Day two of the Summer Institute for Faculty has been both rewarding and personally important. I’ll share a bit why.
The day began with a presentation by John Paul Lederach. If you’re not familiar with Lederach, he is a among the most well known and respected scholars/practitioners in peace studies. He’s the author of several influential books: The Little Book of Conflict Transformation, Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies, and The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace. John Paul Lederach graciously accepted the Community of Christ Peace Award in 2000 at our Peace Colloquy.
John Paul Lederach’s presentation was on not on a new topic, but one that is important to the development of peace studies as a field of research and practice. It’s the transition of “conflict resolution” to “conflict transformation.” He gave an overview of several conceptual and practical differences between conflict resolution and conflict transformation. What stood out the most was the critique of conflict resolution that led to this change.
John Paul Lederach shared experiences he’d had working as a mediator and conflict resolution specialist. To paraphrase, he’d been often asked, “What Is conflict resolution? Because, if you are interested in just coming to solve our problems and not changing anything, we’re not interested.” In other words, conflict resolution without attention to the underlying desire for needed changes, changes parties aimed for or already underway, in a conflict situation is not helpful. Resolution that “fixed” problems by aiming toward agreement or compromise by de-escalating conflict, but changes nothing is inadequate, even undesirable. Conflicts can be, and are often, productive. They aim at change. The shift to conflict transformation aims at processes in which conflict is addressed and the dynamics of change are kept in focus.
John Paul Lederach identifies four areas or kinds of change in his book, The Little Book of Conflict Transformation (linked above). They are personal change, relational change, structural change, and cultural change. Peace studies cannot loose sight of this aspect of creative potential in conflict, which is often the aim of conflict. Conflict transformation is controversial for some in peace studies because it appreciates the importance of conflict, even the need for its agitation or escalation, in processes of change. Without resorting or allowing conflict to transform into violence, the escalation of conflict can be, and often is, a necessary part of justice and peace….or a just peace.
In my second session, I had the opportunity to listen to faculty in the Kroc Institute share the interdisciplinary aspects of peace. E. Mark Cummings, Professor of Psychology, shared about his research in Northern Ireland on the effects of political violence on children and development. Atalia Omer, Associate Professor of Religion, Conflict and Peace Studies, shared about her research on the role of religion in shaping ethnic and national identities, and its influence on interpretations of justice and political conflict. Scott Appleby, Professor of History, shared excellent reflections on the intersection of history and peace studies. His work in religious fundamentalism and violence is integral work in peace studies. Sandra Gustafson, Professor of English, shared about her work in the intersection of peace studies and literature.
The most important experience for me today, however, came from personal reflection. The panel discussions and insightful conversations faced me with personal questions: “Why peace? Why peace and justice? Why peace studies?” I could write papers and give presentations on these broad questions from my a theological and ethical perspective. But, why is it a personal call? The answer may seem obvious. Yet, when was the last time any of us stopped to ask ourselves if we are committed to peace and justice as a matter of personal conviction, and why? When was the last time you clarified and articulated why peace is important enough to confront others with it? Below is a list of my responses:
- Human beings are a global family, not discrete individuals. We belong to each other. Materially, we are dependent on human activity and the environment. Human life, therefore, is finally life together, not individual life. A sustainable peace is a necessary personal and corporate commitment for developing sustainable life and a culture of life together.
- Sustainable peace requires justice. Justice is not simply justice for me and mine, but considers my intimate relationship – personal and impersonal – with others. Justice begins with the most vulnerable.
- Given the world in which we live, we no longer approach individual or corporate life, vocation, and formative education without a conviction for sustainable peace. Without a commitment to justice and sustainable peace, norms and values devolve to a culture of individual beliefs and behavior acculturated around “me” and “mine.”
- Conflicts are good. They are transformational. Conflicts are a necessary passage for becoming whole persons, growing in community, and all kinds of learning. When we resort to violence, all of this suffers. Conflicts devolve every human endeavor to domination and survival rather than the pursuit of truth, wholeness, community, and learning. Peace makes conflict possible.
- Peace, for me, is faith based, faith-driven, and culminates in a life of faith. However, it is not limited to religion and faith. Peace is inclusive, invitational, and universal in scope and human concern.