588 Aggression, Violence, Evil, and Peace
In order to deal with the pain and shame of past injuries and
the conflicts between identity needs, C. R. Rogers and Ryback
(1984) and Kelman (1996) used problem-solving workshops
in which people may share underlying pains, fears, and needs.
In the approach used by Rogers and Ryback, a facilitator
models the role of respectfully listening and accepting the
initial hostility expressed by both parties. Without the accept-
ing presence of the mediator, the hostility would be responded
to defensively, but the authors write that after the mediator
accepts the hostility, the underlying pain is expressed, and this
is responded to sympathetically. This approach should be
contrasted with the reframing of hostile statements in couples
therapy, in order to avoid shame-hostility cycles, which is ad-
vocated by Scheff (1999).
Kelman’s workshops are carefully structured in ways that
lead both parties to share their underlying needs. Since polit-
ical leaders are usually hindered by the demands of their
position and constituency, he attempted to work with opinion
leaders and those who may come into political power in the
future. These workshops are quite effective in getting partic-
ipants to understand and empathize with opposing views.
However, the participants are then confronted with the prob-
lem of explaining their new tolerance to their compatriots in
ways that avoid an accusation of being traitors. From my out-
sider perspective it appears that these sorts of workshops
need to occur between the liberal and conservative parties
within the opposing sides of a conflict. It would be fascinat-
ing to see the extent to which transformative negotiation
could be used to arrive at creative solutions to the sort of clas-
sic problems that have divided political parties.
Differences in values are usually expressed in the rhetoric
of political parties and typically are debated by having oppo-
nents state their conflicting views and then rebut the views of
their opponent as both attempt to create a rhetoric that will in-
fluence third parties and capture their support. However,
Rapoport (1960) has advocated another strategy, which he
believes is more apt to produce creative solutions and mini-
mize devaluation of the opponent. He suggested that each
opponent should state the other’s point of view until the other
agrees that it has been correctly presented. Then, rather than
rebutting the other’s view, the opponent should create ways
toagreewith the other’s view, not by role playing the other
side but by honestly finding points of agreement. Rapoport
pointed out that any statement has a region of validity. Thus,
if the other says, “11 plus 2 is 1,” a person may respond by
agreeing to the extent that one is referring to clock time. Pre-
liminary studies (de Rivera, 1968) have shown that the tech-
nique is usable, and it would be interesting to see if it could
be used to create acceptable public policies for divisive issues
such as legalized abortion.
When a negotiation between parties can be arranged, it is
more successful than third-party mediation. Jackson (2000)
studied 295 conflicts that occurred between 1945 and 1995
and found 1,154 negotiation efforts, with 47% success (82%
lasting more than 8 weeks), and 1,666 mediations, with
39.4% success (51.7% lasting). Of course, mediation is prob-
ably more often attempted when the level of hostility is high
and interferes with negotiation, but it seems clear that third
parties should first encourage direct negotiation. When hos-
tility is high, there are innovative approaches to conflict man-
agement that stress the use of third parties as go-betweens.
Galtung and Tschudi (2001) argued that when emotions hin-
der the ability of conflicting parties to dialogue with one an-
other, it is often possible to create better dialogue with neutral
conflict workers who can then work separately with the con-
flicting parties to create a solution that transcends deep dif-
ferences. Patai (1973) pointed out that in Arabic cultures a
mutually respected third party may be used to request solu-
tions that conflicting parties can grant out of generosity and
respect, without appearing to give in to the other party with
whom they are in conflict, and Pedersen (2001) reminded
conflict workers that collectivistic cultures may manage con-
flicts in ways that are substantially different from those
favored in the West.
Negotiation is increasingly being used to settle civil dis-
putes, and in the future it may be used increasingly in crimi-
nal cases. Zehr (1990) convincingly argued that many crimes
rupture human relationships and that it is these relationships
that need to be repaired. Currently, crime is viewed as con-
trary to the state, and the state punishes an offender (who is
made into a “criminal,” who often attempts to avoid respon-
sibility by offering a defense) and largely ignores the victim.
Zehr suggested that, as an alternative, the state ask the victim
if he or she would like to meet the offender and see what the
offender could do to restore the human relationship between
them. Studies of trial programs of such “restorative justice”
have found that about 50% of victims want to meet the per-
son who wronged them, that it is usually possible to negotiate
a way to restore the human relationship, and that in such
cases there is much less recidivism. Justice has been attained
nonviolently, by restoration rather than retribution.Peace Through JusticeThere are times when repressive forces are so strong that a
completely unjust “peace” may exist for years. However, sit-
uations inevitably change, and when opportunities arise, re-
bellion and revolution occur, often killing some who opposed
the injustice that existed. Yet the path of peace through justice
is much more than an attempt to stave off violent revolution.