Juliet Bennett

In an era marked by climate breakdown and global inequality, Reimagining Peace Through Process Philosophy develops a positive image of the future, and a co-creative path towards that vision inspired by process philosophy. This first chapter provides an orientation to the field of process philosophy, also known as “process thought” and “process metaphysics.” It distinguishes: (1) the practice of process thinking, as a mode of thought that emphasises contexts, relationships and participation; (2) the metaphysics of process thinking, the view of “things” not as static but as relational-processes, activating a narrative of cosmological and community participation; and (3) the applications of process thinking, such as in ecological economics, complex systems theory and in addressing issues such as the “global systemic crisis.” This chapter starts to sketch a positive image of the future, connecting peace theorists’ aspirations for “positive peace,” “peace with justice,” and “peace systems,” with process philosophers’ visions of “ecological civilization.”

The static-process framework developed in Chap. 2 distinguished static thinking and process thinking according to five basic orientations: abstract/context, closed/open, isolating/relational; passive/generative; and one/multi-dimensional. This chapter applies the static-process framework to develop a process metaphysics of positive peace, elucidating theories and practices of peace through a clear articulation of the process epistemology and process ontology, and corresponding values. It draws on Reardon’s (Betty A. Reardon: A Pioneer in Education for Peace and Human Rights. Springer International, [1989] 2015) outline of a paradigm of/for peace to evaluate the ways that process metaphysics aligns with, underpins and advances positive peace. This approach aspires to a vision of peace that addresses all forms of violence, including the less visible cultural and structural forms of violence. This includes and transcends the aims of negative peace, the absence of direct forms of violence, nesting negative peace within its more transformative vision and addressing the conditions that give rise to such violence. The aim of positive peace assumes a process epistemology of provisional realism, moving beyond both positivism and relativism by treating truth as an asymptote, polyphonic and always-in-process. Peaceful imaginaries find support in process ontologies, emphasising the participatory and emergent nature of life at every scale in a universe comprising part-wholes that together can co-create violence or peace.

In the vast history of ideas, there exists a dynamic tension between a narrow focus on things as separate and unchanging (static thinking), and a broader focus on their relational and always-changing contexts (process thinking). Drawing from process philosophy, this book develops a “nested” approach to these two modes of thought, iteratively bringing static perspectives into relational-process contexts, positing this “static-process framework” as a key to reimagining peaceful and sustainable futures. This chapter elaborates the practice of process thinking, articulating conceptualises tensions between two modes of thought—“static thinking” and “process thinking”—which co-exist in almost every area of human life. This chapter demonstrates the philosophical consistency and coherency of this tool, and establishes the primacy of process in enabling balanced thinking. It goes on to examine the correlation between this framework and contemporary theoretical propositions in neuroscience regarding different functions of the brain’s hemispheres, using this as an analogy to illustrate the relationship between static thinking and process thinking (McGilchrist’s extensive review of the latest research in neuroscience indicates a potential biologically evolved foundation to the philosophy and practice of the theory of process and static thinking developed and applied in this book. Some scientists critique research into left and right brains and the linking of biological patterns to social sciences. To avoid such distractions from my argument I treat the left and right brain as an analogy with the hint of embodied reality). Linking understandings of the two modes of thought with philosophies of peace education, cultivating “process literacy” is proposed as essential to learning for peace. Examples of static and process education practices illustrate the application of the static-process framework. These practices are then evaluated from a dual peace and process perspective, with a view to learning for peace. This chapter establishes process thinking as a balanced mode of thought for peace, and lays the conceptual foundations for the book chapters to follow.

