I have been thinking a lot about peace lately. The plea for peace in the daily chaos, peace in the middle east, peace in Iraq, peace studies, peace linguistics, paz em 2008, peace in numerous global conflicts, and peace in the Brazilian favelas.
Who benefits from peace? Equally important, who benefits from conflict?
It never occurred to me to question the idea of peace as part of the status quo until a woman in my human rights class at the UFPE brought it up. We were discussing peace education and a project that was instituted at one of the public schools here in Recife. Everyone was praising the project and inevitably, the discussion turned to the previous day's headlines of violence, assaults, general terror, and mayhem. You could smell the fear being generated within the room. I have written about the fear circles before, and this was no different. It is always someone is a situation of privilege talking about being terrorized.
As the conversation built on what we do with violence in the schools, violent children, and educating in this setting, she said something to the effect of, "And just exactly who are we asking to be peaceful? The students who have nothing? Who are marginalized? Who are victims of our society? How can we ask them just to accept the situation and be peaceful about it? PEACE FOR WHOM?"
I had never thought to stop and question the very idea of "peace" and whom it benefits in an unequal and unjust society.
Peace means telling these people to accept their situation and through their submission and non-confrontational practice, they will find peace. Acceptance or submission is the price of peace. These kids are coming from the violence of their daily lives, the fight just to get through the day, the symbolic violence against them in the media, the physical violence of the police, and we ask them to be peaceful. Peace fits the status quo. Peace does not rock the boat. Peace does not change the system.
Their fight is disrupting our peace. Their agitation against the system makes the middle class' lives a little less comfortable.
I had already written a draft of this post when I read a comment on my friend's blog about the riots in Mozambique over a bus fare increase. This fare increase would literally have left the majority of the population working only to pay for taking the bus to work with nothing left over. The comment someone wrote about the protest was to the affect of "why can't they just be organized and peaceful?" Something about that idea just made me uncomfortable. I obviously believe in non-violence from my privileged perspective, but can I demand the same of people in an obviously less privileged situation that literally determines if they can feed their families? Do I have a right to project my "peace" upon the people the system is marginalizing?
We are taught the non-violence is the solution to conflict and through non-violent action, we can change things. I am starting to become a little more doubtful. In a system that is inherently violent how do people make changes? I know the standard answers education, unity, etc., etc., but what is really changing?
I still believe in a world without violence, I just wonder who sacrifices for that peace.
2 comments:
Very interesting ideas. I'd also never stopped to question the concept of peace and who it benefits in the way you have discussed here.
For what it's worth, the violent riots in Mozambique *did* create the desired effect. The price of transport was decreased, the people's voice was heard and respected by the people in power.
I also agree that a world without violence is a noble objective; it is what I hope for, what I work towards in small daily actions.
However, in addition to the questions of whether or not "we" can impose our notions of peace on "them", the marginalized povo who are struggling to make it within the system, one must stop to consider how likely it is to have a non-violent world when violence clearly is rewarded with action in so many situations...
It may not be right, and it may not be wrong, but it certainly generates change.
I completely agree with you. It seems to be a never-ending cycle. If the people in power only react to violence, then it seems the obvious step to take if you want them to listen. When the people holding power actually listen to the povo, that will be the first step to non-violence. I wonder if that is ever going to happen in a system dependant on hierarchy, control, and power over others. I have a feeling that it will only get worse as corporate control takes over governments and profit is always more important than people.
Post a Comment