The dynamics of peace in society

The dynamics of peace in society

By Ignas Kleden

JAKARTA (JP): Peace is a nice word and also a beautiful
reality. "Peaceful" is related to being "blissful". In socio-
political life it is usually seen as a precondition for living
together. One cannot get along with people who are belligerent
all the time, or whose behavior is characterized by permanent
hostility. The recent riots in Java and Kalimantan are alarming
because in those places peace, for some time, was apparently
lost.

If there is no willingness to talk to one another in a
reasonable way, anger easily erupts. The subsequent violence is
able to devastate many good things which have been built with a
lot of energy, time and cost. We have to think of the nature and
dynamics of peace and then handle these accordingly.

The easiest way to understand peace is to define it in
negative terms. Peace is the absence of conflict and violence.
There are three important parts in the whole process:
differences, conflict and violence. The reality is that
differences are inevitable. They make up a stubborn fact of life.
Everything can become a source of difference: skin color,
ethnicity, language, religion, economic status, political
ideology and educational background.

To assume that peace can be achieved by streamlining every
possible difference is a false illusion. Pretending that
differences do not exist is also wrong. This results in
psychological repression to cover up differences on one hand, and
a psychological simulation to ignore the existing differences on
the other. The only possible and productive way is to recognize
that there are differences, and even serious differences.

But the question is, do differences necessarily lead to or
bring about conflict? Differences will bring about conflict if
they pertain to interest. As long as differences and interest do
not collide, conflicts are unlikely to emerge, and if they do,
they can easily be eliminated. Differences of opinion which hit
the self-esteem of those involved in a debate can lead to a
conflict of interest.

But must every conflict lead to violent behavior to maintain
the interest at stake? This depends on the management of
conflict. But first one must recognize the existence of conflict.
To pretend time and again that conflict does not exist does not
help. If we are not used to solving conflict and control the
problem until it cannot be repressed anymore then this can erupt
in violence. Second, in a democratic society one has to learn to
live with opposing interests and contradicting opinions while
finding non-violent solutions. It is a good thing to have the
same opinion, but it is a noble gesture to be able to appreciate
different opinions while trying to find a consensus.

Harmony is very precious, but it is more realistic to look at
it as an ideal to be pursued, rather than a reality from which we
are supposed to depart. The way one perceives harmony will
impinge upon the way one looks at conflict. If harmony is treated
as an actual and real situation in which we live and from which
we depart, it can unwittingly be provided with an essential
status. Accordingly, harmony is treated as something natural and
normal as part of our everyday life, and every conflict would
appear as abnormal occurrences or even pathological deviant
actions which can be ignored at best or repressed at worst.

In contrast, if harmony is seen as a future ideal, which is
yet to be realized, conflict will appear as part of everyday life
as normal and natural results of human interaction. In the
smallest unit of society, the family, conflicts are the order of
the day, so why should we force ourselves to believe that in more
complex and complicated political and economic life conflicts are
absent?

Indonesians are reluctant to talk about conflict for many
reasons, particularly because it reminds us of the class-struggle
popular among the exponents of leftist politics during the Old
Order. But in sociological and philosophical regard, conflicts
are not monopolized by the theories of leftist social sciences.
The difference between non-liberal and liberal social sciences
does not pertain to the assumption that conflicts exist, but
rather to the dynamics of conflict and how to cope with them.
Non-liberal social sciences believe former conflicts should be
activated, while liberal social sciences believe conflicts are to
be managed and solved.

The management of conflict, however, is limited. One can
choose to overcome conflict by force and violence, by management
of emotion, or by sober reasoning and discussion. Needless to
say, a conflict of interest does not only effect our mind but
also our emotional sensitivity. But if one relies on emotion to
solve conflicts this could easily lead to the use of violence,
because the connection between emotion and violence is much
closer than that between reasoning and violence.

One who is losing face is more likely to get into unbridled
anger compared to someone whose arguments are logically proved to
be wrong. Therefore, one method of non-violent management of
conflict is to translate the conflicts of interest into different
ideas and arguments, and then rationally exchange the ideas.

This is proposed for three related reasons. First, the
criteria of judging "right or wrong" is more objective than the
criteria of judging "embarrassing or not". Second, to be proved
right or wrong is less sensitive than to be proved contemptuous
or considerate. We can safely assume that one who turns out to be
wrong is less likely to have recourse to violence than someone
who feels belittled or humiliated. Third, to rely on reasoning
makes one less vulnerable to willful provocation from outside
than to rely on emotional sensitivity.

The philosopher, Sir Karl R. Popper, said that someone who is
familiar with rational discussion and debate is less likely to be
easily embarrassed even by a ridiculing statement. He said, one
must not be embarrassed by someone who says: "You are the most
stupid guy I have ever met". If the statement is taken
emotionally, violence is easily provoked. But if the statement is
taken rationally, it would be a good start for a serious
discussion and you could ask your partner: "Would you please
prove why I am so stupid?"

In other words, one way to detach ourselves from the quick use
of violence is to translate all emotional responses into rational
reasons and try to be clear about them by explaining or analyzing
their causes. As a general rule, the more one is able to cope
with emotional situations rationally the less one is inclined to
use violence, and vice versa.

Analytical understanding of emotional situations is an
effective way to channel the emotional load. The more one is
trapped in the darkness of emotional complication, the more one
is determined to get rid of it violently, and vice versa. Emotion
is like our legs which can bring us to a certain direction, but
analytical capacity is like our eyes which can safely establish
where we are headed. Reason without emotion is illumination
without vigor, but emotion without reason is blind energy.

However, discussion can only develop if it is allowed and
motivated politically. It is high time to review our old belief
that discussing differences will result in political impertinence
or public perturbation. Many Indonesian people still remember the
excess use of words during the liberal period and during the
ideological uproar of the Old Order. One question still to be
answered is what is discussion and debate? Is it an exchange of
words and statements or an exchange of ideas and arguments?

At this point we are faced with a slight distinction in
terminology but very different effects. A mere exchange of words
can hit the sentiment, but an exchange of ideas and arguments are
more likely to address the mind of one's partner. A poor
political system is based on a mere exchange of words, while
intelligent politics consists of a fair competition of ideas and
productive exchange of arguments. A poor political system tends
to be violent without becoming powerful, while intelligent
politics is powerful and non-violent.

The writer is a sociologist based in Jakarta.

Window A: To pretend time and again that conflict does not exist
does not help.

Window B: Reason without emotion is illumination without vigor,
but emotion without reason is blind energy.