Category: Peace

This is a story within a story – an episode among Friday night’s random route home. A conversation between a peace lover and army dudes – about war and love and perceptions, and chess and sex.

“What do you do?” A visiting American army boy, one of my friend’s friends, asked me that inescapable ubiquitous question.

“Um…” I which box shall I put myself in this time? “I’m a student.” I replied.

“What are you studying?”

“Peace and Conflict.”

“Huh?”

“Peace,” I repeated, “You know..” I made a peace sign with my fingers.

“Yeah? You do know we’re in the army don’t you?” He laughed. The conversation progressed along interesting lines, as it tends to do when Peace meets War. “The word Peace carries a lot of baggage – you have to be careful how you use it.”

“I know, I smiled – it had been something on my mind lately. “That’s why Peace and Conflict Studies isn’t more simply named Peace Studies,” I told him. “It was only when the word ‘Conflict‘ was added to the title, the University of Sydney agreed to support the emerging discipline.”

I understand the reasoning behind this, at least in part. The word Peace can concur images of a state of nothingness – like when you meditate and have inner peace: you are one with everything and so you feel completely full, but at the same time you feel completely empty. This can be nice temporarily, but it doesn’t really do much for progression and change – which is kinda essential to an evolving universe. As I’ve mentioned before, conflict is good – it’s violence that would be nice to avoid.

It was a good conversation. It helped me reclarify the difference between Iraq war and Afhanistan war. I should know which is which, but they keep mixing up in my head.

“So Iraq was Sadaam and the ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ – subtext: oil;

and Afghanistan was Osama bin Laden, the “War on Terror” – subtext: opium?” I clarified.

“More or less,” he laughed. “And what do you think you are going to do about it?”

“I’m not quite sure,” I answered. “Right now I’m just learning about it.”

“How does studying books about peace help the situation? You know, it is frustrating when these professors preach this and that, or peace activists call for the end of war,” he said.

“Or worse when idiots like Bob Brown want to cut our salaries in half.” One of the Aussies added.

“These professors and greenies don’t know what’s it’s like over there: what’s it like to wipe your butt with your left hand and clean it with drinking water. That’s what life is like for these people and that’s what we have to endure when we are there.”

Gulp. It is true. Here I am so insulated – I have no idea what life is really like in these places. How can I, a student of Peace and Conflict Studies, know anything about what’s really going on when I haven’t been there?

“I do see a need for defense.” I agreed. “I see a need for securing resources and protecting ourselves from potential harm, even if I don’t at all agree with the methods. I totally appreciate you guys going out there, risking your lives to secure our way of life.” I told him. I know defense has it’s place.”But I think in addition to defense, you need peace research – people who analyse the context of the conflicts – people who search for long-term solutions.”

War these days seems inseparable from capitalism, values, lifestyle choices, ideologies and religions. There seems to be an incredibly vast web of issues that are interconnected and paradoxical. Unless these issues are analysed from various perspectives imagining long-term solutions, how can issues humanity faces ever be addressed?

Trillions of dollars go into defense – into protecting ourselves from the outside world. That money could be spent on education and new systems and infrastructures –  addressing the causes of the fear rather than building more of it.

That’s why I study peace and conflict: I’m trying to deepen my understanding of the roots of these global issues – trying to identify why we need to change, and how this change is possible. Will this analysis help on a practical level? I don’t know. But it’s better than nothing – right?

I find it hard, especially when I know I’m already pre-programmed for the defect system we are in. My customer dollar, investment dollars, and citizen vote speaks louder than any form of activism or campaign, yet I follow my almost innate nature to purchase goods that are the best value (cheapest price & highest quality), invest my money where will give me the highest return, and vote for the party who is going to do the most for my personal situations.

My monetary and civilian votes (albeit inadvertently) desire cheap oil, and that’s what I get – thanks to our country (and America’s) defense force.

Our systemic structures are pretty much designed for us to forget that all these things are intrinsically connected: war, poverty, lifestyle, money.

