Conflict Analysis and Transformation : An Introduction for Students, Activists and Communities [1 ed.] 9781527520097, 9781527516472

Citation preview

Conflict Analysis and Transformation

Conflict Analysis and Transformation: An Introduction for Students, Activists and Communities By

Randy Janzen

Conflict Analysis and Transformation: An Introduction for Students, Activists and Communities By Randy Janzen This book first published 2018 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2018 by Randy Janzen All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-1647-4 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-1647-2

I dedicate this book to Mary Ann Morris, my partner in life, who is always willing to reconcile and forgive; and to our sons: Sol, who takes a long time to get angry and who manages to engage in conflict both rationally and calmly; and Dunavan, who is passionate to walk on the path to social justice.

Author proceeds from this book will be donated to the Maurilia Coc Macs Memorial Scholarship for students in Peace and Justice Studies at Selkirk College, Castlegar, British Columbia, Canada. http://selkirk.ca/award/maurilia-coc-macs-memorial-scholarship

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements .................................................................................... ix Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1 Introduction Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 11 Conflict Analysis Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 31 A Framework for Conflict Transformation Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 37 Power: From imbalance to Equality Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 57 Relationships: From Fear to Trust Chapter Six ................................................................................................ 71 Awareness and Understanding: From “Unknowing” to “Woke” Chapter Seven............................................................................................ 89 Building Skills: From Passion to Competence Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 101 Problem-solving: Peace in Action Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 113 Conclusion Notes........................................................................................................ 117 Bibliography ............................................................................................ 125

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Some lines should not be crossed. One of them is getting your family members to review your written work. However, now that that is done, it is time to acknowledge their efforts. First, I would like to thank my son Sol, who admits to have never finished reading the draft. His concise comments, that the book made sense but was uninteresting perhaps indicate a newly found assertiveness and confidence. To that I respond equally – not with thinly disguised retaliation, but rather with affirmation of honest communication: I never did like Anime! There, I said it. To my son Dunavan, I am deeply grateful for your enthusiastic feedback, and for the fact that you actually read the whole draft. Your thoughtful suggestions were far enough removed in time from requests for money that there did not seem to be any ulterior motive whatsoever. To my wife, Mary Ann Morris, you patiently endured my writing, including the times when I kept it all to myself and also my sudden outbursts of needing to talk about it at length. Your final proofread was invaluable. I also wish to acknowledge several other reviewers. First, Ralph Friesen, whose attention to detail and skill of an author proved to be invaluable in reviewing a draft of this book. Second, Kate Meehan, who learned the hard way that being the “best student ever” came with untimely requests to review draft books. Your feedback, as an activist and as someone who has studied conflict analysis and transformation was instrumental in my ability to complete this book. Finally, Issa Ebombolo, peacemaker extraordinaire whose affectionate laugh is the closest thing to world peace that I have experienced, provided excellent feedback as well. Thank you all. I would also like to thank Kamala Melzak, for assistance with the graphics and Carolyn Barabonow, for formatting and other technical assistance. I would also like to thank Selkirk College and the Selkirk College Faculty Association for financial assistance in bringing this book to reality.



CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Who likes Conflict? Conflict is a word that conjures up many thoughts and emotions for us. Not surprisingly, most of these are negative. Most of us would rather avoid conflict than engage in it. It is often easier to remain silent than to raise an issue because we don’t want to upset someone, don’t want to disturb the peace, or don’t want to risk missing a promotion or even losing a job. Sometimes, this means we put up with a lousy meal at a restaurant, and sometimes it means we put up with physical, sexual or racial harassment in order to keep a job to feed our families. Sometimes we avoid a conflict situation because the last time we confronted someone or raised a contentious issue, the experience had a negative outcome and we want to avoid a repetition of an unpleasant situation. When it comes to addressing conflict, our responses are shaped by our cultural expectations, our particular experiences and our skills, which are a product of our education and family upbringing. These learned responses to conflict may not always best serve our needs. For better or worse, it is impossible to avoid conflict. For example, you may be someone who cannot avoid the realities of injustice all around you, if injustice is part of your personal lived experience. If you and your community have been subjected to structural violence in the form of systemic poverty or unequal access to the instruments of justice (such as law enforcement and a fair trial), you recognize that change is required to achieve social justice. Alternatively, you may be someone who is increasingly aware of injustices via your own privilege. You may be becoming overwhelmed with guilt or with anger and you seek ways to join the struggle. Although one choice is to ignore injustice (as it does not directly affect you), your newly awoken awareness will not allow you to find peace in the status quo. As we have become better informed and more skilled in critical thinking, we are much more aware of the world around us and of all the

2

Chapter One

social problems therein. However, having a critical analysis affords us only part of the skill set to make a difference. A critical analysis of our world is necessary but not sufficient if we want to transform our relationships, our communities and our world. Without the ability to effectively problem-solve, we may be able to criticize the war in Syria, for example, but not bother to seek solutions beyond the predictable military intervention or “do nothing” approach. Similarly, in the past few decades, we have become much more aware of the pervasiveness of sexual assault and gender-based violence, and yet, we have recurring examples of court cases where justice has not been achieved. While increasing our critical analysis of the world is not sufficient to bring about justice, it can be sufficient to lead us to feel paralyzed and even hopeless! At the same time, we need to realize that there is significant positive change happening in our world. In spite of the pervasive narratives like “things are getting worse” or “life used to be way better” (or even “make America great again”!), we need to distinguish between our increasing awareness of injustice and an increasing prevalence of injustice. These two things are sometimes mistaken to be the same, so that an increased awareness suddenly feels like the situation in the world has never been worse. The most exhaustive analysis of violence trends disputes the fearmongering claim that the world is becoming more violent.1 The message that violence is getting worse is as old as history itself, and many leaders capitalize on a culture of fear in order to increase military spending, enlarge oppressive police forces and construct enemies in order to hold onto power. I want to emphasize the three reasons why believing the world is getting worse (i.e. more violent) is problematic. First, it is important to acknowledge that activists and peacemakers who have come before us have been working very hard, often sacrificing their lives, to create better conditions for humanity. To contend the world keeps getting worse is to ignore their invaluable contributions. Second, to contend that the world is getting more violent (without any reliable data to back it up) contributes unnecessarily to an overriding sense of despair and hopelessness for young activists. Third, by emphasizing the negative, we miss the opportunity to systematically study how positive change comes about. In summary, conflict is often unpleasant and difficult to navigate. Additionally, as we seek to become more aware of our communities and our world, we expose ourselves to more injustices and conflicts, making conflict avoidance more difficult. Therefore, what we need is a fundamental change in the way we address conflict – we need to better understand conflict and to learn to utilize strategies that will most likely

Introduction

3

bring about positive change. Paul Born, a Canadian community builder, states that our issues are becoming more complex but our systems to address them are not keeping up.2 As we become more aware of the problems we face as humanity, we are faced with choices: ignore, become paralyzed with despair, or collaborate (with friend and foe alike) to seek solutions. Collaboration sounds like the natural choice, but it requires skill. The purpose of this book is to provide students, activists, community organizers and the general public with a concise and clear guide on how to approach, analyze and address conflict in order to transform relationships and work towards peace with justice. My hope is that this book can be a practical starting place for those who are making conflict transformation a focus of their activism, academic studies or community work, while contemplating conflicts ranging from the interpersonal to international. This book is meant as a starting point for learners. There are many excellent resources available to assist people to navigate interpersonal conflicts, to implement successful community campaigns, and to work globally for peace and social justice. What makes this book relevant is the bringing together of conflict resolution theory and practice with social activism and peace and justice. I hope this book will take you on a journey where we will connect the tools of conflict management with the academic rhetoric of peace and justice. My intention is to provide a practical and rather short guide to accomplish two important things: 1) demonstrate that solving conflicts is best accomplished with a grounding in peace and justice and 2) demonstrate that peace and justice are not just elusive theoretical concepts, but are tied to a systematic framework of analysis and skills. These two goals come together under a framework of conflict transformation.

What is Conflict Transformation? A good place to start is to define the underlying process of this book. I apologize in advance for not making it simple enough to fit in one short sentence. As you read this next section, I hope you will appreciate the value of the complexity of the definition and the breakdown and explanations of its interrelated components. Conflict transformation is a process where parties in a conflict strive for outcomes based on peace and justice. The process necessitates an analysis that goes beyond the immediate crisis and examines underlying issues (injustices) that contribute to the conflict. Conflict transformation consciously prioritizes relationships and the authentic understanding of multiple perspectives. Nonviolent strategies, ranging from nonviolent



4

Chapter One action to community reconciliation, are carefully chosen to effectively transform problematic social dynamics to support the well-being of all involved, and to contribute to a culture of peace by promoting nonviolence and the vision that conflict can be an opportunity for positive change.

The term “conflict transformation” was first widely introduced to Peace and Justice Studies by John Paul Lederach, who suggests that the term “transformation” emphasizes the vision that conflict can be a catalyst for positive social change.3 In an attempt to clarify some of the complexities of the paragraph-long definition of conflict transformation I’d like to take a bit of space to further explore some of the key concepts of the above definition.

Peace and justice Defining peace can be elusive because it is a very broad term and many people attribute personal meaning to it. In defining an elusive term, it is sometimes helpful to start by defining what it is not. We could agree that “peace” is not a synonym for “stability.” It is quite possible to have very stable interpersonal or community relationships that are at the same time not very peaceful. Peace needs to be more closely connected to the concept of justice than to stability or security. Sometimes when we are working towards peace, our relationships and our communities actually become unstable; relationship norms are broken and conflict may escalate when we begin a dialogue on a sensitive topic. Consequently, in addition to being different from stability, peace is also not the equivalent to the “absence of conflict.” Conflict can be a catalyst to achieving peace. The presence of conflict in a group can actually be a sign of trust. Those with whom we are closest and feel most trusting are often the people with whom we engage in conflict the most. If left unchallenged, the status quo may entrench and perpetuate injustice against those individuals and groups who do not have power or the ability to be heard. Therefore, by raising awareness of an issue or injustice one often escalates a conflict in order to ultimately bring about peace and justice. Peacemakers can be troublemakers. In the field of Peace and Justice Studies, peace has been classically defined in terms of negative peace (the absence of violence) and positive peace (conditions where all members of society are able to achieve their social, economic and cultural needs).4 Positive peace requires an explicit connection to social justice. The United Nations describes a “Culture of Peace” as a set of values, attitudes and traditions that promote human rights, education and nonviolent methods for addressing conflict.5

Introduction

5

Going deeper An outburst between two close friends may have been building up for months. A violent attack by a political group may be preceded by years of discrimination. A violent incident between neighbours may have been exacerbated by the economic downturn when the town’s largest employer shut down. When we read or listen to the news, we often just get quick sound bites on the top news stories that frequently cover some large conflict, usually violent. Reports are brief and there is often only enough time to report on the immediate event and consequences. Time and space constraints do not allow for multiple perspectives and complex timelines. Many journalists lament that due to a variety of constraints placed upon their reporting, they are unable to construct in-depth stories, but rather create short sound-bites where relaying a complex analysis of a conflict is impossible.6 A conflict transformation approach acknowledges that conflict rarely occurs in isolation. A conflict transformation approach seeks information beyond the presenting situation and beyond mainstream media, to find the narratives of non-elite voices (perspectives of people with less power and influence) and to understand structural causes of events and injustices.7

Consciously prioritizes relationships By nature, we humans are relational and social beings. When we are in conflict, our relationships become filled with tension and sometimes when conflict escalates, our relationships suffer. It sometimes seems that one must choose between addressing a conflict and nurturing a relationship. Sometimes we sacrifice our needs in order to keep friends, or sometimes we sacrifice our friends in order to pursue our desired outcome. There are some instances where relationships are so unhealthy that they warrant severing in order to achieve peace. There are other times where a conflict can put important relationships at risk. Conflict transformation consciously affirms that nurturing relationships is one of the most important components of the process. Moreover, not only can relationships be saved, they might even be improved or transformed. Conflict transformation is also a process that seeks to build new relations by acknowledging that the power to transform our communities comes from the strength of numbers. Thus, prioritizing relationships includes building friendships, alliances and solidarity where none existed prior.



6

Chapter One

Authentic understanding of multiple perspectives A key component to conflict transformation is listening. Listening is not a skill that we have learned particularly well in our families, in our schools or universities. Although listening is a big component of communication, our formal education gives a higher priority to other communication skills such as written and oral expression. In high school and university, we practice the communications skills of argumentation and we listen in order to find fault in the opponent’s argument. We hone our skills of research and writing. Active listening, where one listens for the purpose of authentic understanding and validation, is not that difficult to learn, but does take practice as it is unfamiliar to most of us in our normal communication repertoire. What active listening provides us in a conflict situation is the opportunity to authentically understand the other party’s perspective. Authentic understanding is not the same as agreement. However, even if the other party appears to be completely wrong, unreasonable or holds a position based on intolerance, understanding their perspective will bring the parties a step closer to figuring out a way forward. Active listening allows us to engage in perspective taking, where parties in a conflict are required to articulate the issue from an opposing view. Active listening also engages our human ability to empathize, to connect in a way that other forms of communication do not facilitate.

Nonviolent strategies When powerful people refuse to engage in any process to address a conflict, individuals and groups often resort to violent or nonviolent action in order to raise awareness, gain public support, and put pressure on those in power to come to the table to talk. Nonviolence can be defined as engaging in strategies to achieve these goals, but with tactics that specifically avoid violence. Ultimately, the goal of nonviolent action is to improve the power balance between parties so that authentic negotiations can take place. Nonviolence can also be considered simply as using strategies and tactics to accomplish, without harming ourselves or others what otherwise is considered only to be accomplished through violent means.8 Nonviolence is used by activists for principled reasons (moral or ethical belief that violence is wrong) or strategic reasons (based on empirical evidence that nonviolent strategies are more effective). Due to both the ethical advantage and the effectiveness of nonviolence, it forms a cornerstone of conflict transformation.

Introduction

7

We typically think of violence as visible acts such as hitting, punching, shooting and killing. However, most of the violence in our world is structural. Structural violence refers to harm resulting from formal Structures, cultural practices, customs and laws that ensure unequal access to power, resources and ultimately justice. Without firing any weapon, mechanisms of structural violence can be very harmful. A classic example of structural violence is laws (such as Apartheid in South Africa or the Palestinian Territories) that are put into place so that one ethnic or racial group has a series of advantages, at the expense of another. Because structural violence is much harder to see directly (although the results, such as poverty, increased incidence of disease and high incarceration rates are visible and thus measurable) as compared to direct violence such as murder, war and rape, it is important to take into account the pervasive existence of structural violence when we analyze a conflict. Here is another example to further understand how structural violence works. At the time of this writing, a trial in the Canadian justice system has just acquitted a Canadian of European descent (i.e. White) in the murder of Colten Boushie, a young Indigenous man. The defense team was able to use legal tactics to ensure that no Indigenous persons would be on the jury. Thus, a legal structure promoted a situation that greatly impeded the possibility that Colten Boushie’s family would achieve justice. An all-White jury contributed to the decision that the White defendant was not guilty. Justice is very difficult to attain when laws exist to create a trial that was highly imbalanced in a community that has a long history of racism.9 When one’s race impacts one’s ability to achieve a fair trial, this is a form of structural violence.

Culture of peace Building a culture of peace is a long-term vision, whose ultimate goal is a society in which all members are skilled in conflict transformation. A culture of peace is like a foundation – a common ground where people agree to the importance of addressing conflict non-violently and are equipped with the skills to negotiate, mediate, listen and support each other. Building a culture of peace is a call to build positive, dynamic participatory processes where dialogue is encouraged and conflicts are solved in a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation. A culture of peace represents a foundation where power is balanced, awareness is high, relationships are nurtured and individuals are skilled. Thus, the conflict transformation process aligns itself with the vision of building a culture of peace – one that promotes dialogue



8

Chapter One

and nonviolent strategies to tackle the inevitability of conflict and one that emphasizes the seeking of solutions aimed at the root causes of conflict.

Positive social change A conflict transformation process necessitates a critical analysis of the current and underlying issues. However, this analysis isn’t enough to bring about transformation. Conflict transformation requires an achievable vision of what success would look like. Bringing about positive change requires us to be prepared to engage in difficult conversations, escalate tensions, and confront fear and hatred from opponents. Sometimes these antagonistic and adversarial experiences inspire us to demonize the other party, to seek revenge or a “win-lose” outcome (where we, of course, are the winners). The quest for victory can be a surrogate for peace and justice. As you learn more about conflict transformation, you will see the benefits of co-creating a vision where all parties not only participate in the process, but benefit from the outcome. Creating positive social change also requires some basic skills around problem-solving, negotiation and reconciliation. These processes help us engage in practical and operational strategies to bring visions of social justice to pragmatic outcomes.

The Purpose of this Book The purpose of this book is to assist anyone from the novice student to the experienced activist in understanding conflict. All of us already have a set of skills we utilize when we are faced with conflict. I hope that reading this book can open your mind up to expanding your repertoire, to increasing your options and even improving the chances for successful outcomes. In this book, I present a simple framework that is comprised of four foundational components (or pathways) of most conflict transformations – from the interpersonal to the international. These four pathways are: power, relationships, awareness and skills. I critically analyze these four themes and provide advice for how people can address them in the context of the comprehensive definition of conflict transformation presented earlier. Positive advances on the four pathways lead us to construct our culture of peace, after which the important process of problem-solving is able to take place. Reading about conflict transformation is far easier than practicing it. Book learning is essentially an academic exercise, where we take in information through rational thought processes. Experiencing conflict,

Introduction

9

however, is often an emotional process, awash with anxiety, fear and hurt. These strong emotions often stand in the way of practicing what we may have learned when we were calmly reading a book! Nonetheless, in spite of the limitations of learning about conflict transformation from a book, it is a positive first step to engaging in authentic practice. This book is broken down into nine chapters. The next chapter introduces a simple model you can use to describe and analyze a conflict. In this chapter, we will explore the basics of conflict – from the precipitating crisis to the underlying issues. We will spend a bit of time in our heads, asking philosophical questions like: what is knowledge? What is the nature of reality? And we will also reflect on our own biases and values and how they impact our analysis. Chapter Three introduces the theoretical framework presented in this book. The next four chapters explore, in sequence, the four main pathways of this book’s conflict transformation framework. Chapter Four is entitled Power: from Imbalance to Equality. Here we deconstruct our concept of power – what it is and why it is necessary to understand power in order to transform conflict. In this chapter we also discuss specific ideas on how to work to balance power among parties and how to work collaboratively in groups that span power differences. Chapter Five is entitled Relationships: From Fear to Trust. Here we describe why good relationships are a cornerstone to the conflict transformation process. We will explore how conflict impedes relationships and discuss ways to improve relations so that the likelihood of positive outcomes for all parties increases. Chapter Six is entitled Awareness and Understanding: From “Unknowing” to “Woke.” We look at the broad themes of knowledge, information and awareness, and we consider how to use information most effectively for the purposes of transforming conflict. Chapter Seven is entitled Building Skills: From Passion to Competence. We examine the pitfalls of activism, such as burnout and intra-group conflict. We highlight ways in which individuals and groups can be aware of potential barriers to effective conflict transformation processes, emphasizing the importance of interpersonal communication skills and the development of positive group dynamics in order to be effective conflict transformers. While Chapters Four through Seven explore the four pathways to bring us to a culture of peace, Chapter Eight examines the skills of problem-solving, negotiating and reconciling. As I stated earlier, this book is meant to be a starting point – hopefully a way to consider ideas that you did not think of before, a way to affirm things you already know and a means to inspire you to get involved in making your



10

Chapter One

relationships and your community better. You may be a natural peacemaker who wants to improve your effectiveness. You may be someone who avoids conflict, or someone who wants to move beyond past negative experiences. Being a great peacemaker involves knowing, being and doing. But the easiest of these three, which includes reading a book like this, is knowing. I hope this book can be part of your path to understanding and critically thinking about conflict, conflict transformation, peace and justice.  Main Points of this Chapter Because conflict is usually unpleasant, we often try to avoid it. By avoiding conflict, we potentially miss an opportunity to transform relationships, behaviors and structures that are harmful to both individuals and groups. Our skills of critical analysis have vastly improved with our higher levels of education. However, our ability to respond to conflict in transformative ways is lacking. Conflict Transformation is a holistic process that explicitly seeks peace with justice for all parties involved. Conflict Transformation has a complex definition and encompasses concepts of peace, justice, relationships, multiple perspectives, nonviolence, culture of peace and positive social change. The purpose of this book is to introduce the reader to a systematic framework from which one can analyze and approach conflict by building a foundation (culture of peace) and by using appropriate skills and tactics. This book is a starting point – learning new knowledge is a launching point for the harder work of “doing” and “being”. Reflection Questions Think of what you already know about conflict and the ways you approach conflict in your life. What has worked well for you? Think of a conflict that turned out poorly. While reading this book, reflect on how a different analysis and approach could have assisted in improving the outcome. 

CHAPTER TWO CONFLICT ANALYSIS

Introduction Imagine you are a school teacher in a class of six year-olds. One of your students comes to you, crying, and says that another student has hit him. Probably one of the first things you will want to do is to find out what happened. You listen to the heart-wrenching story of how this sweet little child was minding his own business when out of nowhere he is physically assaulted, and now his arm hurts and there is blood on his shirt. As you become incensed at this injustice, you prepare to punish the offender, but when you approach him, he starts to tell you a story of how the other boy has been teasing him all week about how ugly his clothes are. Then a couple of bystanders add that a third boy dared the perpetrator to hit the other boy. Suddenly, what you think is a straightforward case of right and wrong becomes much more complicated. In this chapter, I will introduce a conflict analysis model as a way to methodically approach situations that may otherwise seem very confusing. Conflict analysis is connected to conflict transformation, but it can also be considered a separate process. Conflict analysis is fundamental. Without a systematic analysis, it is difficult to engage in the most appropriate strategies and is challenging to arrive at desired outcomes. Conflict analysis helps us understand what is going on and prepares us to make a plan. We will begin by dispelling some commonly held myths about conflict. We’ll then dig deep and talk about reality and knowledge – to deconstruct our foundations in order to aid us to be better conflict analysts. The main part of this chapter will follow – the roll-out of a 6-point framework for analyzing conflict. Finally, we will discuss exercises and activities that can make conflict analysis more effective. But first – a simple definition of conflict.

12

Chapter Two

Defining Conflict Conflict can be described as a perceived disagreement or dispute between two or more parties. A conflict can be between two or more people, groups of people in a community, or nations. For the purposes of this book, we will refer to a person (or group of people) that represents a particular perspective on a conflict as a “party.” One might argue that a conflict does not exist until an overt tension develops between two parties. However, I think it is also reasonable to consider that a conflict can have an embryonic phase – that period when one party may be upset (and thus their thoughts, feelings and actions are impacted) but the other party might not yet be aware of the issue. A conflict might become explicit after the occurrence of a particular event – something that brings the tension out in the open.

Myths about Conflict Although there is no universally accepted manner in which to solve conflict, author Dudley Weeks argues that there exists a universal distaste for conflict.1 Our collective and universal distaste for conflict has contributed to widely held ideas about conflict that in general are unhelpful and obscure us from a truer picture of the potential transformative possibilities. Here are a few commonly held myths about conflict:

1. Everything was just fine until the conflict started Sometimes conflict hits us in a way that is unpleasant and leaves us longing for the time before the conflict began. Conflict can tear communities apart and leave people pining for the old times. However, reality reminds us that the time preceding the moment a conflict comes “out in the open” is often fraught with tension, poor relations and injustice. A single act carried out by one party may signal a start of overt tension, but digging deeper usually reveals a series of preceding incidents or omissions and misunderstandings. When we hear someone say “everything was just fine before….” it could mean that tension was covert, or simply that no one talked about it.

Conflict Analysis

13

2. The conflict is limited to the immediate or presenting issue Our minds are conditioned to link cause and effect, and this task is much easier when we locate the cause and the effect as closely related to each other in time. The temptation is to simplify situations that are often very messy and complex. We seek quick explanations for what is wrong in our hope to also find quick fixes. However, a presenting issue is usually only a visible manifestation of multiple issues that need to be considered.

3. You need to get back to the baseline as quick as possible Conflict doesn’t need to be viewed like removing a bandage: let’s get this over with quickly! Having said that, being in conflict does usually make us uncomfortable. The problem is, unlike bandage removal, jumping to conflict solutions is no guarantee that the pain will be short-lived. In fact, lack of careful consideration of the issues will likely cause the wounds to get worse! The quickest possible solution might not be the best.

4. Conflict resolution means getting back to the place you started (the baseline) The problem with going back to the way things were is: often the way things were was the problem in the first place. When we say we want to get back to the way things were, we usually are longing for the stability and lack of overt tension. What we really want to get to, however, is a situation where the conditions that led to the overt tension are addressed and conditions are transformed. So, we don’t want to go back, we want to go forward.

5. People who initiate conflict are not peacemakers We have many names for people who seem to initiate conflict – one of the gentler terms is “troublemaker.” We often say: “why did you have to go and say that?” or “everything was just fine until you….” Sometimes it is true – there are people who seem to raise issues and push buttons with no apparent vision for making things better. However, if we say conflict transformation is a process to address injustices and to build cultures of peace, then we need to reframe our perspective of people who initiate difficult but potentially healing processes. If we study the history of any social movement, those people who raised contentious issues usually became really unpopular (and often died for speaking out). We call them



14

Chapter Two

peacemakers in retrospect, long after the tension has died down and we can appreciate the benefits of their efforts. It seems that we find it a lot easier to celebrate peacemakers after they are dead. When they are alive, they often make us feel uncomfortable. Sometimes conflict can be traumatic and sometimes raising contentious issues can make things worse. That is why it is valuable to study it – to reflect on what conditions make it more likely to be positive or transformative, and to learn the skills to be more in control of the outcomes of a conflict. Please read on.

Before We Start Analyzing… I think this would be a good time to ask one of those existential questions: what is reality? Are the objects around me what I think they are? Perhaps every time you look into the side rear view mirror of a car and read the warning: “objects in this mirror are closer than they appear.” you are reminded of how our understanding of reality is sometimes influenced by faulty perceptions or unfounded assumptions. In order for us to authentically analyze conflict, it is worthwhile to take a few minutes to consider reality. One of the foundations of our definition of conflict transformation is that there are multiple perspectives on any conflict situation. What this really conveys is that the perception of what is true (reality) is going to be different for the various parties in a conflict.

Social Construction of Reality Social construction of reality is a perspective that acknowledges that our understanding of the world is constructed through social interaction, through shared experiences and through culture. Therefore, one can say that reality is being continuously constructed through people’s actions and interactions that co-create a shared understanding that is experienced as objectively factual and personally meaningful.2 A foundational tenet of a social constructionist perspective is that an objective truth is often elusive and thus it forces us to soften our stance when faced with a group or an individual who insists they have the truth, or conversely, when we think we have the truth. The goal, then, for conflict transformation (using a social constructionist paradigm) is to seek understanding in addition to seeking what is right and what is wrong. There are times when knowing the truth is very important, like in a criminal investigation. However, what social constructionism helps us navigate is the meaning people attach to things and to phenomena. Social constructionists acknowledge that

Conflict Analysis

15

conflict emerges through an interactive process based on the search for and creation of shared meaning.3 Social constructionism is not an excuse to ignore facts or dismiss another’s understanding. For example, one cannot say that the tree outside your building does not exist. A social constructionist would agree that it exists and they would want to understand the reasons why one person may want to worship it while the next person may want to cut it down. Social constructionism is often contrasted against a realist or modernist paradigm, where knowledge is argued to be more fixed, and the role of science is to “discover” new information. Another way that the realist paradigm and social constructionism differ is in their understanding of the role of the person seeking knowledge (such as a scientist or even someone conducting a conflict analysis). A realist paradigm would require the scientist and the inquiry to be neutral, value-free and vetted for biases. A social constructionist inquiry, on the other hand, openly acknowledges that any process of analysis is inherently biased and value-laden. Even the decision of what we choose to study is based on our culture and our values. Let me give you an example. A number of years ago, I studied Spanish in a language school in a tourist town in Guatemala. During our orientation, the school’s coordinator announced that a major international drug company was looking for subjects for a clinical trial for a new kind of antibiotic to prevent what is referred to as traveller’s diarrhea (intestinal bacterial infection in people who may not be accustomed to the pesky bugs in tropical countries). The remuneration for participation was 250 American dollars, which is about a month’s wages for the average worker in Guatemala. As people asked questions and more information was given, the recruiter revealed that the current antibiotic used for treatment actually was quite effective in killing the intestinal invaders; the problem was that it had a side effect of making the user prone to sunburn. Interesting! So what would a scientist using a realist paradigm have to say about this? They might focus on the rigorous double-blind methodologies that would be implemented in drug tests so that the results will be reliable and reproducible. And someone operating from the social constructionist paradigm? They probably would not dispute the results of the rigorous drug trials, but might instead seek to understand why this drug trial was given priority in the first place. What biases prioritized the search for an antibiotic that didn’t cause sunburn (an issue that is a very low priority for the majority of Guatemalans who are of Mayan Indigenous heritage)? How does the $250 incentive prioritize a certain type of study and the resultant information over other important health questions?



16

Chapter Two

There are many more examples we could explore, (like our societal shifts over time in our perspectives of issues such as parental rights and corporal punishment of children, homosexuality, or sexual harassment) that demonstrate our reality is constructed by socially dynamic processes that result in collective meanings. Conflict arises when these collective meanings clash. Therefore, any conclusions we draw from our own inquiries offer an interpretation of our study focus, not an exact picture of it.4 Although we have rigorous scientific methods to discover new information, the process of even choosing what we will study is socially constructed. The process by which a scientific inquiry is chosen, the type of research methods chosen for the study, and ultimately how the findings are disseminated and acted upon are highly influenced by social interactions which we simply assume are in essence a “natural, taken for granted reality.”5 A concept closely related to reality is knowledge. Knowledge consists of ideas, stories, beliefs and explanations that are transmitted socially between individuals and groups. Shared knowledge is one important aspect of culture. It is important to ask how we come to know things. Who is anointed with the privilege of being called knowledgeable? What types of knowledge are considered better than others? It is evident that written information from dominant culture sources tends to be prioritized and held in higher regard. An oral history from an elderly person may be valued less than the knowledge of an expert with university degrees and a long list of publications. In becoming a critical consumer or seeker of knowledge (which is necessary as a conflict analyst) one must critically analyze the sources of our knowledge and how we have constructed our information. I recall debating a Canadian journalist on this issue regarding who would be considered an expert informant concerning a violent conflict in the Philippines. According to her, it was far more reliable to speak to someone from the American embassy in Manila than with someone representing either of the parties in the regional conflict. Her rationale was that the embassy staff were not biased. However, a social constructionist would assert that the embassy staff do in fact have biases, and that we need to critically analyze the power and space we give to “expert” knowledge. Conflict is an inherently social process and people in conflict coconstruct their reality. Augsberger eloquently sums it up as follows: “Conflict is a crisis that forces us to recognize explicitly that we live with multiple realities and must negotiate a common reality; that we bring to each situation differing – frequently contrasting – stories and must create together a single shared story with a role for each and for both.”6

Conflict Analysis

17

Model for Conflict Analysis Below is a table that outlines the six steps of our conflict analysis framework. Each step is represented by a question. The following sections expand on each step in order to appreciate how a solid analysis of the conflict is necessary in the process of conflict transformation. Table 2-1: Framework for Conflict Analysis Question 1. What is the conflict about? 2. Who are the parties? 3. What are the parties’ positions? 4. What are the parties’ interests?

5. What tactics have been used in the conflict?

6. How is the conflict escalating/de-escalating?

Points to Consider - describe the immediate situation - describe the underlying context - consider all parties that are stakeholders in the conflict process and outcome - define what each party wants as an outcome - describe the underlying needs, feelings, interests and values that influence each parties’ position - determine whether any values, feelings and/or needs and are mutually shared among the parties - determine whether tactics are based on power, rights or interests - assess the historical or typical methods of addressing conflict, and their effectiveness - consider both positive and negative impacts of the escalation and de-escalation

1. What is the conflict about? Any analysis begins with this simple question. To mount a satisfactory response, one must consider the immediate situation as well as the underlying context in which the conflict erupted.7 The immediate situation is the issue or crisis that brought the conflict into the parties’ awareness;



18

Chapter Two

the event or action that made everyone conscious that something was wrong. The underlying context refers to longer term patterns in the relationship over time. This may include unresolved issues that are resistant to change and long-standing structures of injustice that, over time, contributed to the immediate event. If we apply these questions to an interpersonal conflict, it might look like this: Victor and Alexis have been a couple for a number of years. Alexis works as a city administrator while Victor stays at home and cares for their two pre-school children. One day, Victor purchases a new car – the action that constitutes or evokes the immediate situation or crisis. Victor bought the car without consulting Alexis, and Alexis is angry. Her anger stems not only from not being consulted, but also from her concerns about the financial burden this purchase will place on the family. Instead of being excited about the new car, Alexis is angry and argues with Victor. Victor responds by bringing up some old unresolved issues in their relationship, like his perceived lack of financial autonomy, ongoing delaying of personal purchases and his longstanding dissatisfaction with not working outside the home. Alexis also raises longstanding relational issues, such as her perceived lack of social life and close friends since they moved to an unfamiliar city to be nearer to Victor’s extended family. As has happened many times before, the argument escalates until the point that Victor says he is going to his parents for the weekend to visit, and will be taking their two children with him. Alexis lets him go, hoping the time apart will allow their anger to cool off. When the weekend is over, Victor returns, his mood happy and his demeanor conciliatory. He brings Alexis some favorite baking from his mother as a peace offering. Alexis responds kindly. The family goes on a Sunday afternoon outing without discussing the car and they have a great time. In this short example, the “immediate situation” could be described as the purchase of the car. Going deeper, one can understand the various longstanding and underlying issues that contribute to the immediate crisis. One could even go deeper by analyzing the dominant culture in which Victor and Alexis live. What are the expectations regarding gender roles and work? What are culturally appropriate conflict performances for men and women and married couples? How does consumer debt impact longterm relationships? Although this scenario is quite simplistic, already complexities and ambiguities are evident. For example, if Victor were the one conducting the conflict analysis, he might overlook the car purchase as the immediate crisis. Instead, he might name the ensuing argument (that erupted when Alexis found out about the car) as the immediate situation or presenting crisis. It may not always be necessary to achieve full agreement

Conflict Analysis

19

among conflicting parties and analyzers as to what the immediate issue is, but disagreement will necessitate a thorough analysis of all the contributing factors. Let’s explore another example, using a conflict between two groups. There is a group of environmental activists using nonviolent techniques to block the path of industrial vehicles that are transporting equipment to construct a new oil pipeline. The confrontation escalates and five environmentalists are arrested. Based on this short description, we might say that the immediate situation is the demonstration. However, another perspective would be to say the conflict became a crisis when the government approved the new pipeline despite public opposition and that the confrontation (blockade) was an example of a tactic used by one party to respond to the conflict. An analysis of the underlying context would include an understanding of the relationship between extractive industries and environmental groups in this region of the world. It would also require an analysis of the government role, the perspectives of the public, the level of awareness amongst the general public, and the role of law enforcement and the courts. You could go deeper to critique dominant culture understandings of how we measure economic progress. If this case study were from Canada, an analysis of the underlying context would need to also include an understanding of traditional Indigenous land rights and the historical patterns of relations between Indigenous interests and colonial government interests. This would then require an understanding of environmental law, and patterns of how environmentalist and extractive industry positions have interacted in the past. Is there a long history of defeats for those struggling for environmental issues in the region? Are there recent changes to the longstanding trend?

2. Who are the parties? The party refers to the individual or group that rallies around some relatively united perspective on the conflict situation. A party may be a coalition of individuals who have come together in solidarity around a particular issue. Sometimes a party is united by their identity. In simple conflicts, there are usually two parties. In the first example above, the two parties would be Victor and Alexis. In the second example, the two parties could be identified as the group of environmentalists united in their position to halt the pipeline, and the company hired to build the pipeline.



20

Chapter Two

Sometimes when we explore the underlying context of a conflict, more stake-holding parties emerge. For example, we can encounter simplistic analyses of the current war in Syria. Some analysts state that the war is between two factions in Syria; some state that it is a war on terror (thus the two parties are the terrorists and those fighting terrorism); and some might even say it is a conflict between the good guys (us) and the bad guys (them). A simplification of complex conflicts is appealing. However, a more complex analysis, as presented by political commentator Phyllis Bennis, counts no fewer than seven conflicts (each with a specific set of parties) that are manifested in the Syrian war.8 It stands to reason that identifying all the parties is a necessary component in seeking authentic solutions to a large and long-standing conflict such as the Syrian war.

3. What are the parties’ positions? In a conflict situation, each party typically articulates what they want to happen for them to have achieved a satisfactory outcome. A position could be considered the party’s requested outcome. In the first example above, Victor’s position is to buy a car. Alexis’ position is to not buy a car. In the second example, one group’s position is to build a pipeline while the other group’s position is to stop the building of the pipeline. Positions highlight differences and are often starting points in negotiation processes. During labor-management talks, the workers’ position might be a five percent wage hike plus improved pension benefits. Meanwhile, management’s position is a two percent wage hike with no change to pension benefits. Differing positions can situate parties in oppositional stances. The parties may use various tactics of power and persuasion to try to make the other party accept their position. A competent conflict analyst must take caution in articulating each party’s position. A common misstep carried out by people who are heavily invested in a conflict is to misrepresent the position of one of the parties. In misguided, ideologically or politically motivated publicity campaigns, this may be done intentionally in order to de-legitimize the other party. Here are some examples. In describing a group of environmental activists, a journalist described their position as “…a small number of activists who are entirely focused on tearing down the Canadian economy.” 9 I think it is fair to say that the expressed position of the environmentalists is not to have a ruined economy. In another example, a well-known American televangelist describes the position of a reproductive rights group: “Planned Parenthood is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery, every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism - everything that the Bible

Conflict Analysis

21

condemns.”10 This demonstrates it is necessary to ask the party directly (even if you are in opposition) what their position is, as in both the above examples, the position of an opposing group has been misrepresented.. Sometimes parties become very rigid in their position. Other times, they take the time to understand the underlying interests and needs of the other party, to seek common ground. The important lesson is that in order to conduct a valid conflict analysis, one needs to authentically understand each party’s position. Of critical importance is being aware of one’s own values in order to refrain from unintentionally viewing the sentiments of each group through them and thus, distorting them. It is important to differentiate between understanding and agreement – one does not need to agree with a position in order to understand it.

4. What are the parties’ interests? We are digging deeper again. Whereas a position is something that tends to be tangible, out in the open, clearly (often simplistically) articulated and is widely publicized, a party’s needs or interests are often absent from our conversations. Nonetheless needs, values and interests are influential drivers in conflict. An interest is an underlying need or desire that shapes (sometimes unconsciously) our positions. The relationship between positions and interests can be described as an iceberg. You only see a small portion above the sea level (which is one’s position). The majority of things that influence the conflict are below the surface and are difficult to see (one’s interests and needs). Communications expert Marshall Rosenberg describes needs eloquently in his methodology of compassionate communication. Rosenberg asserts that all humans, regardless of age, ethnicity or gender, share common needs, such as fairness, safety, acceptance and understanding, among many others.11 While our positions express an outward request for a specific outcome, they are often related to an unmet and sometimes unexpressed need. For example, Victor and Alexis’ conflict may be better described in terms of their unmet needs of validation, effective communication and respect. A core focus in interpersonal mediation is to identify underlying needs of the parties. This can facilitate conflict transformation for two important reasons. First, when people express their concerns in terms of needs (rather than their positions) the other party is much less likely to react defensively, and thus the conflict has a good chance of de-escalating to the point where parties can problem-solve in a calm and respectful manner. Second, when parties express their concerns in terms of needs, there is a possibility that the parties (because we are empathic beings) can identify



22

Chapter Two

with each other. For example, as a parent, I have learned the value of working to express myself to my children in terms of needs and feelings, rather than positions. When one of my sons came home late with the car, instead of expressing a position (I will not let you borrow the car again!), I articulated my underlying needs and feelings (when you did not come home on time, I became worried). I also expressed my frustration because he didn’t keep to our agreement – reliability is an important need of mine. My son, the empathic creature that he is, quickly connected to my needs and feelings, as he shared them as well. While Rosenberg’s discussion of needs focusses primarily on interpersonal or small group interactions, Harvard University professor Herbert Kelman contends that basic psycho-social needs, such as identity, security, recognition, autonomy and justice play a significant role in conflict right up to the international level. Large scale violent conflicts over territory or resources harbour, underneath articulated adversarial positions, fundamental human concerns such as fairness, identity and safety.12

Conflict Analysis

23

5. What tactics have been used in the conflict? When people are in conflict, they engage in a wide range of activities in order to achieve short and long-term goals. Tactics or strategies may be used to increase awareness (such as an education campaign, a community gathering, or a negotiation meeting between two parties) and understanding (a mediation session), to problem-solve, to retaliate or punish, to seek more information (an inquiry), to determine who is right and wrong (a legal case), or to reconcile (forgiveness, engagement in symbolic acts of reconciliation). If you are in conflict with someone and you decide to stop talking with them - that is a tactic. A tactic can be something you do (act of commission) or something you withhold (act of omission). To stop communicating with someone is an act that is putting pressure on the other person to negotiate or apologize, ostensibly because they cannot live without your conversation. If you hit someone, that is a tactic, ostensibly to punish them so they will not repeat their offense again, or to retaliate in order to achieve a sense of justice (from your perspective at least!). There are a few ways in which we can classify tactics as part of our analysis. The first way is to classify tactics as either violent or nonviolent. For example, are protestors engaged in disrupting a meeting of a corporation’s shareholders (nonviolent) or are they setting fire to shareholders’ assets (violent)? A second method to classify tactics is to utilize a schema by authors Ury, Brett and Goldberg, which divides tactics into three groups: power, rights and interest-based approaches.13 Power-based tactics utilize a party’s power to try to “win” the conflict. Power comes in many forms – from military power to economic power. War is a power-based tactic, as is a consumer boycott. (We’ll talk more about power in Chapter Four). Rights-based tactics utilize a set of agreed-upon laws, rules or practices to decide the outcome. For example, taking someone to court is a rightsbased tactic. In this case, both parties in a conflict are deferring the outcome to lawyers and judges who interpret a set of laws that is thought to be fair and just for both parties. Using university policies and procedures to decide how to deal with a student and professor conflict is another example of a rights-based approach. In contrast, interest-based tactics are aimed at solving conflict by addressing needs, values and interests that underlie the parties’ positions.



Chapter Two

24

Table 2-2: Power, Rights and Interest-Based Tactics Powerbased tactics

Rightsbased tactics

Interestbased tactics

Example Consumer boycott Rallies and demonstrations

Advantage Is useful when there is a power imbalance between parties

Small claims court Arbitration (where an appointed professional reviews the evidence and makes a binding decision) Mediation Healing circles Restorative justice

If fairness and justice are required, can be effective

Focus is on using conflict to improve/transform relationships Can bring healing and reconciliation to all parties

Challenge Focus is on winlose Might simply replace one form of oppression with another Focus is on winlose Often does not bring healing, reconciliation Problematic if the rules/laws were written to benefit one group over another If unequal power relationships are ignored, can simply whitewash problems and injustice

It is important to analyze patterns in conflict tactics. In long-standing conflicts as well as conflicts among parties that have a long-standing relationship, analyzing past approaches can offer insight into what has worked well in the past, and what has not. Often, in long-standing conflicts and relationships, patterns of conflict repeat themselves, and the same strategies may have been used over and over without producing any positive results. We can get stuck in our behaviors, and these responses to conflict situations then become cycles and patterns. Analyzing patterns can also reveal significant changes. Arthur Manuel, an Indigenous activist from the Secwepemc Nation, notes that the Canadian courts in the past decade have begun to respond much more positively to law suits initiated by Indigenous land defenders.14 In this example, the same tactic is being used (a rights-based legal strategy) but the outcomes have evolved over time.

Conflict Analysis

25

Lederach describes the patterns of strategies used by conflicted parties as a platform.15 In the earlier example of Alexis and Victor, a platform analysis would include an examination of the couple’s patterns of conflict over time. Does Victor tend to leave when conflict escalates? Is conflict escalation, followed by avoidance by both parties and subsequent reconciliation, a typical pattern? Has the couple’s communication changed over time?

6. At what stage of escalation is the conflict? An inherent characteristic of conflict is tension. When a conflict escalates, we are saying that tension also escalates, which is characterized by a number of changes: trust erodes, communication decreases, tactics change, and the focus of the conflict often shifts from the problem to the other person (or people). The person is now “the problem.” For example, a conflict between two romantic partners begins because one of them forgot an important date. If the conflict escalates because one or both are not getting their needs met, soon the focus is no longer on the missed date but on the perceived shortcomings of the person themselves. Everything they do is bad. All kinds of past infractions are brought up to build the case on how terrible they are. Table 2-3: What Conflict Escalation Looks Like. Variable Trust Communication

Reporting to others





What low level escalation looks like Parties are able to share information Individuals will risk vulnerability Direct communication between parties Parties are able to listen to each other even if they cannot agree Discussion focusses on the problem



What high level escalation looks like No sharing of information Parties are often unable to communicate directly Communication is absent or only available through a third party (e.g. negotiator or lawyer) Discussion focusses on the other party as the problem. The nature of the problem globalizes from the initial issue to all that is wrong with the other party

26

Chapter Two

Understanding of needs and positions Process/tactics

Willingness to understand the interests of the other party Problem-solving Dialogue Interest-based tactics

Connection

The other party is included in our circle of support (see Chapter Eight)

Positions are fixed and non-negotiable Revenge Win at any cost Tactics that do not require direct interaction (some power-based and rightsbased tactics) The other party is excluded from our circle of support

In this stage of the book, we are concerned with describing conflict escalation, not addressing it. As peacemakers, our goal, normally, is to deescalate conflict, but sometimes, as part of the conflict transformation trajectory, it is often impossible to avoid the escalation of conflict. Building awareness on a contentious community issue (and thus trying to achieve social justice) will likely escalate a conflict in the short-term. Why is it helpful to describe the level of escalation? Effective strategies are often dependent upon the degree of escalation. For example, if there is no trust, strategies to establish trust must be considered before parties can engage in problem-solving strategies. If there is no communication between parties, how can you strategize to change this? As you may have already deduced, the five variables used to measure escalation in the above table are closely interrelated and if you attempt to address one factor, you will likely address the others as well.

Putting into Practice To end this chapter, I’d like to offer you some advice. But first I should caution you. By presenting you with a straightforward, rather simple process to analyze any conflict, I might be giving you the idea that conflicts are static, linear and always follow the same pattern. I’m sure you already know, through your own life experience, that this is not true. Adam Kahane, a Canadian peacemaker who has worked throughout the world, offers three reasons why conflicts are never straightforward. The first reason, Dynamic Complexity, refers to the notion that conflicts are often far apart in time and memory in terms of cause and effect. The second reason, Generative Complexity, speaks to the idea that conflicts

Conflict Analysis

unfold in unpredictable and Complexity, refers to what involved will perceive the discussed in mind, here are analysis.

27

unfamiliar ways. The third reason, Social we have already discussed – that people conflict differently.16 With all we have some simple tips to improve your conflict

1. Check your own values and biases. Take some time to reflect on how your values would impact your view of a conflict. Are you an environmentalist? A social conservative? Have you been hurt in the past by someone who fits into a specific identity? Self-exploration of values is a critical step for anyone who wants to be a peacemaker.

2. Be critical in selecting information sources. Because knowledge is inherently political, it matters where you get your information. In this age, there is fear that everything is fake news but likely fake news has always been with us. We are just more aware of it. Can the information be confirmed? Are you seeking information from multiple perspectives including from non-powerful or non-traditional sources?

3. Learn the art of perspective-taking. During a course on conflict analysis that I taught in Albania, the participants and I got into a heated discussion on the social conditions of the Roma population in the community. Unfortunately, no Roma were present in the class so our challenge was to understand the issues from the perspective of the Roma without them being present. In an effort for all the participants to be able to take on other perspectives besides their own, we engaged in a simple exercise of creating characters representing the stakeholders in a conflict involving a Roma youth arrested for theft. The stakeholders’ names and characters were each printed on pieces of paper which were then laid on the ground in a circle (there were about 5 different perspectives represented by five pieces of paper in the circle). Five participants stood behind each paper at which point they began a discussion on the issue, from the perspective of their assigned character. After a few minutes, they all rotated to the next character in the circle, so that by the end of the exercise, each participant had to express the perspective of each of the different points of view. Participants stated that



28

Chapter Two

the simple exercise allowed them to empathize with a person whose viewpoints they normally would not have seriously considered. The diagram below illustrates another way that perspective taking can assist in analyzing conflicts. This tool may be particularly valuable to gain perspective in conflicts in which you are intimately involved. The diagram demonstrates the dynamic between action, intent and impact. Table 2-4: Intent, Action and Impact Intent How the action is interpreted by the person doing the action Private Known only to person doing the action

Action

Impact

The action is Public, Viewed by all parties

How the action is interpreted by the person impacted by the action Private Known only to the person impacted by the action

A common issue in conflict is that an action (which was visible to all) is interpreted much differently by the party that committed the action than by the party that was impacted by it. Sometimes we do things with the best of intentions or, at least, with no malice. Take the simple example of cutting in line at the grocery store check-out. I’ve done this before. I failed to notice a person standing in line and innocently went in line where I thought there was an opening. For the person whom I cut in front of, the act most undoubtedly is interpreted quite differently. If the parties involved are fortunate enough to be able to stand back and understand intent (Sorry! No harm intended, I’ll move now!) and impact (I’m being treated unfairly!) this small issue can be resolved easily. However, sometimes our emotions and ego get in the way and we are not able to understand the other perspective. I might react poorly (Take a valium! I couldn’t even see you as you were reading magazines!) and so might the other person (Way to go stupid! What makes you so special!) in ways where we refuse to see the other’s perspective and instead quickly assign blame to the other person’s innate qualities. This is how simple misinterpretations in traffic can quickly escalate to an act of violent road rage.

Conflict Analysis

29

4. Develop good listening skills. Listening includes taking in information and responding in ways to make the other party feel that you heard and understood them. Be daring and listen to the stories of someone who holds a very different perspective than you. Then try to reflect back to them what you understood. You will recognize what it looks like for another person to feel heard, and gain a better analysis of the party’s positions and underlying needs and interests at the same time. Main Points of this Chapter Conflict analysis is an important first step of conflict transformation. Conflict analysis helps us understand what is going on and prepares us to make a plan and to choose appropriate strategies. Conflict can be defined as a perceived dispute or disagreement between two or more parties. A common characteristic of conflict is tension. A main premise of our conflict analysis is that conflict is socially constructed. Understanding this orientates us to seek understanding of multiple perspectives. Our analysis of conflict is hindered by common myths about the conflict process. This chapter describes a 6-point conflict analysis model. One of the highlights of the conflict analysis model is the classification of conflict strategies into three groups: power-based, rights-based and interest-based. While conflict transformation strategies typically align with interest-based approaches, all three categories of strategies can comprise a conflict transformation process. Reflection Questions Reflect on a conflict that you have been involved in. What is the conflict about? What is your position? What are your own needs and interests? Do you think you can authentically determine the interests of the other party? How did your values influence your viewpoints on the positions, needs, and interests of yourself and the other party involved? How is your ability to analyze a conflict impacted by whether or not you are one of the involved parties?



CHAPTER THREE A FRAMEWORK FOR CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION

32

Chapter Three

Introduction During the transition out of apartheid in South Africa in the early 1990’s, one can imagine that the situation was filled with tension, challenging power dynamics, mistrust and even hopelessness. There was a saying that was popularised in that time: “South Africans had two options: a practical option and a miraculous option. The practical option was that we would all get down on our knees and pray for a band of angels to come down from heaven and fix things for us. The miraculous option was that we would continue to talk with each other until we found a way forward together.”1 If you recall our definition of conflict transformation, it was lofty and complex. Our goal was not only to strive for outcomes based on peace and justice but also to change our culture – to transform our patterns of working through conflict in order to abolish violence in our social interactions. How do we operationalize such a process? In this chapter, I will introduce a practical framework that is based on four key components of conflict: power, relationships, awareness and skills. Effectively addressing these four themes, or pathways, is in essence building a culture of peace – a foundation on which we can engage in authentic problem-solving or reconciliation. In the next four chapters, we will explore each of these four components in much greater depth. In this chapter, however, I present a brief introduction to the framework in order to offer an overall vision of what the process of conflict transformation can look like. To begin with, I will explain three things about the framework in order to orientate you to its function.

Conflict Transformation Framework First, if you examine the diagram of the Conflict Transformation Framework, you will see the four main components (power, relationships, awareness, and skills) appear as pathways or conduits. The premise is that the parties in any conflict are situated somewhere along the continuums of all four pathways – for the component or theme of power for example, between equality and imbalance. In this instance, the goal of conflict transformation is to create relationship dynamics that constitute equality. Each one of the four components can be described this way, as a pathway between two ends on a continuum. The “top” end is where you hope to arrive, to a constructed foundation on which to engage in problem-solving, negotiation and reconciliation. Parties that engage in conflict transformation move along all of these four pathways.

A Framework for Conflict Transformation

33

The second point to consider when examining this framework is that it assumes that conflict analysis (as presented in the last chapter) precedes the conflict transformation process. In the diagram, conflict analysis is represented as a flowing circle around the framework, suggesting that while the analysis process precedes transformation, it is also ongoing. Conflict analysis and transformation are intertwined. A third point to consider is that in Chapter Eight of this book, we will expand on this framework by introducing the process of problem-solving. Problem-solving, or brainstorming for solutions, is a process that occurs best when the four components (power, awareness, relationships and skills) have been sufficiently addressed. A common obstacle to conflict transformation is engaging in problem-solving or identifying the answers before power has been addressed, before understanding has been achieved and before relationships have been nurtured. For these reasons, we are placing a final step, problem-solving, as a separate piece that stems from the framework.

The Tactics used in Conflict Transformation In the last chapter, we broke down tactics or strategies into three categories: power-based, rights-based and interest-based. It warrants emphasizing that overall, a conflict transformation process tends to utilize tactics that generally fall under the interest-based category. This is because the focus on transforming relationships, on seeking peace and justice, and on building cultures of peace fits closely with interest-based tactics such as mediation, dialogue, and exploration of underlying interests, needs and values. However, it is important to emphasize that power-based tactics (such as nonviolent action) and rights-based tactics (such as using the courts to determine whose actions are deemed legal right or illegal wrong) are sometimes components of a broader process of conflict transformation. Sometimes in large and long conflicts, such as an international campaign to end a particular human rights abuse, all three types of tactic are used. For example, when we study inspiring peacemakers in history, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. or Mahatma Gandhi, we often focus on how they were able to bring people together to a common vision of peace and social justice. Both of these men, however, spent time in jail and both were ultimately assassinated. The campaigns that Gandhi and King implemented most certainly escalated conflict initially and created polarization among the parties. Both used boycotts, a confrontational power-based tactic, as a means to address power imbalances, but did so in an overall framework of conflict transformation.



34

Chapter Three

Another point to emphasize is that power-based tactics often result in conflict escalation, while interest-based tactics are intended to de-escalate conflict. Table 3-2: Comparison of Advocacy and Understanding as Conflict Transformation Tactics.2

Examples

When used

Dynamics

Risks

What success looks like

Power-based tactics (advocacy) Nonviolent action, such as boycotts, demonstrations, campaigns, strikes One party is particularly hurting or vulnerable, and/or has no power A powerful party refuses to talk, or negotiates in bad faith Potentially conflict escalating Various forms of power are used to create balance between parties and to bring all parties together to seek solutions Polarization Morphing into a win-lose process Replacing one unjust structure with another one Peace with justice

Interest-based tactics (understanding) Community dialogue Mediation Negotiation Reconciliation All parties are willing to engage in an authentic process of listening, understanding and problemsolving Potentially conflict deescalating Activities are used to explore underlying interests, values and needs to increase understanding and empathy Entrenching existing inequalities No effective change Paying “lip service” to a problem Peace with justice

The power-based tactics can be thought of as advocacy – that is, standing in solidarity with one side to call out the injustices perpetrated by the other. When there is a significant power imbalance and when one party is not getting treated fairly, it makes sense (from a conflict transformation perspective) to engage in power-based tactics. Sometimes when a person

A Framework for Conflict Transformation

35

stands in solidarity with one party, they are accused of being unbalanced, of choosing sides, being biased or not considering the complete picture. While there is merit in juxtaposing the differences between the two groups of tactics, there might be a tendency to situate these two categories as opposing or antithetical. What the above table shows, though, is that although there are many elements that distinguish between advocacy and understanding, in the conflict transformation model, the vision for these tactic is the same: peace with justice.

Culture and Conflict In keeping with the tenets of social constructionism, it is important to note that this book, this conflict transformation framework, and any other exploration of conflict, are bound in culture. Some of the assumptions made in this framework are influenced by the dominant North American culture, which esteems individualism (people taking control and responsibility of the conflicts which impact them) and low context communication (verbal and written communication that is direct and transparent and relies less on nonverbal cultural mores and cues).



36

Chapter Three

Main Points of this Chapter Conflict Transformation can be considered as a framework consisting of four pathways: power, relationships, awareness and skills. By working on these four pathways, we strive to build a culture of peace, which is a foundation for individuals and groups to engage in problem-solving, negotiating and reconciliation. This foundation is characterized by equality, trust, being woke and competence. Reflection Question What are some other characteristics that you would add to your vision of a culture of peace?

CHAPTER FOUR POWER: FROM IMBALANCE TO EQUALITY

“People try nonviolence for a week, and when it ‘doesn’t work,’ they go back to violence, which hasn’t worked for centuries.” Theodore Roszak1

Introduction Mediation is a process where individuals come together to try to work out their differences. The process is empowering in the sense that it encourages individuals to become change agents of their own situation and to learn and practice new skills to solve conflicts. Mediation is an excellent example of conflict transformation, as the process encourages people to listen to each other, to take into account their own feelings and needs as well as those of the other party. The purpose of mediation is to find solutions that are perceived as a win by both parties. Mediation produces better outcomes (in terms of participant satisfaction) than going to court, and is much less costly. You would think, then, that mediation should be the perfect process for conflict transformation. However, a situation where mediation (as with other interest-based tactics) is challenging is when there is a substantial difference in power between the two parties.2 An interest-based approach, such as mediation, a community dialogue, or truth and reconciliation process, will likely produce only superficial changes unless power (specifically unequal power between parties in a conflict) is taken into consideration and addressed. To illustrate this point, Mohammed Abu-Nimer, an Arab-Israeli expert in conflict transformation, showcases the popularized summer camps where youth from polarized communities come together to learn about each other and to break down strongly-entrenched barriers of social and economic separation. Abu-Nimer describes camps where Palestinian and Israeli Jewish children get to know each other in a safe and nurturing environment. Often for the first time, these institutionalized enemies break

38

Chapter Four

down barriers perpetuated by stereotypes, dispel their fears and even form life-long friendships. However, a short-coming, according to Abu-Nimer, is that the power disparity between the two groups at the macro-level and the resulting social injustices perpetrated against the Palestinians living under military occupation is never openly addressed and at the end of the camp, the two groups hug, bid farewell to new friends and then go back to their unequal socio-political realities.3 At best, this camp, set up as an interest-based tactic, has instilled a new sense of empathy and compassion in both groups that may act as a catalyst for them to work for peace with justice in the future. At worst, the privileged Israelis leave with their guilt assuaged, thinking that true reconciliation has occurred while their neighbouring Palestinians return to military check-points, land confiscation, house demolitions and daily harassment from the Israeli Defense Forces. This example represents a small-scale truth and reconciliation process, which, without a critical analysis of power, runs the risk of entrenching existing inequalities, paying “lip service” to a social injustice and producing no effective change. Power and conflict interact in a number of different ways. First, as the above story illustrates, power is often unbalanced in conflict situations, making peace with justice an outcome that is much more difficult to attain. Second, people use power in ways to “win” in conflict; there are many types of power that parties can use. Third, depending on a party’s level of power, the success and appropriateness of tactics need to change. And finally, power dynamics can wreak havoc within groups that are trying to collaborate in working for social justice. And then, to top it all off, power is very often misunderstood as a dynamic in conflict and in groups, part of which is due to the fact that possessing power seems to be a taboo for some people wanting to work for a better world. In this chapter, we will discuss these power dynamics and relate them to conflict transformation. Our goal will be to understand power in order to build a foundation (a culture of peace) where we can maximize our ability to achieve peace with justice.

Defining Power Power can be simply described as the ability to influence or control events.4 A more detailed portrayal of power describes the attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, behaviors and resources that give people and groups the ability to act or perform effectively.5 Because we conventionally think of power as a struggle with winners and losers, we might automatically

Power: From Imbalance to Equality

39

think that conflict is a struggle of or for power. Our perceptions of power begin at an early age. In our childhood, we manage to figure out different types of power at our disposal. There is the power of noncompliance (a child who refuses to eat can bring her powerful parents to surrender quite quickly!), the power of physical strength (think of any of a multitude of scenarios), the power of authority (older siblings having the ability to influence younger ones) the power of persuasion and the power of moral authority (drawing upon collectively held ethical values to influence someone to adapt their behavior). Of course, one of the greatest forms of power in modern life is the power of money. Although I believe we might be fascinated by power, we tend to shy away from discussions about our own power. If each of us were asked to describe ourselves using a handful of adjectives, I believe very few of us would choose the term “powerful.” I believe this is especially true among activists. Power is often construed as the enemy and thus we often avoid conversations and analysis about our own power. However, the following quote from author and teacher Marianne Williamson encourages us to actually acknowledge our power and celebrate it: “Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? …And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”6 Author James Hillman asserts that peacemakers and activists often are afraid to exercise their power because they would rather work through “love”, assuming that power and love are somehow opposites. This belief feeds into a denial of our existing power and a failure to capitalize on its potential. “The corruption begins not in power, but in the ignorance about it.”7 Power is commonly associated with winning, revenge and violence as these themes are ubiquitous in our popular culture - movies, music videos, headlines – news stories and information framed in terms of good people and bad people, winners and losers, the powerful and powerless, villains and victims.

A word about Power and Violence Our analysis of power must include an elaboration of the relationship between power, violence and conflict. In the first chapter, we discussed the difference between direct violence (such as shooting, hitting and going to war) and structural violence (such as laws and practices that result in the



40

Chapter Four

unequal access to resources). It is important to highlight in our analysis of conflict and power, that those groups without power often resort to direct violence, such as burning police cars, damaging buildings and engaging in pushing and beating during a protest, in order to protest injustice. Meanwhile, there is a tendency for those groups that hold power, because they have access to societal institutions and structures, to use structural violence, such as unfair legislation, judicial processes, incarceration, even trade agreements, to entrench their preferred status quo and their privilege. Why is this significant? Because those with less power cannot do so. With regards to violent strategies, the less powerful can only access tactics of direct violence (which are far more visible and measurable). Therefore, they often appear to be more violent than those in power, than those whose manipulation of structural violence remains virtually invisible. The appearance of poor people engaging in direct violence is more likely to impact the public than the image of powerful people enacting unjust laws. This visibility contributes to the prevailing hegemony that poor people are more violent, and contributes to our lack of serious consideration of important social issues. Instead, we fixate on the violent acts and shroud the underlying social injustices. Author David Kennedy goes further by explaining that the less powerful in any society exert their frustration in ways that not only entrench stereotypes of the poor and powerless (“they are violent”) but express their violence on those closest to them – often people from the same socio-economic group or geographical proximity.8 Thus, neighbourhoods become riddled with violence when power is divided along ethnic or racial lines. Terrorist groups set off destructive bombs, killing people in their own communities. This further entrenches racist stereotypes and absolves those in power of the responsibility of the intra-group violence that occurs throughout the world in powerless communities. We need to consider one more important connection between violence and power. If power is the ability to achieve or control events and outcomes, the power of groups must be considered when evaluating the potential capacity to achieve their positions. Think of the example of a man and a woman in a romantic relationship. Something goes wrong, a huge argument erupts and both parties threaten the other with violence. Is this situation balanced? Hardly. In analyzing the underlying context of the threats, as we learned to do in Chapter Two, we see a significantly skewed picture. No matter where you live on earth, the statistics bear witness that the man is much more likely to carry out the violent threat than the woman, due, in a significant way, to social and physical power imbalances. American civil rights activist Stokely Carmichael provides an

Power: From Imbalance to Equality

41

analogy applicable to race relations: “If a white man wants to lynch me, that’s his problem. If he’s got the power to lynch me, that’s my problem. Racism is not a question of attitude; it’s a question of power.”9 This is important because often powerful and privileged groups react to the anger or threats from the less powerful as a call to (violent) self-defence. History shows that powerful groups frequently respond with disproportionate violence (police brutality, the war on terror) under the guise of self-defence or protecting the security and safety of the people. Often this is manifested in increases to security forces to protect citizens of the privileged or more powerful group from violence. During Apartheid in South Africa with its profound level of structural violence, it was easy to find hatred (and even acts of violence) perpetrated by the oppressed black majority. Without taking into account an analysis of power, this leads some to believe that the situation was simply a matter of two sides engaged in a violent conflict – that the violence cancels out and the situation can be described simply as two sides not getting along. We may come to believe that the two sides are equal and that the powerful group is justified in flexing its power by implementing the violence of police harassment, “Shoot First” policies, increased conviction and incarceration rates, and so forth. Evidence for this is exemplified in how the mainstream media has typically reported the Israeli/Palestinian conflict: Palestinian acts of violence (direct violence such as terrorist acts) are described as the “cause” of the conflict, and Israeli military violence is described as the “response.” Constructing the situation with these words omits the structural violence perpetrated by the ongoing occupation which entrenches vastly unequal access to resources.10 In summary, we are saying that powerful groups have access to violent tactics that are structural in nature, and thus are often nearly invisible even though they may be very effective and damaging to a great number of people. On the contrary, those with less power typically only have access to tactics of direct violence, which are highly visible. Thus, violence perpetrated by powerful groups may be more difficult to notice, thus giving the illusion that poor people or people of colour are more violent. In addition, we are saying that when powerful groups do engage in direct violence, we often perceive it as “responsive” and justified. A pithy summary of this imbalance is captured in the following quote from activist and Peace Studies professor Randall Amster: “The sum total of people killed or physically injured by anarchists throughout all of recorded history amounts to little more than a good weekend for the empire.”11



42

Chapter Four

When do we use Power? If conflict transformation is all about relationships, listening and seeking understanding, how does the use of power fit into the framework? Quite simply, if a significant power imbalance exists between conflict parties, building relationships, listening and seeking understanding are very difficult. In this context, nonviolent power-based tactics can be effective in achieving equality (or equity) so that authentic negotiations or problem-solving can then take place. This is where the inspiring stories come from - where one powerless person organizes a community and stands up to the oppressive forces. One of the most profound stories of nonviolence is that of Leymah Gbowee, a Liberian social worker who mobilized thousands of women to not only oust dictator Charles Taylor, but also to bring about democratic elections resulting in the election of the first woman president in Africa.12 Her story highlights the collaboration of disparate groups; Gbowee managed to unite Muslim and Christian women in this religiously divided country by convincing them that their collective desire to end the war far outweighed their differences. In South Africa, during the Apartheid era, there are many examples on the national and community level where nonviolent acts of civil disobedience forced White business leaders and government officials to engage with Black activists in formal negotiations. The nonviolent actions of the people, joined by people worldwide to implement a global boycott of South Africa, ultimately played a very significant role in the dismantling of the apartheid system.13

How Effective Is Nonviolent Action? If you are reading this book, chances are you want to help make the world a better place. As such, you are likely a principled person and thus probably already think that using nonviolent tactics is preferable than resorting to violence. This may be due to moral or ethical values of respecting life or believing that killing or harming another individual is wrong – that the means cannot justify the ends. But if you ask yourself this question: is nonviolence effective and practical? What would your answer be? My experience is that many people believe that although nonviolent techniques may be morally superior, when things get really serious, you need to resort to violence. Violence works better. A common narrative throughout the history of social struggles is: “nonviolence was not effective, so we had to resort to violence.” However, this statement is not supported by the evidence. We now have convincing research that

Power: From Imbalance to Equality

43

demonstrates that nonviolent campaigns are more strongly associated with successful outcomes than violent campaigns. Researchers Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan gathered data on over 300 political campaigns since the early 1900’s to compare the success rate of the conventional military-based campaigns with campaigns that were carried out through nonviolent action. The nonviolent campaigns were more than twice as likely to achieve their goal. Additionally, their data demonstrate that even nonviolent campaigns that challenged extremely repressive regimes were more likely to succeed. Their data also reveal that over time, nonviolent campaigns are becoming more successful, perhaps attesting to the idea that nonviolent activists are becoming more knowledgeable and skilled in the work they do.14 Chenoweth and Stephan posit that nonviolence appears to be more effective for two main reasons. First, a critical factor in achieving success in any campaign (whether violent or nonviolent) was the size of the movement. Their research demonstrated that any campaign that managed to involve at least 3.5 percent of the population had a 100 percent success rate. Nonviolent campaigns tend to attract far more adherents that violent ones do, so if you want to be successful, you need a big crowd of supporters. If you want a big crowd of supporters, choosing nonviolent strategies will get you there quicker.15 A second reason to explain the success of nonviolent campaigns was that violent struggles by those disenfranchised or without substantive power tended to challenge states (and repressive regimes) exactly where they were strongest – in the use of military force.16 Imagine challenging your worst enemy to a winner-take-all duel, and your worst enemy happens to be a marathon champion. Would you select a long distance race as the method to “settle the score”? Of course, that would be foolish. Conversely, nonviolent campaigns avoided challenging regimes where they were strongest and instead challenged them in ways they do not have significant power – the power of numbers, power of moral authority, consumer power, as demonstrated in strikes, boycotts, and a variety of other acts of civil disobedience. Gandhi’s nonviolent campaign to rid India of British rule is widely regarded as a successful nonviolent campaign. The British would likely have been much better prepared to respond to a violent uprising than to the Salt March and boycotts that Gandhi organized. Not only do we now have evidence to support the benefits of nonviolence, we also have evidence to back up the corollary: that violence begets more violence. Chenoweth and Stephan’s research demonstrated a significant relationship between nonviolent campaigns and the presence of



44

Chapter Four

democracy five years afterward.17 A team of researchers led by Wood demonstrated that when violent insurgencies receive a boost from foreign military assistance (such as the current American-led War on Terror). The violence between the two warring factions almost inevitably escalates and the result is, lamentably, a drastic increase in civilian deaths – up to 40 percent.18 If the idea that nonviolence may be more effective in ousting a dictator is new to you, chances are you are thinking: “yeah, well…. what about Hitler?” The strong and pervasive narrative in modern western history is that if the allies in World War II did not take up arms to defeat Hitler, the world would have been destroyed. Nonviolence could never have defeated such a terrible tyrant! However, if we want to be genuine studiers of history, we need to at least take pause to examine the research as a whole rather than “cherry-picking” certain examples that appear to substantiate our personal views. While it is true that there are historical examples of the successful use of violence to overthrow a dictator, the aforementioned statistical analysis of hundreds of conflicts at the state level since the 20th century demonstrates that nonviolence is more likely to achieve success. If you measure success by: long term likelihood that democracy will survive, long term likelihood that civil war will not recur, the number of civilian deaths, long term economic prosperity, the research demonstrates a strong correlation with these positive outcomes and nonviolent campaigns, even taking into account violent despots like Hitler. Highlighting an individual case study (such as Hitler) to generalize that violence is more effective is no more scientifically rigorous than highlighting a 90-year-old healthy smoker to generalize that smoking is not bad for you.

Power, Nonviolent Action and Conflict Transformation Gene Sharp was an American activist and writer who wrote one of the most comprehensive books on the theory and practice of nonviolent action. Table 4-1 highlights how Sharp has organized nonviolent tactics. Nonviolent action can be used as a form of coercion – pressuring people to do something against their will. Nonetheless, when we talk about nonviolent action in the context of conflict transformation, we are focussing on its ability to equalize power, to raise awareness of injustice and to bring people together (possibly with hesitation initially) to work towards goals of peace with justice that benefit all parties involved. Therefore, nonviolent action is sometimes an integral component of any conflict transformation process, in spite of the fact that it usually escalates

Power: From Imbalance to Equality

45

conflict and (initially) increases the relational distance between parties in conflict. Table 4-1: Nonviolent Action: Power-based Tactics of Commission and Omission19 Type of Action Acts of commission (implementing actions that challenge existing laws and practices) Acts of Omission (withdrawing cooperation)

Type of Nonviolent Action Protest and Persuasion Nonviolent Intervention Non-cooperation

Example Marches/Rallies Parades Vigils Civil disobedience Sit-ins Occupation of offices/headquarters Boycotts Labor Strikes Sex Strikes

Getting Started There are many helpful resources, including books, films and websites, that offer practical information on how to implement a nonviolent campaign to raise awareness, unsettle the unjust stability and ultimately balance power between the parties in a conflict. Before we go further, let’s revisit two of the main tenets of conflict transformation: prioritizing relationships and authentically understanding multiple perspectives. This is important to emphasize because it behooves us to engage in dialogue before and seek understanding prior to strategizing nonviolent action. There is always a chance that the powerful party is willing to listen and is willing to seek just solutions, despite their power advantage. On this point, we can glean some lessons from Martin Luther King’s nonviolent campaign to end segregation in the Southern United States in the 1950’s and 60’s. First, King continuously remained in dialogue with powerful parties that were in opposition to the campaign. He maintained open communication so that he was ready to end the boycotts, sit-ins and rallies as soon as the opposition was ready to negotiate authentically. Second, King’s campaign had clearly articulated goals, which also emphasized conflict transformation – namely, peace and justice for all people. Third,



46

Chapter Four

because the goals were clear and communication paths were open, King was able to educate groups who acted as if they were allies, but in reality, were obstacles. King often referred to the “liberal White person” – someone who had sympathy for the cause but was reluctant to challenge the existing stability of the status quo. The liberal White was someone who asked for patience with the rate of change of segregation, discouraged resistance of authority and criticized tactics that caused conflict escalation. King simultaneously nurtured relationships with the liberal White factions while at the same time, clearly challenged their positions that served as obstacles for achieving justice. King offers us an inspiring example of nonviolent action that embodied relationships, and a vision of peace with justice.20 If you are in the pre-planning phase and strategizing on how to implement a nonviolent campaign, first engage the opposing party. For example, if you become aware that a local store is selling products that are made from elephant ivory (which greatly contributes to the demise of elephant herds and to the pain and suffering of the elephants) try speaking to the manager first. It is important how you convey your message. Evidence shows that your chances for success (i.e. convincing the store to stop selling ivory) are much greater if the problem is framed in way that speaks to the store owner’s values. Instead of conveying a message that the store owner is evil, greedy or an elephant murderer, connect the owner with the struggle of grassroots African entrepreneurs who are learning new trades in lieu of the ivory trade. This is an interest-based approach that speaks to the store owner’s values of hard work and trying to earn a living. Solutions that include the other party as part of the solution (rather than the problem) will be more successful. Sometimes this engagement does not work. The store owner’s perceived power may mean that he or she is not willing to stop selling the ivory. The owner becomes defensive and responds by escalating the conflict. Positions become entrenched. The store owner’s position: to sell ivory. Your grassroots campaign’s position: an end to selling ivory in the community. Interest-based approaches such as engaging in dialogue and seeking to understand the underlying needs and values of the parties have not been successful. The store owner refuses to budge and your commitment to ending the slaughter of elephants means that you cannot stand by and watch the continued sale of the ivory. You engage likeminded people and form a coalition, and utilizing your power of moral authority, power of numbers and consumer power, you implement a boycott of the store.

Power: From Imbalance to Equality

47

The fact is, consumer boycotts can be a very powerful tactic of nonviolent resistance, but they require planning and perseverance. Awareness is important to assess and if awareness is low, educational campaigns need to be incorporated into the strategy. In reality, a store boycott for ivory would likely be very successful as environmental issues such as the ivory trade have made it into the North American mainstream where middle class consumers (with economic power) have become acutely sensitized to these types of struggles. Another key for store boycotts is to make participation easy. If you are asking people to boycott a particular store and there are three similar stores in the community that do not sell ivory, participation is much easier. Arriving at the most effective message requires some thought. Sometimes a rational, fact-laden message explaining the problem is not the tactic that will bring people to the negotiating table. Behavioral science research can inform us how to develop educational campaigns that are most likely to achieve success. Empathy is more successful than rational thought when attempting to reach people who are skeptical or defensive. Information can be effective in reaching people who do not have an emotional attachment to the issue (we will discuss this in more depth in Chapter Six). It is important to remember that you don’t have to change people’s values or beliefs, but rather their behavior. Realizing this helps us to choose our strategies more wisely and also liberates us from the impossible and undesired task of making everyone think exactly the way we do!



48

Chapter Four

Putting into Practice In the next few pages, I’d like to offer some practical advice on how to use power effectively in order to transform conflict. Borrowing from my own experience and from examples of activism from across the globe, I present five strategies to assist in achieving an outcome based on the principles of peace and justice.

1. Monitor signs of escalation We have stated already that power-based strategies have a legitimate role in the conflict transformation process, but their tendency to escalate conflict needs to be monitored. First, because power-based techniques like

Power: From Imbalance to Equality

49

nonviolent action are confrontational, the people who identify with the opposing position will likely exhibit defensiveness and may use their own power to challenge your work. Defensive responses can include the dissemination of propaganda and personal attacks on the group’s leaders. Communication and trust will be eroded. Individuals will be vilified and the opportunities to listen and understand will diminish. There are certainly disadvantages to conflict escalation. 7 Thus, one must take advantage of every opportunity to continue to dialogue with the other party. Give the opposition an opportunity to speak directly with you and offer them your authentic listening. Referring to the conflict escalation table in Chapter Two, the list of indicators of an escalated conflict are interrelated, which means that improving communication will have the intended effect of also improving trust and problem-solving opportunities. A recent fragile ceasefire between the Philippine Army and the insurgent Moro Islamic Liberation Front offers an example of how communication strategies were used very intentionally to reduce conflict escalation. Because trust between the two militant groups was essentially nonexistent, there was no communication. Although a cease-fire was in place, both sides were nervous and any small action on either side could potentially escalate into a violent confrontation. To address this, a specific practice was implemented, called rumor control, where unarmed international observers were deployed to deliver messages between the two groups – essentially providing a communication route that the two groups were unable to create on their own. One day, this de-escalation strategy prevented a serious violent exchange. One side was convinced the other was about to launch a violent attack against the other (based on misinformation) and thus prepared their own pre-emptive assault. However, the international observers were able to dispel the rumor and thus the attack was avoided. Both sides were relieved that the misunderstanding was clarified and that no violence occurred.21

2. Check your own power and privilege If you are an activist, a peacemaker or a conflict transformation practitioner (and we all are!), you should probably consider that your most important tool is yourself. Your actions, skills and communication have the potential to positively influence the world around you. Thus, it is important to engage in some personal reflection on the power that you possess. Because power can be considered both relational and socially constructed, it is also important to consider how others may perceive your power (or lack of it). One way to do this is to draw a social identity wheel,



50

Chapter Four

like the example below, labeling the variables with your own identity to help you consider your own sources of power or vulnerability. For example, what does it mean to be gay, foreign-born and a Jehovah Witness? What if you are an Indigenous, heterosexual cis-gendered female and have a well-paying job?

The power that we attach to our identity is fluid and can change depending on the context and situation. This social identity exercise allows individuals and groups to reflect on how social power can be used effectively to further a campaign. It can also be helpful to think of the social power of the other party and also to think of ways that you and the other party actually share some common identity, or share sources of power or vulnerability. Another important consideration when planning nonviolent campaigns is to consider power and privilege differences within solidarity groups.

Power: From Imbalance to Equality

51

Across the world, there are many struggles that challenge discrimination based on race, gender or some other form of identity. For example, in Canada, one of the main peace and justice issues facing the people currently is the longstanding dispute regarding Indigenous rights. The fact is many non-Indigenous people wish to become “settler allies” – to stand in solidarity with Indigenous people to achieve genuine reconciliation with Canada’s colonial past (and present). How does someone from a privileged background (i.e. non-Indigenous) stand in solidarity with a group that has been subjected to longstanding discrimination? The power dynamics of “oppressor” members allying themselves with “oppressed” members warrant analysis. Jeff Halper, a Nobel Peace Prize-nominated Israeli activist who has worked for decades in the Palestinian struggle to end the Israeli occupation, has seen how powerful and privileged individuals can hijack a struggle at the expense of the autonomy of the oppressed. Halper offers advice to members of privileged groups who wish to join struggles of oppressed identities. Above all, Halper advises that privileged allies need to reframe the powerful oppressor’s narrative. In the Canadian context, that means de-colonizing our world view: challenging the fundamental assumptions that Canada was built upon: the doctrine of discovery (that Canada was empty and thus “discovered” by European explorers), and the myth of equal opportunity (that all peoples in Canada are considered equal and granting special concessions, such as land redistribution, to one group implies favoritism). Second, Halper acknowledges in his own work with Palestinian activists that the work of the privileged ally starts with trust building. This includes acts of accompaniment, deep listening, and what Halper refers to as “being there” – working with and for the oppressed, to build relationships rather than rushing in to solve problems or rescue.22 Power also represents a significant dynamic in cross-sectoral community groups that come together to solve complex social issues. Imagine that a group of people decides to hold a community conversation on the issue of homelessness. In an attempt to include representation of as many voices as possible, the organizers invite a large cross-section of the community – from people who identify as homeless to people who own successful businesses, to academic experts in the field of social work. Good intentions, however, do not prevent a tendency for confident, powerful people to dominate conversations, brainstorming meetings and problem-solving sessions. People who are homeless may stop coming, or may become more silent. Paul Born, a Canadian community organizer, has a suggestion for how to deal with the inevitable power differences in community meetings. In order to balance the power between members of



52

Chapter Four

a leadership group (comprised of both powerful business leaders and representatives from the community’s homeless population) in a large Canadian city, the facilitators came up with an innovative strategy. The homeless people in the leadership group met regularly with a separate, newly formed focus group comprised of 50 people who were homeless. This focus group advised their homeless colleagues on the leadership team and thus gave input into every decision made by the leadership group. This way, the people on the leadership team who were homeless developed their own unique power – a power of additional numbers and voice that was able to complement the economic and academic power of the other members. In this experiment, all members of the leadership team became more comfortable with the new power balance.23

3. Choose power-based strategies carefully In order for power-based strategies to be effective, there needs to be an impact. We’ve already discussed boycotts because boycotts can be very effective. Whether it is at the community or international level, boycotts make an impact when an existing relationship is somehow challenged through nonviolent action. For example, you cannot boycott a store that no one shops at, and you cannot boycott a nation that no one trades with. Your action needs to disrupt relationships in a way that draws attention to your message. For example, if you boycott a political election, often times, the powerful political parties may not be impacted, and your lack of participation may actually enhance their chances of winning. In the early years of this decade, young people in Chile implemented a nonviolent campaign to protest their government’s move to privatize education. One of their tactics was to implement an election boycott, but the older generation did not join in, as, in their perspective, they had fought long and hard for democratic principles (such as democratic elections) during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. Thus, the campaign to boycott elections did not gain momentum.24 Another piece of advice is to make sure you will have popular support. You may think you are on the side of justice and all that is righteous, but that is not enough to make an impact using nonviolent action strategies. At the time of writing this, the province of Alberta launched a campaign to boycott British Columbia wines, in retaliation for the province’s refusal to approve an oil pipeline that would run from Alberta, through British Columbia, to the Pacific Ocean to waiting ocean tankers. The problem is, popular support for pipelines has significantly dwindled in Canada in the past few years. The popularity of British Columbia, wines, in contrast,

Power: From Imbalance to Equality

53

has grown. Although there was some boycott support among Alberta residents, other provinces (most notably Quebec) sided with wine instead of oil pipelines and offered solidarity by buying British Columbia wine in high-profile acts of defiance. Within a few weeks, the Alberta government abandoned the boycott of British Columbia wines, as they realized popular support was not on their side.25

4. Size matters According to the research of Chenoweth and Stephan, size does matter. The key to the success of any nonviolent campaign is the ability to attract numbers and support. Appealing to the pocket books or the capacity of empathy of those in charge is done through the collective. So, when planning your campaign, you need to ask the question: how do we acquire the biggest following? One of the biggest mistakes we make when we try to recruit allies is we spend our limited resources “preaching to the choir” – that is, focussing our efforts trying to recruit people who are already converted. While holding a protest can nurture solidarity and rally the converted, if it does not typically attract new members or raise awareness, it may not be very effective. Some of your tactics need to be aimed at growth of the movement. The second mistake we make is to focus our energy on trying to convert those people that are so ideologically and vehemently opposed to our campaign that our chances of increasing our numbers with their involvement is almost nil. We might fall into this trap because we view those most opposed to us as the ultimate challenge, or (if they convert) the ultimate victory. In actuality, the converted and the diametrically opposed likely represent (at least at the beginning of a campaign) a small minority of the community. The vast majority of people fall into the middle – those that don’t have a strong opinion and probably have limited awareness and understanding of the issue. Campaigns are wise to target this large and untapped group in order to swell the numbers of supporters. Since size matters, momentum is important so that the group grows and does not fizzle out. As you plan a campaign, think of an “early victory.”26 Perhaps your campaign is to reduce the carbon footprint of your community and various groups who oppose this are challenging you. You may set an ambitious target for a reduction of carbon emissions by 50 percent within five years. This is both visionary and concrete. In the meantime, however, how are you going to keep people interested? One strategy is to plan for a highly visible and easily attainable achievement early in your campaign. This has the effect of consolidating teams,



54

Chapter Four

energizing campaigns and attracting interest. For example, if your longterm goal is a 50 percent reduction, a short-term victory might be to get 100 people in the community to buy bus passes.

5. Don’t forget the vision of peace with justice The last piece of advice is to remember the goal of conflict transformation. Sometimes when an adversarial power-based campaign is the focus of your activities, it can lead to the social construction of the “us and them” diametric. We distinguish ourselves from others based on our position on an issue which can become a fixture of our core identity. The identity gains momentum through not only a strong connection with those who think like us, but also by a strong aversion to those who think differently. The escalatory nature of power-based approaches will exacerbate this risk and we may find ourselves revelling in our newly constructed righteousness and the fact that we have no communication with those who oppose our campaign. The goal can slide into one of victory (and of course defeat!). We can find examples of entrenched conflicts that become stuck into the core identities of the polarized camps, and the conflict takes on a life of its own in such a way that ending the conflict (which should be part of the vision) paradoxically stops being the goal because to do so would erode one’s core identity.

Power: From Imbalance to Equality

55

Main Points of this Chapter Although interest-based approaches, such as mediation, constitute excellent tools for conflict transformation, they run the risk of entrenching existing inequalities, paying “lip service” or producing no effective change, if power imbalances are not taken into account. Power dynamics play a significant role in conflict and thus need to be addressed in any conflict transformation process. Nonviolent action is a legitimate tactic in order to balance power. The main purpose of nonviolent action is to balance the power between parties, thus providing the opportunity for parties to engage in authentic problem-solving or reconciliation. Power can be defined as the ability to influence or control events, and can be described in terms of the attitudes, perceptions, beliefs and behaviors that give people and groups the ability to act or perform effectively. Nonviolent action can be divided into acts of omission and acts of commission. They can further be categorized as a) Protest and Persuasion b) Nonviolent Intervention and c) Non-cooperation. Power and violence are interrelated. Social groups with more power have greater access to tools of structural violence, which are less easy to detect than acts of direct violence. The relationship between structural violence and power can obfuscate use of this type of violence and result in widespread support for commensurate direct violence in the name of defence, thus supporting potent societal hegemonies that may negatively affect less powerful groups. Recent empirical research provides convincing and rigorous evidence that nonviolent action is an effective tactic in achieving social and political transformation. There are specific strategies including the creative composition of committees that can be utilized to address power imbalances within solidarity groups. The success of nonviolent action can be improved by careful strategizing on tactics and goals, with particular attention to recruiting new members. Reflection Question What is the difference between equality and equity? question relevant to power and conflict transformation?



How is this

CHAPTER FIVE RELATIONSHIPS: FROM FEAR TO TRUST

“You will never influence anyone whom you hold in contempt”1

Introduction James Orbinski, a Canadian physician who accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of Doctors without Borders in 1999, was in Rwanda during the 1994 genocide, providing medical care to thousands of people who had sought refuge in one of the capital city’s main hospitals. Many of these people were seriously injured from machete wounds and the only medical treatment available to save their lives was amputation of a limb. Due to the high volume of cases, a large number of amputations were performed. From the professional medical opinion of these foreign staff, the operations were performed as a matter of best practice. However, for the large group of internally displaced persons, their lack of understanding of the decision-making processes of the medical team left them with the impression that these foreigners were maliciously cutting people’s arms and legs off. The Rwandans organized and confronted the medical staff to tell them that what they were doing was wrong and demanded that they stop cutting off people’s arms and legs. Orbinski, in his book Imperfect Offering, recounts how the confrontation between the medical team and Rwandan leaders was tense and at the same time bewildering. Upon reflecting on the situation years later, Orbinski recounts how a disparate understanding of an action resulted in a serious stand-off between two groups who were ostensibly working with each other to save lives. The intention (saving lives) through the amputations became very different than the impact (fear of foreigners taking our body parts).2 This story offers a clear illustration of the action-intent-impact triad presented in Chapter Two. Our goal, therefore, is to understand that an action’s intent and impact can be interpreted so differently when groups have different perspectives on an activity or event.

58

Chapter Five

Let me share another story, where intentional building of trust led to a valuable collaboration between two socially distant groups. As I write this book, I am living in northern Guatemala, in a cooperative of 400 people that is comprised of former Marxist guerrillas and their children, who now have grown into young adults. The former guerrillas conducted a 36-year armed struggle against the injustices perpetrated by decades of violent dictatorships. In 1996 a series of peace accords was finally reached and the group put down their weapons and formed a collective (a cooperative called Nuevo Horizonte or New Horizons) with the vision to promote the economic and social development of its membership based on community principles; in essence to live together, to support each other and continue to struggle for peace and justice through nonviolent means. Last year, I worked with a group of young adults in the cooperative to create a Spanish Language School where locals would teach Spanish to foreigners. The Spanish language school was part of a larger eco-tourism program that the community had established. Down the road only eight kilometers away from Nuevo Horizonte, lives a growing and active community of Old-Order Mennonites – a community comprised of Guatemalans and immigrants from Canada and the United States who had started up their own projects including a health clinic and a school for local children. The Spanish language school in Nuevo Horizonte was needing students to make their venture viable. The Mennonite community was growing due to arrivals of new missionaries from Canada and the United States who did not speak Spanish. It seemed like the perfect collaboration, except the two groups had no relationship, and their core ideologies were fundamentally disparate. However, my role was to recruit new students for the Spanish language school and I saw the Mennonites as a great potential customer! Their relational differences were highlighted when the Mennonites were invited to visit the cooperative and language school, and to join cooperative members for lunch. The Mennonites sang hymns and said grace, which was followed by the cooperative’s power point presentation featuring revolutionary heroes and tributes to their fallen comrades. Then there was the community tour which featured, among other things, murals of Che Guevara and Lenin. As an outside observer, I was nervous that the Mennonites, who are Christian pacifists, would feel alienated by the images of revolutionary socialism. However, the two groups focussed on what they had in common rather than their differences, a collective vision to empower the most marginalized by creating a better world that embraced both peace and justice. By the end of the meeting, people were hugging each other and over the next year, the majority of the Spanish

Relationships: From Fear to Trust

59

school’s students were from the Old Order Mennonite community. The collaborations between the two groups are even expanding, as this year, they are joining forces to participate in a community diabetes prevention and self-management health project. These two stories illustrate the connection between relationships, fear and trust. The first story illustrates how quickly one group’s actions can be misinterpreted when optimal communication channels are not present. The second story illustrates that seeking common values (in spite of fundamentally disparate ideologies) can lead to valuable collaborations to address important community issues. In the context of conflict transformation, it is important to emphasize that group conflicts often occur along lines of social identity, which can exacerbate fear and erode trust quickly, thus, the critical need for continual dialogue. In this chapter, we will focus on one of the fundamental cornerstones of the conflict transformation model: the value of connection and nurturing relationships. Nurturing relationships can be considered as a tactic of conflict transformation as well as a tactic to build cultures of peace, which ultimately can serve to open communication to deal more effectively with future conflicts. We will explore how fear negatively impacts relationships and therefore, the goals of conflict transformation. We will also examine the concept of trust and how it impacts conflict.We will end the chapter with some advice on specific strategies to build relationships for the purpose of achieving peace with justice.

Conflict and Social Distance Social distance can be described as the phenomenon where groups with strong internal cohesion refrain from interacting with groups that are outside their socially connected sphere. Groups with a high level of relational distance tend not to have interconnections; they live in different neighbourhoods, partake in different recreational activities and have few ways in which they can form strong individual social bonds. When conflict occurs, the lack of communication may result in the misinterpretation of social cues and exacerbate fear and mistrust. David Ragland, an academic and activist who co-founded the Truth Telling Project (a grassroots movement in the United States to provide space and voice for African Americans to talk about police brutality) demonstrated how insidiously our fears can develop, even among people who are working for peace and justice. In a public lecture, Ragland showed a music video of a street rally featuring young African American men protesting police violence. After, he asked the audience, comprised primarily of White Canadians, what they



60

Chapter Five

saw. The first person to raise their hand responded: anger, violence and hatred. Ragland then challenged the group to watch the video again, in order to identify where they saw hatred and violence. After the second view, the audience realized that there were no identifiable signs of hate and violence. What happened was that displays of anger (which were present in the video) were interpreted as hatred and violence by this socially distant group.3 In other words, the legitimate expression of frustration at police brutality becomes interpreted as hatred and violence. Conflict transformation activists need to be aware that, because of social distance, groups can misinterpret cues, jeopardizing trust.

Fear and Conflict Fear and conflict interact in a number of ways. While fear is an evolutionary protective mechanism to prevent us from being eaten by wild animals, we are also able to construct fear where in fact no real danger exists. Sometimes we are afraid of things for no valid reason. Since fear is bad for both our physical and mental health,4 it behooves us to critically assess what we are afraid of. Moreover, it is interesting to note that fear in itself has a bigger impact on our health than actual danger – that is, the health impacts are greater when measured against our fear of perceived risk of crime rather than when measured against actual crime statistics.5 Fear is also associated with a greater amount of conflict. Fear and paranoia go hand in hand, and will make people do things out of false perceptions that the other party is going to harm them, or get first dibs at some scarce resource.6 Sometimes we then act pre-emptively and do things based on what we fear the other party will do if we don’t act before them. The negative potential for fear and conflict is immense as exemplified by the situation in the Philippines presented in the last chapter. The fear and mistrust between the two warring factions had the potential to blow up into a violent confrontation, based on false perceptions of what the other party was going to do. The unarmed civilian peacekeepers’ action in communicating back and forth between the two armed groups averted catastrophe. While a strong and cohesive group identity can have a positive, protective effect on stress and fear,7 this same strong identity can also act as an impediment to negotiating with outside groups, as exemplified in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians and between Catholic and Protestant Northern Irish.8 A strong cohesive group identity can also motivate us to be more violent when dealing with others outside our identity sphere.9 Fear can also be a negative consequence when conflicts end poorly (i.e. without a sense of justice). Additionally, fear is used to

Relationships: From Fear to Trust

61

discourage people from considering new and innovative social and political solutions. Instead, people are much more likely to vote for and endorse policies that favor a stable status quo, that favor increasing law enforcement rather than trying innovative, evidence-based responses to crime and public safety.10 Fear can prevent us from making connections with people who would otherwise be allies in achieving our goals. For example, when I was a teenager, I wanted to participate in a peace rally for the first time. I wanted to learn more about the people who shared my vision for a better world without violence. When I shared my intention with some friends, they strongly discouraged me from participating, as I would be walking alongside communists and homosexuals! Thirty-five years later, when I tell this story to my Peace and Justice Studies students, they inevitably laugh at how intolerant people were long ago when I was young. However, my intention is not to highlight the intolerance of yesteryear, but rather challenge them to reflect on which groups they would be uncomfortable to walk alongside.



62

Chapter Five

Anger, Fear and Conflict Anger also has a way of creating distance between us and another party in conflict. Anger is often a result of conflict escalation. Our anger encourages us to continue the spiral, to further intensify and to cause us to dig in our heels concerning our own position. I remember once when our two sons were pre-teens and on one particular evening, some type of conflict erupted between the two of them. I ignored it for a while but it did not resolve. I attempted mediation but my intervention did not seem to help. It was bedtime and I was tired. I said to the boys – why don’t we all go to sleep, get some rest and talk about this again in the morning. To this suggestion, one of my sons replied – I don’t want to put this off until the morning. I won’t be mad anymore! I want to deal with this while I’m still mad! Anger and fear can sometimes spiral into hatred of members of groups that are socially distant from us; sometimes it is easier to stay in the safety of one’s own group rather than communicate with an outsider. At some level we relish the idea that the other party is not worthy of our collaboration or of our empathy. A conflict transformation framework encourages us to be more daring – more willing to engage with people who are different from us, whether they are more powerful and scary, or less powerful (and still scary!). What are the potential benefits of connecting with those we are angry with or afraid of? Conflict transformation research has demonstrated that social connection led to a reduction in prejudice in Northern Ireland, a greater willingness to compromise in Israel/Palestine, increased trust in Rwanda and improved empathy in Sri Lanka.11 Because of all these different ways that anger and fear negatively impacts conflict (and vice versa) the conflict transformation model explicitly addresses fear in its most common form: the fear of the other party. Let’s first look at some specific examples at how fear and conflict have been reworked in order to transform fear into trust.

Trust Why is trust so important in our relationships? According to Patrick Lencioni, an American business and organizational writer, trust forms the fundamental groundwork for any group of people to work together effectively.12 Trust is the bottom rung on a ladder that represents a pathway to effective teamwork. With trust, we are able to engage with conflict through activism effectively for two different reasons. First, if we

Relationships: From Fear to Trust

63

take the time to build trust amongst a team of activists, the group will be more equipped to address the inevitable personality clashes and differences of opinion. Second, engaging in activities to build trust between groups on opposing positions on a community issue will encourage both sides to be more honest and to be willing to take risks and to admit mistakes. In a paradoxical way, it is no accident that those people whom we trust most are also the ones with whom we engage in conflict. If we trust our intimate partner, our parent or our child, we can raise sensitive issues without fear of serious hurt. If, for example, we are a teenager and we do not trust our parent, it is unlikely that we will engage in meaningful conversations where our opinions and values may diverge. If we do express our opinions, it tends to be in ways that are less constructive. Additionally, we are more likely to say “everything is fine” (probably unconvincingly) than share our concerns. Connected to trust is vulnerability. It is a common misperception that vulnerability equals weakness, and thus in the context of conflict, displaying vulnerability makes you appear weak and ineffective. Marshall Rosenberg, the author of Nonviolent Communication, disputes this misperception with compelling stories. One story involves a workplace conflict between hospital administrators and physicians, who disagreed on a plan to implement substantial changes at the hospital. The physicians resisted the changes and Rosenberg suggested to the administrators that rather than assuming the typical pose of strength and power in this confrontation, to open up to the other party to show your vulnerability. In this case, Rosenberg noticed that the administrators were afraid of the upcoming meeting with the physicians. However, they reluctantly followed Rosenberg’s coaching and began the meeting by expressing their fears and concerns to the physicians. This opening up to human emotions led to empathy on behalf of the other party. The outcome was a turn-around by the physicians and the overwhelming endorsement of the proposed changes.13 Understandably, sitting in a room with people we do not trust is not our idea of the beginning of a great campaign to address an important community issue. Therefore, our typical strategy to begin a community campaign is to build our teams with people whom we trust – in other words, people who are just like us! When we do this, we find that we can progress quite rapidly. A group of like-minded people can accomplish goals quite quickly. However, if the composition of this group does not match the composition of the stakeholders, community buy-in may not be so forthcoming. Success may be elusive unless we create working groups that include people who do not normally trust each other. We avoid this



64

Chapter Five

for obvious reasons (fear) but we also avoid this because we value productivity and outcomes – which often are our worst enemy. Our belief that we can address community issues by building teams of people who all think alike will simply stall authentic progress. Our task as conflict transformers and community activists is to challenge the fear that is a significant barrier to engaging in processes that can transform conflict and achieve peace with justice. There are specific tactics that we can do to improve our relationships – from the interpersonal and community levels, to the global, so that trust can be a starting point from which groups in conflict can problem-solve more effectively.

