of agonistic peace in diverse spaces such as women’s dialogue (Celik and Göker 2021), urban space (Nagle 2021), art projects (González Martín, Lauge Hansen, and Parra Grondona 2021) and bazaars (Lehti and Romashov 2021). Others operate on the macro level, such as Maddison, who engages with indigenous‒settler relations in societies such as Australia, and the Walsh and Murphy paper, which draws on global data regarding transitional justice provisions. In between the two levels of analysis, we have meso-level studies investigating national processes, such as the Rumelili and Strömbom piece, which compares two national contexts, examining societal dynamics and the presence/absence of agonistic recognition in Israeli‒Palestinian and Greek‒Turkish relations. The articles in the collection employ a variety of methods, ranging from descriptive statistics emerging from an analysis of a global data set of peace agreements (Walsh and Murphy 2021) and video data analysis (Bramsen 2021) to interviews and participant observation (Celik and Göker 2021; Nagle 2021). The breadth of methodological approaches displays the many different ways in which agonistic peace can be analysed and examined. This collection attempts to move beyond contemporary IR and peace studies by pointing to the central role of the agonism concept for understandings of the processes inherent in transitions from war to peace in a variety of global contexts.

In this introductory article, we present the state of the art of agonistic peace research, addressing its central themes and how they are reflected in the articles featured in this collection. We begin by unpacking the trajectory of research and theoretical development in agonistic peace studies, whereafter we debunk arguments related to institutional dynamics of inclusion, dialogue and counter-hegemony, and we then address relational transformation, relating to themes of identity, recognition and reconciliation. Finally, we reflect on the overall insights of the collection and point towards future research avenues.

Introducing and situating agonistic peace

Since its emergence in the 1950s, the discipline of conflict resolution has focused on dialogue for mutual understanding and the transcendence of incompatibilities. Since the 1990s, the field has seen a proliferation of critical peace research as introduced above (Chandler 2010; Mac Ginty 2012; Richmond 2011), which has taken issue with the neoliberal bias in much of practice and tried to break away from top-down understandings of peace, suggesting more locally based initiatives and attention to power dynamics in attempts to problematise interactions between international and local actors. Recent developments in peace research have taken up this critical ambition and raised critiques in much of the mainstream conflict resolution literature, where consensus and harmonious relations are often viewed as the ultimate outcome of conflict resolution efforts. In many ways, agonistic peace can be considered the answer to the question of what peace should entail should we take these critical and power-centred approaches seriously (Shinko 2022). Furthermore, agonistic peace scholarship shares ontological and epistemological understandings of peace with the conflict transformation paradigm, which holds that conflicts are nonlinear, cyclical processes and hence understood as part and parcel of the social construction of societies; as such, they constitute a potentially productive force for societal change (Lederach 1997, 8). Agonistic peace scholars and conflict transformation scholars alike underscore how conflicts are situated in social relations between the collective identities of the parties to conflict (Buckley-Zistel 2008, 22), and, in their development over time, periods of both constructive (agonistic) and destructive (antagonistic) transformation can be observed (Kriesberg 1998, 294).

Recently, several studies have set out to rethink peace beyond the traditional concepts of negative and positive peace (Davenport, Melander, and Regan 2018; Diehl 2019; Söderström, Åkebo, and Jarstad 2021). Agonistic peace can be seen as part of this emerging discussion about what peace is and should be. The idea of agonistic peace is based on the assumption that attempts to find common ground through dialogue may at best reinforce the status quo and at worst silence legitimate claims and grievances, thereby rendering violence one of the options for challenging the status quo. As political theorist Chantal Mouffe (2005, 21) summarises, ‘when conflict is not given the possibility of having legitimate channels of expression, it takes the form of violent antagonism’. This calls for a shift in focus towards agonism and continued contestation (Aggestam, Cristiano, and Strömbom 2015; Nagle 2014; Ramsbotham 2010; Shinko 2008; Strömbom 2020). In contrast to seeking mutual understanding and consensus-oriented dialogue, the agonistic response to conflict implies delegitimising violence, politicising the conflict, and creating space for agonistic ­contestation, ultimately enabling a shift from antagonistic relations of violence and the non-recognition of the adversary to an agonistic dynamic where the opponents acknowledge each other as legitimate adversaries (Lederach 2005; Mouffe 2005, 2013; Rumelili and Çelik 2017; Wæver and Bramsen 2019).

Mouffe’s approach to conflict is inspired by Schmitt’s understanding of friend‒enemy relations as constitutive (Rumelili and Çelik 2017) of the political (Mouffe 2005). Identity is constituted around boundaries to others, and there is always a possibility that agonistic us‒them relations will become antagonistic relations defined around friend‒enemy boundaries (Connolly 1991; Mouffe 2005). The core of agonistic peace and dialogue is to transform antagonistic relations into agonistic ones where the opponent is considered a legitimate adversary, thereby

construct[ing] the ‘them’ in such a way that it is no longer perceived as an enemy to be destroyed, but an ‘adversary’, i.e. somebody whose ideas we combat but whose right to defend those ideas we do not put into question. (Mouffe 2005, 5)

Transforming an enemy into an adversary implies both this formal recognition of the other’s right to defend their ideas and a normative commitment to the ethico-political principles of liberty and equality. While Mouffe neither rejects nor renders unimportant the possibility for consensus, the uncritical celebration thereof is profoundly challenged.

The relationship between agonism and change is ambiguous (Strömbom, Bramsen, and Stein 2022). On the one hand, as argued by Little (2010, 49), agonism

allows for more fluidity and dynamic change in the way we understand political structures and the transitory nature of political agreements. It comprehends the need for contingent notions of democracy and the fragile way in which polities are held together in complex societies.

With its focus on the contingency of identities, power and structures (as well as the implicit invitation to challenge hegemony) the notion of agonistic peace is potentially both fluid and dynamic. However, the ideal to not aim for the transformation of identities and positions but to allow conflicting parties to continuously push for their goals without aiming for compromises might favour inertia. Rather, ‘the kind of vibrant clash of identities that Mouffe advocates may be more likely to harden or reify existing identities than to transform them’ (Schaap 2006, 270). While it is pivotal to carve out space for continuing conflict after a peace agreement, it is equally important that post-accord societies and institutions are constituted in a relatively dynamic way to avoid cementing identities and positions (eg through power-sharing mechanisms) (Strömbom, Bramsen, and Stein 2022). The possibility of change and the potential transformation of identities and positions is crucial not only when designing societal institutions but also in concrete dialogue, where the space to change positions without losing face should ideally be left open. As argued by Dryzek (2005, 279), this can be challenging ‘if one’s position is tied to one’s identity’ in a divided society.

In many ways, the agonistic approach to building peace is both more and less ambitious than traditional ones: less ambitious in that it allows a for ‘less perfect peace’, where contestation and difference can continue, and yet more demanding because it requires the courage, readiness and devotion to engage with an opponent politically. In Mouffe’s original account of agonism, the aim is a radical democracy where hegemony is challenged through counter discourses, whereas more reconciliatory accounts of agonism instead suggest allowing for the co-existence of contradictory identities and perceptions of the past.

The elaborations on agonistic peace mainly consisted of theoretical discussions advancing the concept of agonism from the field of democratic theory (Mouffe 2005) and made meaningful for the fields of IR and peace research (Mouffe 2013; Peterson 2013; Tambakaki 2014). More recently, the concept has continued its proliferation within international studies, becoming increasingly engaged in different subfields of IR, such as studies of memory, heritage and identity (Cento Bull and Lauge Hansen 2016; Cento Bull et al. 2019; Mälksoo 2015; Rumelili and Çelik 2017; Strömbom 2019), the transformation of violent conflict, and transitional justice (Aggestam, Cristiano, and Strömbom 2015; Little 2010; Little and Maddison 2017; Maddison 2016; Strömbom 2020), and elaborations on dialogue as key in the move from antagonistic conflict to agonistic peace (Lehti 2018; Nagle 2014; Ramsbotham 2010; Yordán 2009). Although the study of agonistic peace has moved in recent years from a political–philosophical realm into engagement with concrete cases, few studies have yet taken to heart the task of engaging and unpacking the agonistic peace concept in analyses of real-life conflict settings. This collection sets out to do exactly that – to apply, deepen and develop the analytical potential and empirical specificity of agonistic peace. In what follows, we present the most pertinent themes covered in this collection. Inspired by Strömbom’s (2020) theorisation of the core elements of agonistic peace, the discussion is clustered around the two overall themes: institutional dynamics and relational transformation.

Institutional dynamics

War-to-peace transformations involve the creation of institutions and platforms allowing for the continuation of conflict by non-violent, political means (Strömbom 2020). This is an underdeveloped area in agonistic peace research (Fossen 2012; Howarth 2008; Westphal 2019), which has all too often been preoccupied with the broader ethos or spirit of societal relations (Schaap 2005, 2006; Tambakaki 2014). Westphal (2019) suggests that we ought to think of agonistic institutions in terms of conflict regulation. Hence, war-to-peace transitions can be analysed with an eye to ‘how political struggles should be carried out’ (190), and how institutional outlets/spaces for agonistic interactions and relations are provided (Strömbom, Bramsen, and Stein 2022). By discussing various institutional arrangements and platforms for agonistic interaction, the contributors to this volume help to fill the ‘institutional deficit’ that has long been an inherent weakness within agonistic theory (Westphal 2019). It is clear that platforms and institutions of agonistic interaction can be diverse and context-dependent. For example, Bramsen (this volume) looks at parliamentarian dialogues and how they may serve as platforms of agonistic interaction. Below, we delineate three important institutional aspects and how they are investigated and advanced in this collection: (1) inclusion, (2) dialogue and (3) power and counter-hegemony.

Inclusion

Inclusion has become somewhat of a mandatory principle when attempting to create political order in war-to-peace transitions (Hirblinger and Landau 2020; Krause, Krause, and Bränfors 2018; Paffenholz 2014; Paffenholz and Zartman 2019). Inclusion is a rather fuzzy term, however, as it offers no inherent references concerning who to include or how inclusion should be carried out. For agonistic peace scholarship, especially related to institutions, the main question concerns the principles according to which peace processes allow for inclusion and interaction. Hirblinger and Landau (2020) argue that different inclusionary principles can be understood as allowing for different degrees of agonism. The type of inclusion might in turn affect the agonistic character of relationships among groups within different institutions. Aggestam, Cristiano, and Strömbom (2015) forward the idea of agonistic peacebuilding focused on creating platforms for continuing contestation and first and foremost emphasise inclusion and representation so that no groups are left out. Several articles in this collection problematise inclusion and reveal its double-edged consequences in conflictual relations. For example, Maddison (this volume) brings up the pitfalls of inclusion in indigenous‒colonial relations, where indigenous groups might indeed feel co-opted by inclusionary efforts from the majority population. In turn, Nagle (this volume) analyses non-sectarian movements in post-war Beirut, showing how two types of movement actors, pluralisers and intersectionalists, use agonistic frameworks to challenge the hegemony of divisive sectarian politics and contribute to the re-articulation of claims and contestation in Lebanese society. Rumelili and Strömbom (2021) bring up another important aspect of inclusion, emphasising how we often see backlashes in elite-lead peace and reconciliation processes when radicals and moderates alike do not feel that their voices are being heard in societal debates leading up to formal peace accords and thus react strongly to this perceived misrecognition.

Dialogue

In many accounts where agonistic peace is brought up, dialogue takes centre stage (Lehti 2016; Little and Maddison 2017; Ramsbotham 2017; Schick 2015). It is argued that agonistic dialogue within institutions can help to create common ground for coexistence and ‘thinking together’ in flexible and creative ways, so that newly created policies and practices are firmly based in shared understandings (cf. Lehti 2016). However, the usage of dialogue here should not be conflated with the consensus-oriented view often forwarded in the literature on deliberative democracy (Gutmann and Thompson 1996). That literature tends to hold that unity/consensus is an ultimate good and should always be sought. Instead, agonistic theory and its take on dialogue argues that conflicts can and should prevail – but that they should be channelled into agonistic dialogue, which builds on the idea of dissensus as a progressive source of social life (Mouffe 2005; Schaap 2006). In a condensed way, this entails the principle of ‘always listen to the other side’ (Tully 2000, 475); that is, no matter how conflictual that claim may be or whether agreement can actually be reached. Agonistic dialogue is therefore often juxtaposed with and contrasted against the liberal democratic idealisation of consensus, win–win solutions and the ‘third way’, and it might very well be translated into a critique of mainstream theories of conflict resolution. Although they are often lumped together, the various accounts of an agonistic approach to dialogue differ in some substantial respects. Ramsbotham (2010) suggests an approach to agonistic dialogue and strategic engagement of discourses that takes seriously the linguistic intractability of what he calls radical disagreement; that is, conflicts of ‘different discourse worlds’ (7). For Ramsbotham (2010), the core of agonistic dialogue is to support what he calls extremists of ends rather than means on both sides of the conflict so as to cultivate further conflict and contestation but of a non-violent nature, to ‘promote the war of words so that the full lineaments of linguistic intractability can be seen and understood’ and ultimately to ‘let words die, not people’ (202). Another approach to agonistic dialogue is much more focused on the potential of dialogue to generate sympathy and understanding than on cultivating further conflict. It is then argued that in agonistic dialogue,

participants make a serious and genuine effort to understand others’ concerns, even though deep disagreements may persist. In divided societies, this cannot entail an avoidance of the ‘explosive’ issues of history, politics and identity. Dialogue must address these concerns, not with a view to finding consensus, but with the intent of transforming the antagonist in the conflict into a ‘complete, full-bodied entity’ with whom it might be possible to sympathize. (Maddison 2015, 1021)

Hence, it becomes a matter of finding ways of disagreeing without demonising the other. This aim might be less radical than that proposed by Ramsbotham, as the reason for providing space for passionate conflict is less a question of challenging unequal power structures and engaging radical disagreement and more one of not avoiding conflict and passions while at the same time aiming towards a ‘greater possibility for understanding’ (Maddison 2015, 1023). Several contributions to this collection develop important aspects of dialogue. Rumelili and Strömbom (2021) remove the dyadic aspect in their focus on pluralist multi-logue, which enhances the plurality claim inherent in agonism. In turn, Çelik and Göker (this issue) focus on the role of agonistic listening in dialogue practices, enriching the concept with emotional and gendered aspects.

Counter-hegemony

In line with Foucault’s insight that power always relates to counter-power, all hegemonies engender counter-hegemonic practices, discourses and identities. A central aspect of generating agonistic peace and promoting adversarial contestation is to make room for counter-hegemonic practices and resistance. This can assume many forms, from protests in the streets and counter-hegemonic discourses in history books to parties in political systems. The contributions in this volume investigate counter-hegemony in the form of protests through art and demonstrations in in Beirut, the Lebanese capital. Here, Nagle (2021) displays how different groups contest hegemonic discourses on identity and conflict in their counter-hegemonic struggles to re-articulate community relations. Likewise, Maddison (this issue) discusses the counter-hegemonic practices of indigenous communities and intellectuals in their continued efforts to contest colonialism and disrupt settler legitimacy. In the case of Northern Ireland, Bramsen (2021) shows how the 1996 peace agreement has shaped the society and political system such that what were formerly two polarised positions have now been institutionally forced into the same government. In a somewhat strange way, the emerging relationship between previous enemies now constitutes a new hegemony leaving little space for counter-hegemonic positions (designated as ‘other’ in the political system) or passionate conflict in parliament, as the two main parties must support each other’s positions and avoid actually debating core differences.

Relational transformation

Apart from novel institutional arrangements and changes to existing ones, agonistic peace implies identity-related, relational transformations where parties come to recognise each other as legitimate opponents rather than enemies (Strömbom 2019). Mouffe’s understanding of antagonism relies on an understanding of identity as reliant on relationships with an ‘other’, implying that identity and difference are always co-constituted. In that sense, difference is inherent in antagonistic and agonistic relations, with the former characterised by demonisation and delegitimation and the latter by the recognition of a legitimacy of the other as a partner in contestation as long as that subject abides by the commonly agreed upon rules and forms for disagreement (Schaap 2005, 68). In the following, we present how the contributions in this collection make use of and develop three specific aspects pertaining to relationship transformation: (1) dealing with the past in present identifications, (2) recognition and (3) reconciliation.

Identity

A key argument in several of the contributions to this collection is that conflicts that have been ongoing for many years boil down to questions of identification in the present, where different parties’ memories of the conflict have come to shape identities as well as fears and hopes for the future, which may severely restrain the opportunities to create peace. To open up for new relationships between parties in a future peace, it is therefore imperative to create fora where memories of the conflict and their meaning for current identity constructions can be brought up and juxtaposed. This speaks to the crucial role of a politics of memory in agonistic relations. Beyond negotiating conditions of disarmament, political institutional design, principles of inclusion and fundamental rights, a peace process should therefore have various strategies for ‘dealing with the past’, recognising that future stability may rest on coming to terms with the legacy of conflict. In peace processes, this effort is often embodied in various practices of transitional justice, such as international criminal courts and truth and reconciliation commissions, where the aim is to remedy wounds from the past in an attempt at improving post-agreement relationships. Transitional justice is a broad church with a variety of aims, such as delivering different forms of truth (forensic, narrative, social, restorative) and/or justice (historical, constitutional, legal, restorative) (Teitel 2000). At the intersection of memory studies and transitional justice, interesting work has been produced on how to enter into dialogues between the codified (ie legal tribunals, reparations) and less codified mechanisms (ie cultural representations, memorials, museums) in coming to terms with divisive legacies (Rigney 2012). In this regard, the Walsh and Murphy (2021) study offers indicators for whether, when and how a global sample of peace agreements deals with the past in an agonistic manner.

Beyond formal top-down attempts at creating mechanisms for transitional justice and peace negotiations, post-accord phases often create forums where memories and identities can be vented and discussed. One concrete example thereof is brought up by Bramsen (2021), who analyses articulations of identity and narratives of the past in the Northern Ireland Assembly. She shows how the then first minister and deputy first minister representing the traditional parties to the conflict in Northern Ireland acknowledge each other’s identities and narratives of the past in a manner that almost resembles a textbook example of agonistic peace. However, this implies a thin recognition (Strömbom 2014) rather than a thick recognition, acknowledging the actor as a legitimate subject while not acknowledging the thick identity dimensions of that subject.

Recognition

Conflicts are often undergirded by a sense among parties that their identities, needs and/or rights are not recognised. In turn, this misrecognition gives rise to further conflict, which tends to be continuously reinforced by misrecognition among parties, who in turn constantly strive for recognition (Nagle 2014, 722). According to this line of thinking, recognition may serve not only as a cause of conflict, but also as a route towards conflict transformation, and this connection has indeed been emphasised in recent years (Strömbom 2014). The concept of recognition sometimes has an underlying ideal, which holds that if only groups can recognise the other, previous boundaries will collapse and differences will consequently be eradicated. Here, we encounter two very different problems. On the one hand, empirical evidence points to the difficulties in achieving such an all-encompassing recognition process among former antagonists. Even if some individuals or collectives recognise former enemies, it is often a challenge (to say the least) to get all groups to do so (Zarakol 2010). On the other hand, should it be successful, this process is bound to produce backlash, since many individuals as well as collectives experience threat when they are confronted with boundary ruptures and the complete eradication of difference (cf. Rumelili 2015). Based on that logic, the contributors to this volume elaborate on various ways in which the concepts of recognition can be advanced and invested with agonistic principles and ways in which they can be helpful for our understanding of fluctuations between agonism and antagonism.

In this volume, Rumelili and Strömbom discuss the possibilities for more modest and less ontologically threatening identity transformations in the contexts of Israel and Turkey. Their development of the concept of agonistic recognition brings an open-ended plural understanding of recognition where difference can remain intact yet de-securitised, which could be one way towards less volatile trajectories of conflict transformation. In turn, Lehti and Romashov elaborate on suspended antagonism and the evolution of cognitive safe spaces in which antagonistic relations can be momentarily suspended. Here, they point out the existence of thin recognition among actors in the Armenian Zadakhlo bazaar, in which thicker aspects of recognition undercutting the wider antagonisms in conflict are skilfully bypassed and glossed over. In this way, a respect necessary for successful interaction in the bazaar can be developed without touching on the wider antagonistic dynamics of conflict. Likewise, Gonzales Martín, Lauge Hansen and Parra Grondona point out how the LPOA (La paz es una obra de arte) research project opens up a space in which self-identities and images of the ‘other’ lying underneath the conflict of recognition might be negotiated and modified with their artistic interventions with formerly conflicting parties in Colombia. In these encounters, (former) parties to conflict (eg victims, perpetrators and bystanders) can meet and engage in each other’s life-story narratives. Through this process, thick forms of recognition can emerge which in turn may spur processes of agonistic peacebuilding.

