According to Mercer , humans get a sense of identity in groups which provide a sense of belonging part of the emotion in identity. While this emotion in identity builds trust and allows cooperative problem solving, Mercer argues that this emotion also creates self- esteem and pride which as a result could lead to a feeling of superiority and discrimination of other groups.
Accordingly, it follows that discrimination could become violent. At global scale, this could inevitably lead to war. Indeed then, psychology can offer great insight on the inevitability of war and conflict in global politics.
Human psychology, generally, may not change much as opposed to the state of politico-economic affairs, tending to be relatively volatile and unpredictable — even for the near future. Hence, predicting human psychology, a relatively easier task, could help answer whether war and conflict is inevitable. While the past may not always be a good indicator of the future in general, because of its seemingly unchanging nature, it seems to be for human psychology. If, then, human psychology remains like it currently is, war and conflict seems inevitable.
However the theory of democratic peace — the belief that democratic nations do not fight each other using force, although they may fight non-democracies — could help argue that war and conflict is avoidable.
It may not be democracy, intrinsically, which is the cause of peace between democracies. Rather, the causes of democratic peace are arguably some features of democracy. Since neither side knows how to collaborate without appearing to betray their family, nation, culture, or cause, their conflict slips into a descending cycle of accusation and denunciation, rebellion and repression, terror and war.
The coexistence of intimacy with inequality and exploitation inevitably leads the powerful to hold the powerless in a subordinate, dependent position, triggering a polarization of attitudes and cascade of aggressive behaviors that lead to accusations of evil on both sides. A subconscious awareness of the unfairness of inequality and exploitation in the minds of the powerful lead them to fear the loss of their unequal status and the retributive violence of the powerless.
This causes them to become further entrenched, protect their gains, and resist liberalization, democratization, collaboration, and conflict resolution, which require power sharing. The powerful increasingly come to believe they have only two alternatives: either agree to the demands of the powerless and lose power for themselves, their families, friends, and what they see as their civilizing mission; or use "legitimate" forms of power to crush the powerless, thereby reinforcing the opposition of those they have oppressed, strengthening their resistance, and encouraging them to use violence or terror to achieve what they see as justice.
These dynamics lead to stereotyping, prejudice , discrimination, and marginalization of the powerless , including genocide and ethnic cleansing, on the assumption that the powerless as a group are innately evil. In response, the powerless increasingly come to believe they also have only two alternatives: either accept a temporary, tactical surrender, thereby permitting inequality and exploitation to continue unabated; or use what the powerful define as "illegitimate" forms of power to break their monopoly and end their exclusive control over power and resources, thereby reinforcing the fears of the powerful, strengthening their resistance, and encouraging continued destruction on both sides.
Each side behaves toward the other in ways that justify their worst fears, causing the engine of violence to turn in a self-destructive circle. Using interest-based conflict resolution methods, it is possible to identify a third choice for both sides, which is to share their problems, acknowledge that they are brothers, recognize that the true evil is not who they are, but their readiness to regard each other as evil, and that they cannot brutalize each other without brutalizing themselves.
It is to understand that nothing can be gained through other methods that is worth the cost; that their mutual slaughter has been a gigantic, tragic, pointless waste; and that they can reach out at any time to their opponents without glossing over their differences. It is to recognize that there are no differences they cannot solve through dialogue, negotiation, and conflict resolution, or that are worth the damage created by their assumptions of evil. It is to engage in open, honest, collaborative, on-going negotiations over issues of justice and equality; strengthen political, economic, and social democracy; develop interest-based conflict resolution skills; and elicit heartfelt communications that invite truth and reconciliation.
How Should We Respond to Evil? None of this is intended to imply that there is no such thing as evil, or that it is justifiable, but rather that there is a genesis and logic to its development which, when ignored, call forth adjunct evils in response. Evil is like a cancer that replicates itself by demanding its own destruction, but only through evil means. The French Philosopher Blaise Pascal thought it came from "being unable to sit still in a room," while Novelist Jeanette Winterson wrote that "to change something you do not understand is the true nature of evil.
Yet if good and evil are opposites, it is impossible to end one without also ending the other. From a conflict resolution perspective, evil is sometimes just a story describing what our opponents did to harm us, while leaving out what we did to harm them.
Sometimes it is a failure to separate the act that caused harm from the people who engaged in it, or an inability due to previous conflicts to experience empathy or compassion for others. Sometimes it is negligence, accident, or false assumptions. Sometimes it is deep disappointment, the outpourings of a culture of defeat, or a desire to blame others for our own false expectations.
Sometimes it is a way of depriving others of the happiness we lost, or subconsciously trying to recreate in others the conditions that caused us pain. As Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley wrote: "No man consciously chooses evil because it is evil, he only mistakes it for the happiness that he seeks. While there is good in the worst of us and evil in the best of us, there are hierarchies of evil, and some, like those who engineered the holocaust, belong to a different order. What, then, do we do in the face of such evil?
While there may be people, times, and places when it is impossible not to answer violence with violence and evil with evil, it is difficult to distinguish these moments from those that occur everyday in ordinary interpersonal conflicts, except by subjective measurements of their proximity and impact on us. The greater and closer the harm feels to us, the easier it is to justify committing evil in response.
