an informal essay regarding realists' vs. idealists' views on conflict and everything in...

8/4/2019 An Informal Essay Regarding Realists' vs. Idealists' Views on Conflict and Everything in Between.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/an-informal-essay-regarding-realists-vs-idealists-views-on-conflict 1/14

My Summarized Thoughts on Topics from the First Quarter

Introduction

C.S. Lewis once said, “There are two equal and opposite errors into which our

race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is tobelieve, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.” In my estimation, one

could easily replace the word “devils” with “conflict” or “wars.” After having tuned into

the mental airwaves of our nation’s people over the past few months, I can’t help but ask

if, as a nation, we do not too often fall into one or the other of these errors about conflict

or wars.

On one side there are those individuals who endeavor to remain naive to the

realities of conflict and wars. They choose to ignore the harsh facts, such as reports of

bombings that kill dozens, injure hundreds, even in places not plagued by terrorist

activities. The reasons for this vary. Some are simply prone to apathy; if somethingdoes not affect these individuals directly, they do not pay that something much mind.

Others are simply focused on a particular mindset or goal, such as idealists who believe

that if the global economy was stable or everyone believed in one god, that there would

be no conflict or wars.

On the other side there are those individuals who know all too well the realities of

conflict and wars. They go so far as to believe whole heartedly that the harsh facts are

a way of life, that conflict and wars will always exist because such things are ingrained in

mankind’s nature. The reasons for this vary. Some are prone to apathy just as those

above; these individuals do not feel compelled to examine the source of conflict or wars

in each specific case and instead generalize the realities, more often than not as

something that exists elsewhere, in “those other” countries. Others have only ever

known conflict in their personal lives and/or have been desensitized and trained to think

them natural.

Which of these two options is closer to the truth? I personally believe the truth

about conflict and wars, like most truths, lays somewhere in between these two

extremes. We cannot be apathetic by any manner about the realities of conflict and

wars; we cannot ignore their existence or believe that certain conditions could make

them nonexistent, but we also cannot make the assumption that they are merely human

nature and that they will always exist. Idealists have to ask themselves why therecontinues to be conflict (which leads to wars), amongst likeminded people; and, realists

have to ask why and how they are able to personally avoid conflict (and wars), if it is so

ingrained in mankind.

Conflict



It is my personal believe that conflict (the essence of wars) can be boiled down to

“differences.” Mankind finds itself in conflict with one another when and where there are

differences in feeling, thought, deed, etc. Things are different when they are unlike each

other in one or more ways. Things are only ever “different” one from another where

there exists “immutability,” or aspects of something that are unchangeable, and where

there is separation. Think about a chair and a wall. We know a chair from a wallbecause they are two distinct and separate objects one from the other. What if there

was a wall that had a flap that came down for people to sit on? Is it a chair or a wall?

More than likely, we would give it a new name, maybe something like a “chall” so that

we can feed our habit to define, categorize and distinguish it from everything else.

Conflict comes into existence, when the chair does not want to meld with the wall

and vice versa. They demand to remain immutable and separate one from the other. It

is not the differences between a chair and a wall that brings about conflict, it is their

desires to remain immutable and separate that brings about the conflict. Differences will

always exist, that much is a fact, but conflict and wars do not always have to exist. Justask any couple that has been married for over ten years and intend to remain so. They

will invariably say, “Conflict (differences) will always exist, it is how you deal with the

conflict (differences) that makes marriages last.” They will likely go on, saying

something to the effect of: sometimes you just have to turn a blind eye, choose your

battles, be flexible, realize that you are not always right, etc.

So the key to conflict is wanting immutability and separation in the face of

differences. Who or what, other than people, can desire these things? Obviously, the

natural world around us exhibits these traits far less than we. Animals will at times,

such as during territorial or mate disputes. They are not willing to change in the moment

and remain separate and therefore come into conflict with each other. You will not ever

see trees come into conflict with some other object. They simple adapt. Roots, for

instance, just find ways around concrete, like growing over it. What makes animals and

people different from trees? More than anything, I would say it is a “sense of self.”

