I hope you will enjoy reading this review, by Dr. Welch, of one of Bok's
works.

Soffie

Individual Empowerment:  
A Review Essay of Sissela Bok; A Strategy for Peace
Written by Dr. William Welch

Immanuel Kant warned of a war that would exterminate all mankind, one
"in which both parties and justice itself might all be simultaneously
annihilated, and would allow perpetual peace only on the vast graveyard
of the human race" (Bok, 1989, p. 32).  Carl von Clausewitz asserted
that "... even if an absolute war were conceivable, it could not end in
mutual extermination, since one side would defeat the other long before
that point" (p. 57).  From a Report From Iron Mountain we are told that:

	It is uncertain, at this time, whether peace will ever be
possible.  It is far more questionable, by the objective standards of
continued social survival rather than that of emotional pacifism, that
it would be desirable even if it were demonstrably attainable.  (Lewin,
1967, pp. 89-90).

Now comes Sissela Bok with her stated purpose being "... to propose
steps toward a secure and lasting peace that are practical, non-utopian,
and is in keeping with widely shared human values" (p. 14). 

When Kant wrote Perpetual Peace he may have been likened to many of
those early prophets who spoke beyond the vision of their
contemporaries.  Biblical prophets had similar problems when calling
attention to certain conditions or possible eventualities.  Jeremiah and
Ezekiel come to mind.  Prophets, however, have something in common.
Brueggemann (1988) tells us, they see things, understand things that
others do not, and because they do, and they call them to our attention
often irrespective of our will to the contrary, they and their works are
remembered.  The total annihilation of the human race must have really
seemed far fetched in Kant's time and certainly no less unlikely for
Clausewitz's contemporaries.  Thus, there was no universally compelling
concern for the future of all mankind, only for certain specific
segments.  Therefore, the condition of equal necessity that Bok cites
from the writings surrounding the Peloponnesian war, that condition that
moves sides in possible conflict to look for just solutions, in this
case peace, was not present.  In August 1945, when the United States
made a demonstrated announcement to the world that the age of nuclear
weapons had arrived, the genesis of equal necessity was simultaneously
born.  Today, we do indeed have the capacity to destroy humankind.  It
would appear that we have at the same time a universally recognized
compelling need for serious effort to create a condition for lasting
peace.  Many, however, do not believe peace is possible as indicated by
the Report From Iron Mountain, and even more of us haven't the slightest
notion of how to tackle such a complex and multitudinous problem.  We
are overwhelmed by its enormity and our perceived lack of ability to
exert even a modicum of influence on either the problem itself or those
we feel are more directly responsible for its resolution.  It is in the
area of individual empowerment that I feel Sissela Bok has provided a
most valuable contribution, one that, if seized upon by individuals, may
well lead to the development of a societal context conducive to the
adoption by governments of the constraints she offers as beginning
building blocks for a climate for peace.

II

In making her case for a strategy for peace, Bok warns us of the perils
of partisanship, the necessity for understanding the principle of
rational distrust, and offers four constraints she states she drew from
Kant's works.  Constraints on violence, deceit, breaches of trust, and
on excessive state secrecy.  She further supports Kant's proposition
that those constraints need to be met at the three levels:  Individual,
community, and national.  Finally, she offers three criteria for
considering actions that would violate any of the four constraints.

In her discussion of partisanship, she calls to mind the barbarity of
the sane in the name of the loftiest of causes.  If we are to have
allegiance to a group, or a nation, give up certain freedoms thus
surrender control over ourselves to others, then we must have a cause
and a cause requires us to have an enemy (Lewin, 1967).  Whether this
enemy is boss vs. worker, republican vs. democrat, or whether it is more
ethnocentric or nationalistically based, we can often ascribe the
unworthiest of notions to the "thems" of our worlds and tolerate, if not
in fact perpetuate, the cruelest actions against them.  We can do this
with feelings of great justification and, in fact, satisfaction, if not
joy.  It is a reasonable corollary then, that a reduction in
partisanship is an absolute prerequisite to any real chance for the
development of a climate of peace.

Trust, between individuals, communities, and nations, is an essential
element in any quest for true and lasting peace.  Bok reminds us,
however, that blind trust is as dangerous as unbridled distrust.  Some
distrust is useful (rational distrust) and prudent.  It also forms a
reasonable basis for the development of increased levels of trust.  Bok
further warns us that accurate information, given in a form that permits
appropriate analysis is necessary if others are to make sense of our
movements, position or even our rhetoric, and reduce the chances of
those others moving to "... irrational distrust" (p. 15).  Partisanship
does little to fuel trust, but easily exacerbates the conditions that
foster distrust.

