Visualizing Peace – The State of the Art

Full text

VISUALIZING PEACE –THE STATE OF THE ART
by Stephan Engelkamp, Kristina Roepstorff and
Alexander Spencer
While the importance of visualization of war, conflict, and violence
has gathered great momentum in disciplines such as International
Relations (IR), far less has been said about the visualization of peace
in IR, history, and even in Peace and Conflict Studies.
1
As Maria
Elena D
ıez Jorge and Francisco Mu~
noz Mu~
noz point out, “[v]iolence
has received the attention, while peace and its entire semantic sphere
have been left out of the spotlight”.
2
It is this relative blind spot that
this special issue wants to address as it aims to reflect on the politics,
policy, and pedagogy of visualizing peace. Among other questions, it
will reflect on how peace is visualized in cultural artifacts and what
these representations of peace (and their absence) do politically. In
other words, what is presented in the picture of peace and what is left
out? What consequences can this have for the construction of politics?
In addition, the special issue considers how visual artifacts can con-
tribute to real-world peace after violent conflict. How can visualiza-
tion in film, photography, or documentaries help build peace and
contribute to conflict resolution, reconciliation, transitional justice,
and peace pedagogy? If we accept the argument of the cultural turn
and believe in the co-constitution of culture and politics and in the
idea that cultural artifacts such as movies take part in the construction
of a dichotomous understanding of self and other, thereby contribut-
ing to the legitimation of violence and conflict, then this may also
work the other way around: Cultural artifacts like movies can play an
important role in peace processes.
When considering the visualization of peace, one must start with
the conceptualization of “peace” itself. The concept and its meaning
PEACE & CHANGE, Vol. 45, No. 1, January 2020
©2020 Peace History Society and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
5

have been a matter of debate since the inception of peace studies.
Within these debates, two main questions are central: First, whether
peace is something more than the mere absence of war; and second,
whether peace is to be understood as an (ideal) state never to be
achieved or as a process. Dominant in the debate is the distinction
that Johan Galtung first drew between negative and positive peace in
1964.
3
To Galtung, negative peace refers to the absence of direct, per-
sonal violence, whereas positive peace requires the absence of struc-
tural and cultural violence, manifested in exploitative and oppressive
economic and political structures and the (cultural and normative)
legitimization of direct and/or structural violence. In his view, the dif-
ferentiation between negative and positive peace is closely tied to his
typology of violence. Extending the concept of violence to include
structural and cultural dimensions “leads to an extended concept of
peace.” While this distinction is widely used, the question remains
whether peace is perceived of as a state or a process
4
or as both, as
Lothar Brock argues.
5
Ernst-Otto Czempiel’s procedural understanding of peace is char-
acterized by decreasing violence alongside an expansion of justice.
6
Alternatively, Dieter Senghaas conceptualizes a peaceful society
through his civilizatory hexagon, which includes six elements: a mono-
poly on the use of force, the rule of law, participation, social justice, a
culture of constructive conflict resolution and interdependency and
emotional self-control of its members. Like the social contract theories
within the dominant liberal peace paradigm that link it to the idea of
statehood and democratic governance and nonviolent forms of conflict
resolution, Senghaas’ “peace” is essentially a civilizing process.
7
In contrast, many religious traditions refer to peace as a state of
mind that might only be achieved in the afterlife.
8
But peace may also
be achieved at the individual, community, national, and global level in
the form of social and communal harmony in plural societies –a dom-
inant theme in Asian and African discourses on peace. These various
conceptualizations of peace are by no means uncontested and have
provoked debates on whether peace indeed means or should mean
more than the absence of war; and whether in its positive form it is
doomed to remain a utopia never to be reached and to broaden a con-
cept that in the end becomes meaningless. These different understand-
ings and conceptualizations of peace also inform the representation of
peace in visual artifacts.
6PEACE & CHANGE / January 2020

The articles in this special issue on visualizing peace build upon
these literatures to illuminate the possibilities of how (the impossibility
of) visualizing peace could foster or impede a more peaceful engage-
ment in or after violent conflict situations. To lay the groundwork for
the multidisciplinary exploration to follow, the introduction is struc-
tured as follows: Part one engages with research on the visualization
of peace by examining images of peace in paintings, political posters,
photography, and movies and shows that conceptualizations of a neg-
ative peace are dominant in much of the research. Part two then
reflects on the possibilities how visualizations can contribute to peace-
building, conflict resolution, and peace education. Specifically, this
involves the ideas of peace art, peace media, and peace movies. The
third part will offer an overview of the articles of the special issue and
consider what we learn from them with regard to how peace is (not)
visualized and how this could contribute the a more peaceful engage-
ment between former enemies.
9
IMAGES OF PEACE: FROM PAINTINGS TO MOVIES
Only a handful of scholars in disciplines such as history, political
science, media studies, and psychology have engaged in researching
the visualization of peace in a number of media, including paintings,
drawings, political posters, and photography.
10
For example, Thomas
Hippler examines images of peace and political iconography in paint-
ings from the Middle Ages to the 17th century showing how represen-
tations of peace change over time, dependent on context and
underlying conceptualizations of peace.
11
While he highlights the visu-
alization of some of the positive effects of peace found in Ambrogio
Lorenzetti’s fresco The Good and the Bad Government such as social
relations, joy and wealth, he argues that these positive normative
aspects disappear in Hobbes’ Leviathan where peace is solely depicted
as protection and security. “Hobbes’s peace [...] no longer relies on
any normative principles, and it does not produce anything but pre-
cisely peace, however, clearly a sort of empty peace.”
12
Turning to one of the most famous paintings of peace in early
modern history, Hippler examines the depiction of the Westphalian
peace in M€
unster in 1648 by Ter Borch, which shows the ratification
of the peace treaty in the city hall of M€
unster between the United Pro-
vinces of the Netherlands and the Spanish Crown. In contrast to previ-
ous visualizations of peace, there is no mythological, idealized, or
Visualizing Peace: The State of the Art 7

