Search results

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to discuss diversity among individual activists and the movement as a whole in the United States and identify the concerns, challenges, opportunities, and initiatives facing the broader network of global peace activists.

Design/methodology/approach – Data were from my study of U.S. peace activists that included 251 Internet survey respondents and 33 telephone interviewees.

Findings – I present a typology of internal and external challenges for the peace movement identified by activists, as well as five strategies for diversifying the movement.

Social implications – As some respondents expressed how their privileged status as American citizens prompted their peace activism, I explore how the intersection of a socially dominant status with the experience of belonging to a subordinated gender group impacts activism. I also discuss global opportunities to strengthen the peace and justice movement with a particular focus on women's activism.

Originality – While most studies of peace activism focus on social movement organizations, this is a comprehensive study of individuals involved in peace activism after September 11, 2001.

On 1 April 1978, the Israeli peace movement burst into world consciousness when an estimated 25,000 Israelis demonstrated in Tel Aviv to urge the administration of Prime Minister Menachem Begin to continue peace negotiations with Egypt. A grassroots group called Peace Now is credited with organizing and leading that demonstration. Today, the “peace camp” refers to left‐wing political parties and organizations that hold dovish positions on the Arab‐Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issue. While some figures in the Labor Party view themselves as the peace movement's natural leader, political parties further to the left like the Citizens Rights Movement (CRM) and Mapam are more dovish. In the last 10 years, many grassroots peace organizations have, like Peace Now, formed outside the political party system, with the goal of influencing public opinion and eventually having an impact on policy makers. Peace Now is still the largest, most visible and influential of those organizations.

Since the 19th century, peace movements have consistently called on women to oppose war based on their roles as mothers and citizens. The women's rights and women's peace groups that participated in the anti-war movement of the 2000s continue this pattern drawing on both maternalist and egalitarian frames in their mobilizations. This chapter seeks to understand the forces that shape individual perceptions of the persuasiveness of these frames using face-to-face survey data collected at three 2004 demonstrations. The analyses show that different frames appeal to people with different levels of movement experience. The maternalism frame is negatively correlated with social movement experience and the egalitarian feminist frame is positively correlated. I extrapolate from this finding that that the maternalism frame may serve as a recruitment frame and that the egalitarian frame may serve as a retention frame. The conclusion theorizes that rather than thinking of women's groups that use different framing in oppositional contexts, it may be useful to think of the two sets of social movement organizations as working together in a symbiotic relationship that draws in new participants and maintains existing adherents through the use of distinctly different frames. This paper applies social movement framing theory in two unconventional ways: (1) it focuses on framing reception and the way that frames link individuals with organizations; (2) it encourages social movement scholars to think about the relationship between different frames within a broader movement and proposes an alternate conception of frame competition.

Purpose – To answer two related questions, namely, why women in general are excluded from peace-building processes and why women in Israel are excluded from peace-building processes and have to create their own organizations?

Methodology/approach – This is narrative prospective research paper. First, the research focuses on international gender theories regarding participation of women in peace-building processes, and then on the particular situation of women in Israel and their need to form peace movements and organizations of their own.

Findings – The research revealed that Israeli women's absence from the official negotiations with the Palestinians as well as women's exclusion from other peace-building processes is part of a global phenomenon. Given the fact that women have been missing from the Israel's official negotiations with the Palestinians since 1987 when the first Intifada began, and their plight is not addressed, women need to create their own peace movements and organizations for voicing their unique value for the benefit of society at large.

Research limitations – An update of the research should be conducted every two years to check changes in findings.

Value of the paper – The chapter highlights the significance of women's inclusion in peace building. It describes women's exclusion from the peace process in Israel although they have been extremely active and were recognized internationally and stresses the need for a gendered society to end the Palestinian–Israel conflict.

UNI Global Union’s General Secretary, Philip Jennings, delivered the Movement for the Abolition of War Remembrance Day Lecture at the Imperial War Museum on November 12th 2017. On a day when we remember the millions who died in the First World War and subsequent wars, Jennings called for renewed collective action to tackle the threats to peace. During the lecture, Jennings explored the ties that have bound the trade union movement to the peace movement over the last century or more and its relevance today to the struggle for social justice.

Social movement scholarship convincingly highlights the importance of sharing the same risks for building solidarity, but it often unintentionally conceals the reality that certain risks cannot be fully shared. Using interviews with activists involved in Combatants for Peace (CFP), a joint Palestinian–Israeli anti-occupation organization, this article illustrates how radically risks can differ for activists in relation to their nationality, as well as make clear the tremendous impact asymmetrical risks can have for movement organizations and their efforts to build solidarity. I argue that for movement organizations and joint partnerships working across fields of asymmetrical risk, solidarity is not about sharing the same risks; rather, it is about trust and mutual recognition of the risk asymmetries. Moreover, that solidarity building across risk asymmetries involves three general measures: a clear commitment to shared goals, a willingness to defend and support one another, and a respect of each other’s boundaries. In the discussion, this argument, which was developed through an in-depth analysis of CFP, is applied to the joint struggle in the Palestinian village of Bil’in to indicate generalizability.

Social movements are heterogeneous because they attract organizations from other movements and encourage activists to create organizations “indigenous” to the movement. This chapter examines the structural and technical differences between these kinds of organizations. Employing a contingency theory framework, it is shown that older “spill over” groups are much more likely to be multi-issue national organizations with particular organizational structures. Then, it is shown that these older groups have correlated environments and internal structures, but not their more contemporary counterparts. Finally, it is shown that the adoption of a new technology, the Facebook group, is mainly a path dependency outcome, and not correlated with contingency factors.

To outline strategies for balancing a critical approach to sport for development and peace (SDP) interventions with approaches that highlight the potentially positive outcomes of SDP. Two examples of attempts to balance these approaches are highlighted. One is a critical analysis of responses to sport-related environmental problems. The other is a study of how a sport-related reconciliation event led by celebrity athletes was successfully organized.

In the first part of the chapter, the complexity of the SDP concept (and the terms sport, peace, and development) is discussed along with the challenges of negotiating critical and more optimistic stances on SDP. In the second part, two approaches to navigating between “extremely critical” and “unwaveringly optimistic” stances on SDP are outlined through two case studies.

The two case studies are described along with preliminary findings from studies that were conducted. Each case study is accompanied by a discussion of how the author “middle-walked” between “extremely critical” and “unwaveringly optimistic” positions on SDP. A focus in this section is on how theory, methods, and strategies for reporting findings were accounted for in the process of balancing these distinct positions.

The difficulties attempting to balance critical and optimistic positions are discussed. The difficulties connecting critical analysis with practical suggestions for improving SDP-related work were also outlined.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the phenomenon of peace leadership, an emerging sub-area of leadership studies.

This literature review discusses peace leadership scholarly work specifically identified as such by its authors, and therefore does not include literature potentially viewed as informing the broader discussion of peace leadership.

The peace leadership specific scholarly literature discussed herein includes work on the traits, characteristics, and practices of peace leaders; peace leader role and responsibilities; and the connective and collective nature of peace leadership.

Discussion of the literature concludes a proposed definition of peace leadership and with three suggestions for ways to continue to build peace leadership scholarship including: empirical studies, theoretical and conceptual model creation, and ongoing informed discussions, and in itself contributes to the emerging conversation of peace leadership.