Perceptions of Peace in
Washington, DC
Edited By Abdul Karim Bangura and Junior Hopwood
Included in this preview:
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Excerpt of Chapter 1
For additional information on adopting this book for
your class, please contact us at 800.200.3908 x501
or via e-mail at [email protected]
PERCEPTIONS OF
PEACEFUL BEHAVIOR
IN WASHINGTON, DC
EDITED BY
ABDUL KARIM BANGURA
AND
JUNIOR HOPWOOD
Copyright © 2011 Abdul Karim Bangura. All rights reserved. No part of this publication
may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying,
microfilming, and recording, or in any information retrieval system without the written
permission of University Readers, Inc.
First published in the United States of America in 2011 by Cognella, a division of
University Readers, Inc.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
15 14 13 12 11
12345
Printed in the United States of America
ISBN: 978-1-60927-856-4
Dedicated to the Residents of Washington, DC
CONTENTS
Chapter 1: General Introduction
Abdul Karim Bangura

Chapter 2: Religion
Deshonna Collier

Chapter 3: Sexual Orientation
Nicole T. Branch

Chapter 4: Citizenship
Marcia E. Johnson

Chapter 5: Education
Mia Mackey

Chapter 6: Union Membership
Junior Hopwood

Chapter 7: Mobility
Michael B. Bakeley

Chapter 8: Marital Status
Monea Tamara Hendricks

Chapter 9: Employment
Michelle Grainger

Chapter 10: Political Affiliation
Jerome Hunt

Chapter 11: Socioeconomic Status
Reneé Taylor
135
Chapter 12: Location of Residence
Michelle D. Demus
147
Chapter 13: Gender
Shamica Nicole Cathey
163
Chapter 14: Ethnicity/Race
Cindy McGee
Bibliography
177
191
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We, and hopefully many readers, owe gratitude to:
Professors Alvin Thornton, Daryl Harris, Maurice Woodard and Michael Frazier, for
encouraging this type of scholarship.
Professor Charles Harris, for his quiet and gentle inspiration.
Ms. Javenia Lilly, Mrs. Saphronia Drake and Ms. Brentina Taylor, for their genuine friendship and administrative assistance.
The numerous families to which we belong, for offering their encouragement and prayers.
CHAPTER 1
GENERAL
INTRODUCTION
Abdul Karim Bangura
INTRODUCTION
his is our ninth in a series of books dealing with Washington, DC (District of
Columbia). The first book, Historical Political Economy of Washington, DC, was
published by University Press of America in 2000. The second through the eighth
book—DC Vote: Fighting Against Taxation Without Representation; Washington, DC State
of Affairs; Washington, DC’s Challenges; Education in Washington, DC; African Americans
and Law, Politics and Washington, DC; Ethnicity and Gender in Washington, DC; and Social
Economic Trends in Washington, DC—were published by Writers Press (iUniverse) from
2001 through 2008. All of these books are outgrowths of special seminars conducted
in the Department of Political Science at Howard University. The present book is also
a result of a seminar conducted at the University in the spring of 2008. The following
chapters are revised versions of selected papers that were presented at the seminar.
Since this book is about Washington, DC residents’ perceptions of peaceful behavior
in the District, it makes sense to provide the reader with our broad conceptualization of
what we mean by peace in this text. In the rest of this chapter the general and cross-cultural
conceptualizations of peace that underlie our use of the term are presented. Further elaborations of the concept of peace are also present in the rest of the chapters.
T
GENERAL CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF PEACE
The word peace conjures myriad images. For some, peace is achieved in a world free of
violent conflict from ethnic, cultural, religious, or political differences. For others, the
promotion of democracy, justice, and human rights are additional and equally important
2 | Perceptions of Peaceful Behavior in Washington, DC
facets of peace. Thus, although peace connotes stability and solidarity, the definitions of
peace are potentially contentious and unacceptable to different societies. According to
Robert Elias and Jennifer Turpin (1994:4), peace can generally be categorized as either
“negative” or “positive.” Negative peace, the traditional notion of peace, is defined as the
absence of war or other direct violence. Positive peace extends the definition of peace by
insisting on the promotion of social justice. Since positive peace encompasses different
and sometimes conflicting conceptualizations of social justice, organizations involved in
establishing peace must reconcile varying views so that peace itself does not become the
