Carrying forward with the thoughts on reaching a realistic balance between violence and nonviolence in today's world. Probably one of the most misused terms used to describe the tension holding any given society together is "peace". I suppose that one possibly would say that peace is the absence of violence in a given societal group. If that is your working definition then you don't have a problem, except for "enforcement".. But if you describe peace as some quantitative level of prosperity, respect for human rights, freedom and equality then it becomes much more problematic. In my opinion these are essential to any real concept of peace. The notable examples of "peace" in our human existence has fallen within the first definition. The absence of violence between subjugation and uprising, or collapse. One can probably point all the way back to the prehistorical examples and the biblical and ancient texts certainly have no shortage of these examples. The "Pax Roma" (the peace under the conquered world of the Roman Empire; The first and second World Wars (The Great War and the War to end all Wars). Even the phrase utilized by most Catholics and some other denominations in greeting each other is "the Peace of Christ". That peace for most is the celebration of peace "within" the Christian community, more accurately within their denomination. Until the "overarching universal" nature of "Christ" is understood by the soul of all using it that phrase really does ring shallow. My Christ, the One worthy of my worship is bigger than Christianity. Of course many Christians, most notably the right wing of the fundamentalist camp would be quick to point that crying for Peace! Peace! insures that the Antichrist is at hand and the end of ages is near. To me this is a gross misuse of the Old Testament scriptures and contrary to the not so secret message of Jesus in the New. One will quickly see dualistic extremes in other faith traditions as well calling for a holy war to purge the world of the evil one. We just have to find a better way. In the book by Becker referred to earlier he speaks of Erich Fromm in regard to the source of these group dynamics. He says..."Fromm has insisted..on the importance of what he calls "incestuous symbiosis": the fear of emerging out of the family and into the world on one's own responsibility and powers; the desire to keep oneself tucked into a larger source of power. It is these things which make for the mystique of "group", "nation", "blood", "mother or fatherland", and the like. These feelings are embedded in one's earliest experiences of comfortable merger with the mother." With such primal forces at play with our multiplicity of "groups" in our societies today it seems to me that maybe the concept of a "Mother Earth" is of some help in finding the comforting universality of creation. Somehow in today's conversations we must find a nonthreatening way to view the future. Even with the despair seen every day on the news we must remain optimistic! What is the alternative? A significant number of loving people can see that they may be "Raptured" off of the Earth before it all collapses but why does that preclude their working to bring a period of justice, love and peace to the world while they're waiting? I see that that is the message to all, of all faiths, and even to those of no faith if they can see the signs from those in our past who have done Love as a way of life.
As Marianne alluded to referring to the path of our hero's of the 60's "...They pointed to the next step in America's moral evolution-the expansion of our compassion-and that is a step by definition repudiates oppression and injustice.". And further "We need to recreate politics now as a mystical pursuit, bringing our souls to bear on the effort to make the world a better place.".
That better way needs to be a vast consensus on the goal of society and a loving path of international relations. With that consensus we need a method to protect that goal from the radicals on the periphery of the world community. That could be fulfilled by the exercise of that "Prime Directive" concept, the non offensive might part, not the sacred sovereignty part.
It is time for the world to rethink the concept of the United Nations. It has the potential to do much, much more in the realm of international cooperation toward Peace. It has done much good in the area of child rescue, peace keeping presence, disaster relief. However due mostly to the limitations set upon it at its inception there is very little real power for enforcement at any real level of humanitarian concern. The five members of the Security Council need to forgo their veto power in the interest of international responsibility. The current level of effectiveness of the United Nations is hamstrung by the multiplicity of international treaty's and opposing ally agreements. There needs to be a better international conversation on the goals of anti-terrorism, human rights, anti-genocide, disease containment and education. I am not saying that all nations should disarm but I am saying that the human community must embrace a common committed goal of bringing these affronts to human dignity to an end. We have the resources and the communication to do it; We just need the dedication to that purpose. We are tied together in so many ways. We should be able to use these ties for the common good.
Sovereignty is not all bad just as the ego is not all bad. It recognizes, and honors, our differences. It is necessary for our identity. We are at a point in the earths existence where we don't need to "multiply and subdue the earth". We need to nurture what we have been gifted with. Those of us who have been most blessed need to lead the movement toward that goal. There is a Wikipedia definition of the concept of "Contingent Sovereignty" which is very good and in the next post I will insert the full comment. For now I just want to state that we need to rethink the concept in light of our international responsibilities.
I'm not just talking about an international military police force. In modern police science there is much more than force involved in keeping the law. Although that level of force must be present to use as a last resort in the defense of society, international society. The full scope of these non violent options are greater in scope than I am aware of but I am acquainted with some efforts. I watch TV . We have community service officers which work in the areas of "at risk" elements of society. We have Volunteers in the areas of education and mentoring of youth without adult guidance. Sometimes just having a police presence gives a community a sense of calm. In the bigger picture we have the capability of diplomatic negotiations and overtures and probably one of the most effective measures in this interdependent world would be the use of economic sanctions and incentives. The list goes on but the point is that with a hands on "Love" physical violence can be reduced.
Aikido is a Japanese martial art developed by Morikei Neshiba. It is described as " ..the way of harmonious spirit..goal to create an art that practitioners could use to defend themselves while also protecting their attacker from injury" (Wikipedia). This may be a little bit of a simplistic look at a very involved problem but I think that this is not a bad model for approaching the ills of society. If we, as a world, can convene a "Bill of Human Rights" and put a lot of resources toward it's peaceable attainment. And then devise a way of minimal force to insure peace, rescuing the victim as well as the offender (if possible) ; What a wonderful world this would be. Peace! RV
No comments:
Post a Comment