Working Toward Peace

Working Toward Peace.

What is it about peace theorists and the number three? We have three levels to violence and three levels to society. And today, I bring you the three levels of peacework.

Yes folks, peace and conflict theorists have created a working model for peacework that has gained such recognition, it has been adopted by the United Nations for its own efforts toward peace. This three step approach recognizes the immediate need for conflict de-escalation followed by long term conflict transformation and resolution. This system goes by many names but the way I like to define it is as follows: Peacekeeping, Peacemaking, Peacebuilding. In other ideological circles it is called: Disarmament, Peace, Security.

Peacekeeping/Disarmament: In this action, we see the physical intervention to a violent conflict. Images of UN Peacekeepers, with their shiny powder blue helmets and guns, are a familiar sight from such conflicts as Rwanda, Kosovo and Cyprus. Peacekeepers are in no means pacifists. They are there to enforce the peace. They participate in negative peace. The conflict is not resolved by their presence, it is merely transformed by their presence. Peacekeepers are given a mandate to participate in their actions. They operate in a power-over relationship with those in conflict.

Peacemaking/Peace: In this action, we see the attempt to change the conflict that is erupting into violence. This is usually through outside forces. Organizations such as Oxfam International, Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT), and the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC) all intervene on conflicts with a non-violent approach. Through their sharing of resources—monetary, physical, or spiritual—they try to alter the situations that are leading to the violence.

Peacebuilding/Security: In this action, we see efforts to change the institutions that encourage the conflicts to arise so that future conflicts will be healthy and open. These efforts are often from within the communities themselves utilizing the resources of the peacemaking organizations. These efforts from the Peacebuilders are what we classify as positive peace. They work in a power-under relationship. Those who are most affected by conflict work to transform it. Here we see women’s cooperatives that teach about domestic violence. We see community gardens that keep kids off the streets and teach them business skills. We see churches give sanctuary to the victims of war and conflict.

As we look at each step individually, we see that this is not a formula. It is not necessary for each step to be taken in order. Indeed, one may find it all but impossible to participate in Peacekeeping without Peacebuilding. However, in our own worldview, we find it appropriate to intervene physically before spiritually.

In our traditional Power-Over, Top/Down approach to conflict resolution, we see it necessary to send the military to intervene before we send humanitarian aid. And, sometimes, this is true. However, not all conflicts can be solved with a strong arm and a firm resolve. We must also acknowledge the needs of those who are most affected by the conflict and allow them to form the peace they desire. To quote the educator, Maria Montesorri, “Establishing lasting peace is the work of education; all politics can do is keep us out of war.”

Midterm Review: What is peace studies?

Midterm Review: What is Peace Studies?

Thus far, we have investigated many different theories in traditional peace theory. What have we learned? Let’s look again.

Peace theorists recognize that conflict is inevitable. We will never successfully rid the world of conflict. In fact, we do not seek to do so. Conflict can be a source for growth and an opportunity for learning. Thus we welcome life’s moments of conflict and study how to transform these moments of tension into moments of growth.

Conflict can be resolved or escalated. Escalation of conflict can often result in violence. Violence is simply defined as anything that inhibits basic needs. Violence can be on physical, emotional, economic, institutional, or cultural levels. It is a display of power.

Peace theorists have identified three forms of violence. Physical violence inhibits the attainment of human needs by harming the person or their environment. Structural violence inhibits the attainment of human needs by creating unfair structures that people live and operate in. Cultural violence inhibits the attainment of human needs through expectations, mores and societal mythos.

So why study peace? Since conflict is inevitable, we must study techniques for peaceful resolutions to conflict. As we remember, recall and recreate peaceful institutions, we are working toward a more peaceful future.

A peaceful response to violent conflict can come generally in two forms. The first form is known as negative peace. This is simply the ending of the violence. The second is known as positive peace. This not only ends the violent conflict, it also crates new structures that encourage healthy, peaceful conflict.

Peace studies in this way becomes more than just ending the violence of our world, but rather, a new way to look at the world. We work on interpersonal (micro), institutional (meso), and international (macro) conflicts. Peace becomes more than just an absence of conflict, but rather, a loving and responsible response to conflict.