Reconciliation

In the broader literature on agonism and identity change, relational dynamics take a specifically pertinent role when related to the reconciliation concept (Little and Maddison 2017). When thinking about the transformation from antagonistic enemies to agonistic adversaries, Schaap’s writings (2005, 2006) on agonistic reconciliation offer crucial insights. New relationships are to be fostered in which groups no longer see each other as targets for destruction, but instead look upon one another as contenders whose views they disagree strongly with, yet with respect for the adversaries’ need for contestation. In that sense, the shift towards agonistic relations in conflict transformation processes constitutes a ‘radical break with the social order that underpinned the violence of the past’ (Schaap 2006, 272). Schaap also underlines how the end of reconciliation efforts (in line with agonistic thought) is not to define common identity, which is often the case in traditional reconciliation practice, but rather to keep the space available for continuous contestation and the debate of relations and the significance of the past for living together (Schaap 2005, 89). While the literature on reconciliation is vast and diverse, it shares a common emphasis on the role of the past in relationship transformation. Reconciliation efforts are often preoccupied with how to handle volatile relations during peace processes, constantly relating back to the understandings of history and the memory of the collectives involved in these reconciliation projects (Little and Maddison 2017). Many critics of contemporary reconciliation projects criticise them for having the impossible ideal of harmony and a continuous state of peaceful relations, ignoring the often rather ‘messy history’ of conflict (Hirsch Keller 2012, 3). Theorists taking their vantage point in agonism (eg Maddison, Little and Schaap) have therefore tried to develop theoretical pathways to diverge from the harmonious and consensus ideals inherent in much of the mainstream work on reconciliation. As underlined by Maddison (2021) in this volume, however, reconciliatory efforts in agonistic theory carry inherent limitations as they tend to prioritise discursive change (Robinson 2016, 159) over the redistribution of resources such as land. In that regard, Maddison’s discussion pushes agonistic theorists to exit their discursive comfort zone and open up for debate how agonistic reconciliation relates to the redistribution of power, especially if the concept is to be made meaningful in decolonising efforts.

Concluding remarks

As we argue in this introduction, agonistic peace can be considered an answer to the question of how peace could be generated, as a constructive response to many years of criticism of the theory and practices of liberal peacebuilding. This collection provides further analytical input to this conundrum by showing how agonistic peace can be analysed, implemented and discussed in practice in various contexts, from Colombia and Lebanon to Northern Ireland, Turkey and beyond. Analysing agonistic dynamics in war-to-peace transitions contributes to challenging commonsensical understandings of the respective cases and feeds into critical studies of counter-hegemony and liberal blanket approaches to inclusion, recognition and pluralism. Providing agonistic lenses in the study of peace and conflict enables researchers and students to see transitions from violent conflict in a different light and to analyse those dynamics with an eye to interaction, institutionalisation and power. This collection shows how agonistic peace can assume many forms, from humoristic interaction in parliament to agonistic listening in women’s groups or protests in the streets. In this way, agonistic peace goes beyond the critical mode of engaging with war-to-peace transitions, also including a more constructive dimension in terms of how peace processes can be improved. Future research could further develop this constructive dimension, exploring how peace agreements and peace processes can be designed in accordance with principles of agonistic peace. It is equally important to improve our knowledge on the move from agonistic principles inherent in negotiations and peace agreements to the material as well as ideational obstacles that arise in the implementation of these ideas. There, at the interface between agonistic theory and practice, knowledge crucial to future peacebuilding theory will emerge.

Acknowledgements

It has been a true joy to serve as guest editors of this collection. We managed to gather top thinkers on the topic of agonistic peace who were willing to share their work and analyses with us. At a virtual workshop in the midst of the pandemic we all got together and vetted the manuscripts which later on were reviewed, revised and published in this collection. We extend our deep gratitude to all contributors as well as the editorial team of Third World Quarterly, who from the start saw great potential in this project. A special thanks goes to Rosemary Shinko for having taken part in our elaborations on how to work with and develop her concept of agonistic peace and for sharing her reflections on that process in the epilogue of this volume. Our warmest thanks are extended also to Maria Morales, who provided valuable research assistance throughout the whole editorial process, as well as to the anonymous reviewer who gave us very helpful comments for improving this introductory article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This article was written within the project ‘Pushing the boundaries of peace research: Reconceptualizing and measuring agonistic peace’, funded by Riksbankens Jubileumsfond [grant no: RIK18-1441:3].

Notes on contributors

Lisa Strömbom

Lisa Strömbom is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science, Lund University, where she previously served as Director of Peace and Conflict Studies and Vice Head of Department. She has published widely on intractable conflict, identity politics and conflict transformation in journals such as the European Journal of International Relations, Journal of International Relations and Development, Global Society, Review of International Studies and Third World Quarterly. She currently serves as the Principal Investigator for the five-year programme PUSHPEACE, centred on analyses of agonistic peace.

Isabel Bramsen

Isabel Bramsen is an Associate Senior Lecturer at Lund University, Department of Political Science. Her research focuses on agonistic dialogue, civil resistance and the micro-sociology of peace, conflict and diplomacy. She has published widely in International Affairs, Third World Quarterly, Psychology of Violence, Journal of Resistance Studies, Peace and Change and Conflict Resolution Quarterly. She is the co-author of International Konfliktløsning (Samfundslitteratur, 2016) and co-editor of the anthology Addressing International Conflict: Dynamics of Escalation, Continuation and Transformation (Routledge, 2019).