[S]ince war begins in the minds of men [humans], it is in the minds of men [humans] that defenses of peace must be constructed.<\/p>\n
This quote prominently embedded in the UNESCO Constitution is certainly not an original thought. \u00a0It is the based upon the ancient Vedic aphorism: \u201cWar begins in the minds of men.\u201d1<\/u><\/sup>\u00a0However, as we see, the UNESCO statement suggests a pragmatic recommendation, and not just a static description of the origins of war. It is both aspects of this statement that capture the themes of this essay: the internal processes of the mind and spirit, how we view \u201cthe other,\u201d and its relation to violence, war, and peace. I offer this discussion to those of us who exist in a highly pluralistic global context, who often wrestle with \u201cdifference,\u201d and yet consider ourselves committed to spirituality, peace, justice, nonviolence, and tolerance. More pointedly, I direct it toward those who like me, despite our best intentions, are often unaware of the many ways in which we devalue and dehumanize others in our thoughts and attitudes, or the potential consequences of such thinking (i.e., how do we construct those defenses of peace?). As we shall see, how we view the \u201cother\u201d is the critical component to either peaceful or destructive relations with others. The direction we assume hinges upon our views of the other. For those of us concerned with putting spiritual resources into practice to promote peace, connection, and justice in the world, we must work to make our thoughts, words, and deeds consistent with these goals. For educators, we must be open to both appropriating and communicating new practices to help advance peace and justice.<\/p>\n In what follows, I present a useful conceptual tool for understanding the insidious process of what I call \u201cothering.\u201d I then present a contemplative tool for assisting us in combating this tendency and, in fact, reversing its direction. I do so using social science concepts in conjunction with contemplative principles and practices. Like many seeking new ways to understand and address proverbial problems, I attempt to draw a unique connection. Thus I present psychologist Ervin Staub\u2019s \u201ccontinuum\u201d model of destructive and benevolent relations, and expand its original application to enable it to function as a useful contemplative discipline for internal inventory and mental monitoring. Using this tool can affect our attitudes as well as our actions.<\/p>\n Virtually every religious, philosophical, and humanistic tradition deals with the phenomenon of human disconnection from, disregard for, and dehumanization of others. While it is impossible to address the devaluation tendency from every perspective, for our purposes psychology and psychobiology offer a relevant contribution. Psychobiologists talk about the evolutionary function of human disconnection and even dehumanization as a matter of survival. In essence, the theory posits that quickly classifying people into subgroups such as \u201cgood\u201d and bad,\u201d \u201cus\u201d and \u201cthem,\u201d or \u201cfriends\u201d and \u201cenemies\u201d was a necessary survival mechanism rooted in human evolutionary physiology. This classifying function once served the emerging species well in protecting and preserving humans from physical threats or harm; at times it still does.<\/p>\n These same evolutionary processes were the precursors to the stereotyping, homogenizing, and devaluing that we practice today and form the foundation of what I call \u201cothering.\u201d Othering refers to the targeting of those outside of our internal sphere in ways that dehumanize and degrade them or violate their dignity. It denotes a destructive process by which humans disconnect emotionally, physically, and socially from other people for real or perceived reasons.<\/p>\n Whether one accepts the presence of these psychobiological \u201cimprints\u201d or not, the fact remains that it is to a certain extent \u201cnatural\u201d to classify others as threats to our survival or well-being. It is ingrained within us to evaluate, judge, and classify the \u201cother.\u201d \u201cModern\u201d humanity, however, engages in this practice for\u00a0social<\/em>\u00a0as well as physical reasons. Thus as individuals and collectives, we\u00a0over-classify<\/em>\u00a0in relation to how the \u201cother\u201d impacts our status, honor, prestige, position, or identity. Thus, othering takes\u00a0natural<\/em>\u00a0human tendencies, whether primordial or evolved, and distorts their original intention (i.e. survival), thereby creating new and destructive categories and applications, and contributes to the overall dehumanization of all involved.\u2013when, for example, we \u201cprotect\u201d ourselves by \u201cjustified\u201d retaliation against or even elimination of the other. Pyschobiologists ascribe this locked-in tendency to the \u201cprimitive brain\u201d that we all posses.