This WaPo op-ed from last Sunday is by John Paul Lederach, a professor emeritus of international peacebuilding at the University of Notre Dame. It’s interesting that when we think about peace making or keeping, we mostly think about the absence of violence. The most famous peace-seekers deal with armed conflicts (as well they should) and yet there are plenty of people who do this kind of work with disagreements way short of armed conflicts.
As I wrote yesterday, peacemaking is an interesting lens to look at our long-running forest conflicts. In the op-ed:
First, we need to reach beyond our isolated bubbles. In other places, reaching out frequently started with a few people who had the imagination to take a small risk: They dared to open a conversation with their perceived enemies in their own community. This small step was the start of a meaningful journey.
Second, we have to rehumanize our adversaries. We must have the courage to confront dehumanizing language and behavior, especially when it comes from within our closest circles. For many, like the Improbables in Valledupar, these became guiding daily practices: Refuse to belittle others. Stay curious about their lives. Speak about your own deeply held convictions without blame, retreat or demonization.
Finally, we need to stick with it. We can’t just pull away when difficult issues emerge.We must engage on policy but also acknowledge deep-seated fears, historic wrongs and identity differences.People who learn to stay the course know that politics without violence is possible only when we stay connected. It’s hard, but not nearly as difficult as stopping a war.
The very notion of the Improbables suggests the unexpected can have transformative power. When former enemies jointly propose ideas, it shocks the system of toxicity. People can no longer react instinctively; they must stop and look twice. Even a short pause of curiosity opens potential for a more meaningful conversation.
That’s what we try to do here at TSW, but the idea and writing stakes are pretty low, since many of us have no political power to do, or not do, actions in the real world.
It is an opportunity, though, to give a big shout out to the people engaged in these peace-making processes, whether in collaborative groups across the country, FACA committees, or other efforts.
Thank you all for what you do! It’s hard work, for many it’s unpaid, and often little appreciated.
Thank you for sharing this very positive article and recognizing peace-making collaboratives working on important change in the public lands management space.
We — Forest Bridges: The O&C Forest Habitat Project — are an inclusive grassroots non-profit collaborative group based in Roseburg, Oregon, that brings together people to foster sustainable forest health and multi-species habitats through active management and restoration solutions for the 2.9 million acres of O&C Lands in western Oregon.
We’ve maintained the value and vibrancy of our collaborative since its start in 2015 by ensuring the range of interests and viewpoints — conservation, recreation, wildlife, rural economies, forest industry, Tribal, and general public — are engaged in our work to develop, sustain and share with the O&C land management agencies principles and proposals for improved forest management.
It’s hard work, but we could not see us living our mission any other way. You can find out more about us @forestbridges.org.
IMHO, the extremes are still entrenched in their ‘beliefs’. They are very selective in the science that they use, and are resistant to seeing anything new, from the ‘other side’.
Remarkably, most of us are somewhere in the broad ‘middle’, now, differing from 20-30 years ago. People want to understand the science of our forests, and are seeing how complex individual ecosystems are. They seem willing to agree on science-driven active forest management, without having to change the current environmental rules, laws and policies.
Unfortunately, politics (local and National) are hindering the Forest Service from ‘doing the right things’, in a very transparent way. The last 30 years of Congress has to take much of the blame for the problems we have, today. BOTH R’s and D’s. Today’s Congress is the biggest problem.