personalized form of depiction. Instead, the painting depicts the sign-
ing of the treaty which is based on mutual recognition and symmetry
rather than hierarchy between those involved in the conflict. Instead
of a “victor and a defeated party,” Hippler notes, Borsch depicts “a
community of equals” in which neither side is depicted as the “more
legitimate.”
13
Benjamin Ziemann has examined the peace iconography of in
peace movement posters produced in the aftermath of the Second
World War. He argues that in premodern art peace was commonly
depicted through three iconographic traditions: (1) “the glorification
of the peaceable ruler”; (2) “the combination of positive virtues in
portrayals of good government”; and (3) related to “classical mythol-
ogy such as Mars or Minerva.”
14
However, representations of peace
in peace movement posters were unable to articulate a genuinely posi-
tive vision of peace. Rather, the posters were predominantly able to
visualize peace through the negation of the binary opposition of vio-
lence, conflict, and war or through oppositional metaphorical images.
In the 1960s, this included war and conflict as a danger to the security
of family life commonly depicted by mother and child, both stereotyp-
ical symbols of peacefulness and innocence.
This changed in the 1970s and 1980s when posters started to
depict peace movements themselves by showing crowds of people in
collective action and peaceful coexistence vaguely indicating what
peace might be like once achieved. “We see young and old, men and
women, and also a wide range of sociocultural groups and strata such
as doctors, nuns, punks and respectable gentlemen in suits and ties, all
brought together in a happy, tolerant and dynamic camaraderie.”
15
This frequently also included “colorful images of peace and harmony”
such as depictions of wild flower meadows, trees, play grounds or the
dove and olive branch symbol.
16
Nevertheless, the posters fail to offer
concrete visual material for a positive peace as they “articulate a
vision of peace implicitly or negatively, through the negation of a
threatening danger.”
17
Picking up on the inherent problem of visualizing peace in pho-
tography, Frank M€
oller argues that peace is commonly depicted
through its absence or through its abundance.
18
On the one hand, one
may consider negative peace as the absence of all forms of violence,
but visualization then becomes a futile exercise as it is impossible to
visualize a void without reference to the binary existing opposite. On
8PEACE & CHANGE / January 2020

the other hand, one may hold that everything which does not depict
violence is in fact depicting peace. However,
[i]f peace is understood –still negatively but more narrowly –as
absence of direct, physical violence, then peace photographs are
redundant, threatened by irrelevance, as the vast majority of
images, including the most trivial ones, produced at any given
point in time would, due to the absence of depictions of the use
of physical force, qualify as peace photographs.
19
M€
oller suggests four potential ways forward. One could involve
the showing of “islands of seeming nonviolence in an environment
otherwise dominated by war,”
20
for example, the depiction of a flower
in the bombed-out trenches of the First World War. A second possibil-
ity for visualizing peace may be to photograph the aftermath of vio-
lence such as an empty home left in a hurry when fleeing from an
advancing war front. Nevertheless, in both cases the problem remains
that peace visualized through violence, and not in its own right. And
it is still represented in contrast or opposition to war. However,
anthropology of peace research points out how peace and war are
always about coexistence in the everyday (in line with the first way
forward offered by M€
oller).
21
We here also need violence to be able
to visualize peace. “[A]ftermath photography, commencing when
physical violence has stopped, is inseparably connected with the pre-
ceding violence as the condition of possibility for its existence.”
22
A third possibility for visualizing peace is the representation of a
peaceful past or as a potential for the future. “Showing that (some
form of) peace had been possible before violence gained the upper
hand should not be reduced to mere nostalgia; such images may indi-
cate that peace might be possible again should violence stop.”
23
Simi-
larly, visions of peace “may show gradual reductions in levels of
violence when dealing with conflict; they may document actions of
nonviolence in situations that would earlier have been dealt with vio-
lently thus indicating that nonviolent conflict resolution is possible not
only theoretically but also in practice.”
24
Again, there is no concrete
visualization but only a suggested vision of peace. Finally, peace may
be depicted in photography by showing postconflict cooperation
between former enemies or other forms of nonviolent conflict resolu-
tion such as negotiations or peace agreements in a similar fashion to
Visualizing Peace: The State of the Art 9

the Ter Borch painting of the Westphalian peace ratification in
M€
unster.
25
Several studies in peace psychology have examined the visualiza-
tion of war and peace by children in different locations around the
globe.
26
Interestingly, despite the different cultures and the varying
closeness to actual conflicts, many of the findings indicate a common
form of visualizing war and peace.
27
Similar to the above-mentioned
difficulty of visualizing peace in contrast to war, this research finds
that children appear to be far more able to draw more detailed and
concrete pictures of conflict than of peace as “children’s understanding
of war precedes their understanding of peace.”
28
According to this
research, children, especially those between three and five years, “were
more likely than older children to say they could not draw peace or
that they did not know what it was.”
29
Many of the images of peace in the drawings–such as doves, but-
terflies, hearts, plants, the environment, the sun, spring and olive
branches, as well as colors such as blue and green –correspond to the
standard metaphorical symbols and images encountered in other
media outlets. Beyond these symbols, researchers have shown that
children visualize peace by depicting interpersonal relationships and
interactions in families and friendship, or as being nice, sharing, play-
ing games, or the holding of hands by people of different skin color.
30
In contrast, war was drawn in less metaphorical and more concrete
ways by depicting military weapons, fighting, and colors such as red,
gray, and black. Overall, “children included significantly more objects
and more figures in their war drawings than in their peace draw-
ings.”
31
Moving away from interpersonal relationships and interaction
experienced in their everyday lives, war was frequently visualized as a
group conflict with more visualized participants than depictions of
peace.
32
Most interestingly, children “conceive of peace primarily in terms
of negative peace, associating peace with issues such as the absence of
war, the absence of war activities, or with a state of stillness.”
33
Very
similar to peace photography outlined above, children appear to
visualize peace as the end of war or absence of conflict. As Kath-
leen Walker et al argue, children drew peace as inactivity, or as a state
of nothing going on: “They often drew one or two inactive figures
standing side by side.”
34
These findings may point to a dominant ima-
gery of war in western culture including the news, history, or popular
culture which provides ample material for the visualization of war but
10 PEACE & CHANGE / January 2020

very little with regard to the visualization of peace. While the peace
drawings of children can be considered a mere reflection of a domi-
nant visual culture of war, it is important to realize that these first
steps of visualizing the world also have a socializing effect and are
constitutive of a dominant imagery of politics at a very young age.
35
While the study of representations of war and peace in movies
has become a cherished topic in Critical International Relations, the
focus has predominantly been on the visualization of conflict, violence,
and war rather than peace.
36
In the wake of the so-called aesthetic
turn,
37
these studies refocus on the gaps between representation and
the represented, as these gaps are always the product of power rela-
tions. Research has found overall that we find very similar, clear-cut
roles attributed to good and evil protagonists, as well as narrative
structures and emotional effects that work to sustain a particular
moral order about the managing of war regardless of the cultural ori-
gins of the movie.
38
This, for example, includes a focus on technology in war movies,
specifically modern weapon systems and information technology, and
creates an effect of war as a war game.
39
“War movies provide a
space outside of the military where ‘boys’ can enjoy the libidinization
of gadgets.”
40
This representation of war as technologically highly
advanced practice abstracts war from its human consequences. But
these technologies at the same time sustain dominant values of capital-
ist modernity, for instance, the value of technological supremacy,
speed, mobility, domination, and efficiency. All these aspects support
a certain quantification of the value of objects which “silences moral
anxieties over technologies and economics.”
41
The focus on technolog-
ical (military) progress and power furthers the effect of an increasing
abstractification, which distances the audience from the reality of what
war technology does to the human body.
42
If technological superiority
breaks down, as in Black Hawk Down, the focus shifts toward heroic
(male) individuals who practice war as a (legitimate) means to create
order.
43
While movies such as Black Hawk Down demonstrate the
horror of war, its everyday effects and the injustice of violence remain
abstract due to the imbalance in representing human suffering. More-
over, the context and larger political and economic structures of the
conflict depicted are rendered invisible. What the audience is left with
is a clear-cut dichotomy between self and other in which a moral hier-
archy is firmly established.
Visualizing Peace: The State of the Art 11

Another way of relating war movies to larger structures of mean-
ing found in the literature is through an enquiry of the gender rela-
tions depicted. According to Pin-Fat and Stern, “war depends upon
representations of gender” and the insight that representations of war
“inform articulations of masculinity and femininity” are considered as
almost commonplace in IR analysis.
44
Cynthia Weber, for instance,
argues from a critical feminist perspective in Imagining America at
War that war movies do not represent the moral grammar of the US
society through a focus on the political, diplomatic, or military con-
text, but their gender relations as a supposedly stable ground.
45
According to this research, war movies are structured through repre-
sentations of masculinity and femininity, where hypermasculinity is
seen as gendered requirement to survive in a war.
46
Linda 
Ah€
all’s
study of notions of masculinity and femininity in war movies demon-
strates how gendered identities are not only produced and reproduced,
but also policed following hegemonic ideals as represented in war
films. In her study of a Second World War movie, she demonstrates
how the topos of the female heroine cannot coincide with the image
of the (female) protagonist as a mother.
47
Interestingly, Pin-Fat and
Stern find a very similar strategy in the “scripting” of Pfc Jessica
Lynch during and after her “rescue” as a prisoner of war from a hos-
pital in Iraq.
48
Hence, feminist readings of war movies point to a
more general insight about representation, namely the framing of iden-
tities in terms of self and other relationships.
While feminist approaches tend to focus on gendered stereotypes
(masculinity and femininity, gendered roles, the use of emotions), this
can be broadened to other dichotomies, such as the rational/mod-
ern/civilized West vs the irrational/archaic/wild Orient.
49
But self-other
relations in war movies do not necessarily have to simply reproduce
binary worldviews. Lacy shows how self–other relations in Apocalypse
Now Redux and Three Kings (2003) at first sight seem to stabilize
specific perspectives on the relationship between self and other.
50
While both movies seem to represent a dominant reading of the wars
they depict, there is still some degree of subversion that may serve as
a resource for visualizing peace, for instance, in the way the death of
Iraqi civilians is depicted in Three Kings, which actually re-introduces
the suffering of the other as a material reality of war.
While our literature review identified discursive strategies that
may strengthen or subvert dominant narratives and downplay or high-
light the suffering of the other, a crucial task concerns the question if
12 PEACE & CHANGE / January 2020

and how such strategies can be applied for peacebuilding, in forms of
conflict resolution or peace education.
VISUALIZING PEACE IN PEACEBUILDING, CONFLICT
RESOLUTION & PEACE EDUCATION
Peace Art
There are three overlapping strands of literature on peace art,
peace media, and peace movies which engage the idea of using forms
of visualization to aid peacebuilding, conflict resolution, and peace
education. It has become widely accepted among scholars and practi-
tioners that art can play an important role in/for peacebuilding, con-
flict resolution, and peace education.
51
The general argument is that
art, and visual art in particular, can contribute to peace by being or
providing a number of important means of alleviating conflict.
First, visual art has the potential to contribute to peace as a pic-
ture, sculpture, or performance which can help retrieve and process
traumatic memories more easily than oral or written art. A range of
scholars have shown how art therapy and the form and practice of
visualization can be helpful for individuals who have personally suf-
fered in conflict as memory is often encoded in a visual form.
52
Visual
art can therefore contribute to the healing of trauma on an individual
level but also aid the reconstruction of society through providing a
medium of reconciliation. “The arts, in addition to dealing with the
past and reconstructing the present, enable concrete envisioning of a
better future, as used in guided imagery in cognitive behavioral
therapy.”
53
Secondly, peace art can be understood as a cooperative project
between former adversaries which may lead to lasting cooperative rela-
tionships after its completion.
54
While Craig Zelizre argues that “the
arts have often had a significant impact on bringing together divided
communities,”
55
Koelsch holds that “cooperation between individuals
increases individual trust and increases the likelihood of future coopera-
tion between these individuals.”
56
Art offers an opportunity to “explore,
celebrate, and leverage differences through a creatively integrative and
artistically collaborative exercise.”
57
As Ephrat Huss notes: “Creativity
as a socially and culturally mediated practice is a natural way to reignite
communication, team work, problem solving, cultural understanding,
and decision making.”
58
By successfully negotiating small nonpolitical
Visualizing Peace: The State of the Art 13

issues such as the color scheme of a joint painting, it can provide a posi-
tive experience which has the potential to create trust and empathy. The
creation of a joint piece/peace of art illustrates the possibility of cooper-
ation on larger issues.
59
Thirdly and related to this, some researchers point out that visual
art has the potential for individual and societal transformation as the
production involves a number of important societal functions such as
communication, coordination, contact, and cohesion which are also
needed for peace after conflict.
60
The experience of cooperation in
visual artistic products can help “bridge differences when referring
back to political issues.”
61
“On a social level of rehabilitation, the arts
have the potential to be a self-initiated, culturally contextualized
method of mobilizing people into positive action and problem solving
by restoring symbols of meaning that help reorganize community soli-
darity and resilience.”
62
Related to this, fourthly, “art is a tool that can communicate and
transform the way people think and act. Arts can change the dynamics
in intractable interpersonal, inter-communal, national, and global con-
flicts.”
63
Visual art can offer an alternative way of thinking by provid-
ing an opportunity for people to break out of their familiar structures
and provide an awareness of alternative means of engaging with soci-
ety.
64
The seeming contrast of art to politics enables many to engage
in a more reflective, flexible, and open way with alternative positions
and provides the ground for innovative solutions. Art can generate
“empathy and identification with parts of the other that initiated a
positive climate for conflict negotiations.”
65
In particular, visual art
can be helpful in fostering peace as the interpretations of the visual
are broader, less direct, and less confrontational than text and allow
for more room for different mutually accepted perspectives. The ambi-
guity of visual art helps “to break down the binary understandings of
strong/weak or victim/aggressor that tend so freeze people in rigid
stance.”
66
Peace media
The role of media in conflict and war has received broad scholarly
attention since first studies on the use of media for war promotion
during the First World War emerged.
67
Research on war propaganda
and the ways in which media instigate violence in ethnic conflicts has
shed light on the intricate relationship between war and (mass)
14 PEACE & CHANGE / January 2020