Sense of Self, The Fact that it is a Myth, and How Alike We Truly are

What is “self?” Self is nothing more than a way of defining and categorizing the

world around us, just as we define and categorize chairs and walls. We determine that

we are different, distinct and separate from all the other “selves” around us. Trees do

not, as far as we can tell, possess a sense of self. They do not perceive the distinctionsand separations between itself and everything around it and therefore never exist as

“self-aware” beings. Because they do not exist as self-aware beings, they will never

choose to be immutable or demand to remain separate.

Cultures, in my opinion are a “sense of self” on a grand scale. Culture is the

sense of identity that an entire group of people or society holds to, and that helps them



define and categorize themselves from other groups and societies. Culture is based off

of ethnicity and traditions. You can even see a sense of culture in the animal world,

such as in flocks of birds. Birds identify with birds of a similar appearance and to some

extent know that their actions are more likely to be the same because they have the

same genetic makeup.

So a “sense of self” exists inwardly and outwardly in the “self-aware” world. I am

interested to see what stance the curriculum takes in the Culture and Identity in an Age

of Globalization class coming up. I am interested to see what new insights it can

provide. As of now, I see self and culture to be the biggest cause of conflict because

they require immutability and separation. People and societies are very protective of

that “territory.” More regarding this “protectionism” will come later.

Before I jump right into my personal view regarding “self,” I must say that I

understand the importance of “self.” I do not think that it can just be completely

disregarded when dealing with others. I believe that inwardly it could be completelydisregarded with effective results when the individual truly understands the end state.

But when dealing with others, especially when there is conflict involved, the “self-

deprived” individual cannot demand that the other be the same. It is akin to dismissing

the diagnoses of a hypochondriac. Whether they are accurate or not, they need to be

“treated,” with care, to some extent, otherwise the hypochondriac is going to continue

feeling as though they still have the condition. When dealing with others where there is

conflict, you must consider their inward and outward identity, no matter how much of a

“myth” it is to you.

The fact of the matter is, in my personal opinion, “self,” inward or outward, is,

indeed, a myth. I hold this to be true for various reasons, some having to do with Zen

Buddhism, some having to do with readings on the cosmos in books by Stephen

Hawkins and the like. I believe that we are all one, essentially, or were at one point,

hence an expanding universe. I will only go into my personal philosophical/religious

beliefs that far so as not to alienate some of you. Instead, I’ll explain my point in an

somewhat empirical way - the point being that self is a myth, or virtually a myth.

Think about chromosomes. We know that there are 22 of them plus X and Y for

gender. We also know that chromosomal configurations are the primary factor in

making us who we are. Scientists have pinpointed the chromosomal configuration that

leads to down-syndrome, for instance. Because there are a finite number ofchromosomes, there can only be a finite number of gene sequences. Granted that

number is extremely high, but the point is that, based on the finiteness of the number,

we are not like snowflakes, each distinct and separate one from the other. My particular

chromosomal configuration may just be a condition that has yet to be identified. There

are very likely dudes in the world, past, present, or future, with my exact gene



sequence. You might call the condition being Damian if it weren’t for variances in our

names.

It is our social circumstances, life experiences, personal desires, etc. that takes

what little differences truly exist between all of us - not just those with similar gene

sequences - and exponentially increases them, making them more distinct andseparate. But even these factors, social circumstances, life experiences, personal

desires, etc., like chromosomal configurations, are given more credence than they

deserve. For instance, our circumstances, experiences, and/or desires in life can at any

moment be completely disregarded; we can go entirely 180 in feeling, thought, deed,

etc. at will. People fall into and out of religions, alcoholism, marriages, now even

genders, every day, despite assurances to remain committed, our pasts owing to the

sentiments at the time.

More important, we refuse to see that these factors, social circumstances, life

experiences, personal desires, etc., all extend from one aspect of life. Because of thisfact, can they really be all that different? Yes, a life of poverty is vastly different from a

life of wealth in terms of day-to-day details, but what is the driving force, what is the

undercurrent? The poor person and the wealthy person are in pursuit of some kind of

need. There is a need that they are aiming to satisfy. The wealthy person is,

“apparently,” more capable at meeting that need. When you boil off all the fat that is

social circumstances, life experiences, personal desires, etc. you end up with the core of

our existences, why we do everything we do, to meet some need.

