Looks like a cool place to study!

One of the very good and well-established places you can study peace is at the University of Bradford in the UK. In fact, they say they are the world’s largest centre (note the British spelling ) for peace and conflict studies. I suggest you pop on over and have a look at their homepage. They do some very interesting degrees, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels. For instance, they have a Master’s program in African Peace and Conflict studies (get the very colorful program(me) flyer here. As an old Africa “hand” (I used to live in West Africa, btw), I thought this was quite innovative.

In short, they have modules on many many topics. Of course, as I glance down the list, it occurs to me that there really are a lot of subjects here, which can also be something of a problem. I mean, is peace “everything and anything”, or more precisely (sort of) is everything related (somehow) to peace? Food for thought. Along these lines, consider this quote from the Mission Statement of the International Journal of Peace Studies:

“The Journal promotes discussion about various issues in peace research, including but not limited to, security systems, justice and basic human needs, survival for indigenous people, discourse on peace and war, human security, nonviolent social change, peace and environmental movements, sustainable development, global environmental policies, human rights, self-determination, economic equity, conflict resolution, disarmament, and peace education”

Again, that’s quite a lot. Is it too much?

Human needs, and why they matter

One of my personal favorite approaches to understanding conflict and changing the world so there’s much less of it, was developed by the Australian scholar and diplomat John Burton. Burton built on the work of Abraham Maslow about needs that were not just physical, and came up with a list which included identity, security, recognition and meaningful relationships (the list varies). Why is this important? Well for one thing social sciences have always had a problem with human nature…what makes people tick. Also, in his work, Burton argues that these needs can’t be bargained or negotiated away. They have to be met, one way or another. So, social institutions such as governments and laws must foster the fulfillment of these needs for everybody. If they don’t, then there will be conflict, and, very often, violent conflict. He even went so far as to argue that it almost didn’t matter how many police or other forms of oppression were applied, people would still fight for need fulfillment (one way or another).

This points very clearly to what Burton considered the key to the problem: find the needs not being met, and reform the relevant institutions so they fulfill these needs. For example: if political institutions deprive a group of identity, security or both, and that group revolts, you will, sooner or later, have to do something about those institutions. The “only” problem here, is that there would undoubtedly be some other groups who benefited from the unjust status quo ante, and who would very likely resist changes to it. But even this is instructive.

Human needs theory has its critics, of course, and you can read a brief and balanced assessment of it here. You can also find a nice short article on Burton and his work here.

Being Fran(c)k about opposites

I was reading an interesting article the other day and came across some of the ideas of Sebastian Franck about peace. Who, you may ask, is/was this Mr. Franck? Actually it was Herr Franck. He was, according to Wikipedia, “… a 16th century German freethinker, humanist, and radical reformer” (you can find the complete article here). He got into all sorts of trouble for being suspected of heresy (many were in those days).

But in the article, I found the following: “Franck…disputes impressively the usual argument that war can lead to peace. Nothing can be achieved by its own contrast: poverty would never lead to riches, neither would dishonesty create honesty. War brings about more damages than profits, even if this does not always become obvious as the damages suffered by souls…are less visible” (from Istvan Kende, “The History of Peace: Concept and Organizations from the Late Middle Ages to the 1870s”: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 26, No. 3, Aug. 1989, p. 236).

First of all, Herr Franck seems to have been way ahead of his times, since these arguments are certainly part of much contemporary writing about peace. Second, what do you think of his argument about “contrasts”. I found myself thinking about it for some time. I have always believed, for instance that the end rarely justifies the means. Rather, if you want a peaceful, beautiful, just…etc..end, your means must have those same qualities.

Anyhow, hats off to Sebastian!

Peace (on the) Web

I just came across (and joined) the Peace and Collaborative Development Network. There are a few sites that seem similar, but this one appears to be well underway in its effort “to foster dialogue and sharing of resources in international development, conflict resolution, gender mainstreaming, human rights, social entrepreneurship and related fields”. As I write, the site shows 3,333 (!) members, and they seem to be committed and qualified people (check out some of the members here).

