Obliged tolerance: Power at the intersection of everyday peace and the intervention economy

Abstract

This article explores the economic relationships of host and refugee communities in the context of international humanitarian interventions and their implications for everyday peace. It argues for an expanded understanding of power in everyday peace, incorporating an analysis of the interplay between international interventions, local power dynamics and everyday peace. It responds to the call for increased attention to the economic dimensions of peacebuilding, particularly at the local level. The article introduces the concept of obliged tolerance to explain some of the socioeconomic motivations for different actors in the intervention economy to engage in everyday peace processes. Those benefitting from the international intervention actuate less empowered community members to practice tolerance for peaceful coexistence which sustains the economic benefits derived from the intervention economy. The findings from research conducted in Lebanon indicate that humanitarian interventions shape a peace that primarily benefits affluent and influential actors, while marginalised individuals engage in everyday peace for survival and to pursue socioeconomic opportunities. By integrating an analysis of everyday economic interactions, this article highlights the role of power dynamics and economic motivations based on obliged tolerance in shaping everyday peace, challenging conventional notions of everyday peace as a social coping mechanism that people practice entirely voluntarily.

Introduction

This article explores the economic realities of refugee and host communities shaped by international humanitarian interventions and their consequences for everyday peace. The aim is to expand the understanding of power in everyday peace. It does so by integrating an analysis of the economic aspects that shape how people navigate their everyday lives in a community comprising host and refugee groups. By introducing the concept of ‘obliged tolerance’, the article explains how economic factors shape people’s motivations to engage in everyday peace practices. It highlights the intricate interplay between power dynamics, social obligations and economic interests in shaping behaviours that contribute to maintaining everyday peace. The analysis shows that power in host–refugee contexts shaped by humanitarian intervention is deeply rooted in the local political economy, where marginalised individuals perceive to have little other choice but to engage in everyday peace ‘work’ to survive and build socioeconomic opportunities. Lebanon serves as the case study, where over a million people have sought refuge since the Syrian Civil War began (2011–present). This situation has strained local resources and prompted a large humanitarian operation utilising cash and voucher assistance (CVA) as the main modality. The article highlights tolerance as a foundational element for coexistence and everyday peace, aligning with the Declaration of Principles on Tolerance of UN member states (UNESCO, 1995).

Resource conflicts between host and refugee communities have been extensively discussed in the literature (David et al., 2020; Guay, 2015; Jacobsen, 2000, 2002; Loescher and Milner, 2005; Snodgrass and Mensah, 2012), including the impact of CVA on social relations (Holmes, 2009; MacAuslan and Riemenschneider, 2011; Tschunkert and Vogel, 2023; Vogel et al., 2021). Refugee economies are also a topic of interest in the literature, challenging the stereotypical assumption that displacement is always a negative experience. Instead, this strand of literature highlights the ways in which displaced people can and do adapt to their new circumstances and create new economic opportunities (Betts et al., 2017; Crush et al., 2017; Hammar, 2014; Turner, 2020; Werker, 2007). However, this article is primarily interested in analysing how market-based humanitarian aid in host–refugee contexts impacts everyday peace. As such, this article responds to the more recent call by Vogel (2022), Jennings and Bøås (2015), Jennings (2015, 2018) and others to pay due attention to the economic side of peacebuilding, beyond liberal macro-level reforms. It advocates for economic analysis at the local level where reforms and policies impact the everyday lives of conflict-affected people. Neglecting the economic dimensions of political and social issues in peace interventions is puzzling given the significance of livelihoods and economic security for conflict-affected populations (Vogel, 2022; Pugh et al., 2008). The ‘local turn’ in peace and conflict studies remains incomplete if the economic aspects of the everyday consequences of economic interventions are neglected (Vogel, 2022). The article aligns with the broader intellectual ‘local turn’ of peace and conflict studies (Lederach, 1997; Mac Ginty and Richmond, 2013) critiquing the top-down nature of liberal peacebuilding focused on security, democratisation and liberal economic reforms. This shift created important space for the experience of a mosaic of actors at the local level who navigate life in conflict-affected societies often in the ‘shadow of bright policy lights’ (Bakewell, 2008: 450).

Interventions shape local power dynamics which influence acts of tolerance and everyday peace. The influence of international interventions has received less attention in the conceptualisation of everyday peace. Everyday peace (Mac Ginty, 2014, 2021) depicts how people seize every opportunity to avoid conflict and maintain peace to get on with their lives. Everyday peace is concerned with small acts of peace, everyday actions and thoughts that shape personal, familial and communal lives (Mac Ginty, 2021). Within the concept of everyday peace, power is primarily understood as everyday peace power (EPP), a ‘skill set, the projection of norms, the use of emotional intelligence, and brokerage’ (Mac Ginty, 2021: 81). Orthodox, material forms of power are acknowledged as a force shaping EPP. However, the intersection between international interventions that embody a material form of power and everyday peace remains insufficiently explored.

Incorporating a focus on everyday economic interactions among people affected by international interventions enhances an understanding of people’s motivations for engaging in everyday peace. Findings from 10 months of research in Lebanon (October 2017–July 2018) demonstrate that humanitarian interventions shape a peace that belongs to relatively affluent and influential actors in society. Economic ‘losers’ contribute to everyday peace through obliged tolerance, while the ‘winners’ benefit from this peace and uphold the structures supporting it.

The case study of Lebanon is primarily illustrative. The article’s main goal is theory development focusing on how economic concerns inform everyday peace. For this purpose, it introduces the concept of obliged tolerance which contributes to an understanding of the intersection and mutual shaping between international interventions and everyday peace. Obliged tolerance is a form of social conformity where individuals reluctantly accept or tolerate behaviour or circumstances, they find objectionable, primarily due to external pressures or social obligations imposed by dominant groups. Many of these are of a socioeconomic nature. The purpose of the concept is to shed light on the reasons behind individuals’ behaviours that contribute to maintaining everyday peace. Obliged tolerance is characterised by individuals or groups tolerating others not wholly out of free will but also due to a perceived lack of choice, often driven by power dynamics rooted in the local political economy. The aim is to contribute to a better understanding of how external interventions, creating an ‘intervention economy’, influence how and why host and refugee communities maintain coexistence and peaceful relations amid socioeconomic change. The intervention economy is defined as economic activity that ‘either would not occur or occur at a much slower scale without the international presence’ (Jennings and Bøås, 2015: 282). The article adopts a Lefebvre (1984) perspective, recognising everyday life as a social space traversed by power dynamics and encompassing political, social and economic dimensions (Brewer et al., 2018). A conceptual and empirical inclusion of people’s everyday practices as they engage in their daily lives is necessary for a comprehensive picture of peacebuilding (Brewer et al., 2018). As Galtung (2001) urged, ‘People actively engage in resolving conflicts as active participants rather than being passive objects of someone else’s decisions and actions’ (p. 17).

The article begins by unpacking the key concepts upon which it rests: tolerance and everyday peace. The methodological and contextual section that follows outlines the research methods used as well as the context of host–refugee relations in Lebanon and the humanitarian interventions they are shaped by. The third section provides empirical findings through two themes: (1) the perception of refugees having little other choice but to keep a low profile and tolerate their situation, (2) economic interest. This second theme discusses the creation of perceived economic ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ from the intervention and the economic interest of more powerful actors – the ‘winners’ – who benefit from the intervention economy. These themes represent the processes through which obliged tolerance comes to fruition in host–refugee relations shaped by market-based humanitarian intervention. Drawing on these findings, the article then conceptualises obliged tolerance before concluding by discussing its implications for everyday peace.

Tolerance

Tolerance serves as a basis for peaceful coexistence in conflict-affected societies, facilitating respectful interactions between opposing groups (Kheireddine et al., 2021). The literature distinguishes various forms and functions of tolerance. Coexistence whereby people pay little attention to each other is often overlooked in research (Freer and Sandoval Lopez, 2011). However, it is relevant in host–refugee relationships due to its prevalence in everyday life. People need to tolerate what they oppose to overcome societal conflict (Kijewski and Rapp, 2019). Tolerance is defined as ‘intentional self-restraint in the face of something one dislikes, objects to, finds threatening, or otherwise has a negative attitude toward–usually to maintain a social or political group or to promote harmony in a group’ (Vogt, 1997: 3). It is, therefore, a crucial characteristic in pluralist, heterogeneous societies striving to eliminate oppression, violence, indignities, and discrimination (Von Bergen et al., 2012). It is regarded as essential for a well-functioning society, especially in societies comprising diverse ways of life (Oberdiek, 2001).

Tolerance can manifest as indifference, passivity or as a tool and discourse to control potential violence in response to differences (Wilson, 2014). The focus is on ‘difference’ and legitimising this difference, ‘putting up’ with it and suppressing one’s disapproval (Owens, 2009). This form, known as classic or negative tolerance (Von Bergen et al., 2012), requires all members of society to coexist without fear of assault or discrimination (Schatz, 2004). The coexistence it nurtures can be described as a fragile and ‘negative peace’ (Galtung, 1969) where ‘the other’ is tolerated rather than embraced (Duncan, 2016). Thus, tolerance and prejudice are not mutually exclusive. While most research focuses on political tolerance – granting equal rights – this article primarily explores the less researched social tolerance. This involves accepting and accommodating sociocultural and socioeconomic disparities within a society (Kirchner et al., 2011). Social tolerance holds significant importance in everyday interactions, serving as a vital component of the societal framework (Kirchner et al., 2011).

People have different reasons or motivations for being tolerant. The literature differentiates between principled and pragmatic motivations. Principled motivations for being tolerant involve the value of respect for equal standing and rights of others. Pragmatic motivations include avoiding societal conflicts (Velthuis et al., 2021). Principled motivations are commonly studied at the societal level and entail a moral obligation to tolerate. Individual motivations for tolerance are assumed to simply arise from this moral obligation (Muldoon et al., 2011). In contrast, research on pragmatic individual-level motivations, driven by rational self-interest, is limited. The rationale is that trade establishes interconnectedness and that prejudice in business transactions based on identity factors (religion, race or politics) hinders trade and increases costs for all parties involved (Muldoon et al., 2011).

The concept of tolerance is criticised for its Western-centric focus on civil rights, such as freedom of speech, religion and equality, which can reinforce superiority narratives (Lacorne, 2019). In non-Western countries, the emphasis may not foremost be on civil rights, but it still centres on the extent to which people from other backgrounds are welcomed as neighbours in society. So, the core idea of tolerance centres on people’s responses to others, regardless of cultural context (Spierings, 2017).

Processes of tolerating others and being tolerated reflect wider power relations and social hierarchy. If a group’s position in society is not contested, tolerance is unnecessary. ‘Tolerance is a powered act’ – to tolerate another person signifies an act of power, while being tolerated implies accepting one’s own weaknesses (Ware, 2023: 8). More powerful groups determine which groups are permitted and which groups are denied tolerance (Van Doorn, 2014). Power thus operates as a productive and repressive force in everyday social relations (Duncan, 2016). It can potentially mask or enable implicit power dynamics, sacrificing the pursuit of justice and equity in favour of non-violence and coexistence (Ware, 2023).

Finally, macro-level events, such as changes in economic standing or identity-based composition of society, impact individuals’ subjective experiences and civic attitudes. Larger, macro-level factors are therefore deeply intertwined with levels of tolerance in members of a society (Spierings, 2017). This article builds upon these understandings of individual motivations for tolerance, the influence of power dynamics and the link between macro-level events and micro-level tolerance. The concept of obliged tolerance introduced later link these three factors. It does so by exploring how power dynamics shaped by international humanitarian assistance influence individual motivations for tolerance.

Everyday peace and power

The ‘grudging co-existence’ (Mac Ginty, 2014: 549) that underpins how people navigate life in deeply divided and conflict-affected societies links the concepts of tolerance and everyday peace. Everyday peace pertains to the regular strategies employed by individuals and groups as they manoeuvre through existence within a deeply divided society. These strategies encompass coping methods, like steering clear of divisive topics when in the company of people from diverse religious or ethnic backgrounds or adopting a deliberate ambiguity to hide one’s identity or views to avoid attracting unwanted attention (Mac Ginty, 2014, 2021).

This article views peace as an action concept deeply rooted in local practices and therewith coming from below (Boulding, 2000). Refugees are often depicted as passive victims of war, devoid of agency and as recipients of humanitarian aid, a view aptly criticised by, for instance, Malkki (1996). Instead, refugees are social, political and economic actors who settle across borders bringing a wealth of experience and history to their host communities. They play a key role in developing a shared future with their hosts and in learning to live together. They often use their agency as survivors to advocate, bolster and engage in peacebuilding activities (Brewer et al., 2018). Not everyone will want to adjust to and mitigate conflict. For example, Brewer et al. (2018) suggest that people who flee conflict withdraw themselves from it. They will arrive in countries and often settle within communities with no violent conflict. However, they need to navigate transforming environments in their lives to maintain peace. Therefore, ‘everyday peace’ is a relevant concept beyond deeply divided societies concerned with building peace. It equally applies to contexts of ‘comings’ and ‘goings’ where people are concerned with preserving a fragile peace.

People use different forms of agency to navigate these relationships. Intentional coexistence, including avoidance, involves conscious acts and mutual understanding between parties to coexist independently (Galtung, 2001). An example is conscious avoidance of controversial topics or certain places (Mac Ginty, 2014). While people’s agency in pursuing everyday peace to ‘get on with life’ is important, Mac Ginty (2014) acknowledges that people act in relation to power. Feminist approaches in peace and conflict studies have provided rich insights into this debate. Agency within the concept of everyday peace has deep feminist roots (McLeod and O’Reilly, 2019). Feminist thought has introduced an examination of underlying power dynamics embedded in the understanding and conceptualisation of politics to the debate of the everyday. This has not been sufficiently acknowledged due to an assumption that power in the everyday is so dispersed that it has been rendered almost meaningless as an analytical concept (Kappler and Lemay-Hébert, 2019).

In response to concerns that everyday peace is insufficient to counterbalance the structural power or the proximate power of armed men that underly conflicts, Mac Ginty (2021) has developed the notion of EPP. He suggests studies on peace, like other social phenomena, need to include an analysis of power and ascertain who holds power, how it operates and whether it can be shared or transferred. Mac Ginty (2021) encourages a shift in thinking about power from coercive and material notions of power to sociological views that encompass power from, power to and power with, operating through interconnected networks and social systems in everyday life. Furthermore, Mac Ginty (2021) develops the concept of EPP with the understanding that everyday peace is shaped by contexts at different levels – state, international and transnational – and that orthodox understandings of power reliant on domination and participative and emancipatory understandings of power (EPP) are interlinked.

Material and economic power intersect with human agency and emotional intelligence (Mac Ginty, 2021) which EPP is made of. It is at this intersection between ‘the material’ and ‘the human and emotional’, that this article aims to build on an understanding of power in everyday peace. Examining power relations and the influence of international humanitarian interventions on power structures is crucial in integrating a socioeconomic frame interwoven with local power dynamics into an understanding of everyday peace.

Methodology and context

This article draws on data collected by the author during fieldwork in Lebanon from November 2017 to July 2018. It combined semi-participant observations, informal conversations and semi-structured interviews with 46 interlocutors. Interlocutors included Lebanese and Syrian shopkeepers (32) who were affected by market-based humanitarian interventions, intended beneficiaries of humanitarian aid (5), municipality representatives (2), a mukhtar, sheikh and electoral candidate as well as non-governmental organisation (NGO) representatives (3) as aid providers.

Trust issues with interlocutors ¹ made a gatekeeper approach necessary and beneficial. My colleague at the international NGO (INGO) I volunteered with, who is from Majdal Anjar, introduced me to some of his Lebanese and Syrian contacts. My colleague was able to verify my identity which helped the process of building trust. Through purposive snowball sampling, I expanded my network by obtaining referrals from trusted interlocutors. This complementary snowball sampling technique is especially useful in hard-to-reach populations (Bernard, 2011). Syrian shopkeepers were more likely to speak to me if someone from the community verified my identity and intentions. Furthermore, it is appropriate in small communities (Bernard, 2011); in this case, most of the shopkeepers knew each other. A balance between Lebanese and Syrian shopkeepers (17 and 15, respectively) across various shop types was kept. However, the study has a male bias (two female interlocutors). This is for two reasons. First, only in exceptional cases, a woman was the owner of the shop. Second, as my translator was male, gaining access to female family members without a male member of the family present who would then dominate the conversation was difficult. The study employed a case study approach immersing the researcher in the interlocutors’ world (Cohen et al., 2018) to identify perceived impacts of market-based interventions on social relations.

In 2018, Lebanon hosted approximately 1 million registered Syrian refugees, with an estimated total of 1.5 million including unregistered refugees, accounting for about 30% of the population (ECHO, 2019; UNHCR et al., 2018). The research was conducted in the border town of Majdal Anjar in the Bekaa Valley, which hosted around 15,000 registered Syrian refugees and an estimated 4000 unregistered refugees in 2017. With a Lebanese population of about 18,000 (Al-Masri and Abla, 2017), the number of inhabitants of Majdal Anjar doubled. Majdal Anjar’s predominantly Sunni Muslim composition allowed for a clear focus on people’s perception of external market-based intervention and its impacts while excluding possible pre-existing sectarian divisions in Lebanon as a reason for social tension. This reduced some of the complexity of the multiple layers of identity factors that determine everyday coexistence in Lebanon while acknowledging the intricacy of the makeup of both Syrian and Lebanese communities.

However, analysis of Syrian-Lebanese relations should consider the following factors: (1) the border region as a social space with frequent movement of goods and people in both directions (Chatty et al., 2013); (2) Syria’s 26-year military occupation of parts of Bekaa as the guardian of the Ta’if Peace Agreement ending the Lebanese Civil War (1975–1990) (Obeid, 2010); (3) shifting rhetoric towards Syrian migrant labour in Lebanon, ranging from a valuable resource to a symbol of the Syrian military occupation (Chalcraft, 2006). Furthermore, the onset of the Syrian Civil War (2011–present) has led to varying discourses regarding Syrian refugees in Lebanon, from being ‘our brothers and sisters from Syria who are visiting us’ (Janmyr, 2018: 398) to being seen as an ‘existential threat’ (Dionigi, 2015) as the crisis prolonged. These developments inform everyday interactions between Lebanese and Syrians in Majdal Anjar and beyond.

Humanitarian organisations have been providing humanitarian assistance since the onset of the Syrian refugee crisis. In the early years of the Syrian Civil War (2012–2015), the focus was on the refugees in Lebanon. However, as the situation became protracted and socioeconomic conditions deteriorated, frustration linked to exclusion from assistance among the host communities grew (Midgley and Eldebo, 2013). Although tensions over the perceived unfair distribution of aid between Syrians and Lebanese declined after 2015 when assistance was also provided to vulnerable Lebanese, the perception that refugees receive more assistance persists (Saferworld, 2018).

In 2018, the total humanitarian response amounted to US$1.4 billion, with CVA being the main modality in food security and basic assistance sectors under the Lebanon Crisis Response Plan (LCRP). The UN and its partners implemented one of the world’s most extensive cash programmes in Lebanon. According to the 2018 annual report, 34% of the response was delivered in cash, equivalent to US$141.3 million in multi-purpose cash by UNHCR and US$236 million in cash-based food assistance by WFP (Government of Lebanon and the United Nations, 2018). Intended beneficiaries can withdraw cash from ATMs or use cards for food purchases at WFP-contracted shops. Due to the extensive cash programme, examples of humanitarian assistance in this article refer to CVA; however, other types of market-based assistance may be equally relevant.

Before moving on to the analysis, it is worth noting some caveats. First, the article does not claim the findings are representative of the whole Syrian and Lebanese society in Lebanon. The findings are indicative instead but point to social phenomena that are likely to be observed in other host–refugee contexts too. As this article’s primary goal is theory development, further research to explore the empirical utility of the concept of obliged tolerance elsewhere and to refine and identify its limitations will be worthwhile. Second, the article does not claim the economic dimension is the sole or primary force driving engagement in everyday peace activities. As shown in this article, and also by Ware and Ware (2022), economic transactions are not exempt from competition and tension and do not inherently foster peace. Another reason for engaging in everyday peace activities may be that people from both groups have experienced violent conflict and are quite simply very tired of it. However, the current literature on everyday peace overemphasises political factors. This article acts as a counterweight that foregrounds economic factors. Third, it is worth noting the data collection for this study was completed before Lebanon’s ongoing political, economic and financial crisis (2019–present), which the World Bank (2021) describes as a deliberate depression orchestrated by the elite, posing a substantial threat to the country’s fragile peace. While this development will play a significant role in host–refugee relations, it was beyond the scope of this article.

‘We need to keep a low profile’ – tolerance and everyday peace ‘work’ as perceived little other choice

The experience of Syrian refugees in Majdal Anjar is multi-layered. Described by a Syrian intended CVA beneficiary as a ‘storm that did not pass’, ² Syrians had to adapt when they first arrived in Lebanon. At that time (2012–2014), humanitarian organisations provided nearly blanket coverage of basic assistance to newly arrived refugees (Sharp, 2015). Initially, humanitarian resources like CVA were part of people’s short-term coping strategies. Once aid was provided through a more targeted approach, and the situation became more protracted, Syrians adjusted their livelihoods based on available opportunities or barriers they faced. A Syrian bakery owner, for instance, transitioned from being a daily labourer to co-owning a bakery due to exploitation and unpaid wages. ³ This multi-layered experience is reflected in the significant number of Syrian shops in Majdal Anjar compared to Lebanese shops (261 Syrian shops and 62 Lebanese shops in 2018, according to a municipal survey). ⁴

Avoidance is a common everyday peace practice (Mac Ginty, 2014). Conversations with Syrian interlocutors in Majdal Anjar create a consistent narrative of avoidance of controversial topics, people and situations that could lead to conflict or draw unwanted attention. Strategies of avoidance included crossing the street to avoid the risk of harassment by groups of Lebanese men ⁵ to avoid ‘dealing with other people’s business’ ⁶ and steering clear of sensitive subjects like the (political) situation in Syria. ⁷ The phrase ‘keep a low profile’ ⁸ encapsulates these avoidance strategies. An INGO representative similarly advised Syrian entrepreneurs to ‘keep a low profile, choose a business that doesn’t compete [with Lebanese businesses], and open in a ‘Syrian neighbourhood’’. ⁹ The practice described here even suggests a form of territorial separation between the communities to avoid economic competition and potential conflict.

