What is Peace?

By Dennis B.


What is Peace? This question has echoed through the hallowed halls of human imagination for as long as beings had the faculties to conceive it. Through all of this, peace has eluded our full understanding, basking in the light of realization just long enough to abscond back into the darkness. What is proposed here is that peace, perfectly realized, is impossible. Peace in all of its infinite and universal understanding will always prove to be a Goliath that our slings and pebbles of finite understanding can never conquer. This however, does not mean that peace should be abandoned. The very thing that prevents our species from realizing perfect peace is the very thing that makes it accessible to us all. Perfect peace is not achievable because its very realization is not based on one concrete and immutable doctrine. Instead, it is a concept in constant motion and reinvention. In this way, when the process of peace stops, the realization of peace ceases to exist. This can be likened to our own human bodies. At any given moment, our bodies are in constant motion. Our hearts beat, lungs inflate and deflate, and our neurons fire. When these processes cease to happen, what we consider a biologically alive human being becomes a non-living mass of organic matter. There is not a time in our biological life that upon the ceasing of these vital processes we can say that we are at the pinnacle of living. Instead, the process of living defines biological life. Likewise, peace is not defined by a final state of being, but through the process that it entails. In this way, the process of peace comes to full fruition in the process of its realization instead in any possible finite realization. The moment one stops to say “I have found peace” is the very moment peace is lost. So how is this process realizable in our modern world or in our own societies? What first must be done is to look at some of the major features within society that can either cultivate or hamper the process of peace. Then, these features will be evaluated in the context of the United States.

FEATURES OF A PEACEFUL SOCIETY.

A question that must be asked when talking about peace as a process is what exactly are these processes of peace? The answer given by modern philosophers like Habermas would be the process that allows for the uncoerced search for ones self-understanding. According to the modern moral order, this must be through the realization of freedom and equality of all individuals through individual rights and the institution of democracy. At the heart of this for Habermas, is a type of discoursive communication within the public sphere. Discoursive communication in this sense is a dialogue in which all parties can fairly and reasonably communicate their needs in this public sphere. It is important to note that “fair” in this communication means that the communication is held between individuals are equals. If this condition is not met, the communication becomes a miscommunication and perpetrates structural violence upon the weaker party. Habermas also refers to the process as the goal, when prescribes that true discoursive communication must be marked with a “consistent actualization of the system of rights”(1), that requires, “a politics of recognition that protects the integrity of the individual in the life contexts in which his or her identity is formed”. (2) These life contexts refer to not only an identity that is built from the internal contexts of self but also the external contexts of ones cultural heritage or understanding. In this way the normative aspects of a set of legal rights is canceled out by the ascription to “the bearers of individual rights an identity that is conceived intersubjectivley”. (3) Therefore, a peaceful society under the conceptions given earlier can best be described as a society that allows for the peaceful cultivation of self-understanding, through mutual recognition, of all who take part in that particular society.

The ideas put forward by Habermas gives us a good structure in which self-understanding and ultimately peace can be established in a constitutional democracy. There remains the question of what in this process of peace through self-understanding can be used to validate the specific actions of a society as peaceful instead of violent. If peace is an infinite and perfect ideal in which perfect realization of it is impossible, how can a peaceful society be measured? Derrida provides an argument for this through his method of evaluating the levels of violence in a society in the terms of degrees of perfectibility. The three major measuring points for Derrida are justice, unconditional hospitality, and unconditional forgiveness. All of these points are seen as having two different registers, the conditional and unconditional. What Derrida calls the conditional register is the realization of the ideal within a finite conception. Justice in this conditional framework can be seen as social law that is at one point informed by the absolute ideal of justice but is constrained by “social and political dynamics”. (4) Perfect justice on the other hand, is not restrained by these dynamics so it is able to move beyond the conceptions of law. This is important because the perfect ideal of justice, because of its infinite and absolute characteristics, provides an inexhaustible demand for which law must answer by constantly challenging its own limits. This dynamic is the same for both hospitality and forgiveness. The degree then to which a social structure attempts to appraise its own limits and act upon these appraisals to more closely lend itself to the unattainable and perfect ideal, determines its level of violence.

Now that these principles for a peaceful society have been laid out, they can now be applied to the social structures of the United States. In order to do this the major features of American society that can be either legitimized or illegitimated by the aforementioned ideals will be explored.

THE U.S. AS A PEACEFUL SOCIETY

The United States is set up as a constitutional democracy and therefore should be to some extent based on the ideals in which Habermas created his framework. This can be seen in the fundamental presuppositions of freedom and equality in its democratic communications. However, multiculturalism has become a major challenge to the key concepts in the American public sphere. What can be seen as the prevailing response to this challenge is the application of a doctrine of tolerance. Under the influence of a theory of individual rights, tolerance is reduced to a kind of insincere respect based on the legal requirement. This respect is not based on understanding or the wish to understand the other. It is instead based on the “reason of the strongest”, (5) in which the welcome offered to the other is structured around retaining and protecting individual sovereignty.(6) Because of this Derrida considers tolerance as a rather imperfect realization of the absolute of unconditional hospitality. Likewise, this refusal to understand the other hampers mutual recognition that in turn threatens true discoursive communication in the public sphere. As mentioned earlier, if communication is not truly discoursive it threatens to revert to a distorted communication that reverts to structural violence.

This can be seen most prominently in the treatment of minorities in America. The doctrine of tolerance becomes hypocritical when placed within the concept of equality and the American dream. On one hand, the citizen is to respect the rights of another to have their own beliefs and culture, however, on the other hand this must be done through the lens of traditional American values, which in actuality could be considered European values. This immediately puts any person who has not grown up in these conditions or those who do not necessarily come to agreement with the majority on what these values are, in a situation of coerced conformity. Coerced conformity entails a communication in which one side is weaker than the other, which makes the individuals involved unequal. With out an opportunity for mutual recognition, the weaker party risks being misrecognized or not recognized at all. The minority is then relegated to a system of structural violence, in which equality and freedom is legally afforded, but the means to realize these rights are withheld. Furthermore, tolerance fuels the misrecognition by alleviating the majority of the need to understand the other.

What appears to be the biggest roadblock to changing the idea of tolerance is also a symptom of a problem that seems to hit the American concept of freedom and equality at its core. This can best be described as a kind of stagnation of appraisal of traditional lines of values and ideas. Habermas refers to this as a paternalistic system of rights that “ignores half of the concept of autonomy.” (7) The system of rights that dominate the public sphere are based on the historical and traditional conceptions that have been simply handed down to today’s citizen. There is no room left for any real reconceptualization or discoursive legitimization to the extent to which things are to be seen as equal or fair. This stunts the exercise of autonomy by the modern citizen by removing them from the process. Without this, the vital connection between the individual rights of persons and the public autonomy of the citizen is severed, leaving nothing but a normative unchanging system of rights. This can be seen in the apathetical attitude of many that there is no longer a need to fight for anything because the pinnacle of freedom and equality was reached years ago. The only thing left to do is adjust a few things under the existing order and then spread it around the world. This leads not only to structural violence of weaker groups internally, but the violence of forced conversion of these imperfectly realized ideals abroad.

