Published in
Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (2004, Spring), vol. 37(1),
109-132.
|
Peace psychologists assume that it is difficult to justify settling conflicts by assault, and that we must consider multiple levels of analysis in order to understand, remedy, and prevent war or other conflicts. Although they are not necessarily pacifists,[6] peace psychologists advocate nonviolence and conflict resolution in many forms, and they point to successful implementation of these practices in a variety of settings ranging from interpersonal conflicts to wars. Indeed, peace psychologists and others note that societies develop highly elaborate customs and laws for settling such disputes, usually without resorting to individual assault. Likewise, many ethicists find it difficult to justify interstate war on moral grounds; nevertheless, states use war in order to achieve their economic and political ends.[7] This points to the need to consider the multi-layered nature of society, which is more than a simple sum of its parts. To understand peace and conflict we must examine them at both the level of the individual and at the broader societal level.
History of Peace Psychology
The move to establish peace psychology as a formal sub-discipline within psychology occurred in the 1980s, when the Cold War with the Soviet Union was at a high point.[8] Its roots actually extend several decades earlier, paralleling U.S. military involvement in wars as well as social movements throughout the century. Nearly a century ago William James decried people’s tendency to rally around the flag when war clouds darken the horizon.[9] He considered this a basic human tendency for security and affiliation, and urged societies to create constructive ways to fill this need. Despite James’s immense stature in the field, psychologists largely ignored his plea and involved themselves headlong in U.S. war efforts.
During World War I psychologists developed intelligence tests intended to select and classify new recruits so that the army could best meet its needs with qualified personnel. This type of effort expanded during World War II, with psychologists from many different areas of the discipline lending their expertise to the war.[10] In addition to assisting with personnel selection and assignment, psychologists also began to treat soldiers suffering psychological effects from battlefield trauma. Other psychologists assisted in diverse ways, ranging from the creation of propaganda to the design of equipment that would operate more efficiently. In one of psychology’s more curious forays, experimental psychologists joined the effort by training animals to guide weapons to targets. Before laser-guided weaponry was a reality, B. F. Skinner and others taught pigeons to peck at keys to direct missiles to their targets.[11] Although these weapons were not implemented in the war, they illustrate most psychologists’ enthusiastic support of the war, which they considered morally defensible.
Following WWII the presence of psychologists in the military increased, but the Cold War brought significant changes. Many of these changes were attributable to realpolitik, the belief that at its simplest, politics consists of keeping, increasing, and demonstrating power.[12] Realpolitik has been cited as a dominant theme in politics over the past several centuries. This belief affected Cold War policies, resulting in the arms race that ultimately helped bankrupt the Soviet Union. During the 1950s, a small number of psychologists were convinced that the power of nuclear weapons to destroy the world necessitated a different political strategy. Not surprisingly, psychologists failed to persuade government officials in questions of foreign policy, but they planted the seed of interest in peace psychology.
During the 1960s sufficient interest in the psychological community led to the development of The Journal of Social Issues, which included a special issue critical of U.S. nuclear policy of deterrence through strength.[13] Psychologists also published books with titles such as Preventing World War III: Some Proposals,[14] which illustrates increasing interest among psychologists regarding peace issues. Perhaps the most important development during this time was Osgood’s “GRIT” strategy for reducing tension in international relations, which some analysts suggest was used in U.S. and Soviet talks on nuclear arms during the Kennedy era.[15]
More recently, we have seen peace psychology formally established as one of fifty-two “divisions” of the American Psychological Association, making it a sub-discipline within psychology. Its goals are three-fold.[16] The division encourages research on the causes and effects of peace by sponsoring research symposia and by publishing Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology to disseminate the best of that research. It educates other psychologists and the public about peace, and facilitates communication among researchers, teachers, and practitioners working on peace issues. Finally, it encourages the active practice and application of nonviolent methods of conflict resolution, reconciliation, and the prevention of war or other forms of conflict. As a new area within psychology, peace psychology is relatively small when compared to sub-disciplines such as developmental or clinical psychology. Nevertheless, it is a vibrant part of psychology, as evidenced by criteria such as journal circulation and the increasing number of programs.[17] For example, several universities offer master’s degrees in peace psychology or peace studies, and the University of Massachusetts has now established the first doctoral program in peace psychology.[18] Graduates of these programs not only learn about peace, but also are actively involved in applying their knowledge and skills to real-world situations.
Dimensions of Peace Psychology
Following the Cold War era, peace psychology has broadened from merely preventing nuclear annihilation to smaller-scale concerns. In an influential book, Christie, Wagner, and Winter point out that the activities of peace psychologists have become world-wide in scope but focus on local as well as global issues.[19] They divide peace psychology into four general areas: Direct Violence, Structural Violence, Peacemaking, and Peacebuilding.
