Belief

There are those who adhere to a philosophy of nonviolence, or a religious mandate to practice nonviolence. Great. Historian Nico Slate (2023) examines the history of that swirl of phenomena as it informed and helped drive the US civil rights movement. 

Slate reviews the actuality from recordings from that era at the Highlander Institute, a Tennessee training ground for activists like Rosa Parks and many others. He also accesses the stated memories of some of the leaders from that struggle--leaders who were sometimes in the educated ministers stratum and also grassroots working class leaders (who are not frequently cited compared to the ministers). 

He discusses some of the unease in an over-reliance on the philosophical underpinnings--frequently understood by some of the educated ministers like Rev. James Lawson and Dr. King as an effort to incorporate the Gandhian concept of ahimsa--non-harm--into Christian beliefs of the ministers and their congregants. 

Frequently missing in the quandaries described are the simple utility applications of modifiers, a topic that has use in many flailing discussions and disagreements. Philosophical nonviolence is quite separate from strategic nonviolence. One has no connection to political or social struggle; one does not demand a lifelong commitment. While the two can co-exist in one individual, they can be quite separate, distinct, and produce confusion unless labeled accurately, using the modifiers. 

A discussion about nonviolence with Tolstoy might include his admonition that you either practice nonviolence or go to hell. A discussion about nonviolence with Gene Sharp would divorce nonviolence from religion or philosophy and just focus on winning campaigns. Without the modifiers we can waste time and energy making inaccurate assumptions about what we are believing together and doing together. 

Modifiers matter. The beauty of strategic nonviolence is that it is successful so often as to create its own belief, its own faith. That is part of what Gandhi synthesized so well, though it's crucial for all who wish to practice nonviolence in a campaign not to feel obligated to adhere to a Hindu or Christian basis, but rather an effectiveness standard. Strategic nonviolence? I believe. 

References

Slate, N. (2023). Translating nonviolence: Ahimsa, satyagraha, and the civil rights movement. Peace & Change, 48(3), 163–182. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1111/pech.12618

Mediating the absolutists: Culture wars and the search for reason

How might we consider the spreading social conflict in the culture wars that Republicans often start in order to avoid the more salient public policy issues? So, for instance, they pander to banning books[1] that are on the other side of culture war battles they pick but choose to ignore more basic public policy, such as protecting future generations from the ravages of climate chaos, or protecting folks of any age with a disability or elderly people from cuts in Social Security. They obsess over outlawing drag shows but vote to stop any student loan forgiveness. This is a weapon of mass distraction.

I wonder how a great mediator might help in such a case. Drilling down to interests is the first thing. Sometimes that happens by a proposal to all parties, such as, "Can we agree to three representatives from both parties begin meeting to explore options?" 

Even though the parties may see scant options beyond ferocious court cases and tough political battles to elect their champions into offices at all levels, a mediator may be able to at least get a start by noting that an out-of-court agreement, if achievable, would save both sides a huge amount of money, since billable hours by teams of lawyers can quickly soar into fortunes. The mediator has just helped the parties develop their respective BATNAs. Either we find a mediated solution or this turns into a huge expense. 

If a mediator were able to get the parties to the table, perhaps seeking articulated best outcomes from all parties is a start. While the outcomes may seem like fantasies because they are diametrically opposed to each other, a good mediator seeks to learn how high each element of best outcome is prioritized. 

If, for example, librarians want sovereignty in selecting books to add to their collections, the mediator might hold a private caucus with them to ask if they have certain red lines in choosing books, to see, for instance, if there are limits to subject matter or limits to how graphic subjects might be expressed. 

The mediator might learn, for example, that none of the professional librarians would order books that describe and promote sexual intercourse between children. Finding out examples of what sorts of books none of the librarians would ever obtain for their collections, possibly including the different red lines depending on elementary vs middle school vs high school libraries might be helpful. 

Then a private caucus with the other party with the same inquiries might lead to emergence of other issues. For instance, a Christian-oriented party interested in banning books that offend a Biblical set of moral codes might cite their dismay at books in school libraries that they believe violate their religious freedom from indoctrination into what they regard as a heretical or immoral lifestyle. Specifics may emerge, such as books that depict or promote sex between children. 

The mediator can elicit these ideas from both sides in a combination of private caucuses and general negotiating sessions. In the end, a mediator may be able to see what extreme examples might be important to all sides, but also may be able to see if there is a way to create acceptance of mutually agreed-upon standards, or a system to manage the specific challenges without turning to either lawyers or politicians. Perhaps a panel made up of an equal number of experts chosen by all contending parties could make the difficult decisions in the future. 

In any mediation, it's important for the mediator to avoid language such as, "Here is what I recommend." A mediator is not an arbitrator. Rather, nearly the same guidance can happen with language that never steals power or sovereignty from the parties, language more akin to, "Okay, listening to everyone's deep concerns and preferences, here is what I'm hearing you all say might work." 