source of conflict.
Negative peace is the traditional notion of peace. By emphasizing the avoidance of violent conflict, negative peace essentially promotes the idea that war is inevitable. Negative
peace has conventionally been established through two tactics: (1) deterrence and (2)
collective security. Deterrence refers to the idea that weaker states will not attack relatively
powerful states. In the modern age, nuclear deterrence prevents countries from attacking
one another because of the fear of nuclear holocaust. Nuclear deterrence led to collective
security as a means to avoid war. During the Cold War, collective security was the means
by which alliances were created along bipolar power relations; weaker or non-nuclear states
allied themselves with either the United States or the Soviet Union for protection.
Negative peace, however, is not “real” peace because it is based upon the establishment
of fear and enemies. Negative peace actually relies upon the acceptance of war itself. The
conventional methods of establishing negative peace are not sufficient. Avoidance of war
by deterrence is based upon a hierarchy of power. In a world order that is dependent
upon deterrence to establish peace, states and people will not be respectful of one another.
Furthermore, collective security is not tenable because weaker states can never be sure that
protection from a more powerful state is guaranteed. Thus, peace is not ensured.
Alternatively, positive peace is attained when social justice is present and promoted. In
a world of positive peace, not only is war absent, but human rights are also protected. Elias
and Turpin (1994:5) equate social justice with three definitions of human rights. First,
Western societies, particularly the United States, are concerned with the protection of
civil and political rights, which are inalienable by the state. Second, the developing world
defines human rights or positive peace as the absence of structural violence; structural
violence is defined as underdevelopment and institutionalized poverty. The developing
world, thus, emphasizes economic, social, and cultural rights. Third, another school of
thought views human rights to development and environmental preservation as essential
to peace. Envisioning a world operated in a more just and equitable manner, Elias and
Turpin further argue that all three definitions of human rights are complementary and can
establish positive peace.
Relative to negative peace, positive peace is a more useful conceptualization. In a world
of positive peace, fear is not the basis of stability; societies are at positive peace when people
have the means to control their own social, economic, and political lives. Additionally,
General Introduction | 3
positive peace would eliminate the factors that spark violent conflict: racism, religious
persecution, political disputes, hunger, environmental destruction, etc.
Despite the benefits of positive peace, however, the definitions of human rights that
comprise positive peace may by irreconcilable and conflicting in certain contexts. In the
current world order, states are classified along economic lines. The economic super-giants,
the United States, Western Europe, and Japan (challenged by China), lie at the “core” of
this order, and the rest of the world operates at the “semi-periphery” and the “periphery,”
depending on their relative level of development. In an increasingly globalized and interdependent world, states continuously try to influence one another’s domestic policies.
The core countries have especially great power over developing countries because of their
economic prowess. Different definitions of human rights may make reconciliation between
international pressures and domestic aspirations difficult, inhibiting the establishment of
positive peace.
For example, the contentious human rights issue in China has achieved international
attention and has revolved around the Chinese government’s repression of pro-democracy
movements. Until recently, the United States was linking China’s most favored nation
status with human rights. China’s population, encompassing a multitude of ethnic groups,
is more than one billion people and growing. The state-run economy is in the midst
of an arduous transition to capitalism. The Chinese communist government argues that
the country would not be able to stand a democratic revolution in the midst of all these
changes. It fears that even 10% unemployment in a nation of more than one billion
people could incite massive political instability and violence. The Chinese government
cites this potential as justification of its tight political control and intolerance of organized
