Everything we do is to either gain something we think is helpful or to avoid something we think is harmful. A person either runs towards something or away from something. So if we want to sell something we have to convince a customer of the benefits to gain from buying or the bad things that will happen if they don’t buy. This ‘carrot or stick’ motivation is also used in attempting to change people’s beliefs or values.

We acquired most of our beliefs and values from other people during our childhood. This was a mixture of what they were taught in their childhood and whatever changes they made to suit their needs. All of this was what other people found helpful or harmful for them but times have changed and we have to look to the future in a very different world.

Like every other person before us, we face the conflict between our need to belong and our need to be an individual, but there are compelling reasons why we should change how we judge our self worth and self confidence as we face the problems of this century. By changing with the times, we stand to gain a resolution of our inner conflict and have happier relationships with other people. We could also avoid the inevitable disastrous consequences of an economic system based on continuous growth. We could do our bit to have a base of sustainable development adopted. Sustainable development: not sustainable growth.

We could judge everything by its effect on sustainability and by that I mean maintaining a balance of three equally important things:  a sustainable population level; a sustainable use of resources; and an economic system based on a smarter use of resources. Development is an important human need but it should result from a smarter use of resources while maintaining a steady economy and population level. Global cooperation is essential for establishing effective sustainable development and that means we need to treat the people of all nations as equals.

Instead of going along with our society’s adversarial competitiveness, this new base for judging our self esteem, self confidence and importance would be our level of skills, knowledge and performance in regard to sustainable development. And our cooperation with others to achieve this would bring a sense of belonging and dynamic peace to our relationship with people and with the environment.

Bob Myers.

Most parent/child relationship problems stem from some form of resistance to authority. Power struggles can develop and become commonplace in many families. The following are my thoughts expressed in cold, point form.

• For the family setting to be based on equality, it is important to understand what authority is. The word ‘authority’ has several meanings, and is often confused with the word ‘power’ because we use both in reference to attempts to control someone or something. Power and authority are also associated with having the right to impose conditions or make rules; and the right to dish out punishments for disobedience or non-cooperation. (Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness, Ch 2)
• Anyone in a position with responsibilities needs enough authority to carry out those responsibilities. Parents have many responsibilities and few privileges.
• There are two kinds of authority. I call one ‘dominant authority’ and the other ‘legitimate authority.’ Dominant authority maintains order through the use of punishment. Legitimate authority maintains order through the power of persuasion and negotiation; this is the authority of peace-keeping associated with cooperation and collaboration.
• Dominant authority is imposed and ultimately relies on fear to gain obedience. Legitimate authority is freely given out of trust and respect for the person and/or respect for the need for rules.
• Dominant authority is attempting to have power over others. Legitimate authority is having power with others.
• Every member of a family has responsibilities and often needs the cooperation of others to meet those responsibilities.
• Although people have different levels of responsibilities, meeting their responsibilities may be equally important to each person’s sense of well-being, as well as to the overall harmony of the family.
• Every member of the family is entitled to equal respect and consideration, regardless of their level of responsibilities.

Bob Myers.

  There are few subjects more controversial than how we should respond to wrongdoing, and the family is the ideal setting to use as the base for a discussion on the complexities of discipline. Some of the thoughts and ideas expressed in chapter six of Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness may appear strange and ‘way out’ to some people and yet they have been around for thousands of years. They only seem strange because our main cultural response to wrongdoing is what Walter Wink referred to as ‘redemptive violence.’ But the nonviolence compass can lead us to many more effective methods to use.

In regard to parenting, the word ‘discipline’ means: To teach, assist and guide a child’s development towards self-control.

  Everyone has an opinion on how children should be disciplined, and can generally be divided into two main camps; those who believe parents should have the right to smack their children and those who are opposed to the use of physical punishment. I want to make my position on this very clear. I believe that parents who neglect to firmly discipline a child put the emotional and moral development of the child at risk, and make it more difficult for that child to form healthy relationships as an adult. Firm discipline is a necessary part of responsible parenting and the failure to meet that responsibility should be classed as a form of child abuse. However, I also want to make it very clear that although punishment remains an option, the negative effects of using it has led me to not only be against physical punishment, but against the use of punishment as a means of discipline.

  To many people that may seem an extraordinary contradiction. How can strict discipline be maintained without punishment? Does that mean children should be allowed to do anything and not be corrected at all? Obviously my strong belief in the need for strict discipline rules out such permissiveness and is backed up by the research indicating that each child should go through a stage in life when rules are obeyed simply because they are the rules, and authority figures be respected simply because they are in positions of authority. That doesn’t happen by letting kids do whatever they want to do.

  Some of the many tools available to help parents discipline children are:

• Grounded love.
• Manners.
• Example.
• Centring.
• Fairness and safety rule-making guidelines.
• Guidelines of creative conflict.
• Consensus.
• Truth-seeking debates rather than adversarial debates.
• Knowing the difference between punishment and consequences.
• The restorative action process.
• Voluntary punishment.
• Restorative consequences.
• Social contracts (cooperation\noncooperation.
• The Reality questions.

  The most effective way for people, including children, to become responsible, interdependent individuals is by the example of others and being held accountable for their actions. Anyone can use these tools to establish peace and harmony in the home and workplace. An additional tool for large groups of people is called Open Space Technology.

Composite of ideas from Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness by Bob Myers. 
 

The popular perception is that street violence is on the rise and media reports reflect the public’s rejection of random acts of violence.  To me, the wording of some reports  add to the confusion young people must experience at a stage of life so crucial to them in their search for identity and their efforts to make sense of society.  The fact is that some violence is not only acceptable but is encouraged by society. Violence is a major factor in our entertainment and many of our heroes gained their hero status through violence. Sometimes it seems that the good guys only win because they are more violent than the bad guys, so the message is that violence is Ok as long as we approve the target.

What could cause kids to use violence so easily? To many adolescents, their peer group is the ‘we’ approving of the target, and that makes certain violent acts not just acceptable but necessary if it forms part of their identity. Members of the group may say things like, ‘This is what we do.’  Any statement about ‘who we are’ makes it an identity thing. But that isn’t unusual because violence plays a major part in our identity too. It is often said that Australia forged its identity through the violence at Gallipoli but the difference there is the bravery involved.  

I believe the main cause of random violence is that living in an adversarial society means that a big part of our identity, or sense of who we are comes from comparing our attributes and achievements  against those of other people, in two ways.  One  is by competing with others to gain knowledge, power, expertise or wealth, so we feel somehow superior to, or more important than, others. But that often requires  incredibly hard work and dedication. Some people find it much easier to gain that sense of superiority or status through domination, which usually involves the use of some form of force or violence to ‘put others down.’

People judging themselves by using either competition or domination find that they are better than some and not as good as others. So, even those who are the best at one thing may sometimes be tempted to use the ‘put down’ method.  All in all, the adversarial base for an identity divides people and is a breeding ground for violence.

Fortunately, there is an alternative to the adversarial base. We also gain part of our identity by how we use our individual differences to help each other achieve and progress, rather similar to what happens in nature. Instead of comparing ourselves against each other, we share our knowledge, skills and wealth. People with this outlook gain their sense of importance to each other rather than against each other. This cooperative base  tends to unite people and, therefore, reduces the level of violence.

We may never be free of our adversarial ways but, if we are really serious about reducing violence, we need to put more effort into changing the messages we pass on to our children in our entertainment and the heroes we create for them. As individuals, we could start by deciding to adopt the attitude that, ‘there is no one in the world more important than me and no one in the world less important than me.’ We are then free from the competition-domination, status-seeking  game and  a whole new way of relating to other people opens before us.

Bob Myers.

Most people rate honesty very highly, especially in regard to money and telling the truth, so it seems logical that our social systems would reflect that attitude. Do they?

A person who is convicted in a court of law for stealing money or telling lies is branded as a thief and a liar for life and may find it difficult to find employment. However, a person who appeals and has the evidence against him dismissed on a technicality has a clean slate, even though the inadmissible evidence proved his guilt beyond doubt.

The point is that, in the legal system, the law and its interpretation is more important than the truth. Our legal system is an adversarial system which means the lawyers involved are competing against each other to convince a judge or jury to accept their version of what is legally right, not what is the truth. In any adversarial situation, winning becomes more important than the truth.

Our parliamentary system is based on what is called the Westminster adversarial system and anyone who has watched politicians in action quickly become aware that winning an argument is far more important than giving a straight answer. There is probably no better example of the adversarial debating process than parliament. Every politician is by definition trying to increase their power and influence in the parliament and most work to become cabinet ministers or maybe even prime minister.

In the general community, most committees adopt a version of the Westminster adversarial system for making decisions, and even sporting tribunals adopt a legalistic system. Religious institutions are often described as both adversarial and legalistic in dealing with complaints and disputes. So it is little wonder that in everyday life we also adopt an adversarial attitude to settling differences with other people, even loved ones.  

The effect of this influence on the way we relate to others can damage relationships because the main aim of the adversarial approach is to win and we feel somehow inferior if we lose. That means the whole thing is more self-serving than advancing our knowledge of the truth or finding a solution that everyone can live with.

• The example from parliament and the legal system is that the winning argument somehow becomes the truth, rather like deciding who is right by having a fist fight, or who can drink the most alcohol. That means there is no real requirement for the content of a person’s argument to be actual truth.
• In order to win, it is an acceptable tactic to discredit the opposition’s intelligence to weaken their argument, even though you may secretly agree with it. Winning may therefore promote something neither side actually believes is right.
• This method of debating is being taught to our children in the schools as a legitimate way of advancing our knowledge and skills

All the above throws some light on why children can be confused when we suddenly get upset over them being a little untruthful  and refusing to admit to doing something.

I suggest that we would have more credibility with our children if our social systems, including churches and schools, were to adopt and teach the Gandhian truth-seeking method of debating. Gandhi taught about the importance of hanging onto what we believe to be the truth because our beliefs and values help us make sense of the world as we make decisions about what to do.

Truth-seeking debates.
Some of our beliefs are deeply held, especially religious beliefs, and we feel very threatened and defensive when they are attacked. However, other people hold strong opposing views which they claim as being the truth. Obviously, opposing views cannot both be the absolute truth.

Gandhi maintained that everyone knows part of the truth and part of the untruth. He taught that it is only through listening to understand the other’s views that we can take little bits that make sense to us and add these to our truth, so our truth grows. And if we listen to enough people and gain a little from each of them, our truth gets bigger and bigger. This was a deep belief for him because he believed Truth was God, so his search for truth was a search for God.

Our beliefs and values are important to hang onto but, if we believe our truth is the truth and are not prepared to modify it under any circumstances, those beliefs and values become more like prison walls restricting our knowledge.

A genuine search for the truth sets us free from the prison of false beliefs but it’s also important to hold fast to what we believe to be true as we assess what others are saying.

The rules of the truth-seeking debate method are:

• Be open and honest in expressing your views.
• Listen  to, and respect, the views of others.
• Be prepared to vary your views if you are convinced by what you hear.
• Then be open and honest in sharing your new level of awareness.
  

I wonder what kind of social structures and systems we would have now had our ancestors adopted a cooperative, truth-seeking debating method rather than the adversarial method. 

Bob Myers. 

 AUTHORITY AND EQUALITY.
    

• In a workplace based on equality, it is important to understand what authority is. The word ‘authority’ has several meanings, and is often confused with the word ‘power’ because we use both in reference to attempts to control someone or something. Power and authority are also associated with having the right to impose conditions or make rules; and the right to dish out punishments for disobedience or non-cooperation. (Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness, Ch 2)
• Anyone in a position with responsibilities needs the authority necessary to carry out those responsibilities.
• There are two kinds of authority. One I call ‘dominant authority’ and the other ‘legitimate authority.’ Dominant authority maintains order through the use of the power to harm and the willingness to impose sanctions. Legitimate authority maintains order through the power of persuasion and negotiation; it is the authority of peace-keeping associated with cooperation and collaboration.
• Dominant authority is imposed and ultimately relies on fear to gain compliance. Legitimate authority is freely given out of trust and respect for the authority figure and/or for the rule of law.
• Dominant authority is attempting to have power over others. Legitimate authority is having power with others.
• Every member of a workplace has responsibilities and needs the cooperation of others to meet those responsibilities.
• Although people have different levels of responsibilities, meeting their responsibilities may be equally important to each person’s sense of job satisfaction, as well as to the overall success of the workplace.
• Every person in the workplace is entitled to equal respect and consideration, regardless of the position held.

Bob Myers.