![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I doubt that many people say (or write) things with the intent to cause pain. If one jumps quickly to that conclusion, some people will keep their distance. Miscommunication, lack of information, mistaken assumptions, stupidity, thoughtlessness and carelessness (in approximate order of moral "badness") are all much more common than malice1. Accusing someone of malice is hurtful in and of itself, unless the person actually did intend malice and is proud of it, and I don't think I know many people like that.
My instinctive reaction is, maybe not surprisingly, to keep my distance when the fighting starts. Certainly, there's not much to be "won" by getting involved in a battle between other parties: one can be ignored, claimed as an ally by one side or the other, or attacked by both. The tragedy is that most of the fighting I see stems from well-intentioned but misguided or misunderstood words and actions, not ill will, and I want to fix it, to deconstruct the origins of the conflict and rebuild relationships, even though they aren't mine to rebuild. I don't know what the right response is, in the general case. Ignore it? Choose a side? Jump in the middle and yell "whoa!"? Talk to the people on each side about it? I've tried all of these in different situations, and surprisingly, the one that's worked best so far is to jump in the middle and yell "whoa!"
Okay, it was literally "HEY!", but anyhow, it immediately and completely ended a full-on fight at my high school. Having more experience and knowledge of martial arts now than I did then (I had dabbled in kung fu, jiujitsu and wrestling), I understand a bit more of what I instinctively did then: it's referred to as kiaijutsu. The fight was occuring in a hall just outside a classroom I happened to be in, and the customary crowd of students and ineffectual teachers had gathered. Without really thinking about it, I stood up, hurled the door open, and let out (best espression for it, it felt like it happened) an incredibly loud "HEY!" In the silence that followed, the fighting pair left, heading down the hall in opposite directions and trying to melt into the crowd. The teachers, recovering their senses, turned to me and asked what I thought I was doing, and I just shrugged and said, "ending the fight." Nothing more was said of the affair by anyone.
Should I study to cultivate the ability to do this by choice? Christ said, "blessed are the peacemakers," but he (or his transcriber) was a little vague on technique. What is the equivalent in battles of words, or is it any different? In the immediate situation, the essential aim seems to be to wake people out of their instinctive retaliatory mode, but it's not without risk: if they really are bent on hurting each other, interposing oneself is asking for trouble. The two guys whose fight I interrupted never thanked me, nor did anyone else. In many ways, it looks like the hardest road: does that make it the best?
As it is, I take each case as it comes, and try to find in my heart the right path. It's probably not the most reliable guide, though: fear, weariness, anger, hurt, and so forth can slant my judgement towards avoidant or destructive actions, masking the small, quiet signs God gives. I'm looking for a set of guidelines, something that can at least help me think twice about questionable choices.
(This isn't about any of you; it's about me, reacting to a lot of things and looking at my own reactions and choices. That's why it's in my blog, not yours.)
(Comments screened; let me know if you want me to unscreen your comment.)
1: Not that the pain isn't real. Something misunderstood can hurt just as much as a deliberate attack. Acknowledging and dealing with having been hurt is hard for anyone. Likewise, acknowledging and dealing with having hurt someone is hard for any moral person. It's easiest for both, of course, if they can be reconciled and help each other.
My instinctive reaction is, maybe not surprisingly, to keep my distance when the fighting starts. Certainly, there's not much to be "won" by getting involved in a battle between other parties: one can be ignored, claimed as an ally by one side or the other, or attacked by both. The tragedy is that most of the fighting I see stems from well-intentioned but misguided or misunderstood words and actions, not ill will, and I want to fix it, to deconstruct the origins of the conflict and rebuild relationships, even though they aren't mine to rebuild. I don't know what the right response is, in the general case. Ignore it? Choose a side? Jump in the middle and yell "whoa!"? Talk to the people on each side about it? I've tried all of these in different situations, and surprisingly, the one that's worked best so far is to jump in the middle and yell "whoa!"
Okay, it was literally "HEY!", but anyhow, it immediately and completely ended a full-on fight at my high school. Having more experience and knowledge of martial arts now than I did then (I had dabbled in kung fu, jiujitsu and wrestling), I understand a bit more of what I instinctively did then: it's referred to as kiaijutsu. The fight was occuring in a hall just outside a classroom I happened to be in, and the customary crowd of students and ineffectual teachers had gathered. Without really thinking about it, I stood up, hurled the door open, and let out (best espression for it, it felt like it happened) an incredibly loud "HEY!" In the silence that followed, the fighting pair left, heading down the hall in opposite directions and trying to melt into the crowd. The teachers, recovering their senses, turned to me and asked what I thought I was doing, and I just shrugged and said, "ending the fight." Nothing more was said of the affair by anyone.
