Alien Anthropology

Building Peace

Is peace-building a subtle game of balance that is plausibly impossible beyond the simplest or most trivial of cases?

Curiouser and curiouser: observe how an aspiration to coordinate or construct and administratively or diplomatically assert peace becomes itself yet another game and grammar of difference, of competition, of jockeying words, behavioural idioms, contested concepts and roles; exclusive and self-sustaining as a professional career or community of experts which, while the endeavour is nominally admirable, might still by pure self-containment almost entirely miss the point.

Building meanings, definitions, organisational bridgeheads, treaties, agreements, contracts and relatively unambiguous translations of a language and vocabulary of shared goals towards a world (or even a limited spatial, temporal or geographical context) without conflict is enigmatic. While it is true that any idiot with a gun, an opinion, a megaphone or other kinetic or abstract (information) channel of influence can disrupt, derail and disassemble attempts at peace-building, there are endemic (logical) reasons why the construction of complicated bureaucratic rationales can not provide anything more than transient contingencies in this domain.

Peace is an effectively metaphysical proposition and thus lies outside the labyrinthine grammars of administrative control.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.