And because we forget the connections, it seems that NO ONE IS RESPONSIBLE – all responsibility is obliterated in the structural lines: management have one purpose: to generate profit for shareholders. Shareholders invest for one reason: to make as much money in their investment as possible (for doing nothing). Customers want the cheapest goods and workers want the highest wages. Someone has to pay – and that, today, is the “3rd world” whose resources (human and nature) we continue to plunder from afar. Not much has changed since the Spanish Conquest and Colonialism – only we don’t have to look at it. These benefits are free, and the consequences on people and the planet are not given real thought.

It’s all in the systems, the roles, and our definitions – so we have to look at this, and figure out where and how it can change to make things better.

From where I stand there are few options:

a)     play ignorant – block out the things I don’t want to hear and go on living my relatively meaningless short life. This temporal denial helps no one – the rich get more fat and depressed while the poor waste away and pop out more babies. In fifty years I’ll be dead or dumb so what will I care if the earth and people on it suffer?

b)    focus on defense without peace – support the defense of our lifestyles, invest more and more into it, knowing full well that stronger civilizations have fallen in the past: eventually the west will collapse and another hegemonic power will rise. Or we all/most of us die off with a big nuclear bomb or other wars in the process.

c)     focus on peace without defense – be “do-gooders” and help the poor, leaving ourselves open for other countries who have not-so-good morals to take everything from us. Helping the developing countries develop without changing the structure of the system is largely destined for self destruction. Without defense other countries probably take over and continue in our destructive footsteps.

d)    search out deeper longer-term win-win solutions – imagine what world without war and hunger would look like, work together to identify the systemic lines that stand in the way, and then re-define the system based on a defined set of shared humanistic and ecological values.

Defense is driven by fear, while Peace is driven by love. The goal, I think, is to learn to face our fears, embrace and breed creativity out of conflict, and see how love of self, of others and of our planet can better our lives for today, and for generations to follow.

Oops – I’m off track… continuing Friday night’s conversation:

“You boys are playing the wrong game,” I told the small group of American and Australian army men who had joined in the debate. Words I have previously blogged about on the subject were dying to come out of my mouth.

“Oh yeah?” one smirked.

“You guys are chess pieces on a global chess board,” I shrugged. They nodded, I guess that part’s pretty obvious. “And while chess can be fun, I think sex is better.”

Gulp. “Huh?”

“Sex.” I repeated.

“Sex?”

“Yes sex”

“That’s what I thought you said.”

“Chess is black and white. In chess you have one winner and one loser, or a stalemate,” I began.

“But sex is a different game altogether. In sex, both parties win. And the more one party wins, the more the other wins.”

I smiled as I said these words, watching their jaws drop.

I guess while it’s one thing to write about this kind of stuff, it’s kinda another thing to say it, and to army guys in a nightclub may sound a touch risky. But these guys were cool, I couldn’t resist having a fun with words. While they weren’t complaining about the topic of conversation (as you can imagine), I’m not so sure they “got” the depth of my analogy.

As I see it (and you may have read this in past posts), Love is the gift that keeps on giving. The more you give, the more everyone gets.

BUT Fear if let rule is a horrible abyss, like a debt that constantly compounds. The more you fight to protect, the more you stand to lose.

I think the army/security theorists deserve respect from peace researchers/workers/activists, just as I think peace researchers/workers/activists deserve respect in return. I think that both share the same underlying goals – they just envisage achieving them via different means.

Both have powerful roles – collaborative roles – both are necessary until a new system can be put in place.

Then, maybe (hopefully) all peace and war workers will be out of a job – with lots of time for new endeavors (and lots of sex.) 😀

Artwork credit:

Talented artist and good friend Sawan Yawnghwe – his Dormice series: http://www.agallery.co.uk/gallery.php?cat=6350

What motivates our decisions? Pleasure/pain; authority; social contracts; or some kind of internal judgement mechanism? Kohlberg identified the development of moral maturity as having six stages within three levels.

The pre-conventional level involves punishment and pleasure-seeking orientation enforced by authority and observed mostly in early childhood.

At the conventional level is where most of society resides with a good girl/boy and authority orientation stages, behaviour is guided by a desire to please others, obey the law and gain approval of higher authorities.

The post-conventional level involves social-contract orientation and morality of individual principles, whereby decisions are controlled internally going beyond self-interest and law to be based on rational thought, justice, dignity, and equality.[1]

From my research i found that the behaviour of religious fundamentalists commonly resides at the pre-conventional and conventional level – they are often deeply motivated by the desire to avoid the punishment of hell and be rewarded with glories in heaven – as well a default nature to obey and believe what those with authority say.

Often an externalization of morals creates a battle in one’s mind: of good versus evil and obedience versus temptation – which often abstracts and distorts the actual dilemmas and issue being faced.

I wonder if this is what causes moral abominations, like the reverends who rape young boys in the Catholic church? What effect does this have on society that does  not murder “because the Bible tells them not to” rather than because it’s a horrible thing to do to another human being? I think externalisation of morals would cause much fear and confusion for many individuals who do not really know why they value and do the things they do.

In order to move toward a state of peace with justice, I think humanity must rise beyond self-interest and move toward post-conventional levels of morality based on rational thought and dignity.

How exactly we can collectively evolve toward this morality, I’m not quite sure…

Picture credit:

Simon Howden on free Digital Photos – Simon’s portfolio is available here –
http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=404

I’m so taking my camera out this weekend 😛

---

[1] Ibid., pp. 146-7. Lawrence Kohlberg was a Harvard University professor authored landmark work on moral development.

19 April 2008 (Journal entry #5 – final part of this assignment for “Key Issues in Peace and Conflict Studies”)

“If you want peace, prepare for war”

The last few weeks have focused on the concept of Security, and at the Iraq Never Again conference last week, these concepts tied neatly together.

It’s interesting to think about security developments over the last 500 years. What a massive change our society has been through in this time! I recently saw two movies that were set in the 15th and 16th Century: ‘The Other Boleyn Girl’ – about King Henry the Eighth and his second wife Anne; and ‘Elizabeth: The Golden Age’ – about the reign of Queen Elizabeth the First, King Henry and Anne’s daughter. These came at the right time, as they have helped me imagine the concepts in action. Territory/borders, military/armaments, to defend/expand, threats/fear. Power. Images of horses, battles, Spanish boats, explorers – float in an out of my head.

In these times of sovereignty, war was thought to be natural, inevitable, normal and good. This realist perspective, shared by Hobbes and Kant, is still reflected foreign policy to this day.

Is war inevitable or not? How likely is it to stop it? Attempts throughout history… what limited them from success? Can you have states without arms? How do we relate this to positive and negative peace? – Some of the questions posed in class.

Westphalia Treaty was signed in 1648. It’s incredible, simply incredible, how much the world has changed dramatically in the last 350 years. Today more than ever, we live in a world connected on so many different levels, and in my opinion, our Security agreements are struggling to keep up.

“Collective security”, “Comprehensive security”, “Common security” and the one I like the most “Cooperative security” – all powerful concepts that I would like to talk more about, however my word count is way over already, so I’m going to skip that and go straight to the very important concept “Peace with Justice.”

Peace with Justice – is it possible? How can it be achieved? In particular, how can we achieve a Positive Peace with Justice, in a non-violent way?

I do think a Positive Peace with Justice is possible, and I have combined what I have learned from readings, last week’s class, and the Iraq conference, into the following steps:

1 Awareness

It’s important to develop a non-judgmental yet critical awareness of ourselves, of others and of the world, and developing a literacy of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Rees)

“The awareness that the “enemy” has needs and perceives injustice or unfairness in meeting those needs can help build productive relationships between groups in conflict. It can also create motivation for working together to solve the problem of shared unmet needs rather than the win-lose orientation.” (Schirch)

2 Understanding

With in-depth analysis, we must strive to understand all aspects of the problem from all perspectives. What are the core motives? Desire for ‘happiness’? Fear? What stands between the issue and the motive? Another’s desire for power? Indoctrination? Propaganda? All aspects must be understood.

‘Relations between States are essentially no different from relations between groups and persons. Conflict and violence are no less a problem at these levels and have the same fundamental sources.’ (Rees)

3 Collaboration

Developing a vision of what the world could be, and brainstorming ideas on how to get there. Exercising Power Creatively (Rees), using our imagination, developing liberation, and possessing knowledge; and coordinating an interdependence between actors on horizontal and vertical levels (Lederach)

As Joseph Camilleri said at the conference, “it starts with conversation at the kitchen table.”

