[gha] Re: 1st and 2nd Chapter

  • From: "Martin, Glen T" <gmartin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "gha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Prof. Dr. Timi Ecimovic" <timi.ecimovic@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 19:23:08 +0000

Dear Leo,

I wish you the best of luck with this book and promoting global peace science.  
But as someone who has been Chairperson for many years of a program in peace 
studies at this university, I have to say that GPS is not a panacea for world 
peace and it is very unlikely that the placing it at the beginning of this book 
is going to somehow make thoughtful and informed people subscribe to it.

As I wrote to you earlier (which resulted you’re your removing me as co-editor 
of the book),  none of the major themes that characterize the worldwide 
movement in peace studies appears in GPS.  There is no consideration of the 
vast contributions to understanding the violent dynamics of our world made by 
Max Weber, Immanuel Wallerstein, Jürgen Habermas, and others.  There is no 
consideration of the global ethics movement and the great amount of work done 
on defining global ethics on behalf of peace.   There is nothing about the 
theory and practice of nonviolence and the vast amount of work coming from the 
inspirations of Gandhi, King, Tolstoy, etc.

Nor is there anything about the worldwide movement for the study and practice 
of nonviolent communication led my Marshall Rosenberg and others.   There is 
nothing substantive about the role of capitalism in the promotion of war, a 
literature spearheaded by Marx and continued by many others.  There is no 
analysis of totalitarianism, its forms and roles in war and violence, and the 
literature on that subject, led, for example, by Hannah Arendt.   There is 
nothing about the vast literature on human rights and human dignity and its 
contributions to creating peace and harmony.   Nor is there anything about the 
ethics of care and compassion and the literature around that theme.  What are 
all these scholars, working in all these fields, going to think about GPS?   I 
doubt very much if they are going to drop their own substantial work and flock 
to GPS.

Regarding GPS itself, it is not clear to me how the four societal spheres can 
be effectively and properly differentiated or what value it would be to 
approach society this way.   Each set of social information �C humanitarian, 
instrumental (informational), organizational, and technical would seem to apply 
to all the spheres.  I can see gathering specific information for selective 
purposes defined by certain spheres, but how this contributes to peace is not 
apparent to me.

One can appreciate that these four functions are essential to society 
(humanitarian, informational, organizational, and technical), but recognizing 
this appears to me to be merely a descriptive feature of the interrelation of 
these.  However, I do not see these as classes of people but as functions that 
are often the domain of any one person: for example, I personally have 
humanitarian functions, informational functions, organizational functions and 
technical functions �C as do many other people.  This categorization appears 
somewhat arbitrary and limited in its usefulness.

Nor do I see how study of these functions is going to lead to harmony or peace. 
 Historically society both nationally and internationally has been involved 
with much conflict, war, and violence.  I do not see any prescription here for 
changing things in ways that would promote peace.  Like the famous case of 
Adolph Eichmann, I may appear to have benign technical, organizational, etc., 
functions, but I am still part of a social machine dedicated to war, violence, 
and genocide.

I can perhaps see how the sociology with multivariable and dimensions would be 
a good place for dialogue among social scientists and other thinkers.   But how 
is this going to get the world to peace?  What if my technical job is building 
nuclear weapons?    Am I in “disharmony” with something?   I do not see how the 
words “disbalance” or “disproportion” (that appear many times) are illuminating 
as to how we can achieve peace.   According to the definitions in the chapter, 
I could apparently be building weapons while in a state of social harmony.

Neither do I find analysis of the institutions and motivations usually 
associated with war and violence:  I do not find any mention of multinational 
corporations, systems of exploitation, industrial-military complexes, 
militarized sovereign national security states, terror and counter-terror, 
undemocratic structures of governing, motives for imperialism, patterns of 
hate, fear, and ignorance, etc. �C things that are most often taken as causes 
of war and impediments to be overcome through a process of both dialogue as 
well as structural changes.   What am I missing here?

     And as I said above, neither do I see mention of the positive things that 
are usually associated with the establishing of peace: conflict resolution, 
authentic democratic modes of governing, economic conversion to peaceful goods 
and services, dialogue directed toward mutual understanding, nonviolence in 
theory and practice, nonviolent forms of communication, economic and social 
justice, truth and reconciliation processes, respect for human rights and human 
dignity, etc.

In the literature of peace studies, analyses are often divided into structural 
dimensions (economic, social, and political systems that may support either war 
or peace) and psycho-social dimensions (people’s fears, emotions, moral 
convictions, attitudes, etc.).   How does Tetrasociology address transformation 
in each of these areas?  Just collecting data is not going to create peace.   
What are the ethical, structural, social, and psychological characteristics of 
a world peace system (as opposed to the present war-system)?   In these 
chapters, I see the word “harmony” appear over and over again, but its useage 
appears so vague and general that I do not see how it seriously addresses any 
of the above issues.

As I said above, I wish you the best of luck with this, but I do not think that 
GPS supplies any hitherto undiscovered secret about how to create peace in a 
complex world.  I am willing to bet that many people contributing papers to 
this volume have much to say that is ignored by GPS.  And I do not think it 
will not help the cause of peace if we fool ourselves into thinking we have a 
magic bullet.

My best harmony wishes to you and all the authors of this book.  We all 
sincerely want peace, but in the quest for peace and harmony we also must also 
remain faithful to truth, intellectual integrity, and the tradition of quality 
scholarship upon whose shoulders all peace researchers build.

Dr. Glen T. Martin

President, World Constitution and Parliament Assoc. 
President, Institute on World Problems 
Professor of Philosophy, Radford University 
Laureate, GUSI Peace Prize International

From: gha-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gha-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Leo Semashko
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 7:59 AM
To: Prof. Dr. Timi Ecimovic
Cc: mulej@xxxxxxxxx; gha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gha] Re: 1st and 2nd Chapter

Dear Timi,

Thank you very much for your support of the GPS first chapters, their 
appreciation, congratulations and your corrections! But I read it the first 

As for your suggestions and corrections - they are acceptable in principle but 
we will look at the discussion in GHA and other suggestions.

In this regard, I ask everyone, please, send your responses to ALL MEMBERS of 
GHA to the GHA address: gha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>.

Is it possible for you? It would be more efficient. Thank you.

With love, best harmony wishes,


----- Original Message -----
  From: Prof. Dr. Timi Ecimovic, 
  To: leo.semashko@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:leo.semashko@xxxxxxxxx>
  Sent: 26 мая 2014 г., 18:55:28
  Subject: 1st and 2nd Chapter

Dear Leo!

It is second time I am working on same issue.

1.       General view �C great work, nice presentation and profound innovation 
within the social sciences �C please accept my congratulations.
2.       Let me comment on CREATION. Creation has got many meanings but most 
significant meaning is “God Creation” of everything including mankind. I am 
suggesting first sentence God created human…… to be: The Nature of the planet 
Earth allowed Homo sapiens to live within the Biosphere of the planet Earth. My 
sentence is not obligatory but possible solution.
3.       Global Peace Sciences is created by God’s will  - is creationism 
statement. I am suggesting following: Global Peace Science is summary of work 
of people of good will. The sentence is not obligatory but possible solution.
4.       Preface: (Possible solution) Need, intent and conditions of the GPS 

Please it is not easy work to read 1st and second chapter, but my suggestion is 
to replace use of creation and like words with understandable simple words - 
work, evolution, reach, achievement etc.

My contribution is not obligatory and you dear Leo are free to do whatsoever 
you think is better for GHA.

Have a nice day!


*Prof Dr Dr h. c. Timi Ecimovic,
Korte 124
SI - 6310 Izola - Isola
Phone: ++ 386 5 64 21 360
E - mail: timi.ecimovic@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:timi.ecimovic@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home page: www.institut-climatechange.si<http://www.institut-climatechange.si/>

Other related posts: