Memory

In conflict we rely on memory to recount events. What happens when 2 people have different recollections of the same event? Is it possible to have all parties needs met when an accurate history can not be achieved?

One would assume that accuracy would be important for resolution, as we need to clarify the event(s) in order to move forward. But is it possible to have different histories and still move forward, to reach resolution without the "truth"?

This clarifies a difference between "getting all parties needs met" and "establishing the truth". When we seek to get all parties needs met we are less reliant on an accurate report of history and are more concerned with the present moment. It seems important to approach each conflict with the intention of ensuring all parties needs are met, rather than getting a handle on the truth.

Iraq War Time Line

Here is a nice time line outlining the press and events surrounding the Iraq War at Mother Jones Magazine.

Human Bonding and Oxytocin

Here is a great editorial in the New York Times by David Brooks.

In it he discusses the importance of human bonding, attachment etc. for education.

"Over the past few decades federal and state governments have spent billions of dollars trying to improve high schools. Much of the effort has gone into trying to improve individual math and reading scores. But the effects have been modest and up to 30 percent of students drop out -- a social catastrophe.

The dropout rates are astronomical because humans are not machines into which you can input data. They require emotion to process information. You take kids who didn't benefit from stable, nurturing parental care and who have not learned how to form human attachments, and you stick them in a school that functions like a factory for information transmission, and the results are going to be horrible."

"If I had $37 billion, I would focus it on the crucial node where attachment skills are formed: the parental relationship during the first few years of life. I'd invest much of it with organizations, like Circle of Security, that help at-risk mothers and fathers develop secure bonds with their own infants, instead of just replicating the behaviors of their own parents. I'd focus on the real resource crisis that afflicts the country. It's not the oil shortage. It's the oxytocin shortage."

NVC Part 2: Critical Thinking

One of the most fundamental values in the tradition of education is the importance of thinking critically about the nature of the world. As science has progressed we have been able to unravel some of the mysteries of the very small to the very large, all with help of our ability to reason, rationalize and make judgements based on what empirically occurs in the world or agreed upon principles. This informs our science as well as our ethics. To be sure, the technologies of critical thinking, logic and reason have given us invaluable knowledge about the world. In addition to understanding the physical properties of our world, we have also used these ways of understanding to navigate our social life. In other words we use our critical thinking skills to evaluate morality, judge right and wrong and distribute punishments and rewards.

What I have found is that these tools, so important to science, education and knowing our world, are not all that great when it comes to interacting with other people, our friends, colleagues and families. I have found that we all act out of a sense of righteousness, be it in a meeting, at home with our families or in a religious conflict and that critical thinking in this regard leaves people feeling deflated and unfulfilled (even when it is established that they are right!). I found that the ability to decipher right and wrong action, behavior and thought breaks down when one considers multiplicity of perspectives etc. NVC is one alternative to this technology. One that doesn't make suggestions for action, thought or behavior based on what is "right" or "wrong", but rather on the level of needs.

Nonviolent communication part 1

It appears that history is replete with examples of human violence and cruelty. So much so that most academic disciplines regard competition and self-interest as fundamental to an understanding of “Human Nature”. Given the ubiquity of violence throughout history, evidence of other primate violence and are reliance on economic systems that are born out of a fundamental belief in competition, is it possible to suggest that humans can interact nonviolently?

I think it is. Morality is an invention, a system used to control people and tell them how to live. At the root of this belief is that humans are fundamentally in competition with each other because they have to share a finite amount of resources. This belief represents a fundamental mistrust of humanity. That if human beings are left to their own devices they will be destructive to themselves and others, and that rules and moral codes prevent people us from greed and selfishness. It becomes clear that my gain is another’s loss and my loss is another’s gain (this is a curios situation when considering what makes a close relationship). The problem, of course, is that we are also socialized to believe that if we try to meet others needs, by not evaluating and dictating their behavior, we cannot meet our own needs. Consider the example:

I am working late and remember that my girlfriend has a strong need to have me home at a reasonable time to help relieve her from a long day at work and with our daughter. Her need is maybe cooperation and understanding. At the same time, I have a strong need to finish my work, so that I can feel relaxed and at ease over the weekend. My need is order and ease. What "should" I do? I believe that we are socialized to believe that if we meet others needs, we sacrifice our own. Someone is right, someone is wrong. A person "should" do what is right. But what is right in this case? If I stop my work and drive right home, I am not able to meet my need for order and ease. If I attempt to meet my own need by staying at work, I am not able to meet my girlfriend’s needs (of which I ultimately want to do).

To me the problem isn't deciding whose need is stronger or more important, so to make a decision, but rather is a problem of our reliance on a win-lose paradigm. One in which one person's gain, be it in material or psychological resources, is another's loss. In a world, or organization, where we are trying to meet needs, there are no win or lose. When we begin to think about issues and problems that arise throughout the day in terms of needs we open ourselves up to new solutions. So I go from a situation where I could only choose to a) meet my needs or b) meet her needs, to one that considers meeting all needs, just by utilizing a different language. What might this look like? I am not sure, it might be a phone call, where I show empathy and understanding for her needs, and make a request for her to help me meet my needs for order and ease. If she trusts that I am truly concerned about meeting her needs, she will not only want to help me meet my needs, but do so joyfully. I believe that it is actually a gift, to be able to meet others needs. I give her the gift of helping me meet my needs. What can be more gratifying, for her and me?