The Theory of Active Peace

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Immanuel Z. Varte on January 4, 2009 at 3:08pm

I have read Wilmerding's discussion on The Theory of Active Peace with much interest. I cannot help but comment on his knowledge and insight into the whole issue of Conflict and peace. After reading through it with much interest, I felt the need to add more points on the discussion, especially on stage 1 & 5A with the hope of carrying the dicussion further.

Stage one according to me is very very crucial, maybe almost as crucial as Stage 5. For, in any conflict resolution or transformation, one needs to learn to acquiesce and failing to do so can prevent all the other stages, especially stage 5 from happening. This Stage is, in fact, the giver of light to the ocean of light :)

Social conflict, whether manifesting itself through violent or non-violent means, occurs as a result of competing agendas and needs (as Burton put it), often as a result of misunderstanding due to lack of proper communication or lack of the will to negotiate, compromise or accomodate among groups. [Here I would like to ask if compromises and accommodation can also be present or added in Stage 1 as 'Acquiescence' invariably also includes these two elements and without which one cannot acquiesce].

On stage 5, apart from the views, perceptions, insights and analysis already presented, I would like to go further for the sake of a better understanding on the issue.

Conflict and violence are taken almost as something synonymous to each other. It is the understanding of many that conflicts invariably involve violence. In her ethnography of Mozambique, ‘A Different Kind of War Story’, anthropologist Carolyn Nordstrom asks “Exactly what is violence? Is it an act, a drive, an emotion, a sensation, a relationship, an intent to harm; A thing, an event, a concept, a process, an interaction; An intangible threat, a tangible force; Something physically felt, something emotionally registered, something conceptually recognized; Something that is over with the end of the act, or something that reconfigures reality in its very occurrence, making the concept of ‘over’ meaningless?”. Nordstrom asks us, in short, to consider the widely varying forms in which violence can be understood and undergone. There is the need to understand that all conflicts are not regressive and that all conflicts doesn’t always involve violence. For constructive conflicts and their transformations, we can take the following points as constructive conflicts sans violence:
1. People, relationships, and worldviews are allowed to change.
2. People learn from conflict.
3. People feel empowered and have better self-esteem.
4. People want to pursue positive relationships with others.
5. People express empathy & concern for others.
6. People act cooperatively in equal relationships.

Now coming towards the regressive conflicts, we have situations where:
1. People resist change.
2. People seek to protect themselves & hurt others.
3. People are defined by the conflict.
4. People seek to destroy the other person.
5. People look out only for their own interests.
6. People act competitively in relationships marked by domination & demeaning communication.

With regards to dimension of conflicts, we have:
1. Material Resources: conflict over land, money, water, power, etc.
2. Social Relationships: conflict over the ways people treat each other, communication between people, etc.
3. Perceptions: conflict over different values, worldviews and different ways people understand societies or the world.

Keeping in view the above points, we therefore need to tackle three main areas:
(a) What are the issues (indicators) that underpin and drive the conflict?
(b) What are the factors (indicators) that put a brake on conflict and serve as the basis for peace?
(c) Who are the main stakeholders in the conflict?
(d) What are the main peace factors, synergies, and peace-building gaps we see?
(e) What strategic choices have to be made by the responding institution(s)?

Conflict indicators can be identified at various levels (manifestations, proximate and root causes of conflict). Similarly, peace indicators can be identified at various levels (ongoing peace efforts, structures, and processes in place, and peace-building gaps). Stakeholder dynamics can be understood by reviewing actions, agendas/needs, and alliances.

Regards,

Immanuel Z. Varte,
Director, NEICICDS,
Shillong, India,
Ph. +91 94367 07411,
Email: immanuelvarte@gmail.com/neicicds@gmail.com

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Vinay Jain on January 16, 2009 at 8:51am

I think these are critical and very useful notes.
Active consideration for place of compromises and accommodation should render 'Aquiescence' active in good measure.

That "There is the need to understand that all conflicts are not regressive and that all conflicts doesn’t always involve violence" should be treated as important aspect in the approach to 'active peace'. Examples of constructive conflicts that sans violence given here by Immanuel Varte contain elements active dealing of which may be viewed pro-governance and for social health. I subscribe to that stakeholder dynamics is critical to peace and progress of the society and will strengthen a nation.

I would keenly look forward to directions this discussion takes to.
Vinay

▶ Reply to This