This language preserves and enhances the power of the parties while helping them notice lines of sight that may be opening to a workable solution. 

The approach of the mediator is openness, curiosity, and suspension of judgment. Translating this into our daily lives can keep us in practice and blunt the likelihood of destructive conflicts on the regular. 

When I am insulted, berated, or attacked in some way, I do much better when I try to think like a mediator first, before I react. My 20-year-old self would likely say, "Eff you, you have no idea what you're talking about," and the battle is on. My Old Guy with mediation training self-talk (if I have my act together), goes to challenges like, "Wow, I need to learn why this person is after me so bluntly. What did I do to them? What do they see in me that offends them?" 

---

[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/how-christian-groups-helped-parents-pull-books-some-pennsylvania-school-2023-06-24/

Reparations: Caught cheating

Literally 56 years ago I attended a talk in a Minneapolis church by a Black woman who had just returned from Resurrection City, the encampment that sprung out of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's vision of a Poor People's Campaign. He put out a call to meet him on the Mall in Washington DC in May, 1968. He was assassinated that April, but his vision was carried out by his colleagues and 3000 campers around the Reflecting Pool for some 42 days. The woman who returned and gave the talk in July, 1968 that I heard as a 17-year-old boy who had just graduated from high school impacts me to this day. One of the cogent points she made was about reparations, a movement that had begun to be discussed more widely. Paraphrase: 

Some white people are responding that now we have the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, so we have laws that have made things right. I say, good laws, but not enough. It's like we've been playing poker all night and one guy is winning big with most of the money from the rest of us and at 3 a.m. we catch him cheating. Do we let him say, okay, you caught me, I'll play fair now? I don't think so. He's going to have to give back the money he got by cheating. White America has cheated for more than 400 years. We think they need to give back some of that wealth they hold.

This is something like the lawsuit[1] against the Fearless Fund, a granting group that offers specifically to aspiring Black women entrepreneurs. The lawsuit is brought by Edward Blum, a conservative litigator trying to do everything he can, along with others like him, to roll back affirmative action and DEI on a broad scale. 

Peeling back the layers of logic on all sides should be able to lead to an outcome that could be managed outside the adversarial environment of a court, but in this case perhaps neither party is interested in listening, having made up their minds that the other side is just completely wrong. We'll see. Mediation is preferable, but the parties have to want it. 

---

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/08/26/dei-lawsuit-black-businesses-fearless-fund-edward-blum/

Kickass nonviolence

We are in an era of struggling to determine how to struggle. That is, we may be activists at some level, but are we being effective? Coming to any conclusions in that regard means measuring the effect of our actions against the stated goal of a campaign.

Instead, there are activists and academics who are getting lost in the analytical weeds of simply considering the emotional effect of various forms of activism. How cathartic is this action or that action? How does this or that method slot into an intellectual exercise--perhaps into the study of rhetoric, or psychology, or philosophy?

We find such scholarly analysis that comes to conclusions such as: "'Nonviolence' has come to mean that protesters secure a permit, march peacefully along the planned route, remain deferential to and even amicable with the police-State, and avoid any disturbance of the peace" (Murray, 2022, p. 151).

Seriously? Says who? Says one academic, echoing the most frustrated antifa activists, scorning what they regard as performative, risk-free liberalism. These sorts of intellectuals perhaps attend a few public demonstrations and claim to have a groundtruthed understanding of nonviolence. 

They don't. 

Nonviolence is indeed vulnerable to such weak expression and it's fair to critique such tepid methods. But the facts are stubborn things with regard to relating tactics and methods to outcomes; any campaign waged entirely nonviolently stands a far greater chance of succeeding in attaining its stated goal than a campaign based on--or even merely featuring--violence (Chenoweth, 2021).

As someone with less academic credentials than nonviolent resister credentials, I will confess to some eye-rolling moments when certifiably brilliant scholars come to firm conclusions about social movements based on relatively brief and frankly shallow direct observations. Immersion is a better teacher in many cases. I've served in virtually every conceivable role in social movements for the past 56 years--white ally, primary campaign organizer core group member, media liaison, police liaison, institutional liaison, targeted decider liaison, peacekeeper, public speaker, jail and prison support, arrestee, defendant, prisoner, childcare, trainer, logistics, consensus process facilitator, internal conflict mediator, cook, homestay host, canvasser, educator, expert witness in necessity defense, event organizer, researcher, conference organizer, and writer. In any one campaign, I tend to serve only one function and it's often a background role. I am very suspicious of any circle of activists who always turn to one person as the leader and actively try to uplift others if I find myself in too much of a frontline leadership role. 

From civil rights to peace to disarmament to environmental protection to racial justice to police reform and more, I've been in the foreground or background of many campaigns over that half-century-plus and my answer to anyone who makes categorical statements is usually some version of, "it's complicated," because it is. 

Mohandas Gandhi said, as he made his statement in court in 1922 before being sentenced to years in prison, "Nonviolence is the first article of my faith. It is also the last article of my creed."[1] If by "faith" I can equate to my faith in the scientific method, and if by "creed" I can equate to what I argue in favor of, then I resonate completely with Gandhi's assertion. The overwhelming evidence--never complete, never without exceptions, which of course complicates things--has shown me that nonviolence, when undertaken with a spirit of robust willingness to sacrifice from time-to-time, is by far the most effective method of seeking and achieving goals such as freedom, justice, and a disarmed peace. 

When Annie Dillard wrote her memoir, An American Childhood, she described watching her mother fill out a job application during the McCarthy era, and her mother came to the standard loyalty oath section of that repressive time, "Do you support the overthrow of the United States government by force or violence?" Dillard wrote that her mother paused, thought, and wrote "force." 

That is the kickass nonviolence analysis and attitude we need. 

References

Chenoweth, Erica (2021). Civil resistance: What everyone needs to know. New York: Oxford University Press.

Murray, B. (2022). Violence and Nonviolence in the Rhetoric of Social Protest. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 25(3), 145–166. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.25.3.0145

---

[1] https://www.gandhiashramsabarmati.org/en/the-mahatma/speeches/great-trial-1922.html

 

Fill in the answer and reverse engineer

I was on a Zoom session which included a highly successful novelist and I complimented her on presenting impossible situations in her stories and then, just when the reader has given up all hope of any good outcome, a plot twist--in her case, always believable and based on what could actually happen in the real world--produced an amazingly great result. 

She responded, "Hey, the best novelists frequently, or maybe always, come up with the desired outcome first, then the plot twist, and finally all the unfortunate events that lead up to the necessity for the plot twist." And she smiled, having revealed that creative storytelling secret.

I was dumbfounded. Of course! Makes complete sense. That is exactly how I analyze real world conflict that has resulted in violence; how can I use real world examples--sometimes stitched together in a pattern that I can see fitting well--to create a nonviolent path to transformation from destructive conflict to nonviolent constructive conflict?

Or, as my great-uncle, an accountant and tax expert, told my father when my Dad asked him a tough tax question, "Just go to the line that says, 'amount owed,' fill in $0 and figure backwards."

Yes, my honest professional great-uncle was sort of kidding, but reverse-engineering best solutions to tough destructive conflicts is not only possible in theory--I literally help my students do that on the regular--but it works in the real world, on the ground. 

Nonviolent Peaceforce is arguably the most robust and forward-thinking, best-practicing unarmed civilian protection organization in existence. The executive director, who was on the ground in several countries doing that work for more than a decade, writes, "building and recovering the relationships, connections and trust to engage all stakeholders in choosing relationships over weapons and peace over violence," (Easthom, 2021, p. 269) is how they overcome all threats to the human connections that appear when they deploy to hot conflict zones in places like South Sudan, Syria, Sri Lanka and elsewhere.

They have a desired outcome that never changes--unarmed public and private safety and security, no matter where. This inspiring work is fueled by that commitment to result and to the collective creative process required to achieve it, no matter how many plot twists are necessary.

References

Easthom, T. (2021). Community Resiliency, Conflict, and COVID-19. Peace Review, 33(2), 263–269. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1080/10402659.2021.1956134

Dialog across difference #36: "DEI hire" and other dog whistles

In new research published in the academic journal Politics, the scholars did a large n discourse analysis of the very same words used by Brietbart and The New York Times, building on previous research that looked at the communication and conflict problems in multilingual societies when one ethnic group and another used the same words but with very different meanings. This 2024 study finds that, "We suggest that intralinguistic relativity can be at least as harmful to successful public deliberation and political negotiation as interlinguistic relativity" (Mor, Nash & Green, 2024, p. 319).

In other words, when the conservative, even MAGA Brietbart refers to diversity it will surround that word with scornful pejorative context in many or most cases, while a liberal publication like The New York Times may use the same word as a positive descriptor. 

A sensitive facilitator or mediator working with folks with different political or ideological baselines will seek to clarify the meaning so that assumptions can give way to a more human set of contextuals that may better identify real commonalities or at least appreciation for any authentic differences. Honest minds can differ but grasping a lifetime of radically different social environments amongst all discussants or disputants can lead to a more common language with actual common meaning.

I experienced this recently as I facilitated an interdisciplinary dialog session. Near the conclusion of the allotted time I called on one woman who had not spoken at all and happened to be Asian, ethnically. Since we were several sessions into our dialog project I felt I could be somewhat lighthearted in calling on her by noting that she had been taciturn and perhaps would like to speak. 

