Tag: reconciliation

Can compassion replace humiliation?

Posted on by kathiemm

Humiliation is clearly a means for showing disregard and contempt, and is perhaps particularly insidious because it can be done without any direct physical contact.

Countless experts on the Middle East have made note of centuries of humiliation by Christian invaders. Those invaders took land and resources by force, divided peoples up into arbitrarily created countries to weaken political and military resistance, and denigrated the most popular religion of the area.

Because of wide recognition of the destructive aftermath of humiliation, the Preamble of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights begins by stressing the importance of recognizing that:

“…the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,” and that “disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind….”

Acting ethically to promote human rights, peace, and reconciliation becomes particularly challenging in the face of inhumane acts perpetuated by other human beings.  Certainly, the retaliation of Muslim militants against innocent people in a U.N. Mission in Afghanistan is horrifying, just as is the desecration of the Qu’ran by Terry Jones.

By now we should understand  how violence begets violence in a constantly escalating spiral. We have not yet solved the threat of Star Wars or other forms of mass destruction that can wipe the human race from the planet.

We must develop new ways of dealing with insults to our beliefs and our rights–alternatives that don’t promote the spiral of retaliations.  One such approach is the Compassionate Listening Project (see video below).

An outgrowth of years of reconciliation efforts with Israel and Palestine, the initiative is designed to teach peacemaking skills at every level of human interaction from the personal family to the global family. Members of this project are ready to talk to anyone, including terrorists, to promote peace.

Can we even imagine a world where compassion and listening replace humiliation and retaliation?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Nobel Peace Laureates and International Women’s Day

Posted on by kathiemm

In honor of International Women’s Day, celebrated March 8 of this year, we dedicate this post to the five most recent female winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.International Women's Day logo

2004: Wangari Maathai from Kenya, the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize, received the award for her achievements in sustainable development, the rights of women, democracy, environmental protections, and peace. (For more on Wangari Maathai, see this video.)

2003: Shirin Ebadi from Iran was awarded the Peace Prize for her work on behalf of democracy and human rights, particularly the rights of women and children. She was the first woman in Iran to become a federal judge, a position taken from her following the Islamic Revolution of 1975. Not until 1992 was she again allowed to practice law in her home country. Much of her work is risky, focusing on human rights cases. (For more on Shirin Ebadi, see this video.)

1997:  The 1997 Peace Prize was shared by Jody Williams of Putney, Vermont, USA, and the organization she co-founded, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. She has devoted her life to anti-war, anti-violence activities, and has helped to found the Nobel Women’s Initiative which works for peace with equality and justice.  (For more on Jody Williams, see this article and video.)

1992: Rigoberta Menchú Tum from Guatemala grew up in an impoverished Mayan Indian family that founded the Committee for the Peasant Union, which fought for social reform and justice for native families. Following the torture and murder of her father and brother, she fled the country and dedicated her life to promoting human rights and reconciliation. (For more on Rigoberts Menchu Tum, see this video.)

1991: Aung San Suu Kyi, born in Burma (now Myanmar), has earned international recognition for her work on human rights. Despite being held under house arrest in Burma for most of the past few decades, she has been continuously outspoken on behalf of the Burmese people.  (For more on Aung San Suu Kyi, see this video.)

These five women are all human beings who have devoted their lives to promoting human rights and peace. Read or listen to their stories. What characteristics do you share with them? What can you do to promote peace and human rights? Everyone can do something–you don’t have to be a Nobel Laureate to make a difference for peace.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

In honor of President Lincoln: Moving towards freedom

Posted on by kathiemm

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today we welcome the first of several contributions by our guest contributor Majed Ashy. Dr. Ashy is an assistant professor of psychology at Merrimack College and a research fellow in psychiatry at McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School. He was born in Lebanon and is a Saudi Arabian. He earned his B.A, M.A, and Ph.D. in psychology from Boston University. His research in psychoneuroimmunology and political psychology focuses on childhood experience of adversity and its psychobiological consequences. He authored the Saudi Arabia chapter in State Violence and the Right to Peace: An International Survey of the Views of Ordinary People Greenwood Publishing Group / Praeger series. He is contributing several chapters to two volumes to be published by Springer Publishing Co.: Handbook on War, Torture, and Terrorism, and Handbook on Protest, Peace, Reconciliation, Apology, and Forgiveness.]

By Majed Ashy, Guest Author

Two arguments are presented repeatedly in discussions of the evolution of democracy in the Middle East: “Arabs are not ready for democracy,” and “If Arabs get more democratic rights, then some Islamic extremists will come to power and that is a threat to the whole world.”

Army trucks surrounding Tahrir Square, Cairo
Army trucks surrounding Tahrir Square, Cairo (Photo by Ramy Raoof; licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic; from Wikimedia Commons)

I heard similar alarmist arguments against women’s suffrage, African American civil rights movements, and Black liberation in South Africa. President Lincoln, whose birthday is this week, did not accept the arguments against freeing the slaves in America, but millions of people still lack freedom.

With advancements in communication technologies, Internet resources, social networks, media, satellite TV stations, and international travel, the evolution in individual empowerment and the rise of social collective awareness are natural consequences. Masses of people are rejecting as self serving and racist the “old” narratives about the necessity of oppression.

One of the problems faced in the Middle East is the communication gap between governments and the general populations. Many Middle Eastern governments are still using a “language” that does not speak to people who are educated, aware, and able to see through the narratives of oppression. The image of men on camels and horses in Tahrir square in Cairo beating protesters summarize this divide.

We have in the Middle East youth who represent the future, are linked through the Internet to people all over the world, watch satellite TV stations from almost every country, and call for human rights. On the other side we have people who come from the ancient past and deal with their problems by riding camels and beating people up.

The current conflict in the Middle East is about narratives. One narrative that has not been given a chance yet is that the Middle East can evolve into a responsible democracy that takes into account human rights, international law, and democracy. All lovers of freedom and democracy should respect and help sustain this effort.

Majed Ashy

International survey on peace and war

Posted on by kathiemm

We promised in our first blog that we would share, on occasion, findings from our international survey concerning war and peace.

The Personal and Institutional Rights to Aggression and Peace Survey (PAIRTAPS) has been completed by ordinary people from over 40 countries around the world. This survey asks respondents to give their own definitions of war, torture, terrorism, peace, and reconciliation.

It also asks them to indicate on a seven point scale (from 1 totally disagree to 7 totally agree) the extent to which they agree with statements such as the following:

  • Sometimes one country has the right to invade another.
  • Governments have the right to order the torture of prisoners during times of war.
  • Individuals have the right to stage protests against war and in favor of peace.
  • Children have the right to grow up in a world of peace.

Participants are also asked to explain in their own words the reasoning behind their rating scale scores. These qualitative responses allow us to compare the kinds of arguments made for and against the use of violence and in favor of a right to peace.

How would you respond to those items? In what ways do you think your responses might differ from the ones made by someone from a different country?

In the last post, we asked the question, “In what countries do you think the greatest support for government-sponsored aggression can be found?” The samples showing the greatest tolerance for invasion of one country by another were the samples from the United States and China. In addition, a majority of the samples from both countries provided arguments supporting a state’s right to torture.

What speculations do you have about the apparent tolerance for governmental aggression in each of those countries?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology