In my field of Conflict Analysis studies, we refer to two parties engaged in intractable conflict as being in collusion with one another. As parties enter a cycle of conflict, they begin to dehumanize the other and employ conflict tactics in order to provoke or display dominance. These tactics are justified-within each party's mantra-by rhetoric of self-preservation against an evil,now-inhuman enemy. In protracted conflict, tactics often include violence and can quickly escalate into extreme displays of offense and defense, also known as war. This type of conflict is seen as zero-sum, meaning there can only be one winner, compromise is seen as defeat and collaboration is deemed 'negotiating with terrorists'. Both parties believe they are right/good, the other is wrong/evil and, most often, that God is on their side. With this conflict mentality, it's no wonder that the world is entrenched in inexorable war. Believing that our party is infallible, we become unable to look inward and ask ourselves: "In what ways have we contributed to this conflict? Are we, in some small or big way, at fault?" Being unable to take a step back and look at the bigger picture with introspection and contrition, we hinder our ability to take steps toward what we profess to want most; peace and freedom.
Admitting fault, whether large or small, does not excuse the other party's acts of aggression, nor does it denote weakness in our own party. Instead, it allows us to look at conflict in a more objective manner, without the paralyzing and blinding defense of dehumanization. When we render an entire group of people into a stereotype of evil, we relinquish the capacity to see conflict clearly. Understanding how we may have insulted, provoked or offended another doesn't justify their acts, but it might help to explain them. In beginning to grasp the reasoning behind another party's motives, we start to once again reveal their humanity by recognizing (not validating) their reasons for hostility. This doesn't mean we have to agree with their reasoning, but often times understanding and empathy is what it takes to mend or create a positive relationship. This is the only way to permanently break a cycle of conflict. This is the only way to sustainable peace.
Relating this rant to current affairs, the inexcusable attack on the US Embassy in Libya by Islamic extremists is a prime example of collusion. It's no secret that the USA and Islamist factions have been engaged in a cycle of conflict for the past two decades, although due to dehumanization and stereotyping, the scope of conflict has-from a Western perspective-proliferated to include most of the Arab world. As a very firm disclaimer, I have to state that I in no way condone, excuse or justify any acts of terror committed by any faction. What happened on 9/11, the aftermath and most recently, the attack on the US Embassy in Libya are inexcusable acts of aggression and the result of dehumanization.
That being said, a response to the attacks which would further a rhetoric of hatred and stereotype, which would place blame with no accountability, which would communicate ignorance without introspection would only escalate conflict. It would foster more resentment for America, thus creating more hatred, more ignorance and ultimately, more violence. This is not the type of foreign affairs campaign America needs.
On the other hand, issuing a statement of empathy and, to some degree, culpability is a monumental step in the direction of peace. Although I am not a die-hard Obama fan, I have to say that I was deeply impressed with his response to the attacks in Libya. In a moment where everyone expected the President to continue a narrative of hatred, he took the high (albeit unpopular) road in an attempt to break down the cycle of conflict.
The general response to Obama's statement of empathy to the Islamic world took me aback. How can we be so entrenched in our narrative of 'right and wrong' that we view an act of peace as weakness? I can understand being deeply upset over the loss of American lives. There truly is no excuse for murdering innocents. But to persecute someone for taking the (dare I say Christlike) route of peace and humility makes little sense to me.
We say we want to protect our freedom. Well, what better way to do so than to break the cycle of collusion that has fostered outside hatred for America? By lessening our dehumanized resentment for our aggressors, we will invite our aggressors to lessen their resentment towards us. What better start than to offer public declarations of empathy and understanding? People may say that this is the "soft", idealist approach to foreign affairs; that Islamic extremists won't respond to these gestures. Well, I ask you, how do we know? Have we ever attempted, over a sustainable amount of time, to offer our enemies empathy and understanding? Over the past few decades we have fought fire with fire. And guess what? We're all getting burned. Don't you think it's time to start looking for a new way?
From the Sermon on the Mount: Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.
ReplyDeletewhere were you when Moroni needed you :) in other words, you should write for the N.Y.T
ReplyDeleteExtraordinary article.
ReplyDeleteMy daughter and and I have just become acquainted with your blog through Kim Puzey.She has been inactive in the LDS church for many years.When I told her about your post, she was delighted with your fairness and in the way you discus the issues that matter to you.
She said"When did it become okay to speak your mind in the culture?"
You have sparked a conversation of hope and a line of new awareness in her, and thus in our relationship.
Be true to your voice and carry on.People out here are listening.We hear your courage and see your heart in your writing.Carry on! Louise Peine
My wife passed me the laptop tonight and told me to read your post. I like that you write - there's catharsis and clarity found through writing. Seems like there is just as much learning as there is teaching in a post, just like giving a talk in church.
ReplyDeleteThought you'd appreciate the following link. Many people in Washington are seeing what happened in Libya through this lens:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/douthat-its-not-about-the-video.html?_r=1&hpw
I think you would also appreciate some ideas I put down about creating a culture of open communication, where we can confront brutal facts without feeling attacked. http://maketheconnections.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/good-to-great-confront-the-brutal-facts/
I think what people were mostly concerned about (rightfully so) was that the first response from the US government was "sorry for hurting your feelings" instead of "hey, stop attacking our embassy and killing our representatives". Both statements may be correct, but there is a time and a place for each of them. Obama got them in the wrong order.
ReplyDeleteSo well written. So clearly thought out. So proud that you were one of my students.
ReplyDeletethanks for sharing, love reading this blog.
ReplyDeleteHear, Hear!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Steph, for articulating better than I can, thoughts and feelings that I share. It seems people equivocate talking to inability, and vulnerability to weakness. As long as Obama has been in office his foreign policy has been challenged as ignorant and without a backbone. After you put it in terms of collusion, I would submit his tendency toward diplomacy is tantamount to strength and confidence, the very opposite of what he is accused of portraying.
On another note, you have two very loyal readers up here in Spokane, WA. Sometimes it seems like Erin and I are the only couple we know of that enjoys late night conversations defending Obama, discussing self-awareness, deciphering collusions that exist all around us, and engaging in painful introspection. Very much appreciate your thoughts. (is it wrong to put an Obama sticker on our Subaru then willfully park between two Suburbans w/ Romney stickers at church? hm... I might be perpetuating a little 'out of the box' attitude... so sue me!)
Kyle