A Discourse of Arms as an Identity: The Structure of Arms Proliferation in World Societies

A Discourse of Arms as an Identity:

The Structure of Arms Proliferation in World Societies

 

Novri Susan

Sociology Department

Airlangga University

 

2008

 

“You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare war”

Albert Einstein (in Barash and Webel 2003).

 

A Discourse of Arms as an Identity:

The Structure of Arms Proliferation in World Societies

Small arms in our modern society are claimed as a neutral instrument which it does not have any political values and interest. An arm such firearms can be an instrument to kill other people in a robbery or to save people from an animal attack. There is also a common philosophy of gun supporter “guns don’t kill people; people do” in which people is morally justified to have small arms under their pillow. People are the actors who have an interest whereas an arm is only a means to struggle an interest. However considering small arms as a neutral means is a first mistake for controlling arms proliferation itself.

The proposition of arms as a neutral instrument gives a strong legitimacy for some countries in permitting small arms ownership by the people such in USA or any other countries. A personal or collective security issue becomes a discourse in the public spheres for answering some criticisms against their stand. In a simple analysis the proposition of ‘neutral instrument’ and the philosophy of gun have played role as a moral justification in sustaining and proliferating small arms.

The government and some communities, then, create a policy in realizing a legal small arms proliferation and circulation. In this level, a state policy that maintains small arms proliferation and circulation is a political fact in which the term of “neutral instrument” is protected by power of the state. An apprehensive question may occur in this course; is the term of “neutral instrument” a political way of some groups to sustain small arms proliferation and circulation? Then, this question gives another suspicion that a small arm is not neutral originally. Small arm is not only a means of personal or social security but as a political identity which there is strong interest and value behind its existence in the society. Furthermore this discourse brings a plausible fact; small arms as a political identity have created the structure of small arms proliferation and circulation in the world societies.

By relying on the work of social construction theory from Peter L. Beger, this paper is going to understand how a small arm becomes an identity for some societies. Further mission of this paper is to reveal how a small arm as a political identity creates a dominant discourse in a social system and build a structure of arms circulation. This paper’s perspective will be supported by a discourse analysis in which the writer will use information from media, movie, and research report. This paper is not a case study but a discourse in arms proliferation and circulation.

The Objectivation of Small Arms as an Identity

       Small arms are possessed personally and socially by people in each generation in our history. Karl Marx through his materialism history may put an arm as a means of production in the ancient society such in a hunt era thousands years ago. An arrow or spear is used to produce food store by hunting animals in the jungle. However the function of arms is not only as a means of production but as a protection from wild animals. In a different social character of a tribe group, small arms can be useful as a means of aggression to other tribes. This short illustration actually explains that an arm as a product of human’s needs is always meaningful socially. When an arm sprawls on the floor and nobody holds or has it, there is still a value in it. An arm is not neutral anymore since it is a product of people’s intention in producing food, self protecting, or attacking other people. An arm of every generation may has a different meaning behind of its form such a sword in classic society can represent the king existence in front of their people. In turn, an arm is not like a stone on the road but a social product which always sends a meaning to our lebenswelth (life world).[1]

       In our modern society firearms is a dominant social product from a specific community. Historically firearm—musket was found 1500 after Western people got ammunition powder from China. The main purpose of making musket was to provide a lethal weapon to their army during colonialism era. Firearms are the social product of modern colonialism of Western countries. However many identities group have accepted this social product as the part of their identity by putting a special definition and function. Firearms in the hands of Taliban’s members are not only an instrument to attack their enemies but an art of resistance against domination.[2] Gandhi may one different case which shows how an identity defines what arms should be taken to create the art of resistance. For Gandhi and his followers a great means to resist is a compassion or silence itself (ahimsa) without adopting firearms (violence). Firearms are not compatible with their identity since their identity defines a silence as an arm for resisting such colonialism structure.

In this sense, an arm—firearms in our modern society—is always representing an identity. An identity will define a lebenswelth by providing a set of concept that is maintained and transferred socially by each generation of some communities. A set of concept that introduces its members the way of they live. Individuals of a community then will define their social practices by quoting their set of concept. The social practices can not be avoided and denied since their every practice is an objective reality. Such a Japanese people always believe that tea without sugar is a reality whereas Javanese people a glass of tea should be sweet with much sugar. An objective reality here is an acknowledged practice in everyday life which all members maintain it collectively. Under this objective social reality individuals know who they are in social environment.

Berger explained that an objective reality has passed a social history of institutional order in which individuals behave. In order for individual as the members to understand their objective reality a symbolic universe is one important element created in their social history. A symbolic universe is a social ‘material’ of everyday life which has a specific meaning in a social environment by which social structure is sustained. “The symbolic universe is, of course, constructed by means of social objectivations. Yet its meaning-bestowing capacity far exceeds the domain of social life, so that the individual may “locate” himself within it even in his most solitary experiences” (Berger&Luckman, 1966, p. 96). A symbolic universe, then, is always embedded as a social identity which individual identify how to live in their environment as a community’s member. Every society creates identity types that may be different to each other. Berger and Luckman explained that various “identity types are social products tout court, relatively stable elements of objective social reality” (1966, p. 174). A small arm in this social construction theory can be a social identity since it is a symbolic universe for individual and community. Small arms—firearms in our modern society— is created from identity types of the world societies particularly.  Following Western countries dominance in international social system, firearms as a ‘western identity’ has been produced and reproduced under the institutional order of international structure.[3] Ipso facto small arms with any types in this world are an identity institution of Western people in dominating the world social system. To see this proposition, according to Small Arms Survey in 2007 from 875 million firearms circulated 73%-77% of firearms are in civilian hands which US civilian owned-gun is 30-35%, 20-25% firearms are in military and 2.5%-3.5% firearms are used in law enforcement. The illegal small arms in civilian hands which not registered with authorities are up to 79 million. Furthermore as Small Arm Survey testified that from eight million new small firearms produced yearly around the world, approximately 4.5 million are bought by US people (2007, pp.43-4). This statistical report shows us how US people choose a firearm as their identity. CNN reported that in a recent survey “two-thirds of Americans say they believe the Constitution guarantees each person the right to own a gun” (CNN, December 16, 2007).

In Pakistan society there is a tendency of owning firearms. However it shows a different definition in owning firearms. The clash of identity within Pakistani social system such between Sunni and Shi’a community is worsened by the using of firearms. In any social political events such general election or religious festival using of small arms has injured and killed civilians from both communities. However in this general fact of small arms use, there is a trend of firearms preference such Taliban members prefer to use Kalashnikov machine gun. As Ralph Joseph testified in his report that one biggest illegal producer of small arms namely Darra Adam Khel often reproduce, the popular Kalashnikov submachine gun, which became the weapon of choice for Islamic radicalist groups after the power of Taliban in Afghanistan, in 2001 (2008, n.p).

The preference of small arms using in some ways is shaped by a technical reason such flexible or not for the owner. However a preference is also about a symbolic universe of people relates to an ‘object’ since the object will give them a meaning in their social environment. The meanings of Kalashnikov for some identity groups such Taliban may be a resistance symbol against domination of US symbol such M16. A symbolic universe has created a social preference about what arms should be used in their resistance and how to get this object. In this point, an arm is an objective reality.

Legal and Illegal Small Arms are Equally Illicit?

As Barash and Webel testified a paradox of Arms trading policy of USA often occur in some social political issues from some importer countries such as in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Those states have used legal arms from USA to kill their own people in some conflict areas. Indonesian’ army by using the legal arms have killed thousands people in East Timor during their independent movement (2003, p. 331). In the Philippine army have killed and threatened Moro in people Southern Mindanao during their conflict with MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front) until now (Docena, 2006, n.p.). This fact does not change any policies of USA to export arms to the Philippines or Sri Lanka but exporting arms keep continuing. This arms transaction under some agreement, such Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement (ACSA) in 2002 between Sri Lanka and US (BBC, December 22, 2002), is claimed as a legal which means legitimated weapon. In this sense, then it is not illicit to use arms for killing separatist people in their villages.

At the other spaces of this world arms proliferation and circulation is stated as an illegal and illicit arms. As indicated by Small Arms Survey that 2 million of an estimated 18 million arms in Pakistan is legal. This means 16 million are illegal. Craft production of firearms in Pakistan approximately is 20,000 units per year, centered mainly in Darra in the Northwest Frontier Province. Craft production of small arms is also growing up across the Philippines. In 2002, it is estimated that 3,000 gunsmiths operated in Mindanao City, and around 25,000 people worked on the gun trade for their income. Yet in other places, such as Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, enterprises may be isolated and small-scale (Florquin, 2006, p. 42).

Craft production of small arms in Darra is stated as an illegal producer by national and international system. However the arms from both legal and illegal factually have been used to kill people in a different view. MILF militias in Southern Mindanao used ‘illicit arms’ to struggle their identity since there is no trust to the political system of the Philippines (May, 2003, p. 2). They kidnapped and killed both civilians and military personnel by using their ‘illicit arms’. At the same time, the Philippines army killed both civilian from Moro (Muslim) community and MILF members by using their legal arms. This phenomenon generally is happening in some other countries such as in Pakistan between government and Taliban’s supporters, Indonesia between government and Organisasi Papua Merdeka (Organization of Papua for Independence), and in Thailand between government and Muslim people in southern Thailand.

There is a screen of violence between legal and illegal arms in which all actors create a same condition of violence. One side may claims that they are using the legal arms to protect security as they are interpreting. The legitimacy of using guns is their hand; in the hand of state and a dominant identity. At the same time, actually this claim is acknowledging a brutality of legal arms within social life. In a philosophical criticism; how can one claim be a truth in our lebeswelth when it negates its own truth? If a legal arm proposition is stated as a truth then it creates a same condition with their opponent, illegal arms, it means the truth negates its own truth. In our discourse here, then, there is no different between legal and illegal arms since the two definitions always create a same condition namely a screen of violence.