The four constraints offer an exciting beginning.  The first constraint
on violence requires, as do the others, serious dialogue in order to
arrive at, at least, a definition and set of parameters that can be
accepted by the parties.  Violence, however, does not refer solely to
physical violence.  There is also the violence we can impose upon others
that does not kill them, at least not instantly, but robs them of the
various interests we, as Americans in particular, insist that they have,
e.g., liberty interest, pursuit of happiness and so on.  A respect for
the humanness of all persons sufficient that we will not harm them is
vital.  There is much to be resolved in this debate, even as the author
points out regarding the taking of a life.  Does this extend to the
state against for example, murderers?  Does it extend to terrorists?  If
we outright condemn terrorism as she suggests, what do we do about
governments that create terrorism as the only response left to a people
save to surrender and die a sometimes slow and unimaginably painful
death?  An example comes to mind.  An African American television
personality, on a visit to South Africa, was being taken to her
destination by a native South African.  She asked about the economic
sanctions against the country.  He replied that he and many other
natives would probably lose their jobs, that they would probably starve.
She asked what he felt should be done by the United States.  He replied,
"bomb them."  She asked incredulously, don't you understand that if we
were to do this that you would also be killed?  His reply was yes, but
that way we would die quickly.  This way we also die, and our children,
but very slowly.  If we accept the position that self-defense is the
only permissible basis for violence, or the defense of the defenseless,
and we accept the notion of territorial sovereignty, how do we then
respond to nations whose behaviors are so oppressive that terrorism or
acceptance of oppression becomes the oppressed people's only choice?
How do we enforce the standard of nonviolence we ostensibly accept?  The
questions go on, but they are resolvable with persistence.

The second constraint, the constraint on deceit is no less valid for
individuals in their interpersonal relations than for governments.
Individuals ought not be lied to nor should communities or nations save
in the most unusual of circumstances.  For example, do you tell a
would-be murderer the whereabouts of an intended victim to avoid
deceiving him and, therefore, aid in the successful completion of his
objective?  Do you tell the police the whereabouts of an alleged
fugitive when you are not sure of his safe conduct through custody to
trial or that the trials are just?  These individual examples are a part
of the harsh dailiness faced by too many people in too many nations on
any given day.  Nations that have not understood that "confidence
building" behavior is vital to the development and retention of the
trust and allegiance of its people.  Nor have they understood the
necessity of confidence building behavior in the development of trust
between themselves and other nations.

The third constraint, the constraint on breaches of trust, is
inextricably interwoven with the second in the development and
maintenance of trust and confidence in relations.  The reputation that
one keeps his word is a vital glue that cements trust and confidence
among and between nations and individuals.  Thus, promises freely given
need to be honored with few exceptions.

Constraint number four, on excessive state secrecy, serves to assure
that the first three are not surreptitiously violated.  It is also the
only one that is substantially different in requirement of individuals
than for governments according to the author.  Individuals need to be
permitted more secrecy than governments.  Governments are able to
deceive their publics and a great part of the world through secrecy.
The planning of wars, the conduct of clandestine offensives, the support
of drug lords, the employment of Mafia representatives, the disruption
and violation of minorities, can all be done under the cloak of secrecy,
secrecy often justified under the banner of the national interest.

There will arise, eventualities when the need to violate one of the
constraints will be advanced.  Bok offers a framework for consideration
of such breaches?

		... first, to ask whether there is an alternative course
of action that will achieve the aims one takes to be good without
breaching moral constraints; second, if one sees no such alternative, to
set forth moral arguments thought to excuse or to justify such breaches,
along with possible counterarguments; and three, in weighing them, and
as a test of the first two steps, to ask how such arguments would fare
if defended in from of an assembly of reasonable critics (p. 94).

As is evident throughout the elements of her proposal, the foregoing
criteria are also viable for individuals as well as communities and
nations.  Thus, a basic framework for individual empowerment is
established.

III

If individuals are to be effective in the pursuit of peace, there must
be some mutuality or meeting of the minds as to what is meant by such a
term.  Does it mean the cessation of hostilities directly between major
powers, or something more encompassing?  The special study group that
produced the Report From Iron Mountain offers a definition of peace that
in their words "...describes a permanent condition entirely free from
the national exercise, or contemplation, of any form of the organized
social violence, or threat of violence, generally known as war (p. 9).
Spinoza submits that "Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a
state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice"
(Bartlett, 1980, p. 308).   Thus, if we are to bring about a condition
of peace as illustrated in the former definition, we must develop within
an attitude of peace similar to the one described so eloquently by
Spinoza.  There must be an acceptance, as well, that "how" we pursue
this end is as important as the end itself.  Martin Luther King
addresses this issue in one of his sermons.  "...we will never have
peace in the world until men everywhere recognize that ends are not cut
off from means, because the means represent the ideal in the making, and
the end in process, and ultimately you can't reach good ends through
evil means, because the means represents the seed and end represents the
tree" (Washington, 1986, p. 255).  Thus, if we would espouse peace, we
are required to use methods that are in harmony with the peaceful end we
seek.  The acceptable definition of the condition of peace, the
attitudes conducive to peaceful individuals and the willingness to avoid
means that are inappropriate to the end of peace are necessary for peace
makers, however, then can become the objectives of the peacemakers for
the development of others.

Those who would enter the fray bent on the establishment of a world at
peace must be willing, first, to work within the sphere of their
greatest influence in both their personal and private lives.  They must
understand that it is how they think that will determine whether the
quest for peace will be successful or will fail.  Secondly, they must be
willing to understand and to assist others in understanding, the role of
the war system itself in society in order to understand the character
and intensity of their opposition and to guide their own thinking toward
less Pollyannaish approaches.  They must understand as well the possible
consequences of peace.  Many suggest that with the lessening of the
threats abroad, there will be an increase in that same quality at home.
For example, as the possibility of peace with the United States has
increased in the minds of the Soviets, those issues set aside in times
of perceived external threat, now come center stage.  Thus, declarations
of independence by republics from the union, anti-Semitism and ethnic
and racial enmity became more flagrant in expression.  This new
openness, called glasnost, while accounting for some, cannot account for
the level we see at this juncture.  Perhaps we have not truly understood
the implications inherent in a world without war.  What will be
required?  Lewin's work tells us that "In a world of peace, the
continuing stability of society will require: 1) an effective substitute
for military institutions that can neutralize destabilizing social
elements, and 2) a credible motivational surrogate for war that can
insure social cohesiveness.  The first is an essential element of social
control; the second is the basic mechanism for adapting individual human
drives to the needs of society (p. 68."

At first glance, we are able identify roles of the war system that do
not popularly come to mind.  The area of social control is often
overlooked.  It has been suggested that the armed forces are in many
cases used for state supported welfare, a place for the unemployed.  It
is also suggested that the selective service system increased call-ups
in times of either high unemployment or social unrest, particularly
among the young.  Military actions are also accused of being more active
abroad when there is great unrest at home.  Some suggest that it was far
more than coincidence that the war effort was accelerated in Vietnam
during the civil rights struggle in the United States.  "War, through
the medium of military institutions, has uniquely served societies,
throughout the course of known history, as an indisputable controller of
dangerous social dissidence and antisocial tendencies.  (Lewin, 1967, p.
81).  The war system is deeply entrenched in each of the nations of the
world.  Thus, they are a formidable foe to those who seek to alter their
place and their influence.  Ignorance of their roles and the
consequences of their dissolution need be squarely faced by individuals,
institutions and governments.  Schools must reexamine their curricula,
which overwhelmingly extol the war system and its heroes.  Virtually
every hero we study, a particularly in our elementary and secondary
schools, is in some way connected to war.  Why not a curriculum for
peace?  Individuals need to accept their responsibilities as citizens to
insist upon making their governmental representatives accountable to
pursuing the establishment and integrity of the four constraints Bok
holds out to us.  Individuals must cease to tolerate behavior among
politicians and others who would exacerbate the divisions among people
through increased destructive partisanship at home and abroad.

Finally, Sissela Bok does not hold out her work as a perfected formula
for world peace.  It is offered as a basis for a sound beginning.  In my
judgment, she unquestionably succeeds in that endeavor.  She offers to
the three societal levels she insists must accept responsibility for
action, individual, community and national, an opportunity for
collaboration for the collective good of human kind.  The different
obstacles are many, are massive, are frighteningly entrenched, and are
tremendously complex.  Irrespective of such formidable odds, the
approach is equal to the task.


¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