by Pat Patfoort The Theoretical Framework : Nonviolence and violence both originate in an inevitable human condition which in itself is not problematic at all: with two or more people there will inevitably be differences between or among them of characteristics, behavior, beliefs, points of view. The most common way humans deal with these differences is to use what I call the Major-minor or M-m model: each tries to present their own attribute, behavior or point of view as better than the other's. Each tries to be in the right, to score highest, to win. In other words, each seeks to gain the M-position while putting the other in the m-position. This Major/minor dynamic has three possible consequences that do violence to those involved (see fig.1): - internalization, as the one placed in the m-position does violence to self - escalation, as we attack the person who puts us in the m-position - displaced aggression, as the person in the m-position does violence to a third person, thereby creating a chain of violence. So the M-m model is at the base of violence. It's the root of violence. The M-m approach to handling human differences is the most common used one, and at first sight seems to be the easiest. It is therefore, in most human societies, the one taught to children and is thereafter reinforced and encouraged in all possible ways in adult life. Another way, however, to deal with the inevitability of human diversity is with the model of Equivalence, the E model (see fig.2). This is the model on which nonviolence is based. This model responds -as does the Major-minor model- to the essential human need for self-conservation, permitting we who use it to avoid the m-position. The E model permits us to defend ourselves but not at the expense of the other, not in an aggressive way as does the M-m model. The E model produces defensive results every bit as real as the Mm model. The M-m model, however, offers no way out. It locks us into an escalatory dynamic. The instruments: In the M-m model, arguments are stated by the parties in conflict, each using them to put oneself in the right. Four important kinds of arguments are used: 1) positive arguments: one presents positive aspects of one's point of view to strengthen it and move one toward the M-position. 2) negative arguments: one mentions negative aspects of the other's point of view to devalue it, moving the other toward the m-position. 3) destructive arguments: one cites negative characteristics of the other to disempower them and their point of view, moving both toward the m-position. 4) glorifying arguments: one says positive characteristics about oneself, to put oneself into the M-position.
By contrast, the E model works with foundations, not arguments. Foundations are the reasons why both parties have the points of view they do: the motivations, needs, feelings, interests, objectives, values, habits. These elements can be either intellectual-rational or emotional. They are revealed through "Why" questions.
How divergence of opinion is resolved: Disagreement is handled in totally different ways by the M-m and E models of resolving conflict. With the M-m model, there are only two possibilities. Either I am right or you are. We are in a two-dimensional system. By contrast, the E model leads us to 1001 solutions, which emerge from a way of thinking which transcends the two-dimensional restriction. They are created by understanding all of the foundations of both parties involved in the conflict. While with the M-m model, finding a solution is predominant, with the E model, the process by which one finds it is most important. This process requires to follow a series of steps toward solution (see fig.3).
Three channels through which the models are presented to children: 1) The A-A channel: how adults behave with one another 2) The A-CH channel: how adults behave with children 3) The A-CH/CH channel: how adults regulate relationships between and among children The more either the M-m or the E model is taught to children by way of those three channels, the more the model used will influence them. In following very daily situation we shall illustrate the second channel: a situation between an adult and a child.
Conflicts between a mother and her daughter: There are regularly conflicts between a mother and her daughter Annemarie (8 years old). One of them is about Annemarie's hair (1). Every morning there is trouble when Mother wants to brush Annemarie's hair. Annemarie is saying her mother is hurting her, even torturing her. Mother says it isn't so bad, Annemarie is exaggerating. They are reproaching, blaming, ordering one another. There is a lot of shouting. So there is an escalation between them: each feeling put in a minor-position by the other. Annemarie is so unhappy with this, she wants to have her hair cut. But Mother absolutely doesn't want it. She says Annemarie would be sorry if she would have it cut, she would be less lovely. She says it is so easy for Annemarie not to have to go to a hairdresser, etc. They both are pilling argument on argument, each presenting their viewpoint as the good one, trying to convince the other.
Life together becomes more and more difficult for both. Every time they have different opinions, it becomes a fight. And every time they see one another they start again to blame one another. Annemarie progressively stays away from home more and more, looks for understanding and affection with friends Mother doesn't like. So Mother again feels put in a minor-position about those friends, and tries to forbid Annemarie to see those friends. Then Annemarie reacts very strongly: she runs away from home, stays with those friends, takes drugs with them, runs into criminality, etc. The Alternative following the Equivalence model: What are the foundations of Annemarie and Mother? Mother: I don’t want your hair cut
1. 2. 3. 4.
