It may come as a shock to most Westerners to know that there are many peaceful societies in the world.

In the West we are immersed in a culture that has a millennia-long history of violence and warfare. The United States, in many ways the leading country in the West and a product of this long history, is a comparatively violent culture that has been involved in genocide, slavery, wars and international conflicts since its founding. The US Constitution specifically upholds the right of all citizens to ‘bear arms’ for the purposes of self-defense. The resulting high rate of gun ownership gives the US the highest murder rate of any Western country. Police forces are correspondingly violent, and shoot to death around a thousand people each year. If this were not enough, the news media keep all this violence in front of us every day with their emphasis on war, crime and murder. This unbalanced reporting gives the impression the violence is endemic, further reinforcing its normalization as something that humans simply do as a response to disagreement and conflict.

Our immersion in this culture of violence leads us to believe that violence is a natural state of humanity, and that violence between people and countries is inevitable.

But it seems that the truth is much more nuanced.  Many peaceful societies are hiding in plain sight, and as we bring them into focus, we start to understand that humanity can also express another very different natural state, the state of peace. It seems that humans have a myriad of potentials, and can just as easily choose to become peaceful as violent. They can just as easily train their children to embrace violence as abhor it.

So where are the peaceful societies? They are found all around the world, and tend to fall into two groups, small hunter-gatherer societies, and a handful of small contemporary nations.

There are many peaceful hunter-gatherer societies that have been extensively studied. They include the Semai, the Ifaluk, the Australian Aborigines, the Yanamomo, the Siriono, the Montagnais-Naskapi, the Paliyans, the Netsilik Inuit, the Ju/’hoansi, the Lepchas, the Piaroa, the Batek, the Buid, the Ladakh, the Kadar, and the Chewong.

What these societies all have in common is a very complete, conscious and society-wide rejection of violence in all its forms. Violence is simply not socially acceptable, whether physical or emotional. Social rejection plays an important part in reining in any expression of violence, which is seen as a shameful loss of self-control.

Conversely, these peoples take great pride in their peacefulness, and see violent societies as inferior to them.

They have many other things in common too. As might be expected, they have extremely low rates of murder and violent crime. When violence does occur, the ‘punishment’ for the offender may include reparations, or a symbolic non-lethal wounding. Only when the offender commits extreme or repeated violence, is he (almost always a ‘he’) removed from the community, either by execution or casting out. But such events are extremely rare, and may not have happened within the memory of even the oldest members.

These societies, while non-violent, are not in denial about human differences, and do recognize that disagreement and conflict will occur. To deal with this normal part of human interaction, there are community structures in place to resolve disputes. When two people have a disagreement, another community member may spontaneously step in to mediate. If this does not lead to an agreement satisfactory to both parties, the whole community may meet to help resolve the matter, or it may be taken to various levels of trusted community leaders. Dialog with all concerned is carried on for as long as needed to reach resolution.

A common resolution to disagreement is for one or both participants to simply walk away, or even run away from the dispute. Peace and harmony in the community is considered more important than the need or opinion of any one member. The dispute is then minimized and not further spoken about, and community members go on with life as though it had never occurred.

These societies are largely non-hierarchical. While there may be leaders who emerge, the leaders generally have no special status in the community, and have no power or means of making anyone go along with their wishes. No-one is obliged to obey them. They can make suggestions but have no greater status in terms of being heeded than any other member.

It follows that such societies are also egalitarian, with all members being treated with respect. Some societies give men a certain amount of power over women, but the more usual pattern is equality of the sexes which is not affected by a fairly universal division of labor. Mens’ work and womens’ work hold equal value.

There is very little envy or jealousy, even in matters of the heart. If one of the partners in a marriage has an affair, it is generally tolerated as long as it is conducted with discretion.

Most surprisingly for a Westerner, there is no competition. No-one tries to outdo anyone else, or attract special praise or recognition. On the contrary, special abilities are generally not acknowledged. There is no particular praise for an outstanding accomplishment or skill. All members are equally valued regardless of any special talent.

There is also a sharing of resources among all members of the group. The kills of the hunters and the gatherings of the foragers are all shared, and no-one keeps for themselves the foodstuffs they have found. Labor also is shared, and when a hut needs to be built for a particular family, many others in the group will help with the construction.

Children are almost never physically punished. When a child transgresses a social norm, nearby adults my simply ignore the child, or they may explain why this is not acceptable behavior. As in all cultures, children absorb the values and behaviors of the adults around them, and are exposed to many incidents of peaceful conflict resolution during their growing years, arriving at adulthood as peaceful individuals. It is well known that children who experience violence are more likely to be violent as adults, and it seems that the converse is also true, that children who experience non-violence are likely to become non-violent adults.

Perhaps most importantly, these peaceful societies do not wage war on their neighbors. They do not attempt to take possession of the lands of others, nor do they raid their neighbors for goods, slaves or women. Not only do they not aggress upon neighboring societies, but if they are invaded, they melt away into their hinterlands, often for extended periods of time. In their commitment to non-violence they do not even seek to defend themselves, even when others seek to possess their land and their goods.

Now let’s turn to present-day expressions of non-violent societies. Luckily, the Global Peace Index makes it very simple to identify the most peaceful countries in the world. Every year it rates 163 countries on 23 measures of non-violence, then combines the scores to create a peacefulness index for each of those countries. In 2023, the first five most peaceful countries were, in order of peacefulness, Iceland, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand and Singapore.

Iceland is currently the star of the GPI. In a remarkable achievement it has been rated the most peaceful country in the world for 17 years in a row.

So how is peacefulness expressed and maintained in Iceland, and how do its modern peacefulness practices compare with the practices of the hunter-gatherer societies?

What we notice first is that Icelandic society is remarkable for its equality in every sphere of life, including class, opportunity, education, income, housing, gender, sexual preference, health care, the safety net, politics and law. Let’s look at this more closely.

Unlike almost every other country in the world, there is no class system. People treat others as their equals, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, belief, income or profession. There is acceptance of the rights of others. Culturally there exists the notion of the ‘strong woman’, and Iceland ranks first in the world for gender equality. This is echoed in the fact that Icelandic women, along with women in the Nordic countries, earn the highest wages in the world relative to men, currently 90% of mens’ wages. Laws were recently passed mandating equal pay for equal work, with penalties for non-compliance, and there is a shared social commitment to achieve wage parity.

There is equality in housing, with most Icelanders living in very similar homes regardless of earnings. Poorer and richer Icelanders live side by side in the same neighborhoods. There is equality of opportunity with a notable absence of private schools and a robust state education system which results in a highly educated population. Icelanders uniformly enjoy a high standard of living which is supported by a strong social safety net and a national health scheme, paid for through taxation. No-one falls into poverty due to illness, disability or unemployment. Not surprisingly, Icelanders report a high sense of wellbeing.

In the political sphere, gender equality has almost been achieved, with 48% of seats in parliament being held by women. From 2017 to 2024, the Prime Minister was a woman, and the current cabinet has 6 men and 6 women.

Iceland is also noted for its support for families and children, and in an informal survey it was found to be the best of 35 OECD countries in terms of raising children. Iceland is committed to work-life balance, and has a parental leave policy that allows parents to spend adequate time with their children. Quality day care is widely available and affordable. Because the environment is so safe, children can readily play and explore outside. Physical punishment of children is illegal.

Iceland is also remarkable for its lack of violence. This is very much due to the fact that Icelanders enjoy strong social cohesiveness. In other words, they feel a bond of trust and a sense of community with their fellow citizens. This results in a strong sense of personal safety. They care about each other and the welfare of their country, and have high rates of civic engagement.

As a result of the social cohesiveness, equality of opportunity and high standard of education, the crime rate is extremely low, and the police are unarmed. Iceland has no standing army. It has good relationships with neighboring countries and has been involved in various international mediation and peacekeeping efforts. It has not participated in international wars or uprisings and has not had any incidents of terrorism.

When we compare the peaceful hunter-gatherer societies with a peaceful Iceland, we see several similarities. The first thing we notice is that both have a high measure of equality. Iceland is classless, and the hunter-gatherer societies are non-hierarchical. In both, men and women are equally valued. In both there is a commitment to sharing; in the hunter-gatherer societies all food and resources are shared, and in Iceland resources are shared via taxation and the state support of education, health care and the social safety net. Thus everyone is taken care of and does not need to fear for their survival. We notice that both have a very low crime rate and avoid violent conflict with their neighbors. Lastly, children are well taken care of in both kinds of society. In both, there is no physical discipline, there is access to many caring adults along with the parents, and the natural environment is safe and available for play and exploration.

What Iceland does not particularly share with the hunter-gatherer societies is a strong abhorrence of violence. Icelanders don’t necessarily run away from conflicts, and they do not see violence as a shameful lack of self-control. Neither do they have an obvious country-wide pride in their peaceful ways. Iceland also does not share the lack of competition and non-acknowledgment of special talents that is universal in the hunter-gatherer societies. Given these differences, it seems clear that the peaceful hunter-gatherer societies almost certainly rate higher on peaceableness than Iceland.

However, Iceland and the hunter-gatherer societies have many more similarities than differences when it comes to eschewing violence and embracing peacefulness. Iceland shows us that a modern country can live by many of the same cultural values as the most peaceful traditional societies. This gives us hope that a country can be both modern and non-violent.

As we approach the New Millennium of peace and love, it may not be necessary to return to a hunter-gatherer existence for peaceableness to thrive. As in the hunter-gatherer societies it will be essential that we uniformly commit to non-violence, making all violence socially unacceptable. However, we may be able to keep many of the advantages of modern civilization even as we embrace living peacefully with all of humanity.

 

Sources for traditional peaceful societies

Douglas P. Fry, The Human Potential for Peace

Bruce D. Bonta, Peaceful Societies: Alternatives to Violence and War