4 Action

Setting up ‘institutionalised coordination networks’ and means of providing ‘restorative justice’ (Schirch) Empowering the people through education and resources. Practicing non-violence (Rees), leading by example, and basically, “making it happen.“

Helping people recognise that ‘happiness which contributes to a sense of peace derives not from personal gain, but from quality of life experiences.’ (Rees)

5 Evaluating and starting the process again

I think it’s useful to look at conflicts as processes (Lederach), moving away from a ‘myopic focus on agreements and events’, toward a ‘commitment of embracing the permanency of relationship building’. Lederach’s river metaphor created a clear picture in my mind of how to view the ‘conflict transformation’ (as opposed to ‘conflict resolution’) process: looking at problems from standing with water to your knees so you see, feel and hear the dynamic flow of water, force & power, change; and from standing high on a mountain, so that you see the shape and form that the water has carved in the land.

Like self-development: the process of learning and experience never stops. Paradoxically the only thing permanent – is change.

I think we should aim for a Holistic Peace, because this encompasses both Ethical Peace and Justpeace, focusing on inner peace and working outward. Maybe this is the Pilates teacher in me – wanting to strengthen the core, and working outward to tone the rest of the body from there…

While at the conference, Iraqi Samer Khamisy was twice asked “What do you think a vision of peace would look like in Iraq? He replied that he just couldn’t imagine it – the situation was hopeless. Without a vision of what you want, how can you get it?

I think we need to imagine how we want the world to be, and truly believe it is possible. In my personal experience, it is figuring out what you want that is the difficult bit –  once you have this clear in your mind, getting it just comes, in it’s own time and in it’s own way – but it happens.

In the article by Mead, M. (1940/2000) the idea is presented that war is an invention. In order to move forward we need to recognise the defects of the old invention, and invent a new one. “First requirement is to believe that an invention is possible.”

As Stuart Rees says, in Passion for Peace: Exercising Power Creatively, “It starts with ourselves.”

Photo:

Kind of war-like… Maybe I need to take my camera out some more – or at least bother to connect with my hard drive… I’m exhausting the files I can randomly find on this laptop.

Photographer: Anatole Papafilippou

Taken in Tokyo a long time ago.

Can nice guys they finish first? Or is it always the bad boys who win the game? While you probably thinking I’m referring to my choice in men, I ask this question in a more general evolutionary context – inspired by a BBC documentary by Richard Dawkins. While one might expect Dawkins to say nice guys finish last, given his book The Selfish Gene, this documentary tells another story…

Dawkins refers to Game Theory and the Prisoner’s Dilemma, exploring it in a human social experience, and in the natural world.

Game Theory ‘attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, or games, in which an individual’s success in making choices depends on the choices of others. While initially developed to analyze competitions in which one individual does better at another’s expense (zero sum games), it has been expanded to treat a wide class of interactions.’

Consider the different options in a game of chess:

1.     White wins, black loses

2.     Black wins, white loses

3.     Stalemate

Do you notice there is no option for Black AND White to win?

The Prisoner’s Dilemma is ‘a fundamental problem in game theory that demonstrates why two people might not cooperate even if it is in both their best interests to do so.’

	Prisoner B Stays Silent	Prisoner B Betrays
Prisoner A Stays Silent	Each serves 6 months	Prisoner A: 10 yearsPrisoner B: goes free
Prisoner A Betrays	Prisoner A: goes freePrisoner B: 10 years	Each serves 5 years

While if both prisoners stayed silent they would only serve 6  months, the most likely outcome is for both to betray and both serve 5 years. It seems that while we could collaborate, our selfish gene means we don’t – or won’t.

In the documentary Dawkins shows how in the seemingly harsh dog-eat-dog world of nature, it is not the strongest who survive – it’s about being the fittest, and often this involves cooperation.

