Conflict Resolution and the New Warriors

Auroville Today: Is there a common element in all conflicts, or is each situation different?

Danaan: Both are true. In conflict theory we say that the presenting problem is never the real problem. In other words, what people think they are fighting about is rarely the source problem. And the source problem is very deep and very scary. Part of my job is to let people feel safe enough to get beyond the presenting problems to these source problems, which are usually issues of self esteem, intimacy, shame. When people are unready to deal with these inner conflicts, they are projected out onto somebody else. We make that person an enemy so we can feel O.K. about ourselves. 

The difference between problem solving and conflict resolution is that problem solving just solves the problem – it puts a band aid over the deeper issues – while conflict resolution not only solves the problem but also heals the relation between the people involved.

Let’s begin with conflict between individuals. How do you go about resolving it? 

I try to create a safe space where both parties can see the problem as a shared dilemma. We do this by establishing ground rules like ‘active listening’ – allowing everybody time to speak and listen. And one of the main elements of conflict resolution we emphasize is that conflict is O.K. Most cultures are taught to avoid it, and that makes resolution impossible. But conflict is. It's not good or bad. The question is, how do you handle it? 

Folks have to solve their own problems. The facilitator creates an atmosphere of questioning and exploration. He doesn’t give advice. So the presenting problem – the apparent problem – is acknowledged. But then I might ask a leading question, generally to do with feelings, e.g. “How do you feel when you share that anger? Where do you feel it?” Maybe an image, a memory of years ago may come up. Then I may ask, “What has that to do with what’s happening in your lives now?” And then, “How can you come up with positive alternatives to solve your problems?” 

Then begins a brain-storming stage where the parties are encouraged to work together on alternative solutions. Thus it becomes a shared attack on the problem, not on each other. 

What next? 

They may come up with 5 or 6 relevant solutions. Then, if appropriate, I may draw a conclusion – “I see a common element here”. I do it so it impinges upon their awareness of the source problem. So they start getting a sense of the real problem they are dealing with. Then, I might ask them to define what they think the real problem is, reminding them that we don’t want to put a ‘band-aid’ on an infection. We want to let the sunlight in. Taking a ‘band-aid’ off may hurt but it’s worth it. Then two wounded people can begin healing one another and a wounded healer is a very powerful person. This whole process may take 10 minutes, or days, or weeks. 

Let’s move to the level of groups in conflict. Is the approach to conflict-resolution different?

From a systems analysis point of view, there’s no difference. But now a whole group is projecting its shadow on to another group. It’s usually much more difficult to deal with than individual conflict because members of a group have got an in-group to support them in staying stuck. Their self-esteem depends on them going along with the group ‘stuckness’. 

How do you begin to break that down?

It’s a tough one ... It may help to describe a situation. Some years ago the Pakistan government asked us to help soften the violence between Christians and Muslims in a remote mountain district. Conflict theory says that when two groups are deadlocked in conflict, it is not possible to resolve it in a rational way by inviting everybody to talk. Often this makes it worse. What is needed is to create a third point, a common denominator everybody is connected to, so that the energies of the two groups can be directed there, rather than against each other. And if everybody is sufficiently interested in that third point, the groups will begin to blend.

In Pakistan, the third point was the wish of both communities to have better education for their children. So we arranged it that we would teach high-school teachers counselling skills to help communicate with the students better. We didn’t tell them, but we organized it that half the class were Muslims and half the class Christians. Half the class was the enemy! – but they cared enough about the counselling to continue. And how do you teach counselling skills? Experientially. So gradually, through role-playing, psychodrama and mural work, in controlled conditions, they began to confront one another and to begin to see that the other side were really human beings. And it’s been proven many times – the way to create enemies is to make the other person inhuman. Power structures in conflict groups do not primarily oppose the enemy group – but they work to keep their own group separate. Then the polarities grow and grow and the groups themselves be come incapable of stopping the process. Then an external energy is needed to reverse the process. But if you have to deal with the enemy on a one-to-one basis it is very difficult to maintain that image, because you see yourself in the other person. And this is what happened in Pakistan. They got to a point where everybody was feeling the pain caused by the conflict so intensely that they reached out to one another to help each other heal the pain. Muslims and Christians wound up crying in each others arms. What I learned there was that human beings can come together and heal one another in their pain much more easily than they can in their joy. 

The two communities formed an association. They built an integrated recreation centre where the kids could swim together. It was unprecedented in that part of the world.

At what level do you deal with conflict between societies? At the top, at the bottom?

We work on all levels. But the real process of change has to come from the bottom up, in two different ways. One way is from the youth to the adults, the other is from the grassroots to the top of the pyramid. We really do get what we want in the world – the Reagans and Gorbachevs are reflections of our consciousness. If there’s enough fear in the world, we’ll get more and more nuclear weapons. If there is enough trust, we’ll get more and more exchange programmes.

Working with the younger generation – as we have in Auroville these past two weeks – is effective in two ways. One is, they’re going to be the leaders of the next wave, new leaders who will know each other as real people instead of as images of an enemy. But we don’t just have to wait for this. These kids go home and they change their parents. I’ve seen it happen in the Soviet Union, in Nicaragua, in Lebanon. They’re ready to change the world. They won’t be quiet and fall back into a mould that no longer contains them.

Is a major global shift happening as a result of this process? 

I see it happening everywhere, although you don’t read about it in the newspapers. It’s the change in consciousness. It’s to do with unity, with global consciousness. My dream is of young people no longer fitting inside national boundaries, honouring old ideas of patriotism. And they’re beginning to see that we’re one family on earth – which doesn’t mean that all the family will necessarily get along with each other. But you won’t kill them, and you’ll help them when necessary. And because these young people are the transition beings from the old way of being to a new way of being, they have to run into the old ways and bear the consequences. For me, this is the new definition of the warrior – taking that old warrior energy that protected some small part of the planet and using it to help make the planet whole again. 

What does Auroville mean to you? 

I came to Auroville for reasons that were not entirely clear to me then. But now I see Auroville as the model for what we’re trying to create by doing the “Peace Trees” project. For Auroville is the most powerful demonstration of what I fantasize has to happen everywhere in the world – people from different cultures learning to work together. And it’s the only place I’ve ever been where you seem to be dealing with all sides of it. I’ve visited a lot of communities that are reaching for the light and totally denying their darkness. Here this is not so. The land, the people, the foundation laid by Sri Aurobindo and Mother keep it in your face all the time. You could have settled in a much easier place, but that wouldn’t have created the dynamic that makes you have to deal with the world. For me, Auroville is not only a microcosm of the planetary dilemma. To have had the privilege of exposing the children of the U.S., of the Soviet Union and other parts of India to this process feels exquisitely perfect. Thank you.