What is Peace?
Can one define peace? Certainly it is much easier to define war. Let me try: war is an armed conflict between organised groups with the intention to win by any means. This definition may be unsatisfactory in some respects, viz. the size of the groups and their sort of organisation, definition of arms, and, for that matter, of winning; but it conveys the general idea. What about a definition of peace? Is peace the opposite of war? Or is it a state, or collection of states, without war? That, of course, will not do. The emphasis in our definition of war was on 'by any means'. How many means would one have to substract to get peace? And which means? That might be a question of taste, and it is no good to make defining peace a matter of taste. Moreover, it is poor philosophy to define things by mutual exclusion like: peace is absence of war; war is the absence of peace. Obviously, in that way one defines nothing at all.
In order to define it we will have to look at what peace is, not at what it is not. An 'anatomy of peace' is what we need to study and describe first. An immense task, for human behaviours and relationships are enormously varied and, if anything, more so in peace time than in war. War conditions constrict and stereotype people's responses; peace enriches and expands them towards more playfulness, more creativity and more love. I am not saying that war is the sole cause of such behavioural constriction; the same can be brought about, in times of peace, by natural disasters, poverty, hunger, tyranny or more generally anxiety. A strong incentive of the opposite, behavioural expansion, is trust; that is the expectation of environmental stability and, above all, trust in one's fellow-human beings.
Modes of Sociality.
For a first approximation, let us forget all details and define some possibly general modes in which humans may interact. One such mode is Agôn, Greek for Games. Like the Olympic Games (1), but in general all kinds of ritualised contest; not only sports. Also in political crises there may be moments when persons or parties in Parliament stand up against each other under great tension and equally waged until one surrenders, or the two find a compromise or a new way out into creative cooperation. 'Ritualised' means that the players subject themselves to certain rules of restriction. A sportsman not obeying the rules is disqualified. Parliamentary politicians may combat, but are not expected to hit each other over the head, (much as they might wish to do so) - a rule of conduct that is violated only at very rare occasions worldwide.
Agôn is thus characterised by symmetry of the parties, high tension and ritualisation. This mode is deeply rooted in the animal kingdom. Like animals, we humans have several ways at our disposal to tone down the tension that nobody could bear for long and which thwarts other necessary concerns. I already mentioned some of these: surrender, compromise, division of labour and play. To the mathematical mind, the first three are breakings of symmetry, but this does not concern us here. Important, however, is the last, play, because it lessens the tension by increasing the creativity and the versatility of behaviour.
Agonic and Hedonic Modes.
Surrender of one party leads to a more or less permanent dominant-subordinate relationship. If more parties are involved, a hierarchy (pecking order) may be the result. Compromises and divisions of labour or competence may be viewed as figurative forms of territorial arrangements. Hierarchies and divisions are to be found everywhere in human society, from the family to international politics and economy. It was the late Dr. Michael R.A. Chance, who realised that these are just forms, their meaning being set by two modes, on one level with the Agôn mode, for which he coined the names Hedonic and Agonic (2, and an earlier publication on this blog). Like Agôn, these two modes may refer to relationships between individuals or to the social structure of entire groups, nations or humanity. Examples of both modes are known to all of us. Take these, for instance:
In the office, your boss is like a dictator. He gives orders without waiting for your comments. He does not trust you; checks your work as well as the way you spend your time, always ready to reproach or fire you at the slightest provocation. You distrust him; you are constantly aware of his presence and afraid to make any move that might be interpreted as disobedience.
Alternatively, your boss bids you good morning when he comes to your desk the first time in the day. After delivering his orders, he listens to your questions. He may draw your attention to the importance of this piece of work to the company (which makes you interested in its well-being) and says thank you when you have done it well. He is the boss, making final decisions, but he makes you feel that you contribute to the common goal, and you trust him to not suddenly punish or throw you out for no reason.
These little scenes are examples of the Agonic and Hedonic modes respectively. They differ in their structures of attention among the persons involved, and in the directions of communication: only top-down in the former, in all directions in the latter. In the former, the boss relies on his power to punish you; threat and fear bind your attention. The other boss attracts your attention, relying on his prestige. Latent, chronic tension is always there in the Agonic mode, as well as mutual distrust, while the Hedonic mode is more relaxed (3).
Both modes are stable in time (though not forever), and both are effective economically. They may even exist between the same people, depending on the moodiness of the boss or on the degree of well-being of the company. Under adverse conditions the Agonic mode may prevail; the Hedonic may take its place when circumstances are relaxed.
The examples above are ideal cases. Play and mutual 'tederheid' (tenderness) are more typically at home in the Hedonic mode, but may occur in the Agonic too. They tend to change their face in the latter case, play being degraded into a rough struggle or demonstration of power, teder behaviour emphasising its aspect of possessiveness and manipulation. It is similar with hierarchies and divisions: likely to be based on power and fear in the Agonic and more often built on prestige and appreciation in the Hedonic mode. The real situation
is even more complicated; teder and playful relationships between individual persons may thrive within a generally agonic society, while overall hedonic conditions do not prevent the presence of distrust and hateful actions between some. In fact, both modes tend to coexist, either simultaneously at different levels of one and the same group or in alternating periods (4). Some of these features have been expressed in the diagram below, which is a state space of a hypothetical human social group.
Modes of Sociality.
For a first approximation, let us forget all details and define some possibly general modes in which humans may interact. One such mode is Agôn, Greek for Games. Like the Olympic Games (1), but in general all kinds of ritualised contest; not only sports. Also in political crises there may be moments when persons or parties in Parliament stand up against each other under great tension and equally waged until one surrenders, or the two find a compromise or a new way out into creative cooperation. 'Ritualised' means that the players subject themselves to certain rules of restriction. A sportsman not obeying the rules is disqualified. Parliamentary politicians may combat, but are not expected to hit each other over the head, (much as they might wish to do so) - a rule of conduct that is violated only at very rare occasions worldwide.
Agôn is thus characterised by symmetry of the parties, high tension and ritualisation. This mode is deeply rooted in the animal kingdom. Like animals, we humans have several ways at our disposal to tone down the tension that nobody could bear for long and which thwarts other necessary concerns. I already mentioned some of these: surrender, compromise, division of labour and play. To the mathematical mind, the first three are breakings of symmetry, but this does not concern us here. Important, however, is the last, play, because it lessens the tension by increasing the creativity and the versatility of behaviour.
Agonic and Hedonic Modes.
Surrender of one party leads to a more or less permanent dominant-subordinate relationship. If more parties are involved, a hierarchy (pecking order) may be the result. Compromises and divisions of labour or competence may be viewed as figurative forms of territorial arrangements. Hierarchies and divisions are to be found everywhere in human society, from the family to international politics and economy. It was the late Dr. Michael R.A. Chance, who realised that these are just forms, their meaning being set by two modes, on one level with the Agôn mode, for which he coined the names Hedonic and Agonic (2, and an earlier publication on this blog). Like Agôn, these two modes may refer to relationships between individuals or to the social structure of entire groups, nations or humanity. Examples of both modes are known to all of us. Take these, for instance:
In the office, your boss is like a dictator. He gives orders without waiting for your comments. He does not trust you; checks your work as well as the way you spend your time, always ready to reproach or fire you at the slightest provocation. You distrust him; you are constantly aware of his presence and afraid to make any move that might be interpreted as disobedience.
Alternatively, your boss bids you good morning when he comes to your desk the first time in the day. After delivering his orders, he listens to your questions. He may draw your attention to the importance of this piece of work to the company (which makes you interested in its well-being) and says thank you when you have done it well. He is the boss, making final decisions, but he makes you feel that you contribute to the common goal, and you trust him to not suddenly punish or throw you out for no reason.
These little scenes are examples of the Agonic and Hedonic modes respectively. They differ in their structures of attention among the persons involved, and in the directions of communication: only top-down in the former, in all directions in the latter. In the former, the boss relies on his power to punish you; threat and fear bind your attention. The other boss attracts your attention, relying on his prestige. Latent, chronic tension is always there in the Agonic mode, as well as mutual distrust, while the Hedonic mode is more relaxed (3).
Both modes are stable in time (though not forever), and both are effective economically. They may even exist between the same people, depending on the moodiness of the boss or on the degree of well-being of the company. Under adverse conditions the Agonic mode may prevail; the Hedonic may take its place when circumstances are relaxed.
The examples above are ideal cases. Play and mutual 'tederheid' (tenderness) are more typically at home in the Hedonic mode, but may occur in the Agonic too. They tend to change their face in the latter case, play being degraded into a rough struggle or demonstration of power, teder behaviour emphasising its aspect of possessiveness and manipulation. It is similar with hierarchies and divisions: likely to be based on power and fear in the Agonic and more often built on prestige and appreciation in the Hedonic mode. The real situation
is even more complicated; teder and playful relationships between individual persons may thrive within a generally agonic society, while overall hedonic conditions do not prevent the presence of distrust and hateful actions between some. In fact, both modes tend to coexist, either simultaneously at different levels of one and the same group or in alternating periods (4). Some of these features have been expressed in the diagram below, which is a state space of a hypothetical human social group.
 |
| Fig. 1. A simple version of an anatomy of peace. AGO = Agonic; HEDO = Hedonic. |
Yellow is Agonic, blue Hedonic. The blank triangular field at the left side, mirroring the yellow field, belongs to the Agonic domain. The blank, spindle-shaped field in the middle symbolises Agôn. On the vertical axis is the relative degree of behavioural expansion or constriction reigning in the group; expansion is up, constriction down. The social state of the group at a certain moment may be read along a horizontal line at the appropriate height. (Two arbitrary ones have been drawn). The relative preponderance of each mode in the group's behaviour corresponds to the lengths of line cut by the blue, yellow and white fields. It may be seen that, the higher the horizontal line, the larger are the relative contributions of the Hedonic mode over the Agonic and Agôn. In agreement with what I said before, any one of the modes may occur at any horizontal level, but the relative proportions differ.
The horizontal dimension of the diagram indicates the difference in status between dominant and sub-ordinate members of the group; degree of dominance right, depth of submission left. The figure is thus symmetric relative to the middle, where parties are equally waged, in Agôn. As may be seen, differences are smaller in the Hedonic mode as compared to the Agonic, at least on the average.
The oblique lines bordering the figure left and right converge upwards. This expresses the idea that the steepness of dominant-subordinate relationship tends to decrease with progressing behavioural expansion, increasing playfulness and preponderance of the Hedonic mode. Going downward, the lines stop at the broken horizontal line. Below the latter, there is no limitation to inimical, violent interactions: the realm of war, violent crime, etc. This area was called the Agonistic mode by Michael Chance (5).
Having explained about the lines in the diagram, I now propose that the area within the triangle represents Peace. In this view, peace consists of a collection of modes, each with its own characteristcs and each definable as we have seen. It may seem preposterous to suggest that peace is just that; and certainly this model does insufficient justice to the richness of human behaviours and invention, and to the variety of human relationships. For a better view, we shall have to include many sub-modes (play and tederheid, love and rage, quibbling and quarreling, etc., etc.). As a first step towards defining peace, however, it may I think be promising.
In order to follow this track, we may now ask what is the special significance of the slanting lines that form the sides of the triangle. Why are they there at all? What is it that puts limits to dominance and submission, through the whole traject of peace? Surely, this must be the awareness that others are one's fellow-human beings, endowed with their own values, different from but as valuable as ours, and with different but comparable faults and virtues. In other words, these lines symbolise empathy and positive regard (6).
Sustainable Peace.
The question of realising sustainable peace may now be reformulated by asking whether and how we can prevent peoples from crossing the broken line into the agonistic area. To be honest, we, humanity, have not managed this so far, though some progress has been made. In spite of the League of Nations, the United Nations and lots of good intentions, peoples still go to war, to the detriment of a humane life and of the natural environment.
There is a lot of movement within the triangle of peace where, as we have seen, the Hedonic and Agonic modes tend to coexist or take turns under the influence of external stresses and relaxations. We organise rituals in the Agôn mode, like championships and the Olympics, in addition to those occurring naturally. A wise move, since in this way the natural inclination of people to seek and experience tension and thrill is thereby canalised and controllable. Give the people bread and games, the Romans said. Desmond Morris argued in his book The Naked Ape that the famous Palio horse races in the Italian city of Siena may well explain why Siena has a dramatically lower crime rate (especially as to crimes of a violent nature) than any other European city of similar size. However, if the modes of peace alternate, how can one prevent the Agonistic mode to be also accessed?
Frankly, a panacee has not yet been found. Could the theory of modes of behaviour give some indications as to where to go? Here are a few suggestions:
Regulate Stress. Excess of stress may provoke behavioural constriction and negative emotions that may prcipitate war. Regulation does not mean complete removal. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World pictured long ago how wholesale shielding against stress may go with a thorough infantilisation of human beings; not a vey attractive perspective. Even without going that far, regulating stress is an enormous task; it would at least demand feeding the world's human population and respecting everybody's Human Rights.
Favour Trust. The switch by which the Agonic mode may be turned into the Hedonic is trust. Once established, trust tends to breed more trust and thus helps to anchor society firmly in the Hedonic mode, making sudden transitions into the Agonistic unlikely. (By the way, distrust does the same in the opposite direction, as we witness to-day in the bank crisis plaguing some of the long-standing, big economies). Evidently, one cannot impose trust - or an Orwellian 1984 regime would ensue, where people are coerced into trusting Big Brother. Persons and parties must prove themselves worthy of trust; governments and economic powers in the first place. Distrust between governments and their peoples may take many forms; but in the end, I believe, mutual trust must necessarily win out.
Teach Empathy. Empathy is the basis of fruitful dialogue and of peace. I do not know whether empathy is a Gift or an Art that may be learned, but I am pretty sure that it can be encouraged in children at the right age. Even if not everybody could, an increase in the proportion of empathic people might tip the balance for a more humane humanity in future.
Many more ways to improve conditions favouring peace are possible, and have been recommended by others. Here I concentrated on those suggested by the theory of modes.
Notes.
(1) Agôn does not refer to the computer games with which young and old think they may sharpen their mind. They play within an imaginary world, like an actor playing on the stage.
(2) Chance, M.R.A. & C.J. Jolly, 1970. Social Groups of Monkeys, Apes and Men. London, Jonathan Cape.
Chance, M.R.A. & R.R. Larsen (eds.), 1976. The Social Structure of Attention. London, Wiley.
Chance, M.R.A., 1984. Biological Systems Synthesis of mentality and the nature of the two modes of mental operation: hedonic and agonic. Man-environment Systems 14: 143-57.
Chance, M.R.A., (ed.) 1988. Social Fabrics of the mind. Hove, Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kortmulder, K., 1998. Play and Evolution; Second Thoughts on the Behaviour of Animals. Utrecht, International Books.
Kortmulder, K. & Y. Robbers, 2005. The Agonic and Hedonic Styles of Social Behaviour. Mellen Studies in Sociology, vol. 49. Lewiston, Queenston, Lampeter, The Edwin Mellen Press.
(3) Hedonic should not be confused with Hedonistic. The latter refers to a philosophy called Hedonism, which depends on the notion that one should let one's actions be governed by one's private pleasures. The hedonic mode has received its name because the relations to which it refers are of a pleasant nature, unlike those of the Agonic mode.
(4) See Kortmulder & Robbers, 2005.
(5) Traditionally the term Agonistic refers to all fighting behaviour, including also threat and appeasement. In the terminology of the behavioural modes Agôn and the Agonic mode have been given their own status and excluded from the Agonistic.
(6) Stevens, D., 1993. Bimodality - categories or dimensions? The ASCAP Newsletter, sept. 1993.
The figure was prepared by Martin Brittijn and adapted by Yuri Robbers. I thank Yuri Robbers for commenting on an earlier draft of the paper.
(4) See Kortmulder & Robbers, 2005.
(5) Traditionally the term Agonistic refers to all fighting behaviour, including also threat and appeasement. In the terminology of the behavioural modes Agôn and the Agonic mode have been given their own status and excluded from the Agonistic.
(6) Stevens, D., 1993. Bimodality - categories or dimensions? The ASCAP Newsletter, sept. 1993.
The figure was prepared by Martin Brittijn and adapted by Yuri Robbers. I thank Yuri Robbers for commenting on an earlier draft of the paper.
Geen opmerkingen:
Nieuwe opmerkingen zijn niet toegestaan.