Part One: Overcoming Global Evils

Readings:

Excerpt from Contemporary Conflict Resolution

Costello, S. (2015). Female genital mutilation/cutting: risk management and strategies for social workers and health care professionals. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, 8, 225.

Key Dilemma of Part One:

Can dominating cultures overcome their cultural biases in creating a global ethics that undermine the power and autonomy of dominated traditional cultures? In the face of colonizing/settler ethics, how are we to consider practices that imperialistic cultures label as evil? The following are three indigenous cultural practices that have been call evil by Euro-American cultures.

Review of List of Navigation Strategies for Seemingly Intractable Conflicts, Differences, and Dilemmas:

Examples to help us work through this dilemma:

Introduction to Part One:

First, we need to examine global evils that suggest the necessity of an overarching global ethics. Many current approaches to global ethics do not seem to be fully aware of these global evils, some of which are imbedded in the structures and assumptions of the global ethics systems that are recommended.

Second, we need to examine dominant cultural biases in the construction of contemporary notions of global ethics. I suggest that there is a bias when philosophers in the Western tradition try to extend their views globally without collaborating with non-Western and indigenous philosophers, from other traditions, to generate a more inclusive and pluralistic view of this field.

Third, as mentioned in the Introduction for this book, I respond to three concerns from the textbook, Contemporary Conflict Resolution (Ramsbotham, Woodhouse, and Miall). These concerns can be stated as evils to avoid and dilemmas to navigate, as any strict adherence to one side of these dilemmas—over the other—will be counterproductive, while developing collaborative strategies between the sides to these dilemmas, is likely to be the more successful strategy.

Preliminary Questions:

1. Dominate-culture’s idea of a global ethics has the power to influence dominated-culture’s ethics all over the world, without much consideration for the ethical insights of dominated peoples. How can a meaningful dialogue occur between dominate-cultural ethics and dominated cultural ethics? How do those with dominant-culture ethical beliefs and practices overcome their bias against dominated-culture ethical beliefs and practices when they often misunderstand the ethical identities of dominant-culture people?

2. How can a global ethics emerge from dialogues and investigations of diverse traditional practices, when dominant cultures tend to lionize their own practices, and believe that dominated cultures need to conform to dominating cultural ethics?

3. How do dominant-culture people identify openings for these dialogues and investigations, while overcoming the fears of dominated people that such dialogues and investigations are part of the historical colonial and subjugation project?

4. In pursuing laudable global ethics, how do we choose between soft power and hard power? (Ramsbotham, et al).

5. In conflict processes, how do we reconcile interests that cannot be reconciled because the powerful have no interest in sharing power with the marginalized powerless? (Ramsbotham, et al).

6. How do we overcome the fact that western assumptions are imbedded in conflict processes, and therefore, are not applicable to many non-western cultures. (Ramsbotham, et al?

Central Questions:

1. Is there a dominant cultural bias in global ethics?

Dominant countries and cultures, in their practices and propaganda, tend to deny or underestimate the amount current global ethical problems that their cultures create or aggravate. These practices and propaganda create an almost insurmountable bias in the dominant cultural view of global ethics.

Global ethics problems are created or aggravated by dominate countries and cultures.

Global industrial and consumer activity has reached a point that is not environmentally sustainable, and is leading to runaway greenhouse gases and catastrophic climate change.

An extreme power and wealth imbalance between and inside of dominant and dominated countries is inhuman and unsustainable.

Global capitalism has created a global addiction to money, status, and power, deepening the oppression, marginalization, and demonization of those without money, status and power.

Dominant, industrialized cultures have developed impersonal, disconnected, and low-context modes of thought that clash with personal, connected, high context, more indigenous cultures, and create an ethical disconnect between these divergent cultural types.

Even though “developed” countries provide foreign aid and humanitarian relief, the overarching effect of dominant, industrialized politics and economic activities is to create global instability and insecurity, both within dominant-countries and throughout the world. This instability and insecurity undermine global stability and equality. Furthermore, collective agreements and actions amongst dominated countries and peoples are undermined.

2. How can these dominant-country, cultural biases be addressed and overcome?

Overcoming environmental unsustainability: Is carbon neutrality enough? Carbon neutrality is central to averting runaway greenhouse gases; however, there are many other ways that the industrial revolution has created unsustainable practices. Each of these practices must be investigated with the goal of finding sustainable practices as replacements.

Overcoming extreme power and wealth imbalance: Are thriving middle classes enough? A thriving middle class has been shown to create an economy that is much more stable and sustainable than an economy with a vast division between haves and have-nots; however, economically marginalized populations indicate that a society does not work for everyone.

Overcoming global addiction to money, status, and power: Is community-building enough? Community-building, in the context of stable, secure cultures, is central to creating a shift from the monomaniacal focus on gaining money, status, and power towards a culture where helping others, sharing resources, and a spirit of generosity is central. However, a society that is unstable, insecure, and fragmented, in the midst of homelessness, crime, and exploitation, generates the need for escape and convincing ourselves that we are better than others.

Overcoming the domination of impersonal, disconnected, and low-context modes of thought: Is it possible to create modes of thought that integrate personal, connected, and high context experience and cognitions? I hope that this is possible! People who have experienced living in with both modes of thought will, doubtless, show the rest of us how these two modes of thought can be integrated for the purpose of ethical growth.

Unraveling the paradox of global instability and insecurity, in the midst of foreign aid and humanitarian relief: Sadly, foreign aid and humanitarian relief cloaks the larger practices of global instability and insecurity. Unraveling this paradox is not easy, as foreign aid and humanitarian relief is often crucially important and desperately needed. However, the global capitalist system, built on the foundation of colonialism, often creates the need for foreign aid and humanitarian relief.

3. In pursuing laudable global ethics, how do we choose between soft power and hard power? (Ramsbotham, et al)

Nonviolent soft power, where the means and ends are both ethical, certainly seems best because violent hard power uses unethical means to justify ethical ends, while creating new structures of power-over, rather than more collaborative structures. However, the dilemma arises when nonviolent soft power may be “ineffective and dangerous in a world where antagonistic, irreconcilable individuals and groups, are committed to violence and dishonesty to achieve their goal.” (my emphasis) (Ramsbotham, et al). These individuals or groups use violence to preserve oppressive, unethical, practices.

On the other hand, using violent hard power, to win laudable ethical goals, may be successful in overthrowing oppressors and generating justice, benefits, and empowerment to marginalized masses, violent campaigns run the risk of creating new power-over structures, which may be oppressive in new ways, as new enemies will likely be created that want to return to power. This dynamic, in turn, undermines the long-term implementation of an improved ethical climate, and encourages violent resistance to the newly forced ethics.

In a world that often functions through both direct and structural violence, it can be argued that positive change requires the ability to violently overthrow both oppressive people and institutions to establish democracy and benevolent institutions. However, nonviolent change has often been documented to be more often successful in accomplishing these ends, without resorting to violence. Still, in some situations, violence has also been successful, so the dilemma remains as to which tactic to employ. The prime consideration is for liberation forces to create and maintain a narrative that is perceived as positive for justice, ethical progress, and maximal inclusion, with minimal hierarchy and force.

Navigating this dilemma seems to require that change agents exhaust their nonviolent strategies first, before resorting to any violence, while keeping the strategies of minimal violence, as a possibility. Hopefully, this minimal violence is limited to self-defense and/or the destruction of property, not people, that represents an obstacle to global justice.

Some regime-change movements have strategically employed both tactics. So, a way to navigate this dilemma, in these circumstances, may be to maximally employ nonviolence, and minimally employ violence, in cases only where there is a necessity to defend areas occupied by liberation forces. In the past, it has often seemed necessary for liberation forces to physically occupy the structures of power, it is now conceivable to create a shadow governance structure, electronically, that could gain strength and scope, as the existing governance structure weakens due an absence of popular support.

4. In conflict processes, how do we reconcile interests that cannot be reconciled because the powerful have no interest in sharing power with the marginalized powerless? (Ramsbotham, et al).

This statement implies that people generally advocate for their self- and class-interests, unilaterally, with no consideration for the interests of other individuals or classes. Whereas, social change advocates need to come from a wide variety of class, race, ethnicity, and other identifications and orientations, throughout the power spectrum. Positive social change that addresses widespread inequality, oppression, abuse, and other kinds of suffering, is most successful when victims of oppression do not deny the authentic compassion, permeating all classes and backgrounds, when they seek allies.

However, there will always be a certain number of hardcore-powerful people, who doggedly and single-mindedly pursue their self- and class-interests, even in the face of obvious mass suffering. Syria under Assad comes to mind. They rationalize that their power is earned and deserved, while those who suffer under a culture’s structure have brought that suffering upon themselves, due to laziness, poor life planning, lack of exercising their prerogatives, ignoring opportunities, and playing the victim-card to gain sympathy and charity.

To navigate this dilemma, I suggest that we abandon the view that most people limit their advocacy to simple self- or class-interest. It is not that difficult for the average person to identify with someone who suffers. Martin Luther King knew that videos of police dogs, swinging batons, and firehoses, unleashed onto African American children, women, and men, would turn the hearts of masses of white Americans, and he was correct because our hearts and minds change when we graphically experience injustice and suffering. Ironically, assuming that people unequivocally stick to their self- and class-interests may contribute to them doing so because powerful people may feel attacked, when they feel stereotyped in this way. Again, navigating this dilemma requires that activists not be too trusting nor too cynical of members of dominant groups.

5. How do we overcome the fact that western assumptions are imbedded in conflict processes, and therefore, are not applicable to many non-western cultures? (Ramsbotham, et al)?

Nonviolent and collaborative processes are both ancient and are found in most cultures worldwide. Indeed, specific collaborative and nonviolent methods can have important cultural values and processes imbedded in them. Therefore, a way to navigate this dilemma is for those interested in enhancing their collaborative and nonviolent capacities may, first, want to fully embrace their own culture’s traditional conflict process principles and practices, then second, import and translate collaborative and nonviolent processes from other cultures that may be useful to them.

Navigating this dilemma requires local people to translate their culture’s conflict processes practices to outsiders, while translating foreign culture conflict processes practices to insiders. The result will be a synthesis of practices that optimize the productivity of more inclusive and culturally-appropriate collaboration and nonviolence.