Prescription for Anti- “world peace”: Is it the peace or a peace?

It was only until I started my voyage to peace studies when I stopped wishing for the “world peace.” It is not that I became more pessimistic about the world. Rather, I was stunned by the dynamic aspect of peace concept and felt the need to confront it in a more conscious, sincere manner.

There are actually “many peaces” in this world—however strange it may sound. When we pray for peace in this world, we need to doubt ourselves if we are really aware of what kind of peace there is in our mind. For whom is the peace for? Is it a peace for yourself? Is it a peace for your ethnic community? Or is it a peace for your country? Does the peace you are talking about really include everyone in this world? Or is your peace leaving somebody behind?

People create and believe in their own peace that is actually shaped by the society, reflecting its history, culture, religion,environment and social, economic and political conditions. While some religious fundamentalists live in moralist notion of peace, where the Creator God defines the absolute norm and moral of their society, in societies that are currently experiencing rapid economic growth, people may find peace in materialistic abundance and economic progress. At the same time, there are still many societies in which people find spiritual peace in Mother Nature. The borders among these different notions may be clear sometimes and may not sometimes.

“Peace” is indeed a strong notion-- probably it is a much more powerful concept than it is generally believed. Especially in the Moralist and Modernist view of peace, the absolute rightness is secured by the Creator God and by the Rationality; it does not allow any space for others to co-exist. That’s why such notion of peace creates tensions and violence at times when it is tied with the existing power: slavery, imperialism, holocaust, apartheid, and Rwandan genocide etc… countless tragedies in human history happened because it was legitimized in the society in order to liberate the others, who belong to the different world, and bring them to their own side of peace.

Let’s take the example of “War on Terrorism.” It is the word we used to hear and see everywhere after the 9.11. The dichotomy of “good” and “evil” became prevalent narrative mostly in the U.S. and its allied countries. The TV series “24” was a big hit even in Japan. However, before we get stuck in the small box, we need to take a deep breath and think: Where did the label that makes them “terrorists” come from? In fact, it is not so unusual at all that these “terrorists” are actually called “freedom fighters” back home.

While I do not believe in any forms of violence, we still need to be aware of the possibilities that those “terrorists” are living in their moralist world and they may be just simply pursuing their own “peace,” the preservation of which is threatened by us. Otherwise, we cannot escape from falling into this ironic dilemma that you, who sincerely wish for peace, become the oppressor of the others without knowing.

“Peace cannot be produced or imported---.” says Wolfgang.

When different peaces confront each other, in stead of imposing one’s own peace on the other, a new dimension of peace that would allow their co-existence should be seek and added to their existing notion; it will be achievable only through sincere dialogues among the parties that may involve lots of inner struggles and sympathy to the others. If there is such a thing as “universal peace” in this world at all, it may be only found within such dynamic processes.

“[Peace] must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each generation. For Peace is a process-a way of solving problems.”
J.F. Kennedy


References:
Dietrich, Wolfgang, Call For Many Peaces. (1997).
Dietrich, Wolfgang, Peaces: An Aestetic Concept, a Moral Need, or a Transrational Virtue? (2006).