Content uploaded by Neil Arya
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Neil Arya on Apr 26, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Peace and Development Studies Vol. 4(1), pp. 1-7, February 2013
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/IJPDS
DOI: 10.5897/IJPDS12.008
ISSN 2141-6621 ©2013 Academic Journals
Review
The mutual determinants of individual, community, and
societal health and peace
Izzeldin Abuelaish1*, Nadia Fazal1, Nancy Doubleday2, Neil Arya3, Blake Poland4 and Rahim
Valani5
1Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Rm 578, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T
2M7.
2Hope Chair in Peace and Health, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
3Office of Global Health, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
4Public Health Policy, Social Behavioural Sciences, 155 College Street, Rm 588, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T 2M7.
5Medicine and Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Accepted 21 February, 2013
Health and peace are complex ideologies that share several fundamental elements. In this paper, we
begin by defining health and peace to better understand and appreciate their elements and how they
can be promoted. Building on this, the paper tackles the determinants of peace and health at various
levels: at the individual, community, and societal level by identifying barriers to health and peace
promotion. Using this background, mutual determinants of peace and health are analyzed, with the goal
of developing an integrated model that covers both facets of well being.
Key words: Health promotion, peace promotion, determinants of health, determinants of peace.
INTRODUCTION
Health and peace are both complex and multifaceted
terms that can be viewed from a variety of perspectives.
They share many fundamental elements, including social
(emotional), mental (psychological), and spiritual
dimensions; and, both can be fostered by seeking out
and promoting positive factors rather than only
addressing deficits and obstacles. Although issues
related to health and peace are typically conceptualized
and addressed independently of one another, we argue
here that these two concepts are inextricably linked and
that they need to be addressed in an integrated fashion.
This paper explores the relationship between health
(promotion) and peace (promotion) in more detail, and
their relationship to one another at the levels of the
individual, community, and broader society. By studying
the conditions and determinants that can create health
(and healthy settings) and peace (and peaceful
*Corresponding author. E-mail: izzeldin.abuelaish@utoronto.ca.
Tel: 416 978 3521.
environments), we aim to conceptually identify those
factors that affect both health and peace, and that can
contribute to the development of their mutuality and
potential synergy.
REVIEWING THE TERMS
Health and health promotion
The World Health Organization (WHO) defined health in a
holistic fashion, noting that health is not only the absence
of disease and injury but that it also relates to physical,
mental and social well-being. This definition has been
challenged recently as it does not fully encapsulate the
different facets of individual and societal empowerment.
Formerly, public health agencies tended to adopt a
pathogenic perspective of health, basing policy on the
prevention and treatment of illness and disease. However
over the past 30 years, a salutogenic approach has been
gaining support (Eriksson and Lindström, 2007).
Salutogenesis stresses an understanding of how health is
2 Int. J. Peace and Dev. Stud.
Table 1. Examples of three types of peace (from Galtung in Webel and Galtung, 2007).
Type of peace
Direct
Structural
Cultural
Negative
Ceasefire
No exploitation
No justification
Positive
Cooperation
Equity
Culture of peace and dialogue
created and sustained and focuses on activities that seek
to maximize the well-being of individuals, communities,
and societies in general (Judd et al., 2001). A recent
definition by the International Union for Health Promotion
and Education states that “health is created when
individuals, families, and communities are afforded the
income, education, and power to control their lives; and
their needs and rights are supported by systems,
environments, and policies that are enabling and
conducive to better health” (Shilton, 2011).
Much health promotion discourse and practice derives
from this broader, more positive view of health. The
Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (1986) notes that
"health is a positive concept emphasizing social and
personal resources, as well as physical capacities" and
defines its promotion as enabling people to improve their
quality of life. Health promotion addresses health at
multiple levels: the individual, the community, and the
broader society. Political, economic, and cultural factors
that impact each level are termed the social determinants
of health (WHO, 2008). Health is a product of their
interaction. Consistent with this understanding of the
social determinants of health, the Ottawa Charter
identifies the following prerequisites for health: "peace,
shelter, education, food, income, a stable eco-system,
sustainable resources, social justice", putting peace first
to highlight its preeminent role.
Peace and peace promotion
Galtung (1996) introduced the notion of positive peace,
which he defined as the resolution of conflict, the
presence of harmonious acts, and restored equitable
relationships that promote peace and reduce violence.