Emerging from the application of process theory to intertwining issues of peace, social and economic justice and environmental sustainability, is the possibility of a fractal-like transition in thinking, behaviour, cultures and structures. Drawing on the “four quadrants” of Ken Wilber’s integral theory, itself a form of process philosophy, this chapter lays out a process theory of peace that works simultaneously from the outside-in and the inside-out. It argues that interconnecting changes in each of the four quadrants—the individual interior (thoughts and experiences), individual exterior (biology and behaviours), collective interior (culture and worldviews) and collective exterior (political and economic systems)—benefit from an iterative nesting of static perspectives within encompassing process perspectives. In this chapter, such changes are directed towards a positive image of the future: a future that is peaceful, just and sustainable. This vision of positive peace aspires to the cessation of all forms of violence, not only direct, cultural and structural violence, but inner violence too. Thus, this chapter suggests that the inner dimensions of violence and peace, and changes from one to the other, unlock shifts in the other dimensions too. Addressing the global systemic crisis, as this book has proposed, requires an integrative transformation across all dimensions, guided by a shift from static thinking to encompassing process thinking.

This chapter explores a process perspective of political theories as it applies to mediating the climate crisis. Reflecting the ongoing self-reflexivity of process thinking, the chapter also confronts the potential political biases of the author by reflecting on process philosophy, peace studies and personal leanings in relation to left and right political ideologies. While recognising inadequacies of left-right categories, a partial alignment of process politics with the left, right and centre of the political spectrum is uncovered, and a new (multi-dimensional, processual) way to think about these political categories is explored. The basic orientations of process thinking are applied to aspects of Marxist, social democratic, capitalist and neoliberal political theories, identifying intersections and divergences of process perspectives. It explores the ways that static biases arise when ideas, ideologies or assumptions (e.g. about human nature) are treated as fixed and unchanging or are reduced to a single dimension. Grounded in process metaphysics, the process-based political theory developed emphasises the participatory and generative agency of social actors within the limitations of their material and historical contexts, and the possibilities for change in ideas and actions to evolve structural barriers that support peace with justice. The emerging theory connects with George Monbiot’s “politics of belonging” extended with process notions of “communities of communities” and transcending pro/anti-capitalist divides. This process politics does not seek a political revolution nor superficial reform but an integral transformation resonating with John Dewey’s vision of “creative democracy.” Foundational to process politics is a more equal distribution of power, decoupling the influence of wealth over democracy, and re-regulating markets in the interests of long-term human and nonhuman wellbeing. Utilising the static-process framework and process metaphysics, Chaps. 5 and 6 demonstrate diverging and converging alliances of political and economic theories that can be understood in terms of hegemonic static thinking and encompassing process thinking. Together with the contextual economics, this chapter shows how process philosophy supports more participatory policymaking and multi-scale interventions to enable the co-creation of more peaceful and sustainable futures.

The chapters so far have established that static thinking involves narrow, one-dimensional, de-contextualised thinking, which in many expressions stands as obstacles to theories and actions for a sustainable future. This chapter turns to examine the key dimensions of the contextual economics paradigm that emerges from encompassing process thinking, showing how this approach supports the co-creative politics advanced in Chap. 5. This chapter explores the ways in which, guided by encompassing process thinking, contextual approaches to economic theories bring orthodox economic models and measures (of supply and demand, GDP, circular flow) into their empirical, historical and relational contexts. It applies the static-process framework to show how contextual economics nests what Julie Nelson depicts as “hard” economics (of markets and profit) within “soft” areas of economics (such as unpaid work and wellbeing). Applying the basic orientations of process thinking, this chapter outlines a possible process-oriented synthesis of economic theories, drawing upon the work of feminist economist Julie Nelson, former-Oxfam economist Kate Raworth, ecological economist Herman Daly and political economists Jim Stanford and Frank Stilwell. These economists, among others, provide process-based critiques of orthodox economics and offer constructive proposals for the teaching and practice of economics that reflect co-creative communities. For example, this chapter shows how process thinking challenges the assumptions of economics, shifting the focus from Homo economicus (self-interested individual man) to person-in-community; from profit-maximising firms to purpose-driven firms; and from the goal of GDP growth to growth in human and nonhuman wellbeing, or “thriving-in-balance” within Kate Raworth’s “Doughnut.”

