cooperation – Engaging Peace

Ubuntu: Together we are one

Posted on April 1, 2013April 2, 2013 by kathiemm

Second in a series by guest author Mbaezue Emmanuel Chukwuemeka

It has been argued that civil societies have been at the forefront of efforts geared toward the growth and sustenance of non-violent struggle, particularly in Africa.

The pertinent question is: how close is civil society in Africa to adopting non-violent ways of settling conflicts?

To answer this question, we must first trace back the concept of non-violent struggle to the African Dispute Resolution mechanisms of the pre-colonial era. Studies have revealed that the various indigenous African Dispute Resolution mechanisms were not only peaceful in nature but also thrived on rebuilding and sustaining relationships among disputants.

Thus, diplomatic measures like negotiation, mediation, and restorative justice were not introduced to Africa by the West, as some might claim, but were already in use in Africa before the days of colonialism. For instance, let’s consider Ubuntu, originating from the Bantu people of the lower Congo.

Ubuntu, which means “together we are one,” promotes the sacredness and sanctity of human life. The concept emphasizes that individuals can only discover their true nature through relationships and interaction with others. Ubuntu accepts all people as members of the community of the living and promotes the spirit of love, care, tolerance, empathy, and accountability.

Similar to Ubuntu is the Ujamea principle, originating in Tanzania, which also promotes freedom, unity, and equality. The Tanganyikan people believe that it is only equality that can breed cooperation, and unity that begets peace and development.

Consider for yourselves these two questions: (1) To what extent did European settlers in Africa operate on the principles of Ubuntu and Ujami either in their homelands or in Africa? (2) To what extent are people likely to achieve non-violent resolution of conflicts if they do not operate on the basis of those principles?

Mbaezue Emmanuel Chukwuemeka has a Masters of Science in Conflict Management and Peace Studies from University of Jos, Jos, Plateau State. He is a member of Institute of Chartered Mediators and Conciliators, and works as a paralegal counsel at the Legal Aid Council for the Federal Ministry of Justice in Nigeria.

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.

Humanizing the other (Moral engagement, part 8)

Posted on December 30, 2010July 6, 2011 by kathiemm

Humanizing the other, which is the reciprocal of Albert Bandura‘s moral disengagement mechanism known as dehumanization, probably relies greatly on perspective taking (see 11/18/2010 post by Sherri McCarthy).

Humanization involves both recognizing the human qualities of the other and responding to them in a humane way.

Many people attribute human characteristics to their pets—e.g., “my sweet little puppy understands everything I feel and gets so sad when I am feeling bad”—yet defend themselves against acknowledging the human qualities of the designated enemy.

Humanizing clearly involves the ability to put oneself in the shoes of another—a common refrain but often a difficult ability to achieve. It also requires empathy—not just anticipating the intentions and behaviors of the other but understanding how the other would feel in a particular set of circumstances.

In war time, humanizing the enemy may involve recognizing that the people who are shooting at you are doing so only because they are afraid of what will be done to them if they don’t obey orders, or because they have been convinced by their leaders that you are as inhumane and subhuman as your leaders have convinced you that they are.

BeyondIntractability.org has identified a number of strategies for increasing the ability of people to humanize their “enemies.” These strategies include:

Teaching about stereotypes
Promoting empathy
Encouraging dialogue
Focusing on commonalities
Facilitating cooperative projects
Providing education on the negative effects of propaganda
Establishing media that provide alternatives to the media that justify and promote violence, and ultimately
Helping conflicting parties build trust, work for constructive resolution of differences, apologize, and seek reconciliation.

Now that the Cold War is over, many of the mainstream media have shifted their focus from dehumanizing Communists to dehumanizing “Islamists.” How might those Beyond Intractability guidelines be translated into concrete suggestions for countering pressures toward aggression and intractability?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology