Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Many times the idea of creating a peace agreement is simply a facade of placating to citizens want for stability. This piece of paper holds the power of creating an umbrella for "peace" however, "the morning after" always seems to be the same-what does peace mean? Simona Sharoni questions the idea of peace and what it means to different countries citing Israel/Palestine and the North of Ireland. She discusses the idea of "accidental activism" and the idea of the housewife as roles that some women play during peace time. However, the different roles of women seemed to change drastically depending on what country she was dissecting (e.g. Belfast) Therefore, does the signing of a peace agreement really hold any power if every region, ruler, religion, country and person for that matter have their own definitions of what it means? Is there even a universal definition of peace?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think this goes back/relates to the question we've been grappling with for the past few weeks: what IS feminism? Based on what we've heard from the conference and what we talked about in class, there is no set definition of feminism. Likewise, there is no universal definition of peace; there simply can't be, not with so many different people in the world with so many different needs and wants. I agree that creating a peace agreement is simply a facade, a mere quick fix that keeps the masses happy while the leaders think of ways to effect some REAL, lasting, positive change. I think it is better to believe not in universal peace, but in compromise. Everyone should give and take a little; this sense of fluidity is better than an agreement of peace which can sound like it's coming from one point-of-view/side.
ReplyDelete