The Human Culture of Conflict
As I write this, the Olympic torch is on its way from country to country, touching off protests wherever it goes. No one with any awareness of international events can ignore the Chinese government's recent suppression of dissent in Tibet and among ethnic Tibetans in China. The international nature of the Olympics itself leaves it open to expressions of political opinion. Only the extremely naive would imagine that any gathering of world populations could constitute a warm and fuzzy love-fest. Each culture approaches it from its own perspective: the authoritarians believe that they can control and stifle dissent; the democratizers think that moderate expressions of opinion should be welcomed. Both sides express shock and surprise at the other.
I only learned the shady history of the international torch run this morning. I was surprised to find out that it was added as part of the grand coming-out party that Adolf Hitler had planned for Germany at the 1936 Olympic games in Berlin. That year, the party arranged that the torch be carried through all the countries that Germany was later to annex in the run-up to World War II. So much for an a-political gesture of international good-will and cooperation!
There are two fundamental lessons that we humans as a species have yet to learn: a) that different cultures do not share a common conceptual ground that permits conversation at the deepest levels of experience, and b) that cooperation is a more effective way of building that common experience than competition. We still believe that force ('winning') is an appropriate way of advancing our interests. After five or more thousand years of human cultural history, you'd think we'd be farther along.
So, what's an appropriate response to oppression and denial of basic human rights? Oddly, most of the great spiritual leaders that humanity has produced — and venerated — have said the same thing: we prevail when we're prepared to absorb the violence of conflict into ourselves. Whether it's the Buddhist renunciation of ego and desire, or the Christian salutary suffering, or the martial artists' redirection of the attackers' energy, or Gandhi (and Martin Luther King's) nonviolent noncooperation, wherever we turn the message is the same: conflict is blunted by active (not passive) resistance and deflection.
On an even deeper level (dare we go any deeper? I think so), the advance of humanity has to be rooted in a conscious decision to renounce the need to be right. God and the universe have no need to be right: they just are. The oddest concept I can think of is theodicy: the need to justify one's faith. Justification is all about ego: I'm right and you're wrong. God has no need of justification any more than the universe needs it. We need it because we're afraid of the consequences if we're wrong. And, what are those consequences? None at all! Once again, it's human against human because of False Evidence Appearing Real.
Now, getting back to Tibet . . .
H. Les Brown, MA, CFCC
Copyright © 2008 H. Les Brown
Technorati Tags: understanding, culture, cooperation, conflict, fear, martial arts, acceptance, ego, justification, Olympics
Stumble It!
Comments