The United States in respect to its policies on international relations has simply continued the problems found in the public sphere. When the U.S. deals with another country, they often employ what Kant considered the right of invitation. (8) It is not however the rights of invitation that causes the problem. Instead, it is the use of this conditional hospitality as the means and the ideal. It is true that in the concept of sovereignty, “unconditional hospitality cannot have a political or juridical status.” (9) However, unconditional hospitality must not be completely ignored. When the U.S. deals with another country, they do so under the assumption that American ideals must not be compromised. This creates a situation in which there is no real chance for dialogue because the U.S. identity cannot be challenged. An example of this can be seen at the United Nations conference on Environment and Development that was held in 1992. When developing nations asked to include in the legislation the “Over-Consumption of resources by developed countries”, George Bush Sr. objected by stating that, “the American lifestyle is not up for negotiation.” (10) In this scenario, the willingness to open up the American value system to challenge is non-existent. There is no concept of unconditional hospitality that allows the rights of invitation to be pushed to their limits. Because of this, the United States falls into an almost xenophobic state, which does not allow for dialogue with the international other. The dynamic of international relations is then reduced to a will to power. Those countries that cannot bolster or provide the resources to continue the American identity, have no worth and therefore their claims for recognition can be ignored. The only times that communication is needed is to challenge the other to conform. This is especially prominent in the project of modernity, in which the unique and insightful perspectives of other countries are not considered. This kind of communication can lead to disastrous consequences both in the U.S. and abroad in which September 11 and the resulting “War on Terrorism” is an example.

There seems to be at the heart of many of these problems a misperception that can be seen in the creation of our modern social imaginaries. The main component of this could be seen as a loss of universal ideals, at least in the terms laid out by Derrida. We believe in a doctrine that espouses that freedom and equality are inherent to each person. One does not have to search for these rights, they are simply given. However, they are placed in a context in which they reside completely in the finite realm. The essence of this can be seen in our almost blind reliance on socially constructed laws. By the enactment of these laws, we seek to secure the inherent rights we already have. Any changes to these laws are done in the belief that perfect realizations of these rights are possible because there perfection is already within us. This can lead to a stagnation in which once a system of laws is considered as perfect as possible they are left unquestioned. Unfortunately, as laws are socially constructed, this leads to a normative set of values that no longer attempt to reach a higher understanding and instead, seek only to protect its own system. This then leads to violence as the laws become unable to change with the conceptions of equality and freedom of the citizens it governs. The only way to remedy this is to constantly reevaluate the system, so that it may mirror those it governs. Unfortunately, what is often needed to create the impetus to evolve is a belief in an unattainable perfection that historically has been connected to the hierarchy and violence of the pre-modern order. Because of this historical connection, we are often wary of making use of unrealizable perfection now. However, as Derrida believes, we must make that connection because in positing that there is a higher ideal that cannot be reached it also means that we could never become satisfied with one single imperfect realization of it. This would force a mentality of constant reappraisal, dialogue, and change. This is where our modern concepts on the right to security can play a detrimental role.

The need for security can become misleading, especially if it is done so in the terms of survival. It seems reasonable that every individual has a right to be secure. However, in terms of the search for self-understanding, there must also be the impetus to sacrifice some of that security in order to grow. Change can be very intimidating but it is a necessary component of self-realization. This is often lost in the American identity because we feel much safer if our own identities are kept safely at arms length from others. Therefore, in an attempt to realize this we constitute a kind of legal equality, which allows each of us the protection to freely express our identities in a type of social vacuum. Unfortunately, individual identity requires social recognition so this new concept only provides the basis for self-satisfaction not self-understanding. This in many ways describes the attitudes taken in reference to the American duties of citizens. We are afraid to truly engage the modern American government, because in doing so we open our own identities to scrutiny. We withdraw from the public sphere in order to protect our identity just as the American government withdraws from international dialogue to protect its own identity.


1 Jurgen Habermas. “Struggle for recognition in the Denocratic Constitutional State”. In Multiculturalism: Examingin the Politics of Recognition . Ed. Amy Gutman. Princeton University Press. New Jersey. 1992. pg 113

2 Jurgen Habermas pg 113

3 Jurgen Habermas pg 113

4 Jurgen Habermas pg 164

5 Derrida. Deconstructing Terrorism pg161

6 Derrida. Deconstructing Terrorism pg 161

7 Habermas pg 112

8 Derrida. Deconstructing Terrorism pg 162

9 Derrida. Deconstructing Terrorism pg 163

10 Peter Singer One World: The Ethics of Globalization. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002


11 Voltaire. Candide. Dover publications, New York.1991 pg 3

© 2005