The Broader Implication of Peace Activism

The scope of peace activism has broader implications than simply advocating peace or assuming an antiwar stance. In fact, the implications of peace activism connect to a diversity of sociocultural movements. Charles F. Howlett writes, "Peace seekers have connected their actions to broader social and political concerns like civil rights, feminism, socialism, and ecological safety."*

Peace activists are often fervent advocates for other social movements. Their identification as peace activists facilitates their ability to meaningfully contribute to other social movements because their ability to exercise tolerance, in attempting to mitigate conflict, facilitates the deliberative process of most organization.

Simply stated, the peace activist is specifically attuned to the plight of others. Peace activists can use their understanding of tolerance to negotiate peace as well as address the concerns of underrepresented parties.

The peace advocates may support the civil rights movement; in fact many abolitionists were advocates of peace. Peace advocates may support animal rights or ecological protection as well. Peace advocates are represented by both Democrats and Republicans and citizens from every corner of the Earth. In short, peace advocates are represented in nearly all social movements all over the world.

In discussing the broader implications of peace activism, it is important to recognize what the peace movement shares with other social movements. The peace movement and all the various forms of peace that comprise the movement are based on an acknowledged recognition of the destructive capacities of human beings, which is not to suggest, however, that all human beings will be destructive.

Human beings have a natural capacity for destructive behavior. As a child I remember reading William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, and to this day it remains my favorite novel. Without the supervision of adults, the boys go primal. They revert to the brutality that was masked by their schoolboy uniforms. They immediately establish a hierarchy and select the criteria for inclusion. They decide who’s included and who’ll be excluded.

The willful process of excluding their fellow castaways, specifically Piggy, is a lesson in the manifestation of evil. The question one may rightfully ask is, “What was he excluded from?” Piggy was excluded from consideration. There was nothing about Piggy’s existence that had any meaning other than how it contributed to the group’s survival. Piggy’s existence was a means to benefiting the group. Once he no longer offered any meaningful contribution, he could be disposed of.

The peace advocate has to argue for Piggy. She has to inform the group that it was Piggy’s suggestion to use the conch as a means of gathering the group. It was Piggy’s glasses that provided the fire. The peace advocate negotiates between the potential brutality of the group and the recognized importance Piggy has despite his frailty.

The importance of this tension is nicely captured in The Silence of the Lambs, where is it suggested that if broadcasters use the young girl’s name it will be harder for Buffalo Bill to see her as a means to her flesh. He will be forced to see her for the person she is.

Similarly, animals cannot speak for themselves; a tree cannot speak for itself. They are as defenseless as Piggy. The advocate understands the bloodlust and seeks to mitigate that insatiability by appealing to Piggy’s worth.

Similarly, the peace advocate is an exemplary member of social organization because she retains this ability. She can express the value of a tree to the lumberjack. She can cause the meat eater to sympathize with the plight of the pig as it is hung to its death.

The implications of peace advocacy have a much broader scope than many give credit. The peace advocate is especially attuned to the plight of those that cannot fend for themselves. Peace advocacy, in its most general sense, is an attempt to negotiate with institutions or persons fully capable of exterminating both the advocate and the group or individual the advocate seeks to protect.

The peace advocate, then, is necessarily a protectionist. By protectionist, I am specifically referring to the position assumed by defending that which is target for exclusion - that is, exclusion from consideration.

Those who argue for the inclusion of women are feminists. Those who argue for the inclusion of minorities are civil rights advocates. Those who argue for the inclusion of animals are animal rights activists. Those who argue for the inclusion of our planet are ecologists.

What the peace advocate shares with each of these groups is an insistence for excluded groups to be included and considered. Peace advocates are pro-diversity, pro-tolerance, and pro-deliberation. They are pro-diplomacy and understand the difficulties of navigating between the bloodlust of those in power and defending those that cannot fend for themselves.

Not all those who support war disavow peace. Not all those who support peace disavow war. Discussing and understanding peace is far more complicated than simply trying to classify it in terms of war. As I have attempted to show in this section of the analysis, there is great overlap in the motivations and concerns between the peace movement and other social movements. A better understanding of how the peace movement influences other social movements is the first step in recognizing the power and profitability of peace.