Climate change is a pressing contemporary global peace issue. Climate change has a multiplying effect on many other forms of violence from climate refugees to food insecurity, poverty and wars over resources. This chapter argues that climate change is a symptom of a global systemic crisis, connected to social and economic systems obscured by static-biased thinking and the assumptions of static metaphysics (epistemologies, ontologies and cosmologies) not nested in process contexts. This chapter starts with an up-to-date assessment of the climate crisis, including an examination of counter-narratives of climate denialism. It then assesses the systemic nature of the crisis, focusing on patterns of population growth, consumption and technology. The overriding influence of political economy on the prospects for change is observed, justifying a deeper examination of political and economic theories (in Chaps. 5 and 6). A process lens is not unique; it is found in much of the trans-disciplinary and interdisciplinary scholarship on the topic. However, by analysing the climate crisis through a process lens here, it is seen as intertwined with a crisis of planetary ecological systems, a crisis of the world economy and a crisis of democracy, each with hegemonic static-biased thinking at their roots. Building on this perspective, the chapter critiques fragmented approaches to climate solutions. The analysis highlights the complementary changes on production/supply side of the economy (the dominant approach) and the consumption/demand side (often overlooked), emphasising the multi-directional relationship between the two domains and building bridges between individual and collective action. Viewed through a process lens, the systemic crisis is understood to be irreducible to one issue or one solution, and the multi-directional influence of parts in wholes and wholes in parts gives rise to multi-scale interventions examined in the balance of this book.

This book explores the ways in which process philosophers extend and strengthen peace scholars’ outlines of a paradigm of/for peace. It then illustrates the value of such a peace paradigm through the example of the climate breakdown, showing how process thinking and process metaphysics intervene at the roots of a global systemic crisis. In doing so, it articulates a new inroad to process philosophy, and illuminates an integrative intervention in the systemic crises of climate change and global inequality. The “static-process framework” developed in this book makes the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead and the fields he has inspired easier to grasp, and offers a tool to assist in the application of process thought to a multitude of issues. This framework depicts tensions between two modes of thought—static and process thinking—according to five “basic orientations”: abstract/context, closed/open, isolating/relational; passive/generative; one/multi-dimensional. This pattern is mapped across the domains of metaphysics, economics, politics and as the basis for a new mode of living and organising across multiple layers of society.

This article provides a novel inroad to the field of process philosophy and its application. It does this by elucidating the relationship between two modes of thought—static and process thinking—as a key to cocreating ecological civilization. Static and process modes of thought are conceptualized in terms of five “basic orientations”: abstract and context, closed and open, isolating and relational, passive and generative, one-dimensional and multidimensional. Inspired by the work of Alfred North Whitehead, Arran Gare, and Julie Nelson, these dynamic dualisms are resolved by nesting static perspectives within process-relational contexts. This article argues that “hegemonic static thinking” is guiding decision-making at root of global crises. While also avoiding “dualistic process thinking,” “encompassing process thinking” that includes and transcends static thinking is posited as a mode of thought conducive to more ecological and community-oriented decision-making across multiple scales. This article establishes the philosophical consistency of this nested “static-process framework,” using it to show how process metaphysics underpins interlinking shifts in worldviews, politics, and economics for moving from industrial to ecological civilization.

Although a modus operandi throughout history, the passing down of beliefs and values from parent to child is a practice that must now be challenged. Drawing a connection between fundamentalist religious beliefs and inter-generational violence, this paper examines an ethical dilemma that lies at its crux: on the one hand, the peaceful intentions of fundamentalist believers, and on the other a number of violent consequences for individuals, society, and the world. Applying interdisciplinary religious and peace theory scholarship to the case of Christian fundamentalism in Australia, a number of intertwining issues surrounding religion and education are explored. Should religion be taught to children? What is the difference between indoctrination and education? Is some enculturation desirable? Who decides? Do children have a right to choose their own religion? Do parents have a right to teach them theirs? Is indoctrination avoidable? Is neutrality of the teacher attainable? Does a liberal society have a right not to tolerate the intolerant? How might these complex paradoxes be addressed from a philosophical and peace education perspective?