MATURITY AND SENSIBILISATION AS PRESUPPOSITIONS FOR A PEACE CONCEPTION OF THE YOUTH

MATURITY AND SENSIBILISATION AS PRESUPPOSITIONS FOR A PEACE CONCEPTION OF THE YOUTH

A study on the degree of maturity of 15 years old students in the major Athens secondary Education by the means of a sensitivity experimental method. This process focused on the object of Social and Political Education ( the original Greek word for education being AGOGE or “ leading way” an antique ethically charged term ) is not supposed to be based on the memorisation of key issues but rather on the critical way of opinion development . The central motto that could lead Youth to the conception of Peace as a Universal issue is the understanding of the World inequalities , social change, social stratification, multi-various cultural values, violations of freedom and Human Rights but mostly the necessity of respect to the Difference (and the Otherness) among various races , social classes and gender, surpassing xenophobia trends , racism and sexism . This heterogeneous World in which Youth are asked to live is their only Reality in spite of the pseudo equalising homogeneity proposed and advertised by the mass mediated Globalisation. . This reality has multiple causes and Youth have to conceive that nothing is granted anymore on this planet. if they expect to develop a generalised vision of Peace and Humanism especially in troubled regions such as Balkans. Peace as a much more than a fashionable social term is a total “ fait social ” and cannot subsist the fragmentation ( and the consequent extermination ) of its fundamental meaning.


KEYWORDS

Peace, Globalization, Youth, Meaningful Stochastic Knowledge, Socialization, Sensibilisation, Difference, Otherness, Agoge, Cosmopolitanism, Maturity, Verstehen.

THE PROBLEM IS TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF CULTURE IS SO FREE IN ITSELF THAT IT CONCEIVES AND BEGETS POLITICAL FREEDOM AS ITS ACCOMPANIMENT AND CONSEQUENCE

John Dewy: Freedom and Culture


PREFACE

Peace when it happens, happens because in spite of their violent drives , humans tend to develop and manifest in their social encounters positive practices such as love, sympathy , hope and trust. The failure of these positive values set in action, creates competition, conflict and finally war. Auto-destruction pulses of the human animal have been proposed by psychologists and psychoanalysts such as Freud to interpret the creation of wars. An idea of a Global Peace echoes in our ears as an utopic or a cynic idea. However, the very idea of Peace , being an ethical subject in itself and not a simple political or mass mediated slogan propagated under advertisement form, can be taught and analyzed in classrooms from the very early pupils age. If violence is a tension of human race in sui generis after multiple observations of the human behavior specialists , then also Peace could be conceived as an eternal idea produced by the human mind through the ages.

Our initial idea has been to prove that once this theoretical conception has been transmitted to pupils by experimental ways , it can create its own “ mental and moral tradition” once that pupils discover and LIVE the very nature of notions such as stereotypes, fanaticism, racism, exercise of power. The final results of this mental and moral process will accompany the growing youth till their old age proving their degree of maturation at whole. Also, that this achievement cannot be attained by pure mental ways, but by the emotional way of empathic sensitivity.

After Aristotle’s classification, ethical values such as bravery, justice and sophrosyne ( prudence, wisdom) are related to the notion of habitude ( ethos) not only etymologically but substantially. All these ethical values are not innate as the physical senses might be, but acquired The innate qualities are potentially inscribed in the human genes seeking chances for automatic activation, but the acquired qualities can be manifested and function only by their activation (energeia = energically). Here, the role of the spiritual teacher-leader or mentor, is crucial. The only way to transmit this ethical knowledge to the students in practical terms is to enable them to learn by acting poiountes manthanein= learning by acting or poiein).The meaning of various political institutions in the ancient Polis is to enable the citizens to LIVE by the daily repetition this reality by obeying the laws established by the legislators and by communicating freely in the Commons. If the laws are false as products of an ambitious leader or authoritative tyrant citizens will learn badly their role and Democracy will malfunction.

Following the fundamental points of Aristotle’s political thoughts concerning the development of ethical capacities of citizens in the ancient City , we proposed an experimental model of qualitative teaching for the lesson of Social and Political Education for pupils of the third grade (14-15 years olds). This model consists into the selective teaching of special issues in the formal textbook and to the “measurement” of results in the everyday behavior of young pupils especially aiming to their mental conception of the idea of Peace. Of course this conception is scheduled to be approached indirectly by many relative means such as approach to the notions of social change, human difference through various cultures, tradition/modernity, stereotypes study and finally study of basic political issues. In none of these approaches a direct discourse or panegyric praise of Peace is programmed to be pronounced under the thought that the conception of Peace must not be the outcome of one more theoretical slogan propagated as the ideal one , but rather a lived everyday practical experience.

WHAT THE MEANING OF AGOGE MIGHT BE IN THE POST -MODERN SCHOOL

Learning by acting means to be hopeful that one’s acts will enable him to be better than through previous acts before learning.. In various sectors of education , applied knowledge on everyday social life is the best aim. This sort of knowledge called Social Knowledge needs a rational and ethical background and can be a satisfactory outcome of what the ancient term of Agoge ( note 3) might mean. The mentor and propagator of such a knowledge in the classroom, have to develop pupils emotional potentialities in order to support their rational choices enabling them to approach the synthetic social issues of knowledge. Only by these means , such a knowledge can be useful for the formation of an analogous ideology and for the expression of a free opinion. Pedagogy ( literally paides-agoge )is not only the “art of teaching” to the “ paides” = children, but also the satisfaction of specific aims such as the long-term development of the child’s mind by guiding this development and conceiving the formal curricula as simply tailored to suit pupils’ own expressed interests.

However, in the era of mass mediated everyday life, while the family social encounters are not ideal and the everyday life experiences are not the best for Youth, a guidance of interests in a liberal and open teaching system is necessary. After centuries of conservative pedagogical means conceiving learning as the desired absorption of specific bodies of non applied knowledge and focusing on the authority of the teacher-leader not promoting the dialogue with pupils, the time for a new system of “ sensitivization” of Youth in the classroom during the learning process seems to be a Demand of first priority. Critics related to such an educational model have been developed during the last 30 years from various points. Freire (1972) argues that this model of teaching-learning has radical political implications adding much to the students’ sentimental and rational maturity because it emphasizes personal autonomy rather than social control, others claim that fully developed “ progressive” methods can rarely be found beyond the early years of primary school and are unlikely to have any lasting influences on attitudes , or even that open pedagogy reflects the middle-class value system and is therefore unlikely to have radical implications beyond the school.. Marxist critics ( Bernstein 1977) suggest that the move towards integrated studies as a physical result of this pedagogy, may alter the power structure within the teaching stuff and disturb for good traditional authority relations between teachers and students through in practice teachers resist change. Also his inventive term of “ hidden curriculum” wants to underline that in practical terms the school systems knows how to modify progressive and innovative ideals as a highly conservative system of reproduction of established values.

Today, in the beginning of a new Millenium and with crucial changes in the organization of post modern urban life, with the retreat of the role exercised by basic social institutions such as family and religion, the need for the development of new educational and pedagogical techniques and methods is more important than ever. In the era of massification of all qualities, educational system has undergone also an “ inflation” and reminds one more consumption good that can be bought and consumed. Students themselves are deeply convinced through their family background that Education is the only means for their social upwards mobility even if it is not “ a matter of pleasure” and that they have to sacrifice their own various personal interests ( arts, hobbies, athletic activities, social life, subculture habits ) in the altar of educational attainment in order to profit from its fruits ( possible diplomas) and gain in intellectual prestige while continuing their further studies in the tertiary sector of Universities in the seek of appropriate professions of high social status and possibly high income. Tests of preliminary acquaintance in the fist day of schools opening in September, show that students tend to focus their preferences concerning their future profession rather on the conquest of high prestige and money than on their own personal pleasure.

Thus, the role of a mentor or promoter of students interests in the post-modern school accepting a liberal open teaching method, is more complex than even before, since the classical value of acquired intelligence as a result of segregated knowledge is no more accepted and the evaluation of the classroom knowledge has changed for good by the teachers themselves. That meaning that intelligence acquired and developed in school has much more parameters than believed in the past years, there are also other important and valuable factors responsible for the students overall maturation and progress, such as sentimental self esteem, ethical satisfaction, non competitive collectivity and last but not least an optimist life-view that can arm Youth to resist possible failures. The sentiment of self-efficacy usually neglected in the past years is proved to be of crucial importance when one is put to face various challenges as they come up. An open teaching system focusing mainly on the development of ethical values and pointing to the building of a critical belief on one’s self abilities, can supply a young student better to understand in non abstract ways the surrounding World as a challenging extension of his/her classroom micro-world. The relevant knowledge to this aim, called Social Knowledge must be the main goal of an educational object such as Social and Political “Agoge” .If Peace is conceived by educators as an universal trans-cultural value, then this value CAN BE TRANSMITTED creating and due to an acquired optimism for the future of this perplexed Globe.

SIX SUBJECTS SELECTED FOR LEARNING AND THE QUEST FOR ORIGINAL KNOWLEDGE

In the era of the triumph of information due to the technological expansion, the quest for the original and pure knowledge seems to be abstract. However, in social terms, any quest for the origins of a given knowledge is necessary or in other words nothing can be conceived as granted in the social World. The lesson of Mannheim as father of the Sociology of Knowledge can be described as the association between various forms of knowledge and social structure or social origins of their supporters. In other terms, the point is that membership of particular social groups can condition beliefs. The consequence of this acceptance is that if all beliefs are socially located , then there is no place for TRUE BELIEFS and no socially independent criteria of truth. Diachronic or Universal truths and values are difficult to be found in a socially relevant World. If Sociology can recognize and interpret the meanings that people give to their actions, then the Weberian term of understanding ( Verstehen) is the only gnostic procedure by which sociologists can ( and must) have access to these meanings.

Thus, the selection of three gnostic items for the guidance of young students towards the direction of meaningful discoveries applied in the practical life, is a task of the teacher-leader. The further development of relevant learning interests is the expected aim.. If the above mentioned guidance scopes to the understanding of MEANINGS AS CAUSES, then the task of the teacher is to clarify the inner interconnection between the manifestations and the causes of the social phenomena studied in the class with the help of multiple examples.

These six subjects on which the main effort was concentrated were :

1/ The issue of binary terms of Stability/Instability ( structure of social institutions as opposing to atomic freedom, social conflicts and social chaos). The issue of socialization and social control can be analyzed here too.

2/ The issue of Social and Cultural Variability ( with its direct and indirect consequences of Social and Cultural Change ,social inequalities and resulting social stratification , Otherness and Difference )

3/ The Political issue of the meaning of Power and the related Governance problems ( forms of Government , forms of Leadership, uses and abuses of Democracy). Also the notion of Pressing Groups and Social Movements.

4/ The issue of Modernization not as an opposing term to Tradition but rather as a unavoidable historical process. The issue of Globalization is discussed here.

5/ The negative issue of stereotypes and prejudices in our actual life
as causes of Racism.

6/ Further social problems such as Poverty, Ecological Dangers and Racism, social addictions, Delinquency and Criminality.

All these six subjects have been fully described , analyzed and discussed with the help of various examples from the current actuality. However, the effort could easily lead a simple memorization of the proposed knowledge if students would fail to discover their proper truths among them and have taken this knowledge as granted because proposed by the authority of an ex cathedra teaching. Thus, the most appropriate method to help students to form their own conception on these new items, was the free offering of related subjects for composition of written studies by the students. These four items of studies were :

A/ Racism as a modern phenomenon
B/ Poverty in underdeveloped and developed World
C/ The extension of the ecological problems in our days
D/ The historical and actual cultural role of the Silkroad.

These items given to students in the beginning of the school year, permitted them to develop collective interests and collaborative disposition , rare or non ever manifested before in their school careers. The elaboration of these collective studies parallel to the teaching , enabled gradually students to discover interests similar to those in the classroom before presenting the outcomes of their efforts there. The participation of young students in the forming of studying groups was above any expectation (80% or 83 out of 104 students of 4 classes of 26 students each ) and 25 study groups varying from 2 to 6 students have been formed. The most popular subjects seemed to be Racism (7 groups of 28 students ) and Ecology (9 groups of 27 students) followed by Poverty ( 7 groups of 24 students). The fourth subject estimated as of a rather limited historical signification was selected only by 2 groups of 4 students.


WHAT WAS THE SOCIO-CULTURAL BACKGROUND OF PUPILS IN THE BEGINNING OF THE EXPERIMENTAL TEACHING

Socialization of Youth has been the object of many theories and didactic aspirations of educators. The everyday praxis however shows that most of these theories express but the need of adults to construct a formal and normative model of behavior or rather of attitudes of Youth well “ adapted “ to the current socio-cultural system of a given society. If we suppose that the interest oriented personality of a young person has been neglected so far in the classroom communication, the findings of a common school class as related to the students personal and social feelings, seems to be analogous. Competitive ambitions development, gives ambitious interests ( profit ) oriented personalities instead of altruist collaborative optimist young people. The needs of modern society overcharged with technology and information related to it, neglects the overall humanist education as a failed system of inutile theories. This mentality so common in the social success oriented parents , results to an analogous mentality of their children. The emotional outcome of such a life-attitude is an eternal anxiousness and a doubt of the final outcome since the constant dependence of the self to the anonymous others cannot guarantee the final achievement of aims. This model of western type socialization of Youth , gives small room to the development of personal and collective creativity and the most often neglects the quest for the personal talents of the young person in the speed of discovery of the “utile solution” .