Human Needs, a New Needs Paradigm



Maslow and Max-Neef are two prominent psychologists who attempted, both in

their own ways, to summarize human needs. The major differences between the two

are that Maslow postulated that human needs exist in a hierarchy on a sort of triangle.

Refer to the image below and to the left. Max-Neef on the other hand believed that

human needs are all present at once and in constant flux, there is no hierarchy. Refer to

the image below and to the right. Between the two there were a few needs added orsubtracted as well.

I have endeavored to combine the work of the two men and propose a new way

to look at human needs. A visual representation of my new needs paradigm is below.

The visual in and of itself will not make sense without some narrative to accompany it.

As such, I have also attached three documents titled “Niolet’s Needs Paradigm,” “The

Human Response Grid,” and “The Early Modern Person Thought Experiment,” which

will explain each component of the chart you see below as well as some other concepts

important to an understanding of this summary. If you desire to continue reading this

summary and better understand that which is to follow, you should read thosedocuments, despite their length.

Some of you, have postulated, that there is a vast majority of people out there

who just want to make certain they can satisfy their and their family’s needs, especially

the basic physical needs. This same majority would likely choose whichever option in

life best satisfies or assists in satisfying those needs. I belief you are correct. It was not

directly articulated in class, but I would suggest that the “center of gravity” for any and

all conflicts will always be satisfying needs. Success in conflict and war will always go to

that nation that is able to better meet the needs of the people or take away the ability for

the other nation to meet the needs of the people. However, this can only be true in

cases where there is a vast majority of people who are “moderate.”



Zooming in, being specific to our discussions in class, the fact is, not everyone’s

primary needs are the same. Basic physical needs tend to be a common denominator,

but there are those individuals who would put their aesthetic needs before their physical

needs, making themselves less than moderate. These “extremists” are doing nothing

more than attempting to meet some need within them, which is very likely in all of us,

but which these “extremists” have deemed of utmost importance. We cannot hope to

reach these individuals. One, because we would not be able to meet the need they

have determined to be so paramount, and two, because they have made it clear that

they will remain immutable and separate from the moderates and, more importantly, us.

Habitual Human Responses and the Societies We Create

Zooming out, looking at this from a broader perspective, the fact is, in my opinion,

in most cases, our human needs are so easily met, especially our basic physical needs,

that we have far too much extra time on our hands and more often than not choose how

we use that time inappropriately. My wife once said, “Philosophers and bodybuildersare just people with too much time on their hands.” I would have to agree. So much of

what we do in life is actually quite useless, especially when one takes into account the

dire straits that others find themselves in, sometimes of no choice of their own. I did not

say that in order to suggest that any of us are selfish and/or soulless, though we may

be, I said that to point out that just as extremists make use of their free time poorly, so

do we.



Extremist or American, either one is going to try to make certain that they can

continue to have free time that they can use poorly. They want to make certain they can

go on philosophizing endlessly or watching Harry Potter endlessly. In order to do so, in

order to maintain their free time, they will have to take measures to protect the ways and

means by which their needs are so easily met. This is where “protectionist responseneeds” come into play. It is not simply free time that is being protected, but anything

that has to do with our needs. People need to feel like they are “taking action” or

moving towards a goal. First and foremost, that goal is likely going to have something to

do with security, or protecting their “needs-satisfying” ways and means. How they can

go about this is either in a negative or positive manner.

Whether the responses will turn out negative or positive is dependent on where

the person is mentally, emotional, physiologically, etc. on the “Human Response Grid.”

If you have seen the chart, you know that it is your basic x, y axis with fear on the left of

x, fearlessness on the right of x, hubris at the top of y, and humbleness at the bottom ofy. It is my belief that all human responses can be traced back to one or a combination

of these basic responses. Because they reside on an axis, it is possible that they could

make pairs, but the diagonals are polar opposites and could never make pairs. As

described on the “Niolet’s Needs Paradigm” document, negative protectionist responses

are fear and/or hubris based, while positive protectionist responses are fearlessness

and/or humbleness based.

Just as we make inappropriate use of our free time, we make inappropriate use

of our protectionist response needs. Instead of seeking positive protectionist responses,

which are in line with fearlessness and/or humbleness, we more often choose negative

protectionist responses, which are in line with fear and/or hubris. The foundations of so

many of our societies, as such, are fear and/or hubris themselves. While we could

stand as a society for a good long time with foundations such as these, in the long run,

all we are doing is fighting fire with fire and creating bigger fires.

I say this because, as I see it, for so many years now, we have built societies with

the aim of dividing the good guys from the bad guys. The bad guys being those

individuals, within or without the society, who go about meeting their personal needs in

ways that disrupt anyone else’s ability to meet their personal needs. We become so

fearful of our needs not being met that we enact stronger protectionist responses, again

based on fear and/or hubris, such as stricter laws, harsher punishments, different formsof government or economies, different philosophies, cultures, bigger walls, stronger

militaries, etc. All the while, we forget what the true purpose for building societies is - to

make it easier for everyone to go about meeting their needs, not just an “elite” group.

Instead of acting out of fear and/or hubris and enacting negative protectionist

responses, such as building barriers to keep the bad guys out, we should have long ago



made it our habit to find out where society has failed these individuals. Instead of using

our free time, after having met our personal needs, to pursue superfluous self-interests,

we should have made it our habit long ago to help others, who may be having trouble,

meet their personal needs. Societies are no longer serving their purpose if even just

one individual is left behind, their needs neglected. Societies are, in fact, acting as a

hindrance when, in response to neglected individuals meeting their needs in ways thatcircumvent society, negative protectionist responses, such as stricter laws, are put in

place. Such negative protectionist responses only serve to further immutability and

separation between the good guys and the bad guys.

It has become our habit to choose negative protectionist responses. Why, is

simply because we are creatures with very strong memory capabilities. Most of our

actions as people lay in the weakened and or deployable quadrants of the human

response chart because we remember all too well how we were hurt at some point in

the past and carry that fear and/or hubris through the rest of our lives. We remember

how the ways and means that allowed us to easily meet our needs were taken awayfrom us and we erect barriers to better protect the ways and means the next time

around. Societies as a whole do this just as often because societies are made up of

people.

If people were to learn how to let go of hurt, partly by letting go of self, it could

just as easily become our habit to choose the opposite, positive protectionist responses.

Think about water. Water is another natural object in nature with no self-awareness. If

you throw a stone at it, does it hurt the water? No, the stone, and the force behind it, is

more or less absorbed by the water and the water completely molds itself around it as if

nothing happened. Obviously, if you throw a stone at a person, physically it is

impossible to ignore the pain and mold yourself around it, absorbing the blow, but

mentally and psychologically, this is not impossible.

This brings us back to idealists versus realists. Idealists would say that people

can change, and become positive protectionists, never looking back, under the right

circumstances; realists would say that people are evil to their core and only know

negative protectionism. Again, who is right?

Better Human Responses and the Better Society We Could Create (Here is Where I

Rant and Rave a Little, Just to Warn You)

I would postulate that the state of mankind rests in between the attitudes of

idealists and realists, that mankind in any given moment is able to choose positive or

negative protectionist responses equally. I would further speculate that when a



man/woman is able to shed “self,” and all of the social circumstances, life experiences,

and personal desires that come with “self,” he/she is in a better position to choose

positive protectionist responses over negative, because “self,” in and of itself, is a

negative protectionist response. If shedding self were to become a habit, positive

protectionist responses, wherein people seek first to help others meet their personal

needs before all else, would become a habit as well. The potential to backslide willalways exist though.

I believe that if we made it our habit to choose positive protectionist responses

and stuck to it long enough, societies would build themselves. Rather than turn away

from the purpose for building societies, in order to build a society, we should focus on

the purpose. We are so concerned with what form our governments and economies

should take, what philosophies/religions are right, what strategy to employ, etc. when

the answer to all of these questions is, “which one best meets people’s needs?” Yes, as

I have said above, everyone’s primary needs are different, everyone is bound by a

“sense of self” - immutable and separate, and everyone is prone to negativeprotectionist responses, so this answer obviously breaks down.

How we go about educating people on ways to disregard “self,” moderate their

needs, and choose positive protectionist responses is the real question.

