Introduction: Peace by Means of Culture
Miguel Tamen, Michiko Urita, Michael N. Nagler, Gary Saul Morson, Oleg Kharkhordin, Lindsay Diggelmann, John Watkins, Jack Zipes, James Trilling Introduction: Peace by Means of Culture It has been suggested that one of the reasons why history is so fraught with wars and violent conflict is that there is a recurrent failure on the part of human beings to perceive not only their common essence but also the common ground that is supposed to be shared by all human individuals. The suggestion is often accompanied by positive claims and recommendations. A very familiar claim is that sharing in one culture, by which we mean doing roughly the same things and believing roughly the same beliefs, is a way of fostering or assuring peace. There have been many ambitious programs predicated on the notion that common cultural practices have admirable effects. Art and literature are staple ingredients of such programs. Peace, it is widely believed, can be achieved by means of culture. The most admirable thing about the idea, however, is the idea itself. One does not have to recall the possibility of very bad people enjoying the music of 22:2 DOI 10.1215/0961754X-3464780 © 2016 by Duke University Press J. S. Bach to doubt the whole theory. It is enough to consider the justifications for encouraging people to listen to Bach's music: these may have to do with beliefs about certain properties of the music, or even to do with hopes that anyone listening to it will become a certain kind of person, for instance, one capable of doing certain deeds or incapable of performing certain acts. But there are no guarantees. The idea that, were Bach to become a mandatory listening experience, we would be in a better position as a species seems unwarranted. It is unpromising to see culture or art as a form of inoculation against future wrongdoings, but its being unpromising has not prevented its repeated proposition. Patrick Leigh Fermor (19152011) is among those who have expounded...