Partnership Studies 20: Nonviolence, ‘Irenic’ Peace, and Partnership Alternatives

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/01/07

Riane Eisler, an Austrian-born American systems scientist, futurist, and human rights advocate, is renowned for her influential work on cultural transformation and gender equity. Best known for The Chalice and the Blade, she introduced the partnership versus dominator models of social organization. She received the Humanist Pioneer Award. Drawing on neuroscience and history, she argues that Peace begins at home and calls for a shift in worldview to build more equitable, sustainable, and compassionate societies rooted in connection rather than control. The three books of hers of note that could be highlighted are The Chalice and the Blade—now in its 57th U.S. printing with 30 foreign editions, The Real Wealth of Nations, and Nurturing Our Humanity: How Domination and Partnership Shape Our Brains, Lives, and Future (Oxford University Press, 2019). 

In this conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen asks Riane Eisler how partnership thinking reframes nonviolence beyond a mere negation. Eisler traces the term to domination traditions that normalize coercion, arguing reformers still lack a frame spanning family life, gender, religion, and geopolitics. As a Holocaust refugee, she rejects absolutism: nonviolence is preferable, yet defense can be necessary against genocidal threats. They critique fear-based “God-fearing” scripts as training for authoritarianism, then workshop language—Eisler’s “hierarchies of actualization” and Jacobsen’s “irenic”—to name peace-seeking, non-aggressive resistance without centering violence. The aim is an attractive partnership alternative to tyranny—one that people can join without fear today.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I remember going to Geneva, Switzerland, in the summer this year for a week to cover some of the UN Human Rights Council. I got some interviews when I was there. When I was walking there each day, there was a protest each time, and so I would say, “Hi, my name is Scott. I’m a Canadian journalist. I’m lost right now. Can I do your interview?” They would say, “Sure. It’s very Canadian. Come on in.” And so I would go into their tent and do the interview, hopefully in English, often not. Then I would walk up a little curve to the front gates to get my press pass to go to basically the United Nations Office at Geneva, at the Palais des Nations. 

And each time, I would look to the right, and there, in the tall grass, was a statue of Gandhi. And you see a very prominent figure of nonviolence. There are often differing views on him. Some would say it is pathologically so. Others would say admirably ambitious in the degree to which he was advocating nonviolence. Now, within a partisan model, what is nonviolence? How does it differ from Peace? And, as you joked in earlier sessions, why do we have to use negation to get to the idea of nonviolence without an original term for nonviolence as such?

Riane Eisler: You know the answer to that very well, because we have inherited so much that is a domination tradition. We have inherited this, and one by one, all of these traditions have been challenged. The so-called divinely ordained rule of kings. The so-called divinely ordained rule of men over women and children. The so-called divinely ordained right of a so-called superior race over an inferior race. 

The peace movement. The economic justice movement. The environmental movement challenges dominion over our Mother Earth, over nature, over everything that moves on this Earth. But we have not had the frame, and it has been tough to get even people who want a better world, who understand that it is possible, who are working for it, to understand what Einstein said, which is that we cannot solve problems with the same thinking that created them. Or what Gandhi said, which is that we must not mistake the habitual for the natural. It is a wonderful phrase. 

Those are essential insights, and I am quoting two men. With Gandhi, by the way, his wife was a real partner, though not at the beginning. At the beginning, Gandhi was giving orders, and she was obeying. But as time went on, they became partners. And I think that she, Kasturba Gandhi—I was in a film about her. What was it called? Who remembers? I did this interview recently, but I cannot remember. But I can put you in touch with the woman who is making it. And it would be interesting to interview her. But we need this frame, because the domination frame includes family and childhood. It includes gender. Big time. 

Jacobsen: A rational critique of philosophy as a whole is a reliance on two things. One, personalities. Two quotes. These are different forms of argument from authority, which, within philosophy’s investigations of logic itself, are invalid. However, they can be helpful placeholders. So in many conversations and interviews I do, quotes, aphorisms, and authority figures come into the fray, which are essential because these people are the originators of the ideas or have a clever way of framing things with a quote. Outside of figures like Einstein or Gandhi and others, on nonviolence, what is the core principle or set of principles that produce this idea of nonviolence that, in a contemporary context, can meet the challenges of making absolute nonviolence?

Eisler: That is a huge question, because we are in a time with one foot still in the domination side and another foot in trying to change the world toward the partnership side. So I do not have the answer to that. I am a nonviolent person. I can only account for myself. I do know one thing: nonviolent movements have statistically been more successful. But this is a difficult question. When do we not defend ourselves? 

I am a Holocaust refugee. As a child, my parents and I had to flee my native Vienna. If we had not fought the violence of the Nazis with violence, the Nazis would have won. So it is not black-and-white. I would say that wherever possible, we want to use nonviolence. And wherever it is not possible, we have to defend ourselves until we can show people worldwide that there is a better alternative that does not cause all of this suffering, violence, and fear. That we have a partnership alternative, and that we have had this for millennia. And that the domination system is not adaptive at this level of technological development. It is taking us to an evolutionary dead end.

