Journal of Globalization for the Common Good

Given that the world is one big family, it would seem appropriate to try to apply the techniques of family therapy to the conflicts and discords between the brothers and sisters who belong to its different religious and ethnic groups. The field of psychotherapy has developed a variety of methods to work with families in conflict and there is growing interest in the possibility of applying family therapy to conflicts within the larger community. The field of social psychiatry has focused on philosophical speculations concerning the nature of the hidden forces and motives that underlie hostilities and warfare. In contrast, new movements in psychotherapy seek actively to create the conditions for understanding which then can lead to acceptance and peace. Among the approaches are Psychodrama, Family Systems Therapy, Imago Therapy, and Playback Theater. Basic to each of these systems is the attempt to create awareness in each participant of the feelings and perceptions of the other parties involved. There are no judgments, no analyses of motives, no demands or calls for behavior change. Instead there is the call for active engagement in understanding the feelings and emotions of the other person or persons. When people can fully internalize the experience of others and are called upon to reenact it, such empathy, without confrontation and disputation, can lead to acceptance and render the “other” as one who shares the same feelings and needs. This presentation will describe different methods of psychotherapy and how they can be a critical foundation on which to build peaceful relations.

As psychotherapy is a healing art and science, and has been used to good effect in interpersonal, couple, and family conflicts, it should also be of usefulness if applied to conflicts between different religious and ethnic groups. Methods developed by psychology have already been modified and applied in the corporate world, going by such names as conflict resolution, sensitivity training, communication skills, mediation, diversity training and other approaches. More recently attempts have been made to modify such techniques for application in the broader social arena

In applying psychotherapeutic techniques to resolving social conflicts two different roads are possible. One approach is to try to sensitize the parties to the conflict to the feelings and experiences of the other. This approach involves developing the ability to step into another’s shoes, feel along with that person, and validate that person’s experience, thereby developing mutual understanding and empathy. This approach implies each position has merit and should be respected. A very different approach is based on the assumption that there are universal values that need to be honored and that any position that does not respect the basic humanity of the other and accord the individual full rights needs to be exposed and challenged.

It is helpful to take a historical view to trace the development of these two very different strains of psychology. Perhaps the earliest approach in this area is social psychiatry. The goal of social psychiatry is to understand trends in society that impact on human relationships as the first step in enabling people to live in harmony with one another. Social psychiatry is not an applied technique but rather has attempted to form the basis for an active approach. It has spelled out the basic human needs and is value-laden A central tenet of social psychiatry is that every individual has a need ‘to be independent to be free, to have aims.’ [1]

Following in this mold, some psychologists approach intergroup conflicts as an expression of reactions to the social environment. It is not the individuals who are negative but the society that is destructive, and the irrationality, destructiveness and paranoia that exists in the broader context is what propels individuals to conflict. The ‘cure’ is thus to change the society, not the individual.[2]

A similar trend has been the development of organizations of committed psychologists which have appeared in several countries under the name of Psychologists for Social Responsibility. Their goal has been to alleviate social and personal distress by taking an active role in supporting movements and legislation that address all forms of prejudice and discriminatory practice.[3] .

The foundation of these psychological approaches is the concept of ethical invariance – i.e., that there are universal standards that must prevail. Harmony in the world depends on respect for oneself and for others and we must value human health and the freedom to develop one’s potentials. More prevalent than ethical invariance is the concept of cultural relativity which holds that all cultural values need to be respected. This more contemporary view has gained favor in the name of honoring cultural diversity. This view, however, runs into difficulties when a culture itself does not respect the individuals who comprise it or are in opposition to it and negates the concept of diversity. The controversy regarding female genital mutilation provides an exposition of these two divergent views. On the one hand, adherents of genital cutting hold this procedure is rooted in the culture and critics should not deign to criticize it. On the other hand, proponents of ethical invariance regard this as an abhorrent procedure that violates the integrity of a woman’s body and subjects her to rigid sexist traditions. When a culture demands conformity, this in itself denies individual rights of self determination and the result has been the development of what has been called the authoritarian personality. [4] Such an individual is submissive to authority, intolerant of non-conformists and rigid in her or his thought patterns. Proponents of ethical invariance have respect for the principle of self-determination but the authoritarian personality promotes the universality of the need to submit to higher authority.

The more popular cultural relativistic psychotherapeutic approaches to social conflict take the position that such conflict can best be resolved if the individuals involved can experience, on a deep emotional level, the pains and full gamut of emotions of the other. By putting oneself in the other’s shoes, one gains a profound appreciation for the needs and feelings of the other and by letting this new understanding be known validates the other and helps to heal the wounds- bringing both parties closer together.

These approaches have been called experiential therapies and exist in a wide spectrum. One of the earliest approaches was psychodrama, developed by Jacob Moreno. As the name implies, the method involves the acting out of a personal story, using an actual theater-like environment. A protagonist uses the stage to tell her or his story and the group players support the protagonist and her/his story. Together, they try to overcome blocks and develop different scripts and strategies to enable the protagonist as well as the group to come to terms with the conflicts expressed. It is supposed to serve as a laboratory for real life.[5] Psychodrama stands between the two approaches of ethical invariance and cultural relativity. The protagonist is challenged by the ‘director,’ or therapist if you will, to change her or his role, to change the original script in terms of challenges from the other actors.

An outgrowth of psychodrama was the development of playback theater by Jonathan Fox.[6] In this approach trained actors are used to enact a person’s story. The individual relates her/his story to the troupe so that they can understand what it is like for the person, and portray it to an audience. In this way, they validate the person’s story and the teller feels witnessed and understood. The personal story is turned into an art- capturing the tone and intention of the person who is courageous enough to share her/his experience. It is also hoped that the teller of the story, in seeing the enactment of this personal tale will want to take on a new role that will prove to be more productive.

The central idea of sharing a personal experience in order to encourage understanding and empathy among others has been translated into many forms. One version is known as Compassionate Listening. This approach was developed by a pastoral counselor, Gene Knudson Hoffman,[7] utilizing psychological principles and incorporating principles set forth also by Thich Naht Hanh[8], a Buddhist monk. The basic premise of Compassionate Listening is that both parties to a conflict are wounded and that it is necessary to listen to "the enemy" with the same openness and compassion we listen to those we are sympathetic towards. This requires a non-judgmental, non-adversarial listening that seeks the truth of the person questioned. The listener is asked to see through her or his hostility to the sacredness of the individual and to accept what the other says as her or his perceptions. In this manner both sides are understood and there follow compassion, forgiveness and reconciliation. This approach has been tried in several settings- with a small group of Israelis and Palestinians, and with a group of Alaskan natives and newer Canadians. The practitioners report that they have defused conflict and brought about increased acceptance through this approach.

A more thoroughly worked out approach, pre-dating Compassionate Listening is Communologue. This approach follows the theories of Carl Rogers who developed client-centered therapy and based his therapy approach on the need for “unconditional positive regard” in which the therapist listens reflectively, standing in the client’s shoes and trying to see the world from that point of view.[9] Communolgue was formulated through years of refining the psychotherapy technique, known as IMAGO, used in counseling couples in conflict and developed by Harville Hendrix.[10] It is based on Intentional Dialogue – involving both a sender and a receiver with the aim of validating each other. The term Communolgue comes from the amalgam of communicate, community and dialogue. Its aim is for a group in conflict to discuss important issues in an environment of safety and respect. There is no assumption of right or wrong, but an effort to transform conflict into understanding in a space of compassion and connection.

The three stages of Communolgue have been carefully worked out, and participants are first trained in its use. The first step is

1) Preparing for Dialogue- The sender prepares a statement that expresses his or her concern, how she or he experiences things and feels: “I feel like….”

2) Empathic Listening - Each participant is asked to receive what is said with Respect (acknowledging the legitimacy of the speaker’s perspective.), Compassion (listening deeply, with feeling), Equanimity (assuming what is said makes sense to the speaker, and is not the whole truth but another’s experience- listening and patiently suspending reactivity). One doesn’t rebut, but listens to what challenges one’s own perspective and attending to the tension that arises.

3) Responding- Mirroring what is said. The receiver repeats back what is said to ensure understanding : ‘What I hear you saying is……Did I get that right?’ The sender needs to correct the receiver; ‘That was most of what I said…….’ Then the receiver needs to summarize and ask, ‘Do I have it all?’

4) Empathize – guess how that makes the other person feel – ‘That makes sense to me because….’

- Be attentive to opinions within yourself and speak for yourself – ‘I’, not ‘we’

Dialogue instead

Communolgue has been used successfully in what as known as the Peace Project- the first attempt which was the Israeli-Palestinian Istanbul project.[12] Couples were invited from both sides, trained first in the method through dealing with issues of the couples, and then it was broadened to issues between the two groups. Istanbul was chosen as a fairly close and neutral location in which they could explore feelings in comfort without fear of retribution. The Peace Project has broadened out to other conflict areas- and has been applied in Rwanda and in Russia.

Psychotherapeutic attempts to resolve conflict have also focused on the internal psychological dynamics that make it difficult for individuals to be open to each other in diaglogue. The most important of these is humiliation. When the individual feels humiliated, the reaction is anger and a desire to turn on the person who caused this feeling- one looks for revenge. In the words of Osama Bin Laden, ‘Death is better than life in humiliation.’[13] Humiliation is different than shame, which is a reflection of the self on the self. Humiliation is being put in a lowly position by someone who has more power. or is experienced as such.[14] Allied to humiliation is the process of demonization –whereby the individual attributes to the other basic destructive forces.[15] It results in constant suspicion and blame and a disregard of positive events as well as pressure to eradicate the putative negative persons along with a growing readiness to engage in conflict. Group approaches, such as Communolgue and compassionate listening try to provide antidotes to feelings of humiliation and demonization – they offer what has been called Appreciative Psychology[16] in which every individual and her or his experiences are regarded with awe and wonder.

Islamic psychotherapy has also attempted to provide antidotes to feelings of humiliation and demonization, but the focus is more on how one deals internally with provocations rather than how one can establish a dialogue to defuse such feelings. As Shahid Athar [17] has written, “The first preventive medicine is to avoid being too sensitive to provocation and become ‘deaf, dumb, and mute.’” He also counsels not to express anger but to control it. Nevertheless Athar states that a person who has no feelings about aggression and wrong-doing is impotent, but anger is not justified on a personal level. The individual must realize that he is not in control of his destiny and that the difficult feelings and situations one encounters are a test from God.

In contrast to the Western and Eastern approaches that attempt to provide antidotes to feelings of humiliation and demonization either through providing a space in which the other is honored or a space where one suppresses feelings are the cognitive approaches which seek to resolve conflicts through an exploration of the irrational thought processes that stand in the way. Most people operate under what has been called ‘naïve realism’ [18] or the belief that they see things as they are in objective reality and that others share their reactions. They tend to be biased by ideology and self interest and tend to be closed off to ideas that challenge their belief system. When faced with challenging information, cognitive dissonance sets in – an emotionally discomforting state which can only be resolved either by incorporating the new material and changing one’s stance, or by shutting out material that challenges their belief system.[19] Although the tools are available, their utility for the task at hand is questionable. The difficulty of being receptive to conflicting cultural and religious systems was illustrated in the study conducted by Mohammed Abu-Nimer. He found that ‘Adaptation and integration responses not only did not exist, but were rejected by all participants on the grounds that moral, ethical and spiritual religious dimensions would often prevent the individual from adopting integration or adaptation responses.’ [20] As an alternative, cognitive therapy[21] actively confronts the individual who has negative thoughts and biases towards others and literally asks the individual to provide evidence to substantiate the thought – or to relinquish it as baseless. The focus here is not on reaching out to the other and trying to share that person’s experience but to rid the individual of baseless prejudices for which no proof can be called forth. The dialogue here is not with the person or group with which one is in conflict, but with one’s own biases.

Abu-Nimer, M. (2001). Conflict resolution, culture, and religion: towards a training model of interrelgious peacebuilding. Journal of Peace Research, 38, 685-704.

Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D.J.,& Sanford, R.N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Alon, N., Haim, O. (2005). The psychology of demonization: promoting acceptance and reducing conflict. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Beck, A. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York: Penguin Books.

Festinger, L. (1967). A theory of cognitive dissonance. CA: Stanford University Press.

Fox, J (1994). Acts of service: spontaneity, commitment, tradition in the nonscripted theatre. New York: Tusitala.

Fuzeki, V (1979). Bierer and social psychiatry. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 25, 240-243.

Gralnick, A. (1986). The role of psychiatry and psychotherapy in the peace process. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 32, 63-69,

Hendrix, H. (1988). Getting the love you want: a guide for couples. New York: Henry Holt.

Hoffman, G.H. (undated). Compassionate listening: a first step toward reconciliation. In Rivers, D., Ed., (undated) Compassionate listening: an exploratory source book about conflict transformation. www.newconversations.net/listening.

Klein, S (1992). Managing humiliation. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 12, 255-268.

Moreno, J (1946) .Psychodrama and group psychotherapy. Sociometry, 9, 249-253.

Ross, L, Ward, A. (1996 ). Naïve realism; implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. Brown,T., Reed, E., Turiel, E. (Eds.) Values and knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Samuels, A. (2003). Psychotherapists and counselors for social responsibility. Journal for the Psychoanalysis of Culture and Society, 8,150-153.

Wahrman, O. and Turtle, A. (undated). An informal report on the communolgue training project in Istanbul, January 2005. http://imagopeaceproject.org/Istanbulpeaceproject. Retrieved 5/16/2008.

[1] Fuzeki, 1979, 240

[2] Gralnick, 1986

[3] Samuels, 2003

[4] Adorno , et.al., 1950.

[5] Moreno, 1946.

[6] Fox,1994.

[7] Hoffman (undated).

[8] Hanh, 1988.

[9] Rogers, 1948.

[10] Hendrix, 1988.

[11] Turtle, 2003

[12] Wahrman and Turtle, undated.

[13] as quoted in Wright, 2004.

[14] Ripstein, 1997.

[15] Alon and Haim, 2005.

[16] Klein, 1991.

[17] Athar, undated.

[18] Ross and Ward, 1996.

[19] Festinger, 1957.

[20] Abu-Nimer, 2001, p.685.

[21] Beck, 1976

Miriam Ehrenberg, PhD, is a clinical psychologist in New York City. She serves as Clinical Professor at John Jay College, City University of New York and is the Executive Director of the Institute for Human Identity, a non-profit psychotherapy center. After 9/11,she worked as a volunteer for trauma victims and is a member of the New York City Mental Hygiene Medical Reserve Corps .Her publications include articles for professional journals and several books on psychological topics for the general public. She is pleased to have been introduced to Globalisation for the Common Good by her daughter, Dr. Erica Ehrenberg, whose area of focus is cultural relations between the U.S. and Iran. It is encouraging that the new generation can lead the old generation to new approaches to world peace.