Exchange between Peter Bergel and Glen Stassen about Peace Visioning
Peter Bergel
Peace Actionistas,
Brainstorming for our strategy goal to fashion a paragraph or two
vision statement:
First we plan to agree on an approximately twelve-word mission
statement so we can be together in how we frame our messages for the
next five years or so.
But then we plan to fashion a vision statement of a paragraph or two.
That can bring us much more together in our message.
So what's our unifying message around which the various campaigns can
cluster?
We've always had a goal of cutting military spending, but not a lot of
help from the national mood, especially when Reagan and GW Bush were
in power, or when Dems skittish about Republican charges of being soft
were in power. But now we may be getting a huge boost. The deficit is
huge and dangerous. Both parties want to cut it. The people are
concerned about all the spending. The biggest cuttable part of the
budget is military spending.
--Combine the growing realization that the budget needs cutting with
NPR's message: "War: high, high cost; low, low benefit."
--Combine it with National Priorities Project's data on the huge
portion of the budget goes for war-preparation, so this is by far the
most profitable place to show a little frugality.
--And combine it with the data we have that a million dollars produces
many more jobs if spent for education, infrastructure, etc., than if
spent for war-preparation. Then we can begin to ride the huge wave for
spending that creates jobs and recovery.
The present need and mood may be a huge opportunity for a distinctive
message from us that ties in with all the cuts we want to make, and
that will still be very relevant when the concern about the Iraq and
Afghan wars fades.
Or: we can focus our vision statement especially on a nuclear-free
world, and the steps needed to get there.
Or: we can focus on cutting the military's contribution to the climate
crisis, and to war's contribution to the climate crisis.
Thereby picking up support from the Green movement. And connect our
several goals with that overall objective.
Or??
What do you think?
Glen Stassen
On 1/29/10 12:50 PM, Peter Bergel wrote:
I am increasingly convinced that we must put forward a positive vision
if we want to garner more attention to our concerns. People are
demoralized, but open to hope, as the Obama campaign showed. However,
his failure to deliver on his rhetoric has deepened the
demoralization.
A focus on negativity will only deepen it further.
Thus, of all the suggestions Glen has made, only "we can focus our
vision statement especially on a nuclear-free world, and the steps
needed to get there" meets this criterion. It is fine as far as it
goes,
but is, in my opinion, too limited.
People want prosperity, safety, meaningful employment, and personal
power (in the sense of being able to achieve purpose). This is
fortunate
because isn't that what "peace" really means? But we are throwing away
our best opportunities to connect by incorporating these basic
needs/desires into our program only by implication -- and usually not
even doing that well. People were willing to hope that Obama would do
the most unlikely things just because he said he would. He gave them
few
specifics and no plans. We can do much better, but we have to start
from
where people really are.
We expect them to make the connection between their basic needs/
desires
and all the things we keep demanding an end to: war, military
spending,
fascism, etc. etc. We always offer to help them make the connections,
but the means we choose are not effective at moving the masses:
demonstrations, films, books, articles, etc. which mostly heavily
emphasize the negative. When a corporate marketer wants to move the
masses, it speaks directly to those basic needs and sells the
connection
between its product and one or more of the basic needs. It doesn't
EVER
mention its competitors by name. It may imply that a competitor has
failed to meet their needs and that it can do better, but whether it
does this or not, it definitely makes sure it explains -- using
emotional appeals, not just logic -- why it will be able to do better.
My suggestion, therefore, is that we first articulate a highly
positive
vision that speaks directly to a definition of peace that promotes
people's basic needs/desires and that we then derive a positive action
and marketing strategy from that vision. Let's turn away from the
negativity that is not working and is demoralizing even our own base.
Peter Bergel
At 01:32 PM 01/29/2010, Glen Stassen wrote:
Peter,
I agree completely.
Can you produce a theme or paragraph that reaches in that direction?
I don't think we'll likely decide on the framing statement at the
organizers' meeting Feb. 8th, but we can get the preferences of the
organizers for general directions or themes. The more clearly we have
options to put before them, the better and clearer feedback we'll get.
Glen
On 2/1/10, Peter Bergel wrote:
Hi Glen,
The OPW vision statement is:
"To direct public policy toward peace at the local, regional, national
and global levels. The peace we seek is more than the absence of war.
It embraces an active, nonviolent approach to problems, the
understanding that all people have a right to share the resources of
the earth, a commitment to fair play and a role for every person in
the decisions that affect their lives."
This is as good as most of the other group vision statements I see
around, but not what I think we need because it does not, as I said
below, powerfully make the connection between people's basic needs for
"prosperity, safety, meaningful employment, and personal
power" and what we in the "peace movement" do. (Thus the quotes around
the term.) In short, it is too Olympian and not personal enough. We
need to get to people where they live. As always, people organize best
out of their own oppression. Back to Alinsky.
I have said before that I think it's too early to decide on this
vision statement. We have not really done our homework. The Google
site I set up and you joined has been idle. Let's not shortcut this
vital step just because it would be convenient to do so. It's too
important. If PA does not take the time to think outside the box, but
just goes through another strategizing exercise using the best inside-
the-box thinking it can come up with on a schedule motivated by
factors that have to do with bringing organizers together face-to-
face, it is not likely to come up with the fundamentally different
approach it needs right now.
