Is It Possible for Humanity to Create a Peaceful World with Religion in it?

[The Grand Nudger]

Naturally, this is not a full proof/complete list.  These approaches are just the more common constructive conflict resolution techniques that I have learned in my conflict resolution studies.

All of that sounds nice, I can hardly find objection to any of it, except insomuch as to say that some of the directives are counterproductive to each other in practice....while that may be a problem if we were forming some logical proof of x, it isn't in the context of trying to align action, particularly when there are competing interests, say between embracing diversity while also preserving individual uniqueness.  That said, in the "big tent" theory of humanity, there are some examples of diversity that I, personally, will not embrace, and would much sooner eradicate.  

That's probably why I shouldn't be in charge of anything more complicated than a shovel....and even the shovel might be a little risky in my case.  

Or, rather than right hook each other and lose brain cells, why not right hook the problem in the jaw together and have more coherent and complete memories as a result? 

I was assuming that the problem -was- the other guy.  If it's not, ofc we beat the shit out of the problem together, we're practically built for collaborative head smashing.  

I like this.  Based on my studies of conflict resolution, our primitive  fight, flight, and inhibitory reflex responses lead to attacking, avoiding, and accommodating (known as the three A's), which are viewed as negative conflict management tools (Dana, 2006; Ury,2007).  However, this ultimately depends on the context.  If we found ourselves existing in a state of nature, then the fight, flight, and inhibitory reflex responses would actually be good conflict management techniques, as they would help ensure our survival.  In addition, if we find ourselves in a dark alley late at night in a bad neighborhood or are held up at gun point, then our primitive reflexes may make the difference between life or death; thus, in this context, trying to apply the constructive conflict resolution techniques listed above may lead to negative conflict.

I could only suggest that we -do- exist "in a state of nature"...at all times, everywhere.  There is no environment in which a human being has somehow extricated themselves from nature, or extricated nature from themselves.  Imagining that we have is to begin with flawed assumptions..and doing so cannot be expected to yield reliable or accurate results.

However, our primitive reflexes can get us into trouble in our personal and professional relationships (especially in workplace/organizational contexts): they often breed misunderstanding and poor conflict management. Thus, our primitive reflexes inhibit our ability to meaningfully connect with others (Dana, 2006; Patterson, 2012): social connection is what makes humanity unique; it is the essence of our progress and growth (Lieberman, 2013)).  Hence, the constructive conflict resolution techniques that have been discussed in this post would seem to be relevant to our multicultural world where interdependency is vital to the success and growth of our species.  Do you see things differently?

I do, at your job...you're fighting for your food in a different form.  There are many people who, because you have secured that particular resource, are starving.  It all seems civil to you, from where you sit...but that has more to do with a screen that the supposedly civil have erected between themselves internally and externally, imo.
 

I like the example that you used with your wife.  Many people already do manage conflict well on an individual scale.  However can we take those skills and apply them on a global/intercultural scale?  This is the question that I’m interested in answering, which was poorly communicated by me in the thread title, op, and other posts of mine in this thread. 

I think that we -do- resolve our conflicts in a similar fashion on a global scale.  We aren't engaged in perpetual all out warfare.  We actually try to talk our way through things, for a long time..for example as civilians are getting bombed out of hospitals, rather than go straight for the punch.  In many cases, in my opinion, our newfound aversion to violent action is implicitly or explicitly responsible for the deaths of those people.  Even when we do, eventually, resolve the conflict diplomatically...that resolution has already been paid for in blood.  So me, I'd weigh the price in blood of soldiers (for convenience lets say I give them the value of a half a civilian because they're volunteers, trained for combat) against the price in blood of kids crushed under buildings by canister bombs.  That, top me, can turn the nastiest bit of military conflict into a positive resolution technique, and the price in blood of civilians can turn the diplomatic solution into a negative technique - as I alluded to with the example of appeasement in ww2.  

Hence, would you say that LeBaron's approach of improving intercultural competence is useful in helping us constructively manage cultural differences and handling conflict more constructively on a global scale? What are your thoughts?

I do think it's useful to -us-....but that probably has to do with my being raised in the ingroup which conforms to her positions.  I'm not so sure how useful it is when dealing with The Other™.  Or in the most dire sorts of conflict scenarios.  I won't waste my time tryng to talk an insurgent out of whatever it is he's planned to do.  Whatever it takes to get rid of him with a quickness.   I do all of this -knowing- those things mentioned above, acknowledging his point of view.  I have great respect, as a former combatant, for combatants...but none of it, to my mind, makes the lethal solution the less optimal solution in his case.  There are some things you can't talk or understand people out of, and those are the things we, generally, go to blows over. More on this at the very end-

Naturally, human conflict is not so simple, but the above example (this was one of the first lessons I learned in my conflict resolution program) reminds me to ask the following questions: if parties are in conflict over scarce resources, then have they fully explored all of the possibilities? Have they clearly communicated why the resources are so important to them?

"Fully exploring all possibilities" runs the risk of invoking bare fantasy.  Generally,we have an incredible aversion to both our own death and killing others (it;s notoriously difficult to get soldiers, even, to shoot each other - it takes conditioning)so... when people are willing to kill and die over, say, an orange....they've likely explored all -available- alternatives.  Chances are, they;ve told the other guy that they were starving,. they can be seen starving, they've tried to steal the orange in dead of night. The other guy just won't let go of the orange, either just because, or because he, himself, is in the same position. Whether there is some possibility, if only they could achieve it together, to handle it differently is an irrelevance in that scenario. Dues ex machina.

Now, if we're discussing the sort of mutual understanding referenced, don't we also have to include an understanding of the validity of some other groups violent and oftentimes negatively valued responses to our own and to others actions? To put it another way, is i simply impossible to make the case for horrific violence, or are we being intolerant and expessing a deplorable lack of empathy and understanding when we fail to recognize that for some (and even for us)..life is a matter of life and death? That you can;t get ahead of some problems, you can; talk your way around them...and despite the civil patina of our modern lives, beneath it the world practically seethes with the sort of misery that none of our ingroups understanding will ever be able to solve? It;s in his context, in an acknowledgement for the nature of the world as it is rather than our scrubbed descriptions of it or what we might wish for it to be, that our propensity for violence explains it's utitlity and advantage, that it becomes a positive conflict resolution technique...and to avoid it like taboo is to do what taboo always does. Create perversion, -create- problems.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Now, if we're discussing the sort of mutual understanding referenced, don't we also have to include an understanding of the validity of some other groups violent and oftentimes negatively valued responses to our own and to others actions? To put it another way, is i simply impossible to make the case for horrific violence, or are we being intolerant and expessing a deplorable lack of empathy and understanding when we fail to recognize that for some (and even for us)..life is a matter of life and death?

Is this “life is a matter of life or death” way of living linked in any way to survival and the need to preserve one’s identity and culture?  If it is, then IMO, we have a very human concern and interest that is ultimately underlying destructive conflict management behavior.  Now, one specific area that I know of where people can help conflicting parties uncover their interests and transform destructive conflict management into constructive conflict management, is mediation (I will elaborate on this below). 
 
 

That you can;t get ahead of some problems, you can; talk your way around them...and despite the civil patina of our modern lives, beneath it the world practically seethes with the sort of misery that none of our ingroups understanding will ever be able to solve?

 
I don’t know.  However, assuming there is even the slightest chance of understanding this misery and promoting constructive conflict management, then IMO, the conflict resolution techniques employed in mediation may be useful in this endeavor.  Specifically, in a nutshell, mediation is an effective conflict resolution tool for the following reasons: the mediation process upholds the conflicting parties’ self-determination and provides a safe atmosphere for them to understand their conflict and engineer their own outcome/resolution; the mediator acts in an impartial, non-judgmental manner and helps the parties communicate with each other; mediation is a voluntary process (the parties choose to go to mediation, which demonstrates a joint desire to find a resolution); the mediator lets the parties tell their stories (one at a time/uninterrupted) and reframes the stories (free from personal bias) to construct a more objective third story; the mediator ensures that there are no power imbalances and that the parties can openly participate in the process; the mediator has no personal interest in the outcome and is primarily concerned with upholding the mediation process; the mediation process allows the parties to get out of their past and explore ways to build a more constructive future.  (Moore, 2003)  

In addition, Christopher Moore, an experienced professional mediator and author of The Mediation Process, said the following about the effectiveness of mediation as it relates to conflict management and the global environment and to the ideas/conflict resolution strategies expressed in his book:
 

Social conflicts are often played out in the context of a natural environment that sets significant parameters for what is and is not possible.  As worldwide awareness of the interlocking relationship between our social and natural worlds increases, there will be a greater impetus to explore how more sustainable societies can be developed, at the local and global levels.  Mediation has been an effective procedure for addressing certain critical environmental issues and will increasingly be used to handle major problems such as transboundary air pollution, global warming, and limited water resources.  Large environmental issues, more and more of which are cross national boundaries or are regional, will be highly appropriate for mediation, because no one international actor has the authority or the power to impose a unilateral decision.

Today, people around the world are in need of effective means to help manage and resolve conflicts in all aspects of their lives.  Mediation has proven itself in the past to be a helpful tool in accomplishing this goal in a variety of situations and cultures.  It is my hope that the detailed elaboration of the mediation process in this book will help both parties and intermediaries to develop better, more creative, and more acceptable solutions to joint problems; promote more positive working relationships between and among the people; and create a deeper peace in all aspects of society (Moore, 2003, p. 471).

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that mediation is the key to solving the world's toughest problems.   In writing this post, my aim is to suggest that mediation, along with the constructive conflict resolution techniques that it employs, may be helpful in our quest to understand those whose sense-making processes are radically different from our own.  What do you think?

Thank you for your time and attention, sir.

References

Moore, Christopher (2003). The Mediation Process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict.  USA: Jossey-Bass.

[The Grand Nudger]

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that mediation is the key to solving the world's toughest problems.   In writing this post, my aim is to suggest that mediation, along with the constructive conflict resolution techniques that it employs, may be helpful in our quest to understand those whose sense-making processes are radically different from our own.  What do you think?

I think that we -do- use mediation, on a regular basis, and always have.  It's not a new idea, though it has many new descriptions.  The world you see before you is a product opf that, and it will work as far as it already does and already has....but it won;t yield something that it hasn't...it won't make the world more peaceful than it already has or does or is. I'd say that we do have a very human interest and concern..but remember, all that destructive this that and the other, as you would put it, have lead us here, to where we are.  We didn't get here by being what we -weren't-, and mediation implies that the mediator can control the situation and parties.  How might -that- be achieved, one wonders?  This sort of thing is precisely what a victorous army might do after subjugating two other warring factions, for the common good, at least insomuch as that conquering army sees it.

If mediation -isn't- the key to solving the worlds toughest problems, then in in what way does it lead to a more peaceful world in any meaningful sense beyond anything that we already do?  If mediation could, for example..help my wife and I who already don;t go to blows over what to watch on TV, but not stop people from legitimate conflict over limited resources.........then what are we talking about?  Ways to make the already civil, already comfortable, already peaceful......mediated?   It seems so much smaller than it's being made out to be, so much more myopic in scope and expected effect.

I'm still not sure what the problem we're applying this -to- is supposed to be. That people are in conflict. In a workplace environment? Sure, why not, but I actually appreciate conflict in business..we like to scrub the term and call it competition...but it's just another way to allow ourselves to express that human concern while simultaneously creating counterproductive taboos. That people are in conflict between each other personally? Most of those conflicts are resolved as a matter of course and more than a few are legitimate - we have mediators here too, marriage council for example. That people are in conflict militarily, at the level of groups or nations? Now we're approaching tough problems, bu I'm not sure how you could mediate genocide - as an example, without, for example, first proving yourself as the mediator to be more powerful and more, at least potentially, destructive than either of the two bickering factions. If they could be talked into "x" without that show of force....unless we're assuming something incredible about ourselves and entirely shitty about both of those groups...they'd have come to that realization on their own. T my mind, any talk of mediation in a tough problem is just talk of being big brother..and imposing our value sets, by force, on groups with legitimate inter-group concerns. To save the day for the savages while ignoring that we must b the kings of the savages to even accomplish this....and in any "less than tough" problem, it's almost a non-issue. It's what we do, though there are many other ways we achieve the same effect. My children appeal to me to settle their disagreements and I do so.

All of this is riding on the assumption that we have a failure of understanding, ofc, the implication that this failure of understanding is the underlaying source of some conflict. Well, there, you and I will never agree. I understood the people who I was deployed against. There was no such failure. They understood me. There was no such failure. We didn't require a mediator to come to this understanding, and possessing it did not cease the conflict. It's as if you're wondering whether or not you might be able to chop down an oak with a butter knife, mediation only works in context of difficult problems when both parties are already relatively peaceful or can be made to be peaceful...and then, it's the "made to be' that's making things peaceful, not mediation. The parties agree in the presence of the mediator, wait a generation or two (or just a few years, sometimes) for the mediator to leave, and go right back at it...and that;s becase mediation doesn;t solve the problem that led to the conflict, it;s just a temporary state of refereeing the conflict. The scarcity of resources will -still- exist when the mediator declares "mission accomplished" and leaves, for example. The intractable ideological differences, that we have to preserve whle embracing each other to be consistent with previous statements, not based upon any lack of understanding, will persist in the face of mediation and long after mediation has ceased.

I don't mean to sound as if I think mediation is useless, I don;t. Just that the notion that it will make a more peaceful world than it already has, or is a solution to some, but not the toughest x, seems like a bit of a deepity to me. You;ve studied it, it;s an area of interest for you, I'm sure you can imagine utility where others do not see it...but that's to be expected. I think my areas of interest are applicable beyond their current deployment as well, but I try to remind myself that they simply cannot be -everything- I like to imagine them to be, or he world would be a very different place already, lol.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

I'm still not sure what the problem we're applying this -to- is supposed to be

I have observed that plenty of people can manage conflict quite well on an individual level; however, when conflicts approach the group/global level, constructive conflict management is not as common.  I'm curious to know why this is, and if possible, what we can do about it. As things approach a broader, global scale, is destructive conflict management more like a natural law that we ultimately have no control over; or, is this destructive conflict management solely dictated by our mindset and choices?

I think that we -do- use mediation, on a regular basis, and always have.  It's not a new idea, though it has many new descriptions.

I concur on this point.  The wisdom and conflict resolution techniques provided by AF members in the peacemaking thread shows that people are familiar with and make use of the conflict resolution techniques employed in mediation.

If mediation -isn't- the key to solving the worlds toughest problems, then in in what way does it lead to a more peaceful world in any meaningful sense beyond anything that we already do?  If mediation could, for example..help my wife and I who already don;t go to blows over what to watch on TV, but not stop people from legitimate conflict over limited resources.........then what are we talking about?  Ways to make the already civil, already comfortable, already peaceful......mediated?   It seems so much smaller than it's being made out to be, so much more myopic in scope and expected effect.

It appears that I presented mediation poorly here.  Many parties who voluntarily want to participate in mediation are usually entrenched in their positions and see the other party as the source of the problem; they are usually far from peaceful and understanding toward the other. As a result, mediation is specifically designed to help conflicting parties, especially those who are managing their conflict poorly/destructively, resolve their differences. 

mediation only works in context of difficult problems when both parties are already relatively peaceful or can be made to be peaceful...and then, it's the "made to be' that's making things peaceful, not mediation.  The parties agree in the presence of the mediator, wait a generation or two (or just a few years, sometimes) for the mediator to leave, and go right back at it...and that;s becase mediation doesn;t solve the problem that led to the conflict, it;s just a temporary state of refereeing the conflict.

The success of mediation ultimately depends on the parties; if they don't want to participate in the process, then mediation will not be effective.  In addition, if mediation is imposed onto people ( court-based mediation is one example of this), then the mediator might become more of a settler/fixer than a neutral intermediary; thus, the resolution of the conflict could end up belonging to the mediator, which could result in the parties agreeing to an incomplete, short-term resolution in order to get out of the mediation and look good in front of the mediator.  Hence, if the resolution does not belong to the parties, then they will ultimately find holes in it and create new ways to resume their conflict in the future. 