Later writers shared this view, describing peace as "a
state of integration and positive, nurturing, respectful and
co-operative relationships” (Arya, 2004) that enables
adversaries to search for compromise (Jeong, 2002).
The opposite of positive peace is not conflict
(understood as opposing beliefs or ideas), which is
sometimes constructive (Arya and Santa Barbara, 2008),
but rather violence (Galtung, 1969). Galtung (1996, as
cited in Arya and Santa Barbara, 2008) defines violence
as “avoidable insults to basic needs that diminish life
potential”. He distinguishes three categories of violence:
direct, which involves deliberate actions carried out by
one person or group against another, with clear intent to
harm; structural, which are social structures that erect
obstacles hindering people from fulfilling their potential for
a happy life; and cultural, which are attitudes, values, and
beliefs that underlie direct and structural violence. A more
thorough understanding of these terms and concepts will
help us explore the relationship between violence and ill-
health and identify similarities between health and peace.
Table 1 lists some positive and negative examples in
each category.
Peace promotion is similar in its goals to health
promotion; in fact, Middleton (1987) argues that they are
the same thing. Peace-building provides a foundation for
social harmony and cooperation, and presumes that long-
term security will help ensure a just society (Jeong,
2002). This paper adopts Arya's (2004) definition of
peace promotion as a process that “involves systemic
change, catalyzing changes at the deepest level of
beliefs, assumptions and values as well as behaviour and
structures". Like health promotion, peace promotion tries
to influence multi-level change at the individual,
community, and societal levels. However, it should be
noted that societal peace and political peace are not the
same. Political peace is marked by the signing of a treaty
bringing an end (or a temporary end) to armed conflict
and ensuring no one is suffering harm; this is, however,
an unstable state that can easily revert to a cycle of
violence (Arya and Santa Barbara, 2008). In contrast,
societal peace is marked by a culture of peace among
individuals at all levels; societal peace acts as a shield
against discord and maintains security and stability.
DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH AND PEACE
Whether health and peace are assessed at the individual,
community, or societal level, their achievement is
influenced by a variety of interacting factors or
determinants (Figure 1).
Individual level determinants of health and peace
Here, we discuss the key individual level determinants of
both health and peace, including: genetics, early life
factors, and behavioural/lifestyle characteristics. Although
behavioural characteristics such as smoking, eating
habits, and exercising are widely accepted as
determinants of health and are often the subject of
behaviour change programming and health education
campaigns (Cannon, 2008), these and other individual
Abuelaish et al. 3
Figure 1a. The Overlap Between the Individual, Community, and Societal Determinants
of Health and Peace
Figure 1b. The Mutual Determinants of Health and Peace
DETERMINANTS
OF HEALTH
DETERMINANTS
OF PEACE
INDIVIDUAL
COMMUNITY
SOCIETAL
L
Figure 1b. The Mutual Determinants of Health and Peace
Individual level determinants of health and peace
(b)
(a)
Figure 1. (a) The overlap between the individual, community, and societal determinants of health and peace (b) the mutual determinants of
health and peace.
level determinants should always be understood within
the context of the broader community and society which
influences each and every individual level determinant.
Biological factors, including age and sex, are known to
be basic determinants of health (WHO, 2008). Likewise,
genetic make-up may contribute to the presence of
violent behavioural characteristics (Meyer-Lindenberg et
al., 2008), and may predispose an individual to a certain
level of risk of or resilience to disease or illness (Cannon,
2008).
Other factors early in life may also have an impact on
future violent behaviour and health outcomes. For
example, experiencing a violent act, either as victim or
witness, during childhood has been shown to increase
the likelihood of behavioural and mental health problems
(Fowler et al., 2009). Additionally, exposures, nutritional
status, and other socially determined biological factors
also play a huge role in health development (Cannon,
2008).
Lifestyle decisions that directly or indirectly lead to
aggressive or violent behaviour can disrupt one's state of
personal peace. Lifestyles associated with emotional and
psychological distress also make it difficult for the
individual to attain peace. When societies in conflict are
forced to cooperate without a process of reconciliation
and administration of justice, animosity persists for
4 Int. J. Peace and Dev. Stud.
generations, creating hatred and distorting a people's
view of history. Such inbred hatred results in behavioural
and lifestyle characteristics that incite violence.
