Trust is closely related to love and, like love, we may receive trust without doing anything to earn it. And we may trust other people without them doing anything to earn our trust. However, there are few people, if any, we would trust absolutely, and there are few people, if any, who would trust us completely. Some people trust us with a little more, and we trust some others with a little more. That’s how society works.

Sometimes it’s easy to gain more trust and sometimes it’s extremely difficult, depending on the person’s previous experiences of trusting others. Some people will freely give more trust but not if they have ‘been there, done that’ and been betrayed many times. Generally speaking, a small level of trust is freely given as a test and if you want any more, you have to earn it. Some people's experience is such that they find it too threatening to trust anyone with any more than what is necessary to ‘be polite’. For that reason, patience is the first requirement for gaining the trust of anyone, because it may take a long time.

When we receive trust, we receive the power to do great harm to those who trust us and therefore we need to show we deserve their trust. The giving of trust and being worthy of the trust is the link to love; forming a spiritual bond between individuals.

So, patience is the first requirement for gaining trust. Take your time and remind yourself that trust is a gift; not a right.

Use that time to make the other person feel safe with you and from you.  Not just from physical harm but from emotional, psychological and spiritual harm. The easiest and most effective way of achieving that is by using manners. Manners help establish trust and a sense of security. Manners form the base for mutual respect, establishing a culture of equality and cooperation. Manners also lead to other useful tools such as the guidelines for resolving conflict, the guidelines for making rules people are likely to keep to, and the restorative action that does away with tools like manipulation, punishment, revenge and power struggles. All that can come from using basic manners.

Gaining trust means being worthy of trust. That means always being reliable – keep your word – be on time – be open and honest – make an effort to know the needs of people and be available to help – and be sincere in saying why you can’t help with some things. Always be willing to offer an apology when you are wrong and take responsibility for your actions.

To sum up, many people might just trust you, so there is no need to win their trust. You only have to be trustworthy and not let them down. However, if you are trying to win back trust, or win it for the first time, you first need to take it slow, especially if the person you want that trust from has been betrayed many times and finds it difficult to trust anybody.

If there is a problem to be worked out, be mindful of maintaining the dignity of other people, or maybe allow them to maintain dignity by ‘saving face’. Clearly identify what you are concerned about and why you need to share the problem with them. If there is a wrong to be righted, do it through restorative action, while being open and honest, especially about anything you did that contributed to causing the problem. 


Photo: Norlangie Park, N.T. Australia.

People come in many shapes, sizes, ages, and colours but they are all human. People gather in a variety of situations with all kinds of people, but each remains human. And whenever two or more humans gather - at home, at play or at work - there are always problems and conflicts requiring a response from each. Each person’s response is affected by different levels of power, duty, knowledge and skills, as well as the different beliefs, values and culture of each person. But, no matter what form the response takes, it is a human response.

My book, Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness, looks at the sameness of being human and sets out the fundamental tools we need for dealing with problems and conflicts in life. The family is the setting for describing the use of each tool because everyone has some knowledge of family life and an opinion about how the various members of a family should act and be treated. For other settings, such as work or play, the challenge for all of us is to recognise the humanness of the people involved and consciously use the same fundamental tools, albeit in different ways.  The fundamental tools are:  

GROUNDED LOVE.
Grounded love is the first and most important tool. It is love grounded in equality that guides the use of all the tools described in the book. ‘Love’ includes virtues such as respect, assertiveness, care, protection, compassion and cooperation.

 In the home and personal life it can be emotional love. In a group or work situation, it is generally referred to as our duty of care, which may have a minimum level enshrined in law.

A culture of equality can exist even though people have different duties, responsibilities, skills and knowledge, and they need the authority to perform those duties and meet their responsibilities.

MANNERS.
Manners are used to establish trust and a sense of security. Manners form the base for mutual respect, establishing a culture of equality and cooperation. Manners lead to other useful tools such as the guidelines for resolving conflict, the guidelines for making rules people are likely to keep to, and the restorative action that does away with tools like manipulation, punishment, revenge and power struggles.

EXAMPLE.
Regardless of the setting, example is the most effective way to teach and convey expectations of what to do and how to do it.  Example is sometimes described as: walking the talk; practicing what you preach; showing how it can be done; and being the change you want to see happen.

CENTRING.

Centring is focusing on something that helps you achieve the outcome you want. Sometimes it means focusing on the outcome itself and sometimes it means focusing on something seemingly unrelated to the outcome. Centring is a state of mind in which a person, the action and the outcome seem to become one.

The overall aim of Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness is for Grounded Love, Manners, Example, Centring and all other tools and skills they lead to, will cease being regarded as tools, and become the normal way of relating to other people, regardless of their shape, size, age or colour.





Photo: Kakadu National Park N.T. 

By Bob Myers.                                                                                                     

Questions about the rights and responsibilities of parents are often raised in regard to discipline and smacking children. Many people believe there is nothing wrong with the age-old custom of smacking or giving a ‘whack with a wooden spoon.’ Many claim that parents should be able to  discipline their kids how they please, within reason. Supporters of physical punishment maintain that there is a difference between child abuse and smacking and that the laws concerning child abuse are sufficient to protect children. A common theme is that ‘I was smacked as a child and it didn’t do me any harm.’ 

People generally agree about the need for discipline, and that there is a difference between a smack and child abuse. However, it isn't always clear how those who believe in physical punishment can decide when the line between the two is crossed. More about my suggestion on that below.

It's not surprising that some people still believe parents should have the right to smack their children because smacking wasn't questioned up to fairly recently, and most of us felt the odd whack or two as children. Most parents have probably at least threatened to smack their children. I smacked my kids when they were little, partly because I thought that was what parents were supposed to do, and partly because I didn’t know what else to do. Fortunately, I discovered there are other ways that work better. 

There are many definitions of discipline and some of them support the use of physical punishment. This could be because so many people associate the word ‘discipline’ with punishment, and dictionary definitions usually reflect the common usage of a word. The definition of discipline I use in my books, because it best describes the real task for parents, is: Discipline means to teach, assist, and guide children to become self-controlled. For kids to become truly self-controlled, we have to help them develop a positive attitude towards rules and authority figures, so they will choose to keep to the rules because they provide safety or fairness.

Smacking, along with other kinds of punishment, keeps the parent in control of the child instead of using methods that gradually help the child to have self control. Punishment takes the child’s attention away from the positive reasons for keeping to rules and tends to hinder the development of real self-control. Punishment may only teach the child to avoid getting caught.

Another major reason for not using punishment is that punishment is based on the principle that it’s OK to control a child by inflicting some degree of pain, suffering or discomfort, which I like to believe parents would only do if they can’t think of a better way. The principle that says it's OK to control others by inflicting pain and suffering is the principle behind extremes such as terrorism and extortion. Although it would be stupid to associate smacking with terrorism, my concern is that when we teach a child a principle like that, we have no way of knowing - and no control over -  how far down that road the child will go when trying to control the behaviour of other people later in life. 

I would suggest that the line between smacking and abuse is crossed if the parent knows there are better ways to teach, assist and guide children to become self-controlled but refuses to learn those ways, or the parent knows those better ways and chooses not to use them. My books, Travelling the Road of Peace and Happiness, and Enjoy Parenting Teenagers present many simple ways to help kids develop a positive attitude to rules and authority figures, and maintains that it is never too late to start.


Photo by Microsoft.

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.

Most parent/child relationship problems stem from some form of resistance to authority. In many families, power struggles commonly develop from this resistance. The following are some thoughts expressed in cold, point form but are much warmer when put into practice.

• To base the family 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 when talking about trying 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 who has 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-keepers seeking 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 to get a job done.
• 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 within the family.
• Every member of the family is entitled to equal respect and consideration, regardless of what level of responsibilities they have.

  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. 
 

Many people argue that violence is a natural reaction to threats. This means we are born with that protective reaction and therefore we are naturally violent. Since I partly agree with this, I am willing to concede that point but add that we are also born illiterate.
Professor Colman McCarthy of Maryland USA asked his students to write a paper along those lines and he described the response from one student as “a masterpiece of brevity and breadth.” It consisted of just 13 words:

“Why are we violent but not illiterate? Because we are taught to read.”

Does this mean our society is becoming more violent because we teach our kids to be violent? No. The student was pointing out that just as each child is born with the potential to learn to read and write, and gain all the benefits of literacy, each child is born with the potential to learn the ways of nonviolence, and gain all the benefits attached. Violent behaviour comes from not teaching our kids to be nonviolent. That may seem to be a double negative but it isn’t. Most people teach kids to be ‘not violent,’ which is very different to teaching kids to be nonviolent. Teaching kids to be ‘not violent’ may achieve some level of ‘peace’ but it actually perpetuates violence.

The main way most of us teach children to be ‘not violent’ is through the use of punishment or the threat of punishment , which means the natural violent reaction is suppressed by the fear of punishment. Take the fear of punishment away by lowering the chance of being caught or raising the potential reward to be gained and a child is more likely to use violence.

Nonviolence is difficult to define because it is not just the absence of violence. It is the opposite of violence; the antidote of violence. It is an attitude towards other people and to ‘rules of behaviour.’ Nonviolence defies violence and deprives it of any victory. Nonviolence disarms an aggressor without using violence. Nonviolent discipline can be aggressively confrontational, and even take a zero tolerance stand in holding people accountable for their violent behaviour, without resorting to any kind of punishment. Imposing a punishment often sets up a cycle of revenge that prevents any worthwhile lesson being learned. The real consequence of behaviour is the most effective way people learn what acceptable and responsible behaviour is.  

One of the great advantages of nonviolent discipline in the home, school or workplace is the distinction it makes between punishment and consequences, allowing ‘restorative action’ to be taken instead of imposing punishment. This is not just spin because ‘taking restorative action’ and ‘imposing a punishment’ are mutually exclusive opposites. All of us are capable of thinking in both ways, and we do sometimes take restorative action depending on the circumstances of a situation, but we cannot think in both ways at the same time. 

The above could explain why school discipline programs based on restorative practices, such as the Responsible Thinking Classes, are not as effective as they could be. Maybe some of those running the programs are caught up by our cultural addiction to punishment. That could also be the reason why restorative programs in the criminal justice system don’t always produce excellent results. A punishment-minded person cannot effectively operate a program designed to be run by a restorative-minded person.

Parents can introduce kids to the ways of nonviolence in the very first year of a child’s life. School children can be taught the art of nonviolence from day one. And it's never too late to start. It won’t always work in every situation because few parents or teachers have the nonviolence training to recognise how their own attitudes are effected by the institutional, structural and social violence built into the culture we live in. Once we become aware of our own attitude we can help children to live nonviolently in a violent world, and change it.