If you join you get a nice page where you can blog, add photos and video and start discussions. The integration of social networking looks good to my inexpert eye.

Anyhow, IGbarb says: Check it out!

PS In case, by now, you are wondering what IGbarb stands for, it is short for IslandGuru Barbosa, my Second Life alter ego

Inner and outer peace (a few initial thoughts)

So do we have to have peaceful people (people who have achieved some degree of inner peace) to have outer, societal (and international) peace? Put more analytically, are these two points on a continuum, and do they depend on each other? As you might know, there are people who put much more emphasis on one than the other, arguing either that “outer reality” is a reflection of “inner reality”, and that to change the former you have (but) to change the latter. This might be considered a more spiritual view (as defined in one of my earlier posts). There are also those–for instance of a Marxist persuasion–who, being more materialist, argue that social conditions determine individual consciousness. According to this perspective, the “contradictions” in the socio-economic order have to work themselves out–ie there has to be class conflict–until a more stable, and peaceful social order can be achieved.

While I have, for the sake of brevity, caricatured both positions, these really are rather different views of where peace, and social change in general, comes from. Of course, there are ways of reconciling them, along the lines of peaceful people creating peaceful social conditions, and vice versa. But that leaves a problem: when a cycle of violence starts, and increasingly violent people create increasingly violent conditions that make people even more violent, how do you stop and reverse the process? I personally think it has to do with values: people with peaceful values and the spiritual strength to try to promote those values commit themselves to change. So, in that sense you do need inner peace to create outer peace; but inner peace, while probably involving an inner life of meditation and prayer (at least for some), is an active posture and not a passive one. Here Ghandi or Martin Luther King are excellent examples.

I know I have just scratched the surface on this one, so why not discuss it further in the comments.

Universalists and Universalism, a virtual think tank enroute?

Just a short post to say that I “attended” (actually by conference phone) the first meeting of a group of people committed to starting a virtual think tank focusing on universalist thought and action. The project is the brain child of Prof. Abdu’l-Aziz Said of American University, who in inviting participants defined universalists as:

“…individuals that live and promulgate specific life-style changes founded upon principles of inclusion and in reaction to social ills1 of their time. Through the promotion of an equitable redistribution of power, Universalists present a workable framework for timeless, sustainable peace and social harmony that is cast from the lessons of history.”

Some of the questions considered at the conference were:

* How did Universalist practitioners gain and maintain their perspectives, and what are the intellectual and personal skills required? How did these practitioners then apply their perspective to the particular set of problems confronting human society in their regions of concern at the time?

* How can students and practitioners today develop and maintain Universalist perspectives? To what kind of contemporary problems can these be applied?

One issue that came up was conceptual: ie is “universalism” significantly different from cosmopolitanism, or an ecological world view, etc… What do you think?

Anyhow, we’ve just started so “watch this space”

Religion and Peace, redux…

Here is an excerpt from something I co-authored some years ago (and for which I own the copyright, btw ), which makes some distinctions relevant to our (ongoing, no doubt) discussion of religion and peace.

” The issues facing us demand a new set of answers, arising from a new pattern of faith and belief. We feel strongly that those values must be spiritual in nature. We do not believe that everything in the universe, our world, or human nature is fully accessible to positivist science. Many aspects of our inner reality and life, including consciousness itself, remain mysterious, and the age-old quest of the human spirit toward transcendence, toward an ultimate reality, continues unabated. Throughout history, though admittedly for limited periods, various civilizations have demonstrated how spiritual values can engender social progress. At the same time, we would hasten to acknowledge that these same values have just as often been corrupted and manipulated to justify actions which represent their antithesis. This in itself, however, should not prevent an appreciation of the historic association between the emergence of a truly moral social order and widespread commitment to spiritual values.

We prefer the term spiritual to religious, although they are often used interchangeably. To us spirituality transcends the boundaries of traditional religion, suggesting broader human involvement that comes from the inner essence of a person. At the level of the individual, it refers to action borne of a commitment that is not necessarily informed by allegiance to a particular religion. We agree with the definition of spirituality by the Scottish Council of Churches (1977): “Spirituality is an attempt to grow in sensitivity to self, to others, to non-human creations and to God who is within and beyond this totality.” Spirituality is a shift in consciousness that sees the whole of existence contained in the parts, and from the parts the whole is constructed. Spirituality filters out the superficial, the changing, so the essential emerges. The term Holistic expresses another metaphor for the spiritual: holding all directions in simultaneous connection — including both the horizontal and the vertical direction. The horizontal connects one person with another person, with all people, and with all things. Vertically, higher and lower levels of consciousness are joined. The creative organizing force of spirituality has been channeled into Indian, European, Chinese, Middle Eastern, and Mediterranean society in the past through such prophetic figures and visionaries as the Buddha, Krishna, Moses, Jesus, Lao Tzu, Muhammad, Bahá’u’lláh, Saint Teresa, and Rumi; and it has also found expression in the altruistic work of social activists and reformers such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Desmond Tutu, Elie Weisel, and many others. “

Agree, disagree…have some distinctions of your own?

Tools: the United States Institute of Peace

I have to admit that when the plans for the United States Institute of Peace began (in the 70s) I was a bit skeptical. This was a government sponsored project from the beginning, and though it is “non-partisan”, there have been at times some very partisan actions involved with the appointment of its Director. However, let me say categorically that the USIP does great work and its site and publications are an excellent, and constantly updated, source of information. Also, its work has branched out in many directions, showing an appreciation of the many dimensions of peace. Another plus: the site is quite well organized. Look at the right hand side bar on the home page and you will see the “Practitioner Toolkit”, and go down a little further and you will see the “Education and Training Center”. You will note that you can “Take an Online Course” and I hope this is exploited by individuals and groups alike since there is a great need for such peace education materials–even the most basic. There are also all sorts of reports and newsletters which you can downloaded. In short, high quality information is here, and IG says: check it out!

Religion and Peace I

Religion and Peace is a huuuuge topic, so I expect we will come back to it again and again.  For starters, one has to wonder whether religion (understood broadly) is “part of the solution” or “part of the problem” when it comes to peace.  Today, of course, many probably think the latter, given the constant linking of terrorism with certain forms of religious fanaticism.  However, as even the most cursory study of almost any of the great faith traditions reveals, religion has always been about peace, in some form. “Inner peace” is certainly a prominent goal of most spiritual quests, and social peace and harmony is often linked to religious commitment–consider the “golden rule” of reciprocity (“due unto others….”) which is found in nearly all traditions.  But, you say, haven’t there been many wars in the name of religion, including the Crusades, the 30 years war, and others? Yes, but even during the Middle Ages the Pope could, on his moral authority alone, stop wars permanently  or, at least, temporarily (the Truce of God and the Peace of God….if memory of my college medieval history class serves ).

So, there seem to be a variety of contradictions here, which indicate that that which has a potential to promote peace, in many contexts has also served as a motiviation for war.  These persist today.  I have referred to contemporary fanatics, who with their suicide attacks have become the “face” of terror.  At the same time, many (but by no means all) of the most committed “peacemakers” (individuals and NGOs) who intervene in situations to try to mediate conflicts and/or contribute to post-conflict peacebuilding draw their inspiration from faith traditions.  Consider the whole “reconciliation” framework of acknowledgment, contrition and forgiveness, which became widely known during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings in South Africa.  It is derived from a very Judeo-Christian idea of being “reconciled” with God and with one’s fellow creatures.  It has, in short, spiritual roots, as many approaches to conflict intervention do (even if they are not explicitly “religious”.

So, is religion more part of the solution, or more part of the problem?

(to be continued…)

(Brief) Interview with Dr. Dietrich Fischer, Director EPU Austria

A few days ago I wrote about the European University Center for Peace Studies. Well, today I was able to get the Director, Dr. Dietrich Fischer, on the phone and ask him a couple of questions about Peace Studies, and the EPU.  Just click on the link below to hear our exchange (sorry, I’ve still got a lot to learn about phone interviews and audio editing).

Interview Dr. Dietrich Fischer

Any thoughts/reactions to Dr. Fischer’s comments?