General theories of socialization insist that this process is life-long. However, few insist on the importance of education after the “ stormy years “ of youth. It has been proved that many items related to Social Philosophy , World non ethnocentric History, Psychology, Cultural and Social Anthropology and non dogmatic Religion, presupposes a former maturation of conscience connected with the discovery of real interests. But at the crucial age of maturation, life is running in a too busy rhythm to catch combine the real needs and interests of the person. One is usually very intensely preoccupied by his/her personal socio-economic success and neglects the real personal meaningful interests. The sentiment , so often present in the middle aged specialized intellectual professionals, is that ways of work are meaningless and even useless for the most part of real social needs.
The very fact that most of these “ specialities “ have been selected during the immature stage of the person’s life or under the pressure of others for the fulfillment of absurd values, does not preoccupies theorists of socialization as the most probable cause of future difficulties. And yet this immature selectivity is the most urgent to be cured than the eternal catalogues of rules taught leading to the desired conformity of the young individual to a society existing before his/her birth. Socialization must be much more than meaningless adaptation to the norms and values of elders , scheduled and developed for different aims. The constant indisputable phenomenon of social change should have inspired generations of educators to change their views , but the traditional human need of conformity and respect to the accepted social values can stand as the most satisfactory explanation of this missing chance.

However, what was successful during centuries of traditional adaptation, has been altered in the recent era of accelerated technological innovations and their impact in everyday social life.
In other words the galloping rhythms of social change created a new mentality of the so called post-modernity tightly related with the common acceptance that traditional values are not enough to lead us in a shifting World of multi cultural interrelations , explosion of information in every field and new possibilities of human communication impossible to imagine in the past few decades . And yet, the collective reaction of various human societies thrown in the realm of non demanded post-modernity has been the same …traditional if interpreted correctly. The new trend is to be …” a la mode “ or “in” the social and technological innovations to have a high social profile as a person belonging to the new norms , to be secured as someone who belongs to the establishment, to decrease one’s personal ideals and critical views, to appear as somebody equal and NOT DIFFERENT from the average other.

The most common observation when arriving in a new class is that young pupils if not too much already convinced for the values of being successful in the school regulations and learning demands, are simply indifferent. But both categories have something in common : They tend to be non different of the socio-cultural models transmitted by the mass-media in a everyday basis and accepted as new lifestyles by their social environment , tolerated even by tutors and elderly members of their families ( grand parents). There is not a possibility of school authorities to bridge the gap between the already compromised young pupils and the indifferent or non disciplined almost violent ones who express their everyday anxious feelings of insecurity, fear and anger by aggression resulting usually to so called “ school failure”. The easiest solution of course is to classify these two opposing categories by terms such as good and bad pupils before consulting desperate parents to lead their naughty offspring to the technical education , giving them more chances to express their violent trends in the exercise of manual instead of intellectual occupations. The very important fact that both categories have the same common root of insecurity in this impersonal society of artificial consumer values, is absolutely neglected.

Humanist education of self discovery of personal talents and their application to collaborative tasks, is the stochastic measure that could prevent all the above negative phenomena. By cultivating rationalist trends to immature pupils ( accelerate mathematics from the very young age) with no connection to their personality development and real needs, results to a cultivated egotism and moral laxity. Pupils loose their healthy sentimentality under conditions of socially glorified ( but non demanded) typical rationalism and their essential needs of human and spiritual communication are repressed. Aesthetization of life as an expression of post-modern commercial consumerism, pretends to be the most essential social value promising personal security and the sentiment that one is “normal” because choosing what is already chosen by invisible others, one is similar to these famous and yet unknown others. If school taught mathematics could pass to their young audience their qualitative message, this vulgar aesthetisation could never be successful. Unfortunately , not any psycho-pedagogical guide of mathematics and related topics ( physics, chemistry and biology) underlines the importance of these topics role in our everyday quality of life. Under a more adequate observation , most of these aesthetic objects surrounding us are ersatz ( as the opposite of originals) and evaluated in stylistic terms , pure garbage or using an older term from German, just kitsch.

Summarising, post modern socialization tends to develop a conformity of Youth to the established power system under the liberal-democratic pretext of equality and freedom aiming mainly to the homogenization of all differences. The state is presented as the omni-potent big brother that oppresses nobody to enter in the closed house of its surveillance and yet EVERYBODY IS PREDESTINED TO ENTER THERE TO FEEL THE ABSOLUTE SECURITY OF BELONGING TO THE SOCIETY. The result is the increase of insecurity and anxiousness since all of these aims focusing on the adoration of the objects and the fetichization of the commercial goods, have nothing to do with the theoretically taught general ethical values mostly as examples from a glorious historical and traditional past ( rather as an easy alibi ). The major antinomy of teaching absurd moral values as forms of past social lives and in the same time tolerating absolute immoral ( and amoral too) aspects of attitudes can easy be felt by the healthy sentiments of young individuals playing the social role of pupils, but of course cannot be rationally explained and understood since the rational way of thinking taught in the techno-mathematical lessons is not scheduled by any means to help them to develop the healthy rational mind capable to resolve similar antinomies and problems. The old dream of Plato scripted over the entrance of his Academy ( nobody non-geometrically thinking will be accepted here) seems as a poor historical anecdote since we still seem impotent to seize its original and essential meaning. Stochastic Agoge of his time was oriented to important and concrete goals ( stochastic from Greek stochos=target) aiming to the perfection of future and present citizens. Mathematics under this sense is to understand the depth of a real problem and to propose rational solutions proving truths that could be applied to other similar problems. This model and lesson of Democracy seems to be afar from our postmodern aspirations where the volumes of solutions of mathematical problems are distributed to the students the same day of the distribution of books of mathematical texts.


THE SIX AXES

1/ The study of social Institutions aims to the demonstration of how these social discoveries are needed for social stability and order. The ordinary school textbook describes as a list the main social institutions such as family, education, religion and political and economic institutions too. What it fails to describe and explain is their role towards the direction of overall social organization and also their evolution from archaic and traditional rituals that were first used in primitive small societies of the oral tradition. The student who perceives the passage from primitive social organization to more sophisticated ones, can take conscience of the necessity of the family or educational institution of our days as compared with their initial ritualized analogues. Here, the example of the dowry institution and its evolution is very useful. First, it was a mirror of financial needs of small communities, then it became unnecessary since the recent change of socio-financial conditions ( women’s labor).

Laws are the physical evolution of typical Institutions the same as the latter have been the evolution of non typical institutions and local rituals. Laws need an organized system of political governance to function and they are created by having full power legislators.

Students have the tendency to seize and perceive better sophisticated issues as above if these issues are related to their personal needs and lifestyles. The example of socialization of Youth and the necessity of social control is adequate in this point to illustrate the above institutions and their social role. Socialization of young members for their gradual integration in a given society is something concerning everyone and the study of the importance of social roles and posts is a prelude. Furthermore , the agents of socialization such as family, education, army, Church etc are not different from the social institutions themselves , so their correlation opens new horizons of understanding

However, this Stability as promised by well structured frames such as social Institutions can be easily destroyed by human tendency for atomic freedom , autonomy and selfishness. Students have to realize here the tribute that future citizens have to pay in order to avoid sterile competitions , conflicts, social wars, disorder, anarchy and chaos. The analogies with their school-class discipline and the necessity of school rules to keep the order are more than evident. This is a good introduction to remember for the following topic of Political Governance and the abuse of Democracy called Ochlocracy.
( mobocracy).

2/ Students have to learn after the Stability/ Instability lesson that variability is the Law of Nature and human societies too. Cultural variability as a reflection of natural variability is a given reality and whoever denies this indisputable fact must be a rather narrow minded sauvinist. The right to the Difference and the Otherness brings us to the respect of this cultural Difference and social Otherness. This will help the surpassing of the birth and evolution of all related stereotypes usually cultivated in family or socially about the unknown Others as the only source of evil and scapegoats

However, a methodological problem arising in this stage is the
Equality/Inequality one. Students usually need to know how and why social inequalities ( mainly financial) have been born and reproduced. . The study of stratification systems often analytical in the school texts ( varying from Hindu castes to our social classes systems ) are not successful unless if it enables students to understand that some human interests and consequent systems encourage inequality and even human exploitation starting from old times human slavery and ending in our days unequal development through neo colonialism and globalization. One has to take conscience that to be different does not necessarily means to be unequal but that in the contrary possible homogenization of differences cannot exclude inequalities. A society of homogenized citizens is not by supposition a society of equality and justice so, man has not to create non natural artifacts and societies of human copies. In our multicultural reality of recent years when and where human travels and emigrations are so intense, one has to learn how to live in the same social environment with representatives of different cultures and this multicultural neighborhood is nothing but the natural analogue of the Variability. In the contrary if one adopts the globalization model of homogenization of every difference ( mutants and cloning) the consequence will be greater than ever inequality mainly in financial resources as the globalization trend is proving to be. Also, traditional ethnocentrisms still noticed in actual textbooks of History leading to possible nationalist ideologies cannot be excluded if one adopts from the early schooldays the stereotype that WHOEVER IS SIMILAR CULTURALLY TO ME IS POSITIVE AND POSSIBLY EQUAL. Students can surpass this trap only if they understand how erroneous this correlation ( but not Cause) might be. Also they need to get conscience of the shadow interests hidden under the surface that are nourished by such ideologies.

Last but not least, students can learn in this stage that stratification criteria that dominated this type of human classification for centuries are some more than the most obvious financial one. Surpassing the initial marxist acceptance, a short mention of the two more Weberian criteria of Status ( social prestige) and Political Power are very useful to interpret the various ways that humans invented to discriminate each other. The extremely complicated topic of social change is not a deterministic acceptance that could evoke fatalist feelings, but in the contrary, it’s the natural outcome of human adaptation on this eternal Variability. Diffusion of social change is not uniform and this is a possible source of competitions and conflicts. These conflicts will be fully discussed and interpreted in the next axe.

3/ Studying the function of social roles in the first lesson in parallel with the study of institutions, a careful pupil must have noticed already that conflicts can arise in the very atomic level as resulting from the opposing needs and aims. Having also perceived and fully understood the reasons of social inequality in both traditional and modern societies, one has a full profile of the multiple causes of human conflicts. If all Humanity can accept the idea of being different as a natural variability of EXISTING , the same Humanity can very rarely accept the idea of Equality or in other words the idea of HAVING EQUAL AMOUNTS OF PRECIOUS OBJECTS. Since Humanity is proceeding by accepting this stereotyped view all politics are a variation of the war game. If equilibrium in the Nature is a byproduct of bio-diversity, this lesson could be applied in human societies’ analogue. In this stage of discussion, the introduction of the idea of the need that humans express for governance and leadership is the most adequate.

Forms of governance ( politeuma in Greek) is closely related etymologically from the root polis=city from where Aristotle created first the term POLITIKA ( politics + policy)for his famous book. That was the first to be written on this crucial topic. Young pupils can conceive that the need to be governed is related to the institutions or social rules of an organized society such as the ancient City. If Youth need to be socialized, only firm social institutions can guarantee this socialization required for the public interest. Thus, the study of forms of governance must be started after the study of various forms of human groups and their role on human communication. Leadership can be approached under this schema and the complicated notions of Power and Hierarchy can be mentioned in this stage of analysis. Examples from Antiquity are the most adequate since Ancient Greeks have been for centuries well known for their sensibility about politics with their orators and the invention of the famous “ free citizen “ with his free expression of opinion in the public tribune ( agora). Historical examples also can be combined with pupils everyday experiences in school and school class councils where representatives are elected by them to handle various practical problems they face in their collective school life.

To study the various forms of governance that were produced historically, one has again to return to Aristotle’s classification of Monarchy, Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Tyranny, Democracy, underlying their benefits and disadvantages one by one. Under the general motto of Citizenship as a Principle of judging and being judged in the same time, as expressed by Aristotle , pupils can be helped to distinguish the positive and negative aspects of Democracy as the proposed best of all the types of governance mentioned above. History proves that after periods of democratic governance, dictators and mobs inverted the stability and these abductions of Power or chaotic situations are the natural consequences of the excess of freedom furnished by Democracy. So, one can learn that even positive issues such as liberty must be furnished for public needs with measure otherwise a tyrant can seize the Power for their interest and lust for Glory ignoring the true social needs and neglecting all previous democratic institutions , eliminating even human rights and freedoms or continuing conflicts can create social instability , devaluation of the institutions power and social chaos.

To give a short idea of connection of all the previous topics with actuality, a connection can be demonstrated among them and the roles exercised by modern mass media in the propagation of news and political announcements. Also the often non typical role of pressing groups ( social movements, activists , citizens’ committees) are important to be analyzed in order to help pupils to create an idea of the various ways that the so called Public Opinion( if any) can be formed Multiple examples from the current actuality can be given in the class off the record, enabling students to feel that the previous knowledge is not a sterile and purely encyclopedic one but rather vivid and dynamic aiming to their placement in the real social life. If one has absorbed his personal role in a small group, one can also seize the importance of these small groups for the governance in a more flexible system of Democracy applied in our post-modern needs.

4/ Modernization may mean different things at a time depending from the point of view of the observer. Cultural modernization for example could mean secularization but this has been not proven. Theorists such as Luckmann argued since 1967 that modern individualism and autonomous self-expression that leads to social mobility can be combined with a type of hidden religion with elements of sacredness and transcendence even in urban life style. Also, cultural modernization might produce adherence to nationalist ideologies by the sense that some powerful social groups with traditional ideology are active into preserving and expanding their cultural heritage under the fear not to lose their national identity. Thus, two opponent mentalities , traditionalism as a cause and modernization as a result may coexist in the same social group. This proves the ambiguous sense of this term that has been often vulgarized and pronounced by politicians during their promising electoral campaigns. In the very political arena , modernization means the development of key institutions such as political parties , parliaments , franchise and secret ballots which are usually supposed to support participatory decision–making. In economy, modernization means increasing of professional specialization for an optimist division of labor, improved technologies, marketing and management techniques and growth of commercial facilities ( free transports, liberal trade and limitation of the state taxes). In social terms , modernization of a given society might mean the limitation of illiterate people, rationalization as a mentality against old traditionalist views and of course urbanization as a modern life-style as opposing to the out of fashion old traditionalist village life-style.

Youth tend to be in the fashion , to follow the mode and to define themselves as extremely modern by the fear that if not following the last words of the mode, they will be characterized as not successful and poor in mind. But , young people neglect that this desire to belong to a granted world of values decided by unknown commercial interests of the unknown others, risk to create homogenous and isomorphic societies of human replicas where originality is not needed and copies are the law. As a consequence , original needs and values are eclipsed
and the only needs respected and values desired are the pseudo ones as created by these unknown big ( br)others. Since new things are usually the most unknown ones , it’s evident their easy adoption to create trends of imitation for masses of population and benefits for their constructors. Traditional values can be also exploited by experts who have commercial interests as it happens usually in the tourism. But the difference is that these goods are destined to the strangers who lack knowledge of the language and culture of a visited country , so they can easily buy gadgets of popular arts imitations and original popular music copies. One can easily distinguish the originality of a traditional object or value supposed that he knows elementary the culture that created them. This is not the case with the new objects of modernity that have the quality of the unknown and thus is interpreted the fascination they exercise on the average citizen and to the Youth.

There is also another trend of modernization based on the simulation of forms and the fragmentation of meanings. It is the long term learning that one needs to belong to a Super Power alliance by the means of consuming all this Power’s cultural products even if not understanding it’s language. This can be easily achieved by the psychological process of imitation or mimesis. Now, if another country is enemy by definition to this Super Power’s lifestyle , this country must be punished by any means and the adherents of the Super Power must have the same feelings with no doubt for the rightness of the Cause. Eternal values such as War and Peace are schematically described by the Super Power’s interests and all followers must agree. Globalization is the most recent example of such a “need for modernization mentality”.

By these means , humans tend to be easily uniform and similar while originality is a non desired issue. The lesson that Youth has to learn and realize under multiple practical everyday examples is that the quest of originality excludes all easy adopts of “ new things” under the pretext
of being modern or “ synchrone “( in parallel time). Originality means creation of new things, mentalities and values by the researching subject and not the easy adopt of innovations as produced and propagated by invisible others. Erroneous examples from the mass media area can easily demonstrate to the Youth what really modernization can result. The supreme psychological human need for securing cannot be served by the untried adoption of every possible innovation presented as such. Finally, the need for a secure world Peace cannot be guaranteed by the easy choice of “ belonging to the Powerful of this World” Here, the lesson is that the most powerful a state or a private company is , the most financial interests that need to exploit the masses are hidden behind. The most severe critique of the ambiguous sense of modernity is that this invention that presupposes one to be ahead of time is not a universal cultural value and is based on development of the most powerful and rich against the poor and impotent states not leading necessarily to an equal distribution of goods and social benefits. In the contrary the more often it increases dependency of the poor to the rich. This uneven process can be demonstrated as the best illustration of an ethnocentric model of socio-cultural exploitation and dominance with high financial interests hidden in the shadow. Modernization of lifestyle must be proved that is not the ONLY WAY TO HAPPINESS as it is usually advertised but also the cause of many depressions, conflicts, useless competitions and even the so called “ civilization illnesses”.It must be proved that this system’s deficiency opens space to many other alternatives. Pupils must conceive that small is also beautiful even if it’s cost is much lower than the big. Qualities of life can replace quantities of dry interests.

5/ The study of prejudices and stereotypes , present some difficulties if not related to concrete paradigms from everyday life , underlying their connection with erroneous conceptions of the role of the others, in a dominating social group. It is important to argue about these notions just after learning about social groups and leadership. Historically, social stereotypes have been created as collective defensive mechanisms of xenophobia against the new and unknown modes of expression , a process often encouraged by leaders. Under this scope, stereotypes and prejudices can be interpreted as forms of passive traditionality that hunt us even in our modern life. The importance of this lesson is to track how young pupils accept the breaking down of such non tried or proved myths by the aid of their logic and by the condemn of their consequences in the social life. The latter approach is of a pure ethical type, but it must come after the former, or in other words the rational interpretation of the stereotypes shadow effects have to demonstrate clearly their negative overall results. If students accept the universal ethical values of Justice and Equality, the treacherous role of prejudices and stereotypes easy generalizations can be appreciated as a weakness of the major groups to accept the existence of minorities the same as violence manifested under various types is also an expression of weakness instead of power. By recognizing this fundamental principle as the source of future sufferings, students can structure a new base of confronting this category of problems.

The final benefit of this discussion is that prejudiced and stereotyped views and opinions are the outcome of rational misunderstandings and are qualities of non liberated collectivities and persons fearing for their future in irrational style. Various applications of stereotyped negative thoughts can be demonstrated by characteristic examples in the school class as derived from everyday actuality ( misleading advertisements in the media, unproved opinions in public debates etc). The lesson to remember is that the more a society tend to believe untried opinion makers’ choices , the more stereotyped will be in the confronting of various new types of social life as created in our multicultured World.

Another important lesson with interesting practical applications on the students’ learning methods is that untried knowledge as derived from arbitrary opinions is a pseudo-achievement with negative results. To believe and imitate slogans is not the best method of scientific approach on social topics. Real social knowledge must have elements of the Platonic Episteme or the overall supervision a sort of the Renaissance Panopticon so easily forgotten by the vulgarized mass mediated discourse. The expression of free opinion must be based on a solid and original knowledge otherwise it risks to be arbitrary in its easy generalizations.


THE PROBLEMATICS OF THE SOCIAL PROBLEMS APPROACH


Social problems consist the last chapter of the first part of the school text- book just before entering in the second part of political issues. However, from the five problematic topics examined in the last edition, only two “survived” in the present edition from which only one , the problem of Poverty is important , the other being an infantile approach to the traffic dangers by the boy-scouts’ style of “ learn to avoid possible risks”. The other three topics of major social importance have been mysteriously eliminated. These were, the problem of drug addiction as well as alcohol and tobacco, the ecological problem and the Racism problem. The reasons of this elimination are various, standing from the non proved fear that simple mention of the narcotics name could urge pupils to taste the “ forbidden fruit” and going to the idea that the rest of the problems are well analyzed in other lessons such as Biology or Literature. By these means , students are limited by the curriculum itself to approach 4 important problems not only encyclopaedically but in order to correlate common causes based on previous acquired social knowledge. This was the main reason of offering of related topics for collective students works. These topics were exactly the missing ecological and racism topics alongside with the poverty problem. The reason of this priority was the interference of ecological and racist parameters on various social topics analyzed through the six axes mentioned above.

The methodological problematics raised here is how to demonstrate to the students the risks of adoption of a monolithic technological approach when concerned with social problems. This one-way method that creates a series of new problems while promising to resolve the already existing must be compared with the humanist approach that accepts to sacrifice short-term interests of eternal innovations and modernization in order to preserve human values and respect for the Different unknown Other who might concern us more than believed.

One more important social problem never mentioned even in the first edition was that of criminality as a consequence of juvenile delinquency. This taboo-like problem was analyzed mainly focusing on the importance of social stigmatization of early juvenile deviate actions. That young transgressors commiting violent acts must be treated by more flexible laws and correcting systems is an indisputable truth. However, all the importance of this lesson is to discover the very reasons of such antisocial acts that could be low standard of education, poverty, racial discrimination , social racism and even drug and alcohol addiction. Pupils who have understood the reasons of previous problems can easily appreciate the depth of this meta-problem often confronted by repressive mechanisms of the society as eternal source of trouble. Especially the comprehension of the role of stereotypes , help pupils to demystify these criminal acts not by the means of emotional identification with the young actors and sympathy, but by the elucidated examination of their motivation.


The same method of approach is the most useful for the examination of the Poverty problem on which certain students had been already sensitibilized by their own collective works. One is not poor because poor in mind or because he chose it by no working and staying in a leisure stage but because society does not offer equal chances for his development. This problem that can be expanded in a macro social level with entire nations starving in the Third World, is coming to coincide with the basic problematics of the ecological problem that tends to turn the whole Humanity poorer in the long term by the extermination of natural resources. Of course, some profit in the short term but the point is that the health of an entire planet is put in danger and local problems are not more the case as before since after the Cernobil era, local problems tend to become global. The lesson given in both poverty and ecological problematics is that this sort of problems concern not only the “ specialists” but all active and conscious citizens and young individuals all-over the World. What today seems remote and stranger, tomorrow may come closer and touch our security and lifestyle at whole. Pupils conceive that one cannot be safe anymore in his small corner under the misleading messages of the media or even the promises of the new technological inventions, but that one has to fight for the right to preserve the long-term global security against various short-term shadow financial interests. Not a technology as sophisticated as it might be can save Humanity from crisis or catastrophe if human agents have not a humanist approach to this sort of worldwide problems. As a student noticed when asked to examine possible reasons of human poverty, technology is not the panacea resolving all problems but in the contrary it can CREATE NEW PROBLEMS such as neo-poverty to social classes that tend to acquire all its latest promising gadgets, borrowing money from the banks to this aim under the eternal slogan of being in fashion, creating thus multiple useless pseudo-needs that never existed a generation ago and increasing their unhappiness in the realm of impressions produced by a competitive society.

Concluding, just as Poverty is not a problem of the “uncivilized others” but it knocks the door of prosperous countries too, all in the same, ecological , racism , chemical addiction and criminality problems have a global dimension and concern the average citizen more even than professional politicians and administrators. This final lesson to remember for life is a critical one and has in view the acquisition of an everlasting knowledge as based on the combination of logic and sensitivity. Students who have approached the topic of poverty or racism emotionally while collaborating with their school mates in their collective dossiers, are more keen to comprehend the causes and consequences of their research objects when analyzed in class after 3 months. A maturation of mind related with the analysis of all previous 5 axes , combined with their notes and the composition of their personal notebook , help them to approach the total depth of the topic that they had probably approached in a more encyclopaedic way before. The way is open now to discuss ethical parameters of these problems

MATURATION PROCESS OF STUDENTS THROUGH LEARNING SOCIAL ISSUES

The problem of teaching classical and universal values to students has been a crucial and central problem through ages. Special lessons such as Religion emphasized on the ethical content and meaning of the values propagated. By these means religious instructors turn to moralists and the knowledge taught loses a part of its scientific strength. In the field of physical sciences and mathematics, all learning objects must be proved and defined by laws and rules. In social and political sciences, the observation must be neutral but intense and moral conclusions are not recommended for the simple reason that they disorientate objectivity. That was the lesson of Max Weber about understanding neutrality (verstehen)( note 1). This concept defines social sciences as those that are concerned with meaningful action and it consists of placing oneself in the position and conditions of other people to see what meaning they give to their actions, what their purposes are or what ends they believe are served by their actions. Weber emphasized on rational explanation putting apart sentimental qualities of the actor interpretation of action with CAUSAL EXPLANATION.

However, when in a school class , a tutor cannot avoid empathy
techniques to put pupils into the agents place. When discussing learning objects such as poverty or racism , the agents concerned are the poor and the non poor, the discriminated others and the discriminant racists. Our approach was a combination of the empathy type method with the Weberian causal explanation as a part of his verstehen theory , focusing mainly on causal explanation. An act such as a racist one can have causes and consequences and one can learn how to search them and to distinguish them too, since a confusion of causes and results occurs very often in many social paradigms. Thus, students can learn how to develop their own critical mind in the very search of causes and results without “betraying” the actors’ position.
What should they do in their place ? Should they have different motivation and values if compared with arrogant racists ? For sure, but just before condemning them morally, the verstehen theory of causal understanding can teach them to trace the meaningful action of these DIFFERENT OTHERS (even racist majorities can be different others).The explanation they can give to their acts in this level is that they have got different values and motivations, that can be themselves a particulate object of study. They can be put in their place only supposing and imagining that they should have exactly their values and motivation once they have described and understood what these issues are. Causes of human acts are not always rationally meaningful as Weber thought , many are emotionally motivated and thus rationally incomprehensible. However, they are important to be examined since they can create important social consequences on the overall society. Thus, the famous approach of coming to another person’s position can be achieved by non rational ways too, but once succeeded, the best method of analysis must be the rational one as proposed by Weber.

Studying the effects of many human actions ( atomic or collective) as that, on society , the next step that a teacher must do is to point out the pros and against these actions judged under the general societal interest. If poverty as a social phenomenon , influences in a negative way more and more human societies, if it can be moderated or in certain cases eliminated and yet some particular interests inhibit this trend, then the balance of values turns against the people who profit from the poverty of the others. The same analysis can be done for globalization, racism, drug , alcohol, and tobacco addiction, ecological catastrophes, criminality etc. In this stage , proposals can be shaped and students themselves after having studied the reasons and consequences of various social problems as mentioned above, can discover some solutions to resolve them by not moralizing in the style of : “we are right and the others are wrong”.

By these means the experience and knowledge acquired in the school-class can be adapted in the every-day life under the form of free opinion. Stochastic education or Agoge, has meaning if it tends to infuse to the students important aims ( stochoi) which they can keep in the next years too, evaluating them by their criteria as interesting. Interest means different in .Ancient and modern Greek and this difference combined with “fresh knowledge” compose all that a young person needs to proceed to future achievements.

To give an historical example ( that can easily been analysed in the classroom) Socrates was accused and condemned to death in his seventies for introducing in the City of Athens new and different knowledge ( kaina demonia ) characterized as “demonic” and thus dangerous for the social establishment. He accepted his unfair condemnation and did not escape from prison even if his students offered him this possibility. Democracy that condemned him, changed its aspect soon after his execution and glorified him, proving that a liberal system can make mistakes but that it can recognize them too and restore the reputation of its children. Should Socrates had escaped , his historical reputation should be much lower that proving that students must learn that injustice as result of misleading interpretation can characterize even the most liberal system of governance but that does not mean that citizens must take the law in their hands and transform Democracy into ochlocracy and anarchic chaos.

Using historical data of certain important persons of the past as the example described above, can facilitate and encourage students to understand these persons’ motivation and values by entering in their place ( using thought their own rational skills). Casual interpretation of large scale phenomena such as the passage of extended family type to the nuclear one risks always to generalize but in general lines can give satisfactory explanations on the reasons of the social changes. Sometimes social change is the cause and the result of various other social phenomena important to be distinguished and analyzed. Economic new division of labor, political less authoritative system encouraging participation , religious secularization, social implication of education expansion increasing rates of literacy to the whole of population, all these are possible causes of cultural shifts and these cultural shifts as a form of social change can produce in their turn a series of other social phenomena as consequences. For these reasons, the study of social and cultural shifts in the school-class are of major importance enabling the final maturation of students since the very temporal dimension of these shifts proves in social terms the old Heraclitus doctrine of ALL CHANGING DURING THE TIME. If biological maturation of humans is a pure temporal parameter, intellectual maturation succeeds and is integrated by the conception (rational + emotional) of the meaning of social change and its importance to our everyday life.