Jacobsen: I am going to violate what I just said in the last question by quoting someone. Dr. Anthony B. Pinn of Rice University is an academic humanist. He has a strong critical eye on parts of the humanist movement. He talks about reframing what he describes as a defeatist attitude as a set of humanist ideals when they encounter problems attracting people to the movement. For instance, he does not want to frame the question as, “Why are people not coming to humanism?” 

He frames it instead, in lectures, as, “Why are we not providing such an attractive alternative that people say, ‘Why would I not join this movement?’” That is the appropriate reframing. I do not think there is a more efficient way to frame it. I think he really nailed that. So, in a sense, in terms of nonviolence, not as apathy—I mean, someone can be apathetic and nonviolent, but that is not what you are describing. You are talking about an active process of fighting tyranny without becoming that tyranny, while engaging in nonviolence. I think that is, in a way, an enactment of Pinn’s reframing: why are we not creating such an attractive alternative that people say, “I should join that”?

Eisler: It is not that simple. People who are raised in dominant families, who are traumatized, who are taught to identify with those on top of the pyramid—whether in the family or in economics—only see two alternatives. You either dominate or you are dominated. And religion—well, you know my position—that it is not religion per se that is the problem. It is that religion has become one of the most important sources of mythology, teaching us, starting very early, before our brains are fully formed, that what we must do is be God-fearing. 

And if we have to flatter the deity—the male deity, especially in the Abrahamic religions—I think I told you that I went to hear Mozart’s Requiem, and when they showed the text, I realized I never want to see it again if I have to look at what the script actually says. It was all about, “Oh dear God, we lick your feet, we love you, we respect you, and we obey you.” And we sang that.

Jacobsen: I was in a university choir. We sang the whole thing, too.

Eisler: I thought, “Ugh.” The music is so beautiful, and the script is so horrible. It is really the worst possible script I have ever heard, and it is all addressed to this male God whom we are supposed to fear. These religions that teach this and hammer it into us are terrible in their propaganda for authoritarianism, for male dominance, for the really horrid things that follow from believing there are only two alternatives: you either dominate or you are dominated. So naturally, you want to dominate rather than be dominated.

Jacobsen: If you could coin a term—or if you have, or if you have come across a term other than nonviolence to characterize nonviolence—what would it be? A non-negation term.

Eisler: I coined terms, such as hierarchies of domination and hierarchies of actualization. Maybe actualization rather than domination and violence. It is very tough, but we have to coin the term. We cannot just go around saying nonviolence, because that reinforces violence. It is part of the phrase. Let me think about it some more. But if I have not done it, it is not because I have not thought it essential. It is because Peace is such a silly term. We say, “I feel peaceful,” or “we have peace in the world,” and then look at this season. The amount of violence. This is the season of Peace. Lots of luck. Thank you. The headlines are terrific, aren’t they? All about violence.

Jacobsen: There is one term called irenic. It does not include the negation in the explicit term, but in the definition, it refers to non-aggression.

Eisler: The goddess Irene is in it, because she is a goddess of Peace, isn’t she?

Jacobsen: It is aimed at Peace and non-aggression. It was used earlier, primarily in the mid-nineteenth century, especially within Christian theology, to reconcile different denominations. So it is about coming together. It is a partnership.

Eisler: Yes, although often that coming together was still an in-group versus out-group dynamic.

Jacobsen: Yes. But in a non-theological, secular context, it has a more expansive meaning.

Eisler: That is really interesting, and I will write it down, because I like it. And I like that it is associated with the goddess Irene, who, if I remember correctly, was a Roman deity.

Jacobsen: Does that mean it was built off a Greek deity rather than a Roman one?

Eisler: Yes, but the Greek deities—many of the older ones—were associated with peaceful qualities, irenic qualities, yet they also embodied death. We must not confuse death, which is a natural part of life, with violence. That is the design: we all die. That is the one thing we can be certain of, right?

Jacobsen: A shared experience.

Eisler: Yes. But irenic does not communicate quite enough. The problem is—and this is why nonviolence is used, I suppose—because violence is still the norm for maintaining domination systems, whether it is divinely sanctioned violence, capricious violence, the violence of rulers, or the violence of fathers or mothers. 

As you know, I have long held that changing the masculine stereotype is just as important as changing the feminine stereotype, and changing the ranking of them, and the lack of fluidity—women, men, prescribed roles, divinely ordained roles. It requires great creativity, and irenic is about as good as it gets, I suppose, except it isn’t comprehensible enough because not enough people know about the goddess Irene.

Jacobsen: Yes, that is an excellent point. 

Eisler: You take good care of yourself and have a lovely holiday.

Jacobsen: I will take wonderfully terrible care of myself, thank you very much, as usual, and we will be in touch.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.