He describes a process of “reciprocal altruism“, for example when animals and birds groom each other. Dawkins describes a species of birds who must cooperate to suck the parasites off each other. He describes “cheats” who allow “suckers” to suck off their parasites, but refuse to repay the favour. If the world consisted of only cheats and suckers, suckers would go extinct. However, if there are also “grudgers” who suck but when they meet a cheat, they learn from the past and don’t suck the parasites off the cheater in the future. In a world with grudgers, the suckers and cheaters would go extinct and the grudgers would survive.

Returning to the Prisoner’s Dilemma, the experiment explores the games with lesser stakes, a few pounds, played over and over again:

	Player B chooses A	Player B chooses B
Player A chooses A	Both get $2	Player A gets 0Player B gets $1
Player A chooses B	Player A gets $1Player B gets nothing	Both get $.20

Over time a cooperative strategy can be reached. If Player A tries an A he may lose one game but it will signal to Player B an intention to cooperate. Player B might not respond at first, but if Player A repeats his intention, Player B might start to also play As. If both players act on this cooperative signal, both players will come out on top.

It becomes a game of “tit for tat” – where one only reciprocates if the other one does. Dawkins give the example of bats, who provide reciprocal blood sharing – but only to other bats who are tit for tat players.

If Prisoner’s Dilemma was to be applied to our ecological crisis, what would the options be?

Maybe something like this:

	You change	You don’t change
I change	Habitable planet for future generations.	If I (and the majority) change, you get a free ride.
I don’t change	If you (and the majority) guys change, I get a free ride.	Global warming, pollution, soil degradation, water dries up…  inhabitable planet & extinction.

If we figure out how to change, I’m willing to give co-operation a shot. Are you?

Check out the full doco, it’s well worth a peak – even if just to check out Richard Dawkins who is actually kinda cute in his youth…

Source:

Wikipedia (I was lazy) and Google Video.

Picture:

My surfer friends on a road trip – sometimes the “bad boys” are “nice guys” too.

25 March 2008 (Journal entry #3 – part of an assignment for “Key Issues in Peace and Conflict Studies”)

“War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength”

It’s our Easter vacation and I just watched George Orwell’s  ‘1984‘ for the first time. Propaganda, ‘big brother’ and ‘thought crime’. Wow! What a movie!!!

1984 illustrated many causes of conflict and violence that in the past have led to major world wars, and to this day continue to cause psychological and physical violence personal, inter-personal, inter- group and inter-national levels.

It was Galtung’s article on “Cultural Violence” that motivated me to rent this movie.

Galtung discussed the concept of ‘true believers’, who focus on the right belief, not just on right deeds. I understand the application of this concept.

In my Christian upbringing, I was taught that to go to heaven all you had to was believe the story that Jesus lived, died and rose from the dead in physical form, before ascending to heaven. He did all that to save my sins. I was told that I was very “lucky” to have been “chosen” by God to be become a Christian. I was told that thinking a sin is as bad as doing it. Sound’s a lot like Orwell’s ‘thought-crimes’ to me…

Galtung examined some theological distinctions between religions: the difference between a transcendental God outside us and an immanent god inside us; and the different of belief that we are born into original sin (as in some Christian theologies ), original blessing (as others claim), both (Hindu- Buddhist kharmaist) or neither (Athiest).

Galtung’s table below demonstrates the severe consequences of beliefs about being ‘chosen’:

God chooses	And leaves to Satan	With the consequences of
Human species	Animals, plants, nature	Speciesism, ecocide
Men	Women	Sexism, witch burning
His people	The others	Nationalism, imperialism
Whites	Colored	Racism, colonialism
Upper classes	Lower classes	Classism, exploitation
True believers	Heretics, pagans	Meritism, Inquisition

Zimbargo talks of ‘false pride’  – people who say “Not me, I am different from those kinds of people who did that evil deed”.

The world is thought to be  Black and White. The Milgram Obedience Experiments presented in Zimbardo’s article, describe 10 ingredients authority use to gain control over people to do the unthinkable:

1. Presenting acceptable justification – cover story/ ideology etc

2. Arranging some sort of contractual obligation

3. Giving participants a meaningful role to play

4. Presenting basic rules

5. Altering semantics – not hurting victims, but helping learners

6. Diffusion of responsibility for negative outcomes

7. Starting the path toward the ultimate evil act with a small insignificant first step e.g. only 15 volts

8. Gradually increasing the level so not noticeable

9. Gradually changing the nature of Influence Authority changing from Just to Unjust, rational to irrational

10. Making the ‘exit costs’ high, and the process of exiting difficult

1984 was a good illustration of these ingredients. It was interesting to see propaganda and brainwashing in action: the justification of violence through the appeal to law and idealism.