Do minor evils then justify minor evils in response? If so, where does it end? And who decides which evil is worse, or whose suffering is greater and more deserving of retribution?
Many people view truth, forgiveness, and reconciliation as laudable, yet impractical in the face of evil and terror, and believe the only effective response is to crush them wherever they exist with whatever power is available.
Yet evil has always been a response to prior evil acts that are used to justify the commission of equal or greater evils in return. In this way, "eye for an eye" responses add to the total sum of blindness, while assumptions of evil turn suffering in a circle. While there may be times, as Bertold Brecht wrote, when it is necessary to "embrace the butcher" to end an evil that will not desist until forced to do so, these cases cannot be contained or defined.
How do we know we are not simply transferring our pain to someone else? When and how do we stop? What do we do in response to subtler forms of terror, and commonplace evils? Who do we become as a result? At what price? As Dwight Eisenhower told the London Guardian, "Every gun that is made, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
The first is to use whatever means may be required to isolate, disarm , and contain it, while at the same time addressing the underlying injustices that brought it into existence. The second is to shift the way we react from power- to rights- to interest-based approaches that do not invite evil responses. The third is to systematically strengthen our skills and abilities in heart-based communications, including forgiveness and reconciliation, which disable evil at its source in the tormented hearts and minds of those who feel powerless to end or grieve their suffering.
These responses require us to encourage dialogue, joint problem solving, and conflict resolution, while simultaneously acting to discourage vengeance, retaliation, and unilateralism. They require us to negotiate, especially with our enemies, while simultaneously minimizing their ability to create harm.
They require us to accept responsibility, for example, for the rise of fascism, as a result of our imposition of a vindictive Treaty at Versailles, unwillingness to confront anti-Semitism, support for brutal Tsarist regimes that inspired the Russian Revolution, lack of financial aid for the struggling Weimar Republic, failure to assist the Spanish Republic, and similar acts. Finally, they require us to recognize that can be no peace without justice there.
No Justice, No Peace In order to discourage assumptions, allegations, and acts of evil and sustain warring parties in dialogue and negotiation, we need to recognize that the true evil is injustice, and as long as it continues, peace will be fleeting, fragile, and a disappointing reminder of all we have suffered and lost.
Under such conditions it is easy to agree with Socrates' adversary Thrasymachus that "justice is the interest of the stronger," or Franz Kafka that it is "a fugitive from the winning camp. Where injustice prevails, peace becomes merely a way of masking and compounding prior crimes, impeding necessary changes, and rationalizing injustices. As the Trappist monk Thomas Merton presciently observed: To some men peace merely means the liberty to exploit other people without fear of retaliation or interference.
To others peace means the freedom to rob others without interruption. To still others it means the leisure to devour the goods of the earth without being compelled to interrupt their pleasures to feed those whom their greed is starving. And to practically everybody peace simply means the absence of any physical violence that might cast a shadow over lives devoted to the satisfaction of their animal appetites for comfort and leisure They can either involve our parents, siblings, relatives, etc.
A cultural conflict essay, on the other hand, can discuss the conflict between various communities. Identify the reasons for those communities going to war, what was the dispute about? Who orchestrated the plan? Who emerged the heroes in the fight? Did people lose lives? Also, describe the consequences of such a conflict. You can also write humor is the best way to resolve conflicts essay which describes how humor can be implemented in an essay to express conflict.
The formation of any type of humor requires surprises and disparity which will lead to a change in perception. A personal conflict essay can be an essay that deals with individual conflicts, battles an individual fights within himself.
Assume that your audience lacks previous knowledge about conflict and that your essay is meant to educate the reader about it. Handle all issues in depth while avoiding ambiguous information. The body should include conflict types, the reasons, consequences, how to avoid, and how to solve a conflict. Explain these points fully. Your essay should also include your viewpoint concerning conflict. Ensure that the reader will get your stand on conflict as they read your essay.
You can provide your reader with recommendations pertaining conflict. The recommendations may include living with conflict in cases where the conflicting parties were unable to solve or avoid the conflict. The recommendation can also include insight on how to benefit from a conflicting situation.
The last paragraph is the conclusion. The conclusion summarizes the major points of your essay. Include a summary of the definition. Highlight the types, reasons, consequences, solutions for conflict, and recommendations.
Defenceless villages are bombed from the air, the inhabitants are driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification.
At the core, these theories attempt to explain the causes of war. At organizational level: conflicts may occur because of some management issues or leadership style, task or process conflicts, disagreement on discipline issue, differences in strategy formation, disagreement on the charter of demands, etc.. Yet if good and evil are opposites, it is impossible to end one without also ending the other.
He began by profoundly defining propaganda as "violence committed against the soul," writing: Propaganda is not a substitute for violence, but one of its aspects.
A cultural conflict essay, on the other hand, can discuss the conflict between various communities. As the Trappist monk Thomas Merton presciently observed: To some men peace merely means the liberty to exploit other people without fear of retaliation or interference. According to Mercer , humans get a sense of identity in groups which provide a sense of belonging part of the emotion in identity.