Whichever set of activities and tactics Syrians made use of, the main goal was to ‘keep a low profile’ to avoid attracting negative attention. For instance, a Syrian bakery owner described a conflict situation where a young Lebanese man, apparently under the influence of drugs, instigated a fight at the shop by throwing stones. Despite disapproving of this behaviour, he explained that ‘I have to stay polite, respectful and ethical’ ¹⁰ acknowledging the constraints imposed by being Syrian and the inability to take action in such circumstances.

It is imperative to consider the challenging legal restrictions under which Syrians operate, leading an economic life in limbo. Many Syrians depend on support from the municipality and influential Lebanese individuals. To navigate the volatile legal situation, Syrian shopkeepers require a Lebanese landlord to officially own the shop, providing a necessary ‘low profile’. In return, the landlords receive financial benefits, such as rent or commissions for these ‘services’, which a Care International (2017) study suggests is common beyond Majdal Anjar. The Bekaa governorate was the first region where Lebanese authorities started closing Syrian businesses (Van Vliet and Hourani, 2014). Officially operating under Lebanese ownership reduces the susceptibility to legal issues (Al-Masri and Abla, 2017). However, this arrangement creates a precarious interdependence between Lebanese landlords and Syrian shopkeepers.

Furthermore, Syrians employ this practice to minimise the risk of losing access to humanitarian aid. Any attraction drawn to their business could lead to a reassessment of their case. Receiving CVA and running a business are generally incompatible as shopkeepers do not typically fall within the ‘severely vulnerable’ category with a monthly income below US$87. Given their lack of rights and reliance on both humanitarian aid and Lebanese landlords, Syrians need to do most of the everyday peace ‘work’. Awareness of this goes beyond the Syrian community, extending into the Lebanese: ‘We can trust that Syrians won’t cause any trouble. They don’t have any rights, they are treated as secondary human beings, and they don’t have any power to change this’. ¹¹

Syrians shouldering most of the everyday peace effort is a tactical response to power (De Certeau, 1984) by way of social navigation in order to obtain the next meal, find employment and survive the present as well as continually trying to discover opportunities for a better life (Vigh, 2009). In the intervention economy in host–refugee communities, power neither allows nor constrains their engagement in everyday peace activities; rather, it is a force that leaves them perceived little other choice but to engage in it. Everyday peace with this in mind could be described as ‘tolerance as endurance’ of what one dislikes (Vogt, 1997). It involves recognition of other people’s opinions and beliefs without necessarily accepting them. It involves refraining from intolerant behaviour while possibly still feeling prejudiced or biased towards other people’s behaviours, opinions or beliefs (Witenberg, 2019). Obliged tolerance, conceptualised later in the article, emerges at the intersection of economic and emotional forms of power. This is where Syrians put in the necessary everyday peace ‘work’ to uphold a fragile peace that enables their pursuit of a livelihood while grudgingly tolerating their volatile situation. The Lebanese experience of life in this intervention economy, as analysed in the next section, is unequal due to uneven distribution of economic benefits from the interventions. The divisions within the Lebanese community that emerge illustrate the necessity for maintaining everyday peace.

Elite economic interest and the creation of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’

The intervention economy that emerged with the arrival of refugees and the concomitant humanitarian interventions creates unequal benefits, affecting daily interactions in the community. Members of the host community have adapted to the socioeconomic changes triggered by the Syrian Civil War. At the time of research in 2017–2018, the situation in Majdal Anjar had shifted from an immediate emergency to a situation of permanent temporariness. The pressure on local resources and opportunities in the local economy and jobs grew. Scarce resources had to be shared between Syrians and Lebanese and humanitarian assistance was new to the town. Investigating how people have navigated the challenges of living during times of transformation (Obeid, 2019) makes it possible to understand how these events and processes influence people’s everyday social and economic relations.

Lebanese shopkeepers in Majdal Anjar responded to the socioeconomic changes based on their backgrounds. Larger businesses could benefit from the presence of cheap Syrian labourers who work for lower wages, longer hours and without social security benefits (Masri and Srour, 2013). Others rented out shop spaces to Syrian businesses. ¹² Smaller businesses, however, experienced decreased sales and wages due to competition. A Lebanese car mechanic, for instance, showed me his clean hands, vividly demonstrating there was no work for him these days. ¹³ Lebanese grocery shopkeepers further described economic difficulties due to increased competition by Syrian businesses. ¹⁴

Interviews indicated the perception of humanitarian assistance enabling Syrians to ‘ask for less pay’ ¹⁵ and ‘offer products at lower prices’, ¹⁶ created a sense of ‘unfair competition’. ¹⁷ This perception is projected onto the entire Syrian community and competition is then generally seen as unjust. This has led to some resentment, made visible through protests of Lebanese shopkeepers on the streets of Majdal Anjar. They protest because not only did they not benefit from the intervention economy, but because they feel they have lost economically from perceived unfair competition.

The distribution of aid does not impact everyone in an affected community equally. Levels of vulnerability vary significantly between individuals, households or groups depending on their ability to draw on political and social assets to adapt to socioeconomic transformations (Collinson, 2003). Adaptation involves power dynamics with individuals and groups competing to advance their interests (Eriksen and Lind, 2009). The injection of CVA has led to a perception of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ in the job market and the local economy, either reflecting existing or creating new inequalities. CVA has contributed to the creation of a local market economy reaffirming the socioeconomic and political power of influential individuals who have attached themselves to the intervention economy that created opportunities to benefit from societal transformations.

These processes illustrate why maintaining everyday peace is crucial in the host–refugee society, highlighting the role of the intervention economy in creating new or perpetuating existing inequalities. The experiences of people that emerge ask for an understanding of tolerance as a deliberate act of self-control when encountering something disliked, objected to, perceived as threatening or otherwise held in negative regard. Its purpose is to maintain social or political cohesion within a group (Vogt, 1997).

Elite economic benefit depends on functioning everyday peace

Conversations with Lebanese interlocutors about their experience since the onset of the refugee crisis usually began with ‘at the beginning . . .’ which was followed by examples of specific acts of benevolence such as giving to beggars, ¹⁸ offering free services such as haircuts ¹⁹ or donating clothes and furniture. ²⁰ However, this empathy shifted towards a grudging tolerance as the situation became more protracted and as many started to feel they were incurring economic losses.

Part of this tolerance involves engaging in everyday peace practices, such as ritualised politeness. As a response to the protest against Syrian shopkeepers by economic ‘losers’ in Majdal Anjar, Internal Security Forces (ISF) came to the town one day in March 2018 to notify Syrian shops lacking the required documentation to operate. A Lebanese shopkeeper said he had to abide by culturally acceptable norms and values in his protest against Syrian economic competition. On the day that the ISF came to Majdal Anjar, he said,

If I want to trigger citizens in Majdal Anjar [who are against the protest] now with the ISF here, I just sit outside and drink my coffee there. It’s a sign of declaring victory in this case, but it’s not acceptable culturally. ²¹

He actively avoids behaviour that deviates from acceptable standards and that might cause offence and conflict. In June, none of the shops had been closed, which means that the ISF visit was a ‘performance’ to appease the Lebanese protesters. Nevertheless, this demonstrates both the precarity under which Syrian entrepreneurs operate their businesses and the division around this topic within the Lebanese community.

However, understanding this behaviour requires a focus on local power dynamics. As analysed above, a rift exists between economic ‘winners’ and ‘losers’. The ‘winners’ accuse those protesting Syrian shops of holding a grudge because of unrealistic economic expectations at the start of the crisis that remained unmet. ²² Conversely, the ‘losers’ accuse those who support the Syrian shops of exploiting the situation for economic gain and potentially diverting humanitarian resources. For example, interviewees suggested that ‘these people [directly benefitting from the Syrian presence] won’t agree with the Lebanese shop owners who are directly competing with Syrians’ ²³ and ‘those who is not suffering from the crisis will say there is no problem, but those who don’t benefit directly will say it as it is. There has been no open conflict because the government and sheikh and mayor, those who represent the town, support Syrians’. ²⁴

Those with social power ²⁵ employ rhetoric that can be interpreted as a way of upholding their economic privileges by silencing minority viewpoints and by ridiculing their perceptions (DeTurk, 2001). For instance, ‘the sheikh and municipality send messages that we shouldn’t be like [Lebanese politician] Bassil who said that we should be selective about who we let into our country’ ²⁶ and ‘they [elites] will use religion as an excuse, that it’s ‘haram’ to close someone’s business but in reality it’s about benefit, not religion’. ²⁷

The intervention economy has made Syrians prominent providers and consumers of goods and services; the former exasperating Lebanese ‘losers’ and the latter benefitting Lebanese ‘winners’ who support Syrian shopkeepers. While this support creates divisions within the Lebanese community, it helps keep tensions between hosts and refugees low enabling steady economic exchange.

This shows a common understanding that to benefit, one needs be attached to the intervention economy. This aligns with Jennings’ (2015) finding that international interventions primarily benefit elites leading to tensions among ‘ordinary’ locals as well as dissatisfaction and cynicism towards international interventions. Similarly, Autesserre (2014) found that individual economic benefits outweighed the interest in international peacebuilding interventions to equally benefit people. In Lebanon’s intervention economy, individuals of the host community also try to ‘get the money out’ (Autesserre, 2014: 111). However, who can ‘get the money out’ depends on wider power dynamics in the community. Economic ‘winners’ use their powerful and influential position to ensure that the economic ‘losers’ remain tolerant towards the Syrian presence. The aim is to maintain everyday peace that facilitates everyday interactions across groups in the intervention economy to flourish, upholding the ‘winners’ economic benefit. This socioeconomic frame sheds light on why individuals and groups who feel disenfranchised in the intervention economy engage in everyday peace.

Conceptualising obliged tolerance

We can understand these interactions through the frame of obliged tolerance. Obliged tolerance is a form of social conformity where individuals or groups reluctantly accept the presence or behaviour of others due to perceived power imbalances or economic dependencies, often motivated by fear of negative consequences. The concept responds to the need to incorporate a political economy analysis of power dynamics in understanding everyday peace in host–refugee contexts in the intervention economy. Obliged tolerance delves into the why behind the behaviours that maintain everyday peace. It highlights how marginalised individuals in host–refugee contexts engage in acts of tolerance not wholly out of free will but due to a perceived lack of choice, driven by power dynamics rooted in the local political economy.

Tolerance is characterised by the idea that engaging in tolerating behaviour must be based on one’s free will (Forst, 2013). The analysis demonstrates that the obliged tolerance in the host–refugee context leaves room for individual and collective acts and expressions of objection as seen, for instance, through the street protests by perceived Lebanese economic ‘losers’. This room for agency is important, because if tolerance was obliged through pure domination, everyday peace which depends on people’s individual conflict calming acts would not be possible. Instead, the concept of obliged tolerance nuances the overemphasis on free will. It calls for an analysis that considers how individual economic interests, shaped by interventions, motivate both hosts and refugees to engage in everyday peace practices.

Obliged tolerance operates within the realm of social obligations, where individuals feel compelled to adhere to certain norms and behaviours not out of legal requirements but due to perceived social duties. Exploring these dynamics of obliged tolerance reveals insights into the mechanisms and motivations that underpin individuals’ engagement in everyday peace. Various perspectives exist regarding the explanations for social obligations. The rationalist perspective posits that individuals comply with social norms and rules out of a fear of potential consequences or costs incurred if these norms are breached. The constructivist perspective suggests that compliance stems from a sense of perceived appropriateness and internalised identity commitments (Oates and Grynaviski, 2018).

The value of obliged tolerance as a concept lies in capturing a multitude of motivating factors that are shaped by power dynamics in the intervention economy. It draws on understandings of tolerance based on societal expectations (Dahrendorf, 1968) as well as on aspects of permission and coexistence (Forst, 2013). However, none of these aspects alone sufficiently captures the essence of host and refugee communities’ motivation for tolerance in the context of the intervention economy.

The Syrian refugees’ recognised need to ‘keep a low profile’ illustrates a power imbalance based on identity and role in society. The associated behavioural expectations are binding on the individual making it impossible for them to disregard or reject these expectations without causing harm to themselves (Dahrendorf, 1968). For Syrian refugees, peace, no matter how fragile, is essential for survival and building a livelihood, including access to humanitarian resources and their businesses. This is in line with Ware and Ware’s (2022) finding that individuals with less power tend to engage more frequently in everyday peace practices to ensure non-violence. Similarly, the fear of negative repercussions incited by more powerful actors depicts a tolerance born out of fear of social or material costs.

The motivation for engaging in tolerating behaviour and everyday peace processes can be further understood by examining the literature on permission-based and coexistence-based tolerance (Forst, 2013). Permission-based tolerance suggests that the majority allows the minority to exist as long as they do not threaten the majority’s power (Forst, 2013). Similarly, obliged tolerance reflects an unequal power dynamic, where refugees (the minority) engage in tolerating behaviour due to a perceived lack of choice. Coexistence-based tolerance emphasises the pragmatic value of tolerance for avoiding conflict and pursuing one’s goals (Forst, 2013). Here too, obliged tolerance reflects a pragmatic concern: refugees and economic ‘losers’ in the host community deploy everyday peace acts as pragmatic tools for avoiding conflict. Furthermore, the economic interest of more powerful actors benefitting from the intervention economy shapes this pragmatic value of obliged tolerance. Economic ‘winners’ in the host community silence the grievances expressed by ‘losers’ to protect their economic gains derived from daily interactions with refugees, facilitated by the political economy of the humanitarian intervention. As a result, the ‘winners’ use their influence and power to actuate ‘losers’ to tolerate the status quo to protect their economic benefit. This adds to the understanding that tolerance in the public space is found primarily in the context of economic activities in the marketplace (Ware and Ware, 2022) and that practicing tolerance can help increase incomes on both sides (Ware et al., 2022). Thus, obliged tolerance utilises elements from both conceptions – it reflects the unequal power of permission-based tolerance while serving the pragmatic conflict-avoidance function of coexistence-based tolerance.

Finally, obliged tolerance is a facet of the concept of social navigation (Vigh, 2006, 2009). Social navigation explains how people move and manage changing social landscapes in relation to a future on an envisioned path that is delicate and uncertain within an unpredictable setting (Vigh, 2009). Like obliged tolerance, social navigation counters an overemphasis on free will and agency by exploring how agency, social forces and change interact as people adapt their strategies and tactics based on their understanding of how social forces are changing and how they will impact them (Vigh, 2009). Obliged tolerance adds a lens for understanding not just how people navigate their surroundings but also why people engage in certain acts and behaviours to navigate social change and uncertain times. In other words, obliged tolerance emphasises the motivation behind people’s engagement in acts of everyday peace based on tolerance. The socioeconomic aspect of obliged tolerance highlights motivating forces beyond constant livelihood struggles, while continuously striving to determine how to attain sustainable opportunities for a better life as outlined by Vigh’s (2006, 2009) concept of social navigation. It locates the motivation to tolerate and engage in acts of everyday peace within economic interests of powerful actors in the community; a process which yields a tolerance motivated by an interplay between compliance based on perceived appropriate social behaviour and internalised identity commitments and a fear of social or material costs.

Concluding thoughts

The findings of this article indicate, by reference to the case study of Lebanon, that a less explored but significant characteristic of the host–refugee relationship is coexistence based on obliged tolerance. The outcome of obliged tolerance is everyday peace. The concept of everyday peace in host–refugee contexts benefits from an integration of an analysis of everyday economic interactions as the intervention economy shapes local power dynamics. This enables a better understanding of why individuals and groups engage in everyday peace. It helps determine how humanitarian aid not just exacerbates perceptions of inequality but also how it serves as a motivating factor for individuals and groups to keep everyday peace. As demonstrated, elites in Lebanon use their influence and power to keep tensions low to maintain their economic benefit. Recipients of humanitarian aid engage in everyday peace activities due to their volatile situation. Humanitarian interventions create and shape the peace that emerges, which belongs to relatively affluent and influential actors in Lebanese society. It is important to state that data collection for this study was completed before Lebanon’s ongoing political, economic, and financial crisis (2019–present). These developments will play a significant role in shaping economic interactions, the intervention economy and host–refugee relations today, and future research could investigate this further.

Beyond the case study, the findings indicate that the view that everyday peace is a social coping mechanism and entirely voluntary needs to be nuanced. The power structures, particularly local elites, in societies and communities may ‘demand’ everyday peace. The interplay of power and agency in everyday economic interactions warrants incorporating a political economy lens into the analysis of everyday peace. This article addresses the need to include economic aspects of the everyday impacts of economic interventions (Vogel, 2022) to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the ‘local turn’ in peace studies. Through the concept of obliged tolerance, the impact of international humanitarian interventions on local power dynamics can be better understood to inform a study of everyday peace. The findings enhance the theoretical framework of everyday peace by bringing to the forefront the importance of external resources and their role in creating and shaping everyday economic interactions. External resources shape local power dynamics on the local market and beyond, which enables a better understanding of the lived reality of the reasons for which individuals and groups engage in everyday peace. It helps in determining how humanitarian aid not just exacerbates perceptions of inequality but also how it serves as a motivating factor for individuals and groups to maintain everyday peace. Through the lens of obliged tolerance, it is possible to gain a clearer understanding of the socioeconomic motivations for individuals to engage in everyday peace activities: in the context of Lebanon this includes elites who use their influence and power to contribute to keeping tensions low as well as recipients of CVA who due to their volatile situation perceive to have little other choice to engage in everyday peace activities. Further empirical analysis will be valuable to explore the empirical utility of the concept of obliged tolerance in other case studies and to refine and identify the concept’s limitations.

Obliged tolerance can also connect with the broader literature on intervention economies and everyday economic interactions. The findings confirm scholarly work by Thomas and Vogel (2018), Jennings and Bøås (2015) and Jennings (2015, 2018) that international interventions socioeconomically transform affected societies. While Jennings and Bøås (2015) and Jennings (2015, 2018) focus on peacekeeping economies and their implications for peace, this article has shown that the concept of everyday economics also applies to humanitarian aid in host–refugee contexts as market-based humanitarian aid introduced to a local market creates and shapes socioeconomic interactions that have implications for peace. These studies focus on implications of everyday economic transactions involving external and international staff. This article has instead used the concept of everyday economics to explore the context of economic interactions between ‘ordinary’ people affected by international interventions.

Furthermore, while some literature suggests a positive socioeconomic impact of refugee presence on host countries due to higher demand and additional human resources that stimulate the local economy (Jacobsen, 2002; Kreibaum, 2016; Snodgrass and Mensah, 2012; Zetter and Ruaudel, 2014), the findings in this article indicate that these positive effects in the case of Lebanon are highly asymmetrical. Those members of the host society in Majdal Anjar who benefit economically tend to be influential elites within the community endowed with access to assets such as empty shop spaces or apartments that they can rent to refugees. This situation makes it possible for them to indirectly benefit from aid resources. These ‘winners’ have created an environment for refugee businesses to flourish with the aim to ‘get while the getting is good’ (Jennings, 2015: 307). Thus, humanitarian CVA has created a local market economy which reaffirmed the socioeconomic and political power position of these influential people who have attached themselves to this economy that created opportunities for them to benefit from the transformations in the society. This confirms the idea of an ‘intervention economy’ that shapes and creates a particular economy, in this case, a host–refugee economy, that entails ‘economic activity that either would not occur or occur at a much slower scale without the international presence’ (Jennings and Bøås, 2015: 282).

However, the everyday peace that emerges, based on obliged tolerance, and manifested mostly in avoidance, contradicts the humanitarian goal to alleviate tensions through liberal market practices and more specifically, a multiplier effect that is supposed to benefit local shops. Instead, international intervention in Lebanon supports everyday peace by creating an ‘intervention economy’ that entrenches the powerful position of a few. Steady economic exchange is needed for elites to benefit from international intervention. This economic exchange depends on peaceful relations. Therefore, local elites induce those who occupy more marginal spaces in society to tolerate each other and engage in everyday peace ‘work’ due to a social obligation. This everyday peace is fragile as it depends on the work put in lopsidedly by few marginalised actors and because it is upheld by elites and ignores the ‘losers’ grievances.

This has broader implications for an analysis of how market-based humanitarian aid can support positive peace economy, understood as economies that are free from all forms of violence, both direct and structural, and that promote a just and sustainable peace (Peterson, 2015 [2014]). Given the asymmetrical patron-client-like, everyday economic relationships between Lebanese elites and Syrian businesses due to the legal limbo that Syrians experience, market-based humanitarian resources are part of a negative peace economy as they are not evidently tied to direct violence and as they nurture a fragile everyday peace. This negative peace economy is still rooted in structural inequalities. Therefore, it does not sufficiently contribute to a sustainable and positive peace economy. Peace economies are not purely created and supported by ‘trickle down’ effects of humanitarian aid introduced to a local market. Instead, they are created through everyday actions of individuals and groups who actively make meaning of the world around them that is shaped by international intervention. This importance of agency in building peace economies contributes to the question of ‘whose peace?’ (Pugh et al., 2008). This question cannot be answered without examining local power dynamics that shape everyday economic interactions, ultimately determining how external resources are used. This, in turn, affects how successfully these resources achieve humanitarian goals, including alleviating suffering, avoiding harm, and promoting social stability. The findings indicate that the CVA intervention can create and shape a peace that belongs to the relatively affluent and influential actors in society. The ‘losers’ pay and work for everyday peace due to obliged tolerance and the ‘winners’ benefit from this peace and uphold the structures to support it. If interventions are supposed to be a driving force for peaceful host–refugee relations, the framework they are embedded in which is based on liberal marketisation needs to be reconsidered to include considerations of power and everyday peace practices.