Knowledge transmitted in the school is the product of the socio-cultural background it entails. From the one hand, knowledge creates new cultural forms and from the other hand it is influenced itself by these forms in a dialectic relation of mutual dependence. The final aim of a true knowledge cannot be other than the discovery of the … truth but the problems start in the moment that most aesthetic forms carrying new cultural meanings have nothing to do with truth. The most of the influences coming to young peoples’mind are mainly of mass media origin and it derives from the aesthetic realm In the same time , formal learning at school consists into receiving a knowledge supposed to be a direct product of science and technology. It is hard from one hand to teach stereotyped formal knowledge according to a strict curriculum aiming to the demonstration of supposed eternal truths by following conservative methods of discipline and order in the school-class and from the other hand to receive daily a flood of information focusing on the commercial facilities of a homogenized society claiming for a simple common sense appropriate only to transform everybody to an ideal individual consumer an anonymous member of a monstrous mass society. Both teachers and students are victims of this ambiguity.

ON PEACE AND COSMOPOLITANISM AS CORNERSTONES OF AGOGE

Peace is a universal value per se. Since it is an opposing value to war- making and conflicts that could cost human lives, Peace is a moral value too. The crucial point to discover here is if this major moral value has the same validity and weight in all cultures of this World composing a Universal and diachronic Value or if its meaning depends of the interpretation given by each different cultural system. Our idea is that even in the nation-state institutions that cannot accept authority superior to their exact nation-state ( this being the definition par excellence of the Nationalism) there must be cultivated a “ Culture of Peace” through educational mechanisms as the only way of confronting the well known paradox of everybody wishing peace for security reasons, and in the same time everybody approving wars made for national interests. The classical phrase “ if you desire peace, prepare yourself for war” is exactly opposing to this conception of a systematic cultivation of a Peace Culture in the Youth in the school because it reveals the complete lack of trust to the activities of the “ unknown Other” ( in other terms your potential enemy exactly because Other, Different and Unknown). In the contrary a Culture of Peace to be learned and propagated in the educational praxis, presupposes the absolute trust to the other’s peaceful intention. The Other who can be your potential friend.

Such a Peace Culture can be the outcome of a free social knowledge as described above ( stochastic agoge ). Schoolboys and girls can approach this delicate hidden world of knowledge and truth only by discovering it by themselves after being sensitibilized to the World problems. They have to learn how to distinguish rationally their interests for learning and discovery from their other profit self-interests to avoid pronouncing ever in their future life the amoralistic answer of Athenians to Melians as recounted by Thucydides in his History of the Peloponnesian War : “ We have listened to you , and we understand you perfectly well, but we are going to massacre you anyway, because it is to our interest to do so”. In this case the famous Weberian Verstehen Principle proves to be impotent with all its rationality invested. For these reasons a more emotional approach of the rights of the Other is necessary. Values such as Patriotism supplying nationalistic interests are as the interests of Athenians against Melians. By encouraging the idea of autonomous nations-states or even Super Powers dominating the World by various ways, this sort of interests will never be surpassed. If the real source of patriotism and nationalism is ethnocentrism ( most of actual textbooks of History are still written and taught under its motto ) and if the quest of national identity under racial and political terms is the main purpose of all nationalism as such, then the only response to that traditional trend is the adopt of the classical answer of Diogenes the Cynic when asked where he came from: “ I AM A CITIZEN OF THE WORLD” meaning by this that he refused to be defined by his local origins as Corinthian a definition so common to a self-image of a conventional Greek male citizen. The community that is most fundamentally the source of moral obligations is not any local or national community for his ideological succedors the Stoics, but the World or as put by Seneca: “ We measure the boundaries of our nation by the Sun”.

What such a cosmopolitan aspect might mean in the beginning of the third Millenium and the triumph of market globalization ? What students can retain from this issue once they have rationally understood the misleading tricks of commercialized globalization by the pretext of…liberation of the markets ? How can they surpass the xenophobic trends of an adult society that they are prescribed to inherit ? What examples from the past are the most adequate to illustrate by non encyclopaedic but rather by comprehensive method this cosmopolitanism that flourished once upon the remote time after Alexander’s conquests creating the so called Hellenistic World and the ruining of the classical City State system ?

Cosmopolitanism is to begin a moral conception and not an applied political term. It rejects the culture of aesthetization so much propagated by the commercialized goods and proposes the discovery of new moral codes concerning ways of living together of small or larger communities under a neutral administration. It is based on the Culture of Peace described as above. The very fact that the term of cosmopolitanism is rarely found in anthropological and sociological dictionaries but in political science ones ,proves the false interpretation that this old term has undergone in the western theoretical thought. More than explicative of standardized historical periods of the past, it can exercise its role in the present if we admit the stagnation of the “ neo-liberal” nation-state ( alongside with the various alliances to a Super Power” ) for the administration of our post-modern realities. The collapse of the socialist model and the useless various local conflicts for domination among opposing nationalisms lead optimist minds open only to this alternative perspective. Cosmopolitanism is not “a politics of difference system “ as called by many actual political scientists, because its strength comes mainly from cultural issues that compose its real essence and its “ raison d’etre”. Judging this issue etymologically, it cannot be utopic since it’s locus ( topos) is the whole World ( Cosmos). In this system an individual must learn first how to administrate and distribute the wealth of his/her home ( eco-nomy strictu sensu)( nomi=distribution/administration in its first sense in Greek before giving the paragogue of nomos=law) and second how to bring all the benefits of iso-nomy ( equal distribution) and human equality in his./her conscience ( eco-politan). After achieving these two important steps, a man or a woman can name him/herself a CITIZEN OF THE WORLD or cosmopolitan in a way that together with other similar they could create a system of COSMONOMY to replace the actual Economy. Instead of democratic administration a new cosmocratic ( Cosmos in the place of Demos)one can guarantee for a better worldwide distribution of goods with no competitions and conflicts resulting to wars.

Motivation for this sort of alternative teaching to the Youth can be produced only if teachers will be convinced that the dominant western model of development neglecting most of the human values in its essence and aiming only to the quantitative wealth, destroying in the same time most of the natural resources of this planet, is false and dangerous. Only when the blind power of the dominance of the stronger will cease to further develop itself and give its place to the Will of Giving , conflicts will end to Peace and mechanical alienated life will turn to real wisdom and global planetary knowledge.

The only original revolution of next Millennium will be accomplished in the realm of knowledge. To transform the World we need to transform the human mind and its ways of thinking. To search for the truth far from the misleading tricks , consists an ethical act per se as said by Plato ( every science distianciated from virtue is a ruse ). In the same time the social impact of such an act are crucial for the formation of young people’s identities followed by the expected maturity. “ To know thyself” has been the testament of Socrates to the Youth of every culture and tradition. Sophrosyne ( note 2) or the golden measure of wisdom is his last virtue after Justice, Bravery, Intellect and Beauty. This sophrosyne is reflected to another wise man’s testament who was Solon the first legislator of Athens. “ Getting old while continuing one’s learning experiences “. The synthesis of these two testaments’ message compose the secret of the knowledge meaning as spelled by Plato : “ How to become yourself by understanding yourself through the process of learning yourself”.(genei oios essei mathon).

LITERATURE


Arendt H.1975 On violence

Aristotle Nichomachean Ethics
Logics
Politics all in various editions

Balandier G 1986 An anthroplogy of violence and war. Bulletin of Unesco

Bauman Z 1978 Hermeneutics and Social Science. London Hutchinson

Berger P & Luckman T 1967 The social construction of Reality
New York Doubleday

Bernstein B.B 1977 Class, codes and control (3 vol )London Routledge

Blalock H.M. (ed) 1968 Methodology in social research N.York
Mc Graw-Hill

Bourdieu P.1984 Distinction London, Routledge

Bowles S and Gintis H 1976 Schooling in capitalist America London Routledge

Connerton P. (ed) 1976 Critical Sociology Harmondworth Penguin

Coser L.A 1956 The functions of social conflicts New York Free Press

Cox G. 1986 The ways of Peace

Dahrendorf R 1959 Class and class conflict in an industrial society London , Routledge

Danziger K 1971 Socialization Harmondsworth Penguin books

Freire P. 1972 Pedagogy of the oppressed Penguin books

Goleman D. 1995Emotional intelligence New York Bentam

Gould J. 1955 The development of Plato’s Ethics

Gousgounis N. 2002 Information technology creates allophobia
In Amthropology: trends and applications Kamla Raj ed. N.Delhi

Geertz C1973 The interpretation of cultures New York Basic books

Highet G. 1950 The art of teaching New York Vintage books

Hill S 1981 Competition and Control at Work London Heinemann

Huntington S 1996 The clash of civilizations and the remaking of World Order New York Simon & Shuster

Keddie N 1971 Classroom knowledge in M.F.D. Young (ed) Knowledge and Control London Colier pp133-61

Lederach J.P. 1995 Preparing for Peace : conflict transformation across cultures . Syracuse University Press

Lockwood D 1964 Social integration and systems integration in G.K.. Zollschan (ed) Explorations in social change. London Routledge pp 244-57

Maslow A. 1943 A theory of human Motivation Psychological Review vol 50 pp 370-96.

Niessbaum M 1998 Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism

Outhwaite W 1975 Understanding social life London Allen &Unwin

Parsons T.1977 Social systems and the evolution of the Action Theory N. York Free Press

Peel J.D.Y. 1969 Understanding alien belief systems Br. J of Sociology vol 20 pp 69-84

Plato: Collected works ( mainly the Republic and the Laws)

Rex J. Race and ethnicity Open University Press

Robin.L 1957 Les rapports de l’etre et de la connaissance d’
apres Platon

Simmel G 1955 Conflicts and the web of group affiliastions New York Free Press

Turner B.S. 1986 Equality London Tavistock
1987 A note on nostalgia Theory Culture and Society pp147-56

Vallier I (ed)1971 Comparative methods in sociology Berkeley Un. of Cal. Press

Versenyi L. 1963 Socratic humanism London

Wild J. 1947 Plato’s Theory of Man Cambridge Univ.Press

Weber M 1949 The methodology of social sciences Glencoe Free Press

Wrong D.H.1977 Sceptical Sociology London, Heinemann



NOTES
1/

In the question if there exist ecumenical values or if all values are relative the answers of pupils can be classified into three categories :

a/ Positive responses ( 47,22%)Some say that they exist but not having the same signification. Some other mention examples of such values as love, friendship , freedom , education, peace, humanism, nationality. Some say that universal human values are few and the rest are relative to the particularities of the cultural system. One student mentions that these values are transmitted by generations.

b/. 38,8% of the students respond in a negative way insisting that most of values are relative. The argumentation is various. Some say that the reason is that cultures in eternal interrelation get cultural elements from each other, other mention even the side effects such as ethnocentrism for instance. One student says that if all elements were similar there should not be any culture at all.

c/ The smaller category is that of few students trying to combine both sides (14%) Here, the effort is more difficult. One says that in a diplomatic way that every culture is judged by its means. Another insists that there exist ecumenical values but they are differentiated .relatively to the personal values of each member of a given society. Another gives an analogous but less moral interpretation arguing that habitudes and rituals are differentiating in the everyday life our values.

The problem of validation of various students responses in the final written exam of the season, poses some crucial questions : 1/ Under what axiological criteria the teacher must validate the answers 2/ The point is on the techniques of argumentation used by students to support their opinion, or in the absolute Truth and it’s approach while answering ? Is there any knowledge close to the absolute Truth ?
3/ Knowledge needed to support a free opinion can be validated as such or does it need a causal explanation interpretation ? Students giving meaning to their responses while trying to enter in the other’s position are keen to generalize in their conclusions but the consequence of the Verstehen method and correlations following meaningful comprehension , usually ends to the well known difficulty to combine these two methods.

2. SOPHROSYNESoundness of mind, moderation, prudence, self-control.The Greeks had a word for it, at least classical Greeks like Plato did. Translating the idea into English, however, has always posed a difficulty, since we don't have one word that summarises his ideal of excellence of character and soundness of mind combined in one well-balanced individual. He defined it as "the agreement of the passions that Reason should rule". It's usually translated as temperance, moderation, prudence, self-control, or self-restraint. The idea of this harmonious balance is the basis of two famous Greek sayings: "nothing in excess" and "know thyself" - it's the exact opposite of arrogant self-assertion or hubris. The word has only appeared in English within the past sixty years (W H Auden used it in 1944) but it has resonated with some moderns because the idea is quite close to that of wholeness. Note the word has four syllables, not three. It derives from Greek sophron, of sound mind, prudent.

3. Ancient Athens was so brilliant, their art work, political theory, and philosophy still set the standards, but along with their glory was their mistreatment of large groups of people who were relegated not just to second class, but to no class of citizen. The largest of these groups was women, whom, we are taught, the men in power feared, if not despised. The impression of Athenian misogyny is based on literature and mythology, from Hesiod to Aristotle. But what about the women? Were they misogynists, too? Were they misandrists? Neither? In Ancient Greek Love Magic, Christopher A. Faraone looks at evidence from erotic charms, spells and potions to form a mixed picture of what relations between the sexes were really like.
In Ancient Greece, the men appear to have had contempt for and fear of their women because of the women's supposedly unquenchable lust. Semonides captures this in his caricatures of women as descendants of such animals as dogs, donkeys, pigs, and weasels. But if women were truly so rapacious and men so disinterested, what would Lysistrata’s sex strike have accomplished? And how did Faraone compile more than 70 spells by men to make women lustful?
Faraone says the Ancient Greek world had misogynists and misandrists side-by-side. In the misandrist model, it’s the men who are out of control, violent, and cruel, while the women are controlled, sedate, and reluctant to have intercourse. Most of the spells Faraone examines relate more to the misandrist than the misogynist outlook.
There are two basis categories of spells, agoge and philia. Agoge spells are used by those in socially superior positions who wish to attract their social inferiors and lead them away from their families. The type of love involved is eros, rather than agape or philia (love for friends and family). Eros is described as “ballistic,” in a literal and figurative sense: literally, the god Eros shoots lust arrows or men throw charmed love apples at their victims; figuratively, in that women are supposed to be driven mad with lust. Philia spells, usually used by social inferiors are intended to keep mates interested, to rekindle affection, and to make the socially superior more loving. Generally, the spells fall along gender lines, with most of the philia spells performed by women on men. Of 80 surviving agoge spells, only seven were used by women to attract men.
The traditional misogynist model looks upon women as locked inside the women’s quarter, yet the spells aimed at getting women out of the house and into the bed of the would-be lover, have no effect on the women’s guardians. If sufficiently motivated, the lusted-after woman would simply walk out on her own. Faraone suggests women had free egress from their homes. That they stayed with their parents means they wished to. The agoge spells were designed to break down this filial attachment.
Agoge spells sometimes used effigies of the victim. The man would burn these pin-studded dolls while he asked the appropriate deity (mostly, Pan, Eros, Hekate, and Aphrodite) to make the victim burn with enough passion to reject her parents and join him. Sometimes a determined would-be lover procured a iunx bird. This small, supposedly sexually rapacious bird would be affixed to an instrument of torture (a wheel) where, with the right incantations, it would transfer it's sexuality to the human victim. One instance of a iunx spell comes from Theocritus Idyll II where it’s a woman who calls on the iunx to bring her man to her home.
Philia spells, whose goal wasn’t to wrench someone away from home and loved ones, but to temper or restore kindly feelings, tended to be more benign, using potions and ointments rather than effigies. Still, a potion made too strong would have more deleterious effects than a vicarious burning spell. Perhaps the most well known philia spell to backfire was the ointment Deianeira spread on Heracles’ garment when she was trying to win back the affection she saw drifting away from her and to a new woman (Iole).