I think it is interesting to compare 1984 and these 10 ingredients, to tactics used by the Bush administration to get Americans to support the war against Iraq.

Throughout history, and continuing as I write today, brainwashing and indoctrination are a major cause of violence on all levels. I think it has to be stopped. This I wish to investigate further in my dissertation.

Follow up note:

I did further investigate this for my dissertation “An Ethical Dilemma: Childhood Conversion in Christian Fundamentalism.” I discovered “stopping indoctrination” is not as black and white as it sounds… I shall some of these findings as soon as I figure out how to upload a voice recording to this website.

Picture:

Found on Google Images – from http://aneighth.com/ – I would ask approval from the creator but I couldn’t find contact details. If subject to copyright please let me know.

11 March 2008 (Journal entry #2 – part of an assignment for “Key Issues in Peace and Conflict Studies”.)

Tonight when I arrived home my Opa was watching the channel 7 news. Two stories of conflict caught my attention.

The first was ‘cyber conflict’. Personal attacks, defamation, and gossip occurring on the Internet. The story featured a guy who had taken revenge on his ex-girlfriend, verbally abusing her and her friends on his MySpace website. She took it to the police/court, and yet even after that, he abused her with more text messages.

There are many new conflicts arising with technology developments. Children bullying no longer stops when a child leaves the playground, they can be tormented 24-7 via the Internet and mobile phones. Crime on “second life”, a popular web based life simulation, include rape, murder and other perversions. It seems that behind a computer screen, inhibitions disappear and repressed emotions are set free.

Where do these desires come from?

In class today we  looked at Situation vs. Personal causes of violence.

We discussed the Cain and Abel story from Ruberstein (2003) in our readings. Cain and Abel, the sons of Adam and Eve, tell a story of the “first murder”. While this story is allegedly symbolic of the movement from nomadic life (Abel) to agriculture (Cain) – with God’s preference for the nomad, and agricultural life destroying nomadic life – that is not the aspect I wish to discuss today.

As the story goes, Cain is the crop farmer, Abel the shepherd; and God is portrayed as a father-like character. Cain kills Abel out of jealousy, for God rejected his offerings and favoured Abel’s. Ruberstein makes the point that Cain’s “forbidden anger” is a taboo – one can not hate their parent, and thus the anger is repressed, that is, denied entry into consciousness. Freud (1915/1957) believed repressed emotions do not simply disappear, after time they return to consciousness detached from their original object. Cain, the rejected child, substitutes the Abel, favored sibling, for his anger against God, the parent. As a result, Cain kills Abel. Is Cain’s fault? Or is it God’s fault, for favouring one child over the other? … Is Cain inherently evil? Or was it the situation that provoked the violence?

I think that while a response may be conditioned, a personal choice must be made.

Is this what is happening on the Internet? Is cyber conflict a manifestation of repressed emotions? Scapegoats for other problems. It is the root cause of these forms of psychological violence that we must identify in order to help both the offenders, and the victims.

The model in this weeks readings presented by Fierie (1970/2000) applies to oppressors and oppressed. I think that these victims may then turn into attackers later on in life. The possibility of violence carrying through from cyber-world to the real-world, is a scary thought. These conflicts really need attention. NOW. Before they manifest into something even worse.

Looking into the future, I wonder what kind of cyber conflicts may occur, whether this trend will increase, the implications this will have on real life, and what can be done to prevent it?

The second news story that caught my eye was about Britney Spears and the Paparazzi. The story featured a photographer discussing the public’s obsession with celebrity, and the way interest in celebrity is replacing interest in world news.

I can’t help feel sorry for Britney Spears. In the spotlight since childhood, promoted as a 16 year old sex symbol, with “Christian morals” publicly declaring her virginity she was ‘saving for marriage’. Now look at her: a couple of husbands, a couple of kids, drug addiction and a mental breakdown or two. She seems to have completely lost her sense of identity.

In today’s class we looked at different forms of violence: psychological, physical and cultural.

It is my observation, gathered from gossip magazines and TV shows over the years, that Britney has suffered psychological violence, potentially coming from her mother; manifested into physical violence she brings onto herself. In applying Galtung’s dimensions of violence, I would say that this violence is not intentional. Yet it is violence all the same.

Is there also a cultural violence being faced in this situation? The paparazzi stripping away her every bit of self and privacy. Why? To fill the gossip magazines with pictures, in order to satisfy the mass culture celebrity addiction. Something seems wrong here…

The concept of celebrity currently embedded in popular culture, is one to ponder. Many people constantly compare themselves to false ideals set by the media’s presentation of these people. The frustration being unable to buy a house as magnificent as Tom Cruise, or being unable to have the skin of models on magazine covers… is this causing depression, dissatisfaction, insatiable materialism, anorexia etc? I can’t imagine living in a poor countries and catching a glimpse of a Hollywood movie, imagining that this is how everyone in the Western world lives.

Relative deprivation refers to resentment caused by situations where one’s “perception of discrepancy between their value expectations (goods and conditions of life believed to be entitled to) and their value capabilities (goods and conditions they think they are capable of getting).” (Gurr 1970). Does Hollywood fill us with dissatisfaction because we will have the luxuries we perceive others to be enjoying?

But fame and celebrity are not without their positive points. Fame is something many people aspire to, and I believe aspirations are important. Celebrities can do a lot of good too, Angelina Jolie’s humanitarian work for example.

I happen to LOVE movies, reading magazines, and the odd bit of Hollywood gossip. Is there any harm in that? I don’t think so – not if we need to keep things in perspective. Celebrities are only human, admiring and aspiring to them is ok… but treating them like gods, encouraging an obsessive paparazzi, and wishing ourselves to achieve a photoshopped ideal – is not healthy for anyone. At the end of the day we all breath the same air and will finish up in the same place: resting in peace.

Photo:

Whether you are in South America, India or Japan – if you are 6 foot with ridiculously blonde hair you’re sure to get the celebrity treatment. This shot was taken in Lima. No autographs please.

Welcome to Peace and Conflict Studies. First assignment: to write write five journal entries that reflected on the learning process throughout the first half of semester. Written on the first day back at university, after five years of working,  travel and a six months teaching myself everything I could at my Opas place, this is what I wrote:

3rd March 2008

Some quotes that stuck with me from today’s class:

“Peace is an active process”

“While hunger rules peace cannot prevail”

“The real weight of peace starts in everyone’s mind.”

In the PACS hallway a picture grabbed my attention: a dove in jail with a ball and chain, and blue sky shining through the window. Peace behind bars. What are the bars? Why has human civilisation led such a violent path? Why are we still living in conflict? What is standing in the way of peace? Who is standing in the way of peace?

Peace exists, it is alive, it is possible – why are humans preventing it? Man-made barriers hold back peace from prevailing. Man can free the dove. Peace is possible, and it’s up to us to identify the barriers, and develop ways to break them down.

Barash (1991) describes the scenario of lifeboat with sufficient resources for everyone. Squabbling breaks out among the occupants, and resources are thrown overboard, including the compass. Is that what we are doing to our planet? How can we prevent our boat from capsizing and losing our resources altogether?

Conflict occurs in many forms: within an individual, between individuals, within groups, between groups, within nations, and between nations. Each of these forms of conflict is inter-connected. Conflict between nations may be driven by a conflict within the individual, which may be driven by conflict with another person for example resentment towards an abusive father may influence a leader to respond aggressively towards another nation. Similarly conflict between individuals may be due to conflict between nations, for example argument over food due to hunger due to poverty caused by war.

What are the core motives of conflicts? Money? Power? Status? Fear? Desire for “happiness”?

Do we continue to live in conflict simply because we haven’t envisioned anything different? Have we just accepted that conflict is part of life?

…

On the bus home, a rather large man squeezed into the vacant seat beside me, and I started thinking about obesity. Is obesity a form of conflict?

