After watching the video about the work of Pastor James and Imam Ashahara and talking critically about their methods in class, I have been really caught up in the idea of presenting the dislikes first, then the likes afterward. We talked a lot about the confusion that participants would experience when asked to name positive attributes about their enemies. This would be a very difficult and humbling opportunity for both sides in the conflict. We didn't talk as much as I thought necessary about what the order allows James and Ashahara to accomplish.
In my opinion, having the dislikes first does give a time to vent about the "other" in the conflict in an organized manner (because let's be serious, the dislikes are coming no matter what the mediator says, so might as well get them out of the way first). It also wipes the slate clean per say. Both sides have torn each other apart and exposed their flaws and problems. Neither side is looking very good, and I think this is a great beginning. Both sides are at rock bottom and the second part of the exercise (presenting the likes) serves as a method to build each group up from their gloomy state. Both sides are rising from the ashes as they have just been torn apart by criticism but now are being rebuilt by compliments from their enemy. This confusing and awkward experience is so powerful because the identities of both groups are being reformed. Not only is it easier to remember the last thing that someone said to you, but in general people like to be complimented. Compliments, especially out of the normal realm of behaviors, are humbling. Humility is at the core of this process. The willingness to put the desires and goals of the group as a whole over your own individual hopes is a big step. When the focus is on a bigger scale, the individual interactions can shape the process of rebuilding.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Seinfeld and Conflict Resolution
As long as there has been conflict, there have been people who have attempted to resolve it. Methods have varied but the concept stays the same. Resolution can take many forms but the usual preferred end is a compromise, in which both sides give up a little bit in order to gain part of their desired goal. Some methods of conflict resolution are a bit extreme while others are childish, such as the game "Odds and Evens" in this Seinfeld clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLMoc2WOwTQ&feature=related
By playing "Odds and Evens" for the apartment, Jerry and George over exaggerate the simple methods that some people use to resolve huge conflicts. Seinfeld pokes fun at the fact that the resolution method needs to match the conflict. In Blood That Cries Out From The Earth, John Jones discusses the idea that our leaders are not addressing the religious language that the religious jihadists are using and the failure to accomplish this aspect of the conflict is creating a substantial chasm between the sides of the conflict. He then urges everyone to understand that every religion has capacity for good in its intrinsic nature and each religion also has resources to transcend the religion leading toward violence. When leaders dehumanize each other and don't use common reference points in their dialogue, the chances for finding a compromise are very unlikely, not to mention that the conflicts in the news are not as simple as who gets the apartment. Obviously, the leaders of today would not settle a major dispute in the same manner as Jerry and George, but they can use some of the advice from Jones. Talking at the same level is a huge step in the right direction. I am not saying that Israel and Palestine are only a discussion away from being resolved but I am saying that discourse between leaders can effect the other individuals involved in the conflict. Leaders hold a lot of weight as far as political/social/ religious influence. Humans are not lemmings but they do have lemmish qualities
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLMoc2WOwTQ&feature=related
By playing "Odds and Evens" for the apartment, Jerry and George over exaggerate the simple methods that some people use to resolve huge conflicts. Seinfeld pokes fun at the fact that the resolution method needs to match the conflict. In Blood That Cries Out From The Earth, John Jones discusses the idea that our leaders are not addressing the religious language that the religious jihadists are using and the failure to accomplish this aspect of the conflict is creating a substantial chasm between the sides of the conflict. He then urges everyone to understand that every religion has capacity for good in its intrinsic nature and each religion also has resources to transcend the religion leading toward violence. When leaders dehumanize each other and don't use common reference points in their dialogue, the chances for finding a compromise are very unlikely, not to mention that the conflicts in the news are not as simple as who gets the apartment. Obviously, the leaders of today would not settle a major dispute in the same manner as Jerry and George, but they can use some of the advice from Jones. Talking at the same level is a huge step in the right direction. I am not saying that Israel and Palestine are only a discussion away from being resolved but I am saying that discourse between leaders can effect the other individuals involved in the conflict. Leaders hold a lot of weight as far as political/social/ religious influence. Humans are not lemmings but they do have lemmish qualities
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Islamaphobia
In the world arena, you know that a idea/ concept has reached critical mass in the media when political cartoons run rampant. I found some interesting cartoons about Islamaphobia that poke fun at a very serious form of discrimination.
This first cartoon pokes fun at the idea of free speech policies that are interpreted to allow certain ideas to be maintained while other ideas are not allowed. Of course, it is ok to hold anti-Muslim ideas but not ok to deny that the holocaust occurred, and it is the media that decides what is acceptable to believe. This cartoon raises awareness that Islamaphobic language is being used when it should not be and also puts Islamaphobia on the same level as the Holocaust. Both were/ are examples of horrific discrimination, but today, the media has presented the public with a view that suggests that Islamaphobia is common place.
This cartoon makes a joke out of the definition of a terrorist according to the U.S. In post 9/11 days, the U.S. was quick to announce that the war was not against Islam, but rather against "Terror." But the definition of terror was not clear. It seems that the U.S. used the scapegoat of terrorism in order to search for foreign oil and this cartoon suggests that there were ulterior motives for the involvement in the Middle East.
This last cartoon minimizes the sacred nature of Islam by over-exaggerating the assumed Muslim response to the depiction of Muhammad and under-exaggerating the same response to horrific violence. This shows that the common view of the Muslim faith is irrational, uncaring, and stubborn. The cartoon generalizes to all Muslims as it discriminates against those that practice or look like people who practice one religion. The most important aspect of this cartoon is that it does not explicitly state the political or religious affiliation of the pictured individual, but the reader assumes that he is Muslim.
As seen by these cartoons, Islamaphobia is a very big deal. It creates unfair stereotypes against an entire religion and also includes those who appear to be of the same religion. Political cartoons in general make fun of little stereotypes or unjustified views of certain people or groups of people in order to raise awareness of a bigger problem. These cartoons show that Islamaphobia is a big deal that effects a large portion of our globe.
This first cartoon pokes fun at the idea of free speech policies that are interpreted to allow certain ideas to be maintained while other ideas are not allowed. Of course, it is ok to hold anti-Muslim ideas but not ok to deny that the holocaust occurred, and it is the media that decides what is acceptable to believe. This cartoon raises awareness that Islamaphobic language is being used when it should not be and also puts Islamaphobia on the same level as the Holocaust. Both were/ are examples of horrific discrimination, but today, the media has presented the public with a view that suggests that Islamaphobia is common place.
This cartoon makes a joke out of the definition of a terrorist according to the U.S. In post 9/11 days, the U.S. was quick to announce that the war was not against Islam, but rather against "Terror." But the definition of terror was not clear. It seems that the U.S. used the scapegoat of terrorism in order to search for foreign oil and this cartoon suggests that there were ulterior motives for the involvement in the Middle East.
This last cartoon minimizes the sacred nature of Islam by over-exaggerating the assumed Muslim response to the depiction of Muhammad and under-exaggerating the same response to horrific violence. This shows that the common view of the Muslim faith is irrational, uncaring, and stubborn. The cartoon generalizes to all Muslims as it discriminates against those that practice or look like people who practice one religion. The most important aspect of this cartoon is that it does not explicitly state the political or religious affiliation of the pictured individual, but the reader assumes that he is Muslim.
As seen by these cartoons, Islamaphobia is a very big deal. It creates unfair stereotypes against an entire religion and also includes those who appear to be of the same religion. Political cartoons in general make fun of little stereotypes or unjustified views of certain people or groups of people in order to raise awareness of a bigger problem. These cartoons show that Islamaphobia is a big deal that effects a large portion of our globe.
"Solutions"
As we return to Juergensmeyer, he ends his book with some options for outcomes/ responses to the problem of religious violence. His "solutions" do not seem to completely capture the essence of the problem or use the same analytic framework that he does earlier in the book. Regardless, his 5 possible outcomes do show some insight into the mindset of those in power and how/why some responses do not pan out. The 5 are: Destroy Violence with Force, Terrify Terrorists, Violence Wins, Separate Religion from Politics, and Heal Politics with religion. The first 3 options are not good long term options and only result in further conflict with the possibility of a larger conflict. The last 2 options are not realistic. Ideally, using politics and religion in their purest forms is a great idea but not practical in the real world of secular government with inter-meshing religion on the minds of everyone.
Another author attempting to verbalize solutions is one, James Jones, who wrote "Blood That Cries Out From The Earth" and uses a psychological lens. He begins to discuss that each religion has a capacity for good and each also has the materials and resources to transcend the violence also created by the same religion. He makes several good points about the nature and understanding of religion. He includes a section talking about Buddhism that a "common simile in Buddhism that compares the dharma (the Buddha's teaching) to a raft: you use the raft to cross the stream, but once you arrive on the other side (enlightenment) the raft is discarded. So the practices and teachings of the religion are to be regarded as tools, means to an end, not as ends in themselves." Wow. I love this. This, in my mind, changes a lot about the conflict. Some of the major points of conflict in religion have to do with specific differences between religious interpretations. If religious texts could be used as the "raft" and not the "other side of the stream," I wonder how the direction of religious conflicts would change?
Jones also says that responses to violent terrorism need to use the same language that the terrorists are using. Instead of only economic and political/ military aspects, Jones says that some form of religious language needs to be used to create a common ground for understanding and hope for compromise. I think there is something to be gleaned from the possible combination of the change of language used in responding to religious terrorism and finding a way to see religion as the "raft" that teaches and instructs but is not the ultimate end. By not having an ultimate end, I think that some of the compromises that have not happened because of conflicting ideologies may be possible to bring to the table.
Another author attempting to verbalize solutions is one, James Jones, who wrote "Blood That Cries Out From The Earth" and uses a psychological lens. He begins to discuss that each religion has a capacity for good and each also has the materials and resources to transcend the violence also created by the same religion. He makes several good points about the nature and understanding of religion. He includes a section talking about Buddhism that a "common simile in Buddhism that compares the dharma (the Buddha's teaching) to a raft: you use the raft to cross the stream, but once you arrive on the other side (enlightenment) the raft is discarded. So the practices and teachings of the religion are to be regarded as tools, means to an end, not as ends in themselves." Wow. I love this. This, in my mind, changes a lot about the conflict. Some of the major points of conflict in religion have to do with specific differences between religious interpretations. If religious texts could be used as the "raft" and not the "other side of the stream," I wonder how the direction of religious conflicts would change?
Jones also says that responses to violent terrorism need to use the same language that the terrorists are using. Instead of only economic and political/ military aspects, Jones says that some form of religious language needs to be used to create a common ground for understanding and hope for compromise. I think there is something to be gleaned from the possible combination of the change of language used in responding to religious terrorism and finding a way to see religion as the "raft" that teaches and instructs but is not the ultimate end. By not having an ultimate end, I think that some of the compromises that have not happened because of conflicting ideologies may be possible to bring to the table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)