Putting into Practice To end this chapter, I would like to offer you some advice on tactics that can assist in alleviating fear and nurturing trust.

1. Be clear on your goals There is a challenge to focussing on relationships, and that is to ensure a balance between nurturing relationships and achieving your goals. These two things should be interdependent, not mutually exclusive. When you have to sacrifice conflict outcomes (i.e. peace with justice) for the sake of maintaining a relationship, it is time to evaluate whether the relationship is consistent with your desired outcomes. Keep in mind that mending a damaged relationship between individuals or groups is, in itself, a worthy goal. A way to measure whether your relationships are interfering with your goals of conflict transformation is to evaluate whether the other party requires you to significantly compromise on your values or the goals of peace and justice in order to keep the relationship.

2. Quality time As discussed, it is much easier for individuals and groups to lose trust in each other than it is to gain trust. This means that time needs to be built into any plan to earn the trust of another party. According to community organizer Liz Weaver, progress moves at the speed of trust.14 Creating trust requires a radical shift from socialized habits of connection. For example, community organizer and author Peter Block cautions on the trend in our communities to the “movement towards sameness.” This refers to our collective habits, in our communities, in our workplaces and in all our relationships, to congregate among those who share our social

Relationships: From Fear to Trust

65

identity. Instead of creating true connection in our workplace or communities, we create turfs. These turfs protect us from the social anxiety of being challenged by alternative opinions and values but can significantly impede understanding and compassion.15 In group dynamics that lack trust, we will avoid a person we disagree with and instead share our thoughts with a safe third party. Our ulterior motive is to win the third party over as an ally. Talking about someone is easier than talking to someone. This phenomenon of seeking third party allegiances contributes to a culture of mistrust in any organization or group. David Falk, an organizational mediator, refers to the seeking out of third party allies as recruiting “like minded deviants,”16 which can hijack a process of building group trust.



Chapter Five

66

Practice Box: “I have something in Common with You” The following is a simple exercise that can serve as an ice-breaker and trust builder in groups where people have come together from different perspectives. Instructions This exercise works best with a minimum of ten people. Everyone stands in a circle. One person starts by simply stating: I have something in common with you, if you ____________ The blank can be filled in with anything from “have a dog” to “like to dance.” The people who identify with the description move into the centre of the circle. After a few moments of acknowledging those who have been brought together with one common thread, everyone goes back to their place in the circle. Another person volunteers to say the same statement: I have something in common with you, if you ____________ This exercise typically starts off with superficial, fun and basic ways in which we identify ourselves. Quite quickly, depending on trust, people sometimes make statements that call on people to be vulnerable. For example, someone might say: I have something in common with you if you identify as LGBTQ. People only need to go into the circle as they feel comfortable. I have always been amazed at how many people want to share their vulnerabilities, and in so doing, invite other people to do the same. The result is connection and trust.

3. Listen Whether the relationship is between two individuals or two large groups, if the goal is to alleviate fear and mistrust, a pragmatic first step is engaging in authentic listening. This can be done through a number of different methods. One is mediation, which is recommended if the two parties are at a point where sitting together without a facilitator seems too difficult. According to many experts in conflict transformation, a key for anyone to feel trust is to be heard. Author Eileen Babbitt describes a case

Relationships: From Fear to Trust

67

study of trust lost and then regained between two communities: Israeli Arabs and Jews who had come into conflict over a land dispute.17 Like the Mennonites and ex-combatants in Guatemala, these two groups shared socially distant realities but additionally were mired in a longstanding violent conflict. The skillful facilitation by a team of experts led them to an astounding agreement – in spite of their disparate social narratives and in spite of their power differences. The key process was active listening (listening with empathy with the purpose to understand), which led each group to authentically understand the interests and needs that were invisible (using the iceberg metaphor), and to realize that behind their intransigent positions was the shared narrative of loss.18 The story, however, emphasizes that the time and resources needed to build trust were significantly under-estimated. It is a wonder, however, that we don’t seem to have the resources to lengthen community conversations, but we are still willing to spend trillions (yes, trillions – add up the zeroes!) of dollars a year on military weapons. Babbitt’s case study also emphasizes the first steps of a transformation process among groups that distrust each other. Their process, which they name the Tamra model, did not engage in problem-solving until trust was firmly established. Trust was evidenced by: honesty in conversations, ability to listen to alternative viewpoints and an ability to relate to each other on a human level.

4. When communication is faltering, move in closer In relationships where we may not feel particularly powerful, and are unwilling to express our vulnerability, a common response is to move away, to create social distance. Moving away is a typical response when we perceive the actions of the other party as something that were done explicitly to hurt us. Let me share another personal example. One of my roles as a college educator is teaching acute care clinical practice to nursing students. The students are eager and keen and want to do their best. Typically, they work directly with the staff nurses on the unit. Sometimes this goes well and sometimes there is communication breakdown. I have noticed over the years that the students’ vulnerability (as being a novice and as working on someone else’s “turf”) sometimes causes them to interpret the nurse’s communication or feedback in ways that are more negative than was intended. Students sometimes quickly go to the place of “that nurse doesn’t like me!” The common response is for the student to pull away, and actually communicate less, to protect themselves in a way, so as to mitigate a negative experience. As part of



68

Chapter Five

my guidance to them, I encourage them to do something that does not come naturally to any of us. When you are feeling hurt or undervalued by the other party’s communication (could be perceived as ignoring, undervaluing, overly-criticizing) don’t retreat, but rather move closer by consciously engaging more with that person. When students consciously engage with the person they are troubled by, their practice experience inevitably is more positive. They often mention that they thought the nurse didn’t like them but it was simply a matter of the nurse being really busy. The feedback from the nurses corroborates the perceptions. The staff say things like: initially the student seemed unsure about things, but after we had a conversation, I can see that the student did really well today.

Relationships: From Fear to Trust

69

Main Points of this Chapter Nurturing relationships is a cornerstone of conflict transformation. And trust is a cornerstone of relationships. Open and authentic communication, including the ability to safely raise contentious issues, is an indication that trust is present. Prioritizing relationships facilitates the ability of diverse groups to work together. It is important to remember that you can work with people who have seemingly different values and beliefs. Nurturing relationships encourages diverse groups to find common ground in order to collaborate on important issues. Fear can be considered the opposite of trust, and can be a significant obstacle to conflict transformation. Fear can be misplaced; instead of acting as a defense mechanism against real danger, fear can keep us from connecting with individuals and groups who are different from us, or who have differing perspectives than we do. Fear encourages us to build alliances with like-minded people instead of being curious about the perspectives of others. Building trust between people and groups is an important tactic in conflict transformation. With trust, problem-solving can be much more effective, especially among individuals and groups that do not share a common social identity. Building trust takes time. It is better to move towards your goals more slowly so you can establish trust, rather than to rush into problemsolving and arriving at solutions that have no buy-in. Reflection Questions Think about a relationship you have where there is little trust. How would you characterize the communication? In your opinion, what is the difference between fear and hate? Can you think of situations where the line between fear and hate is blurred, or hard to define?



CHAPTER SIX AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING: FROM “UNKNOWING” TO “WOKE”

“The world is not getting worse, it is getting uncovered. Let us hold each other as we pull back the veil.” Adrienne Maree Brown1

Introduction A few years ago, when my son was in high school, I asked him out of the blue: are you a feminist? He took the question in stride and responded that he was not. I asked him why not. He said that although he agreed in supporting the rights of women, in his opinion, people (i.e. women) who called themselves feminists were overly negative and critical of everything to the point that it seemed like they didn’t like men. He then asked me if I was a feminist. I replied yes, and when he asked me why, I told him that to be a feminist means that you acknowledge the pervasive (throughout history and across cultures) discrimination that women have experienced because men have held close to a monopoly on power. Eliminating the violence that women experience, both direct (through physical and sexual violence) and structural (restriction of access to economic, reproductive and political power) is a priority that we need to address in our families, communities and nations. My son responded that he agreed with all of that, but he just didn’t like the term “feminist” and didn’t like the way the self-identified feminists he knew were so “aggressive.” We discussed the topic a bit longer and after reflecting on the matter a bit, he came to the conclusion that he, in fact, was a feminist! In his last few years of high school, he went on to proudly embrace the term, and to become an activist on the topic of gender-based violence. With other male students, he organized dialogues and assemblies for the boys in his school addressing gender-based violence and sexual assault and consent. I raise this story for several reasons. The first one is that our beliefs and positions on important issues are often conflated with misplaced and strong sentiments. We are often resistant to ideas that are rationally sound,

72

Chapter Six

for irrational reasons. The second reason I raise this story is to emphasize that information delivery is as important as information content. Srdja Popovic, the Serbian activist who led the nonviolent movement to topple dictator Slobodan Milosevic in 2000, argues that the information we disseminate to influence people’s decisions is critically important. He exemplifies this by examining Harvey Milk’s election campaign for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977. Milk strategically crafted his campaign information to appeal to the broadest sectors of people, while at the same time advocating for the highly unpopular social issue of gay rights. Milk knew that he would never become elected and become a gay rights activist politician without gaining the support of non-traditional allies. The key, according to Popovic, is knowing your audience.2 Thirdly, and more broadly, this story illustrates that the processes by which we consume and interpret information are fraught with social and psychological processes that impede our likelihood to think rationally and critically. In order to transform conflict, we need to acquire expertise in managing information. Awareness is a fundamental building block for achieving conflict transformation. We can say that there are actually two distinct building blocks. The first one is building awareness, as an activist and conflict transformation practitioner, of the issues – around you and in your relationships – from the interpersonal to the global. In this chapter, we will discuss how to be a skilled consumer of information and examine how knowledge or information is a critical tool in conflict transformation. The second building block involves implementing effective tactics to educate and influence others for creating cultures of peace. And so in this chapter, we will focus on how to actualize these two distinct, yet interrelated, components of awareness building.

Unknowing and Woke – Good Places to Start The title of this chapter is from “Unknowing” to “Woke.” Both terms need a little explaining. First, it should be said that the state of “unknowing” should not be considered a bad place. According to Paul Born, “unknowing” is a state where people come together to learn about an important contentious issue; where they humbly acknowledge that their own knowledge and expertise is insufficient to solve the problem. A state of unknowing explicitly encourages relationships and dialogue. “This place of unknowing is exactly where we want the conversation to begin. It is where people tell stories, open up to learning, and listen to one another.”3 In other words, it is a good place for us all to be at the

Awareness and Understanding: From “Unknowing” to “Woke”

73

beginning of collaboration. “Unknowing” can be juxtaposed with the term “ignorance”, which indicates the state when a person is not informed and possibly is not even aware of being uninformed. The term “ignorance” can also describe the state where someone is aware of their lack of knowledge, but chooses to stay that way, usually because the status quo suits them just fine. Ignorance implies a certain level of comfort or complacency in not being socially conscious. If we relate ignorance to the concepts of power and privilege, we can see that ignorance can be a comfortable state for those who are not affected by pervasive social injustices. “Woke” is a term that has become widely associated with the Black Lives Matter movement in the United States to describe those people who have attained a critical social and political awareness of issues pertaining to racial inequality.4 “Woke” is now officially in the Oxford English Dictionary. The word implies that one has an awareness that goes beyond the accumulation of knowledge and includes a sensitivity for alternative explanations and a propensity to listen to the voices of those that are not represented in mainstream discourse. Whitney House, an African American activist, describes woke as a state where one’s primary tool to fight for social justice is one’s mind, which is informed and ready.5 If you look back at our conflict transformation framework, you will see one of the four pathways has “unknowing” at the bottom and “woke” at the top. Our goal, therefore, in this chapter, is to examine our personal journey to becoming woke and the tactics we can use to transform our communities through knowledge, education and critical analysis. This is our mission because very often, individuals and communities lack awareness and critical analysis of important issues. Awareness is a necessary component of creating a culture of peace and creating a foundation for problem-solving.



74

Chapter Six

Awareness and Understanding: From “Unknowing” to “Woke”

75

Building Awareness through Peace Education In Chapter Two (conflict analysis) we examined the tactics parties used in addressing conflict. When there is a history of the same tactics being used over and over (whether successful or not), we referred to this as the “platform.” To review, a platform consists of those cultural practices that parties have used over time to address conflicts. We can adopt this term to refer to awareness as well. For example, what is our cultural platform for dealing with new ideas? Are we closed to new ways of thinking? Do we embrace innovation, even when it feels a bit threatening? One way in which our “platform” can be positively influenced is through education (both formal and informal). Essentially, by becoming woke, we engage in the process of building a culture of peace, which is the foundation or platform on which to engage in problem-solving or reconciliation. Peace education has a broad goal of equipping individuals and groups with the skills to address conflict effectively and to prevent the use of violence in conflict. Peace education promotes the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values to bring about behaviour changes that will assist children, youth and adults to prevent conflict and violence (both direct and structural), to resolve conflict peacefully; and to create the conditions conducive to peace, whether at an intrapersonal, interpersonal, intergroup, national or international level.6 The United Nations considers peace education a foundational component of public school education. There are dozens of innovative examples from around the world of where peace education has profoundly improved the “platform”, or addressed awareness of important social issues. One such example comes from Zambia, where Issa Ebombolo, a public school teacher, implemented “Peace Clubs” as an extra-curricular club at his school. The club was a response to violence among the students and a means to also address violence that was occurring in their homes. The result was that young people, particularly girls, learned skills to recognize violence, to confront violence, to solve conflicts non-violently and also to educate others. The peace clubs became so successful that they have expanded into more than 15 countries including Canada and throughout Africa and South America. Thus, in some very profound ways, the “platform” for addressing conflict in many schools is transforming into a culture of peace. An additional and important outcome of peace education is to equip people with the skills of critical analysis, to change the “platform” so that individuals and communities have the agency to evaluate new ideas as well as long-held practices. Critical analysis means the ability to question, evaluate and challenge set assumptions and ideas.8 Critical analysis is



76

Chapter Six

fundamental to help us navigate our way through fake news, and our “post-truth” culture. “Post-truth” refers to the idea that objective facts are less influential in shaping political debate or public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief. It cautions us to be wary of appeals to our emotions (such as fear) while forsaking facts. Even facts, presented as statistics, graphs and charts, can be manipulated and used for the purposes of propaganda. We require some basic skills in understanding complex concepts such as probability and statistical significance. It requires us to ask questions about our information: what is the source of the information? What are the underlying biases? What is the methodology? What do the critics say? There is a risk in building campaigns on contentious issues based only on information that supports our pre-existing beliefs. We can simply confront ignorance with more ignorance if we are not critical consumers of information. When I have strong views on a particular issue, I find it helpful to check my biases by reviewing information (facts, statistics and perspectives) from the opposing viewpoint. The result may be a valid challenge to my viewpoint, or if the alternate information does not survive a critical analysis, a strengthening of my viewpoint. Thus, peace education is a pathway to achieving authentic awareness of the issues around us.

Barriers to Effective Awareness Building Raising awareness in order to transform a conflict takes time and resources. Thus, it behooves one to do it effectively to achieve social transformation and therefore, it is worth our while to take a bit of time to understand factors that inhibit individuals and groups from being woke. Sometimes a lack of awareness is simply a case of a lack of information. Often, however, it is much more complicated than that. In the following paragraphs, we will examine several barriers to creating awareness.

1. Facts and figures If building awareness is simply a case of providing information, the task is not that complicated. Your task is simply to gather the relevant (and accurate) information and to disseminate it effectively. As mentioned above, information is often disseminated with facts, statistics and graphs. The challenge with presenting data is that often the issue at hand has cultural and emotional components to it. We can take climate change as an example. If you want to increase awareness of how climate change may affect your local environment, presenting authentic and well-researched

Awareness and Understanding: From “Unknowing” to “Woke”

77

information could be effective among groups that are not threatened by this information. For some people, climate change represents an emotional and cognitive threat. Climate change may challenge someone’s ideological or religious beliefs, one’s livelihood or stoke one’s fears. It is important to analyze this resistance from a point of curiosity rather than from a point of judgment, in order to seek solutions. Cognitive dissonance is a response when we are confronted with information that goes against our deeply entrenched understanding of a particular issue. The result can be an emotionally uncomfortable reaction. Sometimes the discomfort of cognitive dissonance encourages us to adopt a stance of “unknowing” and to seek more information. Sometimes, however, we react defensively, and instead seek ways in which to reinforce or consolidate our pre-existing beliefs. We shut down our willingness to accept the challenge and actively resist information that disputes our viewpoint. Thus, if your strategy to build awareness is simply disseminating scientific data, you likely will meet resistance from significant segments of any community. In fact, cognitive dissonance experiments have demonstrated that providing people with scientific facts alone is more likely to have the opposite impact – people will become even more firmly entrenched in their previously held views. For example, people who believed that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction tended not to change their minds, even after it was officially determined that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found.9 Instead, they became more convinced they were right. A number of other social psychological mechanisms also influence our ability to build awareness. One is called confirmation bias. Confirmation bias refers to the common phenomenon where we access, notice and take in only information that corresponds to our pre-existing beliefs. Any information that challenges our knowledge is consciously or unconsciously ignored. With attribution bias, a similar process is at work. When someone whom we identify as the “other” (for example, someone on the opposing side of an entrenched conflict that is drawn along lines of identity) does something “bad”, we attribute this behavior to the core of their being. Conversely, if someone who shares our identity (for example, someone on “our side” of an entrenched conflict) commits the same infraction, we attribute the action to some kind of aberration that is uncharacteristic of the person’s honorable personality. If you really admire a certain politician, a serious personal indiscretion (such as an extra-marital affair) may easily be forgiven as an uncharacteristic aberration. If you really loathe a certain politician, such an indiscretion would be a confirmation of



78

Chapter Six

their core immoral character and might be grounds for you to call for their resignation. It is important to realize that all human beings have these biases, not just those whom we disagree with! Of course, if we are aware of them and therefore consciously work to minimize their impact on our thoughts and decisions, we do not need to be condemned by them. As we learned earlier, as conflicts escalate, the problem shifts from the issue to the person – so that the person is now the problem! It’s as if we like to give a face to our problems!

2. Too much analysis, not enough hope! As a post-secondary educator in Peace and Justice Studies, one of my primary goals is to nurture skills of critical analysis in my students. After a great class, I feel energized when students respond with comments such as “eye-opening” and “transformative.” However, sometimes these same students respond to class readings or discussions with words such “depressing” and “hopeless.” My years of classroom experience have left me with a persistent discomfort that developing a critical analysis of our world has the unintentional result of instilling hopelessness for the future. It seems that when we develop the skills of critical analysis, we run the risk of critiquing everything. We become aware of everything that is wrong and every new idea is judged by all the things wrong about it. We can become paralyzed. We run the risk of losing hope. Hopelessness for the future is a significant barrier to mobilizing ourselves to build awareness in others and ourselves. We can be lulled into tuning out rather than turning up. For this reason, I think it is important to emphasise that while increased awareness can trouble our hearts, the answer is to seek hope rather than to close our eyes. The quote at the start of this chapter encourages us to “hold each other” as we uncover new understandings – we need to support and encourage ourselves and our allies. I am drawn to educator Darren Webb’s concept of Patient Hope.10 Patient Hope is underpinned by the notion that we, as human beings, are on a journey and as such, we acknowledge that regardless of where we may be, there is a basic trust in ourselves and others and an underlying hope in the goodness in all. While Patient Hope does not allow for passive acceptance of injustice, it is characterized by patience, humility and silence. Patience is a primary trait of this form of hope so that we are allowed to view one another without a sense of rushed urgency but rather trust that each of our journeys has the potential to bring goodness to our collective existence. It is not an uncritical acceptance of ignorance, but

Awareness and Understanding: From “Unknowing” to “Woke”

79

rather an instilled hesitance to dismiss another human being. A call to be hopeful is a call to mobilize for a better future.

3. Misreading cues If you are reading this book, chances are that you believe that human rights are important. You may strongly believe in campaigns that focus on freedom of the press, equal rights for the lesbian/gay (LGBT) community, the abolishment of torture, and so on. You may even have taken part in a regional or global campaign to raise awareness on these human rights issues. If you have, you may have developed an understanding of the sensitivities that human rights awareness campaigns need to consider. I illustrate this with several examples. As of 2016, Homosexuality was illegal in 34 of Africa’s 56 nations,11 so it stands to reason that many activists would be passionate about this human rights issue. Bernadine Evaristo, a novelist of Nigerian descent, argues that homosexuality is as much a part of African culture as it is anywhere else. She argues, however, that centuries of imposition of colonial morality has detrimentally resulted in many current politicians who are adamantly anti-gay; leaders who, paradoxically, refer to LGBT human rights awareness campaigns as a new form of colonialism.12 With homophobia now firmly entrenched in much of mainstream African culture, raising awareness on homophobia is not viewed through a lens of human rights, but rather through a lens suspicious of western colonialism. In many parts of Southeast Asia, child prostitution is an international human rights tragedy, where children who are desperately poor are forced (sometimes by their own families) to engage in the sex trade in order to survive. Anthropologist Heather Montgomery reports that international human rights campaigns, led by western activists, have angered some of the impoverished communities that they were meant to help. Many in these communities have complained that campaigns to abolish the sex trade ignore the more fundamental human rights to basic needs of food and shelter. In the small town of Baan Nua, ensuring a child’s right to be free from sexual exploitation has often led to violating their rights to live with their families and their communities and to the basic necessities of food, clothing and shelter. Enforcing one right would mean infringing others that the children claim to value more. Community members wonder why westerners are so interested in abolishing the sex trade when they don’t seem to be aware of or concerned about the underlying conditions of abject poverty.13



80

Chapter Six

These two examples are cautionary tales which demonstrate that campaigns to raise awareness on important issues need to take into account the full complement of the realities of the lives of the victims. Awareness campaigns that do not engage the priorities of the people they are intended to help can be viewed as elitist, or colonial.

Putting into Practice Based on the challenges, here are some pieces of advice to help you in building awareness.

1. Use honey, not vinegar, if you want to attract interest Construct your message so that people do not react with defensiveness. The way we communicate with people has a significant impact on how they respond to our message. This includes verbal cues (the words we choose) and nonverbal cues (voice tone, body language and facial expressions). A simple example of this is a study conducted in Australia on the impact of police officer communication with drivers who are receiving traffic fines. Handing someone a traffic ticket is typically met with defensiveness and argumentation. However, in this randomized controlled trial, police officers who conveyed their message with respect and fairness were met with significantly higher compliance than the control group. Reducing defensiveness is a key to making your message effective. Many strategies for accomplishing this are surprisingly simple, but they do not come naturally (or rather, were never taught to us!). On the interpersonal level, using “I” statements deflects any feeling of being attacked, and permits the receiver to better understand your concern. An “I” statement focusses on how one has been personally impacted (using the language of needs and feelings) rather than resorting to judgments on why someone might have done a certain act. “I” statements also open up the speaker to being vulnerable, which, as we have already discussed, is a key to connecting two people through empathy and compassion. Seth Stephens-Davidovitz offers a noteworthy example of how crafting a message can significantly improve its positive impact. Stephens-Davidovitz has used large data sets, such as anonymous internet searches to measure people’s candid responses to social messages. He juxtaposes large-scale responses to two of former US president Barack Obama’s speeches aimed at raising awareness on Islamophobia in the United States. In one speech, Obama’s tone took on a chastising nature – admonishing people for not standing up against racism. The result? Subsequent anonymous internet

Awareness and Understanding: From “Unknowing” to “Woke”

81

searches in the United States revealed a surge in seeking information that would support racist ideologies. In contrast, Obama later made a speech that instead simply highlighted the accomplishments of a number of Americans who happened to be Muslim. The result this time? A drop in anonymous internet searches for racist content and a spike in searches seeking information on Muslims in America. Stephens-Davidovitz convincingly argues that the data suggest that “preaching” to people or admonishing them on their poor behavior has poor outcomes and often paradoxically reinforces problematic beliefs. By simply suggesting, without being confrontational, that Muslims are an integral part of the American social fabric, people’s resistance was outperformed by their curiosity.14

2. Use fun and humor If you are proposing a new way of framing an issue (be it anything from a new way for the family to reduce water consumption to reimagining a more socially just way to measure national economic growth) it is important to realize that new ideas always face an uphill battle. Existing perspectives on any topic are consensually shared and rather stable, whereas new ideas often become associated with embroiled conflict so that we take pleasure in shooting both the message and the messenger.15 Popovic suggests this uphill battle calls for the adoption of non-traditional strategies, like using fun and humour. Popovic describes how citizens of the Maldives initiated social gatherings to share rice pudding as a means of garnering support to oust their long-standing dictator.16 Without speeches and pamphlets, rice pudding quickly became a universally accepted symbol of resistance to the political oppression. Another light-hearted tactic has been the simple but collective act of banging on pots (called caserolazo, coined from successful campaigns throughout South America). This tactic was most recently used in Quebec in 2012 to raise awareness of university student concerns over government plans to substantially raise tuition fees. The practical benefit of pot banging is that the message is transmitted in a simple and straightforward way and the people can participate without even leaving their homes.17

3. Tell a story Anthropologist Edward Chamberlin tells of an encounter in Northern British Columbia, between colonial land claimers and Indigenous leaders whose presence on the land spanned countless generations. In response to



82

Chapter Six

the colonial claims to the land, the Indigenous leaders asked: If this is your land, where are your stories?18 Paul Born, in his accounts of community meetings that have brought groups together on contentious issues, summarizes these processes: Once I hear your story, I am no longer afraid.19 Outside academia, people have been telling stories since time immemorial as a way to increase awareness. Storytelling, because it relates to real-life activities and persons, reaches people on an empathic level that is often likely to make an impact. Storytelling has long been a part of social movements as a way of teaching and motivating.20 Storytelling can be particularly impactful when building understanding between two very socially distant groups who believe they have nothing in common. Stories connect across differences.

