Attitudes that shape the world: Participants’ Self-reflections During a Course on Dialogue and Mediation.

When people tell their stories, especially stories about what motivates them to do what they do, powerful insights emerge, such as the following reflections by international participants:

We’ve seen Auschwitz and apartheid South Africa.

We have fled our homes in Lebanon, Afghanistan and the Balkans.

We feared for our lives at the hands of many who were fighting in the name of God/Allah.

We have witnessed the bodies of loved ones and neighbours being brought back from the war.

We have carried Kalashnikofs and AK 47s and dreamed of being brave fighters. 

We were indoctrinated and taught to dismantle rifles and hate the other.

We have forgotten how to deal with conflict and did not believe in dialogue and mediation. 

But...

We are driven by basic human values.

We grew up mediating between siblings and between parents.

We followed the advice from parents to take care of the land and to get an education.

We received books from grandmothers and lecturers.

We received inspiration through traveling and visits to places of conflict. 

We were struck by inequalities, xenophobia and rejection and asked “Why?”

We broke free from the chains of ideology and found inner beliefs and convictions.

We challenged dominant paradigms and found new freedoms.

We understood that security means more than being able to defend yourself.

We reacted to glaring injustice by becoming advocates for change.

We transformed retributive justice into restorative justice.

We became mediators and peacebuilders.

We transformed hate and apathy to compassion and understanding.

We refused to accept that violence ends violence and decided to prevent it instead.

We responded to the void by creating infrastructures for peace.

We work to fix a broken system. 

We dedicate our lives to restoring relationships.

We discover that we can learn while we we do.

We serve instead of wanting to become powerful consumers of service. 

We found new passion and joy and a curiosity to discover more.

We network with others and are inspired by what they do. 

We do not give up, because we have tenacity and commitment.

We learned to listen in order to resolve. 

We believe in dialogue and mediation.

Folke Bernadotte Academy, Sandö, Sweden. 

May 2012

From cohesion to cowesion

The term cohesion is a powerful one. In scientific terms, cohesion is an attraction between molecules of the same substance, whereas adhesion is an attraction between molecules of different substances.

"Social cohesion", a popular concept in the field of economic and social sciences, conveys the message of the "glue that holds us together". It attempts to describe the outcome of processes whereby people hold on to one another despite differences, hardships, or adverse circumstances. It is used widely in literature and in the field of conflict transformation and the prevention of violent conflict. For example, in Guyana I worked as a United Nations Peace and Development Advisor for the UNDP's Social Cohesion Programme.

What I find, especially when interacting with people at community level, is that the term "social cohesion" is not easily understood. It does not appeal to people. "I can't find the diamond in the concept", someone said yesterday in the Stellenbosch Social Cohesion Movement meeting. Furthermore, it's hard to pronounce for some non-English speaking persons. Hearing people pronouncing it as "co-heh-sion" (sounds like "heh-heh"!) makes people ever further confused.

Trevor Phillips, the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality in Britain, dislikes the term and says it lacks clarity. He prefers to talk about "integrated societies". The Club of Madrid talks about "shared societies".

What I begin to understand is that the underlying value/intended outcome of social cohesion is a sense of "we-ness", as opposed to divisions and unhealed multiple woundedness (as Martha Cabrera calls it) that are usually characterized by blaming of "the other". Destructive conflict and dysfunctional relationships firmly create an "othering" or "you-ness", instead of a "we-ness".

I am therefore proposing the coining of a new concept: social cowesion: n. 1. the extent to which people unite and include others to constructively satisfy fundamental human needs and rights for everyone; 2. a sense of unity and purpose to design and implement societies, systems and institutions that are just, fair and empowering for everyone; 3. a description of the quality of relationships between people who value, build and respond to constructive conflict; 4. a description of a shared and integrated society that values "we-ness" instead of divisions.

This is work in progress, and your views are welcome. What do you think? Maybe the confusion will be even greater? Who knows.