In our own country, it may never be possible to see a large scale education

campaign or movement, though notable examples have arisen in the past that were not

unlike the suggestions above, such as the free love and civil rights movements. At this

point, however, I believe that “self” is too ingrained in our society, parenting, and

valuation standards to be surgically removed successfully, to where the country could

survive. It would require a complete rebirth, which I do not think the country is up for, at

least not anytime soon.

Capitalism, to get on a soapbox, is one of the biggest factors hindering one of the

most important steps in my proposed solution - shedding “self.” Capitalism is all about

self and the U.S. is all about Capitalism. The essence of Capitalism is the idea that, “as

long as the well-off, having power, brains, or money (or all of those), continues to pursue

self-serving business interests, then numerous people will benefit.” The desire to help

others is “built into” Capitalism; people need not have a desire to help others personally;

they just need to have a desire to help themselves.

Our Capitalist economy has created a corporatist culture. I cannot take direct

credit for this concept. Douglas Rushkoff said it quite well in his book Life Inc , though I

have had the sentiment myself for some time. A corporatist culture is one wherein

people look at everything around them in terms of a monetary value. One might look at

their neighbor’s lawn for instance and instantly think of how it is bringing down the

market value of the neighborhood. This mentality carries over into our relationships. In



the same example, that same person might shun the neighbors, never taking the time to

get to know them because of how their lawn is bringing down the neighborhood’s market

value.

The last thing I will say in regards to the woes of Capitalism concerns marketing

and advertising. You want to talk about brainwashing or indoctrination, just turn on thetelevision, pick up a magazine, or even drive to the middle of nowhere in this country,

and you will be bombarded with subliminal messages telling you what you do and do not

“need” and of course how you can get it. The underlying message is “Capitalism” is

good, just keep buying things.” Economists groan when it is projected that consumer

spending is down. In an economic system that is based on consumers spending money

they do not have, even when they are nearly all swimming in debt, why is lower

consumer spending a bad thing?

I am sure to get a lot of flak for suggesting we do away with capitalism and that is

fine. Lay it on me. You might could guess what my preferred economic system wouldbe, but you would probably be wrong. Some of the principles of my preferred economic

system are Socialist, but I am for something much bigger than Socialism. For instance,

there would be no money in my preferred economic system, at least not money in a form

that could be hoarded because I truly believe money is the root of all evil. Doing away

with money alone would not cease hoarding, but it would greatly reduce it.

In place of money there would be a vast database. What is money essentially

for? A standard method by which to measure goods and services between unlike goods

and services during trading. If all we need is a standard measurement, then why could

we not simple create a computer system with standardized value measurement software

whereby we calculate the value of the goods and services on the market? If someone

wishes to obtain a good or service from another individual, they work out how best to

trade equitably. If there is nothing that the other individual desires, then the first

individual could bring in another who does have a good or service that is desired. Any

remaining credits or debits only reside between the parties involved. So long as people

were in the habit of choosing positive protectionist responses, there would be less

concern for imbalances.

There are major benefits that arise from this economic system. Less goods need

be produce, which would very likely help with establishing a sustainable environment,

since goods or services need only be rendered when requested. Your worth is notmeasured by how much money you have hoarded over the years; instead, your worth is

measured by what you can contribute to society, your knowledge, skills, etc. The

business interactions with others is more personal. You would likely not look at your

neighbor’s yard and bemoan how the neighborhood’s market value was declining.

Again, Douglas Rushkoff does a much better job of explaining how a system such as



this could work and what benefits would follow in Life Inc. If you are curious about the

finer details, look there.

While many of you are likely to disagree with me on my views on the economy, I

do not think you will disagree with this. I also believe that the loss of “civics” as a part of

school curriculum has also played into an overly abundant “sense of self” in this country.At one point in strategy class, there was a discussion about how in today’s society,

people could not be asked to “partake” in unrestricted warfare even for the sake of their

nation. Doing so would infringe upon freedoms too much. It was proposed that there

was a time, in the 40’s and 50’s, when this could have been possible, owing to a greater

feeling of “national pride” during those years. Another person countered saying that

there is still plenty of national pride in the U.S. So, the conversation shifted.

