Nonviolent Change Journal

FORGIVENESS AND NON-VIOLENT POLITICAL CHANGE: STRATEGIES FOR THE MIDDLE AND FAR EAST

Robert W. Hotes

Introduction

Conflict resolution in international affairs faces enormous challenges due in part to cultural contexts. For those in the West who have seen increasing acts and threats of terrorism in the name of Islam and the threat of nuclear proliferation in Asia, the path to the current developments may seem obscure. After the terrorist attack, which destroyed the World Trade Center, Westerners, especially Americans, asked themselves, “Why --- what have we as a society and a culture done to deserve this kind of treatment?” The pervasive question is “why do other nations hate us?’ This article briefly discusses conflict resolution technology relating to selected major causes for international dislike and distrust of U.S. culture and democracy. It then suggests three strategies using an element of the Action Science approach to conflict resolution (Schein, 1985) incorporating the element of forgiveness in a systems approach to resolving conflict. Suggestions for application to the crises in Korea and the Middle East are made.

Why Other Nations Resent the United States

Since the transformation of Russia from the core of a Marxist-Leninist empire, the United States has been identified as the only military superpower. It has long been conceded to hold this position in the economic arena. Due to its cultural, political, military, and economic influence, the United States has been seen by some as not a nation state, but an empire (Chase, 2002, Lenin, 1936). Misperception of the nature of the United States has given rise to intense yet largely un-warranted anti-American feeling around the globe, largely fostered by both the U.S. and international media. For this reason, this paper suggests that applications of Action Science (Schein, 1986) to large-systems nonviolent change may be useful.

Action Science, Forgiveness and Large Systems Change

     As developed by Schein (1986) and others, Acton Science applies the methods of scientific analysis, program development and testing, application and formative and summative evaluation to systems change. This paper suggests that, by adding an element of forgiveness to the development and application phase of this process as applied to large systems change, opportunities for significant progress in lasting peace might be realized.

     Forgiveness is an active process. In psychodynamic terms, it may be considered a process of letting go of ego-involvement resulting form past events. Forgiveness between and among nations is similar in many ways to the practice of forgiveness between individuals. In both cases, it is necessary for parties to let go of perceptions of past problems and insults, and to focus on present realities. A truth underlying the practice of forgiveness is the reaching of recognition that fixing blame is not essential to the development of a beneficial outcome. It is essential, however, that the parties to the disagreement or dispute are able to move from perceptions of past injuries and damages to positions of present and future possibilities for improved circumstances. Accordingly, change agents have a task of moving individuals or societies involved in disputes from a concentration on the effects of past injuries to consideration of the possibilities for future progress and development.

     The central point of forgiveness is the ability on the part of the parties to get past the feelings of hurt and resentment and proceed to a solution that is beneficial for the parties involved. For purposes of this discussion, the following points may be considered:
-- Forgiveness may be unilateral and still be effective. The process of forgiving benefits the forgiver as well as the forgiven.
-- Forgiveness is in line with the cultural and religious background of most of the world’s religious philosophies, including Islam Judaism and Christianity, although forgiveness does not have a significant role in dialectical materialism
-- Forgiveness is an indicator of strength, not weakness.

Why Forgiving in International Affairs is Difficult

     Human beings are physiologically, socially, and emotionally programmed to recall and evaluate past events. For this reason, individuals are programmed to remember past insults and grievances and to harbor grudges and insults. In evolutionary terms, this proclivity and capacity is useful in preventing repeated exposure to dangerous and potentially harmful situations. It is important for individuals to be aware of sources of a danger and to remember how to avoid past enemies. This awareness gives rise to emotions and feelings that are beneficial for the survival of individuals and societies. When applied to conflicts between and among nations in post-industrial society, however, such feelings and emotions may result in long-lasting grudges and counter-productive behavior (Damasio, 2003). Such attitudes and behavior are especially counterproductive in today’s geopolitical climate, and are contrary to the best interests of America as an essentially altruistic society enjoying the fruits of the world’s most successful democracy.

     In the present situation, there are a number of reasons for mistrust among nations. Current animosities between Middle Eastern nations and Western countries stem in part from the legacy of the British Empire in the region. It is therefore understandable that the British seek to continue to play a significant role in the region, and that the nations of the Middle East continue to resent that role.

      To a great extent, British economic interests centers on protecting elements of their Indian Empire produced political and militarily interests in the areas that now include Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, and the Gulf Emirates. In the Far East, cultural and political struggles between China and Japan have resulted in long-lasting tensions and mistrust.

     The political situation in the Middle East is illustrative. Long desirous of supplanting the Ottoman Empire in the oil-rich segments of the Middle East, Britain seized upon the opportunities in the area presented by the First World War. In the aftermath of that conflict, Britain strove to protect its Indian sub-continent trade routes in areas of what is now Afghanistan, while, while increasing cultural hegemony in Egypt at the expense of the French. Indeed, understanding the historical struggle for influence between the British and French colonial empires is useful for analyzing the current political situation in the Middle East. In brief, Britain was the force, which created the majority of the post-Ottoman states. They succeeded in supplanting French colonial interests in a large part of Africa, including North Africa. These conflicting interests have a role in explaining respective attitudes of France and Britain toward cooperation with the United States in its confrontation with Iraq. British ascendancy to power in the region was in many cases at the expense of French influence. The actions of Prime Ministers Chirac and Blair underscore the remnants of ancient rivalries and resentments between the two former colonial powers.

     To a significant extent, the United States is a pawn in this centuries-old chess game. France, co-opting its former enemy, Germany, vaunts itself as the leader of a new Europe. Britain resists submersion within this Franco-German context, and finds that the support of its former colony, the United States, may give it leverage within the global community. In the Far East, China plays North Korea off against Japan in a quest for regional and perhaps broader hegemony.

      Progress in problem resolution in such arenas would depend upon the ability of individuals on both sides to forgive past grievances, which have developed through centuries of military, economic and cultural conflict. On one hand, there are significant points of disagreement between the pretended leaders of a re-emerging Europe, including Gerhard Schroeder and Jacques Chirac, and the United States. Both sides see the other as myopic and imperialistic and are unable to forgive those issues that have been problematic in the past. A similar situation exists between China and Japan, with Russia as an occasional intervener for its own interest. In addition, there are both political and philosophical differences and similarities between radical Islam, represented by Osama bin Ladin, and radical Judeo-Christianity, represented by George Bush which make conflict resolution more difficult (Chase, 2002).

The Nature of Forgiveness

     Forgiveness is an active process. In psychodynamic terms, it may be considered a process of letting go of ego-involvement resulting from past events. Forgiveness may be thought of as an active re-programming of cognitive materials, resulting in change of interpretation of past and present realities.

      Forgiveness between and among nations is similar in many ways to the practice of forgiveness between individuals. In both cases, it is necessary for parties to let go of perceptions of past problems and insults, and to focus on present realities. A truth underlying the practice of forgiveness is the reaching of recognition that fixing blame is not essential to the development of a beneficial outcome. It is essential, however, that the parties to the disagreement or dispute are able to move from perceptions of past injuries and damages to positions of present and future possibilities for improved circumstances. Accordingly, change agents have a task of moving individuals or societies involved in disputes from a concentration on the effects of past injuries to consideration of the possibilities for future progress and development.

     One method for accomplishing large systems change that has been applied in a variety of both large and smaller systems is Action Science. As formulated by Schein (1986), Action Science applies procedures based upon empirical methods to systems change. Although the structure of Action Science interventions may vary in particular applications, five stages of activity are generally identifiable. These stages include analysis of the presenting issues, development of action plans and strategies, field-testing and implementation of these strategies, and evaluation. According to the position presented here, forgiveness can be a particularly effective part of the application of the change strategies developed through Action Science and applied to large systems change.

     The central point of forgiveness is the ability on the part of the parties to get past the feelings of hurt and resentment and proceed to a solution that is beneficial for the parties involved. Because of the relation of physical to emotional states, active forgiveness may be instrumental in changing the behavior of world leaders.

Conclusion

     Current tensions between the United Sates and Iraq and North Korea have historical roots in conflicts between Europe and the Muslim World as well as past imperial pretensions by Britain in Asia. Forgiveness can be an important element in the development of a technology for large systems change under current international conditions. Accordingly, forgiveness can be a significant factor in a dynamic conflict resolution process based on Action Science (Schein, 1986).   Using such technology, parties might move beyond present difficulties through actively reprocessing the content of memory through cognitive and emotional reframing. The outcomes of such a process can be the basis for developing a less violent set of solutions to world conflict.

References

Ali, M. M. (1995). The Holy Koran with English Commentary and Translation. Columbus, Ohio, Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha’at Islam, Lahore Inc. USA.

Chase, James (2002) Imperial America and the common interest. World Policy Journal, Volume XIX, No1, pp. 1-8.
Field, M. (1999). Inside the Arab World. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.

Damasio, Antonio (2003). Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain. New York, Harcourt, Inc.

Lenin, V.L. (1939). Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. New York, International Publishers,

Lerner, R., and M. Mahdi, Eds. (1963). Mediaeval Political Philosophy: A Sourcebook. The Free Press of Glencoe, Collier-Macmillan Ltd., Canada

Mackey, S. (1998). The Iranians: Persia, Islam and the Soul of a Nation. New York, Penguin Putnam.

Schein, Edgar (1986). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Von Grunebaum, G.E.(1970). Classical Islam: A History, 600-1258. New York, Aldine Publishing Co.

Robert W. Hotes, Ph.D., RODC, LMHC is a practitioner of Organizational/Industrial Psychology and a licensed mental health professional. He has direct experience in organizational change initiatives for Iran and several other nations. Dr. Hotes also serves as Executive Director of the American College of Counselors, President of St. Timothy Lutheran Seminary, and as adjunct professor of Political Studies at Springfield College in Illinois.

These articles and opinions of the authors do not constitute the endorsement of Nonviolent Change nor its publisher, Organization Development Institute, or any of its staff, nor of CirclePoint which is housing the Nonviolent Change Journal.

©2002.2003. All rights reserve. The Nonviolent Change Journal is published by the Research/Action Team on Nonviolent Large Systems Change - an interorganizational and international project of The Organization Development Institute.

Permissions: Reposting and reprints are encouraged, as long as proper source acknowledgement is given. As a courtesy, please let us know that you are reprinting or electronically reposting. It helps us know of the interest level. Thank you.