pro-democracy movements. On the other hand, forced labor camps, the laogai, still exist in China, where political prisoners endure harsh physical abuse. Although no public
violent conflicts are occurring, is China at peace? Physical abuse of prisoners is intolerable,
but perhaps the “stability” claims of the Chinese government are valid. As a developing
nation, China claims it has a right to maintain its economic goals over political objectives
(of foreign nations). Meanwhile, Western societies and non-governmental organizations
charge that China should grant political rights to its people. Conceptions of human rights
and what constitutes positive peace are in definite contention here.
Another example can be drawn from crime statistics in the United States versus crime
statistics in East Asia. By equating human rights as civil rights (e.g., freedom of speech and
assembly), the United States presents itself as a champion of human rights in the world.
Crimes such as murder and robbery are, however, much more widespread in the United
States than in East Asia. For instance, Japan’s inner cities, more crowded than American
cities, are safer. In 1997, New York City experienced 10.5 murders per 100,000 people
while Tokyo only experienced 1.2 per 100,000. About 500 robberies occur per year in
Tokyo. In New York City, 215 robberies are reported every day (Reid 1999:23–4). Japan
and other East Asian countries take pride in their low levels of crime. Should it be a human
4 | Perceptions of Peaceful Behavior in Washington, DC
right of Americans to live without fear? Is America truly a peaceful society that upholds
human rights?
Thus, the process of establishing positive peace will require negotiations and cooperation. Consequently, international institutions, national governments, non-governmental
organizations, and private businesses should collaborate to build a world in which positive
peace is a goal of policy making. In essence, peace is not just avoiding war; peace is also
about preserving and promoting human dignity. (More details can be found in Bangura
2000, 2004a, and 2004b.)
CROSS-CULTURAL CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF PEACE
As Wenden (1998) points out, Chernus (1993) suggested that the meaning of peace must
be considered in the context of past and present cultural political realities. Put differently, Chernus believed that a culturally neutral definition of peace is almost impossible to
conceive. Nonetheless, earlier researchers used a linguistic perspective to consider cultural
notions. Ishida (1969) examined the various meanings of the word peace in some of the
world’s major languages: Arabic, Greek, Hindi, Japanese, and Latin. He noted that the
Greek word eirene and the Roman word pax are closely related to the state and to its form
of government. The Greek concept characterizes a country that is orderly, untroubled
by civil disturbances. Contrastingly, the Hebrew word for peace, shalom, implies a unity
with God and the people of God. Islam has a similar concept: the Arabic word al-Islam
means “to be at peace.” Hindi has three words for peace: (1) Santi means a well-ordered
state of mind, referring to inner peace; (2) Samdhi means the absence of national war;
and (3) Sama indicates a well-governed social order. The Japanese word for peace, Heiwa,
suggests harmony within the culture and adaptation to the social order. And according to
Stanford (1976), Ahimsa, i.e. nonviolence against any form of life, eloquently espoused
by Mahatma Gandhi, implies that peace must also be conceptualized in terms of human
relations with nature. This view, Stanford suggested, exists in African and Native American
cultures and among members of some Asian religious groups.
Furthermore, Wenden suggests that by looking at cultural differences more broadly,
Hutchinson (1992) suggested some distinctions which expand and refine Ishida’s linguistic
framework. Hutchinson then delineated four levels of peace: (1) peace with our planetary
ecosystem, (2) international peace, (3) interpersonal peace, and (4) inner peace.
According to Wenden, in Hutchinson’s framework, “peace with our planetary ecosystem” emphasizes the need for humans to live in harmony with nature rather than conquer
it. Moreover, his description of Pax Romana adds to Ishida’s, which refers to an absence
of open hostilities, perhaps imposed through the use of arms. In addition, the Hebrew
and the Buddhist traditions offer a notion of peace as justice, equity, and compassion
among and between nations. And finally, Hutchinson suggested that interpersonal peace
hinges upon relationships that are characterized by non-possessive love (early Christian),