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.

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.

Whether the setting is the home, workplace or community, the single most important thing affecting our happiness and peace of mind is how we resolve the life-long conflict between two deep human needs: the need to belong and the need to be an individual. This conflict affects the aims and achievements of every person in our groups and every relationship we have. It is an inner conflict as well as a social conflict and each affects the other.    

We first experience this conflict between satisfying our own needs and considering the needs of others around the age of two as we begin to discover our place in the family group. The level of self esteem we develop at that age and the way we judge our worth in regard to other people sets the stage for the next crisis period in our human struggle. That crisis period occurs at teenage as we break away from the control of our parents and face the give and take of fitting into the wider community.  But the basic struggle continues throughout life and affects all our relationships with other people. Therefore it’s important to understand how to use conflict to strengthen relationships.

Peace of mind and a sense of satisfaction in relationships result from striking a balance between these two needs. Not from giving or from gaining, but from a balance of the two. The further we stray from that balance, in either direction, the more stressed the relationship becomes. Regardless of whether we call it balance, justice or equality, it’s necessary for peace and happiness in relationships involving two people or a million people. In practice, the balance is better described as an average rather than a constant. It could even be thought of as dynamic because of rapid variations but the important thing is that the people involved have a sense that there is balance between their need to belong and their need to be an individual. People in such relationships stand tall as individuals who belong. And for many, that extends to include their relationship with nature and the cosmos.  

Bob Myers.

In our world, money, or profit, is referred to as ‘the bottom line’.

A few years ago I decided to convene a meeting of four people I considered to be great role models and teachers. I invited a Hindu named Gandhi, a Muslim named Mohammad, an atheist named Einstein and a Jew named Yoshu, better known today as Jesus. Since they are all long dead, getting them together was no easy task and required a lot of imagination and careful research.

The purpose of the meeting was for these very learned men to share their ideas and opinions to determine what the real bottom line is in regard to life in general, so we have something clear to use for making laws that govern human behaviour.

 As the convenor of the meeting, I made the rather empty threat that there would be no food or drinks until they found a common thread in their teachings and agreed on a statement that was easy for people to understand. Research indicated they could do this because all four men had a deep respect for each other’s views and a genuine concern for people in general.

They got along very well and found that, apart from some very different terminology, they agreed on most things. The main sticking point was whether intelligence pre-existed matter or evolved. Anyhow, the statement they came up with was:     

“The fundamental principle to live by, in general, is a complete and utter commitment to seeking the truth to guide your every word and action and, by doing that, all laws would be based on the social truth of all people being equal.”  

However, they added a warning that although most people would agree about all people being equal, they might kill you for saying it should be the bottom line.
Bob Myers.

People spend millions of dollars on what often turns out to be a fruitless search for some form of peace and happiness. The sad news is that most just waste their money because they can’t recognise peace and happiness when they find it. So they just pass it by. Part of the reason is because we think of peace as being something calm and tranquil. We don’t think of finding peace in the midst of a heated argument. Nor do we think of finding happiness in a catastrophe if we think of happiness as being a constant state of euphoria. Constant tranquillity and constant euphoria might sound like a promise of heaven but it certainly isn’t life.

The best we seem to be able to manage in life is to experience short periods of tranquillity or feelings of euphoria that pass too quickly. Most are just fleeting moments that become wonderful memories we carry with us for the rest of our lives. However, we can do better. We can have both peace of mind and a sense of harmony as normal parts of daily life, even in the midst of turmoil and sadness, if we are realistic and aim for dynamic peace and happiness.

The word dynamic means vibrant, lively, energetic and surprising. Dynamic peace immediately becomes more appealing and exciting than constant tranquillity over the long term. Therefore, peace and happiness can vary without being lost, because it is really based on something deeper than the fluctuations and disturbances appearing on the surface. Large fluctuations can occur without destroying the overall sense of stability within human relationships when the people involved follow the guidelines that transform conflict into creative conflict. They can learn from nature and experience harmony in disputes.   

Four themes run through the material on the Harmony in Dispute website and I will explore these in future blogs. Using these four themes as the framework was inspired by the work of Brendan McKeague, lead trainer with Pace e Bene Australia.   

