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 postwar contexts. This paper introduces the concept of “naïve pacifism” to describe underlying assumptions in PCP that may limit 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. While these assumptions can lead PCP researchers to oversimplify conflicts, perpetuate pseudoscientific views, and promote ineffective interventions, our analysis also acknowledges the value of nonviolent approaches in specific contexts. By challenging these pillars and proposing a more nuanced—though not exhaustive—framework, this paper aims to stimulate debate and advance PCP toward a more adaptive science of peace-making. We emphasize the need for further discussion on the ethical and practical implications of integrating coercion, deterrence, and objective conflict analysis into PCP's traditional paradigms.