Direct Violence
Direct violence has been the classic concern of peace psychologists. It includes acts of war between nations, civil war, and genocide, but extends to acts occurring between two individuals. Direct violence occurs quickly and kills people directly; it is typically intentional and dramatic. It does not need a social structure to occur; it merely requires contact between individuals, groups, or nations. Psychologically, direct violence often is rooted in people’s ethnic identities or other identities based on social groups, including religion. Groups to which one belongs (in-groups) are favored, at least in part because they bolster one’s own sense of well-being. When the in-group is sufficiently threatened by an out-group, however, the group members may react violently in order to protect its integrity. This type of process has been found in violence ranging from hate crimes to ethnic violence to genocide.[20] When the in-groups and out-groups are religious in nature, the result has prompted observers such as Pascal to conclude, “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”[21]
It is important to distinguish between conflict and direct violence. Conflict is a psychological concept in which different concepts or ideals are at odds with one another. When conflict occurs, one may work with the opposing party to achieve some compromise, acquiesce to the other party, or use violence to achieve one’s aims. Violence is more likely to be considered if one party emphasizes its own goals over those of the other and if violence is expected to succeed,[22] or weapons are present.[23]
The classic example of direct violence is war, but war and peace are more than a matter of interstate violence. The majority of wars occur within the state,[24] and civil wars result in tremendous numbers of casualties to civilians. Renner cites the Sudanese civil war as resulting in some 1,500,000 casualties, 97 percent of whom were civilians.[25] Direct violence ranges from large-scale wars such as these, to ethnic violence, “hate crimes” against homosexuals or other groups, and domestic violence.
Three themes should be kept in mind when considering the broad scope of acts constituting direct violence.[26] First, it is often too simplistic to transfer the motives and experiences of a conflict involving two individuals to a conflict involving two groups or nations. Although some common features may exist, for example, between hate crimes and genocide, significant differences should caution us against assuming that the same factors are at work in the two types of violence. Second, cultural context provides the background for the actions, and in many ways sets the tone for violence to occur. Strident nationalism can stimulate war between nations, and strict gender role expectations can provide the setting for violence against people who deviate from their prescribed role. Third, the need to protect one’s identity is an important theme in direct violence. Basic psychological forces create biases in favor of groups to which we belong, and against groups to which we do not belong. When our in-groups are threatened, we are threatened; a common response to this threat is violence. This occurs in a wide variety of cases, ranging from violence against homosexuals[27] to violence between groups[28] or nations.[29]
Structural Violence
Structural violence refers to aspects of society that limit people’s ability to reach their potential. Economic stratification, which occurs when one segment of society has difficulty finding adequate shelter or food while other segments of society do not, is an important factor in structural violence. When there are great differences in the educational facilities available to
class=Section2>students in different locales, based on funding formulas and other socio-economic structures, structural violence has been committed. Because it is interwoven with the society’s economic system, structural violence is seen as a normal part of living in society, an inadvertent consequence of “the way things are.”Thus, features of an economic or political system that limit human potential for some while enhancing life for others are considered structural violence.[30] In contrast to direct violence, structural violence kills slowly, unintentionally, and indirectly.[31] It shortens people’s lives by chronic exposure to difficult living conditions, rather than by a specific, direct act. Globalization adds to structural violence because it fuels tremendous differences between people in terms of their wealth and resources, making some suffer at the expense of others. For example, when economic sanctions are placed on a country, the effect on the leadership of that country is slight relative to that experienced by the general populace.
If
we define peace in terms of what it is—“the presence of qualities, values and
approaches in human relationships that build greater harmony”[32]—rather
than what it is not—the lack of war or conflict—then the scope of peace
broadens substantially. At least two things are gained by doing this. First, if
we are truly concerned about peace and the prevention of violence, we must
address its root causes. Some causes, such as anti-social personality disorder,
greed, and lust for power, are classically “psychological” and reside within
the individual. Others are broader, systemic conditions that lie outside the
scope of the individual but nevertheless affect his or her actions.[33]
In order to lessen war, violence, and conflict effectively, we must recognize
and utilize multiple levels of analysis, and not limit our efforts simply to
individuals, groups, or societies. By improving oppressive living conditions,
we may reduce the likelihood of direct violence and improve people’s quality of
life.[34]
A second benefit from using a broader, more positive
definition of peace is moral consistency. It seems inconsistent to claim to
seek peace, while at the same time endorsing practices that harm children and
others particularly affected by structural violence.[35]
A morality that opposes direct violence while supporting structural violence
would be inhumane at best. From an LDS perspective, charitable concern and
action on behalf of others is inextricably linked to peace.[36]
From the perspective of psychology, an interesting question regarding
structural violence is how people who aspire to live good, moral lives, can do
so while ignoring social ills and the problems of structural violence.[37]
They appear to do this by limiting their scope of justice so that it applies
only to certain people, drawing some people within and leaving others outside
their circle of justice.[38]
We care for members of our own groups, disregarding the welfare of others.
Although societies often have laws and religious prohibitions against direct
violence, structural violence is less likely to result in punishment. Indeed,
even “Good Samaritan” laws designed to encourage citizens to intervene in emergencies
remain a controversial form of legislation.
Because the targets of structural violence are those
people with less power in society, children, women, and minority group members
are disproportionately represented. Structural violence toward children
manifests itself in many ways. Social policies punish children for their
parents’ actions; more subtly, children being raised under conditions of
economic distress have lower levels of cognitive development due to their
parents’ limited time and resources to provide cognitive and linguistic
stimulation to their children.[39]
Structural violence also disproportionately affects mothers worldwide through a
systematic denial of access to health care and other resources, and even by
denying women legal status and rights of citizenship.[40]
Similar problems affect minority groups throughout the world.
Peacemaking
Efforts to reduce, eliminate, and prevent direct and
structural violence are called peacemaking and peacebuilding, respectively.
Peacemaking can take many different forms which share several characteristics:
they emphasize nonviolent means to reducing direct violence; they are reactive;
they occur in a specific, defined time and place; and they typically maintain
the status quo, not disrupting the current power structure.
Related to peacemaking is peacekeeping, which also exists
to reduce direct violence, but does so by keeping the parties separate from one
another. Peacekeeping does not typically address conflicting motives, but only
the violence that occurs between the parties. Peacekeeping sometimes is called
a negative peace because it is more limited; its basic strategy is to keep the
parties apart from one another by direct intervention of a third party.[41]
The two sides of the dispute must desire a resolution in order for the violence
to end. If they do not, the peacekeeping
force must remain in
place indefinitely, as in the case of the U.N. peacekeepers in Cyprus, who have
been there since 1964 in order to maintain peace between the Greek and Turk Cypriots.
On an interpersonal level, peacekeeping is akin to a restraining order
mandating that individuals not contact one another. Although such practices may
reduce the violence, there is no expectation that the underlying conflict be
addressed.
Peacemaking, sometimes called positive peace, is more
flexible than peacekeeping in the number of alternatives available for reducing
violence. It can help resolve conflicts rather than simply stop violence.
Moving beyond peacekeeping to peacemaking requires some level of awareness
regarding cultural differences. Attempts to apply Western approaches, such as
mediation, to non-Western contexts can be ineffective because of cultural
differences in interpersonal relations. Mediation, conflict resolution, and
other Western approaches to peacemaking may be effective in some situations,
but non-Western approaches can also be useful. One example is the Hawaiian
custom of Ho’oponopono, which focuses on regaining lost family and group
harmony, trust and cooperation, emphasizing spirituality and interpersonal
connections.[42]
While several models or techniques for peacemaking exist,
successful peacemaking takes place at multiple levels, treating the two parties
as a system and addressing underlying conflicts as well as the violence that
exists between the parties.[43]
Peacemaking must also address the aftermath of the violence in order to reduce
its effects on the populace and to decrease the likelihood that residual
effects will later spawn direct violence. Thus, efforts to reduce the traumatic
effects of war include not only treating victims of post-traumatic stress
disorder following wars,[44]
but also forming effective communication patterns among the disputants.[45]
Clinical and counseling psychologists regularly volunteer their expertise to
assist victims following calamities ranging from the recent spate of school
shootings to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on New York and
Washington D.C.
Peacebuilding
Like others involved in the peace movement, peace
psychologists are devoting increasing efforts to reducing structural violence
by peacebuilding.[46]
At its most essential, peacebuilding focuses on reducing hierarchies within and
between societies, because the privileges enjoyed by those at the top of the
hierarchy come at the expense of those at the bottom.[47]
Peacebuilding emphasizes human interdependence rather than isolation. It seeks
to be proactive rather than reactive, is not limited to a specific time and
place, and threatens the current socio-economic and political status quo.[48]
Although the hazards of intervening in direct violence
are obvious, peacebuilding often entails much higher levels of tension and
conflict than does peacemaking, and it too can result not only in psychological
discomfort, but also in pain or death.[49]
This is due to the amount of effort required to address fundamental assumptions
and conflicts between parties at different levels in the social hierarchy.
People do not easily give up their systems of power, and such revolutionary
acts are not undertaken lightly or without risk. The advocate of peace utilizes
peaceful means to seek change—pacifism, negotiation, and mediation—and is left
highly exposed should those means fail.
Peacebuilding efforts may focus on either structural
transformation or on cultural transformation.[50]
Structural transformations alter features of the society such as its economic system so that more
effective health care services can be delivered to children, thus reducing
mortality rates among the society’s youngest members. Cultural transformations
address issues such as the perceptions that the world is a just place and
therefore that people earn their places in the social hierarchy or that people
at the bottom of the hierarchy are there by virtue of their laziness, poor
choices, or even evil nature, while people who are virtuous, work hard, and are
good earn their place at the top of the hierarchy.[51]
A central aspect of peacebuilding involves changing how
people at the bottom of the social hierarchy perceive themselves and are perceived
by other segments of society.[52]
Empowering individuals at lower levels of a hierarchy gives them greater
control over their destiny.[53]
One of the most notable examples of peacebuilding is Gandhi’s use of nonviolent
means to transform Indian society.[54]
Conventional wisdom held that change resulted only from the power to commit
acts of direct violence. Gandhi demonstrated that nonviolent acts can also
generate change in society; his experiment was used in other countries,
including the U.S. during the civil rights era.
Systems
of Violence and Peace
A systems approach to understanding direct and structural
violence is important since the
relationship between them is circular. For example, the ethnic conflicts
in Rwanda that led to the killing of some 700,000 people were based not only on
old racial hatreds, but also on a colonialism that had established policies
favoring the Tutsis over the Hutus. This set the stage for violence, which
erupted under conditions of severe poverty and economic emergencies.[55]
When people feel unable to improve their living conditions they sometimes
resort to violence, and the society responds with more stringent limitations on
their living conditions in order to quell the violence.
Even the tragic 1999 killings at Columbine High School
can be understood in terms of systems of violence.[56]
Much attention was focused on the boys who killed twelve classmates and a
teacher, but we must also consider the system that gave rise to great
differences in status and popularity among students, elevating some while
others became social outcasts. When feeling sufficiently threatened, social
outcasts with ready access to weapons will strike back, sometimes with dramatic
and devastating effect. We must recognize the interconnected nature of structural
and direct violence.
Reconciling
Peace Psychology and LDS Belief
How does peace psychology intersect with LDS belief and
practice? There are several areas of compatibility as well as some basic
conflicts in assumptions. The following examples illustrate areas of
intersection between peace psychology and LDS life.
Compatibility
The LDS church’s stance against the MX missile plan is an
unusually clear example of the church taking a position consistent with peace
psychology’s early interest in reducing the risk of nuclear war. In 1981 the
Reagan administration proposed an MX missile program that would give the U.S.
added security should the Soviet Union attack us directly. The plan would place
an immense system of missile silos in the Western U.S., with missiles moving
among the silos. Their changing locations and the sheer number of missiles
would make it impossible for the Soviets to successfully destroy all the
weapons in a first strike, and the Reagan administration believed that the
threat of retaliation would deter the Soviets from an attack. Public debate
regarding the plan was intense, particularly in Utah and Nevada, where the
missiles would be housed.
In this context, the church issued a clear and thoughtful
statement against the MX missile plan.[57]
The statement offered a reasoned, point-by-point discussion of the plan,
discussing issues ranging from the impact of construction crews on the
environment and economy of the area to the arms race itself. The plan was
defeated, largely because of weak public support for it.
For some insight regarding other forms of direct
conflict, we can look to statements from church leaders. For example, David O.
McKay wrote, “[W]e see that war is incompatible with Christ’s teachings. The
Gospel of Jesus Christ is the Gospel of peace. War is the antithesis and
produces hate. It is vain to attempt to reconcile war with true Christianity.”[58] Pres. McKay saw little use for war as a
tool, as did his contemporary, Heber J. Grant. During his presidency, Grant and
his counselors issued several statements denouncing war and urging church
members and the world to choose peace of violence.
One of the more interesting public statements against war
was a letter written by Hugh Nibley to the BYU Daily Universe regarding a film titled No Substitute for Victory, starring John Wayne.[59]
The film was intended to stir support for the war in Vietnam. In his letter,
Nibley cited the commandment in D&C 98:15-17: “Renounce war and proclaim
peace... lest I come and smite the whole earth with a curse, and all flesh be
consumed before me.” Nibley then wrote, “‘Renounce’ is a strong word: we are
not to try to win peace by war, or merely to call a truce, but to renounce war
itself, to disclaim it as a policy while proclaiming (that means not just announcing,
but preaching) peace without reservation.” After reminding readers of the
destructive power of nuclear weapons, Nibley continued:
Thus we have the mandate to renounce military
action, the order to substitute something very different in its place, and the
terrible penalty for failure to do both. A few years ago such an extreme
proposition sounded quite fantastic; the consuming of all flesh belonged to the
category of wild apocalyptic nightmares. Today however the best scientists all
over the world are repeating the same alternatives with ominous urgency and
insistence: It is to be either no more war or mutual annihilation. Those two
verses of the D&C, revealed almost 140 years ago, are standing alone enough
to prove Joseph Smith a true prophet.
Nibley was not the only prominent Mormon with an opinion
on the film; Apostle Ezra Taft Benson’s remarks supporting the war effort were
included in the film itself.
Less-known Mormons have taken positions against the
direct violence of war. One group worked together to publish a small book to
help LDS men who objected to the selective service draft during the Vietnam
War. Among them was Robert Keeler, whose reading of the Sermon on the Mount
(Matt. 5:21-22, 44) and other passages from the New Testament (Matt. 26:52) and
Book of Mormon (Alma 24:24-25; Hel. 15: 9) suggested to him that Christians
should not engage in direct violence.[60]
Keeler concluded there are occasions when God justifies war, but they are
unusual and come only after successive attempts to make peace with the
aggressor (D&C 98:33-36).
The classic Book of Mormon story of pacifism (Alma 24)
cited by Keeler demonstrates an underlying goal of peacebuilding. After killing
hundreds of their opponents with no resistance whatsoever, the Lamanites experienced
a change of heart. They repented and threw down their weapons, vowing never to
fight again. This illustrates peacebuilding’s goal of reducing conflict, not
merely violence.
Thoughtful readers of the Book of Mormon often find mixed
messages regarding war. Equally mixed are the perspectives of contemporary
church leaders.[61]
Although Heber J. Grant and David O. McKay stated their opposition to
war,[62]
President Hinckley spoke in the April 2003 conference about the U.S. invasion
of Iraq, announcing that there are times when nations and people are not only
justified but have an obligation to fight. In his view, “God will not hold
men and women in
uniform responsible as agents of their government in carrying forward that
which they are legally obligated to do.”[63]
As with many religious questions, the person who searches for a single, unitary
answer to this question may be disappointed.
LDS church leaders have addressed other forms of direct
violence, typically condemning it strongly. For example, following Christ’s
injunction to let the children come to him, concern about child abuse led
President Hinckley to say, “We cannot tolerate [child abuse]. We will not
tolerate it. Anyone who abuses a child may expect Church discipline as well as
possible legal action. Child abuse is an affront toward God. Jesus spoke of the
beauty and innocence of children. To anyone who has an inclination that could
lead to the abuse of children, I say in the strongest language of which I am
capable, discipline yourself. Seek help before you do injury to a child and
bring ruin upon yourself.”[64]
Taking a proactive step, the church recently released to local leaders a
videotaped instruction for detecting signs of child abuse.[65]
While critics of the church might see this merely as a minimization of legal
liability, efforts such as this are all too rare in the broader religious
community.[66]
Increasingly important to peacebuilding efforts are
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which empower people who formerly had no
voice.[67]
The church’s Perpetual Education Fund represents an effort in this direction.
By addressing the educational needs of some of its most disadvantaged members,
the fund represents an excellent opportunity to approach issues of empowerment
and peacebuilding.
The classic question, “Who is my neighbor?” highlights
one of the problems we face when we confront structural violence. The basic
human tendency to care for members of our own group rather than members of
other groups makes this a relevant and enduring question for humanity.[68]
LDS welfare efforts began as a response to assist members of the church, but
now extend to countries and regions well beyond its base. The growth of the
church as well as improved communications and transportation abilities have
made this possible, but even with such technological changes, humanitarian
efforts would not be possible without a desire on the part of the organization
to assist others in need.
From a peace psychology perspective, one can also see
effort among the Mormons regarding another facet of peace: cultural
transformation. A cultural transformation in the church may be underway in
members’ attitudes toward Africans. Once seen as deserving their earthly fate
because of having been less valiant before coming to earth, Africans are now
increasingly accorded a full equality.[69]
Incompatibility
At a very basic level, peacebuilding requires a
relativistic context, in which parties are open to the idea that other cultural
or ideological perspectives must be considered, while one’s own perspective may
need to yield to another’s views regarding the best way to address a problem.
This relativistic point of view makes peacebuilding somewhat problematic for
Latter-day Saints because it might conflict with the church’s stand on issues
deemed religious or moral in nature. Needs that are highly valued in one area
of the world may not be equally valued in another.[70]
For a current example of this, consider that while
political freedom is valued in the U.S., it may be less highly valued elsewhere
than social control of a populace. LDS efforts to engage China might be seen in
this light. Despite highly publicized political and even religious oppression
occurring in China, LDS-Chinese relations appear to be improving with periodic
exchanges and visits to Salt Lake City by Chinese officials. The church
apparently sees in this case an opportunity to gain a foothold in a vast part
of the world; Chinese officials see a religion that values obedience to the
laws of the land, a characteristic regarded very highly in light of recent
disputes with both Falun Dafa and the Roman Catholic church. In another
context, LDS missionaries may not baptize men who are married to more than one
wife, even if polygamy is an accepted practice in that culture.[71] Here we see contrasting cases in which
relativism appears to work for the church (as in China) or does not (as in
polygamous West Africa).
Race relations in the church show more compatibility now
than in the past. High-profile African Americans such as Gladys Knight and
Thurl Bailey have joined the church and have been welcomed. Gladys Knight
loosened up the typically quiet and staid Temple Square when she directed a
gospel choir singing new renditions of Mormon hymns and other songs in
celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the 1978 revelation granting the
priesthood to all males. Still, a gap exists. For example, middle-class blacks
are the ones who join the church in the U.S.[72]
African Americans at the bottom of the social structure are less likely to
join, perhaps because they feel unwelcome, or because they are less likely to
encounter the church through its missionary efforts. If peacebuilding involves
empowering a society’s lower classes, this has yet to occur among African
Americans in general. Although data exist suggesting that African Americans who
join the church do feel some degree of empowerment, we must keep in mind that
they are likely to be middle-class.[73]
Moreover, although Mormons may view themselves as mainstream citizens, evidence
exists that the rest of America does not share this perception.[74]
In no part of LDS life does a basic assumption of peace
psychology conflict more noticeably than in gender roles. Peace psychologists
are committed to promoting social equality, and they measure this type of
progress in terms such as economic parity, access to health care, opportunity
in political and other social spheres, and control over one’s own resources. In
this regard, LDS culture presents a sort of “separate but equal” state of
affairs, in which women are considered equal but with different roles.
Policies, however, suggest otherwise. For example, today—over a century since
the manifesto was issued ending polygamy—a man may be sealed to more than one
woman, but a woman may not be sealed to more than one man. From a peace
psychology perspective, this indicates that at some level LDS culture does not
treat women and men equally. This warrants a closer examination of gender
issues in the church.
Family-centered themes are becoming increasingly important
in LDS rhetoric,[75]
including the idea that mothers in particular should spend the time necessary
for the development of children while fathers work to provide for the family.[76]
LDS culture and language place priesthood and motherhood as equal but distinct
roles for men and women. Observers note, however, that priesthood in this sense
has both familial and institutional connotations, whereas motherhood’s scope is
limited to the family.[77]
Indeed, although the Relief Society historically had considerable autonomy, it
falls now strictly under the purview of priesthood leadership as part of the
“correlation” effort to restructure church auxiliary organizations. Cornwall
suggests that women’s roles in the institutional church did change during the
1980s when women began speaking regularly in general conference meetings;
changes in the temple ritual were also seen by some as a response to women’s
concerns.[78]
Nevertheless, in the context of simple numbers, two of the twenty-eight
speakers during the general sessions of the April 2003 conference were female;
the remaining twenty-six were male. Likewise, in the upper echelon of
leadership, men are called to positions for the remainder of their lives,
whereas women serve a few years. Differentials such as these will lead most
peace psychologists to conclude that only limited progress has been made in
giving women a voice. Indeed, in terms
of women’s roles, the patriarchal nature of the church appears to make it
difficult for women to achieve the level of autonomy and independence necessary
to escape some form of structural violence. Strict gender roles are
incompatible with that goal. This is evidenced by research that finds Mormons
follow more traditional gender roles in their homes, yet no significant
difference exists between the number of Mormon and non-Mormon women who are
employed. In their analysis of the data, Heaton, Goodman, and Holman conclude
that heightened cultural expectations regarding motherhood lead Mormon women to
feel more than others that homemaking is unappreciated, lonely, overwhelming,
and poorly done.[79]
Finally, the church’s dealings with feminists illustrates
the contentious nature of structural violence as well as the fact that efforts
to mitigate its effects threaten the status quo. By asserting gender to be an
eternal characteristic, the recent Proclamation on the Family illustrates the
extent to which the institutional structure is in place and the status quo is
being reinforced. Whether this is desirable or undesirable depends on one’s
vantage point.
Relativism also is highly unlikely in the area of sexual
orientation, another subject of concern to psychologists interested in
peacebuilding. In 1999, newspapers reported church lobbying efforts in
California against same-sex marriage.[80]
During the October general conference of that year, President Hinckley stated,
“Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to
attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as
justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual
tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one
year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and
lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome
in the church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given
rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married.”[81]
While this statement decries attacks against homosexuals, there is clearly no
wavering in the church’s commitment to the status quo regarding sexual
orientation. As with gender roles, this is an area of disharmony between peace
psychology and the church.
Moving beyond the question of war, we see differences in
priorities between LDS leaders and peace psychologists, both in terms of how
each construes morality and in the underlying issue of relativism. LDS rhetoric
on morality tends to emphasize sexuality: Chastity before marriage, sexual
fidelity during marriage, the temptations posed by pornography, and
masturbation are generally the focus in Mormon discussions of morality. In
contrast, peace psychologists are likely to discuss sexuality only as it
relates to sexual assault or other forms of intimate violence, and to discuss
morality in terms of structural violence, including problems created by the
distribution of resources or the exploitation of one person or group by
another, more powerful person or group. These kinds of themes receive very
little attention in LDS general conference addresses, particularly when
compared to matters of sexual morality.[82]
Conclusion
In his classic analysis, Sterling McMurrin describes the
LDS religion as an interesting and unusual blend of social conservatism and
liberal theology.[83]
Nowhere does this mix of forces show itself more noticeably than in matters
dealing with peace and violence, with periodic denunciations of war contrasting
with relative silence regarding more subtle forms of violence. The result is a
tension between church and society as the church attempts to find a balance in
its engagement with the broader culture.
From a sociological perspective, this state of affairs is common to
religions, which manage their assimilation with the dominant culture by taking
particular stands on social issues.[84]
The implications of this tension are important, both for
individual members and for the institution. For members, incompatibility
between church and secular cultures can generate tremendous cognitive
dissonance, resulting in dissatisfaction with either the institutional church
or the other social institutions with which members affiliate. In such cases,
the member sometimes becomes disaffected with the church, to the point of
lapsing into inactivity or discontinuing membership.[85]
For the church, the tension indicates its engagement with the broader culture.
A religious institution claiming
prophetic revelation has a degree of flexibility, but only to the extent
that its leadership utilizes revelation that is accepted by adherents and
observers. As the case of the 1978 priesthood revelation illustrates, some see
this flexibility as “additional light and knowledge,” while others see it as a
response to external pressure and an example of the institution moving toward
the dominant culture.
The issue of war and peace brings such tensions to the
forefront. War and other forms of violence treat people as a means to an end,
where both combatants and victims are simply a way for socio-political groups
to achieve their goals. Underlying this idea is the assumption that people are
valued for what they can help the state or group accomplish. This contrasts
strongly with the classic LDS ideal that God values individuals for their
inherent worth, that they are created in His divine image, and that He grieved
when one-third of the host of heaven were lost following the war in heaven. On
the other hand, Elder Nelson’s recent Ensign
article may signal a change in LDS views regarding this issue, such that God
may find greater value in people who are more obedient to God’s and the
church’s laws.[86]
If the institutional church promotes God as loving some more than others, then
the gap between the church and peace psychology—as well as other areas of study
influenced by humanistic ideals—will undoubtedly widen, because a basic ideal
within humanism is that all individuals are worth respect.[87]
To the extent that humanistic values for individuals has become part of modern
life, we may expect more conflict between the institutional church and the rest
of society.
The potential for conflict in matters of peace is reflected by Barash and Webel in their discussion of religious pacifism. Referring to A. J. Muste’s calls for noncompliance to the military draft, which he described as acts of “holy disobedience,” Barash and Webel conclude, “It is interesting to note that in Western religious traditions, disobedience is widely considered to be the primary human sin (witness Satan’s disobedience to God, or Adam and Eve’s alleged transgressions in the Garden of Eden). And yet a case can be made that throughout human history, far more harm has been done by obedience to authority than by disobedience.”[88]
[1]Michael Nielsen earned his Ph.D. in social psychology from Northern Illinois University in 1992. He is an associate professor of psychology at Georgia Southern University, teaching psychology of religion, social psychology, and related courses. He has published his work in such journals as The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, and the Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma. His award-winning Psychology of Religion internet site can be found at www.psywww.com/psyrelig. Michael is a contributing columnist for Sunstone and a member of the Dialogue editorial board.
[2]For other recent examples see Michael R. Ash, “The Mormon Myth of Evil Evolution,” Dialogue 35, no. 4 (Winter 2002): 19-38; and Devyn M. Smith, “The Human Genome Project, Modern Biology, and Mormonism: A Viable Marriage?” Dialogue 35, no. 4 (Winter 2002): 61-71.
[3]Although Mormonism and humanism are compatible in many ways, the church’s conservatism does much to counteract this trend. For a discussion of humanistic tendencies in Mormonism, see Sterling M. McMurrin, The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1965).
[4]Steve Handwerker, n.d., “Peace Initiatives: A Preventive Approach,” http://www.aaets.org/arts/art81.htm.
[5]APA Bylaws I.1, http://www.apa.org/about/mission.html.
[6]Daniel Christie, “Div. 48 Question,” e-mail to author, October 7, 2003.
[7]David P. Barash and Charles P. Webel, Peace and Conflict Studies (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2002).
[8]C. Yatani and D. Bramel, “Trends and Patterns in Americans’ Attitudes toward the Soviet Union,” Journal of Social Issues 45, no. 2 (1989): 13-32.
[9]William James, “The Moral Equivalent of War,” Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 1 (1995): 17-26. (Originally published in 1910.)
[10]Daniel J. Christie, Richard V. Wagner, and Deborah Du Nann Winter, Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Century (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2001), 2.
[11]For more information about this interesting history, see E. Herman, The Romance of American Psychology (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1995).
[12]Perhaps no example of the brazen force of power is clearer than when the Athenians attacked Melos. Athens issued an ultimatum to either be destroyed, or to be enslaved. Melos protested that they had given Athens no reason to be violent against them, and that the choice was unfair. Athens responded that “Right only comes into question when there is a balance of power, while it is Might that determines what the strong extort and the weak concede.” The conflict ended when all Melian males were killed, and all women and children enslaved. Barash and Webel, Peace and Conflict Studies, 407.
[13]R. W. Russell, ed., “Psychology and Policy in a Nuclear Age,” Journal of Social Issues 17 (1961) [Special Issue].
[14]Q. Wright, W. M. Evan, and M. Deutsch, Preventing World War III: Some Proposals (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1962).
[15]Charles E. Osgood, An Alternative to War or Surrender (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1962). For a discussion of this work, see A. Etzioni, “The Kennedy Experiment,” Western Political Quarterly 20 (1967): 361-80.
[16]For more information, see http://gsep.pepperdine.edu/~mstimac/Peace-Psychology.htm.
[17]For instance, the number of subscriptions to Peace and Conflict compare favorably to several other journals that have been part of APA for a much longer period of time. See “Summary Report of Division Journal Operations, 2002,” American Psychologist 58 (2003): 664. Furthermore, judging by the percentage of manuscripts accepted for publication, it is more difficult to publish research in Peace and Conflict than in many other psychological journals. See “Summary Report of Journal Operations, 2002,” American Psychologist 58 (2003): 663.