media.
68
From the role of the radio in the Rwandan genocide
69
or in
the Former Republic of Yugoslavia
70
to the use of the media to legit-
imize war in Iraq or Afghanistan, studies have shown the negative
contributions of the media on conflict escalation.
71
Assuming more or less strong media effects, an emerging field of
scholarly research and professional practice looks into the ways in
which media may also positively contribute to conflict resolution and
peacebuilding.
72
Believing that “peace and reconciliation in a society
can be achieved either by countering the actors and processes that fuel
conflict, or by supporting their opponents in the peace movement,”
73
scholars and practitioners of peace media have proposed a number of
measures and possibilities of aiding peaceful coexistence via (visual)
media. For example, in 2008, the United States Institute of Peace
(USIP) proposed a strategic framework for designing peacebuilding
media which emphasized conflict-sensitive and peace-oriented journal-
ism, peace-promoting citizen or entertainment media, advertizing or
marketing for conflict prevention and peacebuilding as well as media
regulation in order to prevent the incitement of violence.
74
The shared assumption “that media have the power to influence
the development of peace in a conflict environment”
75
is also at the
core of peace journalism. Emerging as a new field in Peace and Con-
flict Studies in the 1990s, peace journalism in its opposition to war
journalism was first conceptualized by Johan Galtung and Mari Holm-
boe Ruge in their seminal article The Structure of Foreign News: The
Presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus Crises in Four Norwe-
gian Newspapers.
76
While the literature on peace journalism and the
ensuing debate on its ideological basis, the representation of conflicts
in the media and linked professional practice focuses on the textual
media and peace journalistic approaches also play a role for photo-
journalists.
77
As M€
oller notes, photojournalists may depict peace negatively
through its absence; they show war and violence realistically –within
the limits of the genre –in order to visualize the need for peace; or
they intervene photographically in violent situations so that others can
intervene more efficiently.
78
In practice, however, photojournalists are
often constrained by the media environment, including economic con-
cerns and gatekeeping by editors as illuminated by these two quotes:
“We [photographers] tell ourselves we’re against war, but photo edi-
tors and photo competitions tend to reward violence. War photogra-
phy may be creating an attraction to violence.” Moreover, “attempts
Visualizing Peace: The State of the Art 15

at peace and rebuilding are usually considered much less photogenic”
by picture editors than attempts at war and destruction.
79
Apart from
these constraints, covering peace is problematic. Understanding peace
as a nonevent, Hamelink asks:
Does peace exist as a real set of events? Is peace not an aspiration
in people’s minds rather than a real-life process with newsworthy
human interest and political features? Peace is not a clear-cut pro-
cess or state about which reporters can write. To a large extent
peace is, for journalists, a nonevent. War matches the media logic
better than peace. The acts that constitute war are more limited
and relatively easy to comprehend. The peace effort is multi-inter-
pretable, highly complex and multi-layered.
80
Based on the assumption that textual and visual media can influ-
ence peoples’ perceptions, attitudes and, ultimately, behavior and simi-
lar to concepts such as Communication for Development and
Communication for Social Change and Advocacy Communication,
81
peacebuilding practitioners increasingly implement projects in conflict
settings to promote peace and support reconciliation processes using
visual communication channels. Here, the idea is that visual media
can aid conflict transformation and peacebuilding as it facilitates
changes to different levels of the conflict including cognitive change,
affective change, and behavioral change on the individual level as well
as and changes in the relationships that allow for collaborative inter-
action between the members of warring parties.
82
The international nongovernmental organization Search for Com-
mon Ground (SCG) is particularly active when it comes to employing
visual means of peaceful engagement with conflict in the field of
peacebuilding intervention. The NGO has offices in fifty-nine countries
and works with 802 partners worldwide. It entertains various media
formats to promote peace and reconciliation in conflict zones. Apart
from peace video games and music videos, SCG uses soap operas such
as the “multi-nation, episodic” soccer-drama The Team to “help
transform social attitudes and diminish violent behavior in countries
grappling deeply rooted conflict... The television series addresses the
very real divisive issues facing societies in a dozen of African, Asian
and Middle Eastern countries, using sport as a unifier to surmount
barriers.”
83
This entertainment format is used by various peacebuild-
ing actors and in different conflict contexts to overcome divisions,
16 PEACE & CHANGE / January 2020

deconstruct enemy images, and promote peace and reconciliation. For
instance, the Israeli/Palestinian version of Sesame Street is considered
to foster tolerance between the two communities by educating children
on peace and has also been applied to other contexts.
84
In reference to a participatory video project conducted by the
NGO Mercy Corps in the Rift Valley of Kenya in the aftermath of the
2008 election violence, Ba
u links Communication for Social Change
(CSC) with conflict transformation theory to assess the project’s
potential to contribute to peacebuilding.
85
She finds that both the film-
ing and the screening of these films have facilitated a dialogue between
different groups, thereby contributing to social change and peacebuild-
ing. Though the participatory videos were considered mere instru-
ments to assess the organization’s work and receive beneficiary
feedback, Ba
u finds that the videos became a tool for conflict transfor-
mation which had emancipatory effects such as the facilitation of self-
reflection and observation of events.
86
Peace Movies
How and to what extent can films potentially contribute to peace-
building? As indicated above, movies may tell us something about
dominant if partial views of the world and the roles war and peace
play in sustaining or disrupting these particular worldviews. The focus
on one set of protagonists, their suffering, and heroic actions points
toward a certain moral grammar in war which helps to sustain a polit-
ical and symbolic order in international politics.
87
Movies may stabi-
lize (and possibly subvert) audience expectations about norms,
ideologies, and structures of international politics by forming generic
social, geopolitical, and moral meanings.
88
Mark Lacy argues that cin-
ema becomes a space where “‘commonsense’ ideas about global poli-
tics and history are (re)produced and where stories about what is
acceptable behavior from states and individuals are naturalized and
legitimated.”
89
In order to critically analyze such attempts at recon-
structing meaning we must also study what is left out in a narrative.
Brent Steele argues in this respect that critical analysis needs to
enquire into the perspective of the other that may not be dominant in
a movie.
90
War cinema seems to be dominated by movies that normal-
ize the idea of war as the natural order of things in international poli-
tics and works as a distancing technology that suppresses moral
anxiety over politics and events.
91
Movies may thus help to sustain
Visualizing Peace: The State of the Art 17

