I have recently been invited to join “Transcend International: A Peace Development Environment Network,” which is a worldwide network of people and institutions working nonviolently for world peace and justice. Transcend International was begun in 1993 by Johan Galtung (1930-1924). The Transcend.org website lists Transcend Peace Service, Transcend Peace University, Transcend University Press, Transcend Media Service, Transcend Peace Channel, and Transcend Research Institute. All these involve persons and institutions around the world working nonviolently for peace, that is, by “promoting peace by peaceful means throughout the world.”

Galtung was perhaps the principal creator of the discipline of peace studies, going all the way back to 1959 when he founded the Peace Research Institute in Oslo, Norway. By the time I initiated the Peace Studies Program at Radford University in Virginia in 1994, I had already learned much from Galtung’s work (and, of course, many other peace thinkers). I was also a member of International Philosophers for Peace and the Prevention of Nuclear Omnicide (IPPNO).

When I reflect on the name of this movement that I recently joined, the question immediately arises, “Why is this movement called “the transcend peace movement”? What does the word “transcend” mean in this context? I have in fact long been interested in the concept of “transcendence.” My 2018 book was called Global Democracy and Human Self-Transcendence. The Power of the Future for Planetary Transformation. So: what is the meaning of “the transcend peace movement”? I want to make seven points in response.

The stated mission of Transcend International is “to bring about a more peaceful world by using action, education/training, dissemination and research to handle conflicts nonviolently, with empathy and creativity, for acceptable and sustainable outcomes…. by creatively…channeling conflict energy toward new realities, accommodating the parties and meeting basic human needs.”

First and foremost, it should be clear that “a more peaceful world” involves a conception of transcendence. Our world is awash with multiple dimensions of violence. Yet our very recognition of the violence in this world reveals our capacity to think that it does not have to be this way. Our negative judgment on the pervasive violence that we find around us shows our capacity for transcendence. By negating it we reveal a hope, a possibility, a conviction that—it does not have to be this way.

Second, we can recognize that human beings have evolved as self-aware creatures. We are aware, in varying degrees, of ourselves, of our own thoughts and feelings. This very awareness automatically makes us creatures of self-transcendence. Our self-awareness also makes us capable of denying this intrinsic dynamic of self-awareness and transcendence. We can hunker down on some ideology, dogma, or fixed self-identity, thereby resisting all growth and change.

We all have experienced this process growing up as children. We can remember how we reacted to events and persons, and how we saw the world, at ages 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, etc. There was a continuous (though erratic and bumpy) process of self-transcendence from childhood to adulthood involving a growth in self-awareness. Yet somehow, many people think that process stops at young adulthood, and that at some point one becomes a fixed and unchanging ego reacting to the world in repeatedly the same, consistent ways. Nevertheless, in spite of this, self-awareness and hence the possibility of self-transcendence is always there in the background.

If someone insults me, I can react in various ways. I can respond with many possibilities, including violence. I can verbally protest, I can insult them back, I can try to discredit them, I can hate, I can try to clarify some misunderstanding, I can cry, I can withdraw from interacting with them. I can also respond with love and forgiveness, etc. To the degree that I am self-aware of both my immediate reaction and the various possibilities of response, I am capable of self-transcendence. I do not need to respond with violence and hate. I can ask myself, “what is the most appropriate response to this?” “How can I move forward with a relationship that promotes peace rather than more conflict?”

We are clearly not entirely predetermined in our responses, as most animals appear to be. The more self-aware we are, the freer we are to respond from a transcendent level. If peace is better than violence (which I already know because of my negative judgment on violence as described above), then I can respond in ways that encourage peace rather than with violence, hatred, revenge, etc. Perhaps something of this was included in Jesus’ command to “love your neighbor as yourself.”

What is the “self” that I love, that is also supposed to be the same love I have for my neighbor? Is “my-self” an ego of separation, isolation, and alienation that feels it must respond with violence and hate? Or is it a personhood of dynamic relationships that are always capable of evolving because I am self-aware? Does this self include the dynamic gift of self-aware, self-transcendence that all persons have at least to some extent? The selfhood of a self-aware being is not a fixed thing, but a process, a dynamic process of perpetual increase in self-awareness, growth, interpersonal relationships, and hence also self-transcendence.

Third, therefore, the love that I have for myself includes this sense of dignity, sacredness, and the infinite value of this freedom of perpetual self-transcendence that I am. And all other persons have this same gift, this equal dignity and infinite worth that I have. That is what I embrace when I love my neighbor as myself.

The prologue to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms very much this same idea: “Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” My love of other people is my recognition of their intrinsic dignity, their personhood, which is the same as my intrinsic dignity. This is what it means to be “a person” and not merely “a thing.” Transcend International does exactly this when it recognizes the dignity of all parties to a conflict.

Fourth, our self-awareness automatically generates what I call “a utopian horizon” that is always with us in the background, so to speak. To be a human being is to live in and within time—to be temporalized between past, present, and future. This very fact gives us our transcendence. We are aware of the past (some of which we judge as unsatisfactory), and we live within a dynamic present in which we appropriate that past and project from it toward a future that is not yet. And the future that we imagine has no inherent limits: we can always imagine a more peaceful future, a more fulfilled future, a future of ever-greater peace, freedom, justice, dignity, or love.

This is what I call our “utopian horizon.” It beckons us to actualize what we envision as ever-greater peace, freedom, justice, etc. This ability is inseparable from our self-awareness and is integral to our capacity for self-transcendence. We are always hoping, envisioning that things could be different, that they could be better, and that we should be acting in ways that help us realize, in practical and concrete forms, our utopian goals of peace, freedom, justice, dignity, or love.

Neo-Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch is well-known for his three-volume trilogy The Principle of Hope. In this book and his other works, he draws from human history what he calls “anticipatory illuminations” of utopia. He shows that human artists, architects, philosophers, theologians, and writers have always manifested this self-transcendence through their utopian intuitions. This very capacity to generate these visions of how it could be better (freer, greater, unalienated) illustrates our innate capacity for self-transcendence. In his book Natural Law and Human Dignity, Bloch shows that the same insight applies to moral principles (traditionally called “natural law”). The moral principles of justice, truth, dignity, equality, fairness, peace, etc., also serve as a utopian horizon and a well-spring for human self-transcendence.

Fifth, we begin to see that this same growth process is taking place with humanity as a whole. This is part of what Transcend International means when it speaks of “meeting basic human needs” and “channeling conflict energy toward new realities,” noted above. All human beings have equal dignity and a right to have their basic needs met with reasonable equity. This recognition leads us to examine how we organize our societies and our global institutions. And here the issues become significantly more difficult and complex.

To be a peacemaker one must be capable of empathically understanding both sides of any conflict and not take sides but, rather, try without violence to resolve the conflict and foster the “self-determination” of all parties. But what about peace between master and slave (often institutionalized), between the abusive husband and his wife (often protected by law), between a group of genocidal murderers and their victims, or between Nazis and those they destroy? How do we transcend these conflicts without sinking into the very morass of violence that engendered them?

Transcend International recognizes there are no simple answers here but nevertheless a tremendous need for self-aware clarity and research into the often-hidden forms of violence that repress and suffocate human dignity. Human history is marred not only by personal violence or overt militarized violence but also by systems and institutions of violence that are often hidden from view. The peace-studies literature often calls these “structural violence.” Is the world system of militarized “sovereign” nation-states a system of structural violence? Is our world’s economic system in which the poor remain in the hell of poverty while a few become richer and richer an institutionalized system of exploitative violence?

Research into how institutions may embody clandestine (structural) violence is fundamental to increasing our collective self-awareness toward the point where we transform these institutions so that they promote peace, freedom, justice, and equal dignity, rather than hidden violence of the few against the many. There are a number of thinkers who conclude that both the system of militarized “sovereign” nations and that of global capitalism are forms of structural violence.

For example, military historian Gwynne Dyer writes concerning sovereign nation states that even though “people told themselves each time that the war was about something specific…it was really the system itself that produced the wars.” And economist Duncan K. Folley affirms that under capitalism “the organization of the social division of labor through commodity exchange and wage labor systematically inverts the ordinary logic of human relationships…. The logic of commodity exchange is opposed to moral logic in both its principles and its conclusions.” If thinkers like these are correct, then our entire world system violates human dignity and calls out for transcendence toward a peace and justice system.

And it is precisely here that we can make our sixth point. We can discern that human self-awareness (and hence our capacity for self-transcendence) has increased over the millennia and continues to increase through the present historical moment. History can be seen as progressively increasing our collective self-awareness. This can give great hope. The process of self-transcendence for humanity will continue and increased self-awareness will help end structural violence and foster a human civilization of universal equality and dignity.

Different thinkers articulate this in a variety of ways while also simultaneously pointing to the next step in human evolution beyond structural violence. We are entering a time of what Barbara Marx Hubbard called “conscious evolution.” Psychologist Paul Diels argues that we contain not only a “subconscious” dimension but also a “superconscious” dimension and that, with increased self-awareness, we can transcend toward that “superconscious” level of peace, dignity, and justice. Cosmologist and spiritual thinker Ervin Laszlo speaks of the Great Upshift as “the next phase in our adventure on this planet [which must be] carefully prepared and consciously guided.” Indian visionary Sri Aurobindo spoke of a “World Union” in which the people of Earth unite in a cosmic journey into ever-higher forms of self-awareness.

Finally, as point seven, I want to affirm the Constitution for the Federation of Earth as a document created by hundreds of highly self-aware persons. It can function as a blueprint for establishing conscious evolution as a planetary standard from which human beings can live toward a transformed and flourishing future. The Federation of Earth will be founded on human dignity, first and foremost, and not on money or power as is the present world system. Self-awareness, and the process of self-transcendence for humanity, can and must be actualized so that we can truly establish peace on planet Earth. Such a world peace, founded on human dignity and the process of self-transcendence, will necessarily include satisfaction of “the basic human needs of all.”

.

References

Sri Aurobindo Ghose, The Essential Aurobindo, 1973.
Ernst Bloch, Natural Law and Human Dignity, 1086.
Paul Diels, The God-Symbol: Its History and Significance, 1986.
Gwynne Dyer, The Shortest History of War: From Hunter-Gatherers to Nuclear Superpowers—A Retelling for Our Times, 2021.
Duncan K. Foley, Adam’s Fallacy: A Guide to Economic Theology. 2008.
Barbara Marx Hubbard, Conscious Evolution: Awakening the Power of Our Social Potential, 1998.
Ervin Laszlo, The Great Upshift. Humanity’s Coming Advance Toward Peace and Harmony on the Planet, 2024.
Glen T. Martin, Global Democracy and Human Self-Transcendence: The Power of the Future for Planetary Transformation, 2018.