* Howlett, Charles F. 1991. The American Peace Movement: References and Resources. Massachusetts: G.K. Hall & Co., p. xix.

Originally published for Blogcritics.

norms, americana, culture, assimilation, globalization, ethics

On the Confluence of Peace and Attunement

Irrespective of your political affiliations one must admit that the genius of President Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was based in his ability to communicate and remain attuned with the pulse of the people. As a constitutional law professor, he could have easily reverted to the legalistic jargon, in which he is surely well versed, but he chose to speak so he could be understood. It was important that his ideas were accessible and easily transmitted.

One must recognize that communication, in its most potent manifestation, involves comprehension and recitation. Individuals must understand what was said and be able to reinterpret this information in their own words. If both parts are satisfied — that is, comprehension and recitation — then the idea will easily be transmitted. If both parts are not satisfied, then the transmission of an idea will be labored.

The clearest analogy for this phenomenon is one’s familial structure. Comparing how a family is run to how the government is run is as old as Aristotle. My wife and I, in planning and budgeting for our monthly expenses, have a realistic understanding of our joint income and the expenses we have each month. My children, however, are oblivious to these facts; and were they privy to the full implications of just how precise we have to budget our lives, they would effectively lose their childhood.

Though the analogy isn’t exactly the same, one must recognize that there are functions of the government that we just shouldn’t be privy to. Granted, transparency is certainly advantageous for inquisitive citizens, but there is a strict difference between merely possessing knowledge and being able to implement knowledge.

Take for example the peace maintained in my home. My wife and I, like many Americans, are under financial stress. Financial stress invariably seeps its way into the home, which poses the threat of disrupting the peace. In order to maintain the peace, we cannot always be discussing the financial crisis. I know the economy is bad. I remembered that 500,000 people are losing their jobs a month. I understand there are outside forces seeking to destroy our freedoms.

There is that great scene in Men in Black where Agent K, played by Tommy Lee Jones says, “There's always an alien battle cruiser, or a Corellian death ray, or an intergalactic plague intended to wipe out life on this miserable little planet. The only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they do not know about it!”

To maintain peace in my home, I cannot consistently inform my children of the dangers lurking beyond the door. I cannot consistently remind them of just how tight the family budget is. To maintain peace in my home, my children cannot know as much as my wife and I know. But I need to be attuned with my children’s needs.

For any parent reading this, there is absolutely no novelty in this claim. A parent should be attuned to the needs of the children. Those needs that are most immediate and most pressing must take precedence; those that are not can wait. But it is important to recognize that my attunement as a father to the needs of my children is impossible without a peaceful household.

If my home is defined by violence and intolerance and if my children do not feel safe within their home, they will not open up. Communication cannot flourish within this environment. Where there is a lack of communication, those in power cannot attune themselves with the needs of the people. A failure to attune one’s self to the needs of the people will result in chaos; and where there is chaos, government has failed. Thus, government must be attuned to the needs of the people.

I am one of the people that constitute the demography, that is, the diversity, of the United States of America. On nearly every front President Obama has succeeded (I’m certainly biased in my opinion), but he is failing to recognize that we the people have had enough of war. He said it himself, “Enough!”

Everyone I speak with is fed up with war, death, dying, genocide, and killing. I am a pacifist, and as an academic I can afford that luxury. I am not a soldier, but I understand the need for soldiers. I am not a supporter of war, but I understand just war theory. I did not agree with the “Bush Doctrine” but I understood the “Bush Doctrine.”

The problem with peace, as a concept, is that the vast majority of people just don’t understand what peace is. Sure peace is nonviolence; it’s antiwar, hippies, and tree-huggers, but it’s so much more than that. To say that I’m for peace doesn’t necessarily mean I’m against war. The question is what type of peace are you for?

