You can’t have one without the other

Washington, DC December 16, 2010 This is a group of Minnesotans who traveled to Washington DC to join a demonstration against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Over 100 were arrested in front of the White House. The event was endorsed by groups such as: Veterans For Peace, ANSWER Coalition, CODEPINK, Fellowship of Reconciliation, March Forward!, Peace of the Action, United National Antiwar Committee, Voices for Creative Nonviolence, War Resisters League, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, World Can’t Wait. his file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. Author: Fibonacci Blue

By Kathie MM

 Regarding love and marriage, Dad was told by mother, you can’t have one without the other.

In the sophisticated 21st century, we know that what the song was really about was sex and marriage, but one could argue that the essential link between the two is love.

Well, similar things can be said about peace and social justice.  You can’t have peace without social justice, and the essential link is love for humanity and the earth, expressed through activism.

Think about the huge profits the military industrial complex reaps from warfare,  arms sales,  military bases, and “defense” budgets. How does one shake their dedication to promoting targets for rage on the home front in order to serve their desire to keep the country in perpetual armed conflict against designated enemies within and outside national borders?  It is pretty obvious that the MIC will not give up their billions easily;  active protest is essential.

To reintroduce our new series emphasizing the intimate connection between peace and social justice, today’s offering is a reincarnation of one of engaging peace’s first posts back in 2011.

 Negative versus positive definitions of peace

Posted on May 16, 2011 by kathiemm

*Negative peace refers to definitions that identify peace with the absence of war or armed conflict.

*Positive peace refers to definitions that focus on the prerequisites and criteria for a sustainable peace, including respect for universal human rights (which are not synonymous with the legal rights granted by any particular legal authority).

The major public media in this country certainly do little to promote the idea of peace per se, let alone positive peace.

A report released by the Institute for Economics and Peace in October 2010 described a study regarding violence and peace in television programs. Included in the research were 37 news and current affairs programs from 23 networks in 15 countries, including the United States.

Overall, only 1.6% of the stories examined in the study considered issues of positive peace. However, there was some variation across the countries in amount of media time devoted to issues of violence. According to the report, “Of the 10 TV programs with the highest level of violence coverage, 8 are from the United States or the United Kingdom.”

Do you think there have been any changes in our culture of violence since 2011?  Do you see any signs of resistance to the business as usual of hatred and violence?  What actions, what protests, are you aware of in our society today that might contribute to resistance to endless war and social injustice at every level of society?  Please share your ideas.

Negative versus positive definitions of peace

Our research team, the Group on International Perspectives on Governmental Aggression and Peace (GIPGAP), values the distinction between positive and negative peace: Peace symbol

  • Negative peace refers to definitions that identify peace with the absence of war or armed conflict.
  • Positive peace refers to definitions that focus on the prerequisites and criteria for a sustainable peace, including respect for universal human rights (which are not synonymous with the legal rights granted by any particular legal authority).

According to GIPGAP’s research, to be discussed more in later posts, in the U.S. it is the negative peace definitions that predominate. Why is this?

The major public media in this country certainly do little to promote the idea of peace per se, let alone positive peace.

A report released by the Institute for Economics and Peace in October 2010 described a study regarding violence and peace in television programs. Included in the research were 37 news and current affairs programs from 23 networks in 15 countries, including the United States.

Overall, only 1.6% of the stories examined in the study considered issues of positive peace. However, there was some variation across the countries in amount of media time devoted to issues of violence. According to the report, “Of the 10 TV programs with the highest level of violence coverage, 8 are from the United States or the United Kingdom.”

This research suggests both a lack of interest in peace as a product of respect for human rights and a conviction that “violence sells.” Therefore, is it surprising that when most Americans think about peace, they see it primarily as just an absence of war?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology