Activism vs. Peace-Making
The other night I ran into a woman I hadn't seen in a long time and was surprised to discover that she has become a passionate, and incredibly busy peace activist. This woman, who has always been a fierce, proud and strong woman, is now more fiery than ever. Her sons are teenagers and she is doing everything she can to keep them out of the clutches of military recruiters. I understood, as she spoke about this, how deep her love for her sons is, and that she is absolutely committed that her sons not be killed in a senseless war that she completely disagrees with. She has also become convinced that 9-11 was an inside job, and is totally certain that a conspiracy took down the Twin Towers--a conspiracy of the US government. What is it that spurs her on in her quest to enlighten others about this conspiracy theory? Is it grief at the loss of life on 9-11? Is it powerlessness at being unable to affect this government's actions? Is it rage? I thought about her for a long time after I left her that evening.
One has to wonder about the huge expenditure of energy she, and others like her, are pouring into this cause and other peace and justice causes, and whether or not their expenditure of energy is effective. The question of effectiveness, when it comes to making peace and stopping violence, is one that is a central concern for me. I don't want to just try to solve problems of injustice and violence. I want to make a difference, a huge difference in how people behave with one another. I want the killing and violent death to stop, or at least decrease in our world. I want to turn my attention today to the difference between activism and true peace-making. For I think these are very different things that come from different places and lead to different results.
The peace activists that I have known, and I've known many, are passionate people, who almost always take very strong stands on behalf of a cause or some victimized people. The activist perceives that a wrong or an injustice has been done by an oppressor or a perpetrator to this weaker party and the oppressor/perpetrator, usually someone with greater power, will get away with their wrongdoing unless attention is called to their actions by the activist and his/her community. Usually, but not always, activists use the techniques of non-violence and hold demonstrations, carry signs and protest, chant and sing, pass petitions, hold marches and do anything they can to call public attention to their cause. If they are arrested, most are trained not to resist the arrest. Underneath all this is the hope that if enough attention can be drawn to the specific issue or problem, more and more people will join the ranks of the protesters and eventually, those causing the problem will see the foolishness of continuing in their current course and give in or give up. The problem with all this is that it doesn't often succeed. For example, huge peace demonstations were held all over the world in opposition to the War in Iraq in the days leading up to the start of that war in April 2003, an utterly amazing simultaneous outpouring of passionate feeling all over the planet. I was part of it and it was an extraordinary thing. But it did not set back the war by one hour or stop the killing of one person. Did it accomplish anything? Well yes, it made those of us who participated feel a sense of wonder and awe at how many of us there were who were opposed to the war and how many of us would take to the streets to voice our opposition. Did it accomplish anything else? Hm. . . You tell me.
In my own life I have abandoned activism almost completely in favor of another way of being and doing in the world: peace-making, and it is altogether a different ball of wax. To tell the truth I even had reservations about participating in the demonstrations against the War in Iraq but it was as clear as day to me that the whole thing was going to be a total fiasco from the get-go that I felt like I had to scream out to somebody, "Don't do it! It's going to turn out very, very badly! It's going to be a big, big mess. Stop while you still can." Maybe I've learned a few things since then. But here's the real question: why doesn't activism accomplish anything most of the time? I think the answer is that it is based on a simple psychological human truth--it is based on making people wrong. The activist picks up his or her sign or bull-horn and he or she is saying loudly to the world, "There is something wrong here! So and so did this terrible wrong to these poor people. There is an injustice being perpetrated and it's not okay. It must stop." The implication is, you all, you awful perpetrators of this injustice are bad people, shame on you!! Stop it, stop it, stop it!!! The other part of the equation is that I, your accuser, am a good guy and I am right. I have never done anything wrong and so I am superior to you. Now, I don't know about you, but every time in my life when anyone, I mean anyone has ever told me I was a perpetrator, that I was bad or had wronged someone or said shame on you, I had one of two responses: I got defensive and made all kinds of excuses or I got angry and wanted to fight. There may have been times (like in the principal's office) when I hung my head and looked at the floor, but you can bet your bottom dollar I left out of there cursing up a storm inside my head and ran home furious and crying with shame and embarassment. I may even have done what that more powerful person made me do in punishment but I didn't like it! I don't think I'm any different from the rest of humanity.
I think this is just how human beings are. We don't like being made wrong and we can't stand it when people act like they're right and therefore morally superior to us. And it doesn't matter whether your name is Bill Clinton and the people making you wrong are Republicans fussing at you about Monica Lewinsky or whether you are George Bush and the people fuming at you are Democrats pissed off at you for lying and taking us to war in Iraq. Neither one of them likes or liked being criticized, attacked or told they did it wrong. So, if this is true, and you have a bunch of people in an administration in Washington who are notoriously un-introspective, secretive and paranoid and running a government based on how wonderful we are because we are protecting the American people from terrorism, how do you get their attention that their might be a better way to do things? You might have to come at them a whole different way.
The standard I'm right/you're wrong approach is completely human and completely understandable. It is the way of the world since humans invented speech and this either/or way of thinking may even be based in the brain. We all do it and we do it automatically; it's a habit of thinking with us, but thank goodness, one that can be broken. The problem with it is that, when it comes to conflict and intractable problems, especially ones of violence and war, this kind of public discourse in response to it is not workable or helpful. In fact, the either/or, good/bad stuff can make the situation much, much worse. Not only do you have people in dire distress in the war zone itself, but then when you add defenisve, reactive political and military leaders into the mix you have an even worse human mess to deal with. So how about transcending the either/or dynamic entirely into a both/and dynamic? A what? What the hell is she talking about? This is where the peace-making comes in.
This other way has been described as the Third Way and it has to do with engaging with the enemy, approaching them and finding out, what are they so upset about. The either/or voice says immediately: "Horrors! I couldn't do that! They might kill me! How do I know they wouldn't beat me up?" Well you don't. On the other hand, they don't know that you won't kill them! But our fears about engaging with the enemy, be the enemy a family member we haven't talked to in twenty years, the murderer that killed our daughter, or the ethnic group that killed off members of our tribe, are usually far worse than the actual experience of sitting down face to face and listening to our enemy speak. There are people who know how to set up such meetings. They are skilled in teaching you how to put all your judgments, opinions and defenses aside so you can just be there, fully present to the person you are meeting. You go there with one goal only, to be open to them and to learn what it is like to be them. If you are very, very lucky you will receive an extraordinary gift; your enemy will tell you what it is like to be him or her. You will walk a mile in his shoes and, most amazing of all, you will see yourself as your enemy sees you. This may be uncomfortable but your enemy has given you a great gift. They have held up a mirror to you.
Now is this the truth about you? Is this something to fight about? Certainly not! Why not? Because it is simply a view of who you are.There are 6.5 billion views on the planet and this is one of them and perhaps his kin and countrymen share a similar one of you and your countrymen. But it is only a view! When you understand that, you understand that all your opinions and judgments about what your enemy has been doing and who he has been being are also a view and your view has as much validity as his, and no more. Then, as the scales fall from your eyes, you begin to see a human being in front of you, who is trying to feed and clothe his family, who may be simply trying to do a good job, who is trying to make some sense out of living and dying here on this spinning globe. He or she has had losses too and has struggled with some of the very same concerns that have troubled you. We are not so very different, my enemy and me. We are connected at the heart. It doesn't matter whether your enemy is called George Bush/Dick Cheney/Donald Rumsfeld or whether he is an Islamic terrorist or someone else who appears to be denying your kith and kin some joy and happiness. This person can be seen, heard, understood, embraced, from a far wider place, than we have ever understood before.
This kind of approach is not an easy one and is not palatable to those who are committed to pointing out injustice and calling for just solutions to the inequities and violence so endemic in our world. I totally support accountability, calling people who are hurting other people to account for the pain they are causing other people. But somehow this needs to be done in a human context, in a way that invites the other, the perpetrator, the oppressor, the enemy, into a conversation where we join in our humanity, making room for finding solutions where previously none were possible. One might even say that this is a risky or dangerous path, for to some in our families and communities it may look as if we have betrayed them, gone over to the enemy. Not so. In the spaciousness created by listening to each other from a both/and perspective in which we are simply human together, something mysterious sometimes arises: an atmosphere that allows people to grow and expand, to learn and to be more than they ever were before (when they were so busy fighting). Shifts begin to happen, miracles occur, the inexplicable begins to happen with considerable regularity. Life becomes a lot more interesting and a lot more fun.
Questions of Inquiry:
1. How do people get addicted to being right and making other people wrong? What is the rush that comes with angrily denouncing other people's behavior? Has being denounced and made wrong ever made you truly willing to stand up and take responsibility for your wrongs? How often? How willingly?
2. Could the Red vs. Blue state divide in this country be, in the final analysis, about people being right and making other people wrong, about what they believe and how they choose to live? What if we truly listened to each other and made space for each other? What if deep listening were a normal practice in all our political discourse? in all our community organizations?
3. Do you have other ideas for really effective peace-making?
One has to wonder about the huge expenditure of energy she, and others like her, are pouring into this cause and other peace and justice causes, and whether or not their expenditure of energy is effective. The question of effectiveness, when it comes to making peace and stopping violence, is one that is a central concern for me. I don't want to just try to solve problems of injustice and violence. I want to make a difference, a huge difference in how people behave with one another. I want the killing and violent death to stop, or at least decrease in our world. I want to turn my attention today to the difference between activism and true peace-making. For I think these are very different things that come from different places and lead to different results.
The peace activists that I have known, and I've known many, are passionate people, who almost always take very strong stands on behalf of a cause or some victimized people. The activist perceives that a wrong or an injustice has been done by an oppressor or a perpetrator to this weaker party and the oppressor/perpetrator, usually someone with greater power, will get away with their wrongdoing unless attention is called to their actions by the activist and his/her community. Usually, but not always, activists use the techniques of non-violence and hold demonstrations, carry signs and protest, chant and sing, pass petitions, hold marches and do anything they can to call public attention to their cause. If they are arrested, most are trained not to resist the arrest. Underneath all this is the hope that if enough attention can be drawn to the specific issue or problem, more and more people will join the ranks of the protesters and eventually, those causing the problem will see the foolishness of continuing in their current course and give in or give up. The problem with all this is that it doesn't often succeed. For example, huge peace demonstations were held all over the world in opposition to the War in Iraq in the days leading up to the start of that war in April 2003, an utterly amazing simultaneous outpouring of passionate feeling all over the planet. I was part of it and it was an extraordinary thing. But it did not set back the war by one hour or stop the killing of one person. Did it accomplish anything? Well yes, it made those of us who participated feel a sense of wonder and awe at how many of us there were who were opposed to the war and how many of us would take to the streets to voice our opposition. Did it accomplish anything else? Hm. . . You tell me.
In my own life I have abandoned activism almost completely in favor of another way of being and doing in the world: peace-making, and it is altogether a different ball of wax. To tell the truth I even had reservations about participating in the demonstrations against the War in Iraq but it was as clear as day to me that the whole thing was going to be a total fiasco from the get-go that I felt like I had to scream out to somebody, "Don't do it! It's going to turn out very, very badly! It's going to be a big, big mess. Stop while you still can." Maybe I've learned a few things since then. But here's the real question: why doesn't activism accomplish anything most of the time? I think the answer is that it is based on a simple psychological human truth--it is based on making people wrong. The activist picks up his or her sign or bull-horn and he or she is saying loudly to the world, "There is something wrong here! So and so did this terrible wrong to these poor people. There is an injustice being perpetrated and it's not okay. It must stop." The implication is, you all, you awful perpetrators of this injustice are bad people, shame on you!! Stop it, stop it, stop it!!! The other part of the equation is that I, your accuser, am a good guy and I am right. I have never done anything wrong and so I am superior to you. Now, I don't know about you, but every time in my life when anyone, I mean anyone has ever told me I was a perpetrator, that I was bad or had wronged someone or said shame on you, I had one of two responses: I got defensive and made all kinds of excuses or I got angry and wanted to fight. There may have been times (like in the principal's office) when I hung my head and looked at the floor, but you can bet your bottom dollar I left out of there cursing up a storm inside my head and ran home furious and crying with shame and embarassment. I may even have done what that more powerful person made me do in punishment but I didn't like it! I don't think I'm any different from the rest of humanity.
I think this is just how human beings are. We don't like being made wrong and we can't stand it when people act like they're right and therefore morally superior to us. And it doesn't matter whether your name is Bill Clinton and the people making you wrong are Republicans fussing at you about Monica Lewinsky or whether you are George Bush and the people fuming at you are Democrats pissed off at you for lying and taking us to war in Iraq. Neither one of them likes or liked being criticized, attacked or told they did it wrong. So, if this is true, and you have a bunch of people in an administration in Washington who are notoriously un-introspective, secretive and paranoid and running a government based on how wonderful we are because we are protecting the American people from terrorism, how do you get their attention that their might be a better way to do things? You might have to come at them a whole different way.
The standard I'm right/you're wrong approach is completely human and completely understandable. It is the way of the world since humans invented speech and this either/or way of thinking may even be based in the brain. We all do it and we do it automatically; it's a habit of thinking with us, but thank goodness, one that can be broken. The problem with it is that, when it comes to conflict and intractable problems, especially ones of violence and war, this kind of public discourse in response to it is not workable or helpful. In fact, the either/or, good/bad stuff can make the situation much, much worse. Not only do you have people in dire distress in the war zone itself, but then when you add defenisve, reactive political and military leaders into the mix you have an even worse human mess to deal with. So how about transcending the either/or dynamic entirely into a both/and dynamic? A what? What the hell is she talking about? This is where the peace-making comes in.
This other way has been described as the Third Way and it has to do with engaging with the enemy, approaching them and finding out, what are they so upset about. The either/or voice says immediately: "Horrors! I couldn't do that! They might kill me! How do I know they wouldn't beat me up?" Well you don't. On the other hand, they don't know that you won't kill them! But our fears about engaging with the enemy, be the enemy a family member we haven't talked to in twenty years, the murderer that killed our daughter, or the ethnic group that killed off members of our tribe, are usually far worse than the actual experience of sitting down face to face and listening to our enemy speak. There are people who know how to set up such meetings. They are skilled in teaching you how to put all your judgments, opinions and defenses aside so you can just be there, fully present to the person you are meeting. You go there with one goal only, to be open to them and to learn what it is like to be them. If you are very, very lucky you will receive an extraordinary gift; your enemy will tell you what it is like to be him or her. You will walk a mile in his shoes and, most amazing of all, you will see yourself as your enemy sees you. This may be uncomfortable but your enemy has given you a great gift. They have held up a mirror to you.
Now is this the truth about you? Is this something to fight about? Certainly not! Why not? Because it is simply a view of who you are.There are 6.5 billion views on the planet and this is one of them and perhaps his kin and countrymen share a similar one of you and your countrymen. But it is only a view! When you understand that, you understand that all your opinions and judgments about what your enemy has been doing and who he has been being are also a view and your view has as much validity as his, and no more. Then, as the scales fall from your eyes, you begin to see a human being in front of you, who is trying to feed and clothe his family, who may be simply trying to do a good job, who is trying to make some sense out of living and dying here on this spinning globe. He or she has had losses too and has struggled with some of the very same concerns that have troubled you. We are not so very different, my enemy and me. We are connected at the heart. It doesn't matter whether your enemy is called George Bush/Dick Cheney/Donald Rumsfeld or whether he is an Islamic terrorist or someone else who appears to be denying your kith and kin some joy and happiness. This person can be seen, heard, understood, embraced, from a far wider place, than we have ever understood before.
This kind of approach is not an easy one and is not palatable to those who are committed to pointing out injustice and calling for just solutions to the inequities and violence so endemic in our world. I totally support accountability, calling people who are hurting other people to account for the pain they are causing other people. But somehow this needs to be done in a human context, in a way that invites the other, the perpetrator, the oppressor, the enemy, into a conversation where we join in our humanity, making room for finding solutions where previously none were possible. One might even say that this is a risky or dangerous path, for to some in our families and communities it may look as if we have betrayed them, gone over to the enemy. Not so. In the spaciousness created by listening to each other from a both/and perspective in which we are simply human together, something mysterious sometimes arises: an atmosphere that allows people to grow and expand, to learn and to be more than they ever were before (when they were so busy fighting). Shifts begin to happen, miracles occur, the inexplicable begins to happen with considerable regularity. Life becomes a lot more interesting and a lot more fun.
Questions of Inquiry:
1. How do people get addicted to being right and making other people wrong? What is the rush that comes with angrily denouncing other people's behavior? Has being denounced and made wrong ever made you truly willing to stand up and take responsibility for your wrongs? How often? How willingly?
2. Could the Red vs. Blue state divide in this country be, in the final analysis, about people being right and making other people wrong, about what they believe and how they choose to live? What if we truly listened to each other and made space for each other? What if deep listening were a normal practice in all our political discourse? in all our community organizations?
3. Do you have other ideas for really effective peace-making?
posted by Joy at 5:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home