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
I agree with you on the importance of dialogue. Additionally, I think that you are right in saying it would be most effective if it started top (leaders) to bottom (follower). If religious leaders show that they can get along and interact with other religious leaders, it would be monumental in providing the context for religious dialogue among the religious followers.
ReplyDelete