Positive and Negative Peace
What do we mean when we say we seek peace? Generally, two types of peace exist: negative and positive peace. The absence of war or conflict marks the negative peace. But, positive peace entails more than avoidance; positive peace emerges when proactive efforts to build an equitable, balanced, fair society succeed in harmonizing society with the elements that are normally in tension. The positive peace requires ecological balance, class equity, and fairness in all things. Lofty? Certainly.
Are either of the forms of peace achievable? Our methods for securing negative peace often involve modes that block substantive progress for positive peace. For example, the Cold War geopolitics codified the radical class structures of the world, and depended on a posture of force for peace. MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction ensured the negative nuclear peace between the Soviets and the Americans – but this form of deterrence involved two elements that severely traded off with efforts to build a positive peace. First, the politics of the world ran along the lines of force: power, structure, balance, and compromise were all measured in terms of force: who had the most of it, and who was most willing to use it. Second, the balancing of nuclear power entailed an acceptance of nuclear weapons, of overwhelmingly powerful standing armies, and of the massive spending necessary to secure such a balance. The military industrial complex accounts for a massive proportion of government spending in the world. Maybe such money could have been better spent building positive peace – and the problems associated with war and conflict would not have to be forced away – but would naturally subside. Many proponents of the military industry note that our largest advances in technology (health care, computer technology, clothing, you name it) have military roots. True – but that does not prove what kinds of advances would become of a world focused on improving the lives of everyone – rather than defending territory or destroying life for political gain.
So, some questions:
- Is ecological balance an issue related to peace? Is it necessary for a peaceful world? How about racial peace?
- Are capitalistic markets peace-building or peace-destroying?
- Is a negative peace sustainable? Is it sufficient? Is it desirable?
- Can we ever obtain positive peace? Do we want it?
- Is the redistribution of wealth a moral imperative? If so, how should it be accomplished?
posted by talk hard, be heard at 3:00 PM
1 Comments:
Why do so many religious people tithe, or, like the Muslim, feel their faith requires charity? It seems that redistribution has 3 sides: 1) what it does for yourself to realize that holding onto wealth is not good for your own soul 2) what it does for others in obvious need 3) what it does for all of us - the wealth gap is inevitably destabalizing, destroying community and undermining democracy. How can the people be sovreign if they can't read, don't have the basic means of survival. I guess this begs the question, does peace require democracy. I think it's a package: peace, democracy, a community of mutual respect and care. We get it all at once or we get none of it. So Joe, does LDS doctrine support this view? I believe the bible does, but I am an outsider to that tradition so I had best defer to others. From: Prof. Matsuda
Post a Comment
<< Home