conflict resolution – Engaging Peace

Who knows why we fight? George knows.

Posted on October 16, 2014November 15, 2014 by kathiemm

In the early days of this blog, we published a series of posts about George Lakoff’s views on wars between values and nations; we revisit some of those posts today.

Lakoff is an activist cognitive psychologist/linguist who devotes great attention to the conflict in values between liberals and conservatives, and the ways in which the family values that are communicated to children can play out in the readiness of adults to make love or war.

For example, in his book Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, Lakoff argues that while conservatives value a “strict father” morality (using punishment to establish respect for authority), liberals value a “nurturant family” morality emphasizing empathy and democratic forms of conflict resolution.

Lakoff also emphasizes the role of metaphor in the decisions people reach regarding political issues. Many judgments are propelled by a “nation-as-person” or “nation-as-family” metaphor in which industrial nations are viewed as “mature” and knowledgeable while other nations are seen as “primitive,” “backward,” and needing to be taught a lesson.

In his book, The Political Mind, Lakoff explains that ideas with a strong emotional component (e.g., regarding the extent to which wars are considered necessary and winnable) are influenced not just by information but also by how they are framed, the language in which they are embedded, and the effects of that language on the brain.

To learn more about Lakoff’s views about how family values connect with major political philosophies and behavior read this article and tell us what you think.

Syria: Even fainter hope

Posted on June 18, 2012June 26, 2012 by kathiemm

By guest author Mike Corgan

The tragic course of violence in Syria, falling mostly as it usually does on women and children, highlights the limitations of the United Nations as a means of peaceful conflict resolution in the world.

Even at its best, the UN can only do in situations like the Syrian civil war what the Security Council allows, and that body is set to stop action rather than take it.

The best analogy of the Security Council is that of a circuit breaker. It shuts down anything that is too big for the system to handle. The idea is that if any of the five permanent members (P5) really don’t want an action, then taking it would likely cause a more widespread and destructive situation.

Right now China and Russia are both balking at anything more than admonitions to Syria for what the Assad regime is doing to its own people. Neither country, each with its own restive and sometime violent Muslim minorities in Central Asia, wants any kind of precedent-setting UN response that promotes intervention in internal state conflict, however bloody and barbaric.

Russia has the additional motivation of not wishing to be seen as weak because it abandons a decades-long client state.

Who else could intervene? NATO is withdrawing forces from both Iraq and Afghanistan as fast as it can. Trying to set the house in order for another Middle Eastern state is not on any member’s agenda.

The ratio of Arab League rhetoric to action is nearly infinite.

Israel can only watch and hope. Geopolitically speaking, a fractious Syria on its border is a positive thing–but one sunk into chaos is not.

And even if some outside power did step in to stop the massacres, the aftermath of regime change now evident in other Arab states like Libya and Egypt is not at all encouraging.

It is the inevitably depressing commentary on humankind that perhaps only exhaustion of one or both of the combatants will end the killing. Inspired leadership by someone, anyone, could also be the answer but, alas, that is an even fainter hope.

Michael T. Corgan, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Associate Chair, Department of International Relations, Boston University

Conflict resolution stories for children

Posted on June 16, 2011March 11, 2021 by kathiemm

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today we welcome guest contributor Rachel Tochiki from Oahu, Hawaii. Now a senior majoring in elementary education and psychology at Boston University, Rachel offers a review of the book Peace Tales. With Father’s Day coming up on Sunday, we encourage dads to read stories of peace to their kids.]

One step that we can take toward achieving peace is educating children about peaceful conflict resolution. Peace Tales: World Folktales to Talk About, by Margaret Read MacDonald, includes 34 folktales and proverbs from around the globe, organized into two sections: war and peace.

Parents, teachers, and librarians can use this book to teach about conflict resolution and its application to children’s lives. It includes notes and suggestions to make reading aloud more engaging, and to emphasize the morals of the stories.

MacDonald explains the purpose of the tales:

To encourage children to look inward.
To present kids with several possible answers to a problem.
To give children a positive sense of value and purpose — a sense of their own strength and inherent morality.

Peace Tales includes a pairing of stories from Eastern Europe about two goats who meet at the center of a narrow bridge. The folktale appears once in the section on war, and once in the section on peace, with the two versions presenting different resolutions to the conflict.

In one, the two goats try to push each other out of the way, but end up pushing each other off the bridge into the water. In the other, the goats carefully balance and squeeze past each other to cooperatively and effectively continue on their way.

MacDonald describes peace as a choice that requires constant maintenance: “It is hard work. A never-ending task.” Though a challenge, working toward peace is important and better than the violence and hatred that can ensue otherwise.

Though the tales come from many countries, the messages of peace are universal. MacDonald comments, “In the past, mankind’s tales have stressed trickery and power more often than conflict resolution. Is it possible that by changing the tales we tell we can change our warring nature? It is worth a try.”

Peace Tales is a great resource for introducing children to stories about peaceful conflict resolution rather than those that glorify war.

Teaching perspective-taking (Perspective-taking, part 3)

Posted on March 10, 2011March 12, 2011 by kathiemm

[Editor’s note: Today’s post is the third in a series by Dr. Sherri Nevada McCarthy on the topic of perspective-taking].

Children sitting on floor at story time — Photo by Dave Parker; licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. From Wikimedia Commons

Many conflict resolution programs used in schools are built around enhancing children’s ability for perspective-taking. Harvard Graduate School of Education Assistant Professor Hunter Gehlbach notes that perspective taking plays an important role in classroom experiences. Teachers are encouraged to provide activities to help students develop these skills.

Gelbach suggests asking open-ended questions and presenting multiple viewpoints in class. Ask students for multiple right answers. Help them to develop a disposition that says, “Okay, I know what my point of view is, but is this how other people are thinking?”

“I don’t think social perspective taking is something which is currently rewarded in schools,” reflects Gehlbach. “It’s not punished, but it is kind of ignored.”

Social perspective taking depends on the context in which someone is trying to take another person’s perspective. According to Gehlbach, very little is known about how perspective taking happens and how effective different strategies are. “One strategy that people often use,” he explains, “is to put themselves in someone else’s shoes. But this could be a really bad strategy. If I’m very different from you and I project my background and my personal history into your situation, there’s a pretty good chance I would think something different from you.”

Perhaps you can remember some of the ways that you learned perspective-taking–either inside a classroom or outside. Please comment and share those experiences.

Sherri McCarthy, Professor of Psychology at Northern Arizona University-Yuma