Periodicals
 |
"To Leap Beyond yet Nearer Bring". From War to Peace to Nonviolence to Nonkilling Summary: We "leap beyond," hopefully Nearer [to] bring," by raising a question. As Bertrand Russell has observed, "Philosophy begins when someone asks a general question and so does science" (Russell,1977: 10). The question is, "Is a nonkilling society possible- If not, why not- If yes, why- Since a "nonkilling society" is not a common term in English or perhaps in any other language, we need an initial explanation. Let us take it to be a society with three defining characteristics, each with two parts. First, there is no killing of humans and no threat to kill. Second, there are no weapons specifically designed to kill humans and no justifications for using them. And third, there are no social conditions that depend upon threat or use of killing force for maintenance or change.
|
 |
不殺生: 韓半島에서의 平和體制 構築을 위한 提言 Summary: Let us approach the problem of peaceful reunification of Korea in its Northeast Asian and global context from a nonkilling political science perspective. In contrast to conventional political science which is based on the assumption that readiness to kill is essential for social well-being, nonkilling political science departs from the assumption that a nonkilling society is possible. This is a society in which there is no killing of humans and threaths to kill; no weapons specifically designed to kill humans and no legitimizations for using them; and no conditions of society that depend upon threat of use of killing for mainteance or change.
|
 |
Political Science: To Kill or Not to Kill? Summary: Each reader is first asked to reflect upon the question: "Is a nonkilling society possible?" If not, why not? If yes, why?. For the purpose of the question, a nonkilling society is taken to be a human community from smallest to largest encompassing all humankind that has the following characteristics: There is no killing of humans, at least, and no threats to kill. There are no weapons for killing ("hardware") and no legitimisations, justifications, or permissions to kill ("software"). And there are no conditions of society that depend for maintenance or change upon the threat or use of lethal force. That is, a nonkilling society is taken to be one in which humans neither kill nor threaten to kill each other
|
 |
The Case for Nonkilling Global Political Science in Service to Nonkilling Global Transformation Summary: Prepared for the panel on "Nonkilling Global Political Science," organized and chaired by Professor Burton M. Sapin, at the 41st Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Los Angeles, California, March 14-18, 2000. For this purpose a nonkilling society is taken to be a human community from smallest to largest encompassing all humankind that has the following characteristics. There is no killing of humans, at least, and no threats to kill. There are no weapons for killing ("hardware") and no legitimizations, justifications, or permissions to kill ("software"). And there are no conditions of society that depend for maintenance or change upon the threat or use of lethal force. That is, a nonkilling society is taken to be one in which humans neither kill nor threaten to kill each other (...).
|
 |
殺戮なき朝鮮半島－朝鮮半島における平和構造の構築－ Summary: Is a nonkilling Korea possible? If not, why not? If yes, why? But what is meant by a 'nonkilling Korea?' For present purposes let it be Korea, people and peninsula, distinguished by the following characteristics: No killing of Koreans by Koreans and no threats to kill; No killing of Koreans by foreigners - Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, various UN contingents, or by any other people - and no threats to kill; No killing of foreigners by Koreans or threats to kill; No weapons for killing targeted by Koreans against each other, by foreigners against Koreans, and by Koreans against foreigners; No ideological doctrines - political, religious, military, economic, legal, customary, or academic - that provide permissions for Koreans to kill Koreans, for foreigners to kill Koreans, and for Koreans to kill foreigners; and No conditions of Korean society - political, economic, social, and cultural- or relationships between Koreans and foreigners that can only be maintained or changed by threat or use of killing force.
|
|
|
A Nonkilling Korea: From Cold-War Confrontation to Peaceful Coexistence Summary: Is a nonkilling Korea possible? If not, why not? If yes, why? But what is meant by a 'nonkilling Korea?' For present purposes let it be Korea, people and peninsula, distinguished by the following characteristics: No killing of Koreans by Koreans and no threats to kill; No killing of Koreans by foreigners - Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, various UN contingents, or by any other people - and no threats to kill; No killing of foreigners by Koreans or threats to kill; No weapons for killing targeted by Koreans against each other, by foreigners against Koreans, and by Koreans against foreigners; No ideological doctrines - political, religious, military, economic, legal, customary, or academic - that provide permissions for Koreans to kill Koreans, for foreigners to kill Koreans, and for Koreans to kill foreigners; and No conditions of Korean society - political, economic, social, and cultural- or relationships between Koreans and foreigners that can only be maintained or changed by threat or use of killing force.
|
|
|
Special Issue on Glenn Paige and Nonkilling Political Science Summary: Professor Glenn D. Paige is one of the foremost champions of the movement for a new Nonviolent International Order which will gradually eliminate violent structures from contemporary lives. He has been vigorously promoting the concept of nonkilling society and global nonkilling political science. This Special Issue on Glenn Paige and Nonklling Global Political Science of the Journal of Peace and Gandhian Studies gathers texts by twenty authors discussing the possibilities of a nonkilling world.
|
|
|
Korean Leadership for Nonkilling East Asian Common Security Summary: The concept “nonkilling” is not a customary term in political science but there are grounds for confidence that nonkilling human societies are possible and that political science and related disciplines can play a constructive role in bringing them about. This paper suggests that Korean scholars and leaders have a unique opportunity to explore the implications of nonkilling security theory for the future well-being of the united Korean people and for Korea’s transforming leadership contribution to Nonkilling East Asian Common Security1 and a nonkilling world.
|
|
|
Makings of a Nonkilling World Summary: Must killing be a modus vivendi in human affairs? Is nonkilling too far-fetched? Most of us believe that killing is not desirable. Yet humankind continues to kill incessantly, ruthlessly. Why? In the pages that follow, Glenn D. Paige, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawai'i and the founder and president of the nonprofit Center for Global Nonviolence, cuts to the chase and takes us through the gamut of problems and issues relating to killing/nonkilling, and provides us with extensive documentation and arguments from various perspectives.
|
 |
The Basis of the Nonkilling Belief Summary: This essay is nothing more than an appeal to human beings everywhere to take active responsibility to protect human life in all thoughts, words, and deeds. There is no higher moral calling because morality implicates life and the protection of life in its most fundamental definition. It seems that in the management of human affairs, we think and behave as though morality is dependent on our ability to plan and choreograph dangerous killing behavior – perhaps to outkill someone else or to purge ourselves from our own lives.
|
|
|
De-escalating Media Language of Killing: An instructional module Summary: Harnessing substantial academic reseach and citing the first comprehensive summary of violence on a global scale undergirds this online article that elaborates on a companion web-based resource to be posted at www.toda.org. These twinned online productions examine the role of the media in producing a culture of violence and seek to curb its extent and effects. This article and the accompanying webcast describe the approach of Professor Emeritus Glenn Paige, author of Nonkilling Global Political Science, which has been translated into 25 languages. He urges greater media awareness about the importance of: avoiding the inappropriate use of the language of killing and, alternatively, avoiding the use of euphemisms to gloss over or cover up examples of violence. Paige’s arguments and this online article suggest five recommendations for future action.
|
Reviews
 |
Politics of non-violence Excerpt: Is a nonkilling society possible? Is a no-killing global political science possible? Attempting to answer these two seemingly simple but profoundly complex questions, the author, a veteran teacher of political science and nonviolence, pronounces a daring yes. In our globalising world, which is marked by a distinct monetary mania, politics is the last thing on people's minds. If and when politics surfaces on the global market's agenda at all, it is often in the contexts of investment security, and more recently, the international campaign against terrorism.
|
|
|
A Nonkilling Paradigm for Political Scientists, Psychologists, and Others Excerpt: The familiar word, nonviolence, is almost comforting in its generality. The word nonkilling, however, confronts and startles us with its specificity. Being less familiar, it challenges us to find out where it came from and how its author means it to be used. Glenn Paige, in Nonkilling Global Political Science, proposes that his discipline adopt as a goal the promotion of a nonkilling world, that is, a world in which people do not kill each other. This is not straightforward, because traditional political science is violenc-accepting and killing-tolerant in several ways. Paige aims to provoke a nonkilling reconceptualization of political science and, by extension, psychology, law, economics, and other disciplines. (...)
|
|
|
Is a nonkilling society possible? Excerpt: Challenging and overturning shallow but widelyheld beliefs in anathema to the insouciant but a pleasure to the progressive. It is for those who believe knowledge is not static and resist the temptation to find solace in watertight compartments of concepts and ideals, thus enlarging the coast of knowledge. Professor emeritus Glenn D. Paige's book, Nonkilling Global Political Science, speaks of nothing less, more so with its glaring conceptual clarity and the cascade of buttressing historical, scientific and spiritual evidence of non-violence and nonkilling.
|
 |
Nonkilling Global Political Science Excerpt: In the fourth year of the new millennium, war and terrorism are the norm for resolving international conflicts. Has nothing been learned from the bloody wars of the previous century? That's the question asked by Glenn Paige, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, in Nonkilling Global Political Science. Paige argues that if political scientists do not seriously challenge the acceptance of lethality, then one could hardly expect citizens to do so. He also asks: "Is a nonkilling global society feasible?" then challenges his discipline, asking whether a nonkilling global political science is achievable. On both counts, his answer is a resounding "yes".
|
 |
A Nonkilling Paradigm for Political Problem Solving Excerpt: We are about to enter the sixth year of the new millennium, and war and terrorism remain the norm to resolve international conflicts. All the experience of bloody wars of the previous century and the wisdom thereby gained seems to have been wasted. Professor Glenn Paige in his recent book, Nonkilling Global Political Science argues if political scientists, scholars who dedicate their lives to the study of political power in its multi-faceted manifestations do not challenge seriously the assumption of lethality, then why would one expect political leaders and citizens of the world to do so. Is a nonkilling global society feasible? Paige in this path-breaking book asks this simple yet profound question, but goes a step further to challenge his discipline, questioning, Is a nonkilling global political science achievable? On both counts, through insightful analysis and substantive evidence, his answer is a resounding "Yes!"
|
 |
Towards a Nonkilling Sri Lanka Excerpt: The most precious gift on earth is life. Whatever may be the causes for the killings, societies tolerating or being observers of the killing of others are societies living in the shadow of barbarism. Has Sri Lanka reached such as situation? Whether it is in the North or South, people in the country are increasingly subjected to killings due to varied forms of violence. The killings carried out in the name of war are being justified increasingly. We are living in a culture of impunity. On 21st September 2007, we will be engaged in Satyagraha at different locations island wide, including at Hyde Park grounds in Colombo, bringing together approximately 35,000 people from all walks of life to protest against this rising culture of violence and impunity (...).
|
