A major issue that continues to limit the progress of creating a more peaceful world is the stereotypes associated with it. I have mentioned before that it is a word that is associated with a sort of counter-culture. Rumor has it, as has been conveyed to me by colleagues, that I am Gay, smoke a lot of weed, and must have been a hippie. This is what happens when you talk about the “P” word and concepts like compassion and non-violent communication. You get labeled and the label is meant to diminish you and your message. This attitude is institutionalized in our culture. My sexuality is my business but I like the whole idea of pansexual. It seems like a natural progression. Loving people based on who they are but that is a discussion for another time. We have so many prejudices when it comes to the social norms that dictate who we love and how we love them.
As far as weed goes, I am not proud of it, but I have not smoked any since 1981….and I did inhale. It just does not have a lot of appeal for me. I tell people I’m already out there. Hippie? Please, I lived in a conservative household where my father ran a small business, was a lifetime NRA member, and had a lot of guns which we shot regularly. I can see living in a shared-living situation, like several people going in to buy a big house together, but I don’t fit the stereotype of communal living. It’s more like let’s pool our resources so we don’t have to go into an assisted living situation as we age.
Simply put I just do not see any sense to killing each other, physically or emotionally. It is just plain stupid. Further it is not, killing that is, supported by most religions or ethical systems. The only time it is supported is when a country decides to go to war. Then killing becomes heroic. Based on the psychological damage incurred by those participating in warfare it seems we are simply not designed to kill; at least most of us are not. There is also the indirect killing through neglect as we allow people to die of starvation and treatable diseases across the globe. We have the resources to intervene, we just choose not to.
So in the spirit of creating a more peaceful, just, and equitable world let me share an excellent definition of peace. In their book: “An Introduction to Peace and Conflict Studies” David Barash and Charles Webel do an excellent job of defining peace. They delineate two perspectives. The first is the most common definition called negative peace. This is defined as an absence of war. The second, positive peace, is defined as “a social condition in which exploitation is minimized or eliminated and in which there is neither overt violence nor the more subtle phenomenon of underlying structural violence. It includes an equitable and just social order, as well as ecological harmony. Structural violence is built into our social, cultural and economic institutions. It usually has the effect of denying people important rights such as economic well-being: social, political, and sexual equality; a sense of personal fulfillment and self-worth; food, clean water, and medical care; environmental rights.” This focus on human rights is an important shift as it is provides us with specific components of peace.
If we approach peace from a foundation of human rights we can disabuse people of the notion that we are anti-military and running around sticking flowers in gun barrels. We need to be informed, focused, committed, and courageous. We have a lot of educating to do and assertive compassion is desperately needed in this world. Barash and Webel’s definition is a great way to start the process. Put in out there in your classes, social media, or anywhere else you can. We all need to do our part.