ON THE CONCEPT OF PEACEMAKING

On the concept of peacemaking

Howard Richards Earlham College, Richmond, USA E-mail: HOWARDRI@aol.com http://www.howardri.org/
Abstract This paper proposes a constructive concept of peacemaking, in which peace is seen as a never-ending and always fragile social accomplishment. It is a conceptual analysis centered around listening, energy, and growth points. The 19th century Mexican president Benito Juarez's concept that "peace is respect for the rights of others" is taken as a suitable starting point for building peace in the contemporary world, and it is asserted that many additional dimensions need to be added, beginning with that starting point.
Key words: peace, peacemaking, violence, war, conflict.
1. Peace
Peace --to the extent that it exists at all-- is perhaps best thought of as a fragile, complex, ongoing, collective social achievement. Many (not all) of the meanings of "peace" are negative. "Peace" denotes bombs not falling on Belgrade; it denotes artillery shells not falling on Zagreb; teenage boys not mowing down their classmates in the Columbine High School cafeteria; men not attacking their ex-wives; Nazis not burning Jews, leftists, and gays; Hindus and Muslims not rioting; Bloods not driving by the houses of Crips spraying bullets through the doors and windows.... and so on, and on. Many different motives lead people to break the peace. Tendencies toward violence are deeply rooted in the human body, in the glands, in the muscles, in the spinal column and in the deeper levels of the brain. Further, the institutions that culture has created have not as a general rule brought out the best in human nature. On the contrary, war, overt violence, and structural violence have been institutionalized.
Peace, when it happens, happens because, in spite of drives toward war and, generally, toward violence, there are many peaceful institutions and practices; they build on tendencies toward peace which are, like those toward violence, deeply rooted in the human body. (If it were not so, humanity would have become extinct long ago). The positive institutions, the labors of love, strive to make sure that all of the many things that might go wrong don't happen. When peace succeeds, when humans do not kill other humans, it is a multi-faceted accomplishment.
War can be thought of as failure. When war breaks out, on any scale, at any level, negotiations have failed. The blame for the failure belongs to all of the institutions that could have contributed to creating a context and an atmosphere in which cooperation and mutual respect on agreed terms might have succeeded --governments, churches, schools, courts, families, parenting, entertainment, labor unions, psychology, history, business, economic structures ....
War is collective failure, a failure of complex processes. No institution, no set of human relationships and practices, can make peace alone. It takes all of them (or, rather, positive transformations of all of them) to carry out the cooperative task of building peace.
Gray Cox in his book The Ways of Peace proposes to discard the noun "peace," and to replace it with a verb, "peace-ing." "Peace-ing" is the cultivation of agreements. (Cox 1986) It is performing peaceful acts, which when repeated become peaceful practices, and give rise to peaceful traditions. Kenneth Boulding in Stable Peace proposes to learn how to make peace by studying peace that has already been made. He notes, for example, that the border between the United States and Canada is thousands of miles long and completely unfortified, as are the borders that separate Sweden from Finland and Norway. Peace, at some places, at some levels, has become so much a part of networks of trusting relationships that people and nations have disarmed. Boulding borrows from engineering the idea of strength vs. stress. When the strength of peaceful institutions exceeds any stress that threatens to tear them apart, then peace is stable. (K. Boulding 1978)
Thus the negative meaning of peace (trying to make sure that violence does not happen) leads inevitably to its positive meanings. Creating a context where negotiations can succeed, cultivating agreements, practicing a spiritual discipline, moral development, and strengthening peaceful institutions are names for some facets of positive peacebuilding. They are inseparable from building a world that is more fair and just, more welcoming and inclusive.
The other side of the same coin is that there will be sources of recruits for violent adventures as long as there are individuals and classes who find no security or joy in participating in society's peaceful institutions.
It would be misleading, however, to conclude that the world is separated geographically into areas where the peacebuilding process is advanced and areas where it is retarded. It would be more accurate to say that the world as a whole is, in Johan Galtung's terms structurally violent. (Galtung 1980) There are privileged people and poor people. The poor tend to live in geographical areas where overt violence breaks out, but there is no true separation. There are, instead, strong causal relationships which bind privilege and poverty together in a single dance of death.
In large areas of Africa, for example, civil war and other forms of overt violence are now severe, but Africa is not separate from the rest of the world. As Samir Amin has shown in Maldevelopment, Africa is a weak and exploited region within the global economic system. (Amin 1990)
Somewhat similarly, on a smaller scale, the inner city and the leafy suburb reflect each other; one exists because the other exists. If the Europeans and the suburb-dwellers are more successful, both in achieving peace among themselves and in other ways, it is success that builds on the failure, or, more precisely, the defeat, of the Africans, and, more generally, of the poor. The South African scholar Catherine Hoppers writes in Structural Violence as a Constraint on African Policy Formation, "Europeans never remember that Africa was incorporated into the world economy by violence. Africans never forget." (Hoppers 1998) The pattern continues today --as the USA, in particular, regularly uses overt military force, when subtler measures are not enough, to keep the world's poor in line. The interdependence of rich and poor neighborhoods is dramatic in Manila, in Sao Paulo, and other third-world cities where the leafy suburbs are protected by armed guards against intruders from neighborhoods that are poorer and more dangerous. Except for occasional visits from the police, armed guards do not patrol the leafy suburbs of London or Los Angeles. Nevertheless, even in the first world, the causes of violence and the fragility of peace exist just as much in places where overt violence is rare as in places where overt violence is common.
2. Themes
Although I have tried to make some realistic and helpful remarks about peace, I have not yet given a definition of peace. In what follows I will work on elucidating the concept of peace a bit more.
The study of the history of the word "peace" shows that it comes from the Old French pais," which was an ancestor of the modern French paix, and which derived from the Latin pax or pacis. Pax translated the Greek eirene, and, sometimes, the Hebrew shalom.
The meanings of "peace," its ancestors, and its contemporary cousins, are not stand-alone meanings. Their meanings are, rather, connected with all the other key words in the culture of a given time and place, or in the systematic thought of a given thinker. For the Hebrews shalom was identified with the land that Yahweh had promised to His faithful people, the land of milk and honey, where the lion would lie down with the lamb, and swords would be beaten into ploughshares. (Brueggemann 1976) Similarly, in the Islamic tradition, "Paradise is the Land of Peace -- Dar al-salam." (Haleem 1998) For Plato eirene was a harmony, a sumphonia where actions complemented each other. The hearts and minds guiding the actions were of one accord. (Plato, Popper 1945) For Plato's Christian follower, Saint Augustine, peace was concordia, concord. For Augustine the body existed to serve the mind, which in turn should serve God. The key to concord was to be of one mind. Thus peace required that people think alike. (Fuchs 1965, Popper 1945)
For Saint Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century peace (pax) along with joy (gaudium) was a consequence of love (caritas). (Aquinas) For Saint Thomas the notion that inner peace is the key to world peace had a precise meaning. Inner peace was the rule of the divine word in the soul, which was the rule of the indwelling principle of agape. (John 14:23) (The Latin caritas translates the Greek agape.) Since God is agape-love (1 John 4:16) and God is also the divine word (John 1:1), Peace is a consequence of the divine word of love, both in the soul and in the community. Saint Thomas worked out the specific rules of conduct that would establish peace within Christendom in great detail. It is questionable whether it was even possible in principle, in St. Thomas's system, for there to be peace among or with heretics and unbelievers.
I believe that if one were to study the words translated as "peace" in Buddhist, Confucian, and other cultures that exist or have existed, one would find, in each case, that what is meant by "peace" connects with the key terms and key beliefs of the culture in which the use of a term translated as "peace" is embedded.
Surely contemporary global society is no exception. If we are going to speak of peace in a way that makes sense around the world in our times, then the term "peace" will have to connect up with other terms that are meaningful in our contemporary global society. But there are scholars, such as Samuel Huntington, who hold that there is no global society in the relevant sense, but only a number of incommensurable civilizations. Each civilization's values are valid from its own viewpoint, but global society as a whole understands no common normative frame of reference, and recognizes no superordinate authoritative norms. (Huntington 1996, Walt 1997) If Huntington were correct, there would be no global contemporary culture for a meaningful contemporary worldwide concept of peace to be embedded in.
In Part One above, I discussed peace in a manner that assumed that Huntington was mistaken. In Parts Three and Four following I will further develop the idea that cross-cultural connections can be drawn making the idea of peace meaningful today at a global level. Here, in Part Two, I will return to some key points made in Part One again. I will seek to bring out one feature of the concept of peace which is cross-culturally valid, significant for the practice of peacemaking, and significant for peace research.
In the first paragraph of Part One I listed examples of some of the things peace is not: Peace is not bombs being dropped on cities. Peace is not artillery bombardments. It is not the massacre of schoolchildren. Peace is not men killing women, or other men. Peace is not genocide. It is not rival gangs conducting urban warfare by hit-and-run attacks.
A notable characteristic of my examples was that they all were of deliberate acts. They were physical acts, but they were also intentional; they were acts of will. This characteristic can be further illustrated by modifying the same examples to remove any deliberate act of will: a bomb dropped in error during a training mission, an artillery piece that misfires, a woman wounded by mistake, a famine followed by a plague that wipes out a population, an automobile accident. None of these are acts of war or violence, with the possible exception of the famine. They are accidents. Further, the argument that the famine should be regarded as a consequence of structural violence advances my point. War and violence are in principle intentional. In order to make the case that allowing people to die of hunger in this day and age is a form of violence, one must say that the human indifference and the immobility of social institutions manifested in such cases amounts to the equivalent of deliberate homicide.
I have been using "war" and, more generally, "violence," as contraries of "peace." I have been saying that peace's contraries are deliberate, intentional, human acts. The same can be said of peace itself, although the point is less obvious.
To describe being peaceful as action is less obvious than to describe being violent as action because of the reasons that led me to say that peace is a complex, ongoing, collective social achievement. When peace works, it succeeds in preventing any of many things that might go wrong from going wrong.
Without being obvious, the point is nonetheless compelling. Flying military airplanes on practice runs for decades without ever dropping a bomb on a city requires a deliberate and intentional course of action, just as much as does a thirty-minute sortie from an aircraft carrier to detonate an enemy gasoline storage facility. Any pattern of nonviolent activity will have intentional elements --and the more so since more than one impulse toward violence is native to the human body and brain. The point that peace is intentional is even clearer where positive peace is concerned; caring and sharing, celebrating unity, practicing virtues, gratitude, cooperation, appreciating other people and other cultures are typically more than intentional --they are cultivated.
This general principle --that peace, like war and violence, is a disposition, or set of dispositions and acts, of human will; that is to say, conscious activity-- will require some qualifications in order to take into account features of human conduct that do not conform to the paradigm of a single deliberate act by a human individual. However, before adding qualifications to this principle, I want to sketch in two other parts of the picture it is part of.
The purpose of the first of my two sketches is to assert that the idea that peace is made up of intentional human actions is not idiosyncratic. It is at the heart of the mainstream of human reflection on the subject.
The most classic of modern western theories of peace --more classic even than those of Boulding and Galtung cited above-- is that of Immanuel Kant in his Perpetual Peace. Like William Penn and others of his fellow forerunners in advancing the idea of world government, Kant envisioned world peace through world law. (Kant 1957, Penn 1912) Kant proposed and predicted the extension of the republican principle of the rule of laws, not of men, to a global scale. In order for this political evolution to come about, he wrote, it is necessary for the spiritual and psychological (geistliche) force of law to be as certain and powerful in its operation as a physical force. The rulers of nations are to be counseled by philosophers to follow legal maxims that have moral legitimacy. Those maxims are, in effect, the basic precepts of respect for persons and property that Kant's philosophy designates as categorical imperatives. Kant had derived the categorical imperative, and the validity of the maxims later proposed as the legitimating framework for international law, from an analysis of what it means to have a good will.
Some other concepts of peace also depend on the idea of "will." Sometimes "peace" is used in a way which ties it to order imposed by a conqueror or supreme authority. When a hierarchy imposed by force is stabilized, peace is identified with the will of the victor or ruler, as in the expressions pax romana and "the king's peace." There is peace when the war is over because the conquest is achieved, and there is peace while the king reigns, because the will of the ruled submits to the will of the ruler. Sometimes, also, a term translated as "peace" is part of a religious belief system, where it is part of a spiritual discipline, which is to say that it is part of a methodology for the transformation of the will. Peace by negotiated agreement is also about will; there is an agreement when wills coincide.
I do not want to oversimplify the richness and diversity traditions in which words translated as "peace" play a role. My aim is not to give an adequate account of them. I only want to say that the principle that peace is an intentional disposition, or set of dispositions and acts, of human will, is common and widespread, not marginal.
The second sketch is about peace research. If intentions are what peace is made of, then intentions are what need to be studied. If peace is action, then research needs to take actors seriously. I will not, however, try to illustrate here the sorts of complaints about research that would lead one to say that it did not study intentions enough, or that it did not take actors seriously enough. I think that the sense that something is lacking in some peace research, which leads me to imply, cryptically, that intentions and actors need more and better attention, is best done in the context of commentaries on particular research papers. I will, instead, illustrate here what I take to be positive trends in peace research.
A number of different research traditions and movements within the philosophy of science have contributed to advances in the study of what I am calling "intentions" and "actors." Without pretending to give credit to all who deserve credit, in this second sketch I will briefly mention a few approaches that I consider especially promising.
The first prize for advances in the study of intentions and actors must go to Aristotle. His observations on human action are still fundamental for contemporary humanistic psychology and social science. One of his central observations was that people do not act on the basis of the facts. They act on the basis of what they believe to be the facts. (Aristotle, Charles 1989)
It follows that peace research, whatever else it may be about, must be about beliefs and belief-systems. Because it is about human action, it is about intentionality in the technical philosophical sense of the term. An act is intentional in the ordinary and legal sense of the word when the actor is conscious and aware of what she or he is doing. In some important regards, if there is no intention, there is no act at all. It is not, in law, "my act and deed" if I do not intend to do it. Intention or the lack of it can make the difference between violence and accident.
The introduction of the technical term "intentionality" carries the analysis of peace a step farther. "Intentionality" is defined in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy as intrinsic to mental phenomena. The mind has intentionality because it is directed toward some object as it affirms something, desires something, loves something, hates something; but the something it relates to is not necessarily real. The "intentional object" to which "intentionality" is directed is mental. (Encyclopedia of Philosophy 1964)
Peace research concerns intentionality because it concerns how the world appears to actors. Familiar examples are the studies of the Feinbild (enemy image). (Rieber 1991)
At this point it is possible to make a general statement about peacebuilding and peacemaking. Given that peace is a multifaceted complex ongoing social achievement, it might seem to follow that no general statement about how to make peace could be true. Many different things need to be done to make peace. Nonetheless, they all have in common, for reasons given above, that any effort to make peace, or to build peaceful institutions, must be, whatever else it is, a listening project. This is true because peace is intentional. Peace cannot be accomplished without understanding and dialogue because the source of human action, the will, moves in the light of the beliefs (and images and feelings) that guide actors when they decide to act.
Two approaches to peace research that facilitate dialogue and understanding are that of Gray Cox in The Ways of Peace and that of John Paul Lederach in Preparing for Peace and Building Peace. Cox carries out a philosophical examination of social science methodology, and concludes favoring what he calls "maieutic" research. Maieutic research is midwifery. The idea is taken from Socrates' characterization of himself as a midwife who helped his interlocutors to give birth to their ideas. (Cox 1986) Lederach has developed methods for building peace which employ what he calls "elicitive questions." Elicitive questions focus less on finding out what the asker wants to know, and more on drawing out what the answerer wants to say. (Lederach 1995, 1997) Like the "native language interviews" of anthropologists (Spradley 1979) they shift the frame of reference from one provided by the investigator to one provided by the subject.
Perhaps the most eloquent recent advocate of facilitating social change within the frames of reference of the people (as distinct from those of researchers, activists, or elites) has been Paulo Freire. In Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed, a central reason why the oppressed are oppressed is that they have been deprived of their voices, and denied roles as active participants in the co-creation of culture. (Freire 1998)
Freire's facilitative and empowering grassroots approach applies directly to building positive peace; it is a transformative process that humanizes both the oppressed and the oppressor. The methods he and his co-workers have developed are general enough to apply also to many aspects of peacemaking where peace is negatively defined, such as long-term violence prevention.
A characteristic initial step using Freire's approach is for an interdisciplinary team to assemble what he calls "a codification of the thematic universe." Like a good ethnography, the codification provides a map of what is meaningful in the world of a person or group. The codification takes some of the guesswork out of respect. Instead of guessing or assuming that you are dealing respectfully with your conversation partners because you are accepting their way of viewing the world, you have taken some systematic steps to learn how they view the world.
What the codification codifies is the "thematic universe," which is a worldview (universe) of somebody or some group, made up of "themes."
"Themes" is a word that Paulo Freire took from Edmund Husserl. Husserl, more than anyone else, from late in the nineteenth century until his death in 1938, worked to create philosophical foundations for the scientific study of what he once called, "the consciousness of the living present." (Husserl 1973) Western civilization had gone wrong, he argued, when mechanical metaphors from Galileo (and later from Newton) infected and gave (false) form to human self-understanding (Husserl 1970). Starting from what he considered to be a more fundamental and original viewpoint, the consciousness of the living present, he proposed to reconstruct humanity's understanding of itself with a phenomenological method that would rigorously exclude, "every interpretation of association and its laws which makes of it a kind of psychophysical natural law, attained by objective induction...." Unlike, for example, David Hume, who thought of conscious human experience in terms of "impressions" (a metaphor borrowed directly from the "impressed forces" of Newton) and "associations of ideas" (a surreptitious mechanical metaphor); and unlike the behaviorists who disregarded consciousness entirely and studied instead externally observable patterns of stimulus and response; Husserl and his followers described consciousness in terms of meaningful structures, made up of themes.
A "theme" is, Husserl wrote, "an objectivity of the human, cultural world." Often he did not use the noun "theme," but rather the verb "thematise." By using a verb, Husserl emphasized that consciousness is an active process. Like Kant, he believed that the mind played an active role in shaping experience.
In one of Freire's early codification studies, working with the peasants employed at El Recurso, a major agricultural estate in Chile, Freire found that a prominent theme was "theft." "Theft," including actual theft, absence of theft, and false accusations of thievery, was a meaningful social reality, which everybody talked about, which everybody could understand and relate to.
I have been arguing that whatever else peace may require, it requires the assent of the human will. It requires conscious agreement, and conscious cultivation. It follows that comprehensive advances in the art and science of peacemaking must include advances in the understanding of conscious human behavior. The maieutic approach of Cox, the elicitive questions of Lederach, and the codification of themes of Freire are three such advances. They build on Aristotle's insight that the premises of deliberate human action are beliefs.
3. Energies
Calling peacemaking a conscious activity invokes the endless mysteries surrounding the question, "What is consciousness?" It has something to do with being awake. It has something to do with thinking, with ideas, and with mind. It has something to do with language and logic. It has something to do with culture, belief, images, and symbols. Consciousness has more than one other. The other of being awake is being asleep. The other of thinking is impulse. The other of mind is matter, which, since Einstein, we can also name as energy. The other of culture is nature.
There is a distinction to be made between conscious beliefs, of which one is aware, and the cold hard facts, which are true, but which one may or may not be aware of. My most powerful memories of this distinction concern Chilean peasants and workers who seized land and factories, bypassing legal processes, during the presidency of the socialist Salvador Allende (1970-1973). They believed, as some of them told me, that what they were doing was right and rational. It was right because, in principle, the means of production ought to belong to those who do the work, and because the majority of Chileans had voted for that principle in the elections of 1970. It was rational because it was within their power to take farms and factories and operate them; they believed that President Allende, although he did not support them, would not order the police to evict them. They believed that the army would remain loyal to the constitution and would not intervene.
Their conscious beliefs were, for the most part, mistaken. They did not appreciate how much they were isolated politically; the majority, even on the left, did not support their interpretation of the 1970 elections. The army did intervene. Seeing helicopter gunships attack the workers who had seized a jam factory near my house impressed on me the importance of the distinction between knowledge and belief.
This example from my own experience is not the ideal illustration of my point, since the workers were more interested in justice than in peace. Further, although some of the facts they were not conscious of were cold hard facts (they were armed, and they overestimated the power of their weapons), most of the gap between consciousness and reality was due to their misinterpretation of other people's ideas and intentions. The general point is that what people are conscious of is not all there is.
Peacemakers are sometimes tempted to believe that a change of consciousness is all that is needed. We want to say that the problems of blacks in America have nothing to do with blacks, and from there we slide into saying that they are due to the racist ideas that some whites have about them. From there it is but a step to say that if the whites would change their ideas, then the problems would be over. We want to say that there is nothing wrong with either the Catholics or the Protestants in Northern Ireland; the troubles arise because of the prejudiced beliefs that each side has about the other side. If those beliefs were replaced by positive images and attitudes, then there would be peace. We are tempted to say, too, that when Arabs and Israelis do not trust each other, then the mistrust is a psychological problem, which has a psychological solution. Trust, and therefore peace, we are sometimes tempted to believe, could be built by changing attitudes.
If we follow out this line of thought far enough, we will conclude that there are no problems in the real world at all. All the problems are in people's minds. Peace is the cultivation of agreements. Agreements are acts of will. The will is guided by beliefs. Ergo, we speciously deduce, peace can be achieved by changing beliefs.
Before attempting to articulate what is wrong with this specious deduction, let me return for a moment to my Chilean example. I want to note, in that connection, that although the workers in the jam factory held and acted on beliefs that did not correspond to material or social facts, so did the soldiers. The soldiers and their officers (some of whom I had occasion to listen to) held beliefs which, when judged by any scientific standard, were, it seems fair to say, at least as distant from reality as those of the workers through whose bodies their bullets were passing. To speak generally: the human species is not a species that enjoys direct knowledge of facts. Rather, humans grope through life, guided uncertainly by images and words that play upon the screens of the theaters of their minds.
I have been suggesting rather extreme versions of confidence in peacemaking through changing consciousness for the purpose of suggesting that they cannot possibly be justified. The others that consciousness is not (nature, the body, the earth, the subconscious, hard cold facts, ......) become at some point indispensable foundations for peacemaking. To articulate this point further it might be best to begin by paraphrasing the views of R. Buckminster Fuller, who devoted his life to promoting a profound change in the relationship of the human species to the physical environment. Without such a change, he said, lasting peace could not be achieved.
Engaging in a pardonable and illuminating exaggeration, Fuller said that politics was useless. Politics always led to guns. This is true because there are fundamental material conflicts that divide humanity, which cannot be resolved by political means. In the absence of political resolutions, violence, the default arbiter, will necessarily come into play time and again. Deep material conflicts over scarce resources Fuller considered to be inescapable as long as the then (mid-twentieth century) prevailing technologies were employed. With such technologies the earth could not possibly support its population; the majority of the human species was condemned to a premature demise, with much suffering and pain preceding death. The only possible route to supporting the human population of the planet lay through the more efficient use of resources. Doing more with less. A design revolution. Science applied to livingry, rather than to weaponry. (Fuller 1962)
For Fuller the only possible peaceful world would be a world that worked. He proposed, a world that would work for 100% of humanity without ecological damage.
I think I need to mention that there are peace researchers who do not see the achievement of peace as essentially related to creating what Fuller would call a world that works. They would see his viewpoint as one that confuses peace per se with solving other social problems. Some take the view that giving priority to other social problems postpones the achievement of peace. It can be argued, for example, that humanity's most urgent problem is the prospect of the extinction of the species through the use of nuclear weapons. Further, the argument goes, a problem is most likely to be solved if it is given priority attention. Trying to solve all problems at once will only result in no problems being solved. Since it is hard enough to achieve any social change at all, the essential goal of peacemaking should be to "identify the least change that would be necessary in Western society, and globally, for war to be abolished." Peacemaking should not be confused with attempts to solve other problems too. (Forsberg 1998)
Fuller's view is much different: Redesign the physical interaction of the species with the environment first. Then justice and sustainability will be possible. And only then will peace be possible.
However, I did not introduce Fuller's views for the purpose of defending him against the least change school of thought. The reader already knows that I think peace is a fragile, complex, ongoing, collective social achievement. The reader already knows that I believe that collectively humanity needs to work on solving many problems at once in order to achieve peace, although a given individual may specialize in one facet of the multifaceted process of building peace. From these cards already on the table, it can correctly be surmised that I consider Fuller more right than wrong, and the least change school more wrong than right. I introduced Fuller as part of my efforts to balance my previous picture of the achievement of peace through listening, understanding, dialogue, and agreement. Above and beyond whatever may be happening in minds, peacebuilding requires reconstructing the physical world.
But Fuller deals only with one physical world: the environment, the earth. There is another physical world which also poses challenges to peacemaking: the testosterone, the adrenalin, the blood, the hypothalamus, the muscles, the nerves .... that is to say, the human body and all of the energies that pulse through it.
Sigmund Freud is among the best known of those who have written about the relationship between the elemental impulses that drive the human species and the pursuit of peace. I will discuss his views briefly, regarding him both as a student of Trieben, i.e. of instinctual tendencies or drives, and as a classic pessimist who held that warfare could only end in the unlikely event that humans accept the renunciation of instinct. He believed that his theories concerning the psyche had a physical foundation in the material constitution of the human body, albeit one which had not yet been discovered.
Freud expressed his views on war in a letter to Albert Einstein, who had written to him asking him to state his views on peace. (Freud 1964) But the question Freud answered was different from the question Einstein asked. Freud answered the question, "Is it possible to get rid of men's aggressive inclinations?" Einstein had asked a different question, "Is there any way of delivering mankind from the menace of war ?" (Einstein 1964) To Einstein's question the historian Quincy Wright, the author of a comprehensive study of the history of warfare, had given a good answer, "The absence of conditions of peace is the cause of war." (Wright 1935, 1942) Consequently, mankind can be delivered from the menace of war by establishing the conditions of peace, one of which is "...an organization of the world community adequate to restrain conflicts." Freud gave a good answer too, "No," but it was an answer to his own question. Concerning the question Einstein had asked he admitted that he did not know the answer.
It is possible for society to be at peace and not at war even while masses of people continue to feel violent emotions for the same reason that an individual can have aggressive feelings but not act on them. War is an act of will. Plato, many years ago, was among the first to give a plausible account --which is still plausible today-- of why it is possible for reason (what he called the logistiche psuche, the part of the soul that has language, which today we would in some regards identify with the cerebral cortex) to guide human conduct, in spite of the fact that human conduct is largely driven by appetites, aggressiveness, and pride. Freud himself pioneered methods for building what has come to be called ego strength, which is characterized by an ability to resist being blown away by impulses, to make rational plans, and to carry them out. (Plato)
What Freud's work shows is not that peace is impossible, but rather that sex, aggression, and self-destruction are powerful human energies. Even people who think that what he said about those energies was mostly wrong, will concede that he was a pioneer in calling attention to their power. Freud is among those who help us to discern the impulsive energy of the raw material that the peacebuilding process must work with.
Another energy that is often said to be a cause of war and violence, to be ineradicable, and not subject to social redefinition, is self-interest. Striking examples are found in the colonial wars of conquest waged by the European powers. As John Locke once noted, Power (by which he meant armed men and fleets) can be acquired with Treasure, and the Power, once acquired, can be used to acquire still more Treasure, and so on successively. The subduing of large parts of Asia and Africa by the Dutch East India Company and the British East India Company was transparently a commercial venture, and yet it was similar to the more subtle use of violence in the pursuit of self-interest that is found today.
It should be noted that aggressive impulses and calculated self-interest are different. They have in common that they lead to violence. They have in common that they are inescapable realities that the processes of peacemaking must deal with. But they are not the same. Peacemakers are often accused of being conceptually confused because they allegedly believe that every conflict has a win/win resolution, in which both sides maximize their payoffs. Peacemakers are accused of believing that wars are caused entirely by perceptions, and that there are no real conflicts of interest in the world. But pessimists, who doubt that peace is possible, are guilty of at least as much conceptual confusion when they
cloak aggressive impulses, calculated self-interest, and other disparate phenomena under the all-purpose umbrella concept "power."
Instead of assuming that self-interest explains everything, or that aggressiveness explains everything, it would be more accurate and more empirical to observe what energies are in fact at work. The better approach is not to assume a priori that any particular manifestation of matter as energy is the key underlying force that fuels the social construction of reality and moves human behavior. Instead, we should take energy as we find it. "History is moved by whatever moves it," is a principle that must be true, because it is a tautology. It is also a valuable guide to action, because it enables us to acknowledge all the energies which we encounter, or which encounter us. It enables us to build peace without worrying that the spirit that moves us could not possibly exist.
The pessimistic conclusions that some have drawn from the study of violent proclivities of the human body are not valid. The facts on which they draw do, however, imply that the construction of peaceful institutions has real obstacles to overcome. We should resist philosophies of anti-essentialism, deconstruction, anarchism, Rousseauian romanticism, and the notion that discourse constructs its own objects insofar as they tend in practice to bless visions of the world that expect liberation from oppression and all good things to come from dismantling institutions. The existing institutions are bad --we live, as Betty Reardon has put it, not just in a world where wars occur now and then, but rather in a world which is organized and constituted as a war system. (Reardon 1985) But peace can only come from building better institutions. Peace cannot come from an absence of social conventions.
4. Growth Points
In Part One I discussed the concept of peace without defining it. In Part Two I arrived at the precept that whatever else peacemaking may be, it is listening. In Part Three I endorsed the principle that whatever else peacemaking requires, it requires restructuring the relationship of the human species to physical reality.
Here in Part Four I will argue that peacemaking is necessarily a process of moral change; otherwise described, it is a process of cultural transformation. The polemical aspect of my case will be to deny that peace can be achieved by declarations establishing peaceful legal structures, such as, for example, declarations making obligatory the submission of international disputes to the World Court at The Hague, without at the same time nurturing a culture of peace.
The meanings of the word "culture" are at least as varied and mysterious as those of the words "consciousness" and "energy." I will follow Ruth Benedict's usage in Patterns of Culture where she uses the term "culture" interchangeably with "customs." And I will take "customs" to share a core meaning with "social conventions," with "norms," with "rules," and, drawing on the Greek and Latin origins of the terms, with "ethics," and with "morals."
I readily concede that in regarding "culture," "customs," "social conventions," "norms," "rules," "ethics," and "morals" as sharing a single meaning, I have done little to advance the analysis of what the core meaning they all share is. However, what I have not done (so far, at any rate), H. L. A. Hart has done. Hart's account of what it means to have a "rule" in The Concept of Law advances the analysis of the core meaning I am seeking to designate and intending to employ. A rule, Hart observes, above and beyond being a description of some tendency toward a regular pattern of behavior, also has: (1) an internal aspect, such that the people who accept the rule take it as a guide for personal self-government, using it to direct their own behavior; and (2) a socially obligatory aspect, such that violation of the rule authorizes censure. (Hart 1961) I would extend Hart's analysis of "rules" to make similar observations about the other terms I am treating as sharing a core cultural, customary, conventional, normative, ethical, and moral meaning with "rule."
My own contribution to humanity's unending conversations about what "culture," "ethics," and related terms mean is to place a discussion of them in the context of the conceptual framework developed in the preceding three parts of this paper. Culture is where themes and energies meet. Culture is where humans live; it is the socially constructed reality in which the conscious life of willing and acting happens. Culture, in all its constantly shifting variety, is, as Clifford Geertz says, the human adaptation to physical reality. To be an interpretive and self-interpretive creature is the ecological niche of homo sapiens sapiens. (Geertz 1973)
This two-level approach, themes and energies, corresponds to the proposal made by Anthony Wilden in System and Structure that all scientific explanations can be thought of as falling in two categories: meaning explanations and energy explanations. (Wilden 1972) It also corresponds to the suggestion made by the anthropologist Victor Turner that human behavior can be thought of as on two "leashes," under the dual control of culture and genome. (Turner 1986) Nature has culture on a leash, such that it is not possible for just any culture at all to come into existence and to be sustainable; culture, in turn, has the individual on a leash, so that it is not possible (except perhaps for creative and playful moments) for an individual to do or be or think just anything at all; it is only possible to act, be, and think within a repertory of language games (to use Wittgenstein's phrase) (Wittgenstein 1956) available at a given moment in the history of a culture.
Following out Wilden's two-level approach, I advocate a rather specific methodological principle for understanding the histories of cultures. The history of a culture is a record of the interactions between the conscious meaningful level of perception and belief, where acts of will occur, and the brute facts of physical reality. The methodological principle I advocate is to take what the culture does to meet basic needs to be a key to understanding everything else the culture does. Plato wrote in The Republic, "The true architect of our city is our needs, and the first and chief of these is the need for food." (Plato) I sometimes call this principle "food ethics," or "the ecology of culture." The ethics of a culture is best understood in the light of its food supply, and, generally, in the light of the way it meets basic needs. (Richards 1994)
The notion that the basic structure of a culture is given by the way the people in it do what they need to do to survive is not idiosyncratic. Anthropologists frequently classify cultures as pastoral, hunting and gathering, fishing, settled agricultural, slash-and-burn agricultural, and the like, according to how the culture manages to cope with nature. I would claim that even where the focus of the anthropologist's interest is on styles of interpersonal interaction, as in Ruth Benedict's Patterns of Culture, indispensable clues to understanding the observed cultural configurations are provided by, for example the Zunis relying for their food on corn grown in a desert climate, the Dobu Islanders living by growing yams in poor soil, and the Kwakiutl's living by fishing. (Benedict 1961) Perhaps Marvin Harris overstated the case for cultural ecology in Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches where he analyzed the venerable Indian institution of the sacred cow by tracing the physical contributions of cows to survival, but he was certainly not completely wrong. (Harris 1974) Although many would deny that a culture can be adequately understood by reference to the source of a people's food, few would deny that a culture cannot be adequately understood without it.
It is consistent with the idea of ecology of culture that scholars find class divisions to be a key to understanding societies. Long ago it was discovered that one way to cope successfully with the physical environment was to make other people do the work, and then to live off their labor. Exploitation can be, and often is, a basic characteristic of a social structure.
I also advocate a rather specific account of the basic structure of modern western society, which is in some ways today not just western, but global.
Accounts of the basic structure of (western) modernity are typically also accounts of modernity's origins; Anthony Giddens has remarked that the main schools of sociology today diverge according to their accounts of how the modern world began. Giddens takes the three main sociological traditions to be those that stem from Karl Marx, from Max Weber, and from Emile Durkheim; and he finds that their accounts of what society fundamentally is are of a piece with their accounts of how between the 15th and the 18th century modern western society emerged out of the matrix of medieval Christendom, expanded geographically, and instituted the principal secular institutions we know today --science, democracy, the nation-state, capitalism.... (Giddens, 1971)
I find that Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, and also several others who do not make Giddens' short list of founders of principal schools of sociology (Sir Henry Maine, Fernand Braudel, Karl Polanyi, Louis Dumont, Immanuel Wallerstein, Werner Sombart ...) all coincide, and coincide also with my own studies, in finding that the basic structure of modernity is exchange for money. The key cultural structure is the market. The way modern people acquire the things they need to survive is by buying them --to an extent that can be overstated, but which is nevertheless a key to understanding modern western culture. Similarly, knowing that basic needs are met through the cultivation of corn is a key to understanding Hopi culture. Different writers use different terms to articulate the basic structure of modernity, and they all disagree with each other on some important issue or other, but on the whole I think it is fair to say that there is a consensus that the exchange of goods for money is basic to the modern way of life.