4. Choose the right issue to unite disparate groups In Srdja Popovic’s book Blueprint for Revolution, the student leader of the movement to oust the Serbian dictator counsels a group of Maldivian activists who want to do the same in their country, during the last years of dictator Gayoom. With a group of Maldivian activists, Popovic facilitated some role plays where each activist had to act out the frustrations of a member of a different group in Maldivian society. As mentioned in previous discussions, the perspective put forward by the activist was that “western”-based human rights themes such as freedom of the press were not going to reach the hearts of the average Maldivian. Therefore, by roleplaying the views of different stakeholders of Maldivian society, the participants greatly expanded their focus to issues such as honesty, being paid a fair wage, and safety, all of which were issues that resonated with the public. Unfortunately, in many countries around the world, the law enforcement agents are reviled by protesters, but Popovic reminds us that “a policeman is just a man in a police uniform, and that we shouldn’t pick a fight with him. If we spoke to the policeman as if he were one of us, he might just decide to become one of us.”21 Paul Born’s understanding of “unknowing” resonates with this need to not only see the perceived “other” as a potential ally, but to consider them a source of information and strategy for the cause. “I cannot get to a place of unknowing by myself or with those who think like I do. But it is to that place of unknowing that I need to go if I am ever to know.”22

Awareness and Understanding: From “Unknowing” to “Woke”

83

5. Don’t make knowledge divisible Knowledge is political. Information has a way of dividing us into ideological camps. If you are a conservative, you likely believe this. If you are an activist, you probably do things that way! Often we are afraid to listen to someone because of their political affiliation. For the same reason, sometimes people will not listen to you. Reflect on barriers that labels present. At the same time, people who are involved in building awareness can be seen as thinking of themselves as socially superior, and thus may be received with suspicion or contempt. Make sure any tactics aimed at building awareness are not going to be interpreted as an activity to convert the ignorant. Many well-intentioned campaigns make people feel intimidated because they perceive the message is meant to highlight their ignorance.

6. Respond to resistance gently Up to this point, we have spent a lot of time focussing on communitysized conflicts and issues. I want to stress that our approaches also apply to interpersonal conflicts. We hesitate to raise a sensitive topic with someone who is close to us. We hesitate because we are afraid of offending them and ultimately of losing their friendship. However, if you determine that a certain issue warrants “bringing into awareness”, you will need to initiate a difficult conversation. One of the main themes of this book is the importance of speaking in a way that the other party will hear without becoming defensive. Defensiveness is a psychological coping mechanism that potentially prepares us to fight or retreat, and often bypasses our ability to think rationally and empathically due to our brain mechanisms. Imagine you are a member of a group in your community that is attempting to address environmental issues through a campaign to eliminate the use of plastic bags. At your booth at a summer festival, you are confronted by an angry and aggressive person who calls you names and insists that your campaign has the sole aim of putting his grocery store out of business. I have been in a similar situation and recall not responding very well. I have also witnessed others in this kind of situation respond by simply repeating the same rational argument repeatedly, while the person is getting angrier and angrier. Without searching for unmet needs (for example, not being heard), such a confrontation can easily escalate. When emotions escalate, rational arguments offer very little. Rather, situations like



84

Chapter Six

this require us to quickly access our communication toolbox for specific ways to de-escalate emotions and to address the underlying unmet needs. One such skill is called the CLARA method, after its acronym. The CLARA can be used when someone who is very angry confronts you. The CLARA method offers a straightforward process to address the unmet needs that are behind strong anger or other emotion. The method acknowledges that no one is capable of engaging in a rational discussion or problemsolving as long as strong emotions are not assuaged. A great example of the CLARA method can be found in the box on the next page. While the CLARA method illustrates how to respond to someone who is bold enough to confront you, all too often, people will stay silent or retreat when exposed to information with which they strongly disagree. Confrontation at least provides an opportunity for connection; retreating means that you have little chance to influence others. A key, then, is to provide forums where people should be allowed to speak, even if what they say is ignorant or offensive. For a great example of creating safe spaces for “ignorance” to transform into “unknowing” I refer to the inspirational Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) television series called The Eighth Fire. This series is a documentary that explores Canada’s new consciousness around colonialism, racism and the need for a nationwide reconciliation regarding the harm done to Indigenous nations. It is true that there is a growing interest among non-Indigenous Canadians in exploring these themes, but at the same time, many continue to harbour beliefs that those problems belong in the past and any harm committed by past generations is not our problem. The documentary is a beautiful example of education and awareness-building conducted in a way to avoid defensiveness, aimed at people who, for lack of a better word, are ignorant about the history of First Peoples of Canada and the legacy of colonialism. In one of the episodes, the film takes us through the transformation of an elderly settler farmer through a presentation at a cultural centre in Saskatchewan. The farmer believed the solution to current issues of poverty and discrimination was for young Indigenous people to work hard, get an education and move on from the past. The Indigenous educator acknowledged the man’s values of hard work, fairness and honesty (values that the farmer initially believed were antithetical to the modern day struggle for reconciliation) and allowed the farmer to see the history through those very values. For the first time, the elderly farmer saw himself on the same side as the struggle for reconciliation, because he personally connected with the injustices committed. He was able to do this on a very human level that did not threaten his core identity.23 This is an example where stories can be much more effective in raising awareness and building understanding and empathy than facts and figures can.

Awareness and Understanding: From “Unknowing” to “Woke”

85

Practice Box: Responding to an Angry Confrontation: The CLARA Method24 Below is an example provided by Nonviolent Peaceforce, that exemplifies how one of their volunteers might respond to someone who believes that advocating for nonviolence is a serious threat to core values of national security and patriotism. Note the letters C-L-A-R-A represent the 5 steps in the process of how the volunteer responds to a confrontation. Instead of challenging the core values, the volunteer seeks to connect with these core values. A volunteer is staffing an information booth on the work of nonviolent, unarmed civilian peacekeepers as an alternative to military deployments. The volunteer notices an angry person approaching. The angry person identifies themselves as a war veteran and a police officer. (C= CALMING - takes 3 conscious slow deep breathes and says to self “I will get calm so I can listen well”) Angry Person: Hey, I just got back from Afghanistan. You guys must be crazy to think you can end this war without guns. (L= LISTENING authentically to understand the other’s perspective) Volunteer: Sounds like we both want to find ways to end this conflict. (A = AFFIRMING and acknowledging common ground) Angry Person: That’s right and I resent you folks for trivializing the risks we took by thinking you can do it without guns. Volunteer: I think that we both feel in awe of the enormous risks it takes to end violent conflict. (A = AFFIRMING and acknowledging common ground) Angry Person: It doesn’t feel like that because you think the troops aren’t doing anything good. You want to bring them home. The only way we can do that is through a focused strategic war effort. (L = LISTENING for common ground) Volunteer: (Wondering aloud): I guess we both want us to use our very best strategies for keeping people alive. (A = AFFIRMING and acknowledging common ground) Angry Person: I guess I do hope that you can reduce the need for war. (notice shift to calm and curious)



Chapter Six

86

Volunteer, (noticing person’s shift to calm and curious): Yes, I think we can train people in techniques which deescalate conflict and decrease violence. (R = RESPONDING respectfully) Volunteer: (A = ADDING information to support the connection with the other person) May I ask a question: as a police officer, you must get many domestic violence calls. Do you charge in with your club raised and your guns drawn or do you try to calm or mediate the situation? Angry Person, calming down: You’re right. I do try to calm the situation first and then mediate. Volunteer: (A= ADDING INFORMATION and AFFIRMING COMMON GROUND) That’s exactly what Nonviolent Peaceforce does in several conflicts. Would you like to read this at home? Affirming common ground may work because it meets human needs for belonging – making a safe relationship, influence and mastery, freedom. Exercising patience and persistence to convey that you are on their side looking at the problem together with them gives an experience of belonging and support, even without agreement.

7. Use anger strategically .

Anger is a powerful force. If you are building awareness among people whom you consider your allies, anger can be used to channel energy to work for collective change and mobilize solidarity. If we are attempting to build awareness among people that might be hesitant or that are socially distant, expressing one’s anger can be interpreted in ways that impede their ability to empathize and understand.25 Anger triggers defensiveness. Activists who belong to oppressed groups will argue that they have every right to be angry. This is very true. However, understanding cognitive processes such as mirror neurons and empathy, is advantageous if our aim is to be as effective as possible. In advising activists to examine their anger, it is also necessary to critique our societal expectation that activists need to be “nice and respectful.” Activist Austin Channing Brown reminds us that it is the “nice” people (those who maintain and benefit from unjust structures) who need to see beyond the anger of disadvantaged people to hear their stories.26

Awareness and Understanding: From “Unknowing” to “Woke”

87

Awareness is only Half the Battle We know that awareness alone does not automatically lead to behavior change or transformation. As human beings, we continue to engage in all kinds of activities that are poor financial choices, bad for our health or bad for the environment even after we become well-informed. In other words, building awareness is necessary, but not sufficient to effect positive change. Let’s imagine that we have implemented a conflict transformation process that followed the strategies of the last three chapters; we now will have achieved balanced power, trust among disputing parties and a high level of awareness about what the issue is. We’re pretty much ready to engage in the final step of problem-solving. But first, we are going to take a closer look at group and individual conflict transformation skills in the next chapter.



88

Chapter Six

Main Points of this Chapter In order to transform conflict, we need to acquire expertise in managing information. Building awareness, in yourself and among your community is one of the four pathways to building a culture of peace. “Unknowing” is a good place where we can begin – a state of openness and curiosity that helps us be authentically open to critical analyses and alternative perspectives. Being “woke” means having achieved a critical analysis of important social issues, and understanding that one’s mind is our most powerful tool to working towards a culture of peace and through a process of conflict transformation. Peace education refers to equipping individuals and groups with strategies to address conflict effectively and to prevent the use of violence. Facts and rational arguments are not effective when strong emotions or fixed ideologies are present. Cognitive dissonance, along with other perception issues such as confirmation bias and attribution bias need to be considered when building awareness. Our efforts to build awareness can be more effective if we balance critical analysis with hope. Storytelling is an effective method of increasing awareness as it has the potential to connect polarized groups through empathy. Reflection Questions Think of a time when you tried to inform someone of your point of view, or educate someone on an important topic. What were some factors that made your efforts successful? What were some factors that made your efforts challenging? How do you respond when someone disputes your point of view?

CHAPTER SEVEN BUILDING SKILLS: FROM PASSION TO COMPETENCE

“If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together. Lila Watson1

Introduction If you have made it this far, you must be committed! Maybe you’re even passionate! In my own experience, I have worked with a lot of different individuals and groups on many very important social issues, and the one word that comes to mind to describe my colleagues is passion. If we refer back to the conflict transformation framework, the fourth and final pathway is from passion to competence. It is important to emphasize that these two terms are not opposites. Rather, passion represents energy, potential, a good starting place, and a resource that supports people as they gain experience, skills and wisdom to become the best conflict transformation practitioner they can be. In this chapter, we take time to reflect on how to channel passion into effective ways to enhance conflict transformation. We also pay special attention to the challenges of working in conflict transformation: burnout and intra-group conflict. We have discussed many specific skills thus far that individuals and groups can utilize, which emphasize that the most important tool in conflict transformation is ourselves. As an analogy, if you are a bicycle courier, your main instrument is your bicycle, and thus bicycle maintenance is crucial. In conflict transformation, it is equally crucial to maintain the main instrument of creating a culture of peace – yourself and your colleagues. Competence, then, is the word we are using to represent a state where we understand and engage in maintaining ourselves to be the best tools for peace possible.

90

Chapter Seven

Circle of Support As I have mentioned already, I am writing this book while living in rural Guatemala, in a small cooperative that is comprised of about 400 people. The cooperative was founded twenty years ago by a group of excombatants from the long and bloody Guatemalan Civil War. When the peace accords were signed in 1996 between the army and the guerrillas, this small group of guerrillas turned in their weapons but had nowhere to go to, as their villages had been burned and their families had been killed. They made the bold decision to reintegrate into civilian life together, realizing that they had more power and influence if they worked collectively rather than individually. They joined forces because they wanted to create a better life for their children and to continue their struggle for social justice in Guatemala non-violently.2 I have noticed that this community interacts in ways that are new to me, as I am a product of the dominant North American individualist society. Although this community is very poor in terms of individual wealth (at least by “judgy” North American standards), they boast cooperatively run stores and agricultural projects and businesses, whose profits are shared among all the members. The raising of children and the caring for the sick and elderly still seem to be held as a community effort. Recently, a man died and the entire school shut down so that all the children could attend the wake. These examples demonstrate a way of being where everyone is part of a large circle of support - and also responsibility. This differs, in my opinion, from the dominant culture of Canada, where our typical “circle of support” is comprised of our immediate family or household, which is shrinking significantly according to recent statistics. Outside of our family, we expect the state to take care of people who have fallen into difficult circumstances. The circles of support we develop are often formed out of necessity, and in Guatemala, the cooperative of Nuevo Horizonte has created that support for a group of people with few resources in a country with virtually no social safety net. People still get divorced and there is sometimes jealousy and resentment over the competition for jobs and other scarce resources, but their circle of support encourages tolerance and a certain quiet commitment to working together in spite of differences of opinion and personality conflicts. Their commitment to work together and to support each other has become a way of life.3 I share this account with you in order to promote the concept of the “circle of support.” I believe this is relevant to conflict transformation in two ways. First, when we are in conflict with individuals or groups, it is

Building Skills: From Passion to Competence

91

worth noting that we respond in different ways, both emotionally and also in the strategies we choose to address the conflict. First, with those in our circle of support, we engage in conflict in a way that requires us to keep functioning together. If our circle of support is our immediate family, we can have really big arguments, but usually the outcome is forgiveness, reconciliation or at least tolerance. Breaking relations with them is usually not an option, so we figure out how to best coexist. Second, a circle of support can be created (as with most things, they are socially constructed!), and can thus be a tool to assist activists who are working together to achieve peace and justice against what seems are indelible odds.

Supporting Colleagues Emotional support for those working for peace and justice is a critical issue. Researchers Borski and Chen contend that emotional and physical burnout are major consequences of being an activist. Burnout manifests itself in feeling hopeless, discouraged and overwhelmed,4 potentially resulting from the large emotional and time investments that activists make. Our reluctance to intentionally support ourselves and each other is evident in a study of Amnesty International volunteers, which Rodgers describes a “culture of selflessness,” where discussions among volunteer activists about self-care or even personal interests were treated with suspicion.5 By becoming woke, activists additionally carry a burden of knowledge that ordinary citizens do not. Moreover, researchers Vaccaro and Mena encourage us to consider that people who belong to marginalized groups face an additional layer of anxiety, stress and emotional exhaustion due to the embedded racism and discrimination in large scale social movements that we are just now beginning to examine more honestly. If we want to ensure that our passion is not crushed, we need to devote time to self-care and to the mutual support of each other. There is a wellknown quote by American author Margaret Mead: "Never underestimate the power of a small group of committed people to change the world. In fact, it is the only thing that ever has."6 Although this quote has always inspired me, it neglects to consider the amount of work that a small group of committed people have to do. In reality, they fight all the time, they break up into factions and key people quit due to burnout. Sometimes I think it is only by incredible luck or fortune that these small groups ever get to achieve anything! I personally have seen small groups of activists implode due to personality clashes and due to ungluing along racial and



92

Chapter Seven

gender lines that even the best of intentions and passion for justice could not hold together.

Developing Internal Conflict Transformation Mechanisms Let’s take a few paragraphs to expand on the other complexity of activism: intra-group conflict. Even though we have already defined conflict and discussed it a great deal in this book, intra-group conflict amongst those engaged in social change still warrants a dedicated discussion. Activist groups are especially prone to conflict for several reasons, including the amount of labor-intensive work (planning, strategizing and organizing) that is done in groups, the personal sacrifices members make to engage in activism, and the vulnerabilities faced when challenging strongly entrenched societal injustices. All of these stressors can exacerbate the normal tensions that any group encounters. Activism is both stressful and exhilarating. Activism can be life-giving when we join with other inspirational people to tackle important issues. It can bring additional meaning to our lives through a sense of belonging and a sense of purpose. These are strengths that we need to support. Sometimes, however, activist groups become vulnerable to dysfunctional social dynamics just like any other group. Stressful situations can impact group norms in ways that decrease flexibility and openness to alternative viewpoints, and group leaders can take advantage of stressful dynamics to create a culture where collaboration is replaced with authoritarianism. Group loyalty becomes fixed and dissent is discouraged “for the sake of the movement.” When a community conflict escalates, groups can fixate on their positions – not only in relation to the other party, but also in their internal dynamics. Social-psychologist Herbert Kelman cautions that group leaders may find it easier to mobilize group loyalty through escalating tension, creating polarized positions and even dehumanizing the “other.” The mobilization of group loyalties favors rallying around a common enemy rather than towards collaborative problem-solving with an opposing group.7 “In intense conflicts, the dominant response, dictated by the habits and norms of the conflict, is likely to be aggressive and escalatory…at the level of decision-making groups, crisis decision making often leads to groupthink processes. To maintain the cohesiveness of the group, the members studiously avoid any actions that might break the evolving consensus. Thus they are reluctant to ask questions, offer criticisms, or propose different approaches and alternative solutions to the problem.”8

Building Skills: From Passion to Competence

93

Putting into Practice The following advice focusses on how you, as someone who is committed to building a culture of peace, can improve your own effectiveness by cultivating your skill set.

1. Step one: breathe When you find yourself in a crisis, confronted by someone who is outraged or by some trigger that makes you feel very uncomfortable, you need to respond in a way that will calm yourself. Calming yourself will allow your brain to move past the strong emotions to access problemsolving and critical thinking skills. One self-calming strategy is to imagine a situation that makes you feel really wonderful – safe, happy and comfortable. It helps if the image has some physical characteristic that can be conjured up by the imagination. For example, some people imagine holding a large affectionate cat. Some imagine holding a baby. The key is to choose one technique that works for you and then to practice it repeatedly before you need it because this action is difficult to do in the heat of a crisis. Many people have incorporated mindfulness activities as part of their everyday life. Mindfulness practices can increase awareness of one’s own emotions and sensations and have been associated with less burnout in stressful situations.9

2. Become a compassionate communicator It takes skill and practice to communicate well. That includes delivering and receiving information. We mentioned in Chapter One that conflict transformation involves the acts: to be, to know and to do. Communication is all about doing and being. I highly recommend taking a basic course in communication. For example, Nonviolent Communication, the system developed by Dr. Marshall Rosenberg, is widely available throughout communities in North America and beyond.10 Similarly, consider taking a basic course in mediation. The communication skills you will learn in mediation not only prepare you to assist other parties in their conflicts, but also assist you to refine your own communication skills. Finally, practice listening. Start out by monitoring how the people around you listen. Then monitor your own practices. Take note of how you determine whether someone you are listening to has authentically felt heard and understood.



94

Chapter Seven

3. Build trust We cannot take trust for granted. Initial meetings of a newly formed small group tend to be filled with excitement and eagerness to get started, so building trust may not be seen as a priority, especially since such processes take time away from other group activities. However, slowing down and taking time to nurture relationships and acknowledge how we are feeling has beneficial results that are not measured in deadlines and outcomes. Authors Kraybill and Wright suggest that a simple check-in at the beginning of meetings, while sitting in a circle, can facilitate trust and feelings of well-being among group participants.11 Co-creating a list of ground rules can also explicitly nurture common values and can be helpful in navigating contentious conversations.

Building Skills: From Passion to Competence

95

4. Be nice to others (and to yourself) As we mentioned in the last chapter, we can go overboard with our critical analysis to the point where we can find fault in everything. As activists, we are encouraged to learn the critical angle on everything from the latest movie producer to our bath soap. There are so many problems in the world that we can become overwhelmed in our quest to get it all straight. Sometimes, we find ourselves using this newly honed skill of critical analysis to be critical of those close to us in the struggle and critical of ourselves. Our self-criticism results in an over-arching anxiety of questioning whether we are adequate enough. Frances Lee, who identifies as a queer person of color and a social activist, describes her own fear of not feeling radical enough, of being afraid that speaking publicly on any issue will be met with righteous scrutiny from those who are deemed wiser on social issues. Lee states “The amount of energy I spend demonstrating purity in order to stay in the good graces of the fastmoving activist community is enormous. Activists are some of the judgiest people I’ve ever met, myself included. There’s so much wrongdoing in the world that we work to expose. And yet, grace and forgiveness are hard to come by in these circles.”12 I believe Lee’s fear of saying the wrong thing strikes a chord with many of us. Some of us may choose to remain silent rather than risk being shot down in a conversation or a social media platform. Exposing all the wrongdoing in our world requires more than just critical thinking. It requires us to work towards solutions and in so doing, we need more solidarity and less tearing apart those small components of our lives (and others’ lives) that are not perfect. On the other hand, solidarity means joining with people (just like ourselves) who make mistakes, who have blind spots, and whose analysis is incomplete and supporting them in spite of their shortcomings. Activism means taking the time to support the tireless volunteers who are working without achieving any personal recognition or gain. Conflict transformation means that you consider when it is time to forgive and move on.

5. Set up mechanisms to deal with group conflict It would be amazing if groups would establish (and practice) conflict transformation tactics as part of their process of forming. However, in reality, this is not a common practice. Dominic Barter, a Brazilian activist, formulated a technique called Restorative Circles that invites new groups to develop and nurture a conflict transformation culture before any



96

Chapter Seven

conflicts actually occur – essentially establishing a culture of peace within a working group. This method has been adopted by groups as diverse as elementary school classes to youth groups, in order to nurture relationships and foster respect and ultimately, to use conflict as an opportunity for potential positive change.13 An activity that utilizes the same principles as Restorative Circles is called a discernment circle. This activity is only one of many variations of the circle process where groups come together to work through difficult issues. The discernment circle slows down the process of communication when group members are angry or upset, to ensure that each person understands what the other is saying, and at the same time, ensures that people feel understood. This exercise is effective in “clearing the air” and can be used best before problem-solving or strategizing begins, to establish trust and understanding in a group. An example of a discernment circle in practice can be found in the Practice Box below.

Building Skills: From Passion to Competence

97

Practice Box: Discernment Circle Set-up A circle is constructed – a semi-circle of chairs (one for every participant) and three empty chairs at the front of the semi-circle, and one empty chair on the inside of the circle, facing out toward the three empty chairs. The three empty chairs are designated “speakers’ chairs” The chair in the middle is designated “listener chair” Process The facilitator The facilitator begins by asking relevant and open ended questions, such as: “What makes it difficult to come to work in the morning?” “Something that has been challenging over the past months is _______.” “An area where I feel that there has been misunderstanding among our work team is ____.” Someone volunteers to be the first speaker and moves to the first speaker chair (the additional two chairs are set up in case there is a line-up to speak. People can sit in chairs 2 and 3 and wait their turn to speak.) The speaker responds to a focus question. The speaker chooses anyone from the circle to sit in the listener chair facing her/him. The listener may be someone with whom they share rapport, or a person with whom they have had tensions that need to be resolved. The speaker discusses only one issue per “sitting”, but anyone can return to the speaker chair as often as they like. The speaker speaks from her/his own experience and addresses the listener directly (using I-messages about actions, their intent, impact/ effect on them, but not others’ intent).



98

Chapter Seven

The speaker Someone volunteers to be the first speaker and moves to the first speaker chair (the additional two chairs are set up in case there is a line-up to speak. People can sit in chairs 2 and 3 and wait their turn to speak.) The speaker responds to a focus question. The speaker chooses anyone from the circle to sit in the listener chair facing her/him. The listener may be someone with whom they share rapport, or a person with whom they have had tensions that need to be resolved. The speaker discusses only one issue per “sitting”, but anyone can return to the speaker chair as often as they like. The speaker speaks from her/his own experience and addresses the listener directly (using I-messages about actions, their intent, impact/effect on them, but not others’ intent). The listener The listener is chosen by the speaker. The listen and speaker do not engage in dialogue – the listener only listens and paraphrases. The same listener cannot be chosen as listener twice in a row. The circle The other participants in the circle listen silently and respectfully (no side conversations). Ending the Process The process continues until everyone who wants to, has had an opportunity to speak and be heard.

Building Skills: From Passion to Competence

99

6. Practice self-care Lisa Schirch, who teaches Peace and Conflict Transformation in the United States, shares the story of how her young daughter reminded her that she needed to look after herself, during a particularly busy and stressful point in her community work. Schirch advises us all that we need to learn not only to “save” the world, but also to “savour” the world.14 I admit that telling someone to take care of themselves is a bit tricky. It can come off sounding patronizing or dismissive. Additionally, selfcare is a practice that is very individualized and varied. So, in an attempt to be more inspiring, I will share a story that involves my wife, Mary Ann Morris, who is a long-standing activist on human rights on Central America. Back in the early 1990’s we were accompanying Guatemalan refugees from Mexican refugee camps back to their homes in Guatemala. Our role was that of international observer, accompanier, and unarmed civilian peacekeeper. When our term was about to end, Mary Ann was distraught, as there seemed to be so much work to still be done. One of the Guatemalan elders took her aside and gave her this advice: Go home. Plant a garden. Have some children. These problems here are not yours alone to fix. When you feel good again in your own life, come back so that we can continue to work together in solidarity.



