| You would
think that long-time committed peace activists would understand that
touting their own commitments to peace while criticizing that of
others makes them appear much like their pro-militarist counterparts
who take pleasure in showing off their longevity uniform markings on
their sleeves. Of course, peace activists don't actually put
hash marks (one for each 4 years of military service) on the sleeve of their
shirts. They do sometimes express being in league for their
cause, however, in a virtual hash mark manner. Some with a
history of having committed acts of civil disobedience see themselves as
being above
those activists who have not. Some who can produce
a long list of the demonstrations they attended project their
well-seasoned status as if a multiplicity of
participation entitles them to more respect. The fact is that
most orchestrated demonstrations produce few tangible results on the
issues. Demonstrations do, however, serve a means by which the
participants reinvigorate themselves, hopefully, not to the point of
zealotry. Some activists find pride in being referred to
as "renowned activists". This ethnocentrism within the
narrow parameters of a mostly ethnocentric peace movement
capitulates to the human aspiration for notoriety. Being
"renowned" comes with caveats. Other activists deem
it necessary to criticize peace groups and their members for not
doing enough. They brush people and groups off as being all
talk and no action. These peace activist critics are good at
calling attention to the arrogance of those in positions of power
while often failing to recognize the negative power of their own
arrogance. When peace activists reach the point of
self-aggrandizement to such an extent that they can put down the
involvement of others, then an assessment of their
own commitment to peace appears warranted.
The everything2.com website defines
zealots as those who are in pursuit of a good cause often feeling they are
immune to criticism of their own methods. "Instead of
seeing answers and becoming an example of those answers in action,
they are consumed with a need to, in whatever way possible, get
others to agree with them and the actions they
prescribe." Zealots are the last thing the peace movement
needs. The fact is that each of us in the peace movement also has a
life to live. And, it is our life. Some of us are involved in
pressing family and/or medical issues. Others are struggling
with getting affordable health care. Some of us lack
transportation. Others have full-time jobs
with long commutes. We do what we can, when we can, and, if we
cannot do more then that is the way that it goes.
Groups, like individuals, are quite
capable of collectively determining their own levels of commitment
and action. Sometimes, a group's methods used in decision
making are cumbersome and tedious. Many groups operate under
100% consensus which can be slow, frustrating, and a drawn-out
process. 100% consensus decision making, however, leaves no
one behind in the decision making process. By the very nature
of consensus, and its one-person blocking option, everyone has a say
and an equal voice. No-one is excluded. If this process takes too long for some, well then,
what price shall we pay for participatory democracy? Why
should impatience compel us to criticize those who have a dedication
to consensus decision making?. This is, after all, what
democracy looks like.
Alberta Contarello and Muro Sarrica
from the Department of General Psychology, University of Padova
(Italy) in their article, "Peace, War and Conflict: Social
Representations Shared by Peace Activists and Non-Activists"
which appears on the Sage Publications website, discuss "the
importance of linking social representations to practice and group
identification." When comparing peace activists to
non-activists their "results support the idea of understanding
peace activism as a particular form of coping -- community coping --
based on the group as a whole, rather than on individual capacity to
manage problems." Individual peace activists
attempting to manage other groups is anathema to their
findings. Working outside the social representation of the
peace group is, according to Contarello and Sarrica,
counterproductive. Peace activists should be well aware that change
comes over the long term. Let us be honest. The
peace work that we do, hopefully, will lead to a less violent world
in our children's and grandchildren's lifetime. Chastising
other activists for their lack of involvement suggests an
impertinent impatience
with the long-term process, perhaps, an overindulgence in our own self-importance. The goal of peace may be grandiose, but our
day-to-day actions should not be. Let us not delude ourselves into
thinking they are.
Contarello and Sarrica go on to say
that, "The preconception that conflict is
something negative, to be avoided, and from which one party will
necessarily emerge defeated should be rebutted." Understandably,
people get disappointed when they do not get their way or when one
of their pet ideas gets delayed or rejected. The manner in which the
disappointment and any impending conflict is handled, however, says
much about our dedication to the conflict resolution
process itself. One can hardly create a more peaceful world
through conflict resolution on a global scale when one is unable or
incapable of doing so locally within the close proximity of one's like-minded
comrades.
Organizations sometimes talk too much
and do too little. But criticizing them for this suggests the
group, its members and their meetings are irrelevant. Such
criticism serves no useful purpose and is counter-productive. It
insults the participants. It is difficult
attracting good people to committing their time and energy to the cause of peace,
even minimally. How is the cause of peace advanced by
such zealous criticism?
It is not. Zealotry chases people
away. Peace is better served by criticizing the people
who start illegal wars and who profit from destruction and death. Let us make certain that zealotry
and our egos do not cloud our vision of a more peaceful planet.
Let us not stifle the prospect that a new world is possible. Let us
refrain from wearing peace activism hash marks on our sleeves, even
virtual ones.
There are those who lose
the path by seeking sin in others
They will point out the perceived failings and weaknesses of others
In the context of their perception of sin they have done far worse
For their judgment and righteousness embraces the two greatest sins
of all
Only those who see themselves fit to judge others would be judged
Only those who claim righteousness will be held accountable
For their failings have opened the gates for Chaos
Any who would judge another or perceive themselves as righteous
Bear responsibility for the corruption of the message
They are the agents of Chaos
-- Second Convergence (from everything2,
TheDeadGuy)
© 2005
Jozef
Hand-Boniakowski |
