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.