She took so much offense at that that she requested a private discussion with me, which I was happy to do. "I felt essentialized by your reference to me, a woman of Asian descent, as 'taciturn,' she complained. "That was a use of language that accessed a stereotype, which felt very wrong."

In my role as ongoing facilitator I was internally stunned, even angry, at an accusation I felt grotesquely unfair and based on her identification of politically incorrect words I was not allowed to use in reference to her. The inner anger was based on how completely mistaken she was; I may well have used exactly the same descriptor in a friendly manner to literally anyone who had not said a single word even though the group was nine of us, all of whom had engaged significantly except for her. 

However, I needed to deëscalate myself before I spoke, which I did, and simply asked, "What should I have said?" That's when her actual interests emerged. 

"If anyone isn't speaking, I hope you don't call on them," she said. "You would be better off just reminding the group that everyone has a voice and that we are committed to having that be a value. But if someone continues to refrain from speaking up, that's likely just where they are at that time on that day." 

I immediately agreed to do that and my inner anger gave way to a more mild inner annoyance at both her and myself. Since then, I followed her wishes and, so far so good. We both deëscalated and I will not argue for my right to use the word "taciturn," but I see her very different hearing of it and will never use it to describe her--or any other Asian person when she is in earshot. 

As is so often the case, the right and workable agreement is based on a common and mutual respect that can often only be achieved with some investigation, some compassionate curiosity.

References

Mor, F., Nash, E. J., & Green, F. (2024). Separated by a common language: How Breitbart and The New York Times produce different meanings from common words. Politics, 44(3), 319–336. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1177/02633957211012959

Dialog across difference #35: Heads up

Quick and helpful insight from professional facilitator Adriana Girdler[1]: when you are calling a meeting, give as much notice about very specific objectives at least a couple days ahead of time. 

While a psychologist could likely identify all the potential reasons to do so, one key insight from Conflict Transformation revolves around respect. If others feel like you respect them, they tend to engage with more competence, commitment, and enthusiasm. So, even though your intent may not be to show disrespect, when the meeting happens and some feel like the topic you bring up is new to them, they logically wonder how much you respect their opinion, their professional competence, or even their value to the overall enterprise. 

Avoid such unintentional outcomes. The work is hard enough without masking your actual respect by an appearance that is confusing.

---

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgRiQlLnGcM

Dialog across difference #34: Herding kangaroos: facilitation skills

Facilitating dialogs is an infinitely varied job--the factors might include, but not be limited to: categories of people, time allotted, virtual or in-person, goal/s, and much more. 

High-paid professionals often prefer to be the sole facilitator--why split $800/hour with anyone? For the rest of us, I strongly recommend co-facilitation. With the right partner and the right preparation, even fractious groups can proceed relatively smoothly toward goal achievement most of the time.

There are times when the stated goal is simply to talk to each other. In the case of destructive conflict, usually being driven by the leaders from the conflict industry, many who prefer peace long to simply begin to repair and normalize relationships and they seek to start dialog.

Conflict industry? Yup. If a person benefits from a conflict continuing or worsening, whether that benefit is in status, power, or financially, that person is part of the conflict industry (Daniels & Walker, 2001). Often the people who never supported the self-styled "champion" are the ones most distressed by the destructive conflict. Thus, for example, Jews and Palestinians who disliked the most militant and combative leaders of both Palestine and Israel were normally the ones who sought to begin dialog sessions that were "people-to-people."

In such settings, some choose facilitators who represent both sides--e.g., one Palestinian and the co-facilitator an Israeli. Others seek a third party neutral, someone with no "skin in the game." There are advantages to both approaches, and disadvantages. 

Co-facilitators with deep lived experience on both sides can read cultural cues no outsider can see or hear. They may also be unable to efface or set aside natural bias.

Co-facilitators who are true third party neutrals can run dialog sessions without bias, or at least without bias toward or against either side. They do have a harder time reading the cultural contexts. 

There is no substitute for keen and thorough preparation by the facilitators as they ready themselves to run a tight, efficient, and productive dialog that seeks to meet its stated goals. That is the first important facilitation skill. Read, watch, talk, think, map. 

Read any written record of the conflict and of the participants.

Watch any video record. 

Talk to (caucus with) as many parties as possible.

Think about it, sleep on it, think about it some more. 

Map the conflict, and the parties. 

Now you are at least ready for a great start.

References

Daniels, Steve E., & Walker, Greg B. (2001). Working through environmental conflict: The collaborative learning approach. Westport CT: Praeger.

Dialog across difference #33: No pain, no gain

"Many of us prefer to avoid short-term pain, even if it means greater pain down the road" (Stone, Patton & Heen, 2023, p. 160).

While this is not a call to seek immediate pain, the authors of Difficult Conversations do advise making those calculations as far as it's possible in real time. If you are in a difficult conversation, how much unfair play do you permit before beginning to mention it, even though you know that the other person may well scoff and escalate?

How you bring it up matters. If you call it out you will likely engender instant defensiveness, which can have consequences that range from unwelcome distraction to abrupt termination of the conflict conversation.

If you call them in, it will still involve some immediate pain--no one particularly appreciates being notified that they are engaging in activities that are unfair or annoying--but asking a simple question that can evoke some sympathy mixed in with that minor irritation at being challenged can work to help reduce or eliminate the offending behavior (interrupting, belittling, minimizing, labeling, etc.) without much risk of a blow up.

On the other hand, if you bring up a bad practice in a good way and it does precipitate an explosive response, there is a strong chance you can legitimately tell yourself and them that this is obviously not the time for this conversation and perhaps it can resume at a later point when emotions are not so flared. That might save you a great deal of time and energy, even though an improved and transformed solution has eluded you for the time being. That is part of conflict reality at times. 

References

Stone, Douglas; Patton, Bruce; Heen, Sheila (2023). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Penguin.

Dialog across difference #32: When the other person is irredeemable

Of course, deciding that the person is the problem, in direct contradiction to a tenet of conflict transformation, is something that most logically can only happen once you've tried best practices toward conflict transformation and they clearly rebuff and invalidate all of them. Without having done that, no matter how tempting it is to label another person as the problem, we can never be sure. 

This is not to say it can't happen; some people cannot seem to rise to decency no matter how often they are approached in an adaptive manner. In my experience, I've only had one of those in the past 25 years and he was a doozy. 

Any parent would understand my ultimate decision that, in fact, he was the problem when he endangered my son without a single care or concern, and that was after much other offensive behavior. And, like so many conflictual situations, it was made worse by forced proximity; he was a housemate, in my case renting a room from me and trashing everything in drunken idiotic episodes.

I tried to channel Kwame Christian, who is a fine presenter with a range of skills, views, and insights. His term, compassionate curiosity, is one we use on the Portland Peace Team when we deal with escalated people whose behavior is otherwise inexplicable. Asking why, getting an answer, paraphrasing to check that you heard correctly, and then asking a new question to prompt answers to your compassionate curiosity is not only good in the moment to take down the tension, but good in the effort to negotiate on the merits. 

In my conflict with that fellow, it failed repeatedly and I accepted that, possibly due to my lack of skills or perspective, he effectively was the problem. One deëscalation tactic I didn't try is one advocated by the lead deëscalation trainer for the Royal College of Nursing in London, who advises to simply sit, allowing the other person to tower over you (Dean, 2024). She says it tends to create an atmosphere of calm as normative, and frequently works after a minute or two, once the person seems to have decided that, on a physical and demonstrative level, they are dominant but that their dominance isn't producing fear or surrender, making it not particularly useful. 

References

Christian, Kwame (2018). Finding confidence in conflict. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6Zg65eK9XU&t=325s

Dean, Erin (2024). De-escalation: 7 tips for handling conflict situations. Nursing Standard 39(1), 57-59. 

Dialog across difference #31: Kill them with kindness

There is an official traditional international definition of protection of civilians in armed conflict and it always and inappropriately focuses on who does the protecting rather than focusing on the actual goal, the actual desired outcome (Julian, 2024). That is, it is always viewed as a valiant armed force, such as the UN peacekeepers, keeping the civilians safe from the violent ones on any side of armed conflict. 

A focus for the definition and understanding of the proper concept of civilian protection reveals a far more complex picture, often including unarmed civilians protecting other civilians more effectively than even the UN "Blue Helmets," the so-called "lightly armed" international forces. Presumably, their bullets only make others lightly dead. Indeed, UN peacekeepers rarely shoot, and, in one 2020 incident in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the irony was profound when hundreds attacked the UN building there out of stated anger that the UN peacekeepers were doing little or nothing to protect local civilians from guerrilla forces. The UN peacekeepers shot two of the protesters dead.

While formal organizations explicitly eschewing violent defense of civilians is a relatively modern concept dating to Peace Brigades International and other unarmed civilian protection (UCP) organizations from the 1980s onward, the phenomenon is ancient. From hiding Moses from the infanticide edict of the Pharaoh to hiding Jews in the attic from Nazi predations, civilians have always rallied to protect other civilians. Now, however, this is becoming a sustained and generalized phenomenon, not limited to a particular conflict. 

From Peace Brigades International to Witness for Peace to Christian Peacemaker Teams (now Community Peacemaker Teams) to Muslim Peacemaker Teams to the International Solidarity Movement to Nonviolent Peaceforce to Friends Peacemaker Teams, this concept is being modeled in many ways with generally excellent results. 

