There is no single definition of feminist peace. On the contrary, feminist peace research has been characterized by “untidiness, complexity and co-existing contradictions”. Perhaps paradoxically, this openness to contestation, multiplicity and a plurality of perspectives can be seen as one of the key tenets of a feminist definition of peace – and a feminist recipe for a more peaceful future.
Agnieszka Fal-Dutra Santos, a participant in the «Caring to Survive, Surviving to Care» project, writes about this in the article «Towards Feminist Peace: Imagining a Future Without War».
She notes that the feminist vision of the future forces us to rethink the very concept of peace as a complex, contradictory, and multidimensional process. It is increasingly criticized by the so-called “liberal peacebuilding”, focused on the quick resolution of conflicts without analyzing their root causes. Instead, there is growing interest in more comprehensive approaches that take into account the local context, people’s everyday experience, and structural factors of violence. Therefore, peace should be interpreted not only as an outcome, but as a long-term process of forming a shared vision of society.
At the same time, the feminist approach does not offer a single definition of “feminist peace”. On the contrary, its strength lies in its openness to different positions, even contradictory ones. It is also not limited to the formal involvement of women in negotiations or the consideration of the gender component in policies. It is about bigger changes – the analysis and transformation of power structures that reproduce inequality and violence.
Another key aspect is attention to everyday life. Feminist researchers emphasize that peace is formed not only at the level of international agreements, but also in everyday practices of care, mutual support, and solidarity. At the same time, violence is also continuous, stretching from the private sphere to armed conflicts, forming a so-called “continuum”.
In this context, a feminist future involves not just the absence of war, but a profound transformation of society. This involves reducing the role of militarization, revising global security approaches, and investing in local peace initiatives. It is also important to reform international institutions, which often reproduce inequalities in the distribution of power.
At the national and local levels, this means truly including women and marginalized groups in decision-making processes—not formally, but with the provision of economic resources and influence. Only through such structural changes can systemic violence be challenged and a more just and sustainable peace be achieved.