Keep your eye on the ball. Which ball?

This essay is about trying to decide in good faith on which level we will consider peacemaking. Should I see it in daily living and practice it on that level in my interpersonal relationships? Or should I see it in terms of armed conflict and practice on the battlefield as Che did? Or should I struggle to understand it theoretically so that I can grasp the broader picture and practice through my study and discourse? Or should I teach peacemaking? And how shall I do that?

Eric Boria, in his PSN post of July 18, 2001, It's a question of direction, brings us up front and personal to the question of praxis. Are we going to quibble about theoretical possibilities and details? Or are we going to focus on praxis? I agree with his concern that while we are following our traditional approach to debate, the world is changing. I don't want to be left behind debating historical issues that may be moot, once global order has set in.

Bush is certainly different from Gore, as each of us is from the other. Each represents a totally different philosophical position which blurs in the political arena of self promotion. The consequences are crucial to those of us in the United States and to those affected globally. But it's hard to keep an eye on the ball. Do we need to unite globally, and demand accountability of those who still operate (beyond the nation state) on the philosophy of empire, or do we deal with local narratives as best we can?

I think that Eric is saying that we need to figure out the rules of the game. And the game is changing. To dispute which party is best for the US may be to miss the fact that the players have already begun to operate by new rules, coporate empire rules, accountable to no nation state. Bush's power derives from nation state power. Bush's admonition that grants, not loans, should be the basis of help to third world countries went to the World Bank, which is not accountable to the people of any nation state. Bush Urges Gifts by World Bank By James Gerstenzang, Los Angeles Times, p. 1. July 18, 2001.

But I see an even more perplexing problem for those of us who teach. Do I teach my students to go to Genoa to protest? Or do I teach them to pressure Bush at home? Or do I teach them to read and analyze the world? Or do I teach them to make their voices heard in local politics? All are necessary. Most of my students are struggling to stretch the corners of their minds while they juggle work and family. And sometimes we have neither the discretionary time nor income to think clearly, let alone to take on the huge battles in this world.

My solution has been somewhat like Eric's: "My hopes to the global-local resistances everywhere," and meanwhile, I'll remain open to learning about all the levels, all the spaces and the needs on every level to bring about consciousness and stamp out denial. But I'll remember to see each of those actions as praxis, each according to the constraints I can handle.