My opinion about the basic structure of the modern world coincides --as Giddens suggested it would-- with taking sides with regard to competing accounts of how the modern world began. I find most persuasive those writers, such as Karl Polanyi, Fernand Braudel, and Immanuel Wallerstein, who emphasize the expansion of markets as a major causal factor generating the global market culture we now live in.
Exchange in a market implies, as most of the writers mentioned above have noted --and this is important for what follows-- the recognition of certain human rights. It would be an exaggeration to say that concepts of human rights, as they have developed historically, have been a consequence of the growth of market capitalism. Nevertheless, it would be correct to say that the efficient functioning of a market requires certain norms consistent with ideas of human rights, even though those norms may be set in the context of a variety of different institutional structures, and may be justified by a variety of ideologies. Buyers and sellers must have enough freedom to allow their choices reflected and aggregated in a market to set prices; property rights must be respected, or else the whole point of buying disappears. Further, the laws governing commerce must not be parochial and local, if the market is to function over a wide geographical area. They must be like the Roman jus gentium, which applied throughout the Roman Empire to commercial transactions. Thus commerce provides a foothold and a beginning for --although it does not fully imply-- a philosophy of universal human rights.
Previously, in Part Two, I noted that "peace" is not a free-standing concept, but rather one embedded in a language, and in a cultural system of meanings. I noted also that if Samuel Huntington were correct in arguing that the peoples of the planet earth are divided among several distinct civilizations, each of which does not recognize the authority of the norms of the others, then there could be no concept of peace with validity throughout the planet. There would be no global civic culture for a global concept of peace to be embedded in.
However, there is a global civic culture. Elise Boulding's project of building a global civic culture in order to make world peace possible, does not start from scratch, or build on nothing. (E. Boulding 1988)
To start with --but this is only a start-- there is a global civic culture because, for the most part, the natural sciences --physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, and mathematics-- are the same, or are becoming the same, the world over. This is not to say that there are no exceptions, or that there are no non-western systems of mathematics or physics, which are still believed and applied by considerable numbers of people. To argue "global" is not to argue "universal," and it is not to make a claim that will be false if a single exception is found to it. What I am saying is that for the most part, in schools everywhere, the same natural sciences are taught. It is not unusual either, for people to reject parts of western science, or to synthesize it with indigenous beliefs, in ways even more conducive to respect for the earth than recent western science has become. A global civic culture can count on a global acceptance of the scientific principles employed by ecology.
Important as the widespread acceptance of scientific thinking is, it is only a start toward a global civic culture. In Asia and in Africa, and even in Europe and North America, there are many people who make it a point to distinguish science from ethics. They adopt western science, but they explicitly reject western morals. In North America many people use science instrumentally, but derive norms for conduct from a religious tradition whose sacred texts are the ancient Greek New Testament and/or the ancient Hebrew Old Testament. Huntington points out that throughout the world modernization in the sense of learning how to use up to date technology, has proven to be quite compatible with retaining traditional and non-western values. (Huntington 1996) In this regard, one must grant that Huntington is correct, and that the people who expected that the spread of western technology and western commercial practices would carry with them the acceptance of western secular political and social institutions have turned out to be mistaken.
Nevertheless, there is a common global culture, and it is not just a scientific one. It is based, as I have indicated above, on rights. Rights, in some form or other, are on the agenda everywhere, because without them the basic structure of the modern world, the market, cannot function. Exchange is the link between rule-governed human activity and the physical processes through which the world's peoples for the most part get their daily rice, bread, lentils, potatoes, or corn. Exchange has become the global survival strategy. Market culture is the global culture, and it does not work without rights. The Chinese and the Saudis, for examples, may vehemently deny the alleged universal validity of western concepts of rights, but some concept of rights they must have, and do have.
It is possible to provide a definition of peace that is embedded in the idea of rights, and which links up through that idea with mainstream concepts found around the world. A great president of Mexico, Benito Juarez has done so: "El respeto al derecho ajeno es la paz." Respect for the rights of others is peace. (Juarez 1981)
Defining peace as respect for rights does not make peace simple or easy to achieve. The complexity of peace and the difficulty of achieving it transfer to the equally complex and difficult concepts "respect" and "rights." What the definition accomplishes is to ground "peace" in the developing process of establishing ethical norms for a global culture, or, better, for a global mosaic of different cultures, which will have in common that they will be able to live at peace internally, with each other, and with the earth.
"Rights" is an especially valuable concept because it is more than a concept that almost everybody finds meaningful. It is a concept that almost everybody respects as having moral authority. It makes an inward appeal to conscience, in the respect that most people inwardly guide their own conduct to avoid infringing on other people's rights. It has moral authority in the sense that one is considered justified while acting within one's rights, and also in the sense that one is considered to be justified in becoming indignant when one's rights are violated. The concept of "rights" thus complies with the internal aspect criterion and the socially obligatory aspect criterion identified by H. L. A. Hart in his analysis of what it means to be a "rule." Admittedly, "rights" is a concept which, in spite of its functional relationship to basic modern cultural structures, still belongs to a considerable extent to what anthropologists call "ideal culture." An "ideal culture" is a set of meanings which is recognized as correct, but which may have little or no effect on actual conduct. Nevertheless, a cultural context where it is acknowledged that the rights of others are supposed to be respected provides a framework for meaningful dialogue.
Where there is no shared moral culture, the listening aspect of peacemaking may fall flat. Without listening, peacemaking cannot even begin, because where one side does not understand the other's intentions it cannot possibly agree with, appreciate, or respect them. But without respect for rights, or some other precepts drawn from moral culture, the outcome after listening may be like the outcome of the Melian Dialogue recounted by Thucydides in his History of the Peloponnesian War. The Athenians said, in effect, to the Melians, "We have listened to you, and we understand you perfectly well, but we are going to kill you anyway, because it is to our interest to do so."
The conclusion I am moving toward is that peacemaking must include the enhancement and extension of existing ethics, in ways that make it possible to establish the rule of law. Following Hart again, Hart defines law as a "union of primary and secondary rules." (Hart 1961) The primary rules govern conduct. The secondary rules (such as the rule that what a court decides is to be accepted) identify which primary rules are valid. Thus law, in principle and in concept, requires the acceptance of rules; and, I am arguing, it requires the acceptance of the core of normative strength (to recur to Kenneth Boulding's notion of the strength of institutions) that rules share with morals, ethics, norms, conventions, customs, and culture.
I have not forgotten Quincy Wright's conclusion that the cause of war is the absence of the organization of peace. Expressing Wright's conclusion juridically, as Emery Reves does in The Anatomy of Peace, we can say that we have a war system because we have national sovereignty. (Reves 1945) In the strong sense of "sovereignty" classically articulated by Hugo Grotius in his pioneering work on international law, each nation-state recognizes no authority higher than itself. (Bull 1992) Therefore, each nation-state is legally authorized to make war whenever it wants to. Therefore, the world is governed by a war system in which war is, in principle, in von Clausewitz famous phrase, "the continuation of politics by other means." It should be noted, as Albert Einstein did note, that von Clausewitz's phrase reveals that politics itself, regarded as power politics or Realpolitik, assumes that the nation-state recognizes no authority higher than itself, and power politics is therefore, as Einstein also noted, already part of a system based on war, even before any shots are fired.
With my focus on the world as a global economic system, in which rights are an indispensable part of culture, I have not forgotten Wright, Einstein, Reves, von Clausewitz, and others who find war (and, following Hobbes, the same sort of analysis can be extended to violence in general) to be implicit in the logic of independent actors who recognize no authority higher than themselves. What I have done, and what Benito Juarez, Kant, and others did, is to carry the analysis a step farther, by articulating the principle we need to start from to achieve the general recognition of a legitimate authority higher than a nation-state, and (in Huntington's terms) higher than a civilization.
We do not need to go far to find formal legal norms that outlaw violence. War was outlawed by the Kellogg-Briand Treaty of 1924, and then outlawed again in the United Nations Charter of 1948. Other forms of violence were outlawed earlier.
The stubborn refusal of peace to happen in spite of the widespread general acknowledgment of the idea respect for the rights of others, and in spite of official documents that declare peace to be legally obligatory, shows that more is needed to create a culture of peace. It will not do to say that the culture already in existence, if only it obeyed in its own norms, would succeed in achieving lasting and general peace. The lack of law and order in the world is not just due to the lack of courts with binding jurisdiction. It is putting the cart before the horse (or the effect before the cause) to attribute violence to the lack of an international police force with physical power to enforce the law. The principle stated by James Brierly, the late professor of international law at Cambridge, should be remembered: "It is not the strength of the police that gives strength to the law; rather it is the strength of the law that makes it possible to organize a police force." (Brierly 1963)
To illustrate the significance of Brierly's principle: in Northern Ireland there are plenty of courts, and plenty of police, but no peace. The law is not strong enough to permit the organization of an effective police force.
This is not to say that peacemakers should abandon rights talk. On the contrary. Juarez's definition of peace in terms of rights is an appropriate one for the mainstream culture of the modern world. It derives strength from functional necessities, which in turn are rooted in the way the majority of the human species acquires food and meets basic needs. It is a starting point for building a culture of peace. Starting from here, from where we are, peacemakers can nurture the growth of peace by encouraging growth points that are already growing, where meaningful themes and powerful energies combine to further the growth of a culture of peace.
The building of a culture of peace begins with respect for the rights of persons because it is a cornerstone of the global civic culture that exists. But --and here we find growth points --for the same reason (i.e. because they exist) peacebuilding can employ and enhance other ethics. Trust, solidarity, love, caring, loyalty, respect for nature, integrity, honesty, virtue, self-discipline, character, duty, commitment, forgiveness, purity, responsibility, nonviolence, generosity, joy in the joy of others, and the spirit of self-sacrifice for the common good can all be found embedded in cultural norms that have moral authority for one group of people or another. Peacebuilding must seek and develop ethical growth points above and beyond the ethic of respect for the rights of others because, although it is indispensable as a starting point, it is inadequate.
Respect for the rights of others is the mainstream ethic of a world that does not work. There are at least three good reasons why the moral framework of a culture of peace has to be more than respect for the rights of others consistently carried out and put into practice.
The first was perhaps most famously pointed out by G. W. F. Hegel. (Smith 1989) It is that there are too many rights. Where there is a surplus of rights, Hegel said, force decides. Commonly in a war, or in a barroom brawl, both sides can paint with the language of rights to give their cause the color of moral superiority, and to give themselves the color of knights errant fighting for a righteous cause. To some extent this versatility of the concept of rights can be attributed to the human capacity for deception and self-deception. But it is easy to think of instances that are not mere deception. Often culturally recognized precepts of right really do give both sides good moral arguments, and then it is really true that there is a moral stalemate, where both sides are rhetorically armed with good reasons for declaring the other evil. Then it seems that Hegel may be correct to say that force is necessarily the final arbiter in a culture whose ethics relies solely on concepts of rights.
The second was perhaps most famously pointed out by Karl Marx. It is that the stubborn persistence of poverty, the instability of capitalist systems, and the exploitation of labor are all consistent with recognizing the rights of humanity embodied in the laws of commerce. Where everything is sold at its market price, in a free market, with property rights respected, it may well turn out to be the case, and often is the case, that labor is sold for little or nothing. As Marx put it, the deceptive surface of bourgeois society is, "a very Eden of the innate rights of man. There alone rule freedom, equality, property, and Bentham." (Marx)
The third was perhaps most famously pointed out by Alexander Solzhenitsyn and by M. K. Gandhi. (Berman 1980, Dalton 1982) It is that rights without duties are in principle unworkable. Emphasizing rights at the expense of duties is similar to adopting Denis Diderot's 18th century definition of liberty: whatever the law does not forbid is allowed. Like liberty, conceived as being allowed to do anything at all with a few exceptions, rights-talk lends itself to an irresponsible ethic. It authorizes everyone to say what they are supposed to be allowed to do, and are supposed to have and supposed to get. But it does not make anyone responsible for contributing to the welfare of others, or to the common good.
By noting the limitations of peace conceived as respect for the rights of others, in a sense I am leaving "peace" undefined. Although I think Juarez's definition is valid for mainstream modern culture today, I do not have a proposal for defining peace in a future global mosaic of cultures living at peace with one another, which would preserve today's ideals and enhance them. I agree with Chadwick Alger that "...the further we move toward the attainment of our present notion of peace, the more highly developed our future image of peace will be and the possibility of achieving this new image." (Alger 1991)
References
Chadwick Alger, "Creating Global Visions for Peace Movements," in Elise Boulding, Clovis Brigagao, Kevin Clements (eds.) Peace Culture and Society. Boulder: Westview Press, 1991.
Samir Amin, Maldevelopment: the anatomy of a global failure. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 1990.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae (various editions), second part of the second part, Question 29.
Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics (various editions)
Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961.
Ronald Berman (ed.) Solzhenitsyn at Harvard: the address, twelve early responses, and six later reflections. Washington DC: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1980.
Elise Boulding, Building a Global Civic Culture: education for an interdependent world. New York: Teachers College Press, 1988.
Kenneth Boulding, Stable Peace. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1978.
James Brierly, The Law of Nations: an introduction to the international law of peace. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.
Walter Brueggemann, Living Toward a Vision: Biblical Reflections on Shalom. Philadelphia: United Church Press, 1976.
Hedley Bull et al (eds.) Hugo Grotius and International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.
T. D. J. Chappell, Aristotle and Augustine on Freedom: two theories of freedom, voluntary action, and akrasia. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995.
David Charles, Aristotle's Philosophy of Action. London: Duckworth, 1989.
Gray Cox, The Ways of Peace: a philosophy of peace as action. New York: Paulist Press, 1986.
Dennis Dalton, Indian Ideas of Freedom: the political thought of Swami Vivekenanda, Aurobindo Ghose, Mahatma Gandhi, andRabindranath Tagore. Gurgaon, Haryana: Academic Press, 1982.
Albert Einstein, "Why War?" in Collected Works of Sigmund Freud, volume XXII. London: The Hogarth Press, 1964. The words quoted are on page 199.
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Paul Edwards, general editor). New York and London: Collier Macmillan, 1964. Volume 4, p.201.
Randall Forsberg and Elise Boulding, Abolishing War. Boston: Boston Research Center for the 21st Century, 1998. The words quoted are on page 15.
Paulo Freire, The Pedagogy of the Oppressed (translated by Myra Ramos). New York: Continuum, 1998.
Sigmund Freud, "Why War?" in Collected Works of Sigmund Freud, volume XXII. London: The Hogarth Press, 1964. The words quoted (which have been slightly rearranged) are on p. 213.
Fuller, R. Buckminster, Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1962.
Fuchs, Harald, Augustin and der Antike Friedensgedanke. Berlin: Weidmann, 1965.
Johan Galtung, The True Worlds. New York: Free Press: 1980.
Geertz, Clifford, The Interpretation of Cultures; selected essays. New York: Basic Books, 1973.
Giddens, Anthony, Capitalism and Modern Social Theory; an analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim, and Max Weber. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 1971.
Goleman, Daniel, Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam, 1995.
Harfiyah Abdel Haleem et al. The Crescent and the Cross. London: Macmillan, 1998. p. 66.
Marvin Harris, Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: the riddles of culture. New York: Random House, 1974.
H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961.
Catherine Hoppers, Structural Violence as a Constraint on African Policy Formation. Stockholm: University of Stockholm Press, 1998.
Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.
Edmund Husserl, The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1970.
Edmund Husserl, Experience and Judgment. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973. The quotations from Husserl are from pages 71, 75, and 268.
Benito Juarez, Antologia de Benito Juarez. (Jorge L. Tamayo, ed.) Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1981.
Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace. (edited by Lewis White Beck). New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1957.
John Paul Lederach, Building Peace: sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997.
John Paul Lederach, Preparing for Peace: conflict transformation across cultures. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1995.
Karl Marx, Capital (various editions) at the end of Chapter Six. The words quoted are found in the Great Books of the Western World edition, Chicago: Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1952, vol. 50, p. 83.
O'Neill, Onora, Faces of Hunger: an essay on poverty, justice, and development. Boston: Allen and Unwin, 1986.
Penn, William, An Essay Toward the Present and Future Peace of Europe. Washington: American Peace Society, 1912.
Plato, The Republic and The Laws (various editions). Concerning the relationship between harmony in the soul and harmony in the city, and the rule of the logistiche psuche in each, see especially Book IV of The Republic. The lines quoted concerning food are from the Jowett translation and are in Book II.
Popper, Karl, The Open Society and its Enemies. London: Routledge, 1945. Popper stresses and condemns Plato's tendency to require everyone to think alike. For a defense of Plato against Popper see Gerrit J. de Vries, Antisthenes Redivivus. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1952.
Betty Reardon, Sexism and the War System. New York: Teachers College Press, 1985.
Howard Richards, Letters from Quebec: a philosophy for peace and justice. San Francisco and London: International Scholars Press, 1994.
Robert W. Rieber (ed.), The Psychology of War and Peace; the image of the enemy. New York: Plenum Press, 1991.
Emery Reves, The Anatomy of Peace. New York and London: Harper, 1945.
Ferdinand Schoeman (ed.) Responsibility, Character, and the Emotions; new essays in moral psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Steven Smith, Hegel's Critique of Liberalism: rights in context. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.
Spradley, James P. The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1979.
Victor Turner, "Body Brain and Culture," an article published in Cross Currents (Dobbs Ferry, New York), vol. 36, p. 156 (Summer, 1986).
Stephen M. Walt, "Building up New Bogeymen: Review of Huntington," an article published in Foreign Affairs (Washington DC), vol. 1997 p. 177. (Spring, 1997)
Anthony Wilden, System and Structure: essays in communication and exchange. London: Tavistock Publications, 1972.
Quincy Wright, A Study of War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942.
Quincy Wright, The Causes of War and the Conditions of Peace. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1935. The words quoted are on pages 1 and 2.
geovisit();