"Peace" vs. "Global Responsibility"
(a discussion between Cynthia Hogue and Jeanne Heuving)
11/8/01 : from C.H.
Dear Jeanne,
I was struck by your comment that you saw little use in commentary on How2's Forum calling for peace (primarily my piece, although you don't mention me specifically), and that you rather thought it a time to call for Global Responsibility. I wouldn't have thought that the two are mutually exclusive. I would be interested in hearing more of your thoughts and distinctions. Mine have been evolving in the weeks since the bombing started, as I have heard Afghan women activists interviewed on Democracy Now--who are in favor of the bombing, and as more civilians have been killed. I wonder if your views have been gelling as well as we try to figure out what is happening through some serious censorship and quelling of dissenting voices. Although it seemed clear to me that you disagreed with me, I am not sure that I disagree with you--but I was also not sure what you meant.
Kathleen would be open to our exchanging on the Forum, and while I do not wish to get into a long exchange, I would be interested in your clarification and amplification of your views.
Hope your book is coming along well--I missed seeing you at MSA. I am on my very first sabbatical and pretty much in heaven at the Wurlitzer in Taos, which I strongly recommend you apply to for a residency. It is low key, in the mts. very beautiful.
Best regards,
Cynthia
11/14/01
from J.H.
Dear Cynthia,
In tracking down my rather quickly thrown off comment about "peace," I find I said this: "I can't find much meaning in this crisis in the call for 'peace' exactly--I find 'gobal responsibility' much more resonant."--and then I equivocated about the word "responsibility." (email, 10/19). In this email I was searching, really, for a slogan or a banner which would address my desire for political action at this time. If I could take these words back into my mouth, or rather eat them up through backspace, I would rather say, "I find 'global justice' much more resonant." Justice is a trendy word in academia right now, but I like it because it suggests that as global citizens our responsibility may well exist through an ultimately highly responsive and imaginative set of actions that produce "justice."
I applaud your understanding of the spiralling effects of violence (postcard 10/9), and indeed, I think non-violence is often the best strategy. But "peace," ah it seems far too peaceful for this world--not as you intend it--but as I read it quickly and callously--as a banner for the movement I would join. When we first started bombing Afghanistan, I was dismayed that the most visible political movements in Seattle were "Peace" movements. I was not for the bombing in Afghanistan, exactly, anymore than I am for any of a number of "police" actions, but then I do depend on the safety net they provide me. I remain unsure how to respond to this crisis, since it seems to tap into all of the most unsolveable dilemmas: global capitalism reproducing itself through amazingly powerful media. How to listen differently even if one has the space and time to search out alternative messages? How to communicate outside of the propaganda machine?
You want to redefine "honor" as "being able to hear both sides, both perspectives." Yes, but are there really only two sides here, two perspectives? The word justice implies for me a transformative multiplicity--where the listening changes with the doing. Yet, I am not sure what to do? I know that in Seattle there are many groups actively involved in the politics of different parts of the world, yet I am already more than busy with the things that I do. So, I wonder how might I redirect these responsibilities--to do what?
Say, for instance, how can HOW2 listen for women's voices that are trying to "say" their experiences and lives differently? If words matter, and we are wordsmiths, what words to use? And how will we know whether by our words we are producing "global justice"?
Love,
Jeanne
Not quite halfway down the file, dated 10/9/01, you'll see anotehr "postcard" from Cynthia Hogue, in which you'll find:
"For a start, we could redefine “honor” as being able to hear both sides, both perspectives, not just our own. We could view violence itself as dishonorable, and every “holy war”--both sides have bandied this phrase about--as sacrilege. Certainly when we are the target, we call violence “barbaric”and “heinous.” Why is it justified when we perpetrate it ourselves? We could consider our own possible responses in terms other than violence. And to those who say we will look weak to the world if we negotiate, we could answer: We need another definition of strength. Strength is the courage to wait and to make a considered response. Strength is not throwing our military weight around. Strength is seeking insistently--and, why not? aggressively--negotiated, diplomatic solutions.
We need to honor the memories of our own victims by listening to their families. Many of the families of the September 11th dead are not calling for retaliation, but for peacemaking. Touched so deeply and irrevocably by this tragedy, these families understood more immediately than any of us that no violence will return their loved ones to life, no retaliatory strike could suffice to comfort them in their grief. They say again and again that their dead would not wish other innocent people to die for their deaths. In escalating the violence, we risk making the deaths of over 6000 civilians truly meaningless, for we will have failed to understand the lesson in their deaths: that how we feel now is how civilians in Baghdad felt when we bombed them, how civilians in Serbia felt, how civilians in Japan felt.
Is it not dishonorable that we were indifferent to the pain we caused? . . ."
I'll get to some discussion topics later, but I wanted to make you aware of the exchange now. jeanne
A Justice Site
jeannecurran@habermas.org
How Shall We Use Our Words?