This may sound strange to the readership of this Substack, but I wonder if it would be possible to tie into the resources of Rotary International. As an organization it can achieve great things in partnership with others (cf the “End Polio Now” campaign with the WHO and the Gates Foundation), and Peace has been one of its areas of focus throughout the 40 years I have been a member. If you see any merit in the idea, I could work with you to prepare an approach to the Rotary Foundation, which can mobilize both money and people if it can be convinced of viability.
Thank you, Jonathan, for attempting to make peace sexy again.
There is a notion in psychotherapy called 'hostile dependency,' characterized by one or both members of a relationship being dependent. This dependency can lead to profound feelings of being trapped, resulting in frustration and anger that manifests as hostility. This dynamic can create a toxic and dysfunctional relationship characterized by a cycle of neediness and antagonism, not too dissimilar from what we are witnessing on the world stage.
Shifting this relationship dynamic is very difficult unless one or both members grow from dependency to independence and eventually to interdependence. This transformation requires cultivating a healthy, reliable way to negotiate differences. It involves leaning into conflict and having the means to move through it, ultimately landing in a new place both within ourselves and with each other, rather than getting stuck in an impasse.
I encourage us to explore how we relate to one another in our personal lives, where some degree of trust is hopefully already established. Without being able to negotiate well in our personal relationships, what hope do we have to enact it on a global scale?
I love this article. It has a great combination of mind-widening cogitation and links for further research. An excellent doorway through which to enter the topic of peace, on whose threshold I am currently lingering. Thanks!
Jonathan, There is a lot in this. Too much, in fact, to comment on briefly. Would love to put you in touch with folks in the UK who are actively working on the issues you raise and with the Institute for Economics and Peace whose GPI you draw on. In the meantime, check out their pillars of positive peace and the evidence in their positive peace index. Cheers
You ask, "Do we have a theory and practice of peace that is worthy of the risks and challenges of the 21st century?"
At the present time, and probably for a long time to come, the answer appears to be no.
The fundamental problem is the marriage of violent men and an accelerating knowledge explosion. This principle has been obvious since Hiroshima.
The primary challenge seems to be that, as a culture, we currently have almost zero interest in giving up either violent men or an accelerating knowledge explosion. I've been writing about this around the Net for years now, and resistance to ending that marriage is very strong. Everybody wants peace, but when you present them with the price tag, they walk out of the store.
We're trying to run the 21st century on an outdated 19th century philosophy. We just aren't ready for much more at the moment.
Truthfully, fair warning, most people will not find this idea to be "worthy". But, any idea big enough to meet the challenge is going to be unpopular with many.
Discussion and challenge is most welcome and appreciated, especially if a challenger will stick with the conversation for awhile.
"The system determines behaviour," to paraphrase Donella Meadows. Accordingly, the (globalized) class-based society/ies we find ourselves in cannot support structural peace. I expand a little on this here:
Here is my latest effort to draw upon the moral imagination in pursuit of a new understanding of peace—“right relations”—and their inner workings:
https://dissidentvoice.org/2024/03/reimagining-nationalism-and-democracy-with-the-view-from-the-shore/
This may sound strange to the readership of this Substack, but I wonder if it would be possible to tie into the resources of Rotary International. As an organization it can achieve great things in partnership with others (cf the “End Polio Now” campaign with the WHO and the Gates Foundation), and Peace has been one of its areas of focus throughout the 40 years I have been a member. If you see any merit in the idea, I could work with you to prepare an approach to the Rotary Foundation, which can mobilize both money and people if it can be convinced of viability.
You might be interested in my “Course” which includes my theory and prescription.
Thank you, Jonathan, for attempting to make peace sexy again.
There is a notion in psychotherapy called 'hostile dependency,' characterized by one or both members of a relationship being dependent. This dependency can lead to profound feelings of being trapped, resulting in frustration and anger that manifests as hostility. This dynamic can create a toxic and dysfunctional relationship characterized by a cycle of neediness and antagonism, not too dissimilar from what we are witnessing on the world stage.
Shifting this relationship dynamic is very difficult unless one or both members grow from dependency to independence and eventually to interdependence. This transformation requires cultivating a healthy, reliable way to negotiate differences. It involves leaning into conflict and having the means to move through it, ultimately landing in a new place both within ourselves and with each other, rather than getting stuck in an impasse.
I encourage us to explore how we relate to one another in our personal lives, where some degree of trust is hopefully already established. Without being able to negotiate well in our personal relationships, what hope do we have to enact it on a global scale?
I love this article. It has a great combination of mind-widening cogitation and links for further research. An excellent doorway through which to enter the topic of peace, on whose threshold I am currently lingering. Thanks!
Jonathan, There is a lot in this. Too much, in fact, to comment on briefly. Would love to put you in touch with folks in the UK who are actively working on the issues you raise and with the Institute for Economics and Peace whose GPI you draw on. In the meantime, check out their pillars of positive peace and the evidence in their positive peace index. Cheers
You ask, "Do we have a theory and practice of peace that is worthy of the risks and challenges of the 21st century?"
At the present time, and probably for a long time to come, the answer appears to be no.
The fundamental problem is the marriage of violent men and an accelerating knowledge explosion. This principle has been obvious since Hiroshima.
The primary challenge seems to be that, as a culture, we currently have almost zero interest in giving up either violent men or an accelerating knowledge explosion. I've been writing about this around the Net for years now, and resistance to ending that marriage is very strong. Everybody wants peace, but when you present them with the price tag, they walk out of the store.
We're trying to run the 21st century on an outdated 19th century philosophy. We just aren't ready for much more at the moment.
https://www.tannytalk.com/p/our-relationship-with-knowledge
You write, "The world does not seem to have an idea of peace worthy of the 21st century."
Here's a 14 page essay on that subject.
https://www.tannytalk.com/s/peace
A partial video presentation of the same article series is available here:
https://hippytoons.com/p/world-peace-table-of-contents
Truthfully, fair warning, most people will not find this idea to be "worthy". But, any idea big enough to meet the challenge is going to be unpopular with many.
Discussion and challenge is most welcome and appreciated, especially if a challenger will stick with the conversation for awhile.
"The system determines behaviour," to paraphrase Donella Meadows. Accordingly, the (globalized) class-based society/ies we find ourselves in cannot support structural peace. I expand a little on this here:
https://substack.com/@michaelhaupt/note/c-59551200