In the Broadway musical Rent, one of the characters, Marc, says "the opposite of war isn't peace, it's creation." Despite being housed in the middle of a somewhat cliché rebellion song, which consists of dancing on tabletops at a restaurant and singing about "sticking it to the man", this line exhibits insight beyond its surroundings.
So what is the reason for this divergence from the classical duality of "war and peace"? In theory, war is the definitive opposite of peace. One is violent and ruthless, the other is cooperative and prosperous. However, I think the reason for this lyric and everything it implies is that theory is not always the absolute authority. Something can be perfect in theory, but if it doesn't translate to actuality, then it's meaningless. In my opinion, war can be driven by the pursuit of peace, and I think it often is. Even when war is retalliation for an act against a country, for example, the base beliefs are that one party would bring peace if they were in power and perfect circumstances were set up.
This new idea of "war and creation" being opposites makes a lot of sense. Creation is never the direct goal of war; often, it's an indirect one. For example, if the Arab nations can destroy the Israeli state, then they can create their own Islamic "empire". War leads to destruction, then possibly creation. But never just creation.
So is there a possibility of a dialectical "third option", one which unites these very different concepts? I'm not sure if war can ever lead directly to creation without destroying first; it also depends on your definition of both destruction and creation. Does it have to be something you can see, feel, or touch? In the future, when our wars have become electronic like so much else in our society, will an attack on a database count as destruction? Or is everything technological just a series of electrical signals which are never destroyed, just rearranged? In the same way, would an addition to the internet really be created? How do you sense what is not within our capabilities of perception to feel?
Perhaps this unity of war and creation would be the exact equation for peace and prosperity, the ever-elusive utopia. If there was a way to wage war without destroying, just bringing about the creation of newer, better, and stronger institutions and people, then war would lose its bite, its horror. And this leads to the final question: is this possible in actuality, or is it just another theory?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Anna,
ReplyDeleteI loved your blog post in the way that you took a commonly associated conception, and revaluated how that works in actuality. As I think about it, I can't say that there was ever a war in which everyone, universally, thought that the sole outcome was peace. However, I believe that many would agree that the creation of something was produced; whether that actually was prosperity or destruction relies independently on the opinion of every country.
I also found your insight between theory and actuality very thought-provoking. We often discuss theory vs. reality in social studies when we talk about an Empire's execution of a political, social, or economical objective.
One other thing I liked was when you brought up the point of a 'third dialectic' between war and destruction. Unlike your first dialectic, this one I find more universal because it is such an obvious effect of war. This got me thinking about other things associated with war, and whether there will ever be the possibility of erasing these 'horrors' from wars common image.
Great job Anna!
Anna,
ReplyDeleteWhen you make your insight about theory and actuality, although I generally agree, I would argue it doesn't necessarily apply to this situation. In my opinion, it's more of a question of definition. If peace is the opposite of war, then war is not balance, and any sort of major dispute. For example; two girls who spin debilitating rumors against each other, as well as harmful/offensive pranks, would be engaged in war. However, war is usually thought of as nations using weapons of destructions against each other, and claiming thousands of lives. In this case, war is synonymous with destruction, where creation WOULD be the obvious opposite.
As for your 'third option', that is a great idea, but it seems to me, a 'war' of who can create better would only be effective if all parties were creating. What I mean is, if all the countries are competing by trying to create the better institution, wouldn't that one selfish country that chooses destruction as its weapon undermine the efforts of all the others? There may be a way to make it work, but unfortunately, I doubt that something like this could happen in our society. I don't have enough faith in humanity.