As Unitarian Universalists, we use our theology and history to question the power structures in our lives. Not only do we seek the ending of physical violence by calling for a reduction of wars, we also challenge the invisible violence in our lives. Programs such as Journey Toward Wholeness and Welcoming Congregations help us question our own personal biases toward race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality. These efforts help us learn new skills in our path to recognize the “inherent worth and dignity of every person”. The movement for “green sanctuaries” and environmental practices help us enter into right relations with our Earth and the “interdependent web of all existence of which we are all a part.”

“A free and responsible search for truth and meaning” will not be without conflict. We will find paths cross and divert—even within ourselves. “Justice, equity and compassion” is necessary for our work toward peace. But we also need our peace work to have the justice we seek.

The paradox I find in studying peace is this: the more I learn about peace work, the more daunting it feels, and yet, it also seems more attainable. I am reminded of a quote by the anarchist suffragette, Helen Keller, “I do not want the peace which passeth understanding, I want the understanding which bringeth peace.”

Conflict!

How wonderful! An experience with our blog has led me to discuss conflict. Conflict has such negative connotations in our American Culture that people go well out of their ways in order to avoid it. Neuroses are formed around the fear of conflict. And people, incorrectly assume that students of peace want to completely do away with conflict in all its forms. Not so!

Peace theorists do not believe that conflict is bad. Conflict gives us the opportunity to stretch and grow. Conflict allows us to test our ideas and remove the proverbial wheat from the proverbial chaff. Rather, it is how we respond to conflict that can be the problem. There are two main choices when it comes to conflict response; to escalate or transform. Each is a choice we make when we come in contact with conflict.

Escalation of the conflict is a dangerous—but all too common—choice taken by people. Here, we see emotions winning over. We see the Other as the Enemy rather than Teacher. We see the ultimate goal as the extermination of the other options. Each step into the escalation process makes it even more difficult to step out of the conflict. Often, during the escalation process, violent actions and language gets used. Sometimes, when the conflict gets bigger than the people involved, it is necessary to bring in a (semi)neutral third party to help mediate. A skilled mediator will help the parties involved navigate around the emotions that have been tied up in the conflict.

Conflict Transformation is another tactic one can use. Sometimes, it takes the use of a mediator such as before, or sometimes it takes the skillful use of non-violent communication. After recognizing that one has entered a conflict, a member can attempt to take a step back and use it as a learning experience. Recognizing that not all conflicts can be resolved, efforts to transform the conflict from a violent one to an educational one can allow the escalation process to slow down and move in a different direction.

Conflict Transformation is not always easy. The cultural violence of our world honors escalation over transformation. To back down can be seen as weak. But to recognize the growing points that each party shares is a great way to change the course of the conflict. But please remember, the best way to change the conflict is to actually address the conflict at hand. I would like to thank EB and CC for their wonderful example of conflict. And hopefully we can learn from their experience. With their actions, let us remember the quote by American Psychoanalyst M. Esther Harding, “Conflict is the beginning of consciousness.”

"Intolerant and Ridiculous"

A couple of posters have called me on my use of language in my most recent post, pointing out that sweeping generalizations such as “the religious right is ridiculous” are counterproductive. I couldn’t agree more. I thank the posters for pointing this out and thereby allowing me the opportunity to be more clear: I find the actions of the individuals who interrupted the Senate session last week to be intolerant and their assertion that only Christian prayer is acceptable in Senate of a “Christian nation” to be highly offensive. While I do not mean to target the sincere beliefs of people of faith, I am offended when individuals show such disrespect both of others’ religious practices and the principle of religious liberty in this country. And I find it deeply ironic that protestors who use the language of religious freedom to oppose the hate crimes bill are in turn so disrespectful of others’ religious freedom.

Finally, I should have been more precise with my words. I did not intend to imply that the right, monolithically, is ridiculous. More precisely, I believe that organizations who exploit the sincere religious faith of others solely for the purpose of furthering discriminating against gay, lesbian, bisexual and/or transgender people are deceitful, dangerous and immoral.

I would welcome a sincere debate about the hate crimes bill, but that is not what such organizations are doing. Instead, they disguise opinions as facts and stir up irrational fears about religious liberty to defeat a bill that is, I believe, an important step in addressing violence against women, people with disabilities, and gay, lesbian, bisexual and/or transgender people. Just last week, a hate crime survivor committed suicide. Every year too many people—especially young people, and especially young people of color who don’t conform to gender norms—die because of bias-motivated violence. It’s time for some legislation to address this, and the highly offensive, blatantly false arguments coming from this bill’s policy opponents are both “intolerant and ridiculous”.

You can't make this stuff up

Just when you think the "religious right" can't get any more intolerant and ridiculous...then they do. This week, those of us in Washington have had the dubious pleasure of hosting a lot of folks protesting against the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This is "the hate crimes bill," which would add disability, gender, gender identity and sexual orientation to the list of protected classes covered by federal hate crimes laws, and would provide resources for local and state law enforcement to prevent and prosecute hate crimes.

Apparently a few people are upset about this bill, believing (erroneously) that this would criminalize religious statements against homosexuality. They are very upset about pastors being "silenced" and argue that the bill is a "serious threat to religious liberties".

In an incident which makes it abundantly clear whose religious liberties they're concerned about, some of these folks disrupted yesterday's Senate opening prayer. Apparently the individuals had decided to visit the Senate gallery while they were in town, and they coincidentally picked the day a Hindu clergyman offered the first Hindu opening prayer at the Senate (usually this prayer is led by the Senate Chaplain, a Christian cleric, although it has been led by Jewish and Muslim leaders in the past).

I really can't understand how people like this can so misunderstand the fundamental principles of religious liberty on which this country is based! Have they just missed ever reading the Constitution? For the Senate to have opened its sessions with Christian, Jewish, Muslim—and yes, Hindu—prayers is an acknowledgement of America's diverse faith traditions, and the religious liberty that distinguishes us from so many countries. This liberty is one of our true strengths, one which we should appreciate.

The best part of this story is, as one of my friends put it, "it’s about how people who came to DC to protest the hate crimes bill for muzzling clergy ended up… silencing clergy!!!! You can’t make this stuff up". No, we can't.

Once upon a time, Unitarian clergyman Rev. Edward E. Hale, then Chaplain of the U.S. Senate, was asked if he ever prayed for the Senators. “No,” he responded, “I look at the Senators and then I pray for the nation!” We should all pray for our nation when, in incidents like this one, we are shown the ugly intolerance which is all too widespread among us.

Surgeon General? Seriously?

So, in its infinite wisdom, the Administration has managed to locate one of the few remaining medical professionals who would publically characterize homosexuality as a "disease". And not only has it located him, it's nominated him for Surgeon General! Even if Holsinger were to publicly repudiate these views, there is every indication that whoever fills the position of Surgeon General will be heavily influenced in their efforts by the Bush "don't tell anyone about sex and maybe they won't figure it out" Administration.

I'm trying to come up with some theological basis for my comments today, but let's skip the "he doesn't accept the inherent worth and dignity of all persons" argument for now and go right to a discussion of morality (a topic in which Dr. Holsinger seems interested). Sorry, I'm not going to go into the morality of homosexuality; let's talk about the morality of lying to people about their health. It's immoral to nominate a candidate who will not repudiate lurid, outdated and medically innaccurate statements. It's immoral--in the face of an HIV/AIDS crisis affecting people of all sexual orientations--to push innaccurate, fear-based and misleading abstinence-only-until-marriage "sex ed" programs, programs based in an alternate reality where 70% of Americans don't have sex by the time they turn 19. It's immoral for our nation's top health educator not to look out for the health of all our nation's people. In a political climate where everyone talks so much about morality, you'd think we could do better.

Our anonymous poster has made a very interesting and fair point about the difficulty of peace making. Namely, violence is present on multiple levels. Peace Scholar Johann Galtung defines “violence as an impairment of human needs”. This is an overly simplified definition on purpose. It does not limit an act of violence to mere physical violence. It also incorporates emotional, economic, psychological and medical acts of violence. It becomes a litmus test for possible violent actions.

So, is all violence equal? Of course not. This definition only assesses whether or not something is violent. It does not, however, describe what kind of violence it is and how it affects people. Galtung then gives us three subcategories for violence. These describe how an action impairs human needs. These categories are as follows: Direct, Structural and Cultural. Without going into great detail this week—let us briefly define Direct, Structural and Cultural Violence.

Direct Violence: The most visible form. Here we see violence in a physical sense. Jane Punches Sue. Dirk Shoots John. Francis Steals from The Church. This is the overt expression of power from one party to another in a very immediate and tangible way.

Structural Violence: This is a more invisible form. Here, the structures of culture or society create levels of inequity. While one may not be physically held back from achieving their needs, basic human needs are still being withheld. Here a family cannot receive adequate medical attention. A child feels like completion of school is not a viable option. A woman is passed up on another promotion. Sometimes, this structural violence is a catalyst toward direct violence.

Cultural Violence: This is by far the most ephemeral form of violence. This is the invisible violence that pervades our society and gives the cultural basis for Structural and Direct Violence to continue. A woman is dehumanized by the media. Fast cars and reckless driving are honored as prestige. Nationalism is equated with superiority. The invisibility of Cultural Violence is made all the more dangerous with the personal privilege and bias one may hold. White Privilege blocks one from seeing racism. Male Privilege blocks one from seeing sexism. So, in many real ways, it is Cultural Violence that gives Structural and Direct Violence the foundations to stand upon.

So, as our friend pointed out earlier, peacemaking becomes empty without challenging the power structures that create the initial violence. Truly transformative change does not grow out of manipulations, but rather, out of the challenges of recognizing one’s own visible and invisible violent actions. How we do that is challenging. And I hope we can work on that together.

Without struggling to recognize and change all forms of violence, we run the risk of recreating the violence. Negative Peace does not ensure future peace. And we run the risk of allowing future acts of violence to be perpetuated and/or ignored. I end today with a reminder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s prophetic words, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

U(U)'s on "Teaching Baby Paranoia"

One of the most entertaining webcomics, in my humble opinion is "Teaching Baby Paranoia" by Bryant Paul Johnson.

This week's entry has a very entertaining--although historically incorrect--fictional account of Unitarian History and conflict.

One may observe it here.

Please note that I have already informed the author of the historical oversight and I am hoping that he remedies it soon.

What is peace? Two definitions

In my previous entries, I have explored with you why we should study peace and the many forms of peace. But what exactly is peace? The most common idea we think of when we think of peace is: the absence of war or violence. This definition is problematic for two main reasons. We will explore these reasons next and then name a different, if not better, definition for peace.

The first reason for this re-definition is simple. This is not an inherently desirable form of peace. The ancient Romans called this absentia belli--the absence of war. It is also known as Pax Romani or Roman Peace. Often, this peace was achieved by the sword. Those who stood in the way of public peace were punished either by imprisonment or death. This included political dissidents and heretics along side murderers, rapists and thieves. Jesus of Nazareth is one such example of the ancient Roman peacekeeping process. Peace theorists have come to call this “negative peace. It is the negation of violence—sometimes through the application of violence. While this may be the easiest form of peace, it is not lasting. Peace by the sword quickly can deteriorate into tyranny, fascism and authoritarianism.

The second reason for a new definition of peace is that is based on the negation of another phenomenon. Peace becomes in direct opposition to violence. They become like two similarly charged magnets. They are constantly pushing against one another until they slip. There is no room for re-imagining the dominant paradigms and power structures. Instead, peacekeeping becomes an endless uphill climb against conflict. We become like Sisyphus, forced to push the boulder up the hill, only to have it roll back over us.

Just as in the micro, meso and macro entry, we see that best peacemaking happens within interpersonal relations and in the questioning of structural violence. Roman absentia belli leaves no questioning of the status quo. In fact, it only reaffirms the status quo.

So if we want a peacemaking that questions and reconstructs power structures, we need a new definition for peace. Rather than “an absence of violence”, peace must be the production of justice. We cannot merely pit peace against violence, but use peace as a tool for ending violence—a subtle and yet important distinction.

If war is the violent resolution of conflict,

then peace is not the absence of conflict,

but rather,

the ability to resolve conflict without violence.

— C.T. Lawrence Butler, advocate for formal consensus work