Your peace maybe someone else’s hell
On my brief journey through dating apps, I noticed a recurring theme: so many people listed peace as their ultimate goal in life. It made me pause and reflect on my own understanding of peace. What does peace truly mean to me, and is it as uncompromising as it seems? The more I thought about it, the more I realized that peace, as we define it, is deeply subjective—and often negotiable.
Peace is often considered the ultimate goal in relationships, workplaces, and communities. It’s what many of us strive for—a harmonious state where one can be at peace in their relationships most of the time without conflict. But the more I thought about it, the more I began to wonder: is peace a more personal pursuit, something that centers on individual comfort? In relationships, harmony seems to have a broader scope, requiring consideration, negotiation, and a balance of needs among all involved. While peace can create calm, harmony feels more dynamic, weaving together diverse perspectives and fostering connection. Yet, this difference raises an essential question: can we truly have one without the other?
The Subjectivity of Peace
What we consider “peace” is deeply influenced by our personal experiences, values, and cultural backgrounds. For one person, peace might mean quiet and solitude. For another, it could mean active engagement and collaboration. Imagine a workplace where an introverted manager prefers minimal interaction to focus on tasks efficiently, while an extroverted team member thrives on frequent communication and brainstorming sessions. The manager’s peace—a calm, low-interaction environment—might feel isolating and unproductive to the team member.
Similarly, in relationships, peace can take on vastly different meanings. In a heteronormative relationship, one partner might seek peace by avoiding conflict, sweeping issues under the rug to maintain harmony. However, the other partner might feel unheard and frustrated, craving open communication to resolve tensions. In this case, the absence of visible conflict creates a false peace that ultimately leads to resentment.
In alternative relationship structures like polyamory, peace might mean having clear and transparent communication about boundaries and expectations. For one partner, this process might feel overwhelming or exhausting, while another partner sees it as a vital foundation for trust and connection. Without mutual understanding, the pursuit of peace for one could feel like emotional labor or even chaos for the other.
Adding a gender perspective further deepens this complexity. In systems influenced by patriarchy, peace can often be shaped by expectations of emotional labor and caretaking, especially for women. For example, women in both heteronormative and alternative relationships may feel societal pressure to maintain peace by suppressing their own needs or mediating tensions. While this can create a temporary sense of calm, it often comes at the expense of their emotional well-being. On the other hand, men, influenced by societal norms, might view peace as avoiding vulnerability or discomfort, which can hinder authentic communication and mutual understanding. Addressing these dynamics requires recognizing how patriarchal systems shape behaviors and expectations around conflict and resolution without placing blame but fostering awareness and change.
How “Peace” Can Mask Power Dynamics
What we label as peace can sometimes be a tool of control or oppression. In workplaces or communities, those in power might define peace as the absence of dissent or disruption. However, this “peace” can be silencing and suppress authenticity in relating and valid concerns. For example, a leader creates a “peaceful” work environment by discouraging employees from bringing up complaints or dissatisfaction. While this creates an illusion of harmony, it comes at the cost of equity and authenticity.
This dynamic is particularly evident in broader societal contexts. Consider how calls for “peace” during protests or social movements often demand that marginalized groups stop advocating for their rights. In these instances, peace serves the comfort of those in power while perpetuating the status quo for those who are suffering.
Conflict as a Pathway to Authentic Peace
Conflict, though uncomfortable, is often the necessary disruption that leads to growth and understanding. When we view conflict as an opportunity rather than a threat, it becomes a tool for building bridges between differing perspectives. Here’s how this shift in mindset can transform relationships and communities:
Acknowledging Differences: Recognizing that peace is subjective helps us understand that our version of harmony may not align with someone else’s. This acknowledgment is the first step toward meaningful dialogue.
Validating Experiences: Instead of dismissing conflict as a breakdown of peace, we can see it as a reflection of unmet needs or unresolved tensions. Validating the experiences and emotions of all parties creates a foundation for trust.
Creating Space for Honest Dialogue: True peace requires spaces where people can express their needs and concerns without fear of judgment or retaliation. This involves listening actively and being open to compromise.
Balancing Power Dynamics: Addressing power imbalances is key to ensuring that peace is equitable. This might mean creating opportunities for underrepresented voices to be heard or examining how systemic factors influence interpersonal conflicts.
Practical Applications in Conflict Resolution
In my work as a conflict mediator, I often encounter situations where one party’s peace has become another’s hell. For example, in a polyamorous relationship, one partner might feel at peace with multiple overlapping relationships, viewing it as an expression of freedom and love. Meanwhile, another partner might struggle with feelings of jealousy or insecurity, finding the same situation emotionally taxing. The solution lies in reframing peace as a collective goal rather than an individual one.
Similarly, cultural misunderstandings can create friction. In a multicultural team, a manager from a direct-communication culture might prefer immediate feedback, while team members from indirect-communication cultures may avoid confrontation to maintain group harmony. Addressing these differences requires mutual respect and a willingness to adapt communication styles.
This involves:
Identifying Underlying Needs: What does peace mean for each person involved? Unpacking these definitions can reveal shared values and priorities.
Facilitating Collaborative Solutions: Once needs are identified, the focus shifts to finding solutions that honor everyone’s perspective. This might mean setting boundaries or developing systems for accountability.
Encouraging Emotional Awareness: Conflict often triggers strong emotions. Helping parties recognize and manage these emotions fosters clearer communication and reduces defensiveness.
Final Thoughts
Your peace may be someone else’s hell because peace is not one-size-fits-all. By understanding peace as a subjective and dynamic concept, we can approach conflict resolution with greater empathy and creativity. True peace is not the absence of conflict but the presence of equity, understanding, and mutual respect.
When we embrace conflict as an opportunity to build authentic connections, we move closer to a peace that uplifts everyone—not just a select few. And that, perhaps, is the most valuable lesson of all.