protracted conflicts by strengthening self-other dichotomies and identi-
ties by providing (selective) information about societies and conflicts,
through the use of emotions, (gendered) stereotypes, and narratives.
92
Hence, they constitute potentially very influential forms of banal
nationalism
93
that may reach an audience of millions.
Given that peace has been notable through its absence in movies
and studies discussed so far, the question arises if movies may affect
the normalization or subversion of war and peace as concepts and
imaginations? For Lacy, movies such as Three Kings may use the
power of images to create moral proximity to lives of others in situa-
tions of war.
94
Peace movies, in this respect, may expose, for example,
colonial violence and resistance by bringing the audience closer to the
suffering of the victims (Lacy cites the example of The Battle of
Algiers). To some extent, cinema has the potential of re-introducing
moral anxiety in a context where decision-makers or the military aim
at establishing moral certainty; in this sense, cinema may work similar
to critical theory as an enlightenment project. Drawing on the work of
Richard Rorty, Lacy argues that popular culture may play a role in
“the construction of ‘other-respecting’ citizens”.
95
In this respect, the
function of war movies may be the cultivation of a moral responsibil-
ity toward others.
Films may also help in promoting transitions to peace by subvert-
ing dominant narratives and self/other dichotomies, through alterna-
tive narrations that challenge a dominant discourse. Popular culture
can be especially important once the political transition toward peace
is already under way. In such cases, films may strengthen existing
changes in attitude. An example could be The Hunt for Red October
as a transitional movie at the end of the Cold War; as such, movies
can be vehicles of reconciliation, which draw on strategies like person-
alization in order to present the other as real human beings (the
“Romeo-and-Juliet plot”).
96
Ch
erie Rivers argues that films may provide a resource to generate
agency and help local communities to go beyond what she terms victi-
mology.
97
In the case of peacebuilding in the Congo, participation in
the Salaam Kivu International Film Festival (SKIFF) may provide a
window onto a community whose engagement with cinema is trans-
forming individuals into agents of social change. It is necessary to
emphasize, however, that agency is evident not only in participation in
screenings and discussions of films but also in the films themselves,
some of which are authored by the growing population of youth in
18 PEACE & CHANGE / January 2020

Goma, who are beginning to recognize the role of art in consolidating
peace. Rivers terms this practice “restorative cinema” that may con-
tribute to a bottom-up form of peacebuilding through art as a practice
that conveys voice and social agency to local actors.
98
Artmaking facilitates the complex process of working through
individual and collective trauma and restoring agency to a population
whose measure of normalcy has been displaced for generations.
99
While this requires mutual efforts to facilitate peace, reconciliation,
and rehabilitation, Rivers argues that film is, first, a commemorative
medium that safeguards personal and communal experience against
threats of omission, erasure, and forgetting. Second, in instances of
collective trauma, where cultural mores limit verbal processing of
events, film can break the silence by speaking the unspeakable, creat-
ing both a model and a space for conversation and healing. And third,
the expressive/reflective process of cinematic creativity itself emerges
as a tool of self-discovery and rehabilitation, especially for youth.
100
OVERVIEW OF THE SPECIAL ISSUE
This collection of articles opens with Frank M€
oller’s introduction
of his “patchwork” approach to thinking about the visualization of
peace. His analysis includes questions about methodologies of engage-
ment with visual representations of peace, digitalization, and the link-
age between image and imagination. M€
oller argues that depictions of
peace are various, omnipresent, and obscured by our habits of seeing.
M€
oller calls for engagement with a political and critical form of peace
aesthetics that combines insight from artistic practice and the social
sciences, art history, and media and communication studies both ana-
lyze and create own peace images.
Juha A. Vuori, Xavier Guillaume and Rune S. Andersen follow
with a conceptual framework for studying the use of color to visualize
peace constructed from an identifiable set of norms. Building on a
semiological understanding of color-use as visual signs, the authors
employ chromatological analysis of the use of UN blue and the white
flag to signify peace in international conflicts and peacebuilding opera-
tions. They argue that “peace signs” constitute a visually identifiable
set of norms and practices which have developed historically through
conflict and peacebuilding practices. Representing peaceful intentions
does not merely serve a functional purpose; however, it is indicative of
evolving shared meanings and understandings within international
Visualizing Peace: The State of the Art 19

practices of conflict and security. Vuori, Guillaume and Andersen con-
clude by situating the use of color in a broader context of visual lan-
guage in global politics as indicative of an emerging constitutive
practice for the development of an international society.
The idea that visuals can aid conflict transformation and peace-
building by way of facilitating cognitive, affective, and behavioral
change is complicated by Eva Ottend€
orfer’s article on the peace pro-
cess in Timor-Leste. In it, she demonstrates the susceptibility of visuals
designed for postconflict peacebuilding and reconciliation to take on
ambivalence within the broad political discourse that undermines their
effectiveness. Focusing on the intermediality in the visualization of
peace, Ottend€
orfer’s study of the East Timorese Commissions for
Reception, Truth and Reconciliation’s (CAVR) documentary dalan ba
dame (Road to Peace) and the commission’s final written report
Chega! exposes the contradictory narratives represented by the two
media produced by the same institution. Ottend€
orfer’s compelling
analysis thereby contributes to the research on visuality of peace in
two important ways: first, by alerting researchers on the ways in
which the interaction of different media can foster ambivalence in
peace-promotion visuals. Second, by underscoring that despite visuals’
immediacy, circulability, and ability to generate emotions, it is not a
given that visualizations of peace will contribute to peacebuilding.
Moving from multimedia to feature film, Axel Heck analyzes the
2016 Danish film A War to consider how filmmakers visualize peace
in a movie about armed conflict –in this case, the war in Afghanistan.
The film contrasts the lives of Danish soldiers and Afghan civilians on
the front lines with those of the family of Commander Claus Pedersen
who are home in Denmark. Heck contextualizes the Danish involve-
ment in the war in Afghanistan and employs a method of narrative
analysis which shows the strong interconnection between the visualiza-
tion of peace and of war by focusing on the film’s images of peace at
the warfront and the home front. War is not confined to the scenes set
in Afghanistan, nor is peace only visible in scenes of the family in
Denmark which makes a persuasive case that the absence of physical
or structural violence is not necessarily a visualization of peace. Heck
concludes with a recontextualization of the film in light of its interna-
tional reception to assess the effects of A War’s particular depictions
of conflict and peace.
Engelkamp, Roepstorff, and Spencer develop the method of visual
metaphor analysis (VMA) to study representations of peace in visual
20 PEACE & CHANGE / January 2020