Finally, coping skills are largely formed during the early
years; these can strengthen an individual's resilience and
act as a shield against violent tendencies. In addition, an
upbringing that has a spiritual dimension, whether
formally religious or not, may play a beneficial role in the
development of protective skills and a calm disposition,
both of which can also have positive impacts on individual
health and peace (Fulton and Moore, 1995).
Community and societal level determinants of health
and peace
Social, economic, and political conditions all influence the
health and peace of individuals and communities. Lack of
adequate housing and the resultant social exclusion can
contribute to “increased stress, morbidity, mortality, social
exclusion, physical and mental illness” (Keon and Pépin,
2009). Additionally, overcrowding and poverty, can
aggravate stress and can work against health and peace
promotion. Thus, education, social support, policies of
inclusiveness, and good working conditions can also be
considered determinants of health and of peace, in part
because they help reduce stress and advance beneficial
conditions.
Employment and working conditions have a significant
effect on a person‟s physical and mental health and
social well-being. Earned income provides financial
security as well as a sense of identity and purpose, social
contacts, and opportunities for personal growth. Similarly,
social capital, understood as the integration of many of
these actors, has also been linked to many positive social
outcomes, such as better public health, lower crime rates,
and more efficient financial markets (Adler and Kwon,
2002). High levels of social capital have also been shown
to be related to indices of psychological well-being, such
as self-esteem and satisfaction with life (Bargh and
McKenna, 2004; Helliwell and Putnam, 2004).
Moreover, the social environment plays a critical role in
the development of undesirable behavioural traits. For
example, aggressive children play with war toys more
than those who are quietly behaved (Jenvey, 1992). The
media present cartoons and science fiction programs that
portray gruesome events as mundane, even comical. To
recognize something as violent, the individual must
experience it as a threat to his or her personal safety or
welfare; however, the media do not present it as such
(Potter, 2003; Kirsh, 2006). Frequent exposures of this
kind gradually create a cyclical pattern in which a person
consumes the violence shown in the media and begins to
enjoy it, thus encouraging aggressive behaviour.
Regrettably, in some areas children are witness to
unspeakable atrocities during armed conflict or forced
into military roles as child soldiers.
Additionally, culture and gender are important
determinants of both health and peace. Race (racism),
ethnicity, and cultural background can affect people‟s
vulnerability to risks, whether associated with illness or
violence. Similarly, gender (or more pointedly sexism)
influences both health status and the risk of violence.
Since society assigns different roles, personality traits,
and relative power to males and females - all factors that
can affect health and peace - a gender-based approach
to health and peace promotion is essential. This type of
approach can help to identify the ways in which health
risks, experiences, and outcomes differ for men and
women.
Finally, concepts that are typically linked to peace-
building such as: reconciliation, forgiveness, and trust,
can also be understood as health and peace
determinants.
Reconciliation
Galtung (1998) identifies three imperative needs that
result from acts of violence: reconstruction, reconciliation,
and finally resolution of the conflict; or, as he eloquently
expressed it, "turning vicious cycles into virtuous cycles".
These components are complex and interrelated, and
thus difficult to differentiate and study. Reconstruction of
the necessary resources and rebuilding the infrastructure
are essential to re-establishing a healthy society.
Reconciliation is challenging, as it must address issues of
guilt, revenge, and justice. Reconciliation does not only
aim to restore life as it was during peaceful times, but
also aims to reconcile and build relationships between
individuals, communities, and institutions (Jeong, 2002).
If done well, such work has the potential to bring people
closer together than they were prior to the violent conflict.
Resolution of the conflict may take generations but it is
absolutely necessary in sustaining a peaceful
environment.
Forgiveness
Time does not heal all wounds; grievances unforgiven
can be passed down generations and harden hostile
feelings (Jeong, 2002). According to Montville (1998),
true healing can only come through reconciliation in the
following sequence: (a) acknowledgement by the
oppressor of what has occurred and reassurance that it
will not happen again, (b) contrition with oppressors
taking responsibility for their actions and requesting
forgiveness, and (c) the act of forgiveness itself.
Forgiveness is critical in the reconciliation process and to
resolving conflict and building peace (Galtung, 2000),
however the terms forgiveness and reconciliation are not
interchangeable; forgiveness can be unilateral whereas
reconciliation must always be mutual (Appleby, 2000).
Trust
Without trust, one cannot begin to reconcile differences or
understand the attitudes and feelings of former or present
adversaries. Trust is essential to the growth of
relationships, and the building of peaceful communities,
support networks, and social capital (Cozzolino, 2011); all
of these outcomes have also been linked to positive
health (Stephen and Della, 2008).
HEALTH AS A DETERMINANT OF INDIVIDUAL,
COMMUNITY AND SOCIETAL PEACE
During and after a conflict, good health is critical to
rebuilding a society; in particular, improving birth rates
and raising life expectancy while decreasing the
incidence of infant mortality and infectious diseases
through, for example, provision of clean water and
vaccines. Effectively presented, the universal goal of
good health can be used to motivate combatants to lay
down their arms in a joint initiative in the pursuit of health,
recognizing that becoming and staying healthy
transcends other needs the parties feel they have (Sara
Davies, 2010; Santa Barbara and MacQueen, 2004).
Trauma to a society adds a heavy burden to the
process of recovery. While death through sickness or
accident may be accepted as part of the natural cycle of
birth and death, people often cannot readily come to
terms with loss of life through violent and hostile acts. If
family members are killed, neither time nor distance can
erase the hate and distrust that often result (Galtung,
1998). Post-traumatic disorders require extensive
rehabilitation to stop memories of grievance and injustice
from lingering for generations and undermining efforts at
reconciliation.
PEACE AS A DETERMINANT OF INDIVIDUAL,
COMMUNITY AND SOCIETAL HEALTH
War destroys infrastructure, damages natural
environments, renders agriculture impossible, displaces
people in large numbers, and creates long-lasting
physical and psychological problems (Barash, 2000).
While visible effects such as damage to buildings,
infrastructure are obvious, the indirect effects such as
damage to social structure, law, order, and human rights
are not always immediately apparent. Without a
ceasefire, the lack of such basic health needs as safe
drinking water increases the outbreak and spread of
infectious diseases and sickness. Additionally, wilful
Abuelaish et al. 5
neglect, discriminatory practices (like red-lining)
associated with racism, and other less extreme forms of
violence and oppression may also be deeply damaging to
infrastructure, environments, people‟s dignity and survival
over time, as evidenced by the levels of privation and
violence in many large urban centres in the United
States.
Furthermore, already limited health care access and
resources drop off sharply during times of conflict.
Doctors, hospitals, and clinics are either totally lacking or
in short supply. And, they may be targeted for destruction
by opposing forces because the symbolism of destroying
health institutions is so powerful and destabilizing.
Conversely, the symbolic importance of building a clinic in
an immediate post-conflict situation is widely understood.
FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE: CONTEXTUALIZING
THE LINK BETWEEN HEALTH AND PEACE
Individual level example: Thoughts and experiences
from Izzeldin Abuelaish
The 16th of January, 2009, is the day when my three
precious daughters and niece were killed by Israeli shells.
It is hard to describe the dreadful scene and images of
that day - the body parts of those beautiful girls spread
over the ceiling and drowning in a pool of blood. I do not
want anyone in this world to see what I have seen.
I believe that life is like riding a bicycle: to keep
balanced, we must keep moving, and I will keep moving. I
know that what I have lost, what was taken from me will
never come back. I also know that I need to move
forward and be motivated by the spirit of those I lost, and
to do them justice. I lost three precious daughters, but I
am blessed with five other children and the future.
Most people assume that forgiveness is difficult, but in
the long run it is easier to forgive than to live with hatred
or be consumed with revenge, with all the medical
consequences. I believe that when you forgive someone,
you forgive yourself, you value and yourself. Indeed,
forgiveness opens the door to a future that will not repeat
the old tragedies.
We are all human, and we all make mistakes and
commit sins from time to time. Forgiveness is about
letting go, completely and permanently, within yourself.
Many times I have asked myself: Should the perpetrators
ask for my forgiveness? This might achieve some
personal satisfaction for me, but in the end it will never
achieve the broader goal of inner peace, and of peace
among human beings. When the time comes that we no
longer have to ask for forgiveness that is the time when
there will be understanding and peace among humanity.
