Knowledge is power. I learned this as a kid. But knowledge that is considered to be universal, in that it is widely accepted by all to be true, may sometimes be more of a curse than a blessing. This is because we tend to assume that this knowledge is being applied appropriately in all settings. As a result, no one is willing to test whether it is being used appropriately lets they draw the ire of those whose work is being "questioned."
This phenomenon is evident in the field of peace=building. It is generally accepted that a system is more than the sum of its parts. Most people can provide at least one example of this principle at work. Water is a simple but powerful example. Water is made up chemically of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Neither hydrogen nor oxygen is wet; both are gases. But when they are combined in the chemical formula for water they take on emergen properties of water that cannot be found in either hydrogen or water.
Given the universal state of this knowledge it is strange that it is also universally assumed that this principle can be ignored in the search for global peace. Every peace building initiative assumes that peace can be brought to humanity one person at a time. Those involved in this vital work seem to work under the assumption that if peace can be brought to humans individually then collectively peace will reign throughout humanity.
As long as we continue to follow a principle we know is flawed we will never achieve the greatest prize that we seek.
A systems level discussion on Organizational Leadership and World Peace written by:
© Darius A. Lecointe, Ph.D., J.D., M.A. Join in the discussion here or through dalecointe@gmail.com
Monday, May 9, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Working our way back to peace
Just today I reflected on an interesting contradiction. Every war humans have ever fought has been motivated either by religion or by politics. In most cases both politics and religion are involved. This is not to suggest that something is wrong with either politics or religion. The evidence is overwhelming that both politics and religion have made positive contributions to human development over the years.
The contradiction lies in the fact that humans rely exclusively on religion and politics to help them find the path back to a world where war and violence are no longer a threat. There is no other way to describe this than that we are using the fox to guard the hen house.
Does anyone have an answer to this obvious contradiction? What does it say about how we feel about our chances of achieving world peace?
Over the next few weeks I hope to write a bit more on this subject. I would welcome contributions from any of my readers.
The contradiction lies in the fact that humans rely exclusively on religion and politics to help them find the path back to a world where war and violence are no longer a threat. There is no other way to describe this than that we are using the fox to guard the hen house.
Does anyone have an answer to this obvious contradiction? What does it say about how we feel about our chances of achieving world peace?
Over the next few weeks I hope to write a bit more on this subject. I would welcome contributions from any of my readers.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Serious about Peace
A workman is known by his tools. Over the years they will accumulate a great number of tools associated with their trade. The same is true in the world of peace building. If we are serious about peace building we will rely on tools that provide the greatest possibility of success.
But the tools of peace building are not physical; they are conceptual. A mechanic must not only use the tools of his trade, he must also rely on the concepts of his trade. The same is true for every other workman.
Every problem humans have ever solved has been solved by finding appropriate models in nature. The same is true with peace building. Our best intentions will fail us if we depend on the wrong models.
Nature has no models for peace building, but it has models of conflict and violence. We need to find the model that best fits our situation. I have identified three models of conflict and violence and I will briefly introduce them here. A more extensive treatment will be attempted later.
The first model is also the best known. It is associated with the food chain or food web. It is there that we see all of the violence of nature. Lions chase and eat gazelles. Octopuses consume small fish. Spiders trap flies in their webs. Cows and other herbivores eat grass. The violence of nature is ubiquitous. This violence is associated with differences between the species of the predator and the prey and occurs only at meal time. The rules are clear. Today's diner becomes tomorrow's dinner.
The second model moves from the species to the individual organisms in each species. Each organism has an immune system that defends it from foreign pathogens. This is its standing army. The work that the immune system does each moment is best understood by observing what happens when life ceases and the immune system no longer operates. The foreign pathogens move in and in quick time reduce the organism to dust. A major difference between this model and the first is the fact that the species do not have a standing army. This is because the relationship between prey and predator is a cooperative one. Predators are not intent on driving their prey to extinction. This risk does not exist.
The third model moves further in. In this model the natural process of cell division causes mutations in the organism's DNA that may result in cancers or auto-immune diseases. Cancerous cells continue to divide past the Hayflick limit, exerting negative forces on the rest of the body and can lead to the death of the organism if not arrested. In an auto-immune disease the body's standing army receives flawed information regarding the organism's enemies and begins to view the organism itself as the enemy.
Only one of these three models represents the present human condition. Solutions that are applicable to the other two will not work in our quest for peaceful coexistence. Which model do you think applies?
But the tools of peace building are not physical; they are conceptual. A mechanic must not only use the tools of his trade, he must also rely on the concepts of his trade. The same is true for every other workman.
Every problem humans have ever solved has been solved by finding appropriate models in nature. The same is true with peace building. Our best intentions will fail us if we depend on the wrong models.
Nature has no models for peace building, but it has models of conflict and violence. We need to find the model that best fits our situation. I have identified three models of conflict and violence and I will briefly introduce them here. A more extensive treatment will be attempted later.
The first model is also the best known. It is associated with the food chain or food web. It is there that we see all of the violence of nature. Lions chase and eat gazelles. Octopuses consume small fish. Spiders trap flies in their webs. Cows and other herbivores eat grass. The violence of nature is ubiquitous. This violence is associated with differences between the species of the predator and the prey and occurs only at meal time. The rules are clear. Today's diner becomes tomorrow's dinner.
The second model moves from the species to the individual organisms in each species. Each organism has an immune system that defends it from foreign pathogens. This is its standing army. The work that the immune system does each moment is best understood by observing what happens when life ceases and the immune system no longer operates. The foreign pathogens move in and in quick time reduce the organism to dust. A major difference between this model and the first is the fact that the species do not have a standing army. This is because the relationship between prey and predator is a cooperative one. Predators are not intent on driving their prey to extinction. This risk does not exist.
The third model moves further in. In this model the natural process of cell division causes mutations in the organism's DNA that may result in cancers or auto-immune diseases. Cancerous cells continue to divide past the Hayflick limit, exerting negative forces on the rest of the body and can lead to the death of the organism if not arrested. In an auto-immune disease the body's standing army receives flawed information regarding the organism's enemies and begins to view the organism itself as the enemy.
Only one of these three models represents the present human condition. Solutions that are applicable to the other two will not work in our quest for peaceful coexistence. Which model do you think applies?
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
A Different Lesson from Egypt
During the 18 days of the Egyptian Revolution all eyes were on the Egyptian army. Everyone seemed to understand that the final outcome of this uprising depended on how the army responded. Less than one week into the uprising there was a global sigh of relief when the army issued a statement that it would not "resort to use of force against our great people," and being "aware of the legitimacy of your demands" were "keen to assume their responsibility in protecting the nation and the citizens, affirm that freedom of expression through peaceful means is guaranteed to everybody."
It is curious that with the departure of Hosni Mubarak we are in such a hurry to forget the role that the Egyptian army played, or did not play, in the uprising. Instead the pundits are trying to determine who should get the credit for the results. This response misses the mark.
As the uprisings spread across the Middle East it may be a good idea to contemplate why the ability of a people to change their government should depend on the whims of a standing army. One could say that Hosni Mubarak was driven out of power because the army decided it was time for him to go. We can only imagine what the result would have been if they had been ordered to suppress the demonstrations. What if they had done their job and had protected the government of the nation?
Democracies in many other countries demonstrate that governments can be changed without getting permission from the army. It is ludicrous that the peaceful transfer of power should come at the cost of maintaining a standing army. It is also ludicrous that the peace we enjoy in Western democracies should also come at the same cost. Standing armies cost money -- money that can best be used to educate and house our people. I can only imagine what the impact would be on the cost of fuel if the fuel used to keep the military mobile was made available to the open market?
Sadly, we are not at the place yet where we can get rid of standing armies. But that is the direction in which we should go. Peace at the point of a gun, even if that gun is not pointed in my direction, is not really peace.
It is curious that with the departure of Hosni Mubarak we are in such a hurry to forget the role that the Egyptian army played, or did not play, in the uprising. Instead the pundits are trying to determine who should get the credit for the results. This response misses the mark.
As the uprisings spread across the Middle East it may be a good idea to contemplate why the ability of a people to change their government should depend on the whims of a standing army. One could say that Hosni Mubarak was driven out of power because the army decided it was time for him to go. We can only imagine what the result would have been if they had been ordered to suppress the demonstrations. What if they had done their job and had protected the government of the nation?
Democracies in many other countries demonstrate that governments can be changed without getting permission from the army. It is ludicrous that the peaceful transfer of power should come at the cost of maintaining a standing army. It is also ludicrous that the peace we enjoy in Western democracies should also come at the same cost. Standing armies cost money -- money that can best be used to educate and house our people. I can only imagine what the impact would be on the cost of fuel if the fuel used to keep the military mobile was made available to the open market?
Sadly, we are not at the place yet where we can get rid of standing armies. But that is the direction in which we should go. Peace at the point of a gun, even if that gun is not pointed in my direction, is not really peace.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
A Shot at Peace
The recent tragic shooting in Tucson, AZ which left 6 dead and 13 wounded, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), is only the latest reminder of the vexing problems that we, as a species, face on this planet. Any connection that exists between that incident and mental disease or the current political climate in the United States of America should not blind us to the fact that this is a symptom of a much larger global problem. This is not a uniquely American problem. It is not the first incidence of mass murder and, unless we move quickly and decisively to act, it certainly won’t be the last. The question from President Obama at the memorial service resonates: "What, beyond prayer and expressions of concern, is expected of us as we go forward?"
Representative Giffords was not shot in the head at close range because she was Gabrielle Giffords, daughter of Gloria and Spencer Giffords, a graduate of Scripps College and Cornell University, and wife of Astronaut Mark Kelly. I doubt her shooter knew that about her. He did not care who she really was, and he certainly did not want to get to get better acquainted. Based on evidence retrieved by the authorities it appears that she was targeted because of what she represented. In that sense it was not an act of personal violence against Rep. Giffords. Those who were killed and injured in the shooting suffered because of their association with her, however remote it may have been.
Why do we experience such feelings of anger and loss at the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords? I can think of a number of scenarios under which we would laud Jared Loughner for his actions. We are angry because we know that neither she nor any of the other victims of Loughner’s actions represented a threat to Loughner. The only problem was that Loughner considered her to be a threat because she represented an institution that he considered to be a threat. The fact that he is mentally ill does not change this. Even though she was not shot because of who she was, Loughner shot her because of who he perceived her to be. But deep within our collective consciousness something tells us that humans should not be turning on each other; that such self-destructive behavior is of no benefit to us as a people.
Soon, Loughner will be tried on Federal and State charges. In each case a jury of his peers will determine his guilt or innocence and the courts will impose the sentence society considers to be appropriate. But whatever happens in the courtroom will only bring closure to this particular case. It will not prevent a recurrence. Except for those who who have been intimately affected by the shootings, for most of us the incident will become a distant memory. We will be blissfully unaware that the most important defendant in this case will never be tried – the society that created Loughner and others like him for whom mental defect is not a convenient excuse.
The irony should be obvious. What is it that makes us turn on each other? I have no doubt that those who have complained about the role played by the rhetoric of some on the right of the political spectrum are not just engaged in finger pointing. But I am also convinced that their complaints are driven by our collective reluctance to blame ourselves for what one of ours has done. Those on the right are reluctant to be blamed for what one of theirs has done. As humans we are reluctant to be blamed for what one of us has done.
Loughner is not a member of an alien species. He is a part of human society, and while it is true that he may have been mentally deranged before he carried out the shootings, many people considered to be sane by society have committed similar acts. We have a long history of self-destructive behavior.
Once again we have heard references to “home-grown” terrorism as if there is any other kind of terrorism. We have conveniently forgotten that home is this planet. We may live in different nations or different communities but we all share the same home. None of our violence or wars makes sense because every war we fight is a civil war. Our reaction to the shooting of Rep. Giffords shows that we have an aversion to this infighting, but we seem unable to find a solution.
Many cling to the idea that we will get rid of terrorism if we can rid of the terrorists. This is an extension of the view that we will get rid of crime if we can get rid of criminals. That type of thinking is stymied by the fact that terrorists and criminals look the same as ordinary human beings do. Truth be told, this is the only reason these acts of violence are able to terrorise the populace. Until he stepped forward and discharged his 31 rounds he was just another face in the crowd. He was “one of us.”
Since we cannot identify terrorists and criminals before they act we are forced to spend significant portions of our national budgets to protect ourselves from these individuals. We will never know just how large our global military and enforcement budgets are. But we do know that they represent resources that could be used to improve the lives of many around the globe if we could only find a way to “stop this madness.” Peace that is imposed with the threat of violence is not peace. Peace that can only be maintained at great cost is not peace.
Representative Giffords was not shot in the head at close range because she was Gabrielle Giffords, daughter of Gloria and Spencer Giffords, a graduate of Scripps College and Cornell University, and wife of Astronaut Mark Kelly. I doubt her shooter knew that about her. He did not care who she really was, and he certainly did not want to get to get better acquainted. Based on evidence retrieved by the authorities it appears that she was targeted because of what she represented. In that sense it was not an act of personal violence against Rep. Giffords. Those who were killed and injured in the shooting suffered because of their association with her, however remote it may have been.
Why do we experience such feelings of anger and loss at the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords? I can think of a number of scenarios under which we would laud Jared Loughner for his actions. We are angry because we know that neither she nor any of the other victims of Loughner’s actions represented a threat to Loughner. The only problem was that Loughner considered her to be a threat because she represented an institution that he considered to be a threat. The fact that he is mentally ill does not change this. Even though she was not shot because of who she was, Loughner shot her because of who he perceived her to be. But deep within our collective consciousness something tells us that humans should not be turning on each other; that such self-destructive behavior is of no benefit to us as a people.
Soon, Loughner will be tried on Federal and State charges. In each case a jury of his peers will determine his guilt or innocence and the courts will impose the sentence society considers to be appropriate. But whatever happens in the courtroom will only bring closure to this particular case. It will not prevent a recurrence. Except for those who who have been intimately affected by the shootings, for most of us the incident will become a distant memory. We will be blissfully unaware that the most important defendant in this case will never be tried – the society that created Loughner and others like him for whom mental defect is not a convenient excuse.
The irony should be obvious. What is it that makes us turn on each other? I have no doubt that those who have complained about the role played by the rhetoric of some on the right of the political spectrum are not just engaged in finger pointing. But I am also convinced that their complaints are driven by our collective reluctance to blame ourselves for what one of ours has done. Those on the right are reluctant to be blamed for what one of theirs has done. As humans we are reluctant to be blamed for what one of us has done.
Loughner is not a member of an alien species. He is a part of human society, and while it is true that he may have been mentally deranged before he carried out the shootings, many people considered to be sane by society have committed similar acts. We have a long history of self-destructive behavior.
Once again we have heard references to “home-grown” terrorism as if there is any other kind of terrorism. We have conveniently forgotten that home is this planet. We may live in different nations or different communities but we all share the same home. None of our violence or wars makes sense because every war we fight is a civil war. Our reaction to the shooting of Rep. Giffords shows that we have an aversion to this infighting, but we seem unable to find a solution.
Many cling to the idea that we will get rid of terrorism if we can rid of the terrorists. This is an extension of the view that we will get rid of crime if we can get rid of criminals. That type of thinking is stymied by the fact that terrorists and criminals look the same as ordinary human beings do. Truth be told, this is the only reason these acts of violence are able to terrorise the populace. Until he stepped forward and discharged his 31 rounds he was just another face in the crowd. He was “one of us.”
Since we cannot identify terrorists and criminals before they act we are forced to spend significant portions of our national budgets to protect ourselves from these individuals. We will never know just how large our global military and enforcement budgets are. But we do know that they represent resources that could be used to improve the lives of many around the globe if we could only find a way to “stop this madness.” Peace that is imposed with the threat of violence is not peace. Peace that can only be maintained at great cost is not peace.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Giving Thanks but No Thanks
Bullying has been in the news quite bit lately. Several teenagers have taken their lives to escape this evil. On this Thanksgiving Day, as I reflect on all the reasons I have to be thankful I am especially thankful that I have never been bullied. Not once. I have been mocked and ridiculed, but never bullied.
Nobody likes to be bullied; not even bullies. That is the reason they pick on the weak and defenseless. But even worse than being bullied by another is being bullied by yourself. Yes, autobullying. I'm sure you never knew it existed. Worse than someone bullying himself would be a group of people bullying themselves. Even worse than a group of people bullying themselves would be an entire species bullying itself.
By now you must be wondering what I am talking about. Allow me to explain,
We often think of bullying in terms of violence but not all bullying involves violence. There may be a threat of violence but the bully does not necessarily want to beat up his victim. The bully does not mind leaving his victim alone as long as the victim pays for the privilege. It is the same idea behind protectionWe ou money racquets. You can live your life in peace if you pay for the privilege.
The problem is that it is the right of every person to be able to live his life in peace. I ought to be able to go to school without having to turn my lunch money over to some tough guy. I ought to be able to ply my trade in any locale where it is legal to do so without having to pony up a percentage of my profits to another. We ought to be able to live in peace without having to pay for the privilege.
Why, then, do humans spend billions of dollars each year to maintain peace on this planet? I am referring to the global crime fighting and military budgets, as well as the money spent in peacemaking and peacekeeping programs. We have not spent one cent, peso, or bolivar to protect ourselves from foreign invaders. Humans have never fought a real war. Every war that has ever been fought on this planet has been a civil war; humans fighting humans. The reason these skirmishes make the news is because we all know that there is something unnatural about this. We should not be fighting each other. The only reason why we survived out of the mists of prehistory is because we did not fight each other in those early years. We were just as different then as we are now. We lived together without stockpiling weapons. Granted we did not have the military technology we have today but we did not feel the need to. Humans competed with each other; we always have. But we did not see each other as enemies. We did not have to pay for the privilege of peaceful coexistence.
Today we stockpile weapons and maintain standing armies mainly as a deterrent from other humans who have difficulty recognizing that we are one species. Most of the arms in our arsenals will never be used. They will become obsolete and will be destroyed. This is an obvious waste of resources. Every year millions are spent training humans to become killing machines of other humans. Can anyone estimate what the effect would be on our highways if all the fuel used by the worlds armies and navies to train and maintain their men and equipment were released into the open market?
How much longer will we keep bullying ourselves; spending billions of dollars for the right to live the way nature designed that we should live? When will we really be able to give a heartfelt thanks that we have come to our senses, and each boxer has returned to his corner? If we are really concerned about bullying we need to take a look at the way we bully ourselves everyday.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Nobody likes to be bullied; not even bullies. That is the reason they pick on the weak and defenseless. But even worse than being bullied by another is being bullied by yourself. Yes, autobullying. I'm sure you never knew it existed. Worse than someone bullying himself would be a group of people bullying themselves. Even worse than a group of people bullying themselves would be an entire species bullying itself.
By now you must be wondering what I am talking about. Allow me to explain,
We often think of bullying in terms of violence but not all bullying involves violence. There may be a threat of violence but the bully does not necessarily want to beat up his victim. The bully does not mind leaving his victim alone as long as the victim pays for the privilege. It is the same idea behind protectionWe ou money racquets. You can live your life in peace if you pay for the privilege.
The problem is that it is the right of every person to be able to live his life in peace. I ought to be able to go to school without having to turn my lunch money over to some tough guy. I ought to be able to ply my trade in any locale where it is legal to do so without having to pony up a percentage of my profits to another. We ought to be able to live in peace without having to pay for the privilege.
Why, then, do humans spend billions of dollars each year to maintain peace on this planet? I am referring to the global crime fighting and military budgets, as well as the money spent in peacemaking and peacekeeping programs. We have not spent one cent, peso, or bolivar to protect ourselves from foreign invaders. Humans have never fought a real war. Every war that has ever been fought on this planet has been a civil war; humans fighting humans. The reason these skirmishes make the news is because we all know that there is something unnatural about this. We should not be fighting each other. The only reason why we survived out of the mists of prehistory is because we did not fight each other in those early years. We were just as different then as we are now. We lived together without stockpiling weapons. Granted we did not have the military technology we have today but we did not feel the need to. Humans competed with each other; we always have. But we did not see each other as enemies. We did not have to pay for the privilege of peaceful coexistence.
Today we stockpile weapons and maintain standing armies mainly as a deterrent from other humans who have difficulty recognizing that we are one species. Most of the arms in our arsenals will never be used. They will become obsolete and will be destroyed. This is an obvious waste of resources. Every year millions are spent training humans to become killing machines of other humans. Can anyone estimate what the effect would be on our highways if all the fuel used by the worlds armies and navies to train and maintain their men and equipment were released into the open market?
How much longer will we keep bullying ourselves; spending billions of dollars for the right to live the way nature designed that we should live? When will we really be able to give a heartfelt thanks that we have come to our senses, and each boxer has returned to his corner? If we are really concerned about bullying we need to take a look at the way we bully ourselves everyday.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Random Thoughts
I have decided to begin posting some of my random thoughts that I have been sharing elsewhere.
The greatest hindrance to human development is our inability to understand the relationship between being and doing. Most people think that you are what you do. The truth is that you do what you are. Transformation does not come by doing something different but by becoming something different.
The greatest hindrance to human development is our inability to understand the relationship between being and doing. Most people think that you are what you do. The truth is that you do what you are. Transformation does not come by doing something different but by becoming something different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)