How paradoxical (to think) that one of the main reasons why powerful [states] have been maintaining and developing nuclear weapons is simply because, they want peace - its preservation. After all, peace is also understood as the ability to preserve one’s interest without a perceived conflict from the other. Therefore, to show to the world that their countries have nuclear arsenal is an indirect admission that peace remains elusive or a moving target; an illusory (in a more radical conclusion). If not, attaining or preserving peace is only visible through a display of power. Resorting to such kind of nation identity build-up only entails further degradation of one’s national identity, because it only ends – remains - as spectacle.Of course, other factors enter into picture (economic maybe); such as war engagement as a form of business strategy. This leads to the second point, these well-recognized powerful nations in terms of military capabilities have also the ability to manipulate [common] perception. To name a few examples, to condition the minds of the public that there is really an effort for maintaining peace; that a dialogue is ongoing, but still, having difficulty of pushing through with the total abandonment of the show of military forces. Another country (the US) even claimed that they are in full control of their peace and order; and yet, having a hard time amending the gun law (for the sake of the victims of gun violence).This reminds us of Michel Foucault’s (a French philosopher) notion of “spectacle society,” in his book, “Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison.” Though he was directly referring to “capital punishment” as state’s spectacle (especially during the 16th to 18th centuries) to show to its constituents the power to control, to dominate, to neutralize offenders of the law, in order to project an image that the law has teeth, where in fact, it does not have, because if it has one, there is no need to resort on spectacle or showmanship - a mere projection of power.
Foucault has a very positive notion of power, for him, [power] is no longer a force that dominates or represses, but it is something that produces and liberates; it comes everywhere but the impulse must start from the inside rather than outside (this is the reason why, for Foucault, rehabilitation of a human person is important, you have to target the education of the soul, rather than punishing the body from the outside). Nevertheless, Foucault is kind enough to admit that the “spectacle of punishment” declined; hence, it gives way for the state to establish a “disciplinary society” through different apparatuses such as penal or prison cells as a form of zoning or surveillance.
In conjunction with the earlier point raised concerning the rationale of preserving nuclear arsenal, these powerful nations still have a very traditional [regressed] way of understanding peace, merely operating in the premise of “the absence of war.” For them, to maintain peace, the course of action is always resorted to spectacle, by way of domination; from the external. The force of peace (to be liberating) must come from the inside (each one must learn how to re-channel the impulse of peace from the internal to external; from the self to the outside, to make them worthy later on of this noble aspiration – to have a full mastery of the self; and along the process, it requires one to rehabilitate him/herself through the practice of ethics – sensitivity to other people - it is only then and there that perpetual peace reigns), the exercise of peace must be mirrored from every people, it is a disposition rather than something that is separated from us (in a more Kantian sense, it is always both as means and ends; and never just means).
In other words, peace is something that is not demarcated from our bodies (as traditionally viewed by most people), peace is an internal force that triggers our bodily disposition to practice ethics. In the Foucauldian sense, our understanding of peace must be concrete, not merely grounded on abstraction (product of thinking and ideas); and it will start by going back to the self – the body. The way we govern our body, the way we handle and conduct ourselves is what Foucault means by returning to the self. The said Foucauldian perspective only affirms what the prominent Greek philosopher, Socrates, has said, thousand years ago, “An unexamined life is not worth living.” His [Foucault] point is plain and simple, if you want to attain perpetual peace, then start from within; by governing yourself. Moreover, incidentally, it also corroborate with one of the prominent aphorism of Mahatma Gandhi, considered to be the national hero of India, when he said, “be the change that you want to see.” It is only then that we can emancipate ourselves from the influence of spectacle. Discourses on what and how peace can be attained remain separated from the body, if it only focuses from the externalities. The concrete and the abstract must conjoin with one another – this is through our body.
I remained optimistic about this occurrence and its outcome (though there is still reservation), a straddle element is very much at work on my part. The best thing to do (as of this point) is to set aside judgment. Then allow things to unfold themselves.
I wish everyone were as eloquent as you. Unfortunately, there will always be pockets of peace, as there will always be pockets of war. Let's face it, humans have been killing each other since records began. (We've been destined to blow each other up since the invention of gunpowder.)
I wish everyone were as eloquent as you. Unfortunately, there will always be pockets of peace, as there will always be pockets of war. Let's face it, humans have been killing each other since records began. (We've been destined to blow each other up since the invention of gunpowder.)