material such as film. This method, based upon discourse analysis,
considers visual metaphors as linguistic frames that stand at the bor-
der between text and image. To operationalize VMA, the authors sug-
gest the examination of a process of double visualization in the
material. To demonstrate the value of such an approach, the authors
use VMA in an analysis of peace metaphors in the film Mango
Dreams. This film is set in India and tells a story of two men with a
violent past –one is haunted by the violent memories of Partition, the
other by the events in Gujarat in 2002 –who throughout a journey
across India become friends and find peace. The analysis reveals how
the film employs the conceptual metaphors of HOME, JOURNEY,
and BRIDGE to visualize a positive peace. Apart from the method-
ological contribution it makes, the article offers important lessons for
peace research by demonstrating how studying visual metaphors can
mitigate the dominance of negative peace over positive peace within
most current analytical frameworks.
Reflecting on the politics, policy, and pedagogy of visualizing
peace, these articles point toward the coexistence of peace and war as
a material reality in everyday life. Visualization of peace, whether in
the form of a peaceful past or a utopian future, serves as discursive
resources to overcome narratives of violence that are predicated on
dichotomous understandings of self and other. Visual representations
of peace may depict forms of postconflict cooperation between former
enemies or address the interaction of enemies at critical junctures in
times of transformation. Forms of nonviolent conflict resolution such
as negotiations or peace agreements, as depicted in the painting of the
Westphalian peace ratification in M€
unster, may serve to empower
social groups that struggle to overcome entrenched conflicts. It is our
hope that by taking the politics, policy, and pedagogy of visualizing
peace seriously, researchers and practitioners will better understand
the social and political processes of transitioning toward more sustain-
able peace.
NOTES
1. We want to thank all the authors for their hard work and their great con-
tributions to this special issue on the visualization of peace. Furthermore, we would
like to express our gratitude to all the reviewers for their peer reviews and their
constructive comments which have greatly helped improved all contributions.
Visualizing Peace: The State of the Art 21

Finally, we would like to thank the main editor Heather Fryer and the editorial
board for their help and very professional support of this project.
2. Maria Elena Diez Jorge, and Francisco A. Mu~
noz Mu~
noz, “Uncovering the
Virtues of Peace within Visual Culture: The Case for Nonviolence and Imperfect
Peace in the Western Tradition,” Peace & Change 41, No. 3 (2016): 330.
3. Johan Galtung, “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research,” Journal of Peace
Research 6, No. 3 (1969): 167–191.
4. Reinhard Meyers, “Krieg und Frieden,” in Handbuch Frieden, eds. Hans-J.
Gießmann and Bernhard Rinke (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag f€
ur Sozialwissenschaften,
2011), 21–50.
5. Lothar Brock, “Frieden. €
Uberlegungen zur Theoriebildung,” Theorien der
Internationalen Beziehungen 21 (1990): 71–89.
6. Ernst-Otto Czempiel, “Der Friedensbegriff in der Friedensforschung,” in
Die Zukunft des Friedens. Eine Bilanz der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung, eds.
Astrid Sahm et al., (Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 2002), 83–93.
7. Dieter Senghaas, Den Frieden denken (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp,
1995).
8. Thorsten Bonacker and Peter Imbusch, “Zentrale Begriffe der Friedens-
und Konfliktforschung: Konflikt, Gewalt, Krieg, Frieden,” in Friedens- und Konflikt-
forschung. Eine Einf€
uhrung, eds. Peter Imbusch and Ralf Zoll (Wiesbaden: VS
Verlag f€ur Sozialwissenschaften, 2006), 67–142.
9. The third part of this introduction which will provide an overview of the
following articles of the special issue will be written once the final line up of the
special issue is known following peer review.
10. Diez Jorge and Munoz Munoz, “Uncovering the Virtues of Peace,”
329–353.
11. Thomas Hippler, “Images of Peace,” CR: The New Centennial Review
13, No. 1 (2013): 45–70.
12. Ibid: 56–57.
13. Ibid: 59; see also Diez Jorge and Munoz Munoz, “Uncovering the Virtues
of Peace,” 329–353.
14. Benjamin Ziemann, “The Code of Protest: Images of Peace in the West
German Peace Movements, 1945–1990,” Contemporary European History 17,
No. 2 (2008): 240.
15. Ibid: 256.
16. Ibid: 257; See also Peggy Rosenthal, “How on Earth Does an Olive
Branch Mean Peace?” Peace & Change 19, No. 2 (April 1994): 165–179.
17. Ziemann, 259.
18. Frank M€
oller, Visual Peace: Images, Spectatorship, and the Politics of
Violence (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013); Frank M€
oller, “From Aftermath
to Peace: Reflections on a Photography of Peace,” Global Society 31, No. 3 (2017):
315–335; Frank M€
oller, “Rwanda Revisualized: Genocide, Photography, and the
Era of the Witness,” Alternatives 35, No. 2 (2010): 113–136.
19. Frank M€
oller, “Peace,” in Visual Global Politics, ed. Roland Bleiker
(London: Routledge, forthcoming), 2.
20. Ibid.
22 PEACE & CHANGE / January 2020

21. Paul Richards, eds. No Peace, No War: An Anthropology of Contempo-
rary Armed Conflicts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); Kristina Roepstorff,
“Armed Conflicts and Humanitarian Crises: Insights from the Anthropology of
War,” in International Humanitarian Action: NOHA Textbook, eds. Pierre
Thielb€
orger and Hans-Joachim Heintze (Berlin: Springer, Forthcoming).
22. Moller, "Peace," 2.
23. Ibid: 4.
24. Ibid.
25. Frank M€
oller, “From Aftermath to Peace: Reflections on a Photography
of Peace,” Global Society 31, No. 3 (2017): 332.
26. Kathleen Walker, Karen Myers-Bowman, and Judith Myers-Walls,
“Understanding War, Visualizing Peace: Children Draw What They Know,” Art
Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association 20, No. 4 (2003): 191–
200; Kathleen Walker, Karen Myers-Bowman, and Judith Myers-Walls, “Support-
ing Young Children’s Efforts toward Peacemaking: Recommendations for Early
Childhood Educators,” Early Childhood Education Journal 35, No. 4 (2008):
377–382; Montserrat Fargas-Malet, Karola Dillenburger, “Children Drawing Their
Own Conclusions: Children’s Perceptions of a ‘Post-Conflict’ Society,” Peace and
Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 20, No. 2 (2014): 135–149.
27. Walker, et. al, "Understanding War, Visualizing Peace," 191.
28. Ibid: 192.
29. Ibid: 198.
30. Karen Myers-Bowman, Kathleen Walker, and Judith Myers-Walls,
“‘Differences Between War and Peace are Big’: Children from Yugoslavia and the
United States Describe Peace and War,” Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psy-
chology 11, No. 2 (2005): 177–198; €
Ozg€
ur Aktas, “War and Peace in Student
Drawings,” Turkish Studies –International Periodical for the Languages, Literature
and History of Turkish or Turkic 10, No. 7 (2015): 97–110; Tuba Cengelci K€
ose
and Omur Gurdogan Bayir, “Perception of Peace in Students’ Drawings,” Eurasian
Journal of Educational Research, No. 65 (2016): 181–198.
31. Walker, et. al, “Understanding War, Visualizing Peace,” 191.
32. Ibid: 195.
33. Hakvoort and Oppenheimer 1993, cited in Walker, et. al, “Understanding
War, Visualizing Peace,” 192.
34. Walker, et. al, "Understanding War, Visualizing Peace," 194.
35. Walker, et. al, "Understanding War, Visualizing Peace," 191–200; Karen
Myers-Bowman, Kathleen Walker, and Judith Myers-Walls, “‘Differences Between
War and Peace are Big’: Children from Yugoslavia and the United States Describe
Peace and War,” Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 11, No. 2
(2005): 177–198.
36. On anti-war films, see Andrew Kelly, “Film as Antiwar Propaganda. Lay
Down Your Arms (1914),” Peace & Change 16, No. 1 (1991): 97–112.
37. Roland Bleiker, “The Aesthetic Turn in International Political Theory,”
Millennium: Journal of International Studies 30, No. 3 (2001): 509–533; Roland
Bleiker, Aesthetics and World Politics (New York, NY: Palgrave, 2009); Roland
Bleiker, “Pluralist Methods for Visual Global Politics,” Millennium: Journal of
International Studies 43, No. 3 (2015): 872–890; Roland Bleiker, “In Search of
Visualizing Peace: The State of the Art 23

