Thursday, October 16, 2008

Psychology of Peace

It is generally agreed upon that war and peace can not coexist in the same place, but the absence of war does not necessarily guarantee peace. Governmental genocide, for example, is not typically thought of as war, but peace is definitely not present in the midst of mass killings. Consider the genocides of Rwanda and Sudan, and try to find peace in those conflicts. "It has been estimated that over 210 million people were killed during the 20th century by governmental genocidal policies and that 170 million of these casualties were civilian deaths" (Cohen, 2008). It seems that cooperatively working together for peace is the best way to ensure that it will come to pass, but where do we start in our efforts to bring peace?

Peace psychology starts with the idea that "violence...can be the result of social conditions and culture at a particular place at a particular time, or due to instigation and actions by outside groups" (Staub, 334). Ideally, violence and conflict should be eliminated. Four potential ways to reduce conflict and achieve this ideal are "consideration of future consequences, independent leadership, outgroup empathy, and coordination" (Cohen & Insko, 87).

Consideration of future consequences involves the expectations that are held about future interactions and knowing that they may or may not become reality. Once that is accepted, the concept of turn taking allows "for groups to think beyond the immediate situation and instead focus on the long-term consequences of their behavior" (Cohen & Insko, 88), by letting each group see what the other party is doing and what the consequences are. Taking turns in decision making allows participants to recognize the potential costs of mutual non-cooperation and be more likely to participate. Considering future consequences also causes potential aggressors to think about the possible widespread cost of reciprocal competition, economically, militarily, and in several other ways.

Leadership in today's world is always political, and with politics comes self interest. Many politicians work to benefit themselves and small interests groups that they represent. Unfortunately, this leaves the rest of the population at odds with the decisions made. Groups are at least contenders against opposing groups, where individuals that oppose a group would be outnumbered and defeated. Either way, a group fighting against others usually has some chance of victory, which could make groups more willing to act aggressively than individuals when trying to get what they want. In Darfur, for example, the Sudanese government is destroying tribe after tribe, one at a time. If leaders would carefully consider the advice given to them and only act on the policies that they firmly believe would be best for the entire population they represent, peace would be a more attainable goal. Leaders would have stopped trying to please their ingroups so much, and hopefully they would be more cooperative and less aggressive toward the rest of the population they represent and even the world as a whole.

Outgroup empathy refers to "feelings of concern directed at an outgroup" (Cohen & Insko, 91). Empathizing with an outgroup would create an understanding between the two groups, where they could relate to each other. Hopefully this would lead one to cast less blame on the other. The new understanding could decrease violence between the two groups and increase rational approaches to solving problems, through cooperative intergroup relations.

Another way to implement peace is through common goals. When common goals can be established between separate, and even opposing, groups, situations are created "in which outcomes can be maximized through coordination" (Cohen & Insko, 92). If two groups share a superordinate goal, they can combine their resources and efforts and therefore are more likely to reach their goals than if they were working separately. This way, they minimize their cost and maximize their benefits. This is an efficient business strategy that leaders can use while still maintaining peace.

With these four methods of reducing conflicts, cooperation is the common thread. Peace psychology focuses on divided groups coming together to increase the benefits of everyone. It emphasizes collaboration for the common good, and most importantly, it demonstrates where we can start in our efforts to bring peace.

References:

Cohen, T. R.; Insko, C.A. (2008). War and peace: Possible approaches to reducing intergroup conflict. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 3(2), 87-93.

Staub, E. (2007). Preventing violence and terrorism and promoting positive relations between Dutch and Muslim communities in Amsterdam. Peace and Conflict. 13(3), 333-360.

No comments: