How we approach knowing conflict and security makes a difference. This article first considers how reification, instrumental subject/object relations and the drive for certainty and control undermine effective knowledge and practice in questions of conflict and peace. It then turns to what the spatial turn and notions of emplaced security might offer to working against violence. As with any theoretical perspective, the spatial turn can itself be reified, repeating epistemological relations entrenched in much security analysis. The spatial turn and emplaced security explicitly highlight alternative, more relational knowledge practices, however. A relational epistemology approaches knowledge not only as information about a subject out there, but also as a form of practice with others which changes conditions of possibility for co-existence. If pursued, such approaches could help loosen the grip of narrow constructions of security, insecurity, the person, power and agency which dominate security analysis and obstruct understanding and the generation of alternatives in situations of entrenched conflict. An orientation to place could not only enable more nuanced accounts of peace and conflict, but support mutual recognition and exchange across division, assisting an ethic of attention and concrete peace and conflict resolution efforts.

我们如何认识冲突和安全将有所作为。本文首先考虑了具体化，工具性的客体/客体关系以及确定性和控制性的驱动力如何破坏冲突与和平问题中的有效知识和实践。然后，它转向了空间上的转变以及对安全的重视对打击暴力可能提供的帮助。与任何理论观点一样，空间转向本身可以被具体化，重复许多安全分析中根深蒂固的认识论关系。但是，空间转向和位置安全明确突出了替代的，更多的关系知识实践。关系认识论不仅将知识作为关于某个主题的信息，而且还将其作为与他人实践的一种形式，这种行为改变了共存可能性的条件。如果采取这些措施，将有助于放松对安全性，不安全性，人员，权力和代理机构的狭义解释的控制，这些狭do的解释在安全分析中占据主导地位，并妨碍在根深蒂固的冲突情况下的理解和替代方案的产生。定位问题不仅可以使人们对和平与冲突有更细微的描述，而且可以支持跨部门的相互承认和交流，有助于引起关注的伦理以及具体的和平与解决冲突的努力。