Ipso facto, in this screen of violence the status of legal and illegal are not clear anymore. In a conventional—formal analysis, illegal and legal definition is aimed to differentiate between trading with using a legal procedure of arm trading. The legal procedure that is acknowledged by international system such Arms Treaty Trade or others international covenants are a social product of dominant identities. The treaty gives a wide space and legal protection for some identities keep producing and reproducing arms.

The problem of arms transaction in arms market such a change of market status from legal to grey, and to black market, may be one of hardest issue in internal law enforcement. However the main concern here is the entity of arms in its presence in the society, the status of legal and illegal depends on in who holds the gun. People can be wrong and unlawful by owning a firearm when state and its institutional order assert it. In the state’s claim, a firearm from black or grey market can be a legal arm when it is used by a security apparatus to secure their country. How if firearms from a legal market are used to approach political issues such in Sri Lanka or the Philippines?

There is a one statement of Oscar Arias Sánchez (1987) Nober Peace Laureate related to the global society constitution of arms:

“Peace is not just a dream; it is hard work, and requires real world, practical efforts to come to fruition…Humanity cannot wait. The poor and forsaken cannot wait. Now more than ever, the ratification of a set of universal rules on arms transfers is essential, if we still dare to hope that the twenty-first century will be more peaceful and just than the previous one.” (cited from http://www.armstradetreaty.com/, n.d.)

This statement appeals a ratification of universal rules on arms transfers. In a simple interpretation, this statement still believes in arms as a universal identity of human being. However this statement uses the words of ‘arms transfer’, we can see that there is a spirit to build a border between ‘states of guns culture’ and ‘states of peace culture’. The main appeal is to prevent ‘states of guns culture’ reproduce arms and send it to many countries around the world.

Conclusion: Transforming Identity of Arms

       This sub title may become a weird in our discussion since our social system still believes in arms as their identity. Gandhi may cry in his heaven now. His thought of silence to create compassion to other people is killed by guns culture of Western people. Not even in India or Sri Lanka, Ahimsa identity is irritated by arms proliferation. What Oscar Arias Sánchez stated above about a set of universal rules in arms transfer some ways can resist the dominant identity in our international social system. However this effort should be started from the foundation of law as an institutional order. As it has been discussed previously, a symbolic universe of society and state relates to arms is the infrastructure of institutional order. Many big companies that reproduce firearms such in US, UK, India, and China basically are supported by social and political associations. Such in USA, the National Riffle Association always support the production of arms through their social campaign and political movement.

       To transform arms as an identity may be an absurdism. However a social transformation can save some parst of this world from the arms identity. Some organization may have started this effort such Control Arms that create a ‘the million faces petition’ as an identity resistance (control-arms, n,d.).

       Arms are not neutral but a social product with many meanings and values. This is the fact that arms circulation around the world have been spread over since arms are not neutral. Firearms as a social product of Western people are an identity; how they define their social environment. The arms identity of Western people then has been planted in the world societies to dominate world societies’ identities. The discourse of illicit arms then is a matter who dominates the social system.

      

Reference

 

Berger, L& Luckmann, T. (1966). A social construction of reality: A treatise about sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.

BBC. (December 22, 2002). US seeks Sri Lankan military support. Retrieved Marc 23 2008 from  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/south_asia/2595531.stm

Docena, H. (February 25 2006). When Uncle Sam comes marching in. Retrieved March 23 2008 from  http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HB25Ae04.html

Florquin, N. (2006). The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons Retrieved March 22 2008 from http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/sas/publications/external_pdf/external_IIAS.pdf.

Joseph, Ralph. (February 5, 2008). Arms makers face closure. Retrieved March 23 2008 from http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080205/FOREIGN/630887051/1003.

May, R.J. (September 2002). The moro conflict and the Philippine experience with Muslim autonomy. Retrieved February 17 2008 from http://rspas.anu.edu.au/papers/conflict/may_moro.pdf.

Smallarms. (n.d.). The Philippines. Retrieved March 24 2008 from http://www.controlarms.org/events/philippines.htm.

Scott, James. (1992) Domination and the art of resistances: A hidden transcript. New Haven London: Yale University Press

Smallarmssurvey. (2007). Completing the Count civilian firearms. Retrieved March 22, 2008 from http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/sas/publications/year_b_pdf/2007/CH2%20Stockpiles.pdf.

 

 

 

 

---

[1] See in Berger and Luckman (1966).

[2] See James Scott in Domination and Art of Resistances (1992).

[3] In my view international social system and its structure is not more than the Western and USA domination since it always represents their interest and identity. Liberal democracy, free market, and WTO are Western identity. Firearms as Western identity are produced and circulated, then, reflects this domination. The fact USA and UK are the biggest producers of small arms.