[18]See http://www.umass.edu/peacepsychology/brief_statement.html.
[19]Christie et al., Peace, Conflict, and Violence, 1-13.
[20]Richard V. Wagner, “Direct Violence,” in Chirstie et al., Peace, Conflict, and Violence et al., 15-18.
[21]Quoted in Barash and Webel, Peace and Conflict Studies, 413.
[22]Wagner, “Direct Violence,” 15.
[23]Leonard Berkowitz, Aggression: Its Causes, Consequences and Control (San Francisco: McGraw-Hill).
[24]Deborah Du Nann Winter, Daniel J. Christie, Richard V. Wagner, and Laura B. Boston, “Conclusion: Peace Psychology for the Twenty-First Century,” in Christie et al., Peace, Conflict, and Violence, et al., 363.
[25]Renner, 1999, as cited in Winter et al., Conclusion, 364.
[26]Wagner, “Direct Violence,” 16-17.
[27]Bianca Cody Murphy, “Anti-Gay/Lesbian Violence in the United States,” in Christie et al., Peace, Conflict, and Violence, 28-38.
[28]Ulrike Niens and Ed Cairns, “Intrastate Violence,” in Christie et al., Peace, Conflict, and Violence, 39-48.
[29]Daniel Druckman, “Nationalism and War: A Social-Psychological Perspective,” in Christie et al., Peace, Conflict, and Violence, 49-65.
[30]J. Galtung, “Violence, Peace and Peace Research,” Journal of Peace Research 3 (1969): 176-191.
[31]J. Galtung, Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization (London: Sage, 1996).
[32]Handwerker, “Peace Initiatives.”
[33]Robert J. Sampson, “The Community,” in James Q. Wilson and Joan Petersilia, eds., Crime (San Francisco: ICS Press, 1995), 193-216.
[34]M. Clinard and D. Abbott, Crime in Developing Countries (New York: Wiley, 1973); S. L. Kirmeyer, “Urban Density and Pathology: A Review of Research,” Environment and Behavior 10 (1978): 247-69.
[35]Dyan Mazurana and Susan McKay, “Women, Girls and Structural Violence: A Global Analysis,” in Christie et al., Peace, Conflict, and Violence, 130-138.
[36]D&C 88:125.
[37]Christie et al., Peace, Conflict, and Violence, 1-13.
[38]Susan Opotow, “Social Injustice,” in Christie et al., Peace, Conflict, and Violence, 102-109.
[39]Kathleen Kostelny and James Garbarino, “The War Close to Home: Children and Violence in the United States,” in Christie et al., Peace, Conflict, and Violence, 110-119.
[40]Mazurana and McKay, “Women, Girls and Structural Violence.”
[41]Richard V. Wagner, “Peacemaking,” in Christie et al., Peace, Conflict, and Violence, 169-172. See also Richard V. Wagner, “Distinguishing between Positive and Negative Approaches to Peace,” Journal of Social Issues 44, no. 2 (1988): 1-15.
[42]Paul B. Pedersen, “The Cultural Context of Peacemaking,” in Christie et al., Peace, Conflict, and Violence, 183-192.
[43]Peter Coleman and Morton Deutsch, “Introducing Cooperation and Conflict Resolution into Schools: A Systems Approach,” in Christie et al., Peace, Conflict, and Violence, 223-39.
[44]Inger Agger, “Reducing Trauma During Ethno-Political Conflict: A Personal Account of Psycho-social Work under War Conditions in Bosnia,” in Christie et al., Peace, Conflict, and Violence, 240-50.
[45]Cheryl de la Rey, “Reconciliation in Divided Societies,” in Christie et al., Peace, Conflict, and Violence, 251-61.
[46]Peacebuilding is a widely used term referring to work designed to reduce the adverse impact society has on its most defenseless and disenfranchised members.
[47]Daniel J. Christie, “Peacebuilding: Approaches to Social Justice,” in Christie et al., Peace, Conflict, and Violence, 277-81.
[48]Galtung, Peace by Peaceful Means.
[49]Christina Jayme Montiel, “Toward a Psychology of Structural Peacebuilding,” in Christie et al., Peace, Conflict, and Violence, 282-94.
[50]Ibid.
[51]Melvin J. Lerner, The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion (New York: Plenum, 1980).
[52]Christie, “Peacebuilding.”
[53]Linda Webster and Douglas B. Perkins, “Redressing Structural Violence against Children: Empowerment-based Interventions and Research,” in Christie et al., Peace, Conflict, and Violence, 330-40.
[54]Susan McKay and Dyan Mazurana, “Gendering Peacebuilding,” in Christie et al., Peace, Conflict, and Violence, 341-49.
[55]V. M. Mays, M. Bullock, M. R. Rosenzweig, and M. Wessels, “Ethnic Conflict: Global Challenges and Psychological Perspectives,” American Psychologist 53 (1998): 737-42.
[56]Winter et al., Conclusion, 368.
[57]“News of the Church,” Ensign, June 1981, 76.
[58]David O. McKay, