Conflict is inevitable, even in ‘love relationships’. Resolving conflict can be difficult, even for people centred on improving the quality of a relationship. It’s difficult because the urge to win or to get even for past wrongs is so much a part of our culture. We need to acknowledge that we are under the influence of these urges whenever we are faced with conflict but also be aware we can counteract that influence. 

It’s much easier to resolve a conflict or solve a relationship problem when we start from the cosmic viewpoint that all humans are equal and think about how that should affect what we say and do. When a relationship is grounded in equality, the people involved will centre on the problem, or conflict, at hand, including the emotional effects and any material loss or damage that needs to be put right. In a relationship of equals, there is no competition; no desire to dominate or thought of retribution. However, as soon as one views the other as ‘the enemy’ and begins focusing on winning or seeking revenge, the chances of peacefully resolving the problem takes a nose dive.

Conflicts are more likely to be resolved peacefully when those involved share the same worldview and have common goals. Religious people should have the advantage in this, since they aspire to share the same worldview, but even religions are notoriously competitive on all levels of interaction. This applies from the level of ‘which is the one true religion’ upwards. And resentment over past injustices has lingered between religions for centuries. Even though organised religion has failed to lead the way in conflict resolution, it is possible for anyone to start the ball rolling in their own life.

Even if the other person in a dispute is intent on winning and therefore not interested in equality, any person who is grounded in equality, and centred on the principles of nonviolence, is in a strong position to gain a fair outcome, and turn an ‘enemy’ into a friend. Therefore, when faced with a conflict, the first thing to do is remember that equality is the true ground for human relationships, and then centre on obtaining an outcome consistent with that base.

Once you are grounded and centred, there are four guidelines to peaceful conflict resolution. It’s ironic that if these guidelines were used to guide communication between people in everyday life, there would be few negative conflicts to resolve. The guidelines for conflict resolution (or for avoiding negative conflicts) are:

·         Respect the other person.

·         Listen until the other person’s views are understood.

·         Be open and honest in sharing your own views.

·         Make agreements for the common good. (Seek win/win solutions)


Bob Myers, author of Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness.

The global problems we face in this century can only be solved through global cooperation. For those societies that claim to believe in equality, that simply means putting equality into practice. I want to share with you the ten statements that I write about, and try to practice.

Enduring peace and happiness comes from constantly exploring ways to get the balance right between personal needs, other people’s needs, and the needs of the situation. The situation could be the home; the workplace; a community; a country; nature; or the cosmos. 

From a cosmic viewpoint, equality is the true nature of human relationships. We can use that constant to guide us in building and maintaining relationships and setting up social systems, such as law, education and health.

We use the word ‘violence’ to describe actions or events that cause harm. Therefore, anything that harms the true nature of relationships – by causing inequality – could be deemed to be ‘violence’.

People who are guided by the spirit of equality respond to violence by taking nonviolent restorative action.

Being equal does not mean being the same. Differences make us individuals. Most differences, regardless of extent, do not cause harm in human relationships. Our judgement of differences can lead to harm or to enhancement of relationships.

Inequality exists when individual differences are used to judge one person as superior in some way. In an adversarial society, such as ours, superiority is gained by competition or domination, or both.     

Human equality can be established and maintained by exploring the complementary nature of individual differences to get the right balance for meeting the needs of all those involved.  

The human need to achieve and the need for stability can be met by people striving for excellence and sharing the skills and knowledge gained with anyone who wants them. In that way, the whole group can develop together to whatever level any group member can achieve.

Studies consistently show a correlation between inequality and all social ills, so the success or otherwise of the policies and actions of those in positions of responsibility can be judged by whether they reduce or increase inequality.

People in positions of responsibility who are guided by the spirit of equality seek to have power with people and things rather than seeking power over people and things.


Bob Myers.

We fight because our culture taught us to fight.  We had no say in what we were taught as children so it’s not our fault that we fight.  However, each of us can do something about the way we handle disagreements now, simply because we have a choice.

Human behaviour is always complicated so let’s simplify it a little by comparing two couples born and raised in the same culture who are faced with the same conflicts in their relationships. Both couples live in a culture that measures success by wealth and power. Both couples are high achievers who want to do well in a society that idolises winners.

Competition and Domination are known as couple number one. These two are lovers who usually walk hand in hand and are seldom apart. Even when they are apart, they continue to flirt with each other. This flirtation can be a lot of fun but sometimes turns nasty, especially when Domination tries to control Competition by imposing revenge or punishment.

Couple number two is comprised of Cooperation and Equality. These two are also lovers who usually walk hand in hand but sometimes they enjoy spending a little time apart or walking separately, confident in the enduring strength and quality of the relationship.

Both of these couples face the same conflicts in their relationships and both are well aware of the guidelines for resolving conflict. The main difference is in the way each couple interprets those guidelines.  People living in a culture that glorifies winning are encouraged to centre on their own needs as they follow the guidelines and use them to gain an advantage over their opponent. Therefore, Competition and Domination have no problem keeping to the guidelines, even though they know their interpretation of the guidelines will result in one of them losing in some way. The four guidelines for conflict resolution are very simple:

1. Respect your opponent.
2. Listen until you understand your opponent’s point of view.
3. Openly and honestly express your point of view.
4. Seek solutions you and your opponent can live with.

 
Cooperation and Equality, on the other hand, try to centre on the relationship itself as they struggle to ignore the competitive influence of the culture they live in. Their aim is to find a solution to the conflict that will improve the quality of their relationship and strengthen it. They sometimes find it difficult to centre on the relationship itself but know they must guard against the training they received in early childhood to be competitive. They know that if they start fighting as they negotiate a solution, it’s because some kind of competition or domination has crept in and caused them to centre as individuals rather than remaining centred on the relationship itself.

People in competitive mode argue to determine who is right and who is wrong. There has to be a winner and a loser, so the aim is to win. Parliament works that way and so does the legal system. People in countless meetings across the country try to convince other members to vote for their ideas as they debate topics and sometimes an argument can become nasty. Over a lifetime, we witness countless movies and hear countless stories about people settling disagreements with the power of words and sometimes with weapons. It is all around us every day of our life so it’s no wonder we fall so easily into the adversarial way of settling a dispute. And it’s no wonder winning has, so far, been so important to us.

Instead of seeing conflict as a competition, we could change what we centre on so we see it as an opportunity to find a cooperative outcome that strengthens the relationship. 

The dynamics of this apply to conflict in any situation and at any level. That is why I use family situations in my book, Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness, to promote cooperation and equality.  


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. 

  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 of young people at a stage of life so crucial in their search for identity and their efforts to make sense of society.  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 of who is 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 adult identity too. It is often said that Australia forged its identity through the violence at Gallipoli, even though the difference there is the bravery involved.  

I believe the main cause of random violence is that living in an adversarial society such as we do means a big part of our identity, our sense of who we are, comes from two ways in which we compare our attributes and achievements  against those of other people.  One way 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 prefer the second way of gaining a sense of superiority or status. Domination is an easier form of competition, which usually involves the use 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 something may be tempted to use the ‘put down’ method in other situations.  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.’ That frees us from the competition-domination, status-seeking  game and  a whole new way of relating to other people opens for us to explore. This is explored in Travelling The Road of Peace and Happiness.

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 when we listen until we understand the other’s views, we can take the 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.