Conclusion
Although war and violence can be demoralizing, conflict is an unavoidable, and even necessary, part of all societies. Difference is a basic characteristic of all life forms, and it is how we deal with these differences that determines the peacefulness of society.
Clearly, groups are capable of inflicting unimaginable harm on fellow human beings, but there is also plenty of evidence for our capacity to live in peace. This chapter has examined the role that intergroup dialogue can play in creating this capacity. Even though it was noted previously that cultures of peace cannot be built on dialogue alone, it bears repeating that realizing the characteristics of a culture of peace—respect for life, liberty, justice, solidarity, tolerance, human rights, and equality between men and women (UNESCO, 1989)—requires profound changes at the system level, including political, economic, educational, legal, and societal systems. While dialogue cannot, by itself, produce these changes, it can serve as the means through which some of the necessary changes can occur. It lies at the heart of Boulding’s (2000) culture-creating activity, helping to overcome the separateness that keeps a society locked into cycles of psychological, physical, and structural violence. Dialogue is both the mechanism through which participants in dialogue groups create a peace culture within their own group, and it is the primary instrument for transforming their society into a peace system that values dialogue as a means to settle disputes.The historian Jonathan Spence (1985) tells the story of the Jesuit Priest Matteo Ricci, who set out from Italy in 1577 to bring Christianity to the Ming dynasty in China. As part of his mission to spread Christianity in the largely Confucian country, the priest teaches young Confucian scholars tricks to increase their memory skills.
In one of his lessons, Ricci dissects the Chinese ideograph for war, pronounced “wu,” creating two sections on a diagonal axis, yielding two separate ideographs (Spence, 1985). The upper represents the word for spear, the lower a word with the sense of “to stop” or “to prevent.” Dividing the ideograph in this way “allowed one to see, buried inside the word for war, the possibilities, however frail, of peace” (Spence, 1985, p. 24).10 Though it may be taking the interpretation of “wu” beyond its intended meaning, it is possible that one of the outcomes of war is a call for dialogue. The divisiveness, distrust, and hatred that result from war may actually create a yearning for their opposites. From this perspective, perhaps war offers the possibility, “however frail,” of creating a culture that will prevent its recurrence. The hope is that dialogue will be able to contribute to that process in meaningful and significant ways, helping to weave into the fabric of society a recognition of the desirability and the power of peace as the alternative to violence. If this can happen, then a culture of peace will become more than an ideal, making our world a place where respect, empathy, hope, and justice will prevail.
More on the topic Conclusion:
-
Conflictology -
Ecology -
Economy -
Finance -
History -
Law -
Medicine -
Philosophy -
Religious studies -