|
|
If concepts could be divided between those that are totally good and those that are totally bad, many would put the concept of “peace” into the totally good basket without a moment’s hesitation. Peace is an ideal for which many states and external actors strive, but the implications of peace are rarely considered. This paper examines the darker side of peace by discussing the key elements of the quote and it argues that peace is generated by violence, does embody violence, and in turn generates further violence. It begins with a discussion of how peace is generated by violence. The next section deals with the embodiment of peace in violence by looking at the situation in parts of Brazil. The idea that peace could generate violence seems at first to be oxymoron but the subsequent section of the essay deals with analysing how and where peace does generate violence. The final part deals with a short case study of the East Timor, a country where the line between peace and violence is very fine. The paper concludes by arguing that in order for conflict situations to be resolved, it must be realised that peace brings its own problems and should never be considered as a wholly perfect concept.
Peace is generated by violence:
Peace can not be defined without first defining violence, and it is this that makes them “mutually defining folk concepts” (Nordstrom 1999, 71). Acknowledging the existence of peace involves recognising violence. In most emerging states, peace is achieved through a history of violence and this can be seen in the history of East Timor, detailed further in the case study at the end of this essay.
Violence in this paper is used synonymously with the term “structural violence” as defined by Khan. For Khan, structural violence encompassed four major groups of violence: classical, or direct, violence; poverty – deprivation of basic material needs; repression – deprivation of human rights; and alienation – deprivation of higher needs (Khan 1978 in Uvin 2000, 166). The inclusion of poverty in this definition is an important part of understanding violence. In 1962, Carolina Maria de Jesus wrote, “A child died today in the favela. He was two months old. If he had lived he would have gone hungry anyway.” (Scheper-Hughes 1992, 268). Need can also lead to direct violence and in many fragile states, like Sierra Leone, where the majority of the population is struggling to meet their most basic needs, this violence becomes almost inevitable (Keen 2005, 5). “The dangerousness” of the poor and marginal classes derives directly from their condition of desperate want.” (Scheper-Hughes 1992, 224).
If peace is the control of violence, then a line must be drawn between the two concepts. It seems pertinent to ask how much violence must be controlled for it to be considered peaceful. The level of violence a state and it’s judiciary can deal with while protecting human rights and habeas corpus, however every state “deals” with different types of violence in very different ways. “After the fall, after the aberration, we expect a return to the normative, to peacetime sobriety, to notions of civil society, human rights, the sanctity of the person, habeas corpus, and the unalienable rights to the ownership of one’s body.” (Scheper-Hughes 1992, 219). There are few states that fulfil all of this criteria all of the time.
Peace embodies violence:
According to the Collins Dictionary, to embody means “to be an example of or express (an idea, principle, etc.)” (Collins 2004, 382). If one accepts that peace and violence are two opposing concepts, then it appears impossible for one to be an example of the other. Yet it is clear the two coexist in all societies and evidence from Palestine and Brazil shows that peace can be an example of violence. Peace embodies violence because in order to achieve peace, some groups in the society must be quelled. This section deals with the structural violence that continues to occur in Brazil.
In Brazil, violence is part of the everyday life of the poorest people, despite some sense of peace for the upper classes.
“For the popular classes every day is, as Taussig (1989) succinctly put it, “terror as usual”. A state of emergency occurs when the violence that is normally contained to that social space suddenly explodes into open violence against the “less dangerous” social classes. What makes these outbreaks “extraordinary” then is only that the violent tactics are turned against “respectable” citizens, those usually shielded from state, especially police, terrorism.” (Scheper-Hughes 1992, 220).
Violence or threats of violence are used by the police and military to keep citizens under control, despite the fact that this lack of control stems from an inability for the majority of citizens to fulfil their basic needs. Frantz Fanon believed that violence was derived from, at worst, a sense of non-existence, which could be linked to colonialism (Keen 2005, 4). For the poorer classes in Brazil in 1992, there was definitely a lack of recognition that these citizens existed. Streets were not included on maps, bodies were lost within the hospital system, deaths were not recorded properly, if at all, and children were illegally adopted-out to middle class families without parental permission (Scheper-Hughes 1992, 231, 242, 247). Peace embodies violence.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Fi McKenzie
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
