Those of us who are mediators, peacemakers, and dispute resolution professionals are driven to help people find peace, or at least get their conflict resolved. We all receive deep satisfaction and a huge high when we have witnessed peace being made before us. On the other hand, when resolution is not possible and peace is out of the question, many of us engage in introspection and a bit of gloom-where did I go wrong? What could I have done better? How come those twits couldn’t get their act together?
What we fail to realize and what is probably apparent to just about everyone other than us peacemakers is that some conflicts are just not going to resolve easily, if at all. From nasty divorces to the enduring Palestinian-Israeli conflict, there is a category of conflict that is defined by its intensity and duration. What do we do about that kind of conflict? Can we help people even though peace seems unlikely? What are the skills and tools that we can bring to bear on these difficult problems?
One of the preeminent peacemakers, mediators, and scholars in the field appears as my guest to help us answer these questions.
Bernard Mayer, Ph.D., is currently a professor at the Werner Institute for Negotiation and Dispute Resolution, at Creighton University in Omaha Nebraska. He is also long-time partner in CDR Associates and is an internationally-recognized leader in the field of conflict resolution. Bernie has facilitated many complex and controversial environmental conflicts, commercial and organizational disputes, interpersonal conflicts, public decision-making processes, and has an extensive background in family mediation as well.
Bernie is the author of many books and articles including The Dynamics of Conflict Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide, Beyond Neutrality: Confronting the Crisis in Conflict Resolution, and most recently, Staying With Conflict: A Strategic Approach to Ongoing Disputes.
Bernie begins by stating that the most important conflicts in our lives will tend to be on-going and will not be resolved immediately. Making peace prematurely in these conflicts will do long term harm. Thus, finding ways to constructively engage people becomes an important, if not critical role, for peacemakers.
Bernie discusses with me the concept of constructive engagement. It is really a way of dealing with conflict avoidance and by offering constructive engagement as a possibility, people in conflict are given a choice about how to move forward: They can engage or avoid. Constructive engagement includes broadening the way people communicate with each other, coaching people on appropriate use power and the abuse of power, framing the conflict authentically, helping people find congruency between their values and their behaviors, and providing spiritual, emotional, and psychological support systems to nurture people.
We talk about different tools and techniques for constructive engagement. I mention that I use respect agreements as an example of how people can agree to deal with disrespectful behaviors.
I ask Bernie about his impression of the Obama administration’s approach to world conflicts. Bernie says that time will tell. However, he is cautiously optimistic that the Obama administration is more nuanced and less polarizing in its approach to world conflicts. Bernie notes that there are huge structural problems in the way of world peace such that no president or Congress, no matter how good, can achieve significant progress in a short time.
We turn our talk to the need for support systems. Bernie points to Northern Ireland as an example of how that worked. At all levels, the need for respite and the need for rejuvenation was apparent. External retreats were established where people could rest and be outside their conflict roles. That process was important in the total peace initiative.
I asks Bernie if much has changed in the conflict resolution field since his book, Beyond Neutrality, was published. Bernie says that one problem with the field is its image-too many people think that mediators and conflict resolution professionals “Make nice” in disregard to the hard realities of the underlying dispute. Bernie wonders if we move to settlement too quickly in some cases. He advocates that we ask the question, “Is resolution the best result for these parties right now?” Often the answer will be “Yes,” but answer will more frequently than not be “No” as well.
The Peacemaker’s Bookshelf
This week I have pulled off my bookshelf, Women, Power, and the Biology of Peace, by Judith L. Hand. This book makes the argument that the biological differences between human males and females are an important and misunderstood reason for the proliferation of war and violence between human societies. Judith Hand is an animal ethnologist who has studied animal communication. She argues that males, as a group, tend to dominate, seek status, and organize in hierarchies. This tendency is pan-cultural and appears to be genetically encoded in males. In contrast, women, as a group, tend to seek social stability and work through processes of group cooperation and collaboration. This is likewise pan-cultural and appears to be genetically encoded in females.
The difference between these two approaches lies in evolutionary biology. Women tend to seek social stability because the time and energy investment in raising a child from conception through birth to adulthood is the most expensive investment a human being can make. Long term socially stable environments are advantageous to supporting child rearing and are therefore highly desired. Women will create socially stabile environments where they can and escape from unstable environments when they must. For men, social stability is not as high a priority and, under the right circumstances, will be sacrificed for dominance, status, and hierarchy.
Hand points out that women can be more aggressive and violent than men. The key is understanding the conditions under which women will fight, and that condition is defense of home and family. In longitudinal studies of wars of aggression, very few women were found to be instigators of war. However, the same studies showed that women were prime movers in conflicts requiring defense of territory, nation, or community. However, without an overt threat to social stability or danger to a family or community, women simply did not take up arms.
Hand contends, based on the research data available, that creating room for women in regional, national, and world leadership and politics will be a major step towards ending war. Although men may still have the urge to dominate, women, because of their biological imperatives, will be a constraining force on that urge. As a consequence, the need for war should be reduced.
The book presents an interesting and provocative argument, is easy to read, and is well worth being on any peacemaker’s bookshelf. It is Women, Power, and the Biology of Peace, by Judith L. Hand and is published by Questpath.
Filed under: Abuse, Communication, Conflicts, Constructive engagement, Intense Conflicts, International Peace, Relationships, congruency between values and behaviors, framing conflicts authentically, power, support systems by
dougnoll (Check me out!)
No Comments »