Sunday, October 1, 2017

Conversation as an alternative to trading insults.

The following are excerpts of my summary of a chapter  written by USCRF Commissioner Tenzin Dorjee (2015) titled "Nonviolence and Middle Way Approaches" (Sage handbook of conflict communication).The ideas expressed delineate a different way of approaching negotiations that emphasizes shared humanity, compassion, and empathetic listening of the "other.
"Nonviolence and Middle Way Approaches.
This chapter addresses ethnocultural conflicts, especially problematic due to their complex nature and the variety of contributing factors, including ethnic identity, human rights, political access, and freedom.  The author focuses on dialogue as a primary pathway for resolving this type of conflict, since open , respectful exchanges of ideas can open doors that would otherwise remain shut. The chapter is centered on the approaches used by the Dalai Lama, an individual instrumental in developing a dialogic methodology termed the “middle way approach” (MWA) used in the Sino-Tibetan conflict.
Nonviolent approach
Nonviolent interaction as a principle for creating stable societies is central to many religions, including those of southern and eastern Asia. Ahisma is referenced as a central precept of this idea; while it literally means do no harm, the implication is more evolved and includes an active concern for the “other.”  According to the Dalai Lama, an ideal interpretation of Ahisma promotes the principles of compassion, mutual respect, acceptance of other religions, and tolerance, all of which are crucial to resolving conflict.
Nonviolence principles in Buddhism
            Ahisma in Buddhist philosophy is rooted in the concept that violence has many manifestations, including verbal, physical, and mental (intention). To avoid violence means eschewing violent actions, words, and thoughts. Motivation is a key factor in practicing the concept of Ahisma: behaviors that stem from feelings of anger, hostility or malice are antithetical to the ideal of nonviolence, whether they be overtly physical, or simply verbal.  On the other hand, behaviors stemming from compassion and love are defined as nonviolent practices and are  a matter of conscious choice.
            Violence and nonviolence stem from individual motivations and conceptual frameworks. Using this premise, a matrix can explain four possible perspectives for viewing violence and nonviolence, including nonviolence that is rooted in compassion and a desire for the wellbeing of the other (some forms of peace talks), nonviolence stemming from positive intentions but with possible  negative outcomes or behaviors (social activism), pseudo-violence, where the intentions and behaviors are not overtly violent yet stem from malice or a violent agenda, and finally, explicitly violent words, behaviors, and intentionality.  Pseudo-violence is especially deceptive in that it is often used to manipulate, and while appearing peaceful, has a hidden harmful agenda. Using motivation as a basis for defining behaviors allows for a greater depth in understanding aspects of violence that are not immediately obvious.
Secular nature of compassion
            Values such as compassion are perceived as being rooted in religion, but are universal and secular (not religion-based).  Compassion is a philanthropic desire to eliminate suffering in others (and the causes of this suffering), and love is a proactive feeling of wanting happiness for others and developing the means for ensuring it.  There has been research confirming a positive correlation between compassion, altruistic behaviors and emotional and physical wellbeing. The Dalai Lama promotes these ideas in his work, and has authored several texts wherein he discusses the need for integrating secular ethics into social frameworks and creating a universal set of norms that would resolve such issues as wealth inequality and corruption.
Acquiring nonviolent characteristics involves developing the ability to consistently use introspection-- honestly appraising one’s motivations and being mindful of one’s actions. The idea is that truly positive motives will inevitably lead to compassionate, altruistic and behaviors and words, while the opposite correlation is also true; therefore, knowing one’s motives is essential for understanding one’s behaviors, and monitoring these.  Stanford University has initiated a center for researching these ideas and their effects on individuals and groups, as well as methods for cultivating these characteristics and teaching them to others.
Middle Way Approach
            Conflict resolution takes numerous forms and is largely rooted in the cultural frameworks of the parties engaging in the process. Those coming from individualistic societies, whose primary foci include self-actualization, might show a preference for a direct approach that projects power and assertiveness. Individuals whose cultural priorities include collective and communal concerns might favor more oblique approaches that promote a sense of mutuality.  The Middle Way Approach (MWA) recognizes both philosophical perspectives as it assists in developing conflict resolution solutions.
A Middle Way Approach Philosophy (MWA-P): Between nihilism and eternalism
            Two philosophical opposites exist: that of nihilism and eternalism. Nihilism asserts that nothing has any real meaning, whether it be negative or positive. Thus, there is no inherent value in choosing between negative or positive; nihilism is a form of existential vacuum. Eternalism, on the other hand, proposes that all phenomena and beings have an inherent meaning independent of external causality and relativity.  MWA-P counters these premises by exposing their antithetical and mutually exclusive nature.
            Understanding reality, according to this philosophical approach, entails emptying one’s self from preconceived notions and perspectival extremes, cultivating instead a sense of discovery, through listening, reflective thought, and meditation. The MWA approach sees the disparity between appearances and reality, and the multiplicity of perspectives that can be used to perceive objects and phenomena. This is a holistic lens through which to view events, phenomena, groups, and individuals.
            Both nihilism and eternalism tend to influence the way conflicts originate and evolve, by contributing to the inevitability of conflict, by asserting extreme perspectives and denying the validity of opposing views. The MWA recognizes the mutability and complexity of perceptions, avoids extremes, and focuses on finding a pathway to reconciliation through mediation, respect, and clearly understanding that nihilistic and eternalistic viewpoints are among the root causes of conflict.
Middle Way Approach—Based Dialogue (MWA-D) and communication approach
            There are several fundamental aspects to resolving conflict, centering on relinquishing polarized stances (zero-sum). Among the most important are dialogue (productive conversations aimed at resolving issues), recognizing positive interdependencies that exist among conflicting groups, openly discussing how to resolve important mutual concerns, innovation and creative approaches, and applying MWA solutions.
Dialogue is a foundation for peaceful interactions. This refers to empathetic listening with the objective of understanding the other. Expressed concerns are taken seriously and never dismissed, the interaction is mutually respectful, and the exchange is substantive, with clear objectives.  Recognizing positive interdependence between groups is another critical aspect of conflict resolution.
            Negative interdependence exists when one group seeks to dominate the other (or others) and uses win-lose tactics and power projection to sustain asymmetry. A suggestion to shift this imbalance is to reframe the power relations as a form of currency to be used for mutual benefit, and develop pathways for realizing these goals in economic, cultural and religious domains.
            Resolving mutual concerns involves respectful acknowledgement of their validity. Here, the recommendation is to approach these with a sense of altruism and a genuine desire to see these resolved amicably, placing the other’s needs before one’s own, and seeking common solutions.
            Creative solutions are the best antidote to hard line, entrenched positions, since they look at situations from new perspectives. One approach is to examine the symbolic underpinnings of ideological stances, and use this understanding to suggest new dynamics. This might mean reframing a problem based on social constructions rooted in history or culture by proposing a new institution or law that would accommodate everyone

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Semantic warfare--Trump versus Kim Jong-un

The last six months have provided Americans with an unexpected journey of redefinition, where they are forced to reexamine their lexicon and the way semantics are used to further agendas. Words such as “climate” and “weather,” heretofore innocuous enough, are now weapons hurled across the partisan divide, with billions of dollars and lives at stake.

 But it is not my intention to venture into that minefield with this post. Instead, I think a more immediate concern is the way language represents cultural and social constructs, and how the Trump administration and Kim Jong-un have given us a perfect example of intercultural misunderstanding perpetuated by intemperate language.

Ignorance of Islam and the cultures of the Middle East  led the US into the quagmires of Iraq and Syria, as well as an impending conflict with Iran. Now we confront an adversary whose background is East Asian, and whose premises and perspectives are radically different from those of the United States.  North Korea’s concept of nationalism , defined as an “historically formed social unit ...based on commonness of blood, language, and territory,” (Kwon, 2016, p. 149), differs markedly from the western version of “civic nationalism,” which places a political institution—the nation-state—as the primary bond connecting citizens. North Koreans are taught that their nation is delineated by the distinctness of language and blood. Americans on the other hand, use their plurality and democratic political system to define themselves-- being an American is an inclusive concept, whereas being a North Korean is exclusive.

These perceptions of uniqueness and separateness are fundamental to North Korean unity. Kwon (2016) suggested that N Korea has reintroduced the Josean dynastic model (“dynastic totalitarianism”) where one family resides at the pinnacle of cultural and political power. This  “romantic nationalism” is a  rejection of modern definitions emphasizing personal and civic liberty, refocusing instead on neo-Confucian ideals of loyalty to the king, filial obedience and gender differentiation. Identifying with the Korean “race” and emphasizing its separateness from others (even other East Asian peoples) has served to isolate the North Korean people and create a strong “us versus them” mindset.

What we have, then, is an opposition of two completely different social constructs. A pluralistic society  that has, over the decades, infiltrated cultural frameworks with its emphasis on capitalism, neo-liberalism, and democratic governance is now confronting an insular state whose ideas of governance and national identity are rooted in race, culture, and history.  Both leaders feel the need to project power; Kim Jong-un to preserve his dynastic claim, Trump to sustain his image as a tough negotiator who can preserve the American ethos of predominance and exceptionalism. The confrontation, for Kim Jong-un, is more than braggadocio and chest-thumping—it is a defense of his birthright, his dynastic legitimacy, and his authority to direct North Korean destiny.  If he shows any weakness, he stands to lose everything. President Trump, however, actually stands to gain by being conciliatory and using moderate, respectful language. Trump has access to advisers who can help him navigate this cultural divide, should he choose to listen. Kim Jong-un, on the other hand, is surrounded by acolytes who will support the definitions that distinguish their society. The semantic warfare that has characterized their interactions to date is not reassuring, since it represents cultural misunderstandings that have led to violence and prolonged conflict in the past.  
  
References

Kwon, S (2016). A critical evaluation on the cultural nationalism of the two Koreas.  The Journal of East Asian Affairs 30 (2) Fall/Winter 133-161