The dynamics of peace in society<\/p>\n
By Ignas Kleden<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Peace is a nice word and also a beautiful
\nreality. \"Peaceful\" is related to being \"blissful\". In socio-
\npolitical life it is usually seen as a precondition for living
\ntogether. One cannot get along with people who are belligerent
\nall the time, or whose behavior is characterized by permanent
\nhostility. The recent riots in Java and Kalimantan are alarming
\nbecause in those places peace, for some time, was apparently
\nlost.<\/p>\n
If there is no willingness to talk to one another in a
\nreasonable way, anger easily erupts. The subsequent violence is
\nable to devastate many good things which have been built with a
\nlot of energy, time and cost. We have to think of the nature and
\ndynamics of peace and then handle these accordingly.<\/p>\n
The easiest way to understand peace is to define it in
\nnegative terms. Peace is the absence of conflict and violence.
\nThere are three important parts in the whole process:
\ndifferences, conflict and violence. The reality is that
\ndifferences are inevitable. They make up a stubborn fact of life.
\nEverything can become a source of difference: skin color,
\nethnicity, language, religion, economic status, political
\nideology and educational background.<\/p>\n
To assume that peace can be achieved by streamlining every
\npossible difference is a false illusion. Pretending that
\ndifferences do not exist is also wrong. This results in
\npsychological repression to cover up differences on one hand, and
\na psychological simulation to ignore the existing differences on
\nthe other. The only possible and productive way is to recognize
\nthat there are differences, and even serious differences.<\/p>\n
But the question is, do differences necessarily lead to or
\nbring about conflict? Differences will bring about conflict if
\nthey pertain to interest. As long as differences and interest do
\nnot collide, conflicts are unlikely to emerge, and if they do,
\nthey can easily be eliminated. Differences of opinion which hit
\nthe self-esteem of those involved in a debate can lead to a
\nconflict of interest.<\/p>\n
But must every conflict lead to violent behavior to maintain
\nthe interest at stake? This depends on the management of
\nconflict. But first one must recognize the existence of conflict.
\nTo pretend time and again that conflict does not exist does not
\nhelp. If we are not used to solving conflict and control the
\nproblem until it cannot be repressed anymore then this can erupt
\nin violence. Second, in a democratic society one has to learn to
\nlive with opposing interests and contradicting opinions while
\nfinding non-violent solutions. It is a good thing to have the
\nsame opinion, but it is a noble gesture to be able to appreciate
\ndifferent opinions while trying to find a consensus.<\/p>\n
Harmony is very precious, but it is more realistic to look at
\nit as an ideal to be pursued, rather than a reality from which we
\nare supposed to depart. The way one perceives harmony will
\nimpinge upon the way one looks at conflict. If harmony is treated
\nas an actual and real situation in which we live and from which
\nwe depart, it can unwittingly be provided with an essential
\nstatus. Accordingly, harmony is treated as something natural and
\nnormal as part of our everyday life, and every conflict would
\nappear as abnormal occurrences or even pathological deviant
\nactions which can be ignored at best or repressed at worst.<\/p>\n
In contrast, if harmony is seen as a future ideal, which is
\nyet to be realized, conflict will appear as part of everyday life
\nas normal and natural results of human interaction. In the
\nsmallest unit of society, the family, conflicts are the order of
\nthe day, so why should we force ourselves to believe that in more
\ncomplex and complicated political and economic life conflicts are
\nabsent?<\/p>\n
Indonesians are reluctant to talk about conflict for many
\nreasons, particularly because it reminds us of the class-struggle
\npopular among the exponents of leftist politics during the Old
\nOrder. But in sociological and philosophical regard, conflicts
\nare not monopolized by the theories of leftist social sciences.
\nThe difference between non-liberal and liberal social sciences
\ndoes not pertain to the assumption that conflicts exist, but
\nrather to the dynamics of conflict and how to cope with them.
\nNon-liberal social sciences believe former conflicts should be
\nactivated, while liberal social sciences believe conflicts are to
\nbe managed and solved.<\/p>\n
The management of conflict, however, is limited. One can
\nchoose to overcome conflict by force and violence, by management
\nof emotion, or by sober reasoning and discussion. Needless to
\nsay, a conflict of interest does not only effect our mind but
\nalso our emotional sensitivity. But if one relies on emotion to
\nsolve conflicts this could easily lead to the use of violence,
\nbecause the connection between emotion and violence is much
\ncloser than that between reasoning and violence.<\/p>\n
One who is losing face is more likely to get into unbridled
\nanger compared to someone whose arguments are logically proved to
\nbe wrong. Therefore, one method of non-violent management of
\nconflict is to translate the conflicts of interest into different
\nideas and arguments, and then rationally exchange the ideas.<\/p>\n
This is proposed for three related reasons. First, the
\ncriteria of judging \"right or wrong\" is more objective than the
\ncriteria of judging \"embarrassing or not\". Second, to be proved
\nright or wrong is less sensitive than to be proved contemptuous
\nor considerate. We can safely assume that one who turns out to be
\nwrong is less likely to have recourse to violence than someone
\nwho feels belittled or humiliated. Third, to rely on reasoning
\nmakes one less vulnerable to willful provocation from outside
\nthan to rely on emotional sensitivity.<\/p>\n
The philosopher, Sir Karl R. Popper, said that someone who is
\nfamiliar with rational discussion and debate is less likely to be
\neasily embarrassed even by a ridiculing statement. He said, one
\nmust not be embarrassed by someone who says: \"You are the most
\nstupid guy I have ever met\". If the statement is taken
\nemotionally, violence is easily provoked. But if the statement is
\ntaken rationally, it would be a good start for a serious
\ndiscussion and you could ask your partner: \"Would you please
\nprove why I am so stupid?\"<\/p>\n
In other words, one way to detach ourselves from the quick use
\nof violence is to translate all emotional responses into rational
\nreasons and try to be clear about them by explaining or analyzing
\ntheir causes. As a general rule, the more one is able to cope
\nwith emotional situations rationally the less one is inclined to
\nuse violence, and vice versa.<\/p>\n
Analytical understanding of emotional situations is an
\neffective way to channel the emotional load. The more one is
\ntrapped in the darkness of emotional complication, the more one
\nis determined to get rid of it violently, and vice versa. Emotion
\nis like our legs which can bring us to a certain direction, but
\nanalytical capacity is like our eyes which can safely establish
\nwhere we are headed. Reason without emotion is illumination
\nwithout vigor, but emotion without reason is blind energy.<\/p>\n
However, discussion can only develop if it is allowed and
\nmotivated politically. It is high time to review our old belief
\nthat discussing differences will result in political impertinence
\nor public perturbation. Many Indonesian people still remember the
\nexcess use of words during the liberal period and during the
\nideological uproar of the Old Order. One question still to be
\nanswered is what is discussion and debate? Is it an exchange of
\nwords and statements or an exchange of ideas and arguments?<\/p>\n
At this point we are faced with a slight distinction in
\nterminology but very different effects. A mere exchange of words
\ncan hit the sentiment, but an exchange of ideas and arguments are
\nmore likely to address the mind of one's partner. A poor
\npolitical system is based on a mere exchange of words, while
\nintelligent politics consists of a fair competition of ideas and
\nproductive exchange of arguments. A poor political system tends
\nto be violent without becoming powerful, while intelligent
\npolitics is powerful and non-violent.<\/p>\n
The writer is a sociologist based in Jakarta.<\/p>\n
Window A: To pretend time and again that conflict does not exist
\ndoes not help.<\/p>\n
Window B: Reason without emotion is illumination without vigor,
\nbut emotion without reason is blind energy.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/the-dynamics-of-peace-in-society-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}