Interventionism or pacifism? Mask or way of life

Interventionism and pacifism are not only political ideas. They are ways we meet conflict and peace in our own lives. Sometimes we wear them like a mask, meaning a behavior we show to others that does not truly come from what we feel inside. Other times they become an authentic choice, a way of life that expresses who we really are.

Understanding whether we always push for force or always avoid conflict is not only about describing our character. It is about seeing whether we are living from the side of the false Self, the part that performs, pleases, or controls, or from the true Self, which acts with presence, responsibility, and inner truth.

One of the aims of Bodymind therapy is exactly this: helping us distinguish the mask from who we truly are, not to judge ourselves, but to stop fooling ourselves and return to contact with the body, with emotions, and with our deeper truth.

This distinction is not theoretical. It often marks the boundary between a life lived in unhappiness, tension, and constant adaptation, and a life closer to happiness, freedom, and a real sense of authenticity.

Historical context: from “si vis pacem, para bellum” to “si vis pacem, para pacem”

Historical context helps us understand where these ideas come from and how they developed over time. The idea expressed by the Latin formula si vis pacem, para bellum has roots in the ancient world and is linked to Vegetius, a Roman author of military treatises who lived between the 4th and 5th centuries AD.

In his writings on the organization of the army, he argues that a community must be able to defend itself in order to avoid being attacked. This idea can be understood as an invitation to prepare in advance, rather than intervening only when it is already too late and effective means of protection no longer exist.

Even if the phrasing we use today became common in a later historical period, the same basic idea already appears in the thinking of authors such as Plato and Cicero. In this perspective, peace is born from strength, order, and the capacity to protect one’s community.

This way of thinking developed in societies where survival truly depended on resisting attacks from outside. From this social context comes the principle of deterrence, according to which aggression is discouraged by making an attack too risky or too costly for anyone who might attempt it.

Across history, especially during the Middle Ages and the modern era, this principle became intertwined with the doctrine of just war and, later, with the formation of nation-states. From this evolution emerges interventionism: the idea that the use of force or military intervention can be considered legitimate when it is presented as a means to defend security, political order, or certain values believed to be essential.

In the twentieth century, this perspective became associated with political realism, a view that interprets the world as a system of competing powers and considers force a necessary condition for maintaining stability.

In response to this way of thinking, a different perspective develops, expressed by the formula si vis pacem, para pacem, which proposes that peace is born when peace itself is actively prepared. In this view, peace is not built through threats or military superiority, but through cooperation, dialogue, legal and social institutions, and relationships among communities and peoples.

This perspective has roots in spiritual traditions oriented toward non-violence, in moral philosophy, in Kant’s thought, and in pacifist movements which, especially after the world wars, organized themselves in increasingly structured forms. In this way of seeing the world, peace is not the product of weapons, but the result of shared rules, collective responsibility, and fairer political and social relationships.

Interventionism and pacifism in contemporary politics and society

Today these two positions still coexist and often come into tension with each other. On one side, the logic of para bellum influences many security strategies, military alliances, and defense policies. It is described as pragmatic because the world is perceived as fragile, unstable, and potentially dangerous, and force therefore appears as a necessary condition to resist threats and to avoid vulnerability.

In some contexts this approach can become a true identity, through which reality is interpreted mainly as a space shaped by fear and permanent risk, and in which preparation for conflict becomes a habitual way of thinking and reacting.

On the other side, contemporary para pacem does not correspond to a naïve or purely idealistic position. This perspective uses concrete tools such as diplomacy, conflict prevention, international cooperation, shared economic development, and arms control processes. Peace, in this view, is understood as a path in which conditions are created that make war progressively less frequent and progressively less necessary.

At the same time, pacifism can also become a mask when it leads to avoiding real confrontation with conflict, or when it neglects differences in power and the responsibilities present in personal and social relationships.

The central question today is not only which of the two positions is morally or politically correct. The deeper issue concerns the kind of people and the kind of societies that emerge from these choices.

A rigid para bellum can fuel fear, strengthen defensive attitudes, and increase social polarization. An unprocessed para pacem can leave people more exposed to being exploited, can encourage self-abandonment, and can push conflicts to appear in hidden or indirect forms.

From a Bodymind perspective, it becomes essential to recognize in which situations force protects and in which it hardens, and in which situations peace creates connection and in which it instead pulls us away from contact with reality.

Bodymind psychological translation: force, boundaries, trust

When these ideas are brought into personal life and relationships, it becomes possible to recognize very similar dynamics. Inner para bellum concerns the ability to say no clearly, to protect one’s boundaries, and to use anger in a healthy way that is proportionate and oriented toward relationship.

This capacity functions as a psychological form of deterrence, because the people around us sense that there is a limit that deserves respect. This inner stance supports stability when it is balanced, regulated, and integrated into one’s experience. It becomes problematic when it turns into constant defense, deep mistrust, and a permanent emotional state of alert.

Inner para pacem concerns the ability to cultivate trust, enter dialogue, negotiate conflicts, and repair the bond after moments of tension or rupture. This capacity becomes strong when it coexists with clear and conscious boundaries. It loses its transformative power when it turns into people-pleasing, self-erasure, or the illusion that peace can exist only by avoiding every form of confrontation.

Bodymind maturity does not arise from a definitive choice between interventionism and pacifism, neither at the level of external behavior nor at the level of inner experience. Maturity takes shape through continuous reflection on one’s position, through awareness of the costs, limits, and shadow areas that exist in both ways of relating to conflict and peace.

The three guiding questions for inner “para bellum”

1. The first guiding question:

   It concerns the nature of the force being built and asks whether it is truly oriented toward defense, or whether it is used, consciously or unconsciously, to control the other, intimidate them, or impose one’s will. This question helps distinguish whether the intention is really to protect, or whether behind defense there is a search for power and domination.

   
   

2. The second guiding question:

   It asks whether force is being chosen because dialogue is truly impossible, or because the skills needed to face conflict in a cooperative and relational way are not yet sufficiently developed. This question opens a space for honesty toward oneself and toward one’s capacity to act within relationships and systems.

   
   

3. The third guiding question:

   It shifts attention to the emotional, social, and relational costs of a constantly defensive inner posture. It makes visible that even the inner readiness to always be prepared for confrontation changes the way we live relationships and the atmosphere of our life, even when force is never used concretely.

The three guiding questions for inner “para pacem”

1. The first guiding question:

   It asks whether the peace being sought is grounded in clear boundaries and in a real capacity to protect oneself, or whether it depends mainly on the hope that the other will not take advantage of our vulnerability. This question helps reveal whether one is living a strong peace or a fragile peace.

   
   

2. The second guiding question:

   It invites checking whether real and concrete tools exist to face and move through conflict, or whether peace is being confused with the avoidance of conflict itself. This question strengthens the ability to look at problems directly instead of shifting or hiding them.

   
   

3. The third guiding question:

   It explores the possibility of remaining able to act even when the other does not cooperate, without erasing oneself and without suddenly reacting with aggression. This question supports an inner posture that connects autonomy, respect, and self-protection.

Concluding Bodymind reflection

Interventionism and pacifism, just like force and trust, can become masks when they weaken contact with the body, with real relationships, and with the concrete context in which we live. They become a way of life when they are lived as conscious, embodied, flexible, and responsible choices.

The Bodymind path invites us to prepare strength without turning it into an object of idealization, and to build peace without making it an abstract ideal. In this direction, a form of living, grounded peace can emerge, shaped through the ongoing meeting of boundary and relationship, protection and openness, freedom and shared responsibility.