<\/p>\n Two important points follow once we recognize the psychobiological basis of this tension between self and others. First, that we as \u201cmodern\u201d humanity engage in this sort of \u201cjustified\u201d retaliation more than we realize. In fact, we are often\u00a0unaware<\/em>\u00a0of the \u201cothering\u201d tendencies that fuel our hostile actions. Negative messages about others are fed to us by family, peers, media, religions, mentors, culture, or any number of other vehicles. We hear, adopt, and appropriate them as our own. Like seeds that are (im)planted, our negative attitudes can be \u201cwatered\u201d to grow into hostility and violence toward the other. The humanity of the other can become overshadowed by our perception of him or her solely as an irritant, threat, enemy, or pollutant that must be dealt with or eliminated altogether. The second point is related to the first: this development often takes place in an\u00a0incremental<\/em>,progressive<\/em>\u00a0fashion. We express our negative perception of the other in ways that run the spectrum from distancing to devaluing, marginalization, oppression, hostility, violence, and even murder and genocide.<\/p>\n These two points form the critical basis from which to move forward. The seemingly unconscious, incremental, yet progressive development of attitudes and behaviors cannot be underestimated in understanding the nature of violence and peace. From here we understand that\u00a0violent actions do not just appear out of nowhere<\/em>. They emerge when certain trajectories and patterns are set in motion.<\/p>\n Therefore, there is great benefit to having a theoretical tool to help us understand the patterns, trajectories, and significance of movement along a spectrum of human relations\u2014and to be able to recognize\u00a0our<\/em>\u00a0movement or location at any given point along that continuum. Psychologist Ervin Staub presents us with both a conceptual and practical tool for understanding these principles based upon empirical research. However, as we shall see, these very same concepts pertain not only to the practice of destruction and violence, but also to benevolence and peace. When coupled with contemplative principles, we discover that empirical social science findings can be appropriated as a form of spiritual practice and discipline.<\/p>\n The idea of a continuum exists in many areas of knowledge and study. It can be found in the physical sciences, human relations, or any other area in which degrees of intensity, escalation, or de-escalation are measured. In monitoring human relations, continua are useful because they allow us to gauge closeness or distance, harmony or destructiveness. We can draw the following general categories that concern violence and peace within human relations from a variety of social science disciplines: 1) separation, 2) stereotyping, 3) superiority, 4) dehumanizing 5) scapegoating 6) demonization. A visual representation of this continuum might look like:<\/p>\n Separation -> stereotyping -> superiority -> dehumanization -> scapegoating -> demonization<\/p>\n If we add undesirable \u201creligious\u201d elements, such as destructive mythologizing or concepts deriving from a sense of chosenness or superiority, for example, these translate into different types of atrocious actions along the continuum. We can even add a new category:\u00a0Satanization<\/em>.2<\/u><\/sup><\/p>\n These continua certainly represent distinct progressions toward destructive relations; however, they share a common starting point involving \u201cseparation\u201d and \u201cstereotyping.\u201d Ervin Staub\u2019s continuum is useful because it emphasizes the significance of these starting points and has a direct empirical basis in a real human\u00a0process<\/em>.<\/p>\n Ervin Staub, a psychologist who writes extensively on the psychodynamics of violence, particularly the origins of genocide and mass killings, presents us with an instructive and useful model that includes both a\u00a0continuum of destruction<\/em>\u00a0and a\u00a0continuum of benevolence<\/em>. The continuum concept is a major anchor of his overall theory of psychological impulses toward violence. He identifies the beginning stages of incremental movement along the continuum of destruction as \u201cthe roots of evil.\u201d3<\/u><\/sup>\u00a0Our purpose here is not to go into the deeper nuances of Staub\u2019s model, but rather to understand it as representative of a recognizable human phenomenon.<\/p>\n With his continuum model, Staub highlights a\u00a0recognizable<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0predictable<\/em>\u00a0pattern that has led to atrocious acts of violence, mass killing, and genocide. The foci of his analyses are the catastrophic displays of inhumanity that occurred in Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Argentina, and Turkey. His analysis takes place primarily at the level of group dynamics, but applies to individuals as well.4<\/u><\/sup>\u00a0What his studies reveal is that these horrific instances of violence all began with the\u00a0devaluation<\/em>\u00a0of certain groups, proceeded to\u00a0marginalization<\/em>\u00a0of those same groups (i.e., to covert discrimination and denial of civil, social, or political rights, etc.), moved on to overt\u00a0discrimination<\/em>, and culminated in open\u00a0resentment<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0aggression<\/em>\u00a0toward groups identified as suitable targets of hostility and violence. In the end, these groups were labeled as \u201cenemies\u201d and identified as causes of prolonged difficulty that consequently had to be eliminated (or exterminated). We can visually represent this progression as follows:<\/p>\n Devaluation -> marginalization -> discrimination -> resentment and aggression -> hostility -> dehumanization -> elimination (extermination)<\/p>\n In this sequence, Staub identifies one crucial element that had a precipitating effect. When groups or nations experienced what he calls, \u201cprolonged difficulty\u201d\u2014whether political upheaval; economic distress; varying degrees of social anarchy; or ongoing perceived threats to a group\u2019s identity, sense of autonomy, or rights\u2014those conditions intensified to a tipping point that set the downward spiral in motion. His theory is complex, as it also accounts for a society\u2019s attempt to fulfill powerful needs that arise during prolonged periods of difficulty and that become fulfilled in destructive ways. The guarantee of destruction occurs when the society devalues, marginalizes, and oppresses certain groups, places cultural premiums on obedience to authority, and begins aggressive measures to \u201croot out\u201d the problem.<\/p>\n Staub\u2019s great contribution for our purposes is the following observation: although the violence and barbarity reached atrocious levels in the cases that he analyzed, the \u201croots of the evil\u201d originated in the early stages. As time went on, attitude and action reinforced one another and precipitated lower and lower depths of depravity, often perpetrated by those who would have never imagined themselves capable of such actions.5<\/u><\/sup><\/p>\n In essence, perpetrators make choices by giving themselves permission to take certain violent\u00a0actions<\/em>\u00a0corresponding to the attitudes, stereotypes, or ideologies they have adopted. They especially tend to do so when they see others engaging in those actions. Having committed one seemingly less harmful act, their own moral reservation is weakened and they now see themselves as someone who is capable of perpetrating similar, more harmful acts. This \u201cchanging self concept\u201d as Staub calls it, opens the door to a cycle of \u201clearning by doing.\u201d In other words, when perpetrators observe themselves or others engaged in violent, dehumanizing, or murderous behaviors, they reassess how they viewed their own abilities to inflict harm or to passively stand by when watching others in pain. As they consider themselves more and more as people who can act in certain ways, it becomes more likely that they will continue the behavior.<\/p>\n In analyzing how these processes take place, Staub highlights the following concepts: 1)\u00a0All<\/em>\u00a0instances that ended with extreme violence began with\u00a0devaluation<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0marginalization<\/em>, and progressed downward; 2) there are trajectories that are almost completely predictable; 3) trajectories set in motion gain momentum with\u00a0less severe<\/em>\u00a0attitudes and behaviors giving way to\u00a0more severe<\/em>\u00a0attitudes and behaviors; 4) people learn by\u00a0seeing<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0doing<\/em>; and 5) seeing and doing changes the way people view themselves and that of which they are capable. People are largely unaware of all five concepts, especially because the processes that they involve may feel \u201cnatural.\u201d The key question then becomes how to interrupt those processes. Ironically, the answer is contained within the processes themselves, if we reverse their direction.<\/p>\n Staub\u2019s continuum of benevolence follows directly from his continuum of destruction. In essence, Staub posits that the same processes of sequential, mutually reinforcing attitudes and behaviors apply to a continuum of benevolence,\u00a0but this time the process moves in the opposite direction<\/em>. He focuses on people\u2019s motivations for practices of prosocial behavior and benevolence, which are connected with \u201ccore shifts\u201d in what people value as essential to their sense of life satisfaction (i.e., caring, connection, community, peace, etc.).6<\/u><\/sup>\u00a0These core shifts come as a result of participating in acts of benevolence. For, \u201cas we come to value more highly the people we help and experience satisfaction inherent in helping, we come to see ourselves as more caring and helpful.\u201d7<\/u>\u00a0<\/sup>Individuals thereby come to see themselves as more\u00a0capable<\/em>\u00a0of such acts, and they gain greater and greater life satisfaction and meaning from them. This process changes one\u2019s attitude about oneself and the other as well. In essence, small acts of kindness and caring lead to bigger and more significant acts of kindness and caring, along with an increased commitment to helping others in need. In this way, people begin to build connections to a community of people who support one another\u2019s steps along the continuum of benevolence.8<\/u><\/sup><\/p>\n Staub\u2019s research also demonstrates that, just as with the continuum of destruction, people, especially children, learn benevolence by\u00a0doing<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0watching others do<\/em>. In practice, he therefore prescribes creating societal opportunities for giving and service, especially for children. He refers to extensive studies that have shown the positive effects on school-aged children in both observing and participating in acts of giving, service, and caring. Their observation and participation affects their sense of self-esteem, positive self-perception, competence, potency, empathetic and role-taking capacities, preoccupation with self and self-concerns, responsibility, and benevolence to self and others. This self-concept\/action cycle becomes self-reinforcing and gradually increases an individual\u2019s capacity to extend this benevolent behavior outward.9<\/u><\/sup>\u00a0The continuum of benevolence can consequently be represented as follows:<\/p>\n Indifference -> opening up -> acceptance, (respect, dignity,) -> empathy -> caring (service) -> connection -> community -> love (increasingly outward) -> peace10<\/u><\/sup><\/p>\n For Staub, society\u2019s task is to create maximum opportunities for caring and connection. Doing so can help to create peaceful communities and schools for children and society in general. In fact, there are already literally tens of thousands of non-profit, church, and volunteer organizations dedicated to providing exactly the kinds of opportunities that Ervin Staub and others who study altruism and empathy advocate. People\u00a0are<\/em>\u00a0learning by doing.<\/p>\n This essay, however, is directed toward those of us who are seeking new tools to both appropriate and teach in the intersection of religion, violence, peace, and religious practices. Engaging in benevolent acts with others across real and perceived difference is worthwhile, but often difficult. There are many layers of resistance, whether these come from negative messages and stereotypes, for example, or from limited prior experiences. In other words, although opportunities for connection might be abundant, our distorted perception of others might prevent us from such engagement. Thus the \u201cnatural\u201d tendency to classify and create subgroups in the name of self-protection presents real barriers.<\/p>\n We can find certain resources to overcome these barriers in the forms of contemplative practice that religious and non-religious (ethical, moral, and \u201cspiritual\u201d) people engage in every day. In the next section, I offer a contemplative tool for taking the elements of the continuum of destruction and applying them to a continuum of benevolence. In other words, I take the components of theproblem and turn them toward the solution<\/em>. To my knowledge, this direct connection has not been made in this way. We can do so by taking straightforward reflective questions and exercises directly from the categories of the two continua. Such a reflective process uses\u00a0focused<\/em>\u00a0questions to help us to identify our own \u201cignorant\u201d and unconscious destructive forms of othering.<\/p>\n A \u201ccontemplative\u201d approach to\u00a0anything<\/em>\u00a0is difficult to define, as the term \u201ccontemplation\u201d encompasses a broad range of meanings. In addition, contemplation can be construed (and practiced) much differently according to various religious, philosophical, and ethical traditions. My own perspective on contemplation is Christian. However, other traditions offer similar contemplative tools that can help to combat our impulses toward othering. In general, contemplation can be said to revolve more around an\u00a0attitude<\/em>, outlook, or\u00a0approach<\/em>, than a \u201cmethod\u201d or \u201csystem.\u201d11<\/u><\/sup>\u00a0In practice, contemplative methods could include spoken or mental prayer, meditation, silence, solitude, sacraments, practicing the presence of God, finding one\u2019s \u201cCenter\u201d or \u201cCore Reality\u201d, and many other practices.12<\/u><\/sup><\/p>\n Taken together, contemplative methods constitute an approach toward the Divine, the spiritual, or the transcendent that yield new ways of \u201cseeing\u201d and \u201cbeing.\u201d Thomas Merton has described contemplation as deep listening and an \u201cattitude\u201d or \u201coutlook\u201d consisting of faith, openness, attention, reverence, expectation, supplication, trust, and joy. Franciscan Father and author Richard Rohr gives us a more nuanced conception, and I think a more applicable understanding of these principles in relation to our concerns about othering, violence, and internalizing destructive cultural messages. Rohr says that contemplation, in relation to what he calls \u201ctrue seeing,\u201d enables us to see through cultural hypnoses, through self-serving \u201ctruth\u201d and cultural lies. Contemplation thus helps us to see what is always at the foundation, which is goodness and love; to see God in all things and to recognize \u201cgroup think\u201d as distinct from \u201cGod think.\u201d Contemplation is a way of \u201ccleaning the lens\u201d\u2014of gaining the ability to stand back from ourselves in order to question and reflect upon anger, predispositions, and prejudices. For Rohr, this \u201cseeing\u201d helps us see not only for ourselves, but also what we do to other people, especially the pain and suffering that we cause them.13<\/u><\/sup><\/p>\n Contemplative principles are also concerned with cultivating detachment from ego, from an unhealthy \u201cI\u201d fixation, and from \u201cfalse selves\u201d that project blame and evil outwards. Contemplatives such as Fr. Thomas Merton and Fr. Thomas Keating have written extensively on how centering prayer can serve as a vehicle to illuminate ego fixation and personality fractures in relation to \u201ctrue\u201d and \u201cfalse selves.\u201d Merton, Keating, Rohr, and Henri Nouwen have written about the need for contemplative self-questioning and reflection in uncovering inner violence and our tendencies to project this outward.14<\/u>\u00a0<\/sup>This process also helps in discerning destructive or violent cultural messages that resonate with our own tendencies.<\/p>\n We can find similar practices and ways of \u201cseeing\u201d and \u201cknowing\u201d in virtually every major world religion with any sort of contemplative strain\u2014especially in those that emphasize the ontological interconnection of all life. Mahatma Gandhi developed an approach to peace and nonviolence, for example, that utilizes powerful Hindu contemplative principles and resources. Such resources, such as Ahimsa and Satyagraha,15<\/u><\/sup>\u00a0are expressed during stages of meditation (synonymous with our conception of \u201ccontemplation\u201d) that take one from awareness of the external, to systematic control of the activity within the mind, and finally to a more expansive, unified way of seeing and knowing. For Gandhi, and others who engage in the spiritual practice of nonviolence, the nonviolent struggle begins with mastering one\u2019s own emotions and thoughts. Waiting until the moment of conflict to learn nonviolence is too late.<\/p>\n There are many Buddhist teachings, from a variety of sects and lineages, that incorporate meditative and mind training practices and that go back hundreds or thousands of years. These teachings include specific contemplative or \u201cmindfulness\u201d disciplines that cultivate compassion, openness, true \u201cseeing,\u201d awakening, ego awareness and detachment, inter-connective awareness, and other reflective tools for cultivating connection, compassion, empathy, and understanding of our own inner tendencies toward cultural deception and violence. The Dalai Lama calls such practices \u201cinternal disarmament\u201d\u2014that is, intervening right where violence starts, \u201cat the root of hostile thoughts.\u201d16<\/u><\/sup><\/p>\n It is also entirely possible for non-religious persons to engage in the types of awareness that we have described simply by virtue of a conscious commitment to living out prosocial or benevolent ethical values and principles. Even without making use of overtly religious practices, people can still undertake \u201cspiritual\u201d practices by, for example, adopting principles that enhance the \u201chuman spirit.\u201d17<\/u><\/sup>\u00a0It is practicing with conscious\u00a0intentionality<\/em>\u00a0that matters.<\/p>\n Therefore the following reflection questions can represent contemplation, meditation, internal disarmament, or whatever label one finds useful. One term that I happen to find useful comes from Alcoholics Anonymous: during the recovery process from addiction\u2014and it\u2019s not a stretch to think of ourselves as \u201caddicted\u201d to separating, devaluing, self-justification, blame, and hostility\u2014the program promotes the daily practice of a personal inventory or \u201cspot check inventory\u201d to assess one\u2019s frame of mind in relation to sobriety or \u201ctriggers\u201d toward negative emotions or relapse (part of Step 10). One then immediately communicates these thoughts, feelings, and frames to a \u201cHigher Power,\u201d sponsor, or another person, thus inviting instant connection with others and a corresponding sense of accountability for destructive thinking, feeling, or behavior patterns.18<\/u><\/sup>\u00a0Thus we may refer to the practice of leading oneself through the following sets of questions as a form of prayer, meditation, contemplation, or \u201cspot check inventory.\u201d<\/p>\n When we find ourselves entertaining negative frames of the other, we can employ these three sets of questions that revolve around three major \u201cmoments\u201d or actions:<\/p>\n 1) Recognize, 2) Reflect, and 3) Reverse, which correspond in turn to three further actions: 1)Awareness, 2) Arrest, and 3) Altruize.19<\/u>\u00a0<\/sup>This three-step process, or spot check inventory, facilitates 1)\u00a0Recognition<\/em>\u00a0(awareness and acknowledgement of feeling, attitude, perception, 2)\u00a0Reflection<\/em>\u00a0(arresting the trajectory through a recognition of the importance of this awareness, probing a \u201ctruthful\u201d response to feeling, attitude, and perception) and, 3)\u00a0Reversal<\/em>\u00a0(contemplative action as willingness to act on this response to change directions\u2014to altruize ourselves and re-humanize the other).<\/p>\n From a general standpoint, we may ask ourselves:<\/p>\n These are the \u201cred flag\u201d questions that serve as a warning that something is wrong inside of us. Notice the range of scrutiny that ranges between what we might consider a mild and extreme spectrum of probing. Such questions form part of a spiritual discipline because they remind us that separation, devaluation, marginalization, and demonization are not just attitudes we carry, but also actions that most likely get directed toward others.<\/p>\n This set of questions involves naming potential negative consequences if our attitudes are left unchecked.<\/p>\n We might call this process the \u201cwhat\u2019s at stake\u201d phase. This portion is critical in leading us to acknowledge our self-justifying tendencies to rationalize or discount negative attitudes (and potentially destructive actions) toward others. It is the liminal moment of truth where we can choose to acknowledge what may be at stake for us and the other, and consciously decide to take action.<\/p>\n This set of questions represents movement, not\u00a0away<\/em>\u00a0from something as in the previous questions, but\u00a0toward<\/em>\u00a0prosocial relations, i.e. toward connection, caring, community, benevolence, empathy, tolerance, forgiveness, and love. Once a person has a specific awareness of his or her state of mind and has engaged in some reflection on the potential consequences of leaving the destructive momentum unaddressed, he or she needs to\u00a0reverse<\/em>\u00a0the movement. These questions move one in the direction of a continuum of benevolence. Here one must call upon his or her religious, spiritual, and ethical resources with focus and intention and apply them directly to the current situation in order to actually\u00a0move<\/em>\u00a0forward.20<\/u><\/sup><\/p>\n There are two critical points to convey vis-\u00e0-vis the third set of questions. First, they of course do not exhaust the menu of reflective possibilities available in moving toward a greater sense of connection toward one\u2019s fellow human beings. The options are virtually limitless. Second, and most importantly, although initiated intellectually, the reflective process cannot and should not constitute an intellectual exercise alone. Awareness and acknowledgement must lead to \u201ccontemplative action.\u201d Once we have identified the necessity of employing our spiritual and ethical resources, we then have to employ them immediately. The reader will notice that the questions repeatedly contain the phrase, \u201cright now.\u201d As stated earlier, one can devise other questions that reflect similar themes, as long as they move one\u00a0immediately<\/em>\u00a0in a prosocial direction.<\/p>\n This same process can be practiced from within any religious, spiritual, or ethical \/ philosophical tradition. More importantly, within the context of our daily lives, it can be practiced in the grocery line, the post-office, the gas station, and virtually anywhere and anytime we encounter others outside of our comfort zone and begin forming negative perceptions of them.<\/p>\n Violence, aggression, and war do not just happen out of nowhere. There are always precursors and patterns in human attitudes and interaction that point in destructive and even catastrophic directions. Lest we become distracted by the overt \u201cevil\u201d and brutality of human behaviors in the form of mass murder and genocides, we must not overlook or underestimate the practices of devaluation and stereotyping that contribute to these types of \u201cevents.\u201d Religious peacebuilding scholar Marc Gopin articulates this concept well when he states that it is the aggregate of daily human interactions and attitudes that truly represent \u201cthe murky space in between war and peace where people and civilizations\u00a0really<\/em>\u00a0make the fateful decisions to humanize or dehumanize the Other, even if within our own minds.\u201d21<\/u><\/sup>\u00a0Thus, in our highly pluralistic world, marked by division, hostility, difference, propaganda and war, there is much at stake. In our own country, in the midst of political, racial, cultural, and religious division, there has been and is currently\u00a0very much<\/em>\u00a0at stake.<\/p>\n It has been said that the \u201cundisciplined human mind is the ultimate doomsday weapon.\u201d22<\/u><\/sup>\u00a0Thus, we must be vigilant, for we risk wielding this weapon carelessly. Yes, war does \u201cindeed begin in the minds of men [humans],\u201d but, ironically, the \u201croots of evil\u201d are also the \u201croots of peace.\u201d And we have ample resources for caring, connection, benevolence, and peace. We can direct our self-reflective efforts to mutually reinforcing ends, in which contemplation turns into action and action into contemplation, as in Thomas Merton\u2019s image of the\u00a0spring<\/em>\u00a0and the\u00a0stream<\/em>: If the waters of the spring cannot flow outward and lose contact with the stream, it becomes a stagnant pool; if the stream loses contact with the spring, which is its source, it dries up. Thus, \u201ccontemplation is the spring of living water, and action is the stream that flows out from it to others; it is the same water … this is the integrity of contemplation.\u201d23<\/u><\/sup>\u00a0The spring and streams are inexhaustible. We therefore have no excuse. May we continue to\u00a0learn by doing<\/em>!<\/p>\n Othering:<\/p>\n For an interdisciplinary analysis of \u201cothering\u201d drawn from four major areas: 1) peace and conflict studies, 2) psychoanalysis, 3) religious studies, and 4) interfaith dialogue literature, see Thomas Vincent Flores, \u201cEncountering the Other through Interfaith Dialogue: A Constructive Look at a Praxis of Religious Identity and the Promotion of Peace\u201d (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 2006). See also Jay Rothman,\u00a0Resolving Identity-based Conflict in Nations, Organizations, and Communities<\/em>\u00a0(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1997).<\/p>\n Peacebuilding:<\/p>\n See Thomas Clough Daffern, \u201cPeacemaking and Peacebuilding,\u201d in\u00a0Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, & Conflict<\/em>, ed. Lester R. Kurtz (Austin: Academic Press, 1999), 2:755; John Paul Lederach,\u00a0Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies<\/em>\u00a0(Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, 1997); John Paul Lederach,\u00a0The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Peacebuilding<\/em>\u00a0(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); John Paul Lederach,\u00a0The Little Book of Conflict Transformation<\/em>(Intercourse: Good Books, 2003),\u00a0Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures<\/em>\u00a0(Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1995); and Johan Galtung,\u00a0Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization<\/em>\u00a0(London: Sage Publications, 1996).<\/p>\n Spiritual nonviolence:<\/p>\n See all writings of Thich Nhat Hanh, especially,\u00a0Creating True Peace: Ending Violence in Yourself, Your Family, Your community, and the World<\/em>\u00a0(New York: Free Press, 2003); Thomas Merton,\u00a0Faith and Violence: Christian Teaching and Christian Practice<\/em>(Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1968); all works by His Holiness the Dalai Lama; Cf. Pema Chodron,\u00a0Practicing Peace in Times of War<\/em>\u00a0(Boston: Shambala Publications, 2006). See also all writing of Mohandas K. Gandhi, especially, Mohandas K. Gandhi, trans by Mahhadev Desai,\u00a0Gandhi An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth<\/em>\u00a0(Boston: Beacon Press, 1993),\u00a0The Essential Gandhi: An Anthology of his Life, Work, and Ideas<\/em>, ed., Louis Fischer (New York: Vintage Books, 1962); andOn Nonviolence<\/em>, ed., Thomas Merton (New York: New Directions, 1965).<\/p>\n Religious Violence and Peacebuilding:<\/p>\n See R. Scott Appleby,\u00a0The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation<\/em>\u00a0(Maryland: Rowman & Littlefied Publishers Inc., 2000); Mark Jeurgensmeyer,\u00a0Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence<\/em>\u00a0(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003); Mark Jeurgensmeyer ed.,\u00a0Violence and the Sacred in the Modern World<\/em>\u00a0(London: Frank Cass & Co Ltd., 1992); and Charles Kimball,\u00a0When Religion Becomes Evil: Five Warning Signs<\/em>\u00a0(San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2003). By Marc Gopin, see also\u00a0Holy War, Holy Peace: How Religion Can Bring Peace to the Middle East<\/em>\u00a0(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).<\/p>\n Examples of other continua of human relations:<\/p>\n See John Paul Lederach,\u00a0Journey Toward Reconciliation<\/em>\u00a0(Scottdale: Herald Press, 1999), 47-49. See also Stephen Ryan, \u201cDestructive Processes in Violent Ethnic Conflict,\u201d in\u00a0The Politics of Difference: Ethnic Premises in a World of Power<\/em>, eds. Edwin N. Williamsen and Patrick McAllister (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 150-52. In relation to a continuum of tolerance within religious interrelations, see Leonard Swidler and Paul Mojzes eds.,\u00a0Attitudes of Religions and Ideologies Toward the Outsider: The Other<\/em>\u00a0(Lewiston: The Edward Mellen Press, 1990).