Should I study to cultivate the ability to do this by choice? Christ said, "blessed are the peacemakers," but he (or his transcriber) was a little vague on technique. What is the equivalent in battles of words, or is it any different? In the immediate situation, the essential aim seems to be to wake people out of their instinctive retaliatory mode, but it's not without risk: if they really are bent on hurting each other, interposing oneself is asking for trouble. The two guys whose fight I interrupted never thanked me, nor did anyone else. In many ways, it looks like the hardest road: does that make it the best?
As it is, I take each case as it comes, and try to find in my heart the right path. It's probably not the most reliable guide, though: fear, weariness, anger, hurt, and so forth can slant my judgement towards avoidant or destructive actions, masking the small, quiet signs God gives. I'm looking for a set of guidelines, something that can at least help me think twice about questionable choices.
(This isn't about any of you; it's about me, reacting to a lot of things and looking at my own reactions and choices. That's why it's in my blog, not yours.)
(Comments screened; let me know if you want me to unscreen your comment.)
1: Not that the pain isn't real. Something misunderstood can hurt just as much as a deliberate attack. Acknowledging and dealing with having been hurt is hard for anyone. Likewise, acknowledging and dealing with having hurt someone is hard for any moral person. It's easiest for both, of course, if they can be reconciled and help each other.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
Unscreen at will
If you ask me, and I think you just did, yes.
Christ said, "blessed are the peacemakers," but he (or his transcriber) was a little vague on technique.
*roars appreciatively*.
If you haven't already read them, I recommend the writings of Leonard Desroches as a good place to go first, particularly Allow the Water and Love of Enemy.
And then there are various organisations that do workshops... I don't want to spam you to death but if you clear your throat encouragingly I can make some recommendations...
From:
Re: Unscreen at will
Your html is borken, but google found a review of Allow the Water and the text of Love of Earth and Enemy; links here for others who may be reading along. I think he's onto something, yes... must look for books and add to (alarmingly high) to-read stack. One of the hardest things about much of this is that it appears as insubstantial as a soap bubble in the face of all the hard-edged violence out there; believing in its potency isn't easy.
*ahem* Recommend away, by all means!
From:
In insomnia there is wisdom?
Let's see; there's Christian Peacemaker Teams. (http://www.cpt.org/)
There's also the Non-Violent Peaceforce. (http://www.npcanada.org/)
Or you can always consult your local Quaker (http://ottawa.quaker.ca/).
Or swing by PERC (http://www.perc.ca/) and look up Mike Kulbars. Telling him I sent you, while not strictly necessary, will probably amuse him. :)
Any of these will get you going in the direction you want.
One of the hardest things about much of this is that it appears as insubstantial as a soap bubble in the face of all the hard-edged violence out there; believing in its potency isn't easy.
That's not "one of the hardest things". That is THE hard thing. Always.
Believing in its potency isn't enough. Though it is worth noting that if violence had as much power to do good in the world as we like to think it did we'd be in Paradise by now.
Waging peace doesn't necessarily work the way you think it will, and it doesn't always work for _you_.
The example you cited is well-chosen; if you do a really good job of making peace, everybody will move on without thanking you, because they will think they did it all themselves. The advanced class is realising that they did, and being okay with that. Peacemaking is sort of reverse kaijitsu, actually; it's the art of using other people's strength FOR them. What you did there is called them to attend; the rest was theirs.
Dropping your ego in public is a powerful act, moreso for you because you are male, and it's the heart of non-violent conflict resolution and intervention.
Dropping your weapons and standing up open handed is another powerful act.
Either can make people consider more clearly the environment that they are in. A lot of nonviolent intervention lies in helping people to notice that they are not in as much danger as they feel like they are in by showing your own willingness to be vulnerable and engaged. If that makes sense.
But still. This shit can get you killed. On the other hand, THAT shit (violence) can also get you killed, as you know, and furthermore if I'm hearing you right you've come to where you don't want it in your life anymore.
I didn't become a pacifist by intellectual convincement, not really. There was some of that, a lot of it really, and I can make you a pretty good intellectual case, though probably not in an lj comment's space, but it came along in odd chunks, more or less as I needed it and could absorb it.
I became a pacifist the way some people go to AA: This isn't working and it's injuring me and it's injuring the people who deal with me and it doesn't really matter if I think I CAN quit or that quitting will work, it's a matter of knowing that I CAN'T continue and continuing will NOT work.
And that's all I've got for now. Ask me another question and it'll start me off on a different chunk of it, probably. But here is some interesting reading:
Violence is not a way of getting where you want to go, only more quickly. Its existence changes your destination. If you use it, you had better be prepared to find yourself in the kind of place it takes you to. (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2007/02/liberating_iraq.html)
From:
Re: In insomnia there is wisdom?
This is a good way to look at it; thanks!
Violence is not a way of getting where you want to go, only more quickly. Its existence changes your destination. If you use it, you had better be prepared to find yourself in the kind of place it takes you to.
This is one way of looking at the refutation of the idea that the end justifies the means. The means chosen has consequences which effectively become part of the end, even if they weren't there at first.
From:
Coming to disbelieve in the potency of violence and related matters
Violence drives over the will of the other actors, at least when it 'works', at least temporarily. And it generally 'works' for somebody. Somebody gets their way, at a cost of a net increase of the violence in the situation. Which will then break out again.
Non-violence, when it works, brings all wills of all the actors into open respectful conflict.
Conflict is inevitable; combat is optional.
There is a necessary paradigm shift in giving up violence; I am not sure that I can nail it down in words, but it sort of works like this: once you rule violence out you find that have to reframe your problem, your approach, and what an acceptable solution looks like, and over time, it will reframe the world for you.
We're all pacifists a large percent of the time; say 60-90 percent. We like to hold violence in reserve as a last resort, and then we think we're being peaceful if we wait half an hour past when we wanted to to use it.
But as long as we're framing our actions with that last resort in the planning, we'll never get there.
I'm looking for a set of guidelines, something that can at least help me think twice about questionable choices.
Peace is the stuff you find when you land in the part of the flowchart that "if and plus b plus c plus d are present, resort to violence" bypasses.
... you didn't say you wanted an EASY one...
From:
Re: Coming to disbelieve in the potency of violence and related matters
From:
Re: Unscreen at will
From:
Re: Unscreen freely
From:
Unscreen freely
I have often found that the best course is to think twice and analyze the situation, I try my best to do this and it seems to help in getting the best answer. Getting people to 'sleep on it' can also help a great deal.
I am very interested in these books as well and would love to know more about others.
From:
Re: Unscreen freely
If the parties involved can be convinced to do so as well, even better!
From:
no subject
I'll admit I didn't read too in depth... I'll be leaving for a big work event ('networking' over beer with people from out of town) in a few minutes and life is busy enough these days that chances are good that if I don't write this now it won't get written at all.
Anyway, getting in the middle of things only works when the two involved want a way out. If either person is truly intent on doing something, which happens too often these days, then you may find out that your payment for standing up is getting chopped down. There have been occasions when people have been killed trying to stop a fight, and although it doesn't happen I think that every time is a tragedy.
When you talk of studying to break up fights I'm going to assume that this is verbal arguments, as this is more likely something to happen. In which case it is good to be a mediator. Your comments about things at the start, miscommunication and mistakes, and your later comments about jumping in the middle, have me thinking that you aren't talking about mediation. Mediation to me is two people who want to come together... without their positive intentions then I don't think it's a good idea.
Then again I always credited Garry with being the most politically savy prof in the department. Somehow while everyone else was being forced to a side he never seemed to be forced to do so and I have no idea how he managed this or what skills he had but I wish I had some insight.
Because I think you mean well and I want to see you live to an old age I recommend staying out of the middle of fights. But then again the choice is yours!
P.S. I have broken up a fight before but I have to admit it scared every bone in my body. I credit my continued health to the fact that he didn't know it was me, the guy must have thought it was his friends that pulled him back.
Doh! There's the doorbell, I can't read this over so I hope it sounds sane...
From:
no subject
Re. mediation: that's part of it, but only a part. There are times when the immediate aim is damage control, I think. A mediator is invited when the parties realize that one would be helpful, but sometimes they're too caught up in the retaliation cycle to realize that they're escalating the situation. That's what I'm looking for a way to deal with.
Breaking up a fight by pulling one guy off is dangerous, because the other guy might carry on beating him, leaving the guy you're pulling off taking you for an enemy allied to his original opponent. Two people working together can pull it off (pun? what pun?) sometimes.
From:
no subject
Considering I work for a bunch of war mongers (I get teased a lot for it by my long-time friends from highschool) I don't know how much more I can add, but if I see something of interest I'll put it aside. There is much talk of how to make peace, not war. The biggest question for us is how to model peace, not war, but that one is incredibly far from being solved!
From:
no subject
Hey, I used to wear the same uniform as those warmongers.
Model peace for what purpose?
From:
no subject
It's a matter of wanting to model intangible things, like the effects of humanitarian aid and development work. How does fear affect people, and how can we reduce it?
'Help' can have unexpected consequences, for example a source of fresh water that was set up outside a community. Soon there was much more traffic in the area, including many more livestock. The livestock quickly decimated much of the vegetation in the area, so now the community had water but much less food and grazing land.
How can we foresee the consequences of our actions when we're involved with humanitarian aid and development, two areas that are very new to defence? This is something that is being looked at by various people, with the idea that even if we're completely inaccurate right now at least we're starting someplace. It's one reason that our group has hired a lot more social scientists. One could ask why we're bothering, considering that aid groups have being doing this for years without the same scrutiny but so many of them fail badly, or have very little permanent impact.
From:
no subject
Economists have been working on this stuff for quite some time, and have lately been looking at psychology to expand their insights.
Game theory was an outgrowth of military planning techniques in WWII, and has many applications in modeling situations. Some time ago, I found a book called Behavioural Game Theory which expands on this fairly pure mathematical optimization system and explores through experiments and analysis the relationship between the mathematics and the actions of real people in various situations. Its conclusions are a very cool mix of the startling and the obvious.
From:
no subject
Two examples of which I am aware are:
* modelling crowd control, specifically trying to minimize a 'fear' variable
* modelling public communication, trying to influence public opinion. There are many groups (red, blue, and green) and they have access to things like radio, TV, newspapers, etc. How do you quickly influence public opinion, and what can you do with it?
As with the development of most models the biggest problem is that they need to be validated and with this stuff it's a bitch.
Economists amuse me, especially those who try to model and predict the stock market. They are *so* earnest, and yet fail to see an obvious flaw... the act of being able to predict the outcome will cause that outcome to change. Now that I think about it... it's rather like the basic quantum principle... the act of observation ensures that you change what you observe, or not.
There is a conference the end of next month that deals with human factors... I'd like to go and I should remind myself to ask my boss first thing Monday. If I hear anything of interest I'll pass it along...
From:
no subject
Re. validation: I guess that's what I like about the Behavioural Game Theory book: it's all based on experiments, not pure theory, so while the results are limited and very specific, they're not constructing a theoretical house of cards (see "Economics").
Re. economists: Well, they may or may not be aware of the effect of what they're saying. Remember, their announcements to the general public are probably quite different from what they tell their paying investment clients, and they may be tailoring their "predictions" to one group to influence events in favor of the other! Some of them may be dumb, but I'm betting that there are a few smart cookies in the jar.
Yeah, I'd like to know more about human factors aspects... heck, maybe enough to skim the actual proceedings if you can get me a copy to borrow!
From:
Unscreen at will
I disagree whole-heartedly, but I don't think either of us is wrong. If that makes any sense.
I suppose what I mean to say is that, people say, do and write things with the intent to cause pain quite often without admitting to themselves that that is what they're doing. I speak from experience.
People also say, do and write things that are meant to hurt and take pride in it. Most of the people I know have done this at some point or another. I, personally, made a sport of it as a teenager.
My thought? People will do whatever they want until they are told otherwise - for better or worse. We're a pretty autonomous race of beings when alone, and a pretty communal race of beings when several of us are forced into small places. I think that's part of why the Bible stresses the omnipresence of God so much - He is there as both a parent and a friend. Someone we can (and should) lean on, but also someone we need to look to with fear and respect.
From:
Re: Unscreen at will
Excellent point. I suggest that this usually happens in response to hurt caused by one of the other factors. It's an unadmitted reflexive escalation.
People also say, do and write things that are meant to hurt and take pride in it. Most of the people I know have done this at some point or another. I, personally, made a sport of it as a teenager.
Power is a heady, heady thing. The war cry and the sword's flashing arc are intoxicating. A cure for this is the sight of a person dying by inches as a consequence of such fighting, I think. And yes, I know this from the inside too, although I didn't get to making a sport of it, thankfully.
My thought? People will do whatever they want until they are told otherwise - for better or worse.
And even afterwards. The world is changed when people change what they want, and only then.
We're a pretty autonomous race of beings when alone, and a pretty communal race of beings when several of us are forced into small places. I think that's part of why the Bible stresses the omnipresence of God so much - He is there as both a parent and a friend. Someone we can (and should) lean on, but also someone we need to look to with fear and respect.
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here, in context. Explain further, please?
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
(assumed unscreening ok based on previous comment)