Thinking Space: Reflections on the Aesthetic Turn in International Political The-
ory,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 45, No. 2 (2017): 258–264.
38. Benjamin de Carvalho, “War Hurts: Vietnam Movies and the Memory of
a Lost War,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 34, No. 3 (2006): 951–
962; Klaus Dodds, “Hollywood and the Popular Geopolitics of the War on Ter-
ror,” Third World Quarterly 29, No. 8 (2008): 1621–1637; Cynthia Weber, Imag-
ining America at War: Morality, Politics and Film (London: Routledge, 2006);
Stephan Engelkamp and Philipp Offermann, “It’s a Family Affair: Germany as a
Responsible Actor in Popular Culture Discourse,” International Studies Perspectives
13, No. 3 (2012): 235–253.
39. James Der Derian, Virtuous War: Mapping the Military –Industrial-me-
dia-entertainment Network (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2001).
40. Mark Lacy, “War, Cinema, and Moral Anxiety,” Alternatives: Global,
Local, Political 28, No. 5 (2003): 615.
41. Ibid.
42. Ibid: 616.
43. Cynthia Weber, Imagining America at War: Morality, Politics and Film
(London: Routledge, 2006); Mark Lacy, “War, Cinema, and Moral Anxiety,” Alter-
natives: Global, Local, Political 28, No. 5 (2003): 611–636.
44. V
eronique Pin-Fat and Maria Stern, “The Scripting of Jessica Lynch:
Biopolitics, Gender, and the “Feminization” of the U.S. Military,” Alternatives:
Global, Local, Political 30, No. 1 (2005): 28.
45. Weber, Imagining America at War, 1–9.
46. See also Linda Ahall, “The Writing of Heroines: Motherhood and Female
Agency in Political Violence,” Security Dialogue 43, No. 4 (2012): 287–303;
Kimberly Hutchings, “Making Sense of Masculinity and War,” in Men and Mascu-
linities 10, No. 4 (2008): 389–404.
47. 
Ah€
all, “The Writing of Heroines,” 287–303.
48. Pin-Fat and Stern, “The Scripting of Jessica Lynch,” 25–53.
49. Lacy, “War, Cinema, and Moral Anxiety,” 611–636.
50. Ibid.
51. Heather Fryer, Robbie Lieberman, and Andrew Barbero, “Introduction:
Within the Folds of the Complex: Art, Activism, and the Cultural Politics of Peace-
making,” Peace & Change 40, No. 1 (2015): 1–10; Diez Jorge and Munoz Munoz,
"Uncovering the Virtues of Peace," 329-353.
52. Ephrat Huss, Orly Sarid, and Julie Cwikel, “Using art as a self-regulating
tool in a war situation: A model for social workers,” Health and Social Work 35,
No. 3 (2010): 201–211; Orly Sarid and Ephrat Huss, “Trauma and Acute Stress
Disorder: A Comparison between Cognitive Behavioral Intervention and Art Ther-
apy,” The Arts in Psychotherapy 37, No. 1 (2010): 8–12.
53. Ephrat Huss, Roni Kaufman, Amos Avgar, and Eitan Shuker, “Arts as a
Vehicle for Community Building and Post-Disaster Development,” Disasters 40,
No. 2 (2016): 284; see also Marcia Rosal, “Cognitive behavioral art therapy,” in
Approaches to art therapy, ed. Judith Rubin (Philadelphia, PA: Brunner-Routledge,
2001), 210–225; Ephrat Huss and Orly Sarid, “Using imagery in health care set-
tings: addressing physical and psychological trauma,” in Art Therapy and Health-
care, ed. Cathy A. Malchiodi (New York, NY: Guilford Publications, 2011), 74–85.
24 PEACE & CHANGE / January 2020

54. April Hyoeun Bang, “The Restorative and Transformative Power of the
Arts in Conflict Resolution,” Journal of Transformative Education 14, No. 4
(2016): 355–376; Morton Deutsch, “Cooperation, competition, and conflict,” in
Handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice, eds. by Peter T. Coleman,
Morton Deutsch, and Eric Marcus (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2014), 3–28;
Young Imm Kang Song, “Educating for Peace: A Case Study of a Constructivist
Approach to Understanding Peace through Artistic Expression,” Creative Education
3, No. 1 (2012): 79–83.
55. Craig Zelizre, “The Role of Artistic Processes in Peace-Building in Bosnia-
Herzegovina,” Peace and Conflict Studies 10, No. 2 (2003): 65.
56. Stefan Koelsch, “From social contact to social cohesion—The 7 Cs,”
Music and Medicine 5, No. 4 (2013): 207.
57. Bang, "The Restorative and Transformative Power of the Arts in Conflict
Resolution," 367.
58. Huss, "The Art of Conflict," 2.
59. Huss, "The Art of Conflict."
60. Bang, "The Restorative and Transformative Power of Arts in Conflict
Resolution," 360.
61. Huss, "The Art of Conflict," 16; Krista Curl, “Assessing Stress Reduction
as a Function of Artistic Creation and Cognitive Focus,” Art Therapy: Journal of
the American Art association 25, No. 2 (2008): 164–169; Marian Liebmann, Arts
Approaches to Conflict (London: Jessica Kingsley, 1996).
62. Huss, et. al, "Arts as a Vehicle for Community Building and Post-Disaster
Development," 286.
63. Michael Shank and Lisa Schirich, “Strategic Arts-based Peacebuilding,”
Peace & Change 33, No. 2 (2008): 218.
64. Stephan Brookfield and John Holst, Radicalizing Learning: Adult Educa-
tion for a Just World (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2011), 146.
65. Huss, "The Art of Conflict," 18.
66. Huss, et. al, "Arts as a Vehicle for Community Building and Post-Disaster
Development," 288.
67. See for instance: Harold Lasswell, Propaganda Techniques in World War
(New York, NY: Knopf, 1927).
68. Vladimir Bratic, “Media Effects during Violent Conflict: Evaluating
Media Contributions to Peace Building,” Conflict & Communication Online 5, No.
1 (2006): 2; Tim Allen and Jean Seaton, eds., The Media of Conflict: War Report-
ing and Representations of Ethnic Violence (New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press,
1999).
69. Elizabeth Baisley, “Genocide and the Constructions of Hutu and Tutsi in
Radio Propaganda,” Race & Class 55, No. 3 (2014): 38–59; Scott Straus, “What is
the Relationship between Hate Radio and Violence? Rethinking Rwanda’s ‘Radio
Machete’”, Politics & Society 35 (2007): 69–636; Christine Kellow and Leslie
Steeves, “The Role of Radio in the Rwandan Genocide,” Journal of Communica-
tion 48, No. 3 (1998): 107–128.
70. Mark Thompson, Forging War: The Media in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia,
and Hercegovina (Luton: University of Luton Press, 1999); Jean Seaton, “Why Do
Visualizing Peace: The State of the Art 25

We Think the Serbs Do It? The New “Ethnic” Wars and the Media,” The Political
Quarterly 70, No. 3 (1999): 254–270.
71. Eytan Gilboa, “Media and Conflict Resolution,” in The SAGE Handbook
of Conflict Resolution, ed. Jacob Bercovitch, et al. (London: Sage, 2009); Vladimir
Bratic, “Media Effects during Violent Conflict: Evaluating Media Contributions to
Peace Building,” Conflict & Communication Online 5, No. 1 (2006): 1–11.
72. Ross Howard, An Operational Framework for Media and Peacebuilding
(Vancouver: IMPACS –Institute for Media, Policy and Civil Society, 2002); Julia
Hoffmann, “Conceptualizing ‘Communication for Peace’,” UPEACE Open Knowl-
edge Network Occasional Working Papers No. 1 (2013).
73. Bratic, "Media Effects during Violent Conflict," 6.
74. Sheldon Himelfarb and Megan Chabalowski, Framework for Peacebuild-
ing Media: Mapping the Edges. USIPeace Briefing, Washington: United States Insti-
tute of Peace (2011); Krishna Kumar, Promoting Independent Media. Strategies for
Democracy Assistance (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2006).
75. Bratic, "Media Effects during Violent Conflict," 3.
76. Johan Galtung and Mari Holmboe Ruge, “The Structure of Foreign
News: The Presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus Crises in Four Norwegian
Newspapers,” Journal of Peace Research 2, No. 1 (1965): 64–91.
77. On Peace Journalism, see Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick, Peace
Journalism (Stroud: Hawthorn Press, 2005); Wilhelm Kempf, “Peace Journalism: A
Tightrope Walk between Advocacy Journalism and Constructive Conflict Cover-
age,” Conflict & Communication Online 6, No. 2 (2007): 1–9; for a critique, see
Thomas Hanitzsch, “Journalists as Peacekeeping Force? Peace Journalism and Mass
Communication Theory,” Journalism Studies 5, No. 4 (2004): 483–495.
78. Frank M€
oller, “From Aftermath to Peace: Reflections on a Photography
of Peace,” Global Society 31, No. 3 (2017): 315–335.
79. Ritchin 1999, 122–123, cited in Frank M€
oller, “From Aftermath to
Peace: Reflections on a Photography of Peace,” Global Society 31, No. 3 (2017):
327.
80. Cees J. Hamelink, “Media Studies and the Peace issue,” in Communica-
tion and Peace: Mapping an Emerging Field, eds. Julia Hoffmann and Virgil Haw-
kins (London: Routledge, 2015), 37.
81. Julia Hoffmann, “Conceptualizing ‘Communication for Peace’.” UPEACE
Open Knowledge Network Occasional Working Papers No. 1, (2013): 9ff.
82. Ian Shapiro, “Theories of Practice and Change in Ethnic Conflict Inter-
ventions,” in The Psychology of Resolving Global Conflict: From War to Peace,
eds. Mari Fitzduff and Chris Stout (Santa Barbara, CA: Preager Security Interna-
tional, 2006), 1–32.
83. See https://www.sfcg.org/. Accessed 11 December 2017.
84. Charlotte Cole and Lewis Bernstein, “Ripple Effects: Using Sesame Street
to Bridge Group Divides in the Middle East, Kosovo, Northern Ireland, and Else-
where,” in The Sesame Effect: The Global Impact of the Longest Street in the
World, eds. Charlotte Cole and June Lee (New York, NY: Routledge, 2016),
154–180.
26 PEACE & CHANGE / January 2020

85. Valentina Ba
u, “Building Peace through Social Change Communication:
Participatory Video in Conflict-Affected Communities,” Community Development
Journal 50, No. 1 (2014): 121–137.
86. Ibid: 125. See also Shirley White, Participatory Video: Images That
Transform and Empower (London: Sage, 2003).
87. Weber, Imagining America at War, 1-9.
88. Klaus Dodds, “Hollywood and the Popular Geopolitics of the War on
Terror,” Third World Quarterly 29, No. 8 (2008): 1621–1637.
89. Lacy, "War, Cinema, and Moral Anxiety," 214.
90. Brent Steele, “Recognising, and Realising, the Promise of the Aesthetic
Turn,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 45, No. 2 (2017): 206–213.
91. Lacy, "War, Cinema, and Moral Anxiety," 616.
92. Galia Press-Barnathan, “Thinking About the Role of Popular Culture in
International Conflicts,” International Studies Review 19, No. 2 (2017): 166–184.
93. Michael Billig, Banal Nationalism (London: Sage Publications, 1995).
94. Lacy, "War, Cinema, and Moral Anxiety," 616.
95. Ibid: 617.
96. See Press-Barnathan, "Thinking About the Role of Popular Culture in
International Conflicts, 166-184.
97. Ch
erie Rivers, “Beyond ‘Victimology’: Generating Agency Through Film
in Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo,” in Art and Trauma in Africa: Rep-
resentations of Reconciliation in Music, Visual Arts, Literature and Film, eds.
Lizelle Bisschoff and Stefanie van de Peer (London: I.B. Tauris, 2013), 252.
98. Rivers, 252–253.
99. Rivers, 253.
100. Rivers, 253–254.
Visualizing Peace: The State of the Art 27