1.    Exploring our relationship to other people; to the environment and to the cosmos
         (or God, by whatever name). 
                    Included under this heading are things like identity, self esteem, self confidence and
                     morals, as well as beliefs and values regarding authority (ours and theirs).
2.    The ways in which our culture affects how we relate to each other. 
                    Included under this heading are things like love, sexism, racism, social status,
                    structural and systemic inequality and discrimination.
3.    Where and how to regain spiritual and emotional strength when life gets tough. 
                    Included under this heading are the myriad of ‘self esteem service stations’ people
                    use to lift their spirits, ranging from religious practices to secular activities such as
                    shopping and sport.
4.    Exploring new and better ways to enhance problem solving and conflict resolution skills. 
                    Included under this heading are various sets of conflict resolution methods and
                    guidelines, as well as the teachings of Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, Dorothy Day,
                    and various religious figures.  

Bob Myers.

People going on a journey usually know where they’re going before starting off, simply so they know which way to go. If we don’t know where we are going, how can we know when we arrive? To avoid running around aimlessly towards the equality of men and women, we first of all need to know what we mean by ‘equality.’ Otherwise, it would be like deciding to go to a city without knowing where it is.

Equality’ has many different meanings. One being that two objects are the same in every way. Obviously men and women are not the same and never will be, so if the question means, ‘Will men and women ever be the same?,’ the answer would be ‘No.’ 

Unfortunately, in the present system, many women try to be equal to men in a system designed by men to suit the interests and abilities of men. The parliamentary system and legal system reflect male thinking in that both use adversarial methods to settle disputes and make decisions and plans. A woman entering those systems has to prove herself to be at least as tough as the men in a male-oriented game. The system doesn’t change to reflect female thinking; so a woman must play like a man. In the Pygmalion stage play, Henry Higgins asks a question that sounds more like a prayer, ‘Why can’t a woman be more like a man?’ It seems that the present desire of women to be equal to men is only granting Henry’s prayer.

The best we can expect from the present system is that the decisions made will be influenced to some degree by input from women. That isn’t real equality and makes little progress towards equality. Real progress towards equality will be made when our social systems and structures change to also reflect  female thinking. I don’t know what decision making method would emerge if women were freed from submitting to the male dominated system but the adversarial system is not the only possibility. For example, Gandhi gave us the truth-seeking method that takes competition for personal power out of debating. The sole aim of truth-seeking debates is to find the most workable solution to whatever the problem is. The point I make here is that it’s just possible men and women, together, can come up with a better way than the current adversarial method.

Will men and women ever be equal? I’ve heard it said that there are no wrong questions; there are only wrong answers. This question proves this saying is false. It’s a nonsense question because men and women are already equal. The question should be, ‘Will men ever accept that men and women are equal?’ The equality of men and women is a natural truth, just like ‘Water seeks it’s own level,’ is a natural truth. Men have dominated women for centuries and came to believe male domination is natural. However, it only seems natural because the system men set up is suited to men. That is the real reason for the illusion of male superiority. 

Men can certainly do some things better than women, and it does appear to be all the important things, but again that is only because the whole system we live in is suited to what men do best. If our social, legal and parliamentary systems were set up to suit what women do best, it would appear that women are superior to men. What may answer the intent of the question is, ‘Men and women will be seen as equal when the overall system we live in, and the rules we live by, emanate from the equality of men and women.’ That is what my book, Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness explores.

By 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.

Everything written on this website, including these tips, is based on the principle: There is no happiness without peace; no peace without justice; and no justice without equality, even in the home.  

• Reward your child just for ‘being,’ not just when they are achieving. Children deserve love and affection simply for existing. This can be shown often through hugs, affectionate play or verbal expressions of love and concern.
• Every child has a unique identity. Some are shy, others are confident, and you cannot force a child to change her basic nature. Every child should be accepted and appreciated as they are, if only because they had no say in what attributes and disposition they inherited. Nor do they have a say in what they have learned since birth.
• Trying to force a child to do something he is not ready to do can lead to trouble. When he is ready he may need guidance and encouragement but will not need to be forced.
• To encourage a positive attitude towards work, make a list of routine tasks and think about the fairness and safety reasons for those tasks, as well as the short and long term consequences (effects) when those tasks are not carried out, so you can explain it to the kids when they ask that annoying question, ‘Why?’
• To encourage a positive attitude towards rules, do the same as you did with the tasks. Then you can explain the fairness and safety reasons for the rules.
• If you normally make the rules, ask the kids to suggest how the rules could be improved. If they suggest something that is fairer or safer, adjust or replace the rule. This helps them to develop ownership of the rules.
• Try not to criticize a child’s behaviour in front of others. You want the child’s behaviour to change; you don’t want to damage their self- esteem.
• If you think of the child as being separate from her behaviour, you can strongly condemn the behaviour without condemning the child. You can be angry at the behaviour without being angry with her. The behaviour is unloved; the child is loved. The behaviour is rejected but the child is simply taught a more acceptable way of acting.
• Give children age-appropriate choices so they get practice at making decisions. This will increase their sense of self and of their importance in the family.
• When going shopping remember to ask your child what he likes and dislikes. This is a way of helping children develop the confidence that accompanies a sense of equality with others.
• Parents and children have different responsibilities and different problems but the child’s problems are just as important to the child as the parent’s problems are to the parent. This sometimes causes a conflict that could get out of hand if it turns into a power struggle. If possible, solve the child’s problem first, so peace is restored, and then tackle your problem.
• Every problem is an opportunity to spend healthy time bonding with the child and passing on knowledge and skills as you encourage the child’s efforts.
• Teaching kids habits, rituals and routines is essential for helping them develop a sense of security, especially if you explain the safety and fairness reasons for each action. For example ‘look right, look left, look right again before crossing a road’ is obviously based on safety, and knowing the reason can help them to think about consequences.

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.

I don’t know the meaning of life but I do know what gives life meaning.
Life has meaning when you have a reason for getting out of bed in the morning. Having a purpose or goal to achieve makes sense of what we do, even if it’s just going to the trouble of getting out of bed. It doesn’t matter what the purpose is; it might be to weed the garden or wash the car. It could be to do something to make someone happy.

Many millions of people, all over the world, struggle to make sense of life and only find the strength to face each day’s problems through their faith in God. For many people, the goal is to earn a place in heaven through good deeds done each day. However, close relationships with other people probably give most people a purpose in life and generates many short term goals to make each day interesting.
It’s also true that without a purpose or goal to achieve, nothing makes sense. We have nothing to guide our actions and no motivation to do anything. We need four things to be motivated to do anything:

• We need the opportunity to do it.
• We need the knowledge and skills to do it.
• We need to believe we can do it (encouragement);
• But most of all, we must want to do it, for whatever reason.

In his book The Six Stages of Faith, James Fowler referred to the important part bumper stickers play in giving life meaning. Bumper stickers are  a public display of the beliefs and values that guide our behaviour and help us to make sense of the world. ‘Jesus loves me’ is a reassuring bumper sticker giving strength and a sense of security to many lonely people. ‘Ban the bomb’ can symbolize a dedication to peacemaking and a focus for activists. The ‘Walk the talk’ bumper sticker is a constant, challenging reminder to act the way we expect other people to act and to do what we say we are going to do. It’s also a reminder that as adults we are role models for every child who witnesses what we do. So having that sort of bumper sticker can provide an important purpose for life in general.

But simply following a belief and having a purpose doesn’t guarantee we will have a long, trouble-free life, or that we will not be a problem for other people. A negative purpose can give life the same level of meaning as a positive purpose. Terrorists and suicide bombers have a purpose that gives life meaning and they can be very happy as they fulfill their mission to destroy the lives of other people.
When I was about 19 my boss at the time gave me two bits of advice. One was to always have a goal you really want to achieve and you will be amazed how many opportunities life presents for moving closer to it. And you will even create opportunities when there appears to be none. His second bit of advice was that ‘you can only freewheel downhill.’ By that he meant that people who want to achieve something have to be prepared to put a lot of effort into it.

I am fortunate in having many bumper stickers and positive relationships to give my life meaning but my fundamental, encompassing belief is that equality is the true nature of relationships. That challenges me every day to counter the effects of the culture of inequality that prevails in our society by aiming to walk in the spirit of equality and practice nonviolence. Every day becomes a learning experience and if I were to design a bumper sticker it would be something like, ‘Dissolve violence by aiming for equality.’

Bob Myers.