To maintain peace in my home, I may have to lie to my children. I cannot allow them total transparency, nor should they want access to this knowledge. After all, curiosity killed the cat. There is no task within government more complex than maintaining peace - not budget, not education, not anything. Without peace, there is no government. Preserving peace is the purpose of government. Were the government unable to maintain peace, the population would revolt and quickly put a new government in power.

As Agent K suggested “The only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they do not know about it.” That there is a constant and perpetual state of total systemic collapse is certain, but do we really need to be continuously informed of these threats? That information is for President Obama and members of his cabinet. How does that information help the average person?

There used to be the thought that fear equals profit. That’s been debunked. I am a realist in the sense that I understand how this machine works. Politicians want power. Business people want profit. The people want peace. If one can successfully triangulate peace with profit and power (what I will define as the 3 Ps) and successfully show that peace can be profitable, in fact more profitable than war, then why not choose peace?

In conclusion, then, for the next several sections, I will explicitly define and discuss this triangulation of the 3 Ps and describe multiple forms of peace. I will account for America’s role in the global peace movement and offer historical example on the profitability of peace. Pacifism may be too extreme a view for some, but there are many alternatives, and many forms of peace. One need not ascribe to all forms of peace, just one.

Originally published for Blogcritics.

norms, americana, culture, assimilation, globalization, ethics

Update on Globalizing Americana

I’ve received many emails inquiring about my analysis on globalizing Americana, which I will continue this upcoming week. Some of my readers have said that “I have a negative outlook on America” or have asked “is there anything about America that I don’t hate?” Until now, much of my analysis has focused on the negative affects of American greed, corruption and arrogance and my readers have largely been justified in their concern. In the upcoming sections, however, I will investigate the many contributions Americans have offered in furthering peace studies and the peace movement.

My analysis of Americana is motivated by explaining how our culture is transmitted within the process of globalization. If I am to offer an objective analysis I will have to account for both the good and the bad. I have accounted for just a few of the dangers associated with Americana, much much more was left out of that analysis. In the upcoming multipart analysis I will discuss America’s role in perpetuating peace and describe the various forms of peace movements.

We Will Move Beyond the Joneses

We will move beyond these challenging times and we will be better for having survived. We are not the first Americans to suffer the economic hardships that now plague most of our lives. We will all move beyond this.

More important than overcoming the struggles of this great recession, is to understand that our desire to keep up with the Joneses certainly helped get us here. MTV’s Sweet 16 told our children that it was acceptable to throw tantrums when the color of the Lexus they receive for their 16th birthday didn’t meet their standards.

Everyone wanted to make it rich! Flip a house or two or invest in the foreign exchange, so we all can live like Bernie Madoff. We all can be celebrities! We all can be famous! We all can be rich!

The truth is the vast majority of us will never be wealthy. Most of us will never be famous. And the likelihood of celebrity is unlikely. When did it become so deplorable to be a regular person, with regular goals and regular ambitions?

I want to be a good father, a good husband, a good citizen.
I want to contribute more than I take. I want to be a credit to society.
I want to serve my government and uphold the principles of this great nation.
I want to help those that seek to better themselves.
I want to be helped by those who know.

These are some of my goals. Am I any worse for shunning wealth, for shunning celebrity? Am I any worse of a farther for raising my children so they value family more than possessions? Should I be ostracized by my peers for rejecting wealth, celebrity, fame?

The truth is the JONESES FORECLOSED on their house years ago. It’s been abandoned all this time. It looks so pretty on the outside, but I’ve walked to the front door and peeked in. It’s infested with mildew. A thick layer of dust covers all their possessions and the Joneses are all dead! Theirs is a shell of a home. But if you’d like, you can come to my house, it’s much smaller than the Joneses home, but we’ve got food in the fridge lots of family around and we'd be glad to have you over for good times. Won’t you come in?

Part 2 of my interview with Lisl Schick

Part 1 of my interview with Lisl Schick

American Normativity and the Reality of Globalization

The attraction of the American culture and the freedoms we have in the States is not to be taken lightly. It is the appeal of Americana, the idea of all the possibilities it offers that is its most important and powerful asset. The idea that is America has been constructed and revised since the inception of this great nation.

