Enemies are often allies beneath the skin.

In the wake of the recent murder of Americans in Libya, the demonstrations in Cairo, and the growing unrest in other Islamic countries, the truth of this is becoming clear.

As I write, there doubts have emerged about links betweenthe killings in Libya and the “film” that has made the rounds on the web thatinsults Islam.  The events in Cairo seem a direct response to it, as do the spreading demonstrations.

More revolting: the makers of the film may have intended to invoke this reaction. 

Why? One can only speculate, but speculation isn’t hard in this case: the image of mobs of Muslims attacking U.S. citizens and property plays into the image of Islam as a religion of intolerance and hate.  Rather than the film saying anything directly, it invokes a response that is far more effective in making the case than the film itself.

So, radical Christians vs. radical Islamicists, right?

 

The more I think about it, the less I think that’s the way we should see it.

Blind Men and the Elephant of Power

Do you know the story about the blind men and the elephant?

It's an old Buddhist folktale about men who have never encountered an elephant before, but only heard stories about this nearly mythic beast.  One day, someone brings an elephant to the village where they live.  The blind men are all anxious to meet the animal.  Using their hands as eyes, they feel the elephant.  But, they feel different parts of the elephant.

The one feeling the trunk says, "Oh, an elephant is like a snake!"
The one feeling the leg says, "Oh, an elephant is like a great tree!"
The one feeling the ear says, "Oh, an elephant is like a huge fan!"
The one feeling the flank says, "Oh, an elephant is like a wall!"
The one feeling the tail says, "Oh, an elephant is like a rope!"

Of course, the moral is that all the men are right, and all are wrong.  They understand a sliver of the truth.  None has the full picture.  Their error is in assuming that their partial perspective is the reality.  By communicating their experiences to one another, they can come to a more accurate sense of the reality that is the elephant.

I love this story.  I've used it for everything from teaching a Sunday school class for 5-year-olds to an academic conference presentation. It nicely encapsulates my personal epistemology.  It's the anecdote that keeps on giving. 

I've thought of this story yet again when looking at the growing Occupy Wall Street (hereafter "OWS") movement.  As of this writing, the OWS movement has grown to hundreds of sites across the country and is spreading around the globe.

As of this writing, there is also a lot of the typical media coverage of the OWS, usually relying on a dualistic and simplistic narrative. One common framing device is to compare the OWS movement and the "Tea Party" movement, seeing them as superficially similar, but ultimately on two sides of an impermeable divide.

There is some truth to this.  While the OWS movement focuses on the growing inequalities of wealth and lays the blame primarily on the influence of huge corporate interests that exploit rather than serve the public good, the Tea Party argument is that the fault is "big government" taking too much money in taxes and using it inappropriately.

One can also make some meaningful judgments on the veracity of these positions.  For example, one might note that federal tax rates are at historic lows while corporate profits and income inequality are at historic highs.  We could come to the conclusion that the underlying premise of the OWS movement is more valid than that of the Tea Party, and that their argument has more merit.

But I think we might miss a larger truth if we continue to think in such a dualistic fashion.  While many in both the OWS movement and the Tea Party movement would scream bloody murder at the suggestion, I think there is an underlying commonality that promises a possible avenue for what Johan Galtung, father of peace studies, would call a transcendent solution.

The OWS and Tea Party movements are like our blind men feeling the elephant.  Both clearly sense realities of the current situation, namely that the intersection of corporate influence and government policy leads to the use of power for the benefit of the few rather than the many, rewarding unproductive behavior and punishing productive actions.

As I say, this isn't to say that both groups' sense of this reality is equally partial, equally distorted.  That would be to draw a false equivalence.  But both are admittedly partial.

And, despite these limits, both also grasp something fundamental about the nature of this particular elephant, the elephant of power.

Power, like an elephant, is a living and dynamic thing.  And like any living thing, it wishes to survive in its current form.  As such, it profits by having those who challenge it fight one another rather than unite.  No wonder, then, that if we turn on the TV, we see those who celebrated the Tea Party castigate OWS, and vice versa, both sides using interchangeable commonplaces and language.  The only thing that changes are the specific epithets used for the other ("entitled hippies!" "greedy, hateful racists!").

An important step to resolve this would be to see that the actual conflict is quite different than the one presented.  This is a common problem.  In my nascent exploration of peace studies, I have come to at least one conclusion: most conflicts are not between the actors usually cast in the roles of antagonists by the dominant narrative of the conflict.

