Promoting peace - but how?

1. repressed fear

This refers to the totality of fears repressed from consciousness, for example, also the overplayed fear of insecurity and war, or the fear of perceiving and admitting one’s own part in conflicts that have arisen (instead of feigning infallibility or washing one’s hands of the matter).

Repressed fear makes it difficult to decide to engage in reasonable reconciliation-oriented behavior. It increases the tendency to shift responsibility and to blame or attack “the others,” which usually triggers crisis-exacerbating counterreactions. Accusations generate counter-accusations, threats generate counter-threats, so that the crisis spiral is driven upwards.

An alternative becomes possible where we muster the courage to perceive our fear, admit it, and translate it into peace-promoting behavior, for example, into the decision to openly express fear even with conflict partners experienced as threatening, instead of resorting to grandstanding and denial of our own vulnerability. The risk associated with this is smaller than that created by threatening behavior and the counter-reactions it triggers.

In the case of current “security policy,” fear-based protective reactions such as the continuation of military rearmament are conflated with seemingly realistic bases for decision-making and thus supposedly rationally justified. One considers oneself realistic when one does not trust the will for peace expressed by the other side; one considers it unnecessary to review one’s accustomed attitude and to revise it according to the changed world situation.

In addition, the epidemic of murder and warfare is almost as old as humanity itself. This seems to confirm the assumption that war will continue to exist in the future. It is probably realistic as long as we do not succeed in carrying out the necessary rethinking, or at least start doing so with determination.

2. aggressiveness – in connection with the inability to deal with aggression in a life-friendly way

Behavioral research has confirmed an observation that each of us can already make with animals: The most massive aggressions happen where a living being is threatened and “driven into a corner”. Even peaceful animals bite or sting when distressed. Something similar can be perceived in children and also in adults. Where they are threatened, the tendency to violent reactions increases (as long as the evolution of the human is not advanced). I have the impression that power-oriented politicians in particular do not take this fact sufficiently into account. All too often, hopes are placed short-sightedly and illusionarily on the effect of military weapons, while overlooking how dangerous it is to put pressure on a conflict partner prone to aggression with threatening means.

When someone is cornered by military or psychological means or even maneuvered into an unbearable predicament, the risk of short-circuit and self-defense reactions increases.

This danger is not eliminated by deploying missiles that are perceived as offensively threatening; on the contrary, it is exacerbated. This is because increasing the threat not only increases so-called deterrence, but also increases the propensity for dangerous countermeasures, such as surprise preemptive strikes.

Moreover, a large part of our society glorifies strength and power, while valuing values such as non-violence, solidarity and pro-life conflict resolution relatively little. It is true that in some movements, and especially among the younger generation, a change is on the horizon. But the idolatry of autocratic power is still great. It can go so far that even obviously self-centered and ruthless fighting against rivals is perceived as “great,” “strong,” “attractive,” such as when in Wild West shows the “heroes” respond to threats by immediately drawing their pistols. The possibility of dealing with aggression in a creative and constructive way is only rarely seen and used.

The turnaround to the necessary rethinking and learning is made more difficult by the effect of stress factors.

3. stress

Many people in our society live in a chronic stress situation. As a result, they have little or no time for sufficient reflection and in-depth consideration of the long-term consequences of prevailing behavioral habits. This is also and especially true for people at the levers of political power. In the hustle and bustle of day-to-day business, there is often not enough space to consider the bigger picture, including psychological chains of effects. And there is also a lack of practice in the thinking necessary for holistic systems thinking. This is exacerbated by the fact that stressful situations trigger biologically conditioned blocks to thinking and that the path to life-friendly interaction is occupied by numerous obstacles, for example prejudices and illusions.

4. illusions

The opinion that one can save the threatened security of our world by realizing even more threatening measures (example: missiles) seems deceptive. This is true even when it is represented by the prevailing government policy. It supports, intentionally or unintentionally, the tendency to stick with habitual attitudes and to spare oneself the effort of a thorough reflection or rethinking.

Once again, we see what Albert Einstein already noted: “The mistaken belief that security can be achieved through the accumulation of weapons is as widespread as ever.”

What has changed is that this delusion is becoming transparent to a rapidly growing crowd in both East and West. But the dangerous illusion that peacekeeping can be achieved through missiles has nevertheless remained effective. It is apparently still widespread, especially among those in power.

To achieve reasonable peacekeeping, we need a basis for reasonable trust: a viable counterweight to militarily narrow thinking and to the dictatorship of delusional mistrust.

5. mistrust, or more precisely: undifferentiated mistrust

The trust necessary for peaceful coexistence has been eroded as a result of numerous disappointments and deficits in the area of trust-building experiences. Distrust has become a habit that many consider necessary and unchangeable. Sometimes the refusal to trust is perceived and evaluated as a sign of realism, which in turn seems to be reasonably justified: It is indeed the case that in our world there are all too many persons and assertions towards whom distrust is appropriate. Negative experiences often have a strong impact. This leaves little chance for the idea that there are also trustworthy people and real opportunities for policies aimed at building trust. The flood of disappointed expectations pours new water on the mill of mistrust every day. The already great complications and burdens of life in our society thus become even greater.

6. anxiety-inducing living conditions

Thus, for many, the problems take on a magnitude that can be discouraging to paralyzing. But this makes the step toward peacebuilding engagement even more difficult. In addition, there is the restlessness caused by difficulties with too much or too little or unsatisfactory work. The result is a climate that increasingly threatens to stifle positive life forces. The joy of learning and working, the zest for life, humor and vitality have become rare. Tensions resulting from economic and ecological crises, from unresolved conflicts with the environment and with oneself reinforce the tendency to resentment and the associated scapegoat and enemy image thinking.

