Hansenian Report: ADAM CASLER (USA)

(This report was prepared by Adam Casler (SDSU student, USA) during his participation in the Hansen Summer Institute'2007)



The absence of wisdom spawns all contemporary social conflicts. What drives a fourteen year old child to shoot another and flee while the victim drowns in a pool of his own blood is a lack of appreciation. What drives people to set fire to the house of their neighbor simply because they are Muslim is a lack of understanding. Appreciation and understanding are elements which fuse to form the compound Wisdom. But wisdom in its self is not enough. Wisdom promotes the passive cessation of conflict on the individual level, but fails to actively promote against conflict on the universal level. For this, empathy and compassion are required to compel one from indifference to passionate action. Though these may be actively fostered by society, they can only originate from the individual. Therefore, all social conflict is essentially caused by the compounding of poor individual decisions to prevent and eliminate conflict on the aggregate group level.

More important than what causes conflict is what resolves it. How exactly does one resolve an issue that is dictated by the individual? Human will has always resisted the involuntarily fettering by the shackles of group control. It is precisely this factor which is responsible for our inability to sustain peace. As argued by Sigmund Freud, coexistence in civilization requires the repression of both Eros (the life force) and Thanatos (the death force), but such a combination inevitably leads to the discontent of its populace. The daunting task of surmounting such a dilemma is why most contemporary conflict resolution methods are merely aimed at controlling the mobilizing forces such as groups, which are comparatively easy to control. But just as pulling only the base of a weed leaves the roots to grow anew, destroying only the base upon which the individual operates leaves that individual free to start anew with an infinite spectrum of variables. Whether or not we can sustain peace will be centered on this dilemma; conflict begins with the individual, and it is there where it must end.

Nevertheless, there are steps that society may take to at least help alleviate some of the individual tendencies towards violence. Leading ethologist Konrad Lorenz suggests that such tendencies are genetic. His theory, known as the Lorenzian Approach, suggests that creatures possessing lethal natural weapons (wolves, hawks, sharks) tend to posses inhibitions against the use of such weapons on their own species, whereas, rabbits, doves, and human beings, not naturally equipped with such weapons, lack such inhibitions. Regardless of whether or not one believes this hypothesis, Lorenz’s proposed solution is worth consideration. Lorenz believes that societies can reduce the role such conflicts play by re-channeling this aggressive energy with alternative forms of competition, such as: athletics, the exploration of space, and medical research.

Specifically within the context of the United States, there is both a strong inward and outward drive for violence. The U.S. is considered among the most violent of all first world countries. Violence is glorified within the context of Hollywood movies, video games, and television. When combining this constant psychological desensitization within a nation whose number of guns outnumbers its own population, disastrous results are received. Youth violence is epidemic in America; sometimes taking place in gangs, other times in solitary action. Easy access to lethal weapons (specifically guns), and a social system with an inadequate support system for those who unfortunately lack one within their homes are the main reasons why America has so many violent youth crimes. The only possible remedy is to provide these children with real alternatives to violence. Whether it is the desperate cry for attention of a school shooter, or the feeling of desperate hopelessness of a youth gang member, both have been alienated from society and need real tangible alternatives to be successfully reintegrated as a functioning member. The only real way to do this is through grassroot social outreach programs. They must remain small enough to be personalized to these complex individuals with complex problems, but numerous enough to reach across the nation. Government funding could be used to sustain these organizations; however, caution must be taken from transforming positions with these organizations into professions. They can only be truly effective if they serve as a substitute (or possibly just a supplement) to these youth’s families, not as their psychiatrists.

Outwardly, the United States has a long tangled history of foreign interference, coup d’etats, revolutions, and wars (proxy, small, large, and world-wide). Although the larger conflicts are well known, few realize that in the United States’ 231-year old history it has intervened militarily on more than 130 occasions. Frighteningly, despite this high number, the vast majority of the brief history (1776-1940) of the United States has been dedicated to the practice of isolationism. This new relatively new era of American foreign policy (1940-2007) is dedicated towards the promotion of democracy abroad, even when it requires the use of force. Although the legitimacy of America’s role as the moral police-man of the world is often criticized, there is no arguing that the glorification of such violence has led to a propensity of resolving conflicts by force within its societies. The ability to conduct such large scale operations in recent decades with a completely voluntary military force is a testament to the success of the romantic grandiose image of war propagated by the federal government. Little to no attention is paid to other means of conflict resolution and this deficit has translated over into its society. It is for this reason we do not have slogans such as “Support Our Ambassadors”, or give Diplomats discounts to cultural institutions or sporting events, and is why there is no “Peace Bill” where the government pays the bill for college education of those dedicated towards peace as they do for those in the military. This inequality may go a long way towards explaining America’s tendency of resolving conflicts by force. A redistribution of support for alternative methods of conflict resolution may succeed in reducing the volume of both inward and outward violent conflict in America.

Putting such social conflicts in an international perspective, one would find the same root cause. Conflict arises when an individual or a groups needs are not being met and alternative means of addressing these shortcomings are less appealing or nonexistent. That principle is universal; however, the particularities of each conflict are diverse and representative of their respective regions. In America, capitalism breeds a spirit of Social Darwinism where those unfortunate few who fall through the cracks of the system are held responsible for their own fate, and explains why those who are unable to take care of their self (the youth) are substantially more susceptible towards violence than in most other countries. Comparatively, conflicts in Morocco are centered around the question of borders, in Cyprus the issue of the right to territory, in India the issue of how to achieve peace with a neighboring nuclear-powered familial adversary, and in China the issue of how to guide the worlds most populous nation from a system of Communism to a Capitalist Democracy. The point is that although these conflicts are all diverse, the presence of conflict is a common variable world-wide. This dynamic aspect of conflict is why learning the principle techniques of conflict resolution are so beneficial. These techniques may then be combined with the particular aspects of each unique situation to better solve the conflict at hand.

Particularly in the context of my involvement in the Hansen Summer Institute, I have learned several important processes in how to minimize or resolve conflict. I learned ways to diffuse tense situations through acknowledgement and paraphrasing, the importance of building a relationship of trust with whom you are dealing with, and the importance of negotiating in terms of someone’s interests rather than their position. When all this fails, I have learned there are alternative routes of resolving conflicts such as the diplomatic backchannels of Track II Diplomacy. Whether employed between persons or nations, these skills are valuable tools which I shall seek to retain throughout my professional career.