100

Chapter Seven

Main Points of this Chapter A circle of support is a constructed mechanism that brings together people who consciously care for each other in our most important matters of life and living. Although how we construct our circles of support is often dictated by dominant cultural norms, we have the ability to construct new circles of support that can assist us with conflict transformation. When contentious issues appear, people within a circle of support engage in conflict in a way that encourages people to stay connected. Burnout is a significant risk of engaging in activism and conflict transformation. Symptoms include feeling hopeless, discouraged and overwhelmed. Intra-group conflict can have significant detrimental effects on activists. Anticipating conflict by setting up mechanisms beforehand can reduce the negative impacts of intragroup conflict. There are a number of other skills that can help individuals and groups to improve their work. These include contemplative exercises, trustbuilding exercises, and communication skills development, particularly listening. To be an effective conflict transformation practitioner, it behooves you to engage in kindness to others in your struggle, and also to yourself. Reflection Questions Think of a group that you have wanted to join. What were the major challenges to working in the group? What did the group do (or what should the group have done) to address these challenges?

CHAPTER EIGHT PROBLEM SOLVING: PEACE IN ACTION

“As a Playwright, I’m used to the fantastic. I dream up all sorts of implausible things and put them in my plays. So this jolting experience of going from prison to standing before you today, I can adjust to this. But pity the poor political scientists who are trying to deal with what’s probable.” Vaclav Havel, First President of the Czech Republic1

Introduction We have arrived at a point that requires us to stop and reflect. In the last four chapters, we have discussed ways to address power, awareness, relationships and skills. According to our Conflict Transformation Framework, this brings us to our “foundation”, or our “culture of peace”, where we have strived to create the conditions that support us in effective problem-solving. In this chapter, we will explore this final component of the Conflict Transformation Framework. We will review three distinct case studies of problem-solving and also look at specific ideas to address the three stages of problem-solving: defining the problem, reviewing solutions and implementation. But first, I think it will be helpful to emphasize a few things.

1. Our foundation: culture of peace In this book, we have used the term “culture of peace” a number of times. At this point, I would like to emphasize that building a foundation with our four pathways (power, awareness, relationships and skills) is the same as building a culture of peace. We have described a culture of peace as a set of values, attitudes and modes of behavior that, among other things facilitates addressing conflict through nonviolent means, respect and mutual understanding. I suggest that our framework brings us to this very place, as represented in the diagram. I’d like to emphasize again that a

102

Chapter Eight

culture of peace is not an endpoint, a panacea or utopia. It is a dynamic, socially constructed platform; a set of values, beliefs and practices on which individuals and groups engage in conflict and seek justice.

2. Building our foundation is conflict prevention Our foundation is dynamic and thus needs nurturing and attention. One way that we do this is through peace education. Peace education equips us with skills and provides us with critical analysis and awareness to monitor and support our foundation for conflict transformation. Peace education nurtures our innately human traits of compassion and empathy and also the universal human need for fairness and justice.

3. Our foundation sets the stage for problem-solving The final task of this book is to explain the work of problem-solving. Problem-solving is a collaborative process of seeking solutions to mutually identified issues. Sometimes problem-solving is straightforward and happens easily. However, when we are talking about complex issues, probably one of the biggest mistakes that we tend to commit in our timesensitive, goal-oriented and outcomes-obsessed world is to engage in problem-solving too early or too quickly. If we have not addressed power dynamics, established trust, created full awareness and developed skills, it is difficult for authentic conflict transformation to transpire. This point helps us to understand why problem-solving is placed above the foundation (as per the diagram on page 31) – emphasizing that a strong foundation is needed before the work of problem-solving begins.

4. Problem-solving has many names To make the Conflict Transformation framework more flexible and understandable, we could replace the term problem-solving with other terms, such as negotiation or reconciliation. In any of these processes, a robust foundation is still highly beneficial. In order to better illustrate the Conflict Transformation Framework – particularly how the foundation sets the stage for problem-solving or reconciliation, I would like to share three examples of conflict transformation. I would like to emphasize that this chapter does not provide an exhaustive manual for problem-solving, but rather will hopefully provide an understanding based on several stories and on a few important principles.

Problem Solving: Peace in Action

103

Example 1: Reconciliation as a Mechanism for Problem-solving: Canada and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Canada has recently undergone a national reconciliation process headed by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), which investigated the long history of the residential school system for Indigenous children in Canada. The TRC was implemented because the legacy of Canada’s 100-plus-year system of residential schools was largely hidden from history and from the consciousness of most Canadians. The impact of residential schools has been devastating on Indigenous individuals, communities and nations for generations, where abuse was rampant and where the culture and language were stripped away in what has been described as cultural genocide.2



104

Chapter Eight

The TRC is an excellent example of a large group of people engaging in conflict transformation. Before the commission started, awareness was low, trust was lacking, power was unequal and many people were unsure as to how to go about addressing the issue. The TRC is building a new foundation for the people of Canada. The TRC strongly emphasized the building of awareness. The full reconciliation process is still underway, and in practical terms, cannot be considered complete until the 94 recommendations are fully implemented. The implementation of the 94 recommendations would lead to balanced power relationships, trust, and a great foundation (culture of peace) for the people of Canada to face the future. These recommendations also represent clear, specific and measurable actions that embody the work of problem-solving. In a way, then, reconciliation could be considered as creating a better foundation for the people of Canada (a long-term vision of creating and nurturing a culture of peace) as well as directly transforming the unresolved conflict surrounding the treatment of generations of Indigenous children in the country we call Canada. Example 2: The Tamra Model from Israel: Problem-solving Built on Empathy and Understanding The second example of problem-solving I’d like to share with you comes from the joining together of two polarized communities: Israeli Jews and Arabs. This case study presented by Babbitt and Steiner is, according to the authors, the first time in modern Israeli history where the two communities have collaboratively made a decision based on empathy for the other.3 The conflict’s immediate situation can be described as the plan to expand a Jewish village. The planned expansion happened to be directly on top of the remains of a pre-1948 Palestinian village from which the Arab residents fled during the Arab-Israeli War of 1948. Although the Arab residents were dispersed, they still held on to the memory of their destroyed village and did not want it further decimated by the expansion of an Israeli town. In the end, the two communities joined forces to put a stop to the expansion that would have permanently wiped the abandoned Arab village off the map. In the end, the more powerful group of Jewish citizens (because they were backed by the government in their position to expand their town) conceded. The authors described a process of skilled facilitation, which involved leaders of both identities to work together to manage the process. They emphasized a number of key points. First, the process revealed the fundamental importance of addressing the underlying needs of each community – safety, recognition of a people and autonomy.

Problem Solving: Peace in Action

105

These disparate groups came to realize that they held these needs in common and, through an understanding of the others’ stories, they were brought together. Second, a lesson learned was that to establish trust and the ability to work together to problem-solve took an enormous amount of time and skill. The facilitators initially significantly underestimated the length of time the process would take. Every stage of conflict transformation, including problem-solving, had to, at some level, be allowed to reveal itself. The Tamra Model, as the facilitators came to name the process, is an excellent example of conflict transformation. The Tamra Model put a lot of emphasis on relationships and building trust, as the foundation that the two groups initially had, was not sufficient to achieve conflict transformation. The conflict also emphasized awareness. Because the Arab narrative has been displaced by the Jewish narrative via the Israeli dominant culture, the Jewish community had very little awareness of the Arab history on the land. The process brought to life the quote from earlier in this book: when you hear my story, you will no longer be afraid. In this process, fear was a significant factor for both parties, but stories were intentionally used to build awareness that the two groups had much more in common than they had imagined.4 In summary, the Tamra problem-solving model assisted in improving the foundation for the two groups and thus assisted in resolving the immediate situation of the impending destruction of the abandoned Arab village. Example 3: Creative Problem-Solving: Community Theatre in Costa Rica When we think of groups and problem-solving, we might picture a group of people around a table, power point on, and flip chart paper in the corner with a rainbow variety of color markers. Such conventional scenarios can be effective, but it is important that we think broadly and creatively when engaging in problem-solving. In La Carpio, Costa Rica, a poor community comprised mainly of Nicaraguan immigrants, a group of women got together to try to solve their collective problem of garbage overwhelming their streets. With a trained facilitator, they engaged in a formal process of problem-solving using the processes from Augusto Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed. The techniques are active and engaging, with the goal of constructing a future rather than waiting for it to happen.5 Unlike conventional theatre, this technique invites the members from the larger audience to interrupt the play about the issue at hand that is written



106

Chapter Eight

by the concerned group and with the guidance of an on-stage facilitator, generate possible outcomes to the problem portrayed during the play through positive actions. A series of community performances led to an action plan that was specific, measurable, achievable and time-sensitive, and the community worked together to solve the problem of garbage. Additionally, the process created a new awareness among the group of women regarding their rights as citizens in relation to the city public works department. In summary, this creative process not only provided a practical strategy to problemsolve, but also reduced infighting and gossip among the women in the community and challenged their disbelief in the capabilities of both themselves and their fellow participants.6 As such, it specifically addressed one of the pathways of our Conflict Transformation Framework – namely, skills.

Putting into Practice Problem-solving can be broken down into three steps: defining the problem, reviewing the possible solutions, and implementing the strategies. With regards to defining the problem, we have already spoken a great deal about conflict analysis in Chapter Two. What follows are a few specific pieces of advice on addressing common issues.

1. Polarities exercise: move beyond “either/or” If we look around us, we are bound to see long-standing conflicts that seem intractable, as invested parties argue about ideological perspectives on broad issues. On many issues, sometimes two parties can get stuck on two opposing solutions. As the debate escalates, we pour more energy into insisting our way is right. At the same time, we pour more energy into demonstrating that the opposite solution is wrong. All the while, we ignore the potential downsides of our idea (which the other party puts a great deal of energy into pointing out!) and we ignore the benefits that the other party’s solution would bring. So, the discussion transitions into two parties simply trying to outdo the other in terms of why their solution is better and why the others’ solution is really bad. The psycho-social thought processes that we discussed in Chapter Six (formation of mirror images and confirmation biases) rear their heads as each side fixates on the evidence to show that the other side has to be wrong. The result is often a polarized debate that appears to have only two antithetical solutions - one right and one wrong.

Problem Solving: Peace in Action

107

Barry Johnson, an author consultant on organization conflict, presents a strategic tool that can help polarized groups tackle complex issues.7 Acknowledging our formal educational orientation and our cultural predilection to finding the one right answer, Johnson suggests a way in which opposing views can be brought together so that they become interdependent in achieving success. Imagine a community is facing a divisive crisis on whether to allow a new chemical factory to come to their town. Such a conflict could easily become polarized into an artificial dichotomy between jobs and the environment, but imagine that the members of this community have already worked hard to create a healthy foundation (culture of peace) amongst themselves. Nonetheless, roughly half the group wants the factory to come and the other half does not. In the Polarities Exercise, Johnson requires each group to describe their position by writing down indicators for the following: what success looks like, what failure looks like, what are the signs that the plan is working well, and what are the signs that the other group’s plan is working well? Then the groups can work together by articulating: what are the action steps needed to achieve the desired outcomes of group A’s position, and what are the action steps needed to achieve the desired outcomes of group B’s position? The exercise allows both groups to articulate the benefits of their position but also necessitates that each group hear the potential drawbacks of each position. Finally the two groups can brainstorm to think of warning signs that indicate either group’s priorities are not being achieved (for example, no economic growth), or that either group’s fears are being realized (for example, environmental contamination). A further explanation can be found in the action box on the next page. To fully appreciate Johnson’s Polarities Exercise, you will need to seek further information beyond this book.8 However, for our purposes here, it is worth taking note that this problem-solving strategy allows us to transform our perspective.



108

Chapter Eight

Action Box: Polarity Management8 A local mid-sized company recently hired a number of people for key senior management positions. When the company announced the new team, several staff raised the concern that all senior management members were now White men. There was no gender or racial diversity. The issue became contentious and the company’s staff polarized into two opposing camps. One group stated that merit alone should be considered for hiring. The other group stated that the gender and racial composition of the management team needs to accurately represent the community. Luckily, the company had established a culture of trust and where conflict was viewed as an opportunity for positive change. The management and employees of the company decided to engage in a polarity management process. Rather than look for the “one right answer”, they articulated the following: Step One: Everyone agreed that the company needed to be managed competently and effectively. The people on the “merit” side determined that competent management was measured by experience, qualifications, and the ability to be effective. The people on the “merit” side determined that their fears of “hiring based on diversity” included tokenism, and a risk of hiring people who lacked meaningful experience and qualifications. The people on the “diversity” side determined that competent management was measured by trust, understanding of, and responsiveness to the staff and customers’ needs and values. The people on the “diversity” side determined that their fears of “hiring based on merit” was based on a definition of merit that did not include the input of women and people of color. Step Two: The two questions that the group agreed upon were: Recognizing the goal of a competent and effective management team, how can we effectively hire senior managers who have experience, qualifications and are effective, while achieving the trust and understanding of the staff and client population’s racial and gender diversity?

Problem Solving: Peace in Action

109

Recognizing the concern of incompetence and ineffectiveness, how can we effectively avoid a management team that ignores the unique values of women and people of color while avoiding tokenism? Step Three: The group then worked together to create measurable indicators for the goals and for the concerns to guide them in their five-year vision plan. The process allowed people to realize their commonly shared vision of success, while being able to honestly state their concerns with the opposite position. Rather than simply continuing to argue and lobby for their own position, the two sides managed to incorporate their respective visions and concerns into a collaborative plan. The process demonstrated that most of our conflicts do not have one right answer, but rather two or more solutions that are in tension. Authentic collaboration includes asserting your goals and concerns and listening to those of the other side.

2. Make a plan before you try to implement change An important thing to consider in the final stage of problem-solving (implementation) is the concept of change. As we discussed earlier, awareness does not automatically lead to behavioral change. In seeking a pragmatic framework for how to address the nebulous ideas on change, I present the work of authors Knoster, Villa and Thousand, who have identified six necessary components for behavioral change to occur. Their framework also identifies the five common pitfalls of projects that somehow miss the articulated goal: confusion, anxiety, resistance, frustration and false starts. Change can be very difficult. It challenges our comfortable patterns of thinking and doing things. It causes us stress. It is therefore important to carefully consider the barriers to implementing change and to consider practical strategies that can improve the likelihood of achieving successful change. Table 8-1 below highlights five basic components of successful change, and what might occur if these components are lacking in the change process.9



Chapter Eight

110

Table 8-1: The Necessary Pieces of Change Tactics and What May Occur in their Absence Common Pitfalls of Poorly Planned Change

Addressing Pitfalls Requires:

Confusion

Vision

Anxiety

Skills

Resistance

Incentives

Frustration

Resources

False Starts

Action Plan

I believe this straightforward diagram can assist those involved in transforming conflict, in order to prevent confusion and resistance, among other things. For example, if a community comes together to address the issue of violent crime in its neighbourhood, the solutions may involve implementing new behaviors and may involve eliminating other actions. This diagram suggests to us that unless there are some incentives for those who are being asked to change their actions, resistance will likely occur.

3. Communication, communication After a number of years as a community mediator, I have been amazed that basically every single mediation case I have worked with, involved an issue of a communication breakdown. The model of mediation we utilized concluded with a final phase called problem-solving. In this step, we hoped to transform the conflict from “I can’t stand it when my roommate is such a slob!” coupled with “yeah, and you’re such a control neat freak!” to “how can we devise a system that addresses the issues of chores, personal autonomy, and communication?” In simple terms, this is called reframing, and cannot be accomplished until the foundation (feeling heard and re-establishing trust) has been addressed. In these types of common scenarios, the parties usually realized that they did not communicate often enough, or respectfully. Building communication opportunities into

Problem Solving: Peace in Action

111

relationships has been one of the most common problem-solving techniques that I have seen in mediation. This can include weekly meetings, morning check-ins, and making communication strategies explicit rather than implicit.

4. Be SMART The outcome of a problem-solving process is usually an agreement of things that people will do (a one-time act or a series of actions) or stop doing. The proposed behavior changes are sometimes individual and sometimes group-based. A straightforward method to ensure that expectations are shared and instructions are clear is to utilize SMART objectives. Table 8-2: SMART Objectives

Specific Measurable Achievable Relevant Timespecific OBJECTIVES For example, if the two roommates from the earlier example want to set some objectives for a fairer division of chores, it is not sufficient to tell the one roommate that they should simply start “pulling their weight.” Instead, an agreement would be SMART if it went something like this: the schedule for doing dishes will be: each roommate will do the dishes seven times in a two- week period. Doing the dishes includes wiping counters, sweeping the floor and putting away all food. The dishes must be completed by 7 p.m.



112

Chapter Eight

Major Points of this Chapter Problem-solving can be broken down into three steps: defining the problem, reviewing the options and implementation. Once a culture of peace has been established as the foundation (addressing the four pathways of power, awareness, relationships and skills) problem-solving is more likely to be successful. Problem-solving can include a variety of processes including negotiation and reconciliation. Examples of problem-solving include Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Theatre of the Oppressed. Johnson’s Polarities Model is a practical tool to use in the reviewing the options phase, to prevent the limiting of solutions to “either/or.” Change is a complex process and it behooves problem-solvers to consider the consequences of poorly planned change during the implementation phase. Reflection Questions Consider issues in your personal life or in your community that you think need to change. What are the barriers to change? When considering the above issue(s), who benefits from the status quo? Who would benefit from the change?

CHAPTER NINE CONCLUSION

“Another world is not only possible, On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”

she

is

on

her

way.

Arundhati Roy1

Engaging in conflict is like a dance, where you need to work with another person – interpret their moves and respond – not for the purpose of defeating them but rather to co-create something that might even be beautiful. Engaging in conflict can also be like riding a pendulum, where we must figure out the tension between truth and reconciliation, between retribution and forgiveness, and between power and vulnerability. As the pendulum swings, we learn to embrace dilemmas when we were seeking clarity. We learn to accept that issues go much deeper than we thought, when we were pursuing closure.

Evaluating Conflict Transformation Our reflection on conflict transformation would not be complete without considering how we evaluate the process. Evaluating our efforts allows us to learn from our mistakes and to build on our successes. Evaluation is sometimes informal and sometimes conducted formally by a team of researchers. Sometimes a simple yet authentic dialogue between the parties is all that we manage; and sometimes it is all that we need. I would like to suggest a set of questions that you can use to reflect upon the effectiveness of a conflict transformation process. I borrow some of these questions from the work of authors Ury, Brett and Goldberg.2 They are presented below in the form of closed and open-ended questions that can be used in a variety of ways – from an informal conversation to a structured questionnaire. Are the parties satisfied with the outcomes? Why or why not? Is there a recurrence of the presenting issue? Is there a change in power dynamics? What has changed?

114

Chapter Nine Has awareness been improved? How? What skills have been learned so that people might be better prepared next time? What quantity of resources was used in the process? Are relationships improved? What are the changes in trust? Communication?

Final Wishes In this book, we have explored a framework for conflict transformation as one possible pathway to approach conflict – a framework that prioritizes relationships, and acknowledges the influence of power, awareness and skills so that individuals and groups can better engage in difficult processes. Reflection on these concepts can bring us to the point where we construct a dynamic foundation on which collaborative problem-solving can occur. It is important to emphasize that in complex and seemingly intractable conflicts, problem-solving is unlikely to be successful until the foundational priorities are addressed. It is also important to emphasize that although we have highlighted a visual framework for our conflict transformation process, real life almost never fits into neat two-dimensional diagrams. Nonetheless, frameworks and diagrams can assist us to think more clearly and to link complex concepts together in ways to consolidate our knowledge and skills. A key component of this book is conflict analysis. Understanding a conflict situation is paramount to building the foundation from which to problem-solve or seek reconciliation. Conflict analysis is an ongoing process that continues throughout the conflict transformation journey. In this book, we have tied our exploration of conflict to the language of Peace and Justice Studies. It is an invitation to consider approaching conflict in a way that seeks outcomes based on the tenets of peace with justice. This book is also an invitation to explore the goals and activities of the broad theme of peace education. It is an invitation to see the connection between conflict analysis and transformation and social activism. It is an invitation to consider how power, relationships, awareness and skills are connected to the building of a culture of peace. And finally, this book is an invitation to consider the three aspects of being a peacemaker: knowing, doing and being. This book is a starting place for knowing, which hopefully inspires you, the reader, to continue your journey by considering the concepts of doing and being. I remember participating in my very first conflict resolution workshop over twenty years ago. I took away a mantra that I still use in my everyday life up to this day: Turn Judgment to Curiosity. There is a certain appeal to simple platitudes like this one – easily remembered and easily drawn

Conclusion

115

upon. This mantra helps me in my calm states when I am thinking of strategies of transforming the conflicts in which I am embroiled. More importantly, it helps me in my moments of heightened emotion, where fear, anger and hurt make it more difficult for me to access the tools and skills of conflict transformation that are stored in the deep pockets of my brain. It is clear that as human beings, we need to act in ways that no longer pit us against each other if we are to address serious global issues such as climate change and widening economic disparity. Actions need to start with our interpersonal relationships and carry right through to our foreign policies. On an interpersonal level, we must remember that vulnerability does not equal weakness and on the global level, we need to reframe national security (where one needs an enemy in order to justify borders and military build-up) to one of human security (where our common humanity implores us to join forces to address the problems that face us all). And whether our conflict is interpersonal or international, we need to reframe our narrative to declare that nonviolence is both principled as well as strategic.



NOTES

Notes from Chapter One 1 Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (New York: Penguin Group, 2011). Human Security Report, The Decline in Global Violence: Evidence, Explanation, and Contestation (Vancouver: Simon Fraser University, 2013). 2 Paul Born, Community Conversations: Mobilizing the Ideas, Skills, and Passion of Community Organizations, Governments, Businesses and People (Toronto: BPS Books, 2012), 2. 3 John Paul Lederach, The Little Book of Conflict Transformation (Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2003), 4 Johan Galtung, “Violence, Peace and Peace Research,” Journal of Peace Research 6, no. 3 (1969): 183. 5 United Nations, “Declaration on a Culture of Peace”, September 13, 1999, http://www.un-documents.net/a53r243a.htm 6 Paul De Rooj, “Bad News from Israel,” review of Bad News from Israel, by Greg Philo and Mike Berry, Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, November 2004. 7 Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick, Peace Journalism (Stroud, UK: Hawthorn Press, 2005), 6. 8 Adam Curle, Tools for Transformation (Stroud, UK: Hawthorn Press, 1990), 145. 9 David Butt, “How the Justice System Let Race Taint the Stanley Verdict”, The Globe and Mail, February 10, 2018, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/how-the-justice-system-let-race-taintthe-stanley-verdict/article37931748/

Notes from Chapter Two 1

Dudley Weeks, The Eight Essential Steps to Conflict Resolution: Preserving Relationships at Works, at Home and in the Community (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1992), 4. 2 Kenneth Gergen, An Invitation to Social Construction (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2009), 5-13. 3 John Paul Lederach, Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation across Cultures (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1995), 10. 4 Kathy Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006), 15. 5 Gergen, An Invitation to Social Construction, 23.

118

Notes

6

David Augsberger, Conflict Mediation across Cultures (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992), 11. 7 Lederach, The Little Book of Conflict Transformation, 46. 8 Phyllis Bennis, Understanding ISIS and the New Global War on Terror: A Primer (Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press, 2015), 92-95. 9 Randy Kerr, “How Activist Mayors are Harming BC’s Economy,” Financial Post, Sept 18, 2014, https://business.financialpost.com/ opinion/how-activistmayors-are-harming-b-c-s-economy 10 Pat Robertson, “About Planned Parenthood,” 700 Club, April 9, 1991, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0149408/quotes 11 Marshall Rosenberg, Nonviolent Communication: A Language for Life (Encinitas, CA: Puddledancer Press, 2005), 54. 12 Herbert Kelman, “Social Psychological Dimensions of International Conflict”, In Peacemaking in international conflict: Methods and techniques, ed. I. William Zartman (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 2007), 65. 13 William Ury, Jeanne Brett, & Stephen Goldberg, “Three Approaches to Resolving Disputes,” In Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing Systems to Cut the Cost of Conflict, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 3-19. 14 Arthur Manuel, personal communication, March 22, 2016. 15 Lederach, The Little Book of Conflict Transformation, 46. 16 Adam Kahane, Solving Tough Problems: An Open Way of Talking, Listening, and Creating New Realities (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2007), 12.

Notes from Chapter Three 1 2

Kahane, Solving Tough Problems, 30. Based on the work of Lederach, Preparing for Peace, 13.