Overall, IMO, conflict is dynamic. Therefore, in order to effectively resolve it, people need to be educated in and practice many constructive conflict resolution techniques; they cannot rely on any individual approach.

During my studies, I came across school programs (after school conflict resolution clubs)  aimed at teaching youth constructive conflict resolution methods, such as those discussed in this thread (and the peacemaking thread too) along with teaching them how to effectively negotiate and mediate.    Do you think this is a good idea?

[The Grand Nudger]

I have observed that plenty of people can manage conflict quite well on an individual level however, when conflicts approach the group/global level, constructive conflict management is not as common.  I'm curious to know why this is, and if possible, what we can do about it. As things approach a broader, global scale, is destructive conflict management more like a natural law that we ultimately have no control over; or, is this destructive conflict management solely dictated by our mindset and choices?

I don't think that the way we manage conflict changes as the number of people involved increases, I do think that the complexity of the situation..and thus the practical reality of what solutions are available and will be effective changes with scale.  We mediate at the group/global level on a near constant basis...that's all diplomacy is, and we do that when we can and when it will be effective (and sometimes we do it when it wont).  

I don't think it's scale of conflict, in and of itself, that makes things more destructive and pernicious...but type.  Perhaps constructive conflict management is not as common as the scale of a problem increases because the scale of a problem is directly related to it's type (an easier problem is more likely to go away before it reaches point where millions are involved)...and the type determines what conflict management strategies most effectively address the problem at hand.

We may not appreciate the ideology of hitting someone over the head with a brick...for access to water, for example, but we have to respect it's effectiveness and that brick throwers -need- for that access. You can work that all the way up from 1 guy with 1 brick to 100k with assualt rifles, and all the way back down again.

It appears that I presented mediation poorly here.  Many parties who voluntarily want to participate in mediation are usually entrenched in their positions and see the other party as the source of the problem; they are usually far from peaceful and understanding toward the other. As a result, mediation is specifically designed to help conflicting parties, especially those who are managing their conflict poorly/destructively, resolve their differences. 

All well and good.....but poorly and destructively are not remotely synonymous in any practical sense.  They are ideological synonyms, or ideological peripherals... and I do not share that ideology.  That's probably a good portion, though clearly not all, of our disconnect on this issue.  

The success of mediation ultimately depends on the parties; if they don't want to participate in the process, then mediation will not be effective.  In addition, if mediation is imposed onto people ( court-based mediation is one example of this), then the mediator might become more of a settler/fixer than a neutral intermediary; thus, the resolution of the conflict could end up belonging to the mediator, which could result in the parties agreeing to an incomplete, short-term resolution in order to get out of the mediation and look good in front of the mediator.  Hence, if the resolution does not belong to the parties, then they will ultimately find holes in it and create new ways to resume their conflict in the future. 

I can only say that this sounds like a relatively peaceful sort of conflict you have in mind, juxtaposed against the sorts of conflicts -I- think would need to be resolved to make the world more peaceful in any meaningful sense.  

Overall, IMO, conflict is dynamic. Therefore, in order to effectively resolve it, people need to be educated in and practice many constructive conflict resolution techniques; they cannot rely on any individual approach.

During my studies, I came across school programs (after school conflict resolution clubs)  aimed at teaching youth constructive conflict resolution methods, such as those discussed in this thread (and the peacemaking thread too) along with teaching them how to effectively negotiate and mediate.    Do you think this is a good idea?

Sure, why not?  We do it at every level of our lives anyway...from the time we're children appealing to our parents to the time we're spouses appealing to friends and counselors, to the time we're diplomats appealing to a trusted third party within or outside of a political alliance.  May as well learn the theory and specifics. I'm sure we'd all learn a useful thing or three. Having programs like that (and ofc collegiate areas of study like that) certainly seems better than hoping that luck will grant us with enough people with the natural talents for either to handle all the jobs we already have for them in both of those tasks.