A Question of Peace

by Jeff Berger

For some time I have been concerned about the course of action the political leaders of our country seem to have chosen in response to the horrific events of September 11, 2001. I am concerned that this course is only leading us down a path of reprisal and increasing death and suffering. I have been looking for ways to promote a better choice.

Over the weekend of October 26th, 2002, I went to Washington DC to participate in a demonstration against war with Iraq. It seemed to me that the demonstration offered a way of slowing the march towards war, a war that would inevitably cause the deaths of large numbers of innocent people.

Tens of thousands of people came to the demonstration (the organizers claimed 200,000). On my return, I wrote to some old college friends about the event
and the following correspondence ensued.

I wrote:

For many, this event marked their first participation in a protest demonstration. The event was energizing and that gives me hope for better things to come. I think many will throw themselves into organizing for the next one.

I've been sitting in front of my computer all day and my wits are quite gone, so I may not be able to get down in this email what I want to say, but here goes ...

While waiting to board the buses, I got into a conversation with two women participants that I had not met before. One of the women remarked on the necessity, if the movement is to be successful, for its core to be religiously based. She said that meditation made it possible for her to respond to anger directed at her in ways that didn't magnify the problem. Or at least, that it made it possible to choose to respond in a way that didn't put her own anger in the driver's seat. I agree, although twenty years ago I would have thought her daft.

I don't know who all makes up the leadership of the coalition that pulled together this demonstration, but at least some are anti-imperialists of the Leninist flavor. The bus to DC had video screens and enroute we watched a speech by one of the leaders who began by saying "Comrades, friends, ...". He went on to give an analysis of the current situation with which I probably would have agreed whole-heartedly in times past. Now it seems to leave out something vital and to point in the wrong direction.

The difficulty is that this view casts the problem as one of good versus evil. We (especially "we comrades") are the good guys fighting tirelessly against the evil, greedy ruling class. This view of the problem creates a black and white world that is basically just a mirror image of the one held by George W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al.

What's missing is the recognition that the problem also exists within each of us. We all of us have learned to believe we are separate isolated "selves". We move through the world like some token on a Monopoly board. We strive to fulfill this always needy self by grasping at possessions, scoring triumphs over others, gratifying our emotions, etc. But, who are we really? Am I different from George W? Am I different from these words I am reading on the computer screen? Who is it that hears the humming of the computer and the other sounds in this room right now?

I think we need to pay attention to this mystery or we will fall into error when we attempt to prevent the horrors of war in Iraq and end up bringing those horrors to life in perhaps a different form.

A friend responded:

Some interesting points J—I both agree and disagree. My sense is that any socialism that is not reflected in the individual's personal behavior, posture, quality of being, and interactions with his/her environment is likely to be nearly as exploitive and damaging as out-of-control capitalism; it would perhaps result in a more equitable distribution of wealth, but not 'empower' (I actually hate that word) people any more, nor produce a better relationship with the biosphere. Doctrinaire Leninists are simply out of touch with how history has changed —history hasn't invalidated socialism, but it has made some serious revisions necessary. As well, I think the driver in capitalism is greed; in socialism it may be there on a case by case and group by group basis, but it isn't the ideological engine for the system. And that makes a difference.

The problem with getting too caught up in establishing peace and tranquility in the inner being of each individual is that that kind of thing can lead to New-Age narcissism: it seems to me that excessive focus on self of any sort is just another manifestation of privilege in an excessively fortunate society. I'm skeptical, therefore, about that assertion, even though I would admit that having good personal relationships with spouses, friends, and work-place are pretty important to doing decent political work. My guess is that providing people with a solid platform of stability and security solves many of the psychological and relational problems that ravage populations in wealthy countries (where wealth is polarized).