Is there an ongoing battle inside this man’s head that says: “Shall I eat this donut, or an apple… eat the donut!!!” Or does this thought not even enter his mind. Does he eat out of depression, or maybe is it addiction? Depression and addictions must also be forms of personal conflicts.

Galtung (2006) says “Violence, insults to the basic needs of body, mind and spirit, is caused by unresolved conflict and polarization.” Obesity must involve some kind of conflict between the Mind and Body.

What does obesity reflect about the inequality in our world? There are so many people dying from lack of food, yet growing numbers are dying from excess of it. Can what was once a sign of wealth, now be considered a sign of lacking self-worth or self-control? If only we could share it around, maybe everyone could be a whole lot happier and healthier.

Is obesity a reflection of a structural violence in our own society?

Galtung (2006) discusses structural violence, saying it is typically built into the very structure of social and cultural institutions. He says that when people starve or go hungry, suffer from preventable diseases, or are denied a decent education, housing, opportunity to play, grow, work, raise a family, or express themselves freely – violence is occurring. I do think that obesity is a reflection of structural violence in the world.

Just look at the popularity of McDonalds and KFC – food soaked in fat and thick salt layered on top. To make things worse, due to the ‘low fat’ revolution, now even when think we are eating ‘healthy’, we are being tricked. Processed packages of preservatives labeled ‘low fat’. Diet coke – ‘cancer in a can’. Man-made chemicals that the body doesn’t know how to process. Should this food be legal? Is this a form of legal genocide? Does it remain legal only due to economic reasons? Greed. And due to the fact that death is drawn out over a number of years rather than immediate gun, trigger, death. Is there a lack of education – do people not know how to eat properly, following their parent’s habits who followed their parent’s habits, creating a line of obesity in their genes?

What are the consequences of obesity? Of course there are society pressures on the health system, which I suppose means higher taxes for everyone else. If obesity is a cause of unhappiness and a lack of satisfaction in people’s lives, could the flow-on affect go as far as influencing people’s daily choices that in turn impact on the world as a whole?

I know when I’m feeling down, or lacking energy, my passion for helping others and helping the environment fades away- not that I don’t care anymore, it just becomes second priority to thoughts about myself and my own unhappiness. Kind of like in Maslow’s needs hierarchy – I have to have my lower needs met – physical security & belonging needs met first, before I can think about higher needs like helping others.

Obesity is not only a barrier to positive peace like in these examples, but it’s not much good for negative peace either: will people care about preventing war, if they are in the middle of their own war, with themselves?

The percentage of obesity in Western society is growing rapidly, and as fast food makes its way into China and other developing countries, they face obesity problems too. Doesn’t this prove to the government that fast food is structural violence – slowly killing their population? Shouldn’t this be stopped?

What is going to happen in the future? Obesity causes low immune and many diseases, and ultimately shortens the life of the individual. Deutsh (2000) discusses Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ and Marx’s ‘directly antagonistic classes: bourgeoisie and proletariat.’ Could the future of humanity see a class split based on healthy vs. obese? Or will they find it difficult to reproduce, and in the end just die out and leave our society with healthier fit people left? Maybe I’m taking this train of thought a little too far …

Are there any solutions? Is an obese person, now faced with a large burden-of-a-body, do they just give up? It would seem quite an impossible task, to get healthy again. I wonder what it would take for them to get them on the right track. Still Rupenstein (2003) says that destructive conflict ‘which destroys or injures valued lives, psyches, institutions, and possessions’ is by no means inevitable. I do think there are solutions to every conflict, we just have to find them and implement them. It all starts with understanding the problem.

In conclusion for today’s thoughts, I consider the concept of conflict. Is conflict something we can not escape? Its existence throughout history does show conflict as a part of human evolution. Conflict is good – it is the conflict in my life that has led me to be who I am today.

Is peace realistic? Of course it is. Peace does not mean the end of conflict, but the end of all forms of violence.

In order for our Earth to have a future, we must make peace with our environment, with other nations, and we must come up with ways we can keep harmony and peace and allow everyone the opportunity to live this way. How? That’s what I’m in this course to discover!

Photo: Photo of the back of the KFC uniform in Bombay, India. I thought it strangely appropriate for this student of peace’s journal on obesity…