Notes from Chapter Four 1

Theodore Roszak, quoted in Petra Kelly, Thinking Green! Essays on Environmentalism, Feminism, and Nonviolence (Berkeley, CA: University of California, 1994). 2 St. Stephens Community House, Foundational Interpersonal Mediation: Training Manual (Toronto: unpublished document, 2011), 58. 3 Mohammed Abu-Nimer, “Education for Coexistence in Israel: Potential and Challenges,” In Reconciliation, Justice, and Coexistence: Theory and Practice, ed. Mohammed Abu-Nimer (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001), 242. 4 Joseph Folger, Marshall Poole and Randall Stutman, Working Through Conflict: Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations (Boston: Pearson, 2005), 28. 5 Weeks, The Eight Essential Steps to Conflict Resolution, 50. 6 Marianne Williamson, A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of a Course in Miracles (New York: HarperCollins, 1992), 190.

Conflict Analysis and Transformation 7

119

James Hillman, Kinds of Power: A Guide to Its Intelligent Uses (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 108. 8 David Kennedy, “Violence and Street Groups,” In The Causes and Consequences of Group Violence: From Bullies to Terrorists, eds. James Hawdon, John Ryan, and Marc Lucht (New York: Lexington Books, 2014), 63. 9 Stokely Carmichael, quote retrieved from: https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/86210.Stokely_Carmichael 10 Greg Philo and Mike Berry, Bad News from Israel (Glasgow: Pluto Press, 2004), 99. 11 Randall Amster, Anarchism Today (Santa Barbara: Praeger, 2012), 44. 12 Nobel Prize, Leymah Gbowee Biographical (Stockholm: Nobel Prize, 2013). https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/ laureates/2011/gbowee-bio.html 13 Adam Kahane, Collaborating with the Enemy (Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2017), 13. 14 Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011), 8. 15 Ibid, 40. 16 Ibid, 19. 17 Ibid, 215. 18 Reed Wood, Jacob Kathman, and Stephen Gent, “Armed Intervention and Civilian Victimization in Intrastate Conflicts,” Journal of Peace Research 49, no. 5 (2012): 658. 19 Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action: Part Two: The Methods of Nonviolent Action (Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1973), 109-445. 20 Martin Luther King Junior, Why We Can’t Wait (New York: Signet Books, 1964), 79. 21 Nonviolent Peaceforce, Nonviolent Peaceforce Field Team Helps Ease Tension in North Cotabato: 82 Families’ Safety Ensured, 2014. http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/about-12/31-philippinesnews?limit=9&start=9 22 Jeff Halper, “Six Elements of Effective Organizing and Struggle,” In Refusing to be Enemies: Palestinian and Israeli Nonviolent Resistance to the Israeli Occupation, ed. Maxine Kaufman-Lacusta (Reading, UK: Ithaca Press, 2010), 395-413. 23 Born, Community Conversations, 46. 24 Allendes Enkel (Allende’s Grandchildren), directed by Felix Schwartz, (BadenWurtenburg, Germany: SWR Fernsehen, 2015), DVD. 25 Marcella Bernardo, “Minister Suggests Alberta’s Boycott of BC wine could Backfire,” News 1130, February 18, 2018. https://www.news1130.com/2018/02/18/minister-suggests-albertas-boycott-bcwine-backfire/ 26 Paul Born, Community Conversations, 85.



120

Notes

Notes from Chapter Five 1

Author unknown. James Orbinski, An Imperfect Offering (Toronto: Doubleday, 2008), 212. 3 David Ragland, “Truth Telling toward Justice: Ferguson is Everywhere,” Lecture, Selkirk College, Nelson, BC: April 15, 2016. 4 Gloria Macassa et al, “Fear of Crime and its Relationship to Self-reported Health and Stress among Men,” Journal of Public Health Research 6, no. 1010 (2017): 172. 5 Gina Lovasi et al, “The independent associations of recorded crime and perceived safety with physical health in a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of men and women in New Zealand,” British Medical Journal 4, no. 3 (2013): 8.  6 Michael Caldara, Michael T. McBride, Matthew W. McCarter and Roman M Sheremeta, “A Study of the Triggers of Conflict and Emotional Reactions,” Games 8, no. 21 (2017): 10. 7 Hanna Zagefka and Limabenla Jamir,” Conflict, Fear and Social Identity in Nagaland,” Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 18 (2015): 48. 8 Saul Newman, “Faith and Fear: Explaining Jewish and Unionist Attitudes toward Compromise in Israel and Northern Ireland,” Peace and Change 39, no. 2 (April 2014): 153-189. 9 Gilad Hershberger et al, “Fear of Death Amplifies Retributive Justice Motivations and Encourages Political Violence,” Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 22, no.1 (2016): 71. 10 Kelman, Social Psychological Dimensions of International Conflict, 88. 11 Ananthi Al Ramiah and Miles Hewstone, “Intergroup Contact as a Tool for Reducing, Resolving and Preventing Intergroup Conflict,” American Psychology 68, no. 7 (2013): 535-536. 12 Patrick Lencioni, Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005), 13. 13 Rosenberg, Nonviolent Communication, 39-40. 14 Liz Weaver, Turf, Trust, Co-creation and Collective Impact (Waterloo, ON: Tamarack Institute, 2018). http://www.tamarackcommunity.ca/library/turf-trust-co-creation-collective-impact 15 Peter Block, Forward to Collaborating with the Enemy by Adam Kahane (Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishing, 2017), ix. 16 David Falk, “Leading Group Assessments and Interventions,” Presentation, Selkirk College, Nelson, BC: June 3-5, 2013. 17 Eileen Babbitt, and Pamela Pomerance-Steiner, “Combining Empathy with Problem Solving: The Tamra Model of Facilitation in Israel,” in Building Peace, eds. Craig Zelizer & Robert A. Rubinstein (Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press, 2009), 157-178. 18 Ibid, 169. 2

Conflict Analysis and Transformation

121

Notes from Chapter Six 1

Adrienne Maree Brown, 2016. Twitter, July 9, 2016. https://twitter.com/adriennemaree/status/751799298791211008?lang=en 2 Srdja Popovic, Blueprint for Revolution (New York: Spiegel and Grau, 2015), 41-48. 3 Born, Community Conversations, 40. 4 Phoebe Luckhurst, “The Woke-ometer,” The Evening Standard, 14725223, June 29, 2017. 5 Iman Essiet, “Whitney House: Staying ‘Woke and Ready’,” New York Amsterdam News, December 22-28, 2016, 5. 6 Susan Fontaine, Peace Education in UNICEF, Working Paper Education Section (New York, UNICEF Program Division, 1999). http://www.unicef.org/education/files/PeaceEducation.pdf 7 Issa Ebombolo, personal communication, June 14, 2018. 8 Nhlanhla Mpofu and Mncedisi Maphalala, “Fostering critical thinking in initial teacher education curriculums: a comprehensive literature review,” Gender and Behavior 15, no. 2 (2017): 9257. 9 Stephan Lewandowsky et al, “Misinformation, Disinformation, and violent Conflict: From Iraq and the ‘War on Terror’ to Future Threats to Peace,” American Psychologist 68, no. 7 (2013): October 13, 495. 10 Darren Webb, “Pedagogies of Hope,” Studies in Philosophy and Education, 32 (2013): 399–401. 11 Chris Godfrey, “How the British Empire's Gay Rights Legacy is still Killing People to this Day,” The Independent, February 1, 2016, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/freedom-of-expression-thefight-for-lgbt-rights-across-africa-a6834781.html 12 Bernadine Evaristo, “The Idea that African Homosexuality was a Colonial Import is a Myth,” The Guardian, March 8, 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/08/african-homosexualitycolonial-import-myth 13 Heather Montgomery, “Imposing Rights? A Case Study of Child Prostitution in Thailand,” In Culture and Rights: Anthropological Perspectives, ed. Jane Cowan, Marie-Benedicte Dembour and Richard Wilson (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001): 95. 14 Seth Stephens-Davidovitz, Everybody Lies (New York: HarperCollins, 2017), 162. 15 Susana Batel and Paula Castro, “Collective Action and Social Change: Examining the Role of Representation in the Communication between Protesters and Third-Party Members,” Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 25 (2015), 260. 16 Popovic, Blueprint for Revolution, 63. 17 Adam Gabbatt, “Montreal’s ‘Casseroles’ Cook up a Storm over Quebec’s AntiProtest Law,” The Guardian, May 26, 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/26/montreal-casseroles-studentprotests



122

Notes

18

J. Edward Chamberlin, If this is Your Land, Where are your Stories? (Toronto: Vintage Canada, 2010), 1. 19 Paul Born, personal communication, October 2014. 20 Lena Wanggren, “Our stories matter: storytelling and social justice in the Hollaback movement,” Gender and Education 28, no.3 (2016): 401. 21 Popovic, Blueprint for Revolution, 72. 22 Born, Community Conversations, 38. 23 8th fire: Aboriginal Peoples, Canada and the Way Forward, directed by Kelly Crichton, (Toronto: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2012), DVD. 24 Nonviolent Peaceforce, Training material, Minneapolis, MN: 2018. 25 C. Fred Alford, “Mirror Neurons, Psychoanalysis, and the Age of Empathy,” International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytical Studies 13, no. 1, 2016: 10. 26 Austin Channing Brown, I’m Still Here: Black Dignity in a World made for Whiteness (New York: Penguin Random House, 2018), 100.

Notes from Chapter Seven 1

Quote attributed to Lilla Watson, Indigenous Australian activist and artist. Watson has stated that she was "not comfortable being credited for something that had been born of a collective process" and prefers that it be credited to "Aboriginal activists group, Queensland, 1970s." 2 Randy Janzen, From War to Peace: The Reintegration Experience of Guatemala Ex-Combatants: A Grounded Theory Inquiry (Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University, 2011), 25 3 Ibid, 111. 4 Paul C. Gorski and Cher Chen, “’Frayed all Over:’ The Causes and Consequences of Activist Burnout Among Social Justice Education Activists,” Educational Studies 51, no. 5 (2015): 385. 5 Kathleen. Rodgers, “’Anger is why we’re all here’: Mobilizing and Managing Emotions in a Professional Activist Organization.” Social Movement Studies, 9 (2010): 286. 6 Margaret Mead, quote retrieved from: https://www.brainyquote.com/lists/authors/top_10_margaret_mead_quotes 7 Kelman, Social Psychological Dimensions of International Conflict, 82. 8 Ibid, 88. 9 Mirella di Bennedetto, “Comment on ‘The Self-Care of Psychologists and Mental Health Professionals’ (Dattilio, 2015)—Working With the Mentally Ill Is a Mental Health Hazard: What Can We Do About It?” Australian Psychologist, 50 (2015): 400. 10 See Marshall Rosenberg, Nonviolent Communication. 11 Ron Kraybill and Evelyn Wright, The Little Book of Cool Tools for Hot Topics (Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2006), 26. 12 Frances Lee, “Excommunicate me from the Church of Social Justice.” Posted July 13, 2017, https://www.autostraddle.com/kin-aesthetics-excommunicate-mefrom-the-church-of-social-justice-386640/

Conflict Analysis and Transformation

123

13

Dominic Barter, Restorative Circles: Building a Compassionate Justice System (2012). http://www.empathy-conexus.org/download/restorative_circles/Dominic_ Barter-RC_3page-ltr-JC.pdf 14 Schirch, The Little Book of Strategic Peacebuilding, 3.

Notes from Chapter Eight 1

Vaclav Havel, “Address to the U.S. Congress,” Congressional Record 136 (February 21, 1990): H 392-395, quoted in Joseph Nye, Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History (New York: Pearson Longman, 2007), 51. 2 Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Honoring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015): 1. 3 Babbitt and Steiner, Combining Empathy with Problem Solving, 169. 4 Ibid, 169. 5 Augusto Boal, The Rainbow of Desire (London: Routledge, 1995), 185. 6 Steven T. Hawkins and Alexia Georgakopolous, “Dramatic Problem Solving: Transforming Community Conflict through Performance in Costa Rica,” Journal of Alternative Perspectives in Social Sciences 2, no. 1 (2010): 126. 7 Barry Johnson, Polarity Management: A Summary Introduction (Amherst, MA: Polarity management Associates, 2005). 8 Ibid. 9 Tim Knoster, Richard Villa and Jacqueline Thousand, “A Framework for Thinking about Systems Change,” in Restructuring for Caring and Effective Education: Piecing the Puzzle Together, ed. Richard Villa and Jacqueline Thousand (Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company, 2000), 93-128.

Notes from Chapter Nine 1

Arundhati Roy, War Talk (Cambridge, MA: Southend Press, 2003). William Ury, Jeanne Brett, and Steven Goldberg, “Three approaches to resolving disputes.” In, Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing Systems to Cut the Cost of Conflict (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 11-15. 2



BIBLIOGRAPHY

8th Fire: Aboriginal Peoples, Canada and the Way Forward. DVD. Directed by Kelly Crichton. Toronto: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2012. Abu-Nimer, Mohammed. “Education for Coexistence in Israel: Potential and Challenges.” In Reconciliation, Justice, and Coexistence: Theory and Practice, edited by Mohammed Abu-Nimer, 235-254. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001. Al Ramiah, Ananthi, and Miles Hewstone. “Intergroup Contact as a Tool for Reducing, Resolving and Preventing Intergroup Conflict.” American Psychology 68, no. 7 (2013): 527-542. Alford, C. Fred. “Mirror Neurons, Psychoanalysis, and the Age of Empathy.” International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytical Studies 13, no. 1 (2016): 7-23. Allendes Enkel (Allende’s Grandchildren). DVD. Directed by Felix Schwartz. Baden-Wurtenburg, Germany: SWR Fernsehen, 2015. Amster, Randall. Anarchism Today. Santa Barbara: Praeger, 2012. Augsberger, David. Conflict Mediation across Cultures. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992. Babbitt, Eileen and Pamela Pomerance Steiner. “Combining Empathy with Problem Solving: The Tamra Model of Facilitation in Israel.” In Building Peace, edited by Craig. Zelizer and Richard Rubinstein, 157178. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press, 2009. Barter, Dominic. Restorative Circles. Accessed July 18, 2018. http://www.empathy-conexus.org/download/restorative_circles/ Dominic_Barter-RC_3page-ltr-JC.pdf Batel, Susana, and Paula Castro. “Collective Action and Social Change: Examining the Role of Representation in the Communication between Protesters and Third-Party Members.” Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 25 (2015): 249-263. Bennis, Phyllis. Understanding ISIS and the New Global War on Terror: A Primer. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press, 2015. Bernardo, Marcella. “Minister Suggests Alberta’s Boycott of BC Wine Could Backfire.” News 1130, February 18, 2018. https://www.news1130.com/2018/02/18/minister-suggests-albertasboycott-bc-wine-backfire/

126

Bibliography

Block, Peter. Forward to Collaborating with the Enemy, by Adam Kahane, ix-xv. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishing, 2017. Boal, Augusto. The Rainbow of Desire. London: Routledge, 1995. Born, Paul. Community Conversations: Mobilizing the Ideas, Skills, and Passion of Community Organizations, Governments, Businesses and People. Toronto, BPS Books, 2012. Brown, Adrienne Maree. 2016. Twitter, July 9, 2016. https://twitter.com/ adriennemaree/status/751799298791211008?lang=en Brown, Austin Channing. I’m Still Here: Black Dignity in a World made for Whiteness. New York: Penguin Random House, 2018. Butt, David. “How the Canadian Justice System let race taint the Stanley verdict.” The Globe and Mail, February 10, 2018. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/how-the-justice-system-letrace-taint-the-stanley-verdict/article37931748/?utm_source= facebook.com&utm_medium=Referrer%3A+Social+Network+%2F+ Media&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links Caldara, Michael, Michael T. McBride, Matthew W. McCarter and Roman M Sheremeta. “A Study of the Triggers of Conflict and Emotional Reactions,” Games 8, no. 21 (2017): 1-12. Chamberlin, J. Edward. If this is Your Land, Where are your Stories? Toronto: Vintage Canada, 2010. Charmaz, Kathy. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006. Chenoweth, Erica and Maria Stephan. Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolence. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011. Curle, Adam. Tools for Transformation. Stroud, UK: Hawthorn Press, 1990. De Rooj, Paul. “Bad News from Israel.” Review of Bad News from Israel, by Greg Philo and Mike Berry. Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, November 2004. https://www.wrmea.org/2004-november/ book-review-bad-news-from-israel.html di Bennedetto, Mirella. “Comment on ‘The Self-Care of Psychologists and Mental Health Professionals’ (Dattilio, 2015)—Working With the Mentally Ill Is a Mental Health Hazard: What Can We Do About It?” Australian Psychologist 50 (2015): 400-404. Essiet, Iman. “Whitney House: Staying ‘Woke and Ready’.” New York Amsterdam News, December 22-28, 2016. Evaristo, Bernadine. “The Idea that African Homosexuality was a Colonial Import is a Myth.” The Guardian, March 8, 2014.

Conflict Analysis and Transformation

127

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/08/africanhomosexuality-colonial-import-myth Folger, Joseph, Marshall Poole and Randall Stutman. Working Through Conflict: Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations. Boston: Pearson, 2005. Fontaine, Susan. Peace Education in UNICEF. New York: UNICEF Program Division, 1999. http://www.unicef.org/education/files/PeaceEducation.pdf Gabbatt, Adam. “Montreal’s ‘Casseroles’ Cook up a Storm over Quebec’s Anti-Protest Law.” The Guardian, May 26, 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/26/montreal-casserolesstudent-protests Galtung, Johan. “Violence, Peace and Peace Research.” Journal of Peace Research 6, no. 3 (1969): 167-191. Gergen, Kenneth. An Invitation to Social Construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2009. Godfrey, Chris. “How the British Empire's Gay Rights Legacy is still Killing People to this Day.” The Independent, February 1, 2016. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/freedom-ofexpression-the-fight-for-lgbt-rights-across-africa-a6834781.html Gorski, Paul C., and Cher Chen. “’Frayed all Over:’ The Causes and Consequences of Activist Burnout Among Social Justice Education Activists.” Educational Studies 51, no. 5 (2015): 385-405. Halper, Jeff. “Six Elements of Effective Organizing and Struggle.” In Refusing to be Enemies: Palestinian and Israeli Nonviolent Resistance to the Israeli Occupation, edited by Maxine Kaufman-Lacusta, 395413. Reading, UK: Ithaca Press, 2010. Havel, Vaclav. “Address to the U.S. Congress,” Congressional Record 136 (February 21, 1990): H 392-395, quoted in Joseph Nye, Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. Hawkins, Steven T., and Alexia Georgakopolous. “Dramatic Problem Solving: Transforming Community Conflict through Performance in Costa Rica.” Journal of Alternative Perspectives in Social Sciences 2, no. 1 (2010), 112-135. Hershberger, Gilad, Tom Pyszczynski, Tsachi Sherman, and Eihab Kadah. “Fear of Death Amplifies Retributive Justice Motivations and Encourages Political Violence, Peace and Conflict.” Journal of Peace Psychology 22, no.1 (2016): 67-74. Hillman, James. Kinds of Power: A Guide to its Intelligent Uses. New York: Doubleday, 1995.



128

Bibliography

Human Security Report. The Decline in Global Violence: Evidence, Explanation, and Contestation. Vancouver: Simon Fraser University, 2013. Janzen, Randy. From War to Peace: The Reintegration Experience of Guatemalan Ex-Combatants.Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University, 2012. Johnson, Barry. Polarity Management: A Summary Introduction. Amherst, MA: Polarity Management Associates, 2005. Kahane, Adam. Collaborating with the Enemy. San Fransisco: BerrettKoehler Publishers, 2017. —. Solving Tough Problems: An Open Way of Talking, Listening, and Creating New Realities. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2007. Kelman, Herbert. “Social Psychological Dimensions of International Conflict.” In Peacemaking in international conflict: Methods and Techniques, edited by. I. William Zartman, 61-107. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 2007. Kennedy, David. “Violence and Street Groups.” In The Causes and Consequences of Group Violence, edited by James Hawdon, John Ryan and Marc Lucht, 49-70. New York: Lexington Books, 2014). Kerr, Randy. “How Activist Mayors Are Harming BC’s Economy.” Financial Post, Sept 18, 2014. https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/how-activist-mayors-areharming-b-c-s-economy King, Martin Luther Junior. Why We Can’t Wait. New York: Signet Books, 1964. Knoster, Tim, Richard Villa and Jacqueline Thousand. “A Framework for Thinking about Systems Change.” In Restructuring for Caring and Effective Education: Piecing the Puzzle Together, edited by Richard Villa and Jacqueline Thousand, 93-128. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company, 2000. Kraybill, Ron and Evelyn Wright. The Little Book of Cool Tools for Hot Topics. Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2006. Lederach, John Paul. The Little Book of Conflict Transformation. Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2003. —. Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation across Cultures. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1995. Lee, Frances. Excommunicate me from the church of social justice. Autostraddle, July 13, 2017. https://www.autostraddle.com/kin-aesthetics-excommunicate-mefrom-the-church-of-social-justice-386640/

Conflict Analysis and Transformation

129

Lencioni, Patrick. Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005. Lewandowsky, Stephan, Werner Stritzke, Alexandra Freund, Klas Oberauer, and Joachim Krueger. “Misinformation, Disinformation, and Violent Conflict: From Iraq and the ‘War on Terror’ to Future Threats to Peace.” American Psychologist 68, no. 7 (2013): 487-501. Lovasi, Gina, Charlene Goh, Amber Pearson, and Gregory Breetzke, “The Independent Associations of Recorded Crime and Perceived Safety with Physical Health in a Nationally Representative Cross-sectional Survey of Men and Women in New Zealand.” British Medical Journal 4, no. 3 (2013): 1-8. Luckhurst, Phoebe. “The Woke-ometer.” The Evening Standard, 14725223 (2017). Lynch, Jake, and Annabel McGoldrick. Peace Journalism. Stroud, UK: Hawthorn Press, 2005. Macassa, Gloria, Rocio Winersjo, KIatarina Wijk, Cormac McGrath, Nader Ahmadi, and Joaquim Soares. “Fear of Crime and its Relationship to Self-Reported Health and Stress among Men.” Journal of Public Health Research 6, no. 1010 (2017): 169-174. Montgomery, Heather. “Imposing Rights? A Case Study of Child Prostitution in Thailand.” In Culture and Rights: Anthropological Perspectives, edited by Jane Cowan, Marie-Benedicte Dembour and Richard Wilson, 80-101. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Mpofu, Nhlanhla, and Mncedisi Maphalala. “Fostering critical thinking in initial teacher education curriculums: a comprehensive literature review.” Gender and Behavior 15, no. 2 (2017): 9256-9266. Newman, Saul. “Faith and Fear: Explaining Jewish and Unionist Attitutes toward Compromise in Israel and Northern Ireland.” Peace and Change 39, no. 2 (2014): 153-189. Nobel Prize. Leymah Gbowee Biographical. Stockholm: Nobel Prize, 2013. Accessed July 18, 2018. https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2011/gbowee -bio.html Orbinski, James. An Imperfect Offering. Toronto: Doubleday, 2008. Pinker, Steven. The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence has Declined. New York: Penguin Group, 2011. Popovic, Srdja. Blueprint for Revolution. New York: Spiegel and Grau, 2015. Robertson, Pat. “About Planned Parenthood.” 700 Club. April 9, 1991. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0149408/quotes



130

Bibliography

Rodgers, Kathleen. “’Anger is why we’re all here’: Mobilizing and managing emotions in a professional activist Organization.” Social Movement Studies, 9 (2010): 273-291. Rosenberg, Marshall. Nonviolent Communication: A Language for Life. Encinitas, CA: Puddledancer Press, 2005. Roszak, Theodore. Quoted in Petra Kelly, Thinking Green! Essays on Environmentalism, Feminism, and Nonviolence. Berkeley, CA: University of California, 1994. Roy, Arundhati. War Talk. Cambridge, MA: Southend Press, 2003. St. Stephens Community House. Foundational Interpersonal Mediation: Training Manual. Toronto: unpublished document, 2011. Sharp, Gene. The Politics of Nonviolent Action. Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1973. Shirch, Lisa. The Little Book of Strategic Peacebuilding. Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2004. Stephens-Davidovitz, Seth. Everybody Lies. New York: HarperCollins, 2017. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Honoring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Winnipeg: Truth and Reconciliation Canada, 2015. United Nations. Declaration on a Culture of Peace. September 13, 1999. http://www.un-documents.net/a53r243a.htm Ury, William, Jeanne Brett, and Steven Goldberg. Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing Systems to Cut the Cost of Conflict. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Wanggren, Lena. “Our Stories Matter: Storytelling and Social Justice in the Hollaback Movement.” Gender and Education 28, no.3 (2016): 401-415. Weaver, Liz. Turf, Trust, Co-creation and Collective Impact. Tamarack institute. Accessed July 17, 2018. http://www.tamarackcommunity.ca/library/turf-trust-co-creationcollective-impact Webb, Darren. “Pedagogies of Hope.” Studies in Philosophy and Education 32 (2013): 397–414. Weeks, Dudley. The Eight Essential Steps to Conflict Resolution: Preserving Relationships at Works, at Home and in the Community. New York, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1992. Wheatley, Margaret. Turning to One Another. San Francisco: Barrett Koehler Publishers, 2009.

Conflict Analysis and Transformation

131

Williamson, Marianne. A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of a Course in Miracles. New York: HarperCollins, 1992. Wood, Reed, Jacob Kathman, and Stephan Gent. “Armed intervention and Civilian Victimization in Intrastate Conflicts.” Journal of Peace Research 49, no. 5 (2012): 647-660. Zagefka, Hanna. and Limabenla Jamir. “Conflict, Fear and Social Identity in Nagaland.” Asian Journal of Social Psychology 18 (2015): 43-51.