Modern Peaces

Modern peaces are mechanic. The spiritual realm is dismissed in favor of a purely this-worldly perception of the universe. While God served as founding principle in moral approaches to peace, in modern interpretations he is replaced by rationality as founding principle of peace. Thereof derives the modern concern with earthly relations. Only that which can be apprehended by the senses is of relevance for peace.

In a modern, secular understanding, the universe functions like a machine according to eternal laws of cause and effect that, via the natural sciences, at least in principle can be deciphered. Knowing how the clockwork world ticks opens the possibility for improving upon it, managing, repairing and perfecting it. The same notion applies to the human realm, where knowledge about the functioning of individual and society paves the road towards the possibility to actively perfect the human condition and produce peace. Peace turns into the promise of a final stage of human evolution, reinforced by a linear understanding of history guided by the belief in progress, enlightenment, development or civilization. 

We can recognize how there is a thematic tendency of modern peaces to highlight security in conflict episodes.

Within the modern framework, we find peace in direct relation with the material sphere, where things can be seen, measured and accumulated. The fear of losing them, including the fear of losing one’s life, becomes a high risk, which has to be managed in a safe place. This is also the promise of the Nation-State, as a political entity that promises to maintain internal order for the citizens inside its borders and also keep them safe from the invasion of foreigners, perceived as external threats. 

The phobic security of the institution - be it the empire, the nation state, the church or the capitalist world system - overshadows the conviviality of individuals and communities. This phobic security without conviviality needs and constructs aggressors. It is fear that makes us perceive the mere existence of otherness as aggression, far more than a physically aggressive attitude of the other.