Analysis of the statement “bother not building peace; instead, prepare for war”
Going to war is a common occurrence to human life, and has, therefore, existed both in history and in the modern days. Most political analysts believe that people prefer to engage in war, as compared to the better option of peace building (Brubaker & Cooper, 2000. 12). They argue that the need for control is part of human nature, thus the reasons for war. It is through conquests of war that power is obtained, and this is at the expense of the citizens of the nations engaging in this act. Accordingly, many countries especially those in the Middle East have often engaged in warfare, without the consideration of acquiring peace.
Evidently, those in authority, as well as, the citizens of the nation have the option of search for peace but notably, this has not taken place. However, some nations at war do engage in peace negotiations but without progress. This, therefore, suggests that nations often opt for war, as opposed to, making peace (Brubaker & Cooper, 2000. 18). The concept of war has been the center of plenty of debates in both in academic and social circles. Whereas some believe that war is immoral and should therefore not be practiced, others argue that war is justified. Political scientists and philosophers have sequentially taken up to the discovery of this phenomenon, and have developed various theories regarding why nations prefer going to war, as opposed to, attaining peace.
This paper provides an analysis of the statement “bother not building peace; instead, prepare for war”. Specifically, the paper examines how the feminist and constructivist perspective responds to the statement above, as well as, the contention that peace is purely a brief intermission between wars.
Constructivist and Feminist Perspectives
Constructivist and feminists have different views concerning the concepts of war and peace war and peace. The constructivist view argues for security in relation to war, whereas the feminist view utilizes the woman’s experience in the war. As previously mentioned, the constructivist perception argues for the importance of maintaining national security (Frances, Bartowki. & Kolmar, 2005. 36). According to this perspective, security is a vital matter for humanity, which compels nations to engage in war rather than seek peace. In their argument regarding war and peace, constructivists claim that authorities are charged with the responsibility of ensuring national security, which in turn rationalizes the choice for war. Nations who engage in warfare use this theory to defend their decision to go to war, and they claim that they are fulfilling their duties to their respective nations. With this perspective, nations believe that when attacked by another country, they should retaliate as a way of ensuring safety and security for their citizens. The military through the orders of the president plays a role in waging war. Thus, every chance that these nations obtain, they will not hesitate to engage in bloodshed (Katzenstein, 1996. 69).
Often civilians, who are innocent, are the ones who lose their lives. The military will for a short period, enhance peace and latter, they will engage in the war they were trying to prevent. This is extremely ironic, taking into account that they are the ones meant to maintain peace and at the same time fight during war. However, the constructivism perspective does not consider power and gender as essential parts in international relations; something that the feminist perspective believes in.
The feminist theory, on the other hand, considers the role and contribution of women in matters such as war and peace. According to this perspective, the gender roles of women are often ignored. Women are only mentioned for their roles, which are domestic (Schlee, 2004, 150). The world is believed to be extremely socially constructed. In turn, it has influenced the manner, which peace and war is viewed. Women are seen as being key contributors to the society, and for that reason, their lives need to be protected at all times. The feminist theory argues for the protection of the female population, which has in turn affected how war has been viewed. In essence, the feminist theory gives a lot of emphasis on the female population, which has prompted the need for the protection of this gender.
In relation to war, the feminist theory argues that as long as war harms the female population, then it is an act that should not be taken up by nations. However, nations that are at warfare have used this theory to defend their acts of warfare in that they argue that they engage in war for the protection of the female population. In most cases, nations that engage in warfare avoid harming the female population, thus illustrating their consideration of the concepts presented by the feminist perspective. Their argument is that they engage in warfare so as to protect their own female population, and for that reason will retaliate to the harm of their female population. They also believe that because they do not attack the female population in their enemy countries, then their warfare is wholly justified. Accordingly, three feminist concepts have been considered in relation to this including analytical feminism, empirical feminism and normative feminism. All of this have been used to define the women’s role in society, thus the need to protect the female population. Based on this perspectives, it is, therefore, clear why the nations at warfare would easily choose war over peace, thus making tha attainment of peace a hard objective.
Evidently, both theories presented above argue for the maintenance of peace, however these theories have been modified in such a way that they are used for the defense of war. Using the constructivist theory, nations argue that war is essential for national security, which sequentially makes it impossible for the attainment of peace. Relevantly, with the feminist perspectives nations argue that war supports the protection of the female population, and for that reason, the achievement of peace becomes near impossible. In conclusion, it is extremely clear that war is an occurrence, which is taking place regularly. The chance of a solution being found to get rid of wars does not seem likely. Peace is a concept, which needs to be known by everyone. The impact of war is expressed in various mediums especially in the news. Death, Injury, lose of homes and livelihoods, are some of the effects of war (Kalyvas, 2003.488). More efforts should be put to ensure that peace is enhanced, in turn; the world will be extremely safe. The different sociological perspectives, which exist, explain a great deal concerning peace and war. Thus, it is not correct to claim that war should occur, instead of finding a solution to obtaining peace.
Schlee, Günther. “Taking Sides and Constructing Identities: Reflections on Conflict Theory”,
Royal Anthropological Institute, 10, (2004):pp. 135-156.
Brubaker, Rogers, & Cooper, Frederick. ‘Beyond Identity’, Theory and Society, vol. 29, (2000):
Katzenstein, Peter. (ed.) The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics,
New York, Columbia University Press, 1996.Print.
Kalyvas, Stathis. ‘The Ontology of “Political Violence”: Action and Identity in Civil Wars’,
Perspectives on Politics vol. 1, no. 3, (2003): pp. 475-94.
McFarlane, Alan. The Savage Wars of Peace: England, Japan and the Malthusian Trap, New
York: Blackwell, 2003.Print.
Frances, Bartowki. & Kolmar, Wendy. Lexicon of Debates”. Feminist Theory: New York: