Design for an Effective Peace Movement

Author: Marjorie Smith (original website:  http://www.people-for-peace.com/)

(Mostly for "peace activists")

I am looking to redesign how we do peace work. We can be a lot more effective in the peace movement, with the time and energy that we have.

Some of us have learned some new things about human beings since the great peace thinkers whose shoulders we stand on -- or at least, there are ways to say what they believed about human beings, that can speak more clearly to a 21st century audience.

Basic assumptions are everything! The success or failure of an idea (such as Peace on Earth) depends absolutely on our foundation assumptions about what human beings are like.

For example, in horse training (my favorite hobby) we can assume the horse is a "dumb animal" that's "out to ruin our day," whose "spirit needs to be broken" and who "must be shown who's the boss." These assumptions lead us to design a certain training program for horses. Horses trained from these assumptions tend to be resentful of the rider, not fun to ride, and they often develop dangerous behaviors such as bucking, rearing, kicking, and biting. They get sold frequently to one owner after another, and eventually end up at the meat packing plant.

On the other hand, we can assume the horse is "highly intelligent in the ways needed for its native environment" (herd-style living on the grassy plains); that it has "excellent communication within the herd" as a means of survival; that a horse "enjoys doing its best for a leader it trusts." These assumptions lead us to design a dramatically different training program. Horses trained from these assumptions about their nature are responsive to the rider, safe and pleasant to be around, and don't develop dangerous behaviors. They can progress to higher levels of performance because they stay with one owner and valuable training time is not wasted on "remedial."

Basic assumptions are everything! The peace movement can be effective (and I mean like really getting there) if we deliberately pick a certain point of view on "human nature." Will we stay within the assumptions of the violent/coercive society we live in, or will we use assumptions that lead to a whole different program, which in turn will lead to a different outcome?

As in horse training, I believe we can bypass a lot of wasted time and effort, and have a dramatically better outcome, if we look carefully at our assumptions, pick those that lead to a truly peaceful world, and design a program using these assumptions.

Positive Basic Traits of Human Beings

Here are some positive traits of human beings and human communication which, if we consider them carefully, can help us design a more effective and successful peace movement.

If we look at a human being on one of her "good" days -- when the violent/coercive society has not crunched her as hard as usual -- we can see someone who, in her own unique way,

    -- has a deep desire to be alive and to enjooy what life brings,

    -- respects the existence and point of view of other people,

    -- makes friends easily, including with people very "different" from her.

On someone's "good days" we can observe that human beings desire and enjoy communication with other humans, and find great delight and fulfillment in working together to overcome challenging situations.

If we look at the same human being on a "bad day," when the coercive society has bashed and humiliated her, we are not going to see these traits show up so clearly. (Some humans have been bashed and humiliated extensively, and most of their days seem to be "bad days." This is a plausible alternate reason for the "hard cases" we sometimes run across and I hope you will consider it seriously.)

The possibilities for change are more interesting if, instead of looking at a "hard case" and saying "evil" (and therefore hopeless), we look at that person and say "bashed and having many bad days in a row" (and therefore available for change if we approach her as an ally).

I propose that we transfer the frustration and dismay that we often feel about "human nature" onto the war society and the profit-based economy that we live in. We are kind of brain-washed to think that the particular social/economic "air we breathe," at this moment in history, is good for human beings, that it's the best way humans can possibly live. But if we look at our own lives carefully, and the lives of the people around us, there are lots of places where the war society rubs like a badly fitting shoe, and makes us miserable -- and miserable people don't always treat each other the best they know how.

This transfer of our dismay away from human beings, onto the war society, leaves the drawing board clean and clear, as to "human nature." It means we can look for and build on the very best that human beings can be.

I grew up in a Quaker family. There is a saying from George Fox, who started the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) about 350 years ago: "Walk cheerfully over the Earth, speaking to that-of-God in every one." In present-day language, we might say, "Every human has a core of goodness which is reachable by the core of goodness in another human." As a child in the 1950's, I heard many stories of incidents where Quakers did this successfully, in situations that looked impossible, including some with officials in Nazi Germany.

Of course, you have to believe in your own core of goodness before you can reach someone else's. That's a lot of what this website is about -- your own core of goodness.


Two different approaches

In peace work, there are two main groups to consider:

    1) Some people agree (on their good days) that Peace on Earth -- the transformation of the violent/coercive society -- is what they want. These folks mainly need encouragement and our confidence in them. "You can do it. Go for it!"

    2) Some people have become so confused by living in the violent/coercive society that their life goals are incompatible with Peace on Earth.

For those who are clear that they want peace -- through my "barefoot horse" project, I have discovered that ordinary people will take a few words of personal encouragement, and my confidence in them, and accomplish amazing things.

For those with goals that are incompatible, we can treat the idea of Peace on Earth (the transformation of the violent/coercive society into a peaceful one) as if it were a "new idea" to them.

My listening friends have noticed that people most easily receive and consider an "important new idea" from someone who likes them and who they have come to like and trust. Think about it -- how often have you accepted a life-changing idea from someone you didn't trust?

This finding gives us a practical way to think about and design a peace movement that makes the most effective use of our time and energy. If "incompatible goals" people are to welcome the idea of transforming the violent/coercive society into a peaceful one, and join with us in doing it, the most effective way to get that idea across to them is, first, to make friends with them.

Here I am not talking about the shallow "networking" type of friends, or friends made with an ulterior motive (proselytizing). We have to figure out how to be with every person we want to bring on board. Before they will truly consider our "new idea," they have to know that we real friendslike them and they have to feel liked enough to like us back and to trust our judgment about this large and unfamiliar idea.

Friends in the violent/coercive society

I can hear nearly every peace activist groan when I talk about spreading our vision by making friends. "Making friends is my hardest thing." "I'm no good at that -- I'll just have to keep on using the old, standard, ineffective methods."

Well guess what -- you're not alone, and there's a good reason why you feel this way.

Remember the old saying of the empire-builders, "Divide and conquer"? Looking around us at the actual situation in the violent/coercive society, what do we see?

    -- People of color and "whites" are not "suppposed" to be friends.

    -- Young people, adults, and elders are not "supposed" to make friends across the lines of age.

    -- Women and men are "supposed" to feel that they are so different they can never understand each other.

    -- People of different religions, of different countries, of different ethnic groups, of different classes, are not "supposed" to make friends across these lines.

The violent/coercive society has put up a criss-cross of barriers, using any real or imagined difference it can get its hands on, to rope off the kinds of people we are "allowed" to be friends with. We're not supposed to be friends with this kind, or this kind, or this kind -- it doesn't leave many that we are "allowed" to know. The war society can't afford for you and me to compare notes on what it does to our lives!

So, when we look out and see lots of people around us who are "off limits," of course we feel that we aren't good at making friends!

(this page not finished)

NAĈRT ZA UĈINKOVITO MIROLJUBNO AKCIJO





Iščem način, kako bi preoblikovali že obstoječe miroljubne dejavnosti. Z časom in energijo, ki jo imamo na razpolago lahko postanemo učinkovitejši.

Nekateri od nas so se od velikih mislecev o miru naučili veliko novega. Tem mislecem stojimo na ramenih, ampak zato lahko vidimo dlje. To kar so povedali lahko podamo naprej v bolj razumljivi obliki, primernejši za naše stoletje.

Osnovne predpostavke pomenijo vse! Uspeh ali propad katerekoli zamisli (na primer zamisli o miru na Zemlji) temelji na naših predpostavkah o tem, kakšni ljudje smo.

Na primer, pri učenju konj (mojem najljubšem konjičku) lahko začnemo s predpostavkami, da je konj »neumno bitje«, ki nam bo »pokvarilo dan« in čigar »duha moramo zlomiti« in mu pokazati, »kdo je tukaj šef«. Na podlagi teh predpostavk zasnujemo program treninga. Konji, ki so na tak način trenirani postanejo nezaupljivi do jahača, neprijetni za ježo in se pogostokrat upirajo z vzpenjanjem, brcanjem in grizenjem. Taki konji najpogosteje zamenjajo monogo lastnikov, konjčajo pa v klavnici.

Ĉe pa konja jemljemo kot visoko inteligentno bitje, prilagojeno na svoje naravno okolje (življenje v čredi na travnatih prostranstvih), da potrebuje za preživetje v čredi enkratno komunikacijsko spretnost in bo dal vse od sebe, da bi ustregel vodji črede, kateremu zaupa. Program zasnovan na teh predpostavkah se bo občutno razlikoval od prejšnjega. Tako trenirani konji bodo odzivni na jahačeva dejstva, v družbi bodo mirni in prijazni in ne bodo razvili nobenih nevarnih razvad. Ker takšen konj ne menja lastnikov in čas za dober trening ni izničen s tistim za zdravljenje poškodb lahko tak konj napreduje v višje tekmovalne kategorije.

Osnovne predpostavke pomenijo vse! Gibanje za mir je učinkovito (in to mislim resno), če se namerno osredotočimo na določen vidik »človeškega značaja«. Bomo ostali znotraj predpostavk naše nasilno/prisilne družbe, ali se bomo oprli na drugačne predpostavke, naredili drugačen program, ki bo vodil do drugačnega zaključka?

Verjamem, da se lahko, tako kot pri učenju konj, tudi pri zavzemanju za mir izognemo velikemu številu neprijetnosti, če se zavestno odločimo za naše predpostavke, izberemo tiste, ki v resnici vodijo do miru, in na podlagi teh gradimo program.

 

Osnovne pozitivne človeške poteze


Predstavila vam bom nekatere pozitivne poteze ljudi in njihove komunikacije. Z upoštevanjem le-teh bomo bolje načrtovali učinkovitejše in uspešnejše mirovne akcije.

Ko ima človek »dober dan«-t.j., ko ga nasilna in prisilna družba ni zmlela z običajno silo- se na njemu lasten način kaže kot:

-- Bitje, ki se veseli življenja in vsega, kar mu življenje prinaša.

-- Bitje, spoštuje obstoj vseh ljudi in njihovih stališč.

-- Bitje, ki lahkoto sklepa prijateljstva, tudi z »zelo« drugačnimi od sebe.

Ko imamo ljudje »dober dan« si stikov z drugimi želimo in v njih uživamo. Prav tako uživamo v skupnem delu pri soočenju z izzivi.

Ko pa ima isto bitje »slab dan«, ko mu je nasilna in prisilna družba zadala silovit udarec in ga ponižala, so zgoraj naštete lastnosti zabrisane. (Tisti, ki so bili prevečkrat ponižani in potolčeni imajo občutek, da »slabim dnem« nikoli ne bo konca. Največkrat so prav ti t.i. »težki primeri«. Upam, da jih boste jemali resno.)

Možnosti za spremembe so še toliko večje, če na posameznike ne bomo gledali kot na »težke primere« in jih imenovali »zlo« (in potemtakem brezupne) ampak kot osebe, ki so imele »več slabih dni zapovrstjo« (in tako dopustili več možnosti za preobrazbo, če se jim le približamo kot njihovi »zavezniki«).

Predlagam preusmeritev frustracij in strahu, ki ga občutimo do človeške narave, v vojno in v dobiček usmerjeno družbo, v kateri žvimo. Smo kot »programirani«, da vidimo zdajšnjo družbeno ekonomsko situacijo kot najboljšo možno. Toda, če se bolje zazremo v naše življenje in v življenje naših bližnjih, se zavemo, da obstajajo mesta, kjer nas »čevelj žuli«. Zaradi tega se počutimo nesrečne, in nesrečni ljudje do drugih ne ravnajo po svojih najboljših močeh.

Takšna preusmeritev našega strahu v vojno in stran od ljudi usmerjeno družbo dopušča nove interpretacije o človeški naravi. Z drugimi besedami, v vsakem lahko iščemo in gradimo na najboljšem, kar premore.

Odraščala se v družini Quakerjev. George Fox, začetnik Skupine verskih prijateljev (Quakerji) je pred 350 leti izjavil: »Radostno se sprehajaj po zemlji in govori tistemu, kar je božjega v nas«. To bi danes zvenelo: »V vsakem je delček dobrega, ki je drugim dosegljiv« V 50. letih sem kot otrok slišala mnogo zgodb o tem, kako so Quakerji na ta način rešili še tako brezizhodne situacije, tudi z nemškimi Nacisti.

Seveda pa moraš, da dosežeš dobro v drugih, najprej verjeti v lasten delček dobrega. Za to pravzaprav gre. To je bistvo te spletne strani-lasten delček dobrega.

 

2 RAZLIĈNA PRISTOPA


Pri delu za mir moramo upoštevati 2 glavni skupini:

   1. Nekateri se strinjajo (ko imajo dober dan), da je mir tisto, kar si renično želijo --torej preobrazbo nasilno/prisilne družbe. Ti potrebujejo le vzpodbudo in naše zaupanje vanje. To zmoreš! Le pogumno!

   2. Nekateri so postali zaradi življenja v nasilno/prisilni družbi že tako zmedeni, da se njihovi življenjski cilji ne skaladajo za vzpostavljanjem miru.

Tistim, ki je mir na Zemlji jasen cilj -- preko mojega projekta o bosih konjih sem odkrila, da običajnim ljudem zadostujeta le beseda vzpodbude in moje zaupanje vanje, in naredili bodo izjemne stvari.

Tistim, katerih cilji ne sovpadajo, jim lahko zmisel o miru na Zemlji (oz. sprememba nasilno/prisilne družbe v miroljubmo in ljudem prijazno) predstavimo kot nekaj povsem novega.

Prijateljice, s katerimi se veliko pogovarjam, so opazile, da ljudje laže sprejmejo »pomembno novo zamisel« od nekoga, za keterega vedo, da so mu všeč in katerega so tudi sami vzljubili in mu zaupajo. Pomislite -- kako pogosto ste sprejeli pomembno zamisel od nekoga, ki mu niste zaupali?

Ta ugotovitev nam daje možnost, da zasnujemo najbolj učinkovit mirovni program glede na vloženo energijo in čas. Za ljudi, katerih cilji se ne skladajo s spreminjanjem nasilno/prisilne družbe v družbo miru, je najučinkovitejši način da jih prepričamo ta, da se z njimi spoprijateljimo.

S tem pa ne mislim nekega »plitvega« prijateljstva, samo da bi uresničili naše skrite namene (pridobiti privržence). Moramo najti način, kako skleniti pravo prijateljstvo prav z vsakim. Kajti preden bodo našo idejo prevzeli, se morajo zavedati, da jih imamo resnično radi, in to toliko, da bodo tudi oni resnično vzljubili in zaupali naši presoji te velike in neznane zamisli.

 

PRIJATELJI V NASILNO/PRISLINI DRUŽBI


Ko govorim o širjenju miru s sklepanjem prijateljstev slišim stokanje skoraj vsih, ki se aktivno zavzemajo za mir. »Sklepanje prijateljstev je zame nekaj najtežjega.«, »To mi ne gre dobro od rok -- še naprej bom moral uporabljati stre, običajne, neučinkovite načine.«

Toda ne boste verjeli -- niste sami, in za to obstaja dober razlog.

Se še spomnite starega reka velikih osvajlacev: »Spri in osvoji.«? Kaj vidimo, če se ozremo na trenutno stanje v nasilno prisilni družbe?

--Ljudje različnih polti in »belci« naj »ne bi bili« prijatelji.

--Ljubje različnih generacij naj »ne bi bili« prijatelji.

--Moški in ženske »naj bi verjeli«, da si si preveč različni, da bi se lahko kdajkoli razumeli.

--Ljudje različnih ver, iz različnih dežel, iz različnih narodnosti, iz različnega socialnega položaja »naj ne bi« skelpali prijateljstev.

Nasilno/prisilna družba si je izmislila in vzpostavila mrežo polno pregrad. Uporabila je vse, tako resnične kot navidezne pregrade, ki so ji na dosegu. Na ta način nam prepreči, da bi lahko postali prijatelji z vsemi. Ĉe »naj ne bi« postali prijtelji s temi in s tistimi in z onimi—ne preostane nam veliko ljudi, katere lahko spoznamo. Vojaška družba si ne more privoščiti, da bi se različni ljudje pogovarjali o njenih učinkih na njihova življenja!

Zato ni presenetljivo, da si mislimo, da nm gre sklepanje prijateljstev slabo od rok—kakorkoli se ozremo vidimo samo ljudi, do katerih »nimamo dostopa«.

(Stran ni dokončana.)