Saturday, August 20, 2011

A call for integrity in Peace and Conflict Studies

When I was an undergraduate studying in the Peace and Conflict Studies program at Northland College in Wisconsin (since allowed to go defunct, sadly), our focus was decidedly oppositional to much of what the US government was doing with regard to our field. Founder and Chair, Dr. Kent Shifferd, had been arrested on campus during the Nixonian descent into persecution of the peaceful (for displaying black bunting over an American flag in response to the bombing of Cambodia--he was arrested while the bombers who burned people alive were paid and given medals). He had hosted conferences for peace groups in the region. He was working to mentor the likes of me--community organizer for peace and peace felon. Dr. Shifferd gave me a skewed opening notion of what this field was, perhaps. I felt it was education for those committed to nonviolently oppose militarism and for those who also wanted to transform all conflict--interpersonal, civic, political, legal, transnational--from adversarial to some form of collaborative problem-solving. He not only oriented me, but I chose him and his program because of that orientation.

Over the years I've slowly learned not to generalize from an n of 1. My anecdotal understanding was not based on asking him to define our field nor upon his stated definition of it. I began to meet Peace and Conflict professors who held to the Just War doctrine, something I felt was clearly a blatant rationalization for mass murder. Others were oriented toward supplying graduates into the State Department or other US government agencies who were formulating, promulgating and implementing foreign policy that served the narrow economic and political interests of a corporate elite sitting on top of a patronage-based war system dedicated to preserving inequality. The word peace fuzzed into meaninglessness in many cases and my sense of a division of values within the field of Peace and Conflict Studies grew.

Still, we are at least, I would hope, all committed to upholding basic human rights. Other disciplines have begun to make serious statements in response to the grotesque governmental abuses of human rights begun anew during the Bush regime (and continue, most distressingly, in the 'new' Obama program). The American Psychological Association has made specific rulings on what is permissible for their members in regard to participation in activities that violate human rights. That was prompted by the revelations that US psychologists had been working with torturers in places like Abu Ghraib.

In addition, US anthropologists began serious reflection on a related issue once it became embroiled in the controversial Human Terrain System project in Afghanistan. Their professional association, the American Anthropological Association, rejected participation in that military collusion.

In the US and Canada, our academic association is the Peace and Justice Studies Association. PJSA has no formal position on anything in this regards. I think we should, since the other disciplines have had to react to egregious violations of good practices, and we would rather be proactive, if possible.

Do I have any brilliant ideas of how this should be done? Nope. But I can begin a list of possible pitfalls for our practitioners, which include faculty, students doing practica and field research, and our graduates. And I can make a barebones bottom line beginning toward an organizational statement. Then I would hope others would make my beginning more intelligent and practical.

Possible situations to avoid:
  • Association with any illegal activity under the international laws on Human Rights, War, Torture, and all Crimes Against Humanity.
  • Providing services that result in the deaths or harm to noncombatants.
Possible language in an organizational statement that might set a minimum standard for our professional activities:
PJSA members are ethically and professionally expected to not seek nor accept employment or engage in any personal or professional practices that would aid in the violation of international laws on Human Rights, War, Torture, and all Crimes Against Humanity, and would be expected to act in a whistleblowing capacity if such practices were discovered or made known to that member. Our members are also expected to refrain from personally or professionally providing services--either gratis or for compensation--that would likely result in harm to noncombatants.

So, I'm sure a legal scholar or organizational genius could rework this toward a more meaningful, practical, legal and logical statement. I certainly invite comments.

7 comments:

Helen said...

The trouble with being proactive with a statement like this is that it's hard to anticipate what PJSA members might get themselves into. Saying we shouldn't be associating ourselves with anything illegal under international law and that we should avoid harming noncombattants seems overly broad, or maybe a "no-brainer." The statement might be more meaningful if it addressed specific nefarious practices. But really, I draw a blank when I try to think of what these might be. And that leads me to wonder why we should be concerned about the activities of our membership. What (specifically) might we get ourselves into, unwittingly or not, in our work? It might be useful to brainstorm some worst-case scenarios.

Tom H. Hastings said...

Thanks, Helen. I understand your confusion because I share it. However, I think of psychologists assisting in the Abu Ghraib business and I shudder to think of our students, some of whom have multilingual skills in just the regions our CIA is most active, being recruited to do any number of things. I am not at liberty to share particulars, but I have been given information on some highly questionable activities one of my own students engaged in after graduation and after being recruited into a branch of Homeland Security while at a peace conference!! This young person could have used much more ethical instruction and I think what seems like a no brainer to us might be just what is helpful to our students. Those are actually the people I'm most concerned about. I don't think I was even clear with myself until you called me on this. Thank you.

Helen said...

So maybe it should be a statement about teaching, and about being aware of the recruitment practices you mention.

Jon said...

This is an interesting query that you've raised. It seems like a natural evolutionary step in Peace and Conflict Studies (in which I have an undergraduate minor) to create a professional organization. One of my professors insightfully identified two types of peace studies: education about peace, and education for peace. I mourn with you to hear of where your former student found employment. I wonder how much of his curricula was of the latter. Or how much of a difference it did or could have made.

I have never heard of an "ethics" class (and not cross-referenced) in a peace studies programs, but perhaps a "peace ethics" requirement could help students to development or further their post conventional moral reasoning skills, to prevent losses like the one you've described.

For your minimum standard, I would think that, rather than outlining a few behaviors that ought to be encouraged or discouraged, a few foundational values could be laid out which would be expected of peace professionals. While it may be difficult to get other schools or professors on board with any definitive statement, I would like to see the PJSA or some similar group release statements perhaps countering those of the APA, etc.

PS I read your blog with some regularity. Thanks for writing!

Jon said...

This is an interesting query that you've raised. It seems like a natural evolutionary step in Peace and Conflict Studies (in which I have an undergraduate minor) to create a professional organization. One of my professors insightfully identified two types of peace studies: education about peace, and education for peace. I mourn with you to hear of where your former student found employment. I wonder how much of his curricula was of the latter. Or how much of a difference it did or could have made.

I have never heard of an "ethics" class (and not cross-referenced) in a peace studies programs, but perhaps a "peace ethics" requirement could help students to development or further their post conventional moral reasoning skills, to prevent losses like the one you've described.

For your minimum standard, I would think that, rather than outlining a few behaviors that ought to be encouraged or discouraged, a few foundational values could be laid out which would be expected of peace professionals. While it may be difficult to get other schools or professors on board with any definitive statement, I would like to see the PJSA or some similar group release statements perhaps countering those of the APA, etc.

PS I read your blog with some regularity. Thanks for writing!

Tom H. Hastings said...

Thanks, Jon. I like your distinction, education about peace or for peace. I like the ideas about this that are accumulating. Perhaps in the end, it will be a synthesis of them all. I hope so. I think APA and the anthros have helped us think about it. I know that right now the military and Homeland Security are directly recruiting from some CR programs with the apparent approval of the faculty and I want to challenge that. It's one thing to say well everyone needs work and it's another thing not to have any scruples about it. We need some bright lines, with stated values, as you say, and I also think with at least some specifics, as I suggested.

Tony Jenkins said...

Hi Tom... I fully support the statement/pledge that you are trying to develop. It reminds me of the "Graduation Pledge Alliance" which we've discussed adopting or endorsing at PJSA. (http://www.graduationpledge.org)

The pledge is simple:

“I pledge to explore and take into account the social and environmental consequences of any job I consider and will try to improve these aspects of any organizations for which I work.”

The campaign is also educational, outlining the ethical considerations in the form of a list of questions for pledge takers to consider. (http://www.graduationpledge.org/pledge-signers/things-to-consider/)

I think we might pursue this as an "educational campaign" within PJSA, complementing an organizational statement/pledge with similar inquiries or an interactive forum that would assist members in reflecting upon and inquiring into ethical dilemmas.

I look forward to chatting with you about this at the board meeting…or any time before then.

Best,
Tony