What I think was really being spoken of was not “national pride,” but “civic duty.”

Civic duty is the mindset that society will give to you freely so long as you do the same

in return, especially when called upon. There was a time, the height of which may havebeen the 40’s and 50’s, when civic duty was common. The change, I would suggest

came when civics was taken out of classrooms. Civics as a subject was not purely

government 101, there was a certain amount of indoctrination going on as well. I have

my grandfather’s civic textbook from 1936 to prove it.

Something had to be put in the place of the idea of civic duty, however, otherwise

there would have been a feeling of loss. It was around this same time that more and

more resounding rhetoric about “personal freedoms” was being championed. Today,

civic duty as been replaced with “personal freedoms.” The difference is in the mindset,

society will give you personal freedoms and you do not have to give anything in return,

except maybe taxes. Personal freedoms are a diversion. Our society is telling us “we

can do whatever we want, and what we really want is to buy stuff.”

To articulate the difference between civic duties and personal freedoms more

clearly, civic duties entail that society gives us “liberties,” whereas personal freedoms

entails that society recognizes our “innate absolute right to freedom of all kinds.”

Liberties has limits, absolute freedoms do not. Which is truly more innate? I would

think that liberties are more innate. We can never have true absolute freedom. Every

single action carries with it certain consequences. Even if we were living in solitude in

the woods, we have to act within limits otherwise we might burn down a forest, invite

critters to ransack our tents, or the like. In societies, everything we do has the potentialto affect someone else. The moment we create societies, we incur limits to our

freedoms.

Therefore, we need to stop all this hollow rhetoric about how much freedom we

have in this country because even in this country there are limits to our freedoms.

Instead we should be real and emphasize that what we do have are liberties and that



society will from time to time demand you give back to society in ways other than taxes.

We should bring back the idea of civic duty.

Why was civics taken out of schools’ curriculum? I would hate to beat up on

Capitalism some more, but . . . civics as a subject in schools simply was not conducive

to a Capitalist economy. Civics taught discipline, responsibility, and accountability;these ideals keep emotions in check. Capitalism feeds off of emotional impulses. In

order to breed generations of consumers, it became necessary to dispense of discipline,

responsibility, and accountability. Unfortunately, this meant dispensing of the idea of

civic duty as well. There is much less concern for those around you. If there is concern

for society it is in terms of “technicalities,” or the sterile details of the society’s

government, economy, infrastructure, etc. The concern lacks any sort of “bedside

manner.”

Do not get me wrong; I am not one of those people that say that the days of

“Leave it to Beaver” were so much better, that times were simpler then, that you couldleave the front door open, and blah, blah, blah. People that believe this apparently

never even watched “Leave it to Beaver” because if they had, they would have seen that

that show actually dealt with some pretty hefty subjects, such as alcoholism, divorce,

and abuse. The truth is that nothing, in the way of how people behave, has changed

since that time. It is not that there was less crime during the 50’s, it was just less

reported.

If anything, how we behave has gotten better. We have learned what not to do

from our predecessors. It was not uncommon during the 50’s for a man to come home

and instantly raid the wet bar of its hard liquor. It was not uncommon for there to be

spousal abuse of some kind. It was not uncommon for there to be racial injustices.

Most movies and TV shows just would not talk about these infractions, and as such,

what happened in our entertainment media became to be believed to be the norm. But

that cannot be true. There would not have been such a struggle to empower women or

erase racial injustice if it were. The norm was quite the opposite.

We have learned that equality for all races and women is a better standard. Now,

it is more common for men to be involved in raising children, so raiding the liquor

cabinet is less likely. Women are treated as equals to men, so spousal abuse has very

likely reduced. And, of course, racial inequality has been greatly leveled out. We

elected an African American President after all. But, in my personal opinion, we are farfrom well-adjusted and from securing a bright future for ourselves, as individuals or as a

nation.

Idealist Thought vs. Realist Thought In Terms of National Security



The question also has to be asked, which of these two options (idealism or

realism) has the potential to cause greater harm to a nation’s security, in the long-term?

I can easily understand why a good number of people would choose the first option as

being potentially more harmful; obviously, if a nation was to not take measures to protect

itself, ignoring the realities of conflict and war, they would essentially be inviting

invasion. However, I do not believe this option of the two has the potential to causegreater harm to a nation’s security. While I believe that either option has the potential to

cause harm to a nation’s security, I believe the latter of the two options to be the worser

of two evils.

I think about it this way: I think of parents raising a child or children. If a parent

desired to ensure that they were in constant conflict with their child, it would be an easy

matter of yelling at the child, declaring without end how the child is innately bad,

incapable of good, and then slap them around a bit. Not only will this guarantee that the

child will one day lash back at the parent, but they are more than likely to inflict the

same harsh treatment they have received on others, especially their own children. Onthe other hand, a parent who ignores bad behavior, as if it does not exist, and continues

to reward the child is likely to be taken advantage of to a great deal. However, once that

child becomes a parent themselves, the tables are likely to be turned. They are aware

of how they took advantage of their parents and will ensure their child does not do the

same to them. In other words, the cycle stops; whereas, above, the cycle does not stop.

Here’s another way to look at it: I know that only so many people have some sort

of Christian background, but more than likely, all of you have heard at one time or

another the phrase, “turn the other check,” which was said by Jesus. More often than

not, the concept/meaning behind this phrase is taken to simply be “ignore the offense.” I

have heard it to mean something quite different and I believe more accurate. It is

believed by many Christian scholars that during Jesus’s time-period public acts of

aggression among Israelites were looked down upon, the perpetrator publicly rebuked.

By turning the other cheek, Jesus was telling people to make a defiant statement of non-

violence, invite the aggressor to make themselves look that much more out-of-line.

Had Jesus up and backhanded the offender, besides losing street cred for his

message, he would have invited others to challenge him in the same way down the

road. The man’s brother may have taken offense to the response and come at him too.

By turning the other cheek, Jesus was saying, “Look, you, and anyone else, can beat

the crap out of me, but you are going to hurt yourself just as much. You are going tolook like a fool beating up on someone who is not going to fight back.” This feeling does

not only have to come from around the individual; the feeling would more than likely

come from within as well. People are bound to ask themselves, “What’s the matter with

me? Why am I so angry? Why am I beating up on a defenseless person?”



No matter how it is explained, the response leans towards a positive protectionist

response. When one could 1) dispense of “self,” 2) moderate their needs, 3) live in the

exemplary quadrant of the human response chart - immerse themselves in fearlessness

and/or humbleness, one could make it a habit to choose positive protectionist

responses.

Conflict Avoidance and a Final Thought

Essentially, positive protectionist responses are a form of conflict and war

avoidance. The possibility that conflict and war could be avoided was rarely brought up

during class; it was only during the last class of Conflict that a somewhat lengthy

discussion focused on conflict avoidance through less kinetic means, at least from what

I can remember. The curriculum as a whole, I have come to suspect, perhaps because

of the heavy military population, is geared toward a realist mentality - war will always

exist and so we have to learn to end wars by warring. I do not think I need to explain

why this is counterintuitive.

I do not know about the rest of you, but I personally would like to see more

examples of successful conflict avoidance through soft power approaches - ones that

are not after a war and that do not involve just throwing money at the situation. Maybe it

is not that the curriculum was designed to ignore these events; maybe there are simply

too few examples to build a curriculum around. I am not well versed enough in history

to say. But even just looking at the civil rights movement or the movement led by

Gandhi would suffice for me, rather than at a failed peace keeping effort in Uganda that

involved sending a military. I mean, what did you expect? That is my two cents.

As far as the curriculum is concerned, I am taking the curriculum for what it is

worth, but always making certain to think from the other side, the idealist side, and find

the truth in the middle. I for one do not wish to fall into either error, as described by C.S.

Lewis, regarding conflict and wars. I do not wanted to pretend they do not exist, but I

also do not want to belief that they will always exist. To me, believing the latter is more

damaging, because it is desensitizing and can lead to a habitual response. The more I

belief that conflict and war are unavoidable, the less I may do to try and prevent them.

That would not be an “ideal” world, and one I “really” would not want to live in.

an informal essay regarding realists' vs. idealists' views on conflict and everything in...

Documents