The idea of a dream, of the personal dream of young boys and girls aspiring to be all that they can be, of a school teacher to do all that she can do, of the average citizen, if just to participate in making this country that much better, is a dream we all share. It is the American dream of home ownership and a proper education for our children.

We’ve already coined the term, and rest assured that others, the globe over, also aspire for the American dream. They too aspire for their stake in this new globalized world. But there are many that are fearful.

Power is never to be found in fear, but in a respectful understanding of things beyond our control. Globalization is one such factor beyond our control. In discussing the process of globalizing Americana, one should already note that the process has long since been started, terms have already been coined, and it is already a fact of our existence.

The globalization of Americana is neither good nor bad, it simply is. There are many who oppose globalization of any kind. There are many that will certainly oppose the globalization of Americana. I can support neither of these stances.

Many within academia and within the media view globalization as a set of circumstances that can be completed as if globalization had an end, even a theoretical end. The point to globalization is that there is no end to globalization. Globalization is a process more than a state of affairs.

Imagine the difference in the following claims, (1) I am a writer and (2) I am writing a book. The first claim is a profession of the process of writing. In asserting that I am a writer, I make no assertion that this could be otherwise. I make no claim that I will ever stop being a writer. I am simply a writer. In the second claim there is a definitive end, that is, though it necessarily entails the first, I will have eventually concluded writing a book.  

Globalization is more like the first claim than it is like the second. Since the dawn of man we have sought to globalize our world. We have built ships and set sail, cars and driven about, planes and flown the globe, and the Internet and surfed the World Wide Web.

Globalization is the web. It is the connection of each to all, of the general to the specific, of one to many. And so in discussing American normativity, my function in this process of globalization, is to articulate how it should unfold.

That it should unfold, that is, arguing whether the globalization of Americana should or should not occur, is essentially a futile discussion. How it should occur or under what parameters it should occur is a far more useful analysis because it immediately acknowledges it facticity.

There is no escaping the globalization of Americana. What I have chosen to do is anticipate these occurrences and offer the ethical grounds for most effectively implementing our cultural globalization.

Prior to economic globalization, which everyone is eager to discuss, but is of no concern here, is a more fundamental need to form a global culture. The Internet facilitates this need. Despite all the hokey conspiracy theorists railing against globalization, quick to purchase some stock footage and create sound bites for Youtube, the best hope for global peace comes from accepting the fundamental tenets of globalization.

We are advancing globalization in learning another language. We are advancing globalization in selling our products overseas. Nostalgists wish to keep thing as they are. They are fearful of the change that is coming.

The change that is coming is the gradual transition into a global society, none of which is possible, none of which the masses will support, without first understanding the importance of a globalized culture. Thus, there is no specialty in speaking, no preference in referring to the globalization of Americana.

Were I to live in India, I would be writing about the globalization of Indian culture, or in Australia, the globalization of Australian culture. However, I live in the United States of American and so I choose to write about that which I know, namely, the globalization of Americana.

My role in this discussion is to suggest the most ethical and least violent means of achieving these ends. Globalization is not a force driven by any human being or group of puppet masters, despite what all the conspiracy theorists may suggest. Globalization is driven by our biology, our psychology, and our sociology. We are social beings and when robbed of our socialization we become feral.

Globalization will occur at all costs, which is not an indictment of any person or any group of people. It is a fact of our psychosocial makeup. It will occur despite those that will invariably tend to oppose it. And where there is opposition there is violence. And where there is violence there is death.

My role in all of this is to limit the spread of violence, limit the spread of evil by accepting globalization as an already manifest fact of our existence. Thus, I have the very difficult task of supporting globalization, on the one hand, while also supporting global peace, on the other. In the subsequent sections I will discuss the concept of global peace. 

Originally published for Blogcritics.

norms, americana, culture, assimilation, globalization, ethics

The NeverEnding Story of Purpose

I would like to believe that I have a will and that I can make my own decisions. I can choose my own path in life. I don’t like the idea that everything has already been planned for me or that I’m predestined to do anything, because what would be purpose of life if it were already fated?

In discussing the notion of purpose, one has to ask one’s self, “What is the purpose of my life? What am I here to do?” But these are difficult questions to answer.

When I started to think about purpose, I began to question whether one could speak of purpose without also speaking of predestination. I want to feel that I have a purpose in life without the burden of accepting that I am not in control of my life. These are difficult concept to understand.

I am not sure what my purpose is, but I certainly hope and in fact believe that I choose that course of action of my own freewill. The purpose of my life has invariably developed as a consequence of my past, of the things I have done and seen and the things I have had done to me.

I’m not sure if I know what purpose is, but I know that I’ve learned over the years. Time has seasoned me with age. I overcame the adversities, though new ones are surely ahead.
I have been battletested. I have withstood the pain.

I would like to understand my purpose, the point of it all. And so, I have to do something. I have to create something new. I have to learn from someone. I have to teach someone what I’ve learned.

Simply put, I have to be. I have to be me. I can’t be anyone else. I can’t be what others may want me to be. I can’t be an image. I can’t be a product. I can only be who it is I’ve become.

The purpose of my life is to live my life to the fullest. Since, tomorrow is promised to no one, I am continuously aware of the clock. I have so much to do in so little time. My purpose is to remember the clock. Take nothing for granted, because eventually death comes for us all.

It is a fact of life. It is part of what it means to be alive. It is either the end of life or life’s new beginning. It is inescapable. It is nontransferable. It is personal. And because of It, I follow the course of Atreyu in The NeverEdning Story away from the Nothing.

My purpose is not the purpose of the Nothing ceaselessly destroying everything in existence, changing something to nothing. My purpose is the purpose of Something, though I know not what, Something to create, something new.

On the Emptiness of Fame

We are evolving into a society where everyone wants to be famous for no other purpose than fame itself. Those seeking recognition, seeking approval, those eager to entertain the masses now have the largest stage ever constructed with the advent of the internet.

The promises of instant stardom, the hope for fame, and the desire to be recognized are such powerful forces that they have permeated the very fabric of society. There is, however, a darker side to fame.

The life of a famous person is protected, recluse, and separated from the everydayness of ordinary people. There are no trips to the grocery store. There are no walks in the park. There is only the persona and the constant reminder of one’s own fame.

The persona is an image, a brand to be marketed. It may not be, and probably isn’t who that person really is. For those truly famous people, even they at times cannot differentiate between the persona and the person.

Imagine Kurt Cobain’s horror when he realized that his counterculture rock group just became mainstream. What does he now represent?

There is a beauty is being ordinary, being flawed, being insecure, which is what it means to be human. If, in being yourself you so happen to become famous, then all the better for you. The danger in becoming famous is not the danger of fame itself, it is the danger of not knowing who you are and therefore becoming a persona.

American Normativity and the American Way of War

In this, the third installment on American normativity, I will discuss the spread of Americana through the media and suggest that non-Americans are also vested in Americana. Our depictions of American culture through the Internet, movies, novels, and video games represent Americana abroad. Specifically then, I am discussing the notion of being vested in Americana through the expansion of American media.

The difficulty, however, in discussing the complications in the rapid spread of American culture throughout the world, affects both non-Americans and Americans living abroad. There is certainly lots of research to be done describing the transmission of culture over the Internet, or even the conception of the Internet as culture, but the particularities of that investigation are not at the heart of my interests.

My concern, here, is to identify how the spread of American ideals and practices influence specifically non-Americans; that is, how does the influence of Americana reshape cultural practices abroad? First, to answer this question requires that I offer an example of an American practice that has spread abroad, which was beneficial, detrimental, or inconsequential in its cultural influence for exclusively non-Americans.

Next, I will have to demonstrate that the influence of this practice has specifically reshaped the existing practice, and finally describe any tendencies to assume traditional practices, that is, original practices prior to American influence.

Being a Gen-xer, which is roughly classified as those individuals born between the early-to-mid 1960s and 1980, I am a product of the Vietnam War, two wars in Iraq, a Cold War, a war on drugs, war on terror, a looming war in Afghanistan, Columbine, Vtech, Pac’s murder, Biggie’s murder, Kurt Cobain’s suicide, and the list goes on.

I am a product of war, and everything that I perceive informs me of war. The life of every Gen-xer is undeniably influenced by this incessant and inescapable proclivity to war. Seemingly, Americans are always postured, always ready for war.

Our fascination with post-apocalyptic society, which is reflected throughout our culture with movies like the Matrix, novels like The Watchmen, and I am Legend does, in my opinion, surface as a manifestation of the guilt of having bombed Japan. To my knowledge, Japan is the only post-apocalyptic culture on the face of the earth, and yet we are the ones terrified of the big bomb, the ominous red phone, mass extermination, and life after destruction.

There is, however, life after destruction. But it is so much harder to build than it is to destroy. Granted, I am not suggesting Americans are only good at war, but it may be our best export. It may be the very thing that non-American’s associate with America.

It would be an interesting study to travel abroad and asks thousands of non-Americans about their favorite American movies and characters in movies. If you are a non-American, stop reading for a moment and ask yourself that question. Who is your favorite character in an American movie? What is your favorite American movie?

Is it Rambo, the Terminator, Dirty Harry, the Predator, Jason, Freddy, Jigsaw, Agent Smith, or Cobra Commander? Is it Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Psycho, or Apocalypse Now? I love all of these characters and all of these movies. I was raised on violence. I was acculturated in violence.

Not into movies? What about video games? Do you like Halo, Call of Duty, or Gears of War? Do you like first or third person shooters, assassination, or seek and destroy? I love all three. I love all of these. I am a product of my culture, of Americana, and I am fascinated by violence. But my fascination has taught me that it is all a very slippery slope. My research over the years into the greatest mass killings known to man always ends in either war or genocide.

During the Cold War of the 1980s, for example, it is widely known that the United States government, fearful of Soviet expansion, subsidized extremist groups to combat the Soviets. There is a remarkable paper titled “The American Way of War through 2020,” which I so fortunately stumbled on in researching for this section of the analysis. It is a must read for all political enthusiasts.

In this paper, there is a rather large disclaimer that the views expressed within the document do not represent the U.S. government, as it is published on a .gov page. Its purpose is solely for discussion point, which is exactly my intention.

In the most insightful quote in the document, an unknown author writes, “Where the applications of this American Way of War may take place in the future is unknown. North Korea, China-Taiwan, India-Pakistan, and Iran, as well as various internal conflicts, are places that threaten war. Would all these cases still be threatening come 2020? The greatest unknown is how the Global War on Terror may proceed and how this American Way of War applies to it,” (pg. 3).

Clearly what struck me was the phrase, “American Way of War.” There is a particular method of war, of engaging the enemy that is uniquely American. In “The American Way of War through 2020,” the role of the Afghanis in stopping Soviet expansion is discussed, which is particularly interesting to this analysis because it is suggested by President Obama that Afghanistan is currently presenting a serious military threat to the United States.

The Internet and the blogosphere are the places to discuss these issues, as suggested in the disclaimer to “The American Way of War through 2020.” Is America exporting violence? Are we masters of war? What is the global perception of our military actions? These questions cannot be answered by Americans; not even Americans living abroad. They must be answered by non-Americans if Americans are to assess a true global perception of our conduct.

Arming and training non-American groups, especially extremist groups, can be the most difficult military tactic one can execute. If we train others in the principles of an “American Way of War,” then they fight like we fight and think like we think. But people aren’t pets; their loyalties sway. If they no longer find allegiance with the United States of America, one can rest assured we will have successfully trained our own enemies.

Now is the time to discuss these issues. There is no need to prolong the discussion any further. Do non-Americans view American culture as a violent culture? Are we viewed as warmongers? What do non-Americans believe about our treatment of prisoners? What is the global perception of the American way of war?

Originally published for Blogcritics.

norms, americana, culture, assimilation, globalization, ethics