It’s true that we are born with the need to be an individual and the conflicting need to belong, not only to belong to other people but to nature and the cosmos (or God). We are also born with incredible potential to satisfy these conflicting needs and enjoy peace and happiness. Each of us arrives in this world with the potential of the full range of human characteristics, traits, virtues or whatever else you want to call them. We have the potential to be whatever it is possible for a human person to be and to maybe surpass the achievements, positive or negative, of any person who has lived before us.  

Which of our characteristics or traits are encouraged or restricted is determined by the culture we are born into, and by the beliefs and values of the people around us, especially our carers and teachers, who experienced the same process.  And although they loved and cared for us, and wanted us to feel we belong in a spiritual way, the social structures of our culture strongly encourage the opposite. Our economic system is competitive and so is the majority of our recreational activity. Our parliamentary and legal systems are adversarial and emphasise the fear of punishment for maintaining social order; these systems only succeed in perpetuating the desire to dominate rather than belong.

To a large extent, our culture encourages the characteristics or traits that cause us to judge our self esteem and self confidence by comparing ourselves against the wealth, possessions, power, knowledge and skills of other people. Winning, status and image is portrayed as giving us importance and happiness. This is false because the balance between the need to belong and the need to be an individual is upset when one person’s gain in self esteem is another person’s loss. All the violence in the world stems from our failure to set up social systems with values and beliefs that maintain a balance between the need to belong and the need for individuality.

There is no happiness without peace; no peace without justice; and no justice without equality. Difference doesn’t disappear with equality. It’s possible to have importance and equality. It’s possible to have authority and equality. By changing what we base our sense of importance on, we can also change our sense of belonging and bring the two into balance.
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.

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.

 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.

Many studies have shown that a strong link exists between inequality and all kinds of social diseases. My latest book, Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness, contains information from some of those studies, including the following:

Based on thirty years of research by leading organisations, various universities and independent social scientists, (The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always do Better) argues that inequality is the root cause of many of society’s ills.

 The authors claim that if an affluent society suffers from one social disease – for example high levels of stress – we can be reasonably sure it will also have high rates of obesity, drug use, mental illness, imprisonment, violent crime, distrust, depression, and illiteracy. And the more unequal the society is, the higher will be the rate of those diseases. Although most of the evidence is centred on income inequality, they make a strong link between perceived social inequality (judging ourselves in relation to other people) and all the stress-related social diseases.

They emphasise that inequality doesn’t just affect the poor of society; the affluent are also adversely affected. To put that in a more positive way, reducing inequality also benefits the affluent members of the society.

Most people think of equality in terms of income but reality makes it very unlikely that there will ever be a society in which everyone has the same income. At the beginning of board games like Monopoly every player has an equal amount of money but it isn’t long before that equality is upset. Some social analysts use equal opportunity to rate a society’s level of equality, which is certainly more practical than rating it by income.

 The studies mentioned above indicate that money is very important for health and happiness only up to a point, but past that point it makes little difference to health or happiness. What then becomes important is the perceived social equality, which is so delicate and at the mercy of a society obsessed with domination and competition in almost every area of daily life. The obsession with domination is seen in our parliamentary system and legal system, both of which set and reflect the adversarial nature of our culture in regard to conflict resolution and differences of opinions.

The obsession with competition is seen in sport, which has become unhealthy because of the high emphasis placed on winning. Instead, the emphasis should be on participation, or on the comradeship of team sport, or on the social side of individual sport. The harm caused by the attitude of ‘winning is everything’ comes out when elite athletes reveal their battles with depression or their thoughts of suicide to escape the pressure to be constantly winning.

Violence begets violence and what these studies are revealing is that socioeconomic inequality is a form of violence built into our normal social systems producing the violence that we call ‘social diseases.’ None of us are to blame for the system we were born into but each of us can do something to change the system. Our politicians are well aware of the studies linking inequality to all the social ills and that the social ills are increasing because the gap is increasing. They are also the ones who can have the most influence on changing the system, simply by adopting policies and making laws that reduce the gap between the advantaged and the disadvantaged.  However, we are the ones who could put pressure on our politicians to base their bid for power on their ability to come up with policies centred on reducing the present socioeconomic gap. And the good news is that it appears we would all benefit from reversing the trend of the past twenty years (according to the Salvation Army reports).

An added bonus is that it would provide the means by which we can hold our politicians accountable. If the gap between the haves and have nots is decreasing under whatever party is in power, we would know their policies are working. If the gap is increasing, we would know their policies are not working and we probably should give the opposition a chance.

Bob Myers.