References

Julian, R. (2024). Civilians Creating Safe Space: The Role of Unarmed Civilian Peacekeeping in Protection of Civilians. Civil Wars, 26(1), 187–212. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1080/13698249.2024.2324563

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfoHNI1Nh2Y

https://friendspeaceteams.org/about/

https://nonviolentpeaceforce.org/?gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADukmR5Q_qm18LyXsE8EcAbJA-vfk&gclid=CjwKCAjwy8i0BhAkEiwAdFaeGMyc8E8KMAkzj7fWebnIvNXTMDCLBS-9ewH-7nv3QFrt7z5lkOw0BxoCOmUQAvD_BwE

Dialog across difference #30: Doveryai, no proveryai

As the peace movement against nuclear weapons in general and the Euromissiles in particular grew from 1979-1987, leaders were eventually forced to negotiate. They feared each other, to be sure, but they feared their own growing domestic opposition even more. 

In a cross-cultural coup in 1987, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev negotiated the historic Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces disarmament treaty (which Trump unbelievably destroyed 30 years later). They framed it to their own people wisely as a treaty made not to indicate trust of the enemy, not to show that either caved to the other, but rather that it was in the clear best interests of their own people, on both sides. Literally win-win.

Reagan famously and adroitly credited a Russian maxim for this: doveryai, no proveryai--Trust but verify. 

Getting to Yes authors Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton of the Harvard Negotiation Project note, "Unless you have a good reason to trust somebody, don't" (p. 134).

Reagan made a cross-cultural bow to his enemy by using a phrase from the enemy's own culture, and showed enough humility when using it to note that his pronunciation might be sketchy. In addition, when Gorbachev laughed and said, "You repeat that every time," Reagan made another nod to Russian culture by saying simply, "I like it." 

(Reagan also liked it because it was short, simple, and rhymed.)

Trusting your opponent is not necessary; constructing a verification system is the workaround to the problem of trust. This can not only be done to facilitate good outcomes across cultures, it can be done with enough cross-cultural sensitivity to make it more successful more quickly. 

References

Fisher, Roger; Ury, William; Patton, Bruce (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. (3^rd ed.). New York, NY: Penguin. 

Dialog across difference #29: Strike up the band! You herd me!

Social psychologists and political scientists have long researched and documented the varying rates that show the political opinion effects of the bandwagon effect, the spiral of silence, and other herding mechanisms (Farjam & Loxbo, 2024). 

The bandwagon effect is basically the tendency of relatively less informed and non-ideologically committed people to go along with majority opinion. 

The spiral of silence is the phenomenon of those with a minority opinion tending to avoid making that opinion public. 

While neither of these problematic conditions will necessarily alter political outcomes in the short term, they may contribute to increased polarization and to the media indexing that can effectively erase some minority opinions. 

For instance, few polls ask citizens if they wish that the federal government would prioritize education and health care for all over a larger and larger Pentagon budget. This may tend to make such questions increasingly marginalized, even as evidence mounts that other highly successful, prosperous, and egalitarian countries have done just that. 

Over time, then, the calls to cut Pentagon bloat and instead support universal health care and free public higher education are relegated to the outlying margins of public discourse. Fighting this tendency is a complex undertaking, one that will involve innovation, dedication, and long-term commitment. There is no one tactic that will achieve this, nor is there a plan, simple or complex, to do so. Arguably, there is no greater political task at hand. 

References

Farjam, M., & Loxbo, K. (2024). Social conformity or attitude persistence? The bandwagon effect and the spiral of silence in a polarized context. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, 34(3), 531–551. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1080/17457289.2023.2189730

Dialog across difference #28: Give me a break

In tough talks, especially when disagreement has fueled substantive negotiations that have become rife with questionable tactics, there can be an advantage in simply noting that the contesting environment is beginning to feel toxic and you are going to pause your involvement for the moment (Fisher, Ury & Patton, p. 142). 

This can be especially helpful when one side has been exerting increasing pressure framed as time-urgent. Quick executive decisions may be adaptive in many cases but hurried decisions that feel driven by one side's push to cave are seldom wise decisions. Halting engagement for an undisclosed period can sometimes reset the tone and convince the parties to back off so that the merits become the central focus instead of one party's clamoring need for resolution.

It is frequently noted in discussions about diplomacy that, while all negotiators have home cultures, diplomats develop a culture unto themselves and amongst each other as well. Helping shape that culture by being flexible until you cannot be--by making concessions based on the merits and holding the line when principles are being violated--can help with the sustainable contours of how guard rails can be constructed to help that diplomacy culture keep all parties safer.

Fisher, Roger; Ury, William; Patton, Bruce (2011). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. (3^rd ed.). New York, NY: Penguin. 

Dialog across difference #27: Golden bridges

In all conflicts in which you hope for a passable outcome, it is wise to keep the golden bridges in mind. 

Sometimes the golden bridge is to a solution you've synthesized that meets more of all parties' objectives than the zero-sum garden variety "choices." 

Sometimes the golden bridge is from Sun Tzu's The Art of War, in which he advocates building a golden bridge over which your enemy can retreat--make your opponent's retreat feel worthy, with zero disrespect or shame attached to the retreat and with other rewards to which you've drawn attention. 

When I've failed to manage my conflicts well, I have failed to use an available golden bridge or I've failed to build one. 

I suspect my failures relate to my absorption of the dysfunctional conflict culture in which we live. I suspect my successes relate to my learning about the methods we are studying in the field of Conflict Transformation. 

I had a conflict today with two professors. I felt misunderstood and ambushed, and worked on golden bridges, and the conflict transformed from destructive to productive and constructive. Here I am in my elder years and still learning and still needing the self-talk necessary to push myself down the proper path. But when I do, it works. The younger you learn this, the more it can become your default response and the less that conflict will impinge on your sense of well-being. 

Dialog across difference #26: Dialog lemonade from an overload of lemons

Many places on Earth are being overcome by a flood of refugees from wars, climate chaos, economic privation, and rampant crime--many of the worst lemons of human phenomena. There is also a concomitant rise in nationalism and resultant pressure on minorities to express their own nationalistic tendencies when confronted by the majority becoming more nativist. Causation becomes harder to identify ("They started it!) but the lemons are seemingly popping up everywhere.

The Council of Europe[1] describes it: 

"Our cultural environment is changing quickly and becoming more and more diversified. Cultural diversity is an essential condition of human society, brought about by cross-border migration, the claim of national and other minorities to a distinct cultural identity, the cultural effects of globalisation, the growing interdependence between all world regions and the advances of information and communication media. More and more individuals are living in a “multicultural” normality and have to manage their own multiple cultural affiliations."

What do we do to make lemonade of all these lemons?

Few societies seem interested in cross-cultural dialog until there is destructive cross-cultural conflict; the negative aspects of multicultural societies at times seem to be "necessary" in order to generate possible interest in opening lines of dialog across cultural difference. In some cases, apparently, bad things need to happen in order to help folks be receptive to something prescriptive. Yes, prevention is always best, but seemingly not often practiced. 

With all the challenges of a multicultural environment, the Council of Europe lays out some requisite conditions to embarking on cross-cultural dialog, conditions that dialog facilitators might consider in their own efforts anywhere: 

Based on existing experience, one can propose at least six crucial conditions that must be fulfilled from the very outset, or achieved during the process, conditions that might inform all who seek progress via dialog:

·       Equal dignity of all participants;

·       Voluntary engagement in dialogue;

·       A mindset (on both sides) characterised by openness, curiosity and commitment, and the absence of a desire to “win” the dialogue;

·       A readiness to look at both cultural similarities and differences;

·       A minimum degree of knowledge about the distinguishing features of one’s own and the “other” culture;

·       The ability to find a common language for understanding and respecting cultural differences.

---

[1] https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/intercultural/concept_EN.asp

Dialog across difference #25: More than a river in Egypt: Denial in ersatz peacebuilding

 "Negative peace," says peace scholar Kent Shifferd, "is the peace the generals get after they win the war."[1]

Negative peace might be said to be the peace in a situation that locks in a power imbalance, often by some version of a gun-to-the-head threat to the losing side: Do not mistake this for peace with free speech, law that applies equally to all, or any sort of equality, much less equity. 

Peaceworkers, peace scholars, and peacebuilding practitioners note many of the aspects of classic negative peace have existed in Sri Lanka since the 2009 victory of the government military over the Tamil Tigers. The administrations in power since then have refused to entertain any examination of alleged war crimes committed by government forces during the war and have essentially excluded external peace professionals from post-war reconciliation efforts in a "context of denial" (Walpita, 2023).

One element of this denial is to stymie local grassroots peace activists in the areas home to the Tamils, obviating the perspectives that might help toward building a sustainable peace as envisioned by many international experts. This is especially pernicious when the defeated armed forces of one ethnic group seemingly become what the ruling party sees as the identity of the populace of that ethnicity, effectively silencing them and virtually guaranteeing a future outbreak of hot conflict again. 

It is hard work to overcome the traumas of war and perhaps hard work to set aside the desires to punish the identity group deemed responsible. We've seen the results in Israel/Palestine, we see them in Sudan, in Congo, and indeed, those concepts scale up and down, from the international, to the aftermath of civil war in some places, domestically in the inability of some who even lose a free and fair election to accept the results, all the way down to workplace and family dynamics. 

Trauma-informed peacebuilding is not easy, can feel unfair, and requires more grace than many can manage. In fact, some trauma is so severe that reconciliation may be exceedingly rare. There are folks in the US who nurse grudges for generations against those who have been enemies, even though none of the actual enemies are living; the end of the US Civil War was officially signed nearly 160 years ago, yet intergenerational retention of grievances in the white culture of the former Confederate states is clearly a political and cultural factor in ongoing political and cultural conflict in the US. 

While reconciliation cannot absolutely efface all trauma as an emotional artifact in opposing identity groups, it can dampen it so effectively that the expressions of the grievances become more and more rare and are seen as less and less valid. Few in the US express open hatred for Japanese because of Pearl Harbor, few talk openly of despising all Germans because of what Nazis did 80 years ago, because the respective governments on both sides worked very hard to achieve reconciliation and strong collaborative economic partnerships.

In sum, the voices, cultural knowledge, and egalitarian participation of all sides in the aftermath of hot conflict are vital if future slippery slopes to destructive conflict are to be avoided. 

Denial is not a strategy; it is not even a decent band-aid on what should be a healing process. 

References

Walpita, S. K. (2023). Context of Denial in the Practice of Local Knowledge during Grassroots Peacebuilding: An Analysis of Grassroots Activists’ Experiences in North and East Sri Lanka. Asian Journal of Peacebuilding, 11(2), 237–256. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.18588/202311.00a348

---

[1] Dr. Shifferd lecture, Northland College, 1989.

Dialog across difference #24: We're working on it: Conflict on the job? It's cultural

Like the three generally accepted methods of approaching conflict management in the literature--positional, accommodating, and principled--research into organizational conflict management tends to show that workplaces usually feature one of these approaches as part of their organizational culture (Munduate, Medina & Euwema, 2022).

This can be a challenge to anyone versed in principled negotiation who joins that organization, as employee, manager, or even conflict consultant (mediator).

Openly discussing whatever conflict culture exists in any organization is a first step toward gently steering it away from a "traditional" hierarchy of domination and toward transformative participation. When someone outranks another and therefore assumes the sole right to voice opinion and make decisions, poor outcomes can be expected in most cases. Even many militaries seem to be learning that. 

When I was a little hockey player boy in Minnesota decades ago, my Dad, who skated for the University of Minnesota, was our coach. Amongst other aphorisms, he would tell us when we were losing, "Number one thing to do when we are losing: change something." 

And that is frequently why a malfunctioning organization will bring in a conflict consultant to facilitate, mediate, and introduce initiatives that begin to address an organizational conflict culture with problems. If the owner or boss had all the answers and tended to impart an organizational conflict culture based the search for productive collaboration, no consultant would be particularly necessary.

An organizational structure may be an artifact of decades of tradition and may have served the organization well when all other competing organizations also practiced the norm of domination and hidebound hierarchy. But two factors can change that. 

One, a younger generation of leadership seeks to adapt and evolve. 

Two, the organization is being outcompeted by others who have learned participatory, engaged problem-solving conflict culture. 

"Because we always have" is no longer much of a reason for certain organizational conflict practices. Stepping up the conflict culture can raise morale, elicit better thinking, and generate a successful edge. 

References

Munduate, L., Medina, F. J., & Euwema, M. C. (2022). Mediation: Understanding a Constructive Conflict Management Tool in the Workplace. Revista de Psicologia Del Trabajo y de Las Organizaciones, 38(3), 165–173. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.5093/jwop2022a20

Dialog across difference #23: Emotional power in conflict

According to Harvard scholars Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen (2023), "While few people are good at detecting factual lies, most of us can determine when someone is distorting, manufacturing, or withholding an emotion" (p. 111).

However, if that emotion is not explained, all too often it leads to defensiveness, irritation, or other unhelpful emotional responses. 

Many decades ago, as a young white man, I married a black woman. Literally from that moment forth, for more than half a century, I have been absolutely obligated to respond to every occasion when racial language was used, most often when there are only white people in the room, and most often in those cases, when only white men were in the room. 

While I began that journey with zero training in communication or conflict management (aside from what we all get from our families), I tried every possible response I could think of except for violence (although in the 1960s, yes, I idiotically threatened violence more than once). I finally found two responses that worked for me every single time. 

One, a variant of, "While you have a First Amendment right to use language like that, I want you to understand that when you do, it hurts my heart."

Two, some permutation of, "You're a better person than that." 

In both cases, my body language or my visible facial expressions may have suggested I now regard them as no more worthy than the lowest pond scum, my language that accompanied my emotional response, rather than striking at their power, gave them even more power. 

Literally, for 55 years, that person who utterly filthy racist language in my presence never did again. I didn't argue with them that they had no choice, instead I ceded all the choice to them. I didn't call them grotesque excuses for human beings, I let them know I could see a better version of them and wanted to see more of that better version.

Emotions are power, but they can take power away from the one wielding them, or they can give power to the one who wields them wisely. They can transmogrify a conflict (make it destructive) or transform a conflict (make it constructive and productive).

Stone, Douglas; Patton, Bruce; Heen, Sheila (2023). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Penguin.