Pacifist or Peace Psychology? Overcoming Naïve Pacifism to Foster a True Science of Peace-Making

Recent geopolitical events have exposed critical gaps in the ability of peace and conflict psychology (PCP) to engage with conflicts beyond intractable or post-war contexts. This paper introduces the concept of "naïve pacifism" to describe underlying assumptions in PCP that hinder its ability to address complex modern conflicts effectively. Three pillars of naïve pacifism are identified: (1) the homeostatic view of peace as the natural state and violence as a dysfunction, (2) the belief in the reactive nature of violence, and (3) a perspectivist approach that overlooks objective features of conflicts. These assumptions lead PCP researchers to oversimplify, perpetuate pseudoscientific views of and promote ineffective interventions to solve violent conflicts. By challenging these pillars and proposing a more nuanced framework, this paper aims to advance PCP toward a true science of peace-making that is better equipped to address contemporary global conflicts.