To give one example, is the conflict in the Middle East truly between Israelis and Palestinians? I'd suggest not.  The conflict is between those who sincerely want a peaceful and equitable solution to the conflict (the majority) and those who profit in one way or another (politically, financially, psychologically, etc.) from pitting Israelis and Palestinians against one another. The latter are in the minority, but have a disproportionate amount of power.

When we see a conflict, we should immediately question if the two sides commonly seen as implacable foes are at the center of the conflict, or if the underlying tension lies deeper, camouflaged (often intentionally) by a "cover story."

In the case of OWS and the Tea Party, I think we see something similar.  Not to dismiss the real differences in philosophy between the groups, but the facile pitting of these two groups against one another misses the underlying point.  It's arguing whether the elephant is like a snake or a tree, ignoring the larger reality.

As I said in a previous post, I think the "99%" moniker used by the OWS movement is a misnomer.  In truth, it is the 100% movement.  Solving the issue of the misuse of unproductive use of power in our society will help everyone.  In the long run, it will even help those who are profiting in the short run from this state of affairs, because it will make the society itself richer, healthier, and long lasting.  There are not any enemies in this conflict--only allies who have not recognized each other yet.

Make no mistake, the elephant of power is quite real.  That it exists as in ingrained part of our social system rather than as an actual cabal of evildoers plotting in a back room makes it no less painful when it crushes us beneath its weight.  That weight will often take the form of a dominating narrative, a seductive one, that pits people against one another.  Conflict makes for drama, and drama makes for good stories.   Our media, which thrive on stories (at least simplistic ones) will happily spin these tales because that is what they do.  The issue will continue to be presented as a tug-of-war along a line running along a single political/philosophical spectrum.

Transcendence will involve moving off that line--off of that spectrum in creative ways.  Not merely compromise (stopping the tugging but staying on the same lines and divided by the same borders) but transcendence will demand thinking not only outside the box, but perhaps chucking the box altogether.

The way to begin this is to do what the blind men in village should have done.  Rather than feeling one bit of the elephant and insisting that we have the complete truth in our hands, we need to move about, inhabit other spaces, and above all else, talk with one another.

Peace.

Peace Studies Class, Part 2

As promised, here is my "solution" to the Park 51 Center issue I came up with at the end of my peace studies course with Professor Galtung.  He actually liked it, which made me inordinately happy. Once a student, always a student.

Steps Toward Transcendence In the Case of Cordoba House (a.k.a. the “Ground Zero Mosque” or “Park 51”)

Conflict: New York Muslim community wants to build cultural center.  Proposed site happens to be a few blocks from site of World Trade Center.  Opponents believe  building Islamic center near site of attack carried out by Muslim extremists defiles the “sacred space.”

Complication: Like many micro and meso conflicts, this conflict is purposefully used by some outside the community as a synecdoche for meta and mega conflicts (Israel/Palestine, U.S.A./Arab world, West/Islam).  

Strategy: Reframe conflict—renarrativize it.  Tell a new story.  The two sides are not antagonists; they are a collective protagonist against ignorance and violence on quest for goal of understanding and peace.  

Tactics:

Naming is important.  Point out problems of calling center “Ground Zero Mosque.” (It is neither at Ground Zero nor a mosque.)  The attempt to “rebrand” the building as “Park 51” is a classic compromise/withdraw move.   Go back to center’s original proposed  name: Cordoba House.  This refers to medieval city in Spain in which learning was privileged and religious intolerance among Muslims, Jews, and Christians was minimized.  Educate public about the reasoning behind the name.  Use it.

Use mediators to communicate the hopes and anxieties of both parties to one another.  Minimize demonstrations, public hearings, and other confrontational interactions.

Localize issue—point out that outside forces would love to manipulate both sides.  Get sides to engage with one another, not with outside forces that would use this conflict as proxy conflict for meta and/or mega conflict (e.g. West vs. Islam).    Make this about New Yorkers solving a New York problem.  

Frame the center as an Islamic cultural center that has as its particular mission the elimination of ignorance among different faiths.  It will host interfaith symposiums, speakers (including Professor Johan Galtung?), and courses that focus on dialog, conflict resolution, and understanding.  Its mission is to counter the stories that drive terrorists, Koran-burners, militant Zionists, and all those who use religion to excuse/condone violence.  This not only acknowledges but uses the proximity to the WTC site to resolve the conflict rather than inflame it.  

Point out that doing this is not a compromise for either side.  Taking on the mission of conflict resolution is not an appeasing of anti-Muslim bigots; the center will still serve all the purposes as an Islamic cultural center it was originally intended to.  By being an Islamic cultural center, it is not appeasing Muslim extremists; the very purpose of the center is to counter extremism.   The center is indeed “sacred space” in the most holistic and important of ways.  

Create memorial space for all those who died as a result of religious intolerance and militancy—yes, the victims of 9/11, but also those who died in the Inquisition, the Holocaust, and other collective persecutions or acts of individual bigotry. 

Reframe conflict not as synecdoche of meta or mega conflict, but as a metonymy—something that “points to” possible solution of these larger conflicts.  Its solution does not depend on solving these larger conflicts, but its solution can serve as symbol of possible resolution of larger conflict.

Peace Studies Class Update, Part I

Hi all,


Some have asked about the peace studies class I took online through Transcend Peace University this spring, and I thought I'd share the first and final "papers" (really brief overviews--Professor Galtung doesn't appreciate longwindedness).  The other papers were group efforts, so I don't wan to post those,but the first and last were papers where we were asked to (in the first paper) describe a specific conflict and diagnosis it using the vocabulary and terminology used by Professor Galtung and (in the second paper) to offer a solution based on the concepts we read about and worked with during the class. 

Here's the book we used in the course, in case you're interested:

I chose the conflict over the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" (which is neither at Ground Zero nor a mosque--discuss).  Below is the first paper.  I'll post my "solution" tomorrow.  BTW, I'm hoping to get into a summer course that starts in a couple of weeks with Professor Galtung on "Galtungism."  I'll keep you posted.

Peace.

Diagnosis:

Actor: Supporters of the Park 51 center	Shallow Attitude: We have the right to build this center where we would like it. Deep Attitude: We want to feel acceptance and dignity as both Muslims and New Yorkers	Shallow Behavior: Denying any sympathy with radical Islam; asserting legal rights to property. Deep Behavior: assertion of non-Otherness; assertion of the dignity of Islam and its right to be respected	Conflict: Shallow Conflict: the building cannot be both built and not built on that spot. Deep Conflict: Contrary narratives about the relationship of Islam and Muslims to American/Western values
Actor: Opponents of the Park 51 center	Shallow Attitude: Ground Zero is sacred space, and building a mosque near it defiles it, since the attackers on 9/11 professed to act in the name of Islam. Deep Attitude: Islam is foreign and dangerous and must be treated with suspicion	Shallow Behavior: Public demonstrations and pronouncements linking Islam to 9/11 and invoking the memories of the dead. Deep Behavior: Assertion of Manichean narrative of 9/11 in which Islam declared war on America/the West/freedom	Shallow Conflict: the building cannot be both built and not built on that spot. Deep Conflict: Contrary narratives about the relationship of Islam and Muslims to American/Western values

Prognosis:

In the absence of therapy, the following are the likely results:

Primary Consequences: The center is built as planned, infuriating those who are against it, which likely leads to interpersonal violence (harassment of those going and coming from the center), violence against property (vandalism), judicial violence (lawsuits aimed at closing or thwarting the center’s mission), and rhetorical violence (politicians/activists decrying the existence of the center for their political gain).  OR, the center is not built, frustrating those who wanted it built, leading to judicial violence (lawsuits aimed at reinstating the right of the center to be built over the objections of opponents) and rhetorical violence (condemnation of opponents by supporters of the center).  Violence against people and property, while somewhat less likely because of the lack of obvious targets, remains a possibility. 

Secondary Consequences: Whether the center is built or not, the lack of therapy would likely lead to a combination of resentment, hostility, and polarization.  The community to be served by the center would feel disenfranchised and unwelcome, and would not be immune to the implications that they were tainted by guilt for the 9/11 attacks.  They would certainly feel scapegoated by the wider community.  Opponents of the center would feel growing hostility toward the Muslim community and be more likely to engage in further hostility toward Muslims whether the center was built (“*They* have defiled our sacred space!”) or not (“We’ve beat back this invasion!  Let’s press on to further victories!”).  Such feelings would ripple from Ground Zero throughout the United States and perhaps even the world, with the local antagonisms in Manhattan acting as a synecdoche for relationships between America/the West and Islam, engendering parallel feelings of alienation, hostility, and a sense of being under siege (with both sides feeling that the other was doing the besieging).

Therapy:

Therapy would involve an opening of dialog among the parties involved with a particular focus on locating shared and/or compatible goals (e.g., eliminating fundamentalism, stopping violence, celebrating religious tolerance).  This might begin with a mediator talking with each group separately, asking them to articulate their specific fears and hopes, then using this as a beginning step in demonstrating to both sides that there are interesting parallels among the parties (fear of violence by the other; desire to live in a secure world; sense of indignation at being perceived demonization by the other side).