That said, here's my best thinking as of right now:
Peace Action understands that the citizens of Planet Earth want and
need prosperity, safety, meaningful employment, and a role in the
decisions that affect their lives. That is the meaning of the word
"peace" in our name. Prosperity means everyone has enough. Safety
means no one need fear criminal violence, environmental poisoning, or
the scourge of war. Meaningful employment means having a job that
affirms the self-worth of the worker. Peace Action is committed to
efforts that seek to secure these blessings to every person. While
practical limitations may dictate that we concentrate on selected
aspects of this vision, we consider all who share the vision and work
on any part of it our co-workers.
The wording can, no doubt, be improved. I invite anyone interested to
edit this statement or to suggest a different approach.
I'm going to post this exchange on the Google group site.
Peter
David Hazen
Peace, peacebuilding and peacelearning
The National Peace Academy’s understanding of peace is shaped by the
definition contained in the Earth Charter: “…peace is the wholeness
created by right relationships with oneself, other persons, other
cultures, other life, Earth, and the larger whole of which all are a
part.”i
This principle of right relationships is imbedded in nearly all faith,
spiritual and ethical traditions. In the Christian faith it is
represented by the Golden Rule “do unto others as you would have them
do unto you.” This ethic of reciprocity is a foundational tenet of all
the world’s major religions. From a more secular, human rights
perspective, the idea of right relationships is expressed in terms of
human dignity. The preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights begins by recognizing “the inherent dignity and of the equal
and inalienable rights of all members of the human family (as) the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”ii
The National Peace Academy makes use of John Paul Lederach’s
conceptualization of peacebuilding which he describes as “a
comprehensive concept that encompasses, generates and sustains the
full array of processes, approaches and stages needed to transform
conflict toward more sustainable, peaceful relationships.”iii The
purpose and scope of peacebuilding is oriented towards nurturing
citizen capacities and the political, economic and social structures
necessary for assuring the conditions for positive peace. Betty
Reardon describes positive peace as constituting the conditions for
the existence of “’justice,’ in the sense of the full enjoyment of the
entire range of human rights by all people.”iv Thus, the concerns and
problems that peacebuilding addresses are wide ranging, including but
not limited to issues of poverty, social and economic inequity,
violence, environment and resource degradation, racism, and gender
discrimination.
Peacelearning is the process through which the National Peace Academy
facilitates learning toward the full development of the peacebuilder.
Peacelearning emphasizes learning as an essential capacity of
peacebuilding. As such, peacelearning is much more than simple
acquisition of new knowledge and skills; it is a transformational
process in which new information and ideas are integrated into the
knowledge and experiences we already have. Peacelearning is directed
toward both inward and outward change. It is a learner centered
process that is non-hierarchal and elicitive, seeking to draw forth
knowledge from the individual learner. It invites learners to engage
in modes of critical thinking and self reflection that are necessary
for internalizing the principles and processes of peace. It also
capacitates learners to pose critical queries and questions that may
lead to new understandings and possible solutions to personal,
interpersonal, social, economic, political and environmental problems
for which no answers currently exist. Peacelearning nurtures those
capacities that are essential for learners to be agents of personal
and social change.
The above understandings of peacebuilding and peacelearning,
considered together with the Earth Charter definition of peace as
rooted in right relationships, promote a very active conception of
peace and the dynamic and transformative learning required to pursue
and achieve it. Additionally, these concepts illuminate at least four
spheres of peace that need to be nurtured toward the full development
of the peacebuilder: the personal, the social, the political and the
ecological.
The Peacebuilding Peacelearning Intensive will introduce participants
to theory and practices for nurturing peace in each of these spheres.
The personal: In the personal sphere, peace requires that we actively
strive to establish right relationship with our self. Personal peace
is pursued through inquiry into how we manage and act upon our
internal conflicts, attitudes, actions, and emotions toward living
with integrity.
The social: In the social sphere, peace requires that we actively
strive to establish right relationships with others. Social peace is
pursued through inquiry into our attitudes, intentions, and actions
regarding how we manage our interpersonal conflicts and differences,
and how we give to and receive from others the qualities and
conditions that comprise human dignity.
The political: In the political sphere, peace requires that we
actively strive to establish right relationships with groups of
people, communities and organizations that are supported by just,
nonviolent procedures for making and implementing policy and planning
decisions in government, business, and civil society. Political peace
is pursued through inquiry into our attitudes, intentions, and actions
regarding how we engage in decision-making processes, and how we
review and assess existing institutions and mechanisms as well as
those we strive to establish for assuring peace and justice.
The ecological: In the ecological sphere, peace requires that we
actively strive to establish right relationships with Earth and its
ecosystems of which we are a part and on which our survival and
quality of life depend. Human systems are not separate from, but
integral to all living systems and as such, human organization affects
and is affected by all other ecological systems. Ecosystems are both
resilient and fragile, and human life depends upon our respect for and
stewardship of the entire planet. Ecological peace is pursued through
inquiry into our attitudes, intentions, and actions regarding how we
take responsibility to shift our relationship to the natural
environment from one based on control over, to one based on
interdependence and living with and within.
John Bostrom
across to me as very up-in-the-air, dreamy, abstracted from real life
and everyday concerns. I don't like that way of talking at all; it
just feels unreal, and I've never seen a project that began like with
talk like that do anything lasting or positive or even end well.
However I just checked out the Peace Academy web site and was able to
get a much better sense of what's going on there, The grounded
references to space and time, the names and bios of principals, help a
lot.
From there, I checked you out, David. Found Eugene City of Peace and
I'm afraid I've become infected with the B9 virus and will have to
stop writing. I feel a need to infect others.
JB
On Feb 7, 10:21 am, David Hazen <inner...@peak.org> wrote:
> From: http://www.nationalpeaceacademy.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=...