Old tree at Kehl Lake |
“Stopping” [fighting] does not mean ending conflict altogether. Conflict is a natural part of life. It brings about change In the form of business competition, it helps create prosperity. It lies at the heart of the democratic process. The best decisions result not from a superficial consensus, but from surfacing different points of view and searching for creative solutions. Few injustices, moreover, are addressed without serious conflict. We need more conflict, not less.
More conflict and an end to fighting? How’s that
going to work? And isn’t aggression simply part of human nature?
Since
no one would take the rest seriously if the question of human nature were left
unaddressed, the author tackles that one head-first. I am going to spend a
disproportionately small space here on his argument, but basically he cites
recent archaeological evidence that has overturned the earlier “killer ape”
theories. The emerging view is that our ancestors lived for 2,500,000 years
without warfare and that only as hunting and gathering gave way to agriculture
(in the past 10,000 years) did human beings seek to dominate territory in an
attempt to defend fixed resources. (Here I also recommend David R. Montgomery’s
Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations, which argues that agriculture’s ability to provide for
larger populations led to overpopulation, tillage of marginal land, erosion,
flood, and war.) We have a longer history of cooperation, says Ury, than we do
of war. For me, the author’s careful and detailed refutation of Hobbes was
beautiful.
It is easier, in fact, to imagine cooperation than coercion. If one person tries to coerce another in a simple, nomadic society, the victim can simply pick up his or her few possessions and go join kin elsewhere. Or the victim can recruit allies. A bully may be more powerful than any one person [echo of Hobbes], but not more than a group. The use of force would, moreover, undermine the valuable cooperative ties that sustain the bully along with everyone else [my emphasis added].
Okay,
maybe we will agree with Ury that “human nature” is not simply programmed for
war, but how does that agreement support his larger claim that peaceful
cooperation is possible at this stage of history? It isn’t as if the human race is going
to stop growing food and go back to hunting and gathering, is it? And with the
global population what it is now, wouldn’t even that lead to a world “red in
tooth and claw”?
Next
step of the argument: Resources in the primitive hunting/gathering world were,
he argues, an “expandable pie.” With the coming of agriculture, the formerly
expandable pie of resources became fixed; compulsion rather than cooperation
became the means of ordering social groups; human relationships went from
complicated horizontal networks to vertical (hierarchical) levels of power,
concentrating the most at the top, the least at the bottom. But now that knowledge has become the coin of the global
realm, we find ourselves once again with an “expandable pie.” Knowledge grows by being
shared. Knowledge is advanced by cooperation. Moreover, as weapons of war have become
more dangerous--and knowledge of the dangers spread throughout the
world—motivation grows to cooperate rather than to coerce and kill. And so we are once
again dependent on getting along with one another, as were our hunter-gatherer ancestors.
World
peace is hardly inevitable, the author acknowledges. It would be difficult to say
right now, in 2012 (or when the book was first published in 1999), that it is even probable. But William Ury makes a strong
case that it is possible—and that we can all help to bring it about.
One of
the most wonderful things about The Third Side is that it is not merely theoretical
but practical, and the roles we can take on to further peace are available to
us in our everyday lives. In fact, it is in the ordinary challenges of family and
community life that we can try on the roles of the provider, the teacher, the
bridge-builder, the mediator, the arbiter, the equalizer, the healer, the
witness, the referee, and the peacekeeper. We can, that is, retrain ourselves
and help to retrain others to deal with conflict cooperatively.
Ury’s
last chapter, “Next Steps,” answers the question, “How can I start?” with
twelve concrete suggestions. Do you have a troubled relationship somewhere in
your life, with a family member, friend, or community member? (Who among us
does not?) This book shows in practical terms, with specific strategies, how to move from hostility and resentment to
healing, and for that alone I would recommend it highly, but the author’s
insights apply all the way from the interpersonal level to the international
level.
Working
for peace is not easy, but don’t human beings love a challenge?
In the sheer magnitude and complexity of the challenge, the struggle for peace, ironically enough, most closely resembles nothing so much as war itself. Think of how much work goes into preparing for and engaging in wars. Consider how many men and women serve in the armed forces. Weigh how much treasure, talent, and blood is poured into this gigantic venture. Reflect on the around-the-clock vigilance required for huge numbers of individuals. No less effort will be required for the sake of peace. Think too about the virtues required for the successful conduct of wars. Courage? Peace demands just as much; facing up to force nonviolently calls for perhaps even more bravery and self-control than fighting. Cooperation and discipline? Solidarity and altruism? All these ingredients are needed to transform treacherous conflicts. Ironically, in the end, war may have served as a great training ground for peace. For peace is harder than war.
2 comments:
Pamela, this book sounds so intriguing. I am always fascinated about how and why we fight--and what we can do about it. Read a similar book a few years ago. Searching for the title on the book shelf, but it's AWOL.
Honoring you greatly for sharing this here! So important that we can learn how to communicate with one another. (And I totally did not mind your soapbox. It was the very best kind of soapbox.)
The soapbox Kathy refers to here is her blog, where she posted about conflict, asking readers how they dealt with it, and I shamelessly took the opportunity to rave this book. Kathy, thank you so much for your hospitality and appreciation!
Post a Comment