The tragic confusion of war, conflict and violence

It is common in the media to find the word conflict when it actually is about war, real, physical, armed war. "Armed conflict" would be more accurate, since it may well be a conflict, but the real problem and disaster is the killing and destruction caused by weapons. The use of the term conflict is tragic and has devastating long term effect, because it reinforces an all too common misunderstanding which is that conflict is necessarily violent, negative, terrible and destructive. In fact the terms conflict and war have become pretty much interchangeable in the media. Just as in churches, sermons and general talk use the terms violence and conflict as being synonymous. The general sense is that conflict is bad and should be prevented just as violence. At the same time, the general assumption is that conflict breeds violence and more problematic still, that if there was no conflict there would be no violence. The fact that much of the violence happens not out of conflict but out of greed or thrill.

When will we learn that conflict is necessary and, more often than not, constructive. War is neither necessary nor constructive, ever. Recent findings in sociology suggest that it is more accurate to see violence as happening in the absence or real conflict. Violence happens before or after conflict is being recognized and "handled". Looked at from this perspective, violence could almost be seen as the opposite of conflict. The opposite of violence is not peace, but tenderness. War kills truth, conflict brings it to the fore. War distorts proportions, conflict helps set them straight. Violence makes dialogue impossible, conflict makes it necessary. War and violence are not the same, but the former is not possible without the latter. Conflict does not need violence, nor does violence necessarily emanate from conflict. But the suppression of the truth makes real conflict impossible and that may eventually lead to violence.

Think, imagine, resist!

Today a conversation on Swiss french radio "Espace 2" with Marie-Claire Caloz-Tschopp caught my attention. Caloz-Tschopp is the author of the book Résister en politique, résister en philosophie. Making extensive reference to Hannah Arendt, she reflects on the idea of the freedom and space for imagination, discussion and resistance.

This in particular caught my attention: Belonging is a condition for avoiding war and violence. However, belonging not simply to a mass of people, to a crowd, but to a community. I was thinking about the difference between a crowd and a community. Shopping centers attract crowds. Totalitarian regimes create masses that are all following the same ideologies and orders.

Totalitarism, whether fascist, religious or ultraliberal, erases the public space for reflection, because it is occupied by a person, logic, law, or ideology. Totalitarism kills thought and imagination. Caloz-Tschopp insists that discussion, sharing of opinions and the possibility of dissent is essential, in society as well as in the work place. That's what democracy is about, not democracy à la G.W. Bush, but power to the people.

The news these days are telling us about dissent, imagination, resistance. That's very encouraging indeed.

Violence prevention: driving a car is potentially violent

A World Health Organization (WHO) study reveals that nearly half of the deaths of road accidents are people not in a car: pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists, reports an alert issued today by the WHO's Violence and Injury Prevention department. The first global assessment of road safety reveals that about 1.27 Million people die in road accidents each year.

Interestingly, the WHO violence and injury prevention are part of the same effort and are considered public health issues. In some way, casualties in traffic accidents also are victims of a kind of violence and the recent study documents that the more vulnerable ones that are the more likely victims.

Both kinds of violence, the one caused by road traffic and the one caused by relational incidents, are preventable, the WHO motto says. I would add that prevention is not rocket science, but it requires honesty and willingness to change. Appeals and statements won't prevent effectively.

For me, not carrying a gun ever and refusing to engage in physical or verbal violence are principles. It gets more complicated when it comes to structural violence or to driving a car: I try to be nonviolent, but do I underestimate my indirect participation in indirect violence and exposure to potential violence? Perhaps I can begin by acknowledging that driving a car per se is not fully compatible with living gently.