5.
6. 7. 8.
Why? I would have liked long hair when I was a child and couldn’t I love to look at it I enjoy combing it each day I fear that without that I won’t have any more physical contact with my daughter I am afraid my husband would criticize me and I would have conflict with him over it I like to participate in how my daughter looks It’s hard for me to let her decide about her hair I am proud of my daughter’s beautiful hair
Annemarie: I want to have my hair cut Why? 1. I would feel good if I could go to a hair stylist as my friends do 2. I feel bad that they all have that experience and I don’t 3. I would feel more accepted if I could talk with my friends about it 4. I don’t like not being able to wash and comb my own hair 5. I don’t like it that boys prefer to play with me because they like my hair and my girlfriends get jealous 6. I find it difficult when my hair gets in the way when I play
When we compare the arguments Mother makes to her daughter during the escalation, with those foundations, we notice: 1) Some arguments contradict certain foundations. So when Mother says "It's so easy to have long hair. You don't have to go to the hairdresser like I do. It's such a chore to go!", it contradicts the first three foundations of Annemarie, who wants so badly to go! But Mother's arguments even sometimes contradict her own foundations. She wants to maintain physical contact with Annemarie (found.4) but with such escalations and irritation between them, their relationship can only deteriorate. Acting as she is, Mother is producing the opposite of what she wants and needs. 2) Something that often happens is happening here too, namely that a parent tries to compensate for something she missed (found.1) by imposing that very experience on her children. 3) Another typical thing is that she has a conflict with her daughter to avoid having a conflict with her husband (found.5). This often happens to avoid conflicts with parents, inlaws or "society" generally.
Making the Equivalence model concrete First, Mother should become conscious of her own foundations. She should accept them without feeling bad or guilty. There is nothing wrong in having the foundations she does. They shouldn't be judged. They simply exist. Ignoring or denying them will not eliminate them. She can decide to digest some of those, like her first one. Then she will have to work on communicating her foundations to her daughter and on listening to and respecting the ones of Annemarie. The way this communication will happen will be very important, particularly the nonverbal ways. All this will require inner strength from her. When all foundations will be gathered, solutions will arise. Some possible solutions that might result from this process are: 1) Responding to Annemarie's F1, 2 and 3: Annemarie might occasionally go to the hair shop without having her hair cut, or perhaps cut ever so slightly. 2) For Annemarie's F4: she and Mother could look for ways Annemarie herself could take care of her hair. 3) Annemarie's F5 and 6: she might wear her hair in a clip or a ponytail so that it disturbs her less. Solutions will depend on the relative importance of each foundation. For instance, if Annemarie's F1, 2 and 3 are most important to her, then an occasional visit to the hairdresser might be the solution. We see how a conflict that could last for months and could have very serious consequences, might be quickly resolved by opening ourselves to one another's foundations through Equivalence.
Peaceful conflict transformation on all levels The transformation we saw in the relation between an adult and a child, on the level of education, can be done on any level, like for instance in following example, in the relation between two adults (collegues or a couple). Carl: “I want to put this pile of documents on the upper shelf”
Anja: “I want to put this pile of documents on the lowest shelf”
1. I am tall 2. I think I can reach the upper shelf without needing any object 3. I am afraid if I bend my pain at my back will become worse 4. I am afraid my collegues will laugh at me if they know I have problems with my back 5. I already had problems because people took with them a part of my documents together with their documents they had put on top of mine 6. I had lots of problems because of that 7. I am afraid someone will put a sandwich on the documents 8. I hate spots of food or fat on papers. 9. I think this is durty 10. I feel ashamed when people see paper of me with durty spots 11. I was raised by my father with a big respect for books 12. I think I shall not need these documents often
1. I’m short 2. I need to climb on something to reach the upper shelf 3. I lose easily my balance 4. I am afraid to fall 5. I already several times had a fracture 6. I often need those documents
Just think of what arguments Carl and Anja could be using instead of the foundations we see here. So to realize this transformation we everytime have not to use arguments but foundations, we need to go in depth and become conscious of what are the foundations of both sides and then communicate on basis of them in an open and respectful way (see fig.3). This can happen from the level of adult-child, through the one among adults and between groups to the interethnical, interreligious and intercultural level (see for more information and examples on www.patpatfoort.be). _____________________________
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