7. enemy images with exculpatory function

Those who have an external enemy against whom they rant, rave, fight can release internal tensions in a seemingly harmless way. If, for example, an American goes out with his neighbor against the Russians, he is not likely to lose the neighbor’s sympathy as a result; on the contrary, “shooting against a common enemy” may initially produce pleasant feelings of unity and solidarity. The same applies to the other side. For the Russians, too, the existence of an external enemy apparently has a psychologically relieving and solidarizing effect.

So it becomes understandable that so little is happening in both Russia and America that could lead to differentiation and perhaps eventually to an end to enemy thinking.

Also, the existence of an external enemy provides a pretext for advancing armaments in one’s own camp and justifying them with seemingly reasonable arguments.

Of course, the thought of “needing” an enemy image for one’s own mental household is not flattering. From this point of view, it is understandable if it is devalued, all the more so because historical facts provide support here: both in Russian and in American history there are – “of course” – acts of violence and violations of rights, which one can accuse the other of if he wants to.

The question of how far such events should be interpreted as self-defense and aberrations or as typical for the thinking of the responsible governments is hardly asked. Instead, each side uses its rival’s mistakes as ammunition and protection against the suggestion that it doubts the validity of the enemy’s thinking. Real existing enmities are thereby intensified instead of being brought closer to a solution.

8. confusion

Today’s sensory overload and overabundance of contradictory claims have created a confusion in which many feel as if they are in a labyrinth. They no longer know where they stand, how to get ahead, who to believe and who not to believe.

While some lapse into noncommittal skepticism and disinterest in the formation of political opinion, others take flight by absolutizing the opinion they or their party hold and consciously or unconsciously delude themselves into infallibility. Examples of this can be seen where discussion partners fanatically strive to be or become “right” while showing no signs of critical distance from their own views, accordingly little willingness to learn. The interest in honestly seeking guidance often seems to be smaller than the interest in pseudo-knowledge and party-political ideologies. With all the allure of pseudo-knowledge and false prophets, it has become difficult to distinguish between reliable and misleading statements, not least in the area of self-criticism.

9. repressed guilt

Where people are not able and willing to perceive and admit their own mistakes, who triggered the consequences that poison the social climate. Responsibility is then shifted, the others are scapegoated for grievances, and so the unedifying vicious circle of mutual blame ensues.

Vividly I remember a meeting where Europeans were with Russians and Americans. In retrospect, it seems to me that the Russians served up volleys of accusations to the Americans and the Americans served up volleys of accusations to the Russians with downright boring doggedness, never once really seeing and saying what they recognize and acknowledge as their own part in escalating the difficulties. The habit of seeing the “mote in your brother’s eye” and overlooking the beam in your own seems to be widespread internationally.

10. lack of willingness to learn and reconcile

But where people do not learn to perceive and admit their own part in experienced difficulties, a proliferation of fruitless attack and defense reactions occurs. As a result, one of the most productive sources for creative management of social conflicts remains blocked: the possibility of reconciliation.

Revealing examples of this can be seen in the history of escalating partnership and marriage crises, for example, where relationships break down due to stubborn reproachful attitudes and an inability to reconcile. In such relationships, there is usually an obvious lack of something quite different from means of pressure and threats, for example, the ability to make peace with the accompanying imagination and willingness to learn. In the complex field of political contexts, the devastating consequences of a lack of willingness to reconcile and learn are not so clearly seen. They are overlaid by multilayered power factors, party strategies, so-called constraints and the like. But they are still effective, even in a particularly dangerous way, as far as they remain concealed.

11. separation from the creative.

Working out new ways requires not only knowledge, diligence and discipline, but also creative forces. The up to now prevailing education and training methods neglect an adequate promotion in this direction. This makes it all the more necessary to renew the contact with the creative dimension of our lives and to let it grow (we can create and use concrete opportunities for this in several places, e.g. in leisure time education, in adult education, in families, circles of friends, communities).

12. lack of ability to love

Where inhumanity, mendacity and hatred prevail, a decisively important breeding ground for peace-friendly behavior is missing, especially where it is a matter of dealing with conflict partners who think differently. The opinion that readiness for reconciliation, honest understanding, openness to faith in the power of creative love have no place in politics does not stand up to critical scrutiny. What is meant by “love” here, of course, is more than just a tender feeling. What is meant is a power that can be experienced where people meet with sincere, liberating goodwill.

With regard to the practice of peace work, it is particularly noteworthy that this power can also open up further paths for dealing with power and powerlessness. It makes it possible to become free to an attitude that allows power to be taken and handled, and also to be relinquished, depending on what seems necessary or useful in the given situations.

13. greed and lust for power

The proliferation of greed and lust for power is a process that usually only becomes partially conscious. In order to learn to see through it, it is expedient to start from self-experienced experiences. In times of inner satisfaction, for example, I can more easily do without wanting to have even more than in times of existential frustration.

The more we are deprived of the experience of creative living and development, the stronger becomes the tendency to strive for means of substitute satisfaction such as material luxury or high-handed superiority.

14. injustice, deception, hatred

Injustice creates discord in small and large ways. They poison the social climate, foment the emergence of revolutions and rivalry struggles, and thus tendencies toward violence. Those who feel unjustly treated tend – if not to resignation and depression – to affects that urge them to strengthen their own position and to weaken that of the opponent, without stopping at ruthlessness. In doing so, he easily succumbs to the danger of using means that generate anger, perplexity, and hatred in him. And he usually overlooks completely. what consequences he has to expect if his partner feels threatened, betrayed, disadvantaged, challenged to revenge.

What dramas injustice, deception and hatred can cause, we experience daily in politics, but also in private life. And world literature has impressively traced such developments.