Amaladas’ work on peace dwelling seeks to move the conversation forward from the perspective of value-rational action. Instead of waiting for violence to occur and then deploying frameworks (instrumental-rational action), he asks: “How can we live differently so that violence does not become our default outcome?” To decisively address this question, Amaladas returns to the linguistic roots of "dwelling." As Heidegger (1976) noted, the old Saxon word wuon means to remain and stay in place, while the Gothic word wunian carries a more profound meaning: to dwell in peace, safeguard, and preserve each other from harm.

This insight reshapes our understanding of both leadership and peace. They are not external “things” to be built, counted, or measured. Instead, they are qualities of a relationship. Leadership is experienced in how we choose to be with one another. Peace is not a finished product but the ongoing practice of dwelling together with care. In this way, he views peace as both a noun and a verb.

Amaladas argues that reframing leadership and peace in this context frees us from seeing them as technocratic projects and helps us see them as deeply human and relational endeavors.

The Practice

When asked to share the unique contributions peace dwelling offers compared to other leadership or peacebuilding frameworks, Amaladas posited that while numerous peacebuilding frameworks exist, peace dwelling offers a distinctive contribution because it arises from deep questions of how we choose to live together in ways that do not destroy each other. In this way, peace dwelling is a deeply relational and experiential process, grounding peace leadership in authentic human encounters and everyday realities.

He offers four ways of being in his peace dwelling framework:

• Guardian – safeguarding others from exclusion and harm.

• Curator/Healing Agent – tending to wounds and repairing damage.

• Welcoming Presence – opening arms to others, especially strangers.

• Good Neighbour – being present and responsive in both good times and bad.

Amaladas is quick to note that this framework is not meant to be a blueprint to impose on others but an invitation to reflect on how we choose to relate and live with each other and our planet. It provides language for the practices of care and belonging that often go unrecognized but are essential to human flourishing. He also explained that these four ways of being emerged within the context of a personal experience, which he used as a “case study” in his formulation of peace dwelling. As he says, “Frameworks without context are like templates from Google—free, but useless and meaningless.”

Amaladas also connects his framework to Burns’ (1978) understanding of leadership as “consciousness-raising” (p. 43). Leadership, Amaladas argues, must engage both head and heart while moving people to purposeful action. Within peace dwelling, that purpose is sacred: to treat persons like persons.

From the perspective of instrumental action, Amaladas acknowledges the widespread yearning for “application” because people want to act and make a difference. While institutions like the United Nations have offered frameworks, such as the Sustainable Development Goals, he insists that peace dwelling begins with basic practices of how we conduct ourselves and how we relate to one another and the planet.

According to Amaladas, the heart of peace dwelling are value-rational actions such as “listening, caring, protecting each other from harm and danger, seeking first to understand, dignifying each other and the planet with respect, treating persons as persons, belonging, showing compassion, making oneself available to others in good and bad times, and greeting each other with open arms as if the other is a friend.”

These simple yet complex practices, he argues, cannot and should not be reduced to policy mandates. He posits, “Can you imagine the ridiculousness of developing an organizational policy on listening!” Instead, these are practices educators and community leaders can embody and teach, shaping cultures of dwelling in peace.

The Future

Some may argue that peace dwelling sounds idealistic or too abstract to address the hard realities of war, displacement, and systemic injustice. Amaladas does not deny the charge; he embraces it. As he shared, “It is precisely because of our hard realities of war, hate, bigotry, forced migration, internal displacement, the presence of diabolically narcissistic persons in positions of political authority, and so forth, that we need to raise and address the hard question of what it means to dwell in peace.”

Rather than dismissing peace dwelling as abstract, he insists it is most urgent in contexts of violence and division. Amaladas’ aspirations are both simple and profound: “Keep asking: how do we live well with each other?” According to him, asking this question is not a distraction from harsh realities—it is a significant way to begin transforming them.

He hopes communities will continue to wrestle with this question, allowing it to guide their choices. For him, peace dwelling is not a final answer but an ongoing inquiry. If individuals and groups commit to preserving, safeguarding, and repairing relationships even after harm has occurred, they nurture the imagination of what could be. Moreover, in that imagination, peace begins to take root.