Week of Prayer for World Peace Service Opoho Presbyterian Church: 20 October, 2013

Good morning.  I’m Liesel Mitchell and thank you very much for inviting me here to speak on this Sunday which is part of the Week of Prayer for World Peace.

For those of you who may not know me, I’ll start with a brief introduction or a snapshot of who I am, by telling you who I am connected to.  I think the concept of whakapapa is a wonderful way of remembering that we all stand as individuals who are PART OF a bigger community of people.  We are only here, because of others before us and with us, and it is right that I honour the people who shape me in order to tell you who I am.  I’m the daughter of Sarah and Rod, the sister of Nicola and an auntie to my two wonderful nephews and niece.  I’m also the partner of Todd and I’m a part-time plus-parent to his three children. 

My relationships with people are a huge part of who I am, and a key part of making peace and doing peace.  I don’t profess to be any more of an expert in peace than anyone else in this room as I believe we are all born with the capacity for peace just as we also have the capacity to make war.  But I guess what I would claim is that I’m committed to peace and I am passionate about learning more to do with how we might live in peaceful ways together. 

My PhD study at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies here at Otago reflects this by my focus on nonviolence and ways of understanding more about being nonviolent – which is how I identify with peace. 

 

If I asked you all, given the choice, do you choose to live or die?   I am going to make some assumptions and say that most of us, especially in that situation where our life may depend on the choice we make, would say yes to the choice for life.  So if we choose life over death we might be talking about that thing some call “the instinct to survive.” 

 But, if you can dig a little deeper, what does this mean to you?  Is it that desire to survive no matter what – even when this means survival at the expense of others?  Or is it something more, which identifies a choice for life which exists at that core part of each of us. 

This however raises another question.  If the choice for life – or survival instinct – exists within each of us at an individual level, does this translate into a collective survival instinct, which extends outwards towards every other human being?  If we all indeed have this drive towards life is it not a contradiction if we use violence and war to cause the death of others? 

I would argue that if we answer yes to the choice of life, and we would not in most circumstances willingly choose to die then what reasoning can be drawn on in order to cause the death of another – another individual who chooses life, just as you do, just as I do. 

In the course of a conversation with a friend the other day, we began discussing whether it’s possible to love beyond the boundaries of your immediate connections.   Our conversation went a bit like this:

I asked, “Well, are you capable of loving one other human being?”  To which he responded, “yeah, of course.”  My next question was then, “So, if you can love one other, and one other… then surely the logic stands that we can love every other “one-other”.  My friend shook his head, saying “But as humans we can only sustain a certain amount of relationships at one time”.  I agreed, that yes, to give energy and time to people, there might be limitations, however that wasn’t quite the same thing and the point was, if it is possible to love one, then isn’t it possible to love every-ONE? 

For peace to be operational, there has to be willingness to acknowledge how much more we are alike than different, and making these connections only have limitations if we let them. 

However, it’s also easy to limit our love to our immediate world of people and relationships. 

I would like to ask another question, which keeps challenging me to come up with a decent argument for violence, and that is; are we really born in order to destroy each other? 

There may well be arguments which can provide evidence that yes in fact that is the point of living.  But I would like to believe that humans are not born with an intention to destroy.  And actually, I think it would be quite difficult to prove that a baby is born with the intention to destroy others. 

We humans are social creatures who do live in community and for most of the time, in most places – like right here – we are seeking ways of living in a non-confrontational, harmonious existence with others.  We actually seem to like doing this! 

However, when we feel threatened or pushed beyond what we know or feel comfortable with, what do we do?  If our security feels threatened, we tend to forget – or maybe it’s because we can’t even imagine – that there are creative options available to us, and in that moment, we resort to what we can visualise, that most basic of actions, violence.

Maybe sometimes it’s just easier to be violent.

Some of the Hutu men have talked about their role as killers in the Rwandan genocide in 1994.   Their comments were disturbing because they essentially said it was easy to kill.   There was just one rule, and that was to kill.  It was relatively simple as you didn’t have to think or have answers or decide who deserved to live or die.  There were no exceptions, no decisions.  You just had to kill. 

Anyone of us, in the right situation, given the right kind of pressure, can be violent. 

Just as anyone can be nonviolent. 

You might say, we have a choice.

But when we are bombarded, for example, by media from all angles with images of violence, it’s easy to forget that choice.  Which leaves me wondering, is it easier to imagine yourself in a role you have watched being played out countless times before in that blockbuster movie, than try out something you have heard of but haven’t ever really seen many examples of it in action?  And does this mean things are possible when we can easily imagine them, but when we can’t they just don’t seem plausible?

Nonviolence is certainly not a new idea, but it’s often left in the background while violence takes up all the room. 

The terminology which helps give an understanding of what non violence is arises out of its practice. Nonviolent action or struggle is the set of techniques, tactics, methods and strategies which enable people to wield power effectively without the use of violence.  This may be why nonviolent action is also sometimes broadly referred to as “people power.”

The principled practice of nonviolent action believes that nonviolence is the most ethical way to engage and that violence is not an option.  This is reinforced by the Gandhian philosophy that the means and ends must be united.  Therefore, if a peaceful solution to a problem is the end goal, then conflict must be engaged without violent methods. 

Gene Sharp, a theorist best known for his work on pragmatic nonviolence emerged as a “disciple of Gandhi” but over time has shifted his perspective from a principled to a more pragmatic approach to nonviolent action. 

Sharp differs from Gandhi with his belief that you shouldn’t have to “convert” to a nonviolent way of life to be able to use nonviolent tactics.  This means the idea is that you use nonviolent methods if they are the best way of achieving your goal. 

 

As part of his work, Sharp has also compiled a list, of not just a few methods of nonviolent action, but he has identified 198 methods which can be used for challenging power without the use of violence.
These 198 ways of confronting conflict demonstrates the breadth of choice which is offered by nonviolent methods, methods which are open to being creative and daring.

Nonviolence creates a space where possibility can play out.  It widens the playing field.  It encourages dialogue and it demands human engagement.  Violence on the other hand slams the door on negotiation, shuts down possibility and solves problems through a literal elimination process operating at such speed that react or run seem to be the only options.  It makes it very difficult to see people as people, but instead as the enemy, the other, the not-human.

Which brings me back to that question are we really born in order to destroy each other?

As principled nonviolence would argue, when we seek ways of living together which are creative and enable peace, the means and ends must unite.  Nonviolence offers a way of living together where options are explored, negotiation is sought and power is wielded without resorting to acts of violence. 

Looking at this from a bigger perspective, the tools which nonviolence offers actually mobilise, unite and build community – establishing a solid base for people to do peace.

So as we emerge out of a week concentrating on peace, it might be easy to feel like you have done your “peace bit” for the year.  However, I encourage you to go into this coming week, and take peace with you. 

Being nonviolent – being and doing peace – is living out a life standing connected to each other as individuals.  If we choose to destroy each other, we choose to destroy ourselves.  Choosing life equals choosing peace.  And if we choose life, then we also choose a love that has the capacity to stretch not just to the person beside us, or the person just next to them, but can encompass every other person, acknowledging and reminding us that choosing life for ourselves, means choosing life for every other person too.

Liesel Mitchell