Question 10: What can we do to reduce or eliminate violence in the world?
Please begin your post with your city and country.
About Us
Once a year Conversation Cafes and co-hosts organize a week when everyone, everywhere is invited to sit down in small groups to consider together the most important questions in the world today. We live in challenging and complex times. No one knows THE answer, but everyone holds a piece of the answer. You can say your piece during Conversation Week. We, and the world, will be all listening.Read the Blog!
Archives
Categories
- Uncategorized
- Planning CW 2007
- Conversation Cafe Tips
- Questions
- 2008 BLOG POSTS
- 2008 Questions
- 2009 Blog Posts
To learn more about ways to promote conversation, check out the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation.
Great Neck, Long Island, New York, USA
In an “Early Bird” CW session on Friday, March 8th, the participants overwhelmingly chose this question for their focus.
In the first go-round, many of the contributions focused on issues pertinent to our situation in the U.S., including the current presidential primaries. We noted that this was natural, since our “own” issues are most on our minds, and we need to decide how to address them.
In the second round, however, with some stimulation from the excellent sub-questions provided, the participants expanded their scope to a more global perspective, raising issues of relevance throughout the world. At the conclusion of that round, it was observed that our enacting this transition from “local” to more global perspectives, was an important part of the CW experience.
Among the chief issues discussed were Religion as a frequent incitement to violence (but the bellicosity of secular regimes was cited too); Population Control; disappointment that the creation of the UN had not eventuated in less violent ways to settle disputes between nations; and the possibly innate aggressiveness of human nature.
At this point several participants noted how illuminating it was to see how a group of people of good will, all committed to helping to create a more decent world, actually differed so much in the QUESTIONS which they believed were the most important ones to ask, in pursuit of that goal.
The overall tenor was pessimistic, with several citations of the historical persistence and pervasiveness of violence.
As the discussion delved deeper, and became more inter-active among the participants, the “magic in the middle” occurred strikingly about 2/3 through the 90-minuted conversation, when participants began building on one another’s contributions.
Specifically, a reference to the current climate of opinion in Germany was cited, and attributed by some to the Marshall Plan after WWII, leading others to reflections which generalized this perception with references to the Reconciliation efforts in South Africa and other examples. This was in part stimulated by the excellent sub-question asking whether we had experienced any instances where violence was reduced.
Out of this discussion arose a the new question which was articulated well-enough to give us all something new to think about was: COULD ONE APPROACH TO REDUCING VIOLENCE IN THE WORLD, BE TO RESPOND TO VIOLENCE NOT WITH COUNTER-VIOLENCE, OR AT LEAST NOT WITH COUNTER-VIOLENCE AS OUR ONLY STRATEGY, BUT TO EMPLOY THOUGHTFUL AND EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES THAT DO NOT LEAD TO FURTHER VIOLENCE?
Participants resolved to carry this new question forward into CW discussions they might convene, in which Question 10 was chosen.
Should I conclude that participant in Great Neck are prepared to agree that stopping the war in Irak would clearly reduce violence in the world. Stopping war everywhere would be even better.
Should war profiters be publicly reprimanded? Should they keep the benefit of their reprehensible acts? Would such justice be considered as violence? I strongly believe that the truth of such profits should be known. Violence exist because violence is rewarded. When it is, we need transparency on what happened. We need a pledge “Never again”. What could be done for “never again” be believable?