When people hear the word peace, they may think of friendship or harmony between two people.  Or perhaps they would define peace as tranquility, or even neutrality.  All of these definitions are valid and acceptable descriptions of the meaning of peace in today’s society.  However, after investigating the historical meanings of this word, I have concluded that peace may be more accurately defined as “a state of being in perfect harmony, which we are highly unlikely to achieve.”
 The Random House Dictionary offers five definitions for the noun form of the word peace.  They are: (1) Freedom from war, (2) A state of harmony between people or groups (3) Freedom from civil commotion, (4) A state of tranquility or serenity, and (5) An agreement that ends a war.
 These meanings have changed very little throughout history.  During its years of existence, the word has meant only variations of the above definitions. It seems to me that we, as society, tend to take this word for granted.  We use the term peace, almost carelessly, to describe many different situations or goals.  However, have we ever truly achieved peace?
Since the beginning of time, there has never been freedom from war.  Worldwide, countries have established militaries, which are justified by claiming to provide us with so-called “protection;” protection from foreign countries as well as civilian offenders.  If protection is necessary, then peace can exist as no more than a fantasy.  And if we cannot maintain peace within our own nation, it is therefore impossible to achieve peace throughout the globe.  And by supporting a military, we are supporting war, because that is what the military, in all reality, provides.
However, this is not to say that the government is to blame.  In society today, too many authorities and civilians resort to violence as a means of problem solving, or even as a form of communication.  It has tragically become a normal, everyday part of our lives.
It was once said that violence provokes violence.  This statement could not be truer.  In order to achieve peace, we must do away with violence.  Although this would be an obvious and theoretically ideal solution, it is also incredibly unrealistic and unfeasible.  Not only would the population have to cease all violence, but to truly be at absolute peace, we must also eliminate the emotional stresses that burden our lives on a daily basis.  These include family problems, school/work, death, illness, health, etc.
 To me, peace means being at complete happiness with everyone and everything that surrounds us, not just seeming happy on the surface.  Many people or things today we claim to be at peace with, but in reality are only tolerant of.  If we are merely tolerating someone or something, we are not at complete peace with them or ourselves. We are only succeeding at fooling ourselves that we are in amity.
I believe that peace begins with the understanding of others and their ideals.  For example, if all humans were to attempt to not only listen to each other, but to understand each other as well, we would not have the prejudices or multi-cultural clashes, which in effect, prevent us from being at peace with each other, as a whole.
 Although the word peace has existed for centuries now, actual peace has never been successfully attained.  And, to me, peace will remain unseen.  The only possible way to begin to achieve peace with each other and ourselves, is to practice understanding and acceptance, and not stop at mere tolerance.  As I mentioned, violence, which is sadly common in today’s world, provokes more violence. Therefore peace cannot be obtained through war or hate.  And unfortunately, until the people of the world realize this undoubted reality, peace will forever remain nothing more than a dream-like desire.

Krista Rae Depperschmidt
10 December 1999