Sometimes the beauty in forgiveness is to forgive when
you do not know whom to forgive, when no one asks you
for forgiveness. But whatever the situation, to err is
6 Int. J. Peace and Dev. Stud.
human but to forgive is truly divine. Forgiveness will help
you move forward, away from the pain of the past and to
be focused on the future, with all its brightness.
By extending forgiveness to others and by forgiving
myself from the destructive hatred and anger; I am
stronger, healthier and more determined. I have peace of
mind and the means to bring my daughters justice and
make a difference in this world. I am not a victim
anymore.
Individual, community, and societal level example:
The case of South Africa
The case of South Africa is a good example of the link
between health and forgiveness, reconciliation, and trust.
Nelson Mandela's campaign embraced the need for
forgiveness on the political level, after decades of
oppression and suffering amongst South Africans under
the Apartheid regime. The Truth and Reconciliation
Commission (TRC) (1998), led by Archbishop Tutu,
allowed personal truths to be uncovered via story-telling
at the individual, community, and political level, with the
goal of working towards forgiveness, reconciliation, trust,
and a brighter and healthier future for South Africa. The
TRC has been linked to individual healing processes (De
la Rey and Owens, 1998), and to South Africa‟s transition
to a democratic government which prioritized health
equity on the social political agenda (McIntyre and
Gilson, 2002); thus, these outcomes of the TRC can be
linked to health outcomes at the individual, community,
and societal level.
AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO HEALTH AND
PEACE
With an understanding of the mutual determinants of
health and peace, the next step is to develop strategies
that can be implemented to address these determinants
simultaneously.
Terms such as Health as a Bridge to Peace, Peace
through Health, and Medical Peace Work have been
created in exploring the relationships between health and
peace. While these approaches have been primarily
geared toward those working in healthcare, we propose a
multi-sectoral and multi-level “Peace and Health”
approach. This approach is one that implies that peace
leads to health and health leads to peace, but that there
is no specific directionality or specific field or sector in
which to apply the approaches and strategies discussed.
Our approach is essentially a perspective to be used and
adapted according to the context in which it is
implemented.
The interrelated and synergistic factors promoting
health and peace affect many aspects of human
organization, including the traditional silos of governance
and management. In equating health promotion and
peace promotion, Middleton (1987) suggests that the
means to pursue both is through community participation,
inter-sectoral cooperation, and empowerment. Several
other innovative strategies that foster autonomy, control,
and power-sharing that have been proposed with regards
to the development of sustainable health and peace
include: adaptive co-management (Armitage et al., 2007),
mutual respect paradigms for citizen-government
engagement (Redekop and Pare, 2010), and insight-
based conflict resolution strategies (Melchin and Picard,
2008).
By understanding the determinants of health and of
peace among individuals, communities and societies, we
open the door to negotiating conditions to mitigate ill
health and violence, and to creating more healthy and
peaceful societies. As we move forward with this line of
thought, we encourage scholars, politicians, community
members, health workers and peace workers alike to
view their work through a „Peace and Health‟ lens, and to
develop strategies and tools that are in line with this
approach.
REFERENCES
Adler P, Kwon S (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept.
Acad. Manage. Rev. 27(1):17-40.
Appleby RS (2000). The ambivalence of the sacred: Religion, violence,
and reconciliation. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., Lanham,
MD. p. 197.
Armitage D, Berkes B, Doubleday N (2007). Adaptive Co-Management:
Collaboration, Learning and Multi-Level Governance. University of
British Columbia Press, Vancouver, BC. pp. 228-248.
Arya N (2004). Peace through health I: Development and use of a
working model. Med. Confl. Surviv. 20(3):242-257.
Arya N, Santa Barbara J (2008). Peace Through Health: How Health
Professionals Can Work for a Less Violent World. Kumarian Press,
New York, NY. p. 297.
Barash DP (2000). Approaches to Peace: A Reader in Peace Studies.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK p. 178.
Bargh J, McKenna K (2004). The Internet and social life. Annu. Rev.
Psychol. 55(1):573-590.
Cannon R (2008). The Social Determinants of Health: SACOSS
Information Paper. South Australian Council of Social Service,
Australia.
Cozzolino PJ (2011). Trust, cooperation, and equality: a psychological
analysis of the formation of social capital. Brit. J. Soc. Psychol.
50(Pt2):302-320.
Davies SE (2010). Global Politics of Health. Polity Press, Malden, MA.
De la Rey C, Owens I (1998). Perceptions of Psychosocial Healing and
the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. Peace and
Conflict: J. Peace Psychol. 4(3):257-270.
Eriksson M, Lindström B (2007). Antonovsky‟s sense of coherence
scale and its relation with quality of life: A systematic review. J.
Epidemiol. Commun. H. 61:938-944.
Fowler PJ, Tompsett CJ, Braciszewski JM, Jacques-Tiura AJ, Baltes BB
(2009). Community violence: A meta-analysis on the effect of
exposure and mental health outcomes of children and adolescents.
Dev. Psychopathol. 21(1):227-259.
Fulton RA, Moore CM (1995). Spiritual care of the school-age child with
a chronic condition. J. Pediatr. Nurs. 10(4):224-231.
Galtung J (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. J. Peace Res.
6(3):167-191.
Galtung J (1996). Peace by Peaceful Means. Sage Publications,
London.
Galtung J (1998). 3R: Reconstruccion, Resolucion, Reconciliacion (3R:
Reconstruction, Resolution, Reconciliation). Gogoratuz, Gernika.
Galtung J (2000). After Violence, reconstruction, reconciliation, and
resolution. Lexington Books, Lanham, MD p. 173.
Galtung G, Webel C (2007). Peace and conflict studies: looking back,
looking forward. Handbook of peace and conflict studies. Routledge,
New York, NY, pp. 397-400.
Helliwell JF, Putnam RD (2004). The social context of well-being. Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. 359(1449):1435-1446.
Jeong HW, Lerche C (2002). Reconciliation and its social and political
dimensions. Int. Polit. 39(3):329-339.
Judd J, Frankish CJ, Moulton G (2001). Setting standards in the
evaluation of community-based health promotion programmes – A
unifying approach. Health Promot. Int. 16(4):367-380.
Keon WJ, Pépin L (2009). A Healthy, Productive Canada: A Determinant
of Health Approach. The Standing Senate Committee on Social
Affairs, Science and Technology. Final Report of Senate
Subcommittee on Population Health.
Kirsh SJ (2006). Children, Adolescents, and Media Violence: A Critical
Look at the Research. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.
McIntyre D, Gilson L (2002). Putting equity in health back onto the
social policy agenda: Experience from South Africa. Social Sci. Med.
54(11):1637-1656.
Melchin K, Picard C (2008). Transforming Conflict Through Insight.
University of Toronto Press, Toronto. p. 138.
Abuelaish et al. 7
Meyer-Lindenberg A, Buckholz JW, Kolachana B, Hariri AR, Pezawas L,
Blasi G, Wabnitz A, Honea R, Verchinski B, Callicott JH, Egan M,
Mattay V, Weinberger DR (2008). Neural mechanisms of genetic risk
for impulsivity and violence in humans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
(PNAS) 103(16):6269-6274.
Middleton JD (1987). Health promotion is peace promotion. Health
Promot. Int. 2(4):341-345.
Montville J (1998). The Political Meaning of Traumatic Loss. The
Conflict Prevention Resource Site, Publications and Essays on
Conflict Resolution and Related Fields.
Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (1986). WHO/HPR/HEP/95.1.
WHO, Geneva.
Potter WJ (2003). The 11 Myths of Media Violence. Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Redekop VN, Pare S (2010). Beyond Control. Bloomsbury Academic,
London.
Santa Barbara J, MacQueen G (2004). Peace through health: Key
concepts. Lancet 364:384-386.
Shilton T, Sparks M, McQueens D (2011). Proposal for a new definition
of health. BMJ 343(Aug23 4):d5359.
Stephen A, Della F (2008). Social capital and health: Starting to make
sense of the role of generalized trust and reciprocity. J. Health
Psychol. 13(7):874-883.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa (1998). Truth and
Reconciliation Commission of South Africa Report. Cape Town: Truth
and Reconciliation Commission.
World Health Organization (WHO) Commission on Social Determinants
of Health (2008). Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity
Through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. WHO, Geneva.
