[FRIAM] peace and the topography of human nature

[Jenny Quillien]

Notes for Nick

Cultures of Peace


I.      First  Thought:   Talking Circle Techniques of LeRoy Little Bear as 
“communication systems that foster communication and dispel conflict”


Context.  Shortly before his death, David Bohm had become intrigued with 
the possibility that  verb-based  Native American languages might be more 
amenable to discourse about constant flux and implicate orders than 
‘noun-based’ English.  A conversation started between David Bohm and LeRoy 
Little Bear, a Blackfoot, from Alberta, Canada. LeRoy Little Bear was at 
Harvard as head of the Native American Studies and had published on such 
topics as native legal systems being the quest for reconciliation rather 
than assignment of right and wrong.

The conversation took on a life of its own and, even after Bohm’s death, 
there was an annual gathering in Albuquerque, New Mexico of ‘white’ Western 
Scholars and ‘native’ scholars to wanted to discuss the relationship 
between language and the creation of knowledge. Others who were interested 
but not invited as members of the “talking circle” could (in fishbowl 
fashion) sit around and observe. It is from that perspective that I make 
these comments.

The facilitator was LeRoy Little Bear.  It was essentially his ‘gig.’  He 
determined times, breaks and questions.

Rules
·       Western white type scientists and Native scholars sat in a random 
mix in a large circle.
·       LeRoy would announce some question, or request comments on some 
statement.
·       Responses were given by participants in turn going systematically 
around the circle (sometimes starting at LeRoy’s right, sometimes at his left.)
·       No one spoke ‘out of turn.’
·       No one could comment, agree, disagree, on any previous comment from 
other participants.
·       The instructions were to speak from one’s inner most gut and 
convictions.
·       Speaking was to be somewhat minimalists. Bla bla bla and the joys 
of hearing one’s own voice were not of this culture.
·       If a participant had nothing to say when his turn came, that was 
fine, just “pass.”
·       Discussions were in English as that was the only language shared by 
all.




Observations
·       The white western types found this difficult and exasperating. The 
self-restraint required to not agree or disagree was alien to them. 
Listening and absorbing so many inputs before one’s turn (and no note 
taking) was difficult.
·       The talking circle lasted three days. Many of the observers (white 
western ones) left before the end of the first day. It all seemed aimless 
and painfully slow.

·       LeRoy’s questions seemed unpredictable and frequently out of left field

·       About half way through I noticed a sort of thickening--as in 
cooking--the soup got thicker. Since there was a taboo on commenting, 
agreeing or disagreeing, nobody had lost face, there were no winners or 
losers.  Some themes had simply been abandoned and others grew into a group 
consensus.

·       By the end of the three days, it seemed to me that more group 
learning and exploration had taken place than in any three-day session of 
standard western ‘norms’

I tried it in a university class with no luck: a) the students did not have 
the culture b) I was not talented (as LeRoy LittleBear) in the insightful 
sometimes wacky questions.

II Second Thought

This is the proverbial arranging of deck chairs on the Titanic if it is to 
have anything to do with the military-industrial-congressional 
juggernaut.  Tell them to go watch the film "Mars Attacks"

III  Copy of an Article written on negotiations in 1993 is available in 
paper form.  The connection is, perhaps, the “gradients” between 
negotiators and the group they represent on the one hand, and the gradients 
between the negotiators on the other. Uses concepts such as double loop 
feedback

Don’t drink so much at your next retirement party,

Cheers,
Jenny Quillien




At 06:07 PM 3/8/2007, you wrote:

>Dear all,
>
>When I was likkered up at my retirement party ,I agreed to write a chapter 
>for a Peace Handbook (!) on what the "topography  of human nature" *had to 
>tell us about peace making and conflict resolution.   I wrote the enclosed 
>grandiose statement which, it seems to me, has been edited to make it even 
>MORE grandiose.  So now I am stuck writing it, just when I was beginning 
>to get into the flow of doing nothing at all.
>
>I am trolling for co-authors here.  Hell, I am trolling for 
>AUTHORS.  Anything to actually breathe some CONTENT into this idea.  If 
>anybody has some text floating around they would like to kick in, let me 
>know.  I have to stay pretty much within the frame of the abstract 
>below.    Merle?  Carl?  Roger?  Steve?  There might be some lovely  ideas 
>here that involved gradients of ideology and the capacity of especially 
>steep gradients to produce structures of conflict such as feuds, 
>terrorism, wars. etc.
>
>Anybody who is out there who is sucker enough to touch this 
>tarbaby,  should get in touch with me.  Oh me and my big mouth. 
>Alternatively, you could tell me about any sources you might think would 
>be helpful.
>
>Nick
>* It must have had three drinks to mouth this whopper!
>
>3. Evolutionary theory: The constraints and possibilities of human 
>nature<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = 
>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
>
>—Nicholas Thompson and the Coalition of the Willing.
>
>The UN has defined “cultures of peace” as social structures and 
>communication systems that foster cooperation and dispel conflict. Until 
>recently, the relevant evolutionary writing has mostly focused on a 
>fruitless debate between those who think that violence is inherent in 
>human nature and those who think that people are fundamentally nonviolent. 
>The debate is futile because we already know that both forms of behavior 
>are possible, and arguing about their "innateness" gives no purchase about 
>how to promote the one at the cost of the other. Contemporary research has 
>greatly extended our understanding of the environment of human evolution 
>and the behavior of humans and similar animals living under similar 
>conditions. These findings stress that human nature has a complex 
>topography with knife-edged ridges that meet at the center: between self 
>interest and ingroup interest, between ingroup interest and outgroup 
>interest, and between outgroup interest and self interest. They also 
>suggest social structures and communication patterns that might help us 
>navigate the complex topography of our natures.
>
>
>Nicholas S. Thompson
>Research Associate, Redfish Group, Santa Fe, NM 
>(<mailto:nick at redfish.com>nick at redfish.com)
>Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University 
>(<mailto:nthompson at clarku.edu>nthompson at clarku.edu)
>
>
>============================================================
>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org