<\/p>\n Contemplation:<\/p>\n There are of course volumes in this regard. The writings of the Desert Fathers constitute the classics, as well as classics by St. Teresa of Avila or St. John of the Cross. Some key contemporary texts might include: Fr. Thomas Merton,\u00a0Contemplative Prayer<\/em>(New York: Image Books, 1969),\u00a0New Seeds of Contemplation<\/em>\u00a0(New York: New Directions Publishing House, 1972),\u00a0The Inner Experience: Notes on Contemplation<\/em>, ed. William H. Shannon (New York: HarperCollins, 2003), and\u00a0Spiritual Direction and Meditation<\/em>\u00a0(Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1960); Fr. Thomas Keating,\u00a0Open Mind, Open Heart: The Contemplative Dimension of the Gospel<\/em>, Twentieth Anniversary Edition (New York: Continuum, 1986, 1992, 2006);\u00a0Invitation to Love: The Way of Christian Contemplation<\/em>\u00a0(New York: Continuum, 1997); Fr. Richard Rohr,\u00a0Everything Belongs: The Gift of Contemplative Prayer<\/em>\u00a0(New York: Crossroads, 1999).<\/p>\n Psychology and psychobiology of evolutionary human disconnection and hostility:<\/p>\n On the \u201cnaturally ingrained\u201d self-other tension, the renowned developmental psychologist Erik Erikson coined the term \u201cpseudo-speciation\u201d (following the work of ethologist Konrad Lorenz) to refer to the natural tendency of all species, including humans, toward aggressive \u201caffiliative bonding\u201d mechanisms like the tendency to be drawn to and view one\u2019s species or group as superior to all others. See Erik Erikson,\u00a0Gandhi\u2019s Truth: On the Origins of Militant Nonviolence<\/em>\u00a0(New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 1969), 431-434. Another prime example can be found in the work of psychiatrist Vamik Volkan, who speaks of the psychological \u201cneed to have enemies and allies\u201d as well as the \u201cnatural\u201d tendency toward adopting \u201csuitable targets of externalization.\u201d See Vamik Volkan, M.D.,\u00a0The Need to have enemies and Allies: From Clinical Practice to International Relationship<\/em>\u00a0(Northvale: Jason Aronson Inc., 1988). See also Aaron T. Beck,\u00a0Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger, Hostility, and Violence<\/em>\u00a0(New York: Perennial, 1999). Beck\u2019s appraisal regarding the development, processes, and functioning of the bio-psychological \u201cprimitive thinking apparatus\u201d is corroborated by those who approach violence from a psycho-anthropological and psycho-evolutionary approach. See, for instance, Michael P. Ghiglieri,\u00a0The Dark Side of Man: Tracing the Origins of Male Violence<\/em>, (Cambridge: Perseus Books, 2000); Willard Gaylin,\u00a0Hatred: The Psychological Descent into Violence<\/em>\u00a0(New York: BBS Public Affairs, 2003); Cf. also Richard W. Bloom and Nancy Dess, eds.,\u00a0Evolutionary Psychology and Violence: A Primer for Policymakers and Public Policy Advocates<\/em>\u00a0(Westport: Praeger, 2003). See also David Berreby,\u00a0Us and Them: Understanding Your Tribal Mind<\/em>\u00a0(New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2005).<\/p>\n Altruism, Empathy, and Prosocial behavior:<\/p>\n Staub has numerous works including earlier works such as\u00a0Positive Social Behavior and Morality: Social and Personal Influences Vol. 1<\/em>\u00a0(New York: Academic Press, 1978); and\u00a0Positive Social Behavior and Morality: Socialization and Development Vol. 2<\/em>\u00a0(New York: Academic Press, 1979). He has more recent works as well. See also, Lawrence Kohlberg,\u00a0The Philosophy of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages<\/em>\u00a0(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984). For more contemporary studies, one could simply google the search terms: \u201cempathy training and service work,\u201d \u201caltruism and service learning,\u201d or \u201cpositive social behavior and service.\u201d There are literally thousands of scholarly articles and studies, in addition to numerous reports from non-profit educational organizations supporting these connections. Finally, see Samuel P. Oliner and Pearl M. Oliner,\u00a0The Altruistic Personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe<\/em>\u00a0(New York: The Free Press, 1988). One can access more of their contemporary work at the Altruistic Personality and Prosocial Behavior Institute at Humbolt State University. See:http:\/\/www.humboldt.edu\/altruism\/index.html<\/u>.<\/p>\n Photograph by dbking.<\/em><\/p>\nThe Continuum<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Staub\u2019s Continuum of Destruction<\/strong><\/h3>\n
The Continuum of Benevolence<\/strong><\/h3>\n
A Contemplative Approach<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Contemplative Action Questions<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Conclusion<\/strong><\/h3>\n
(Additional) Sources for further reading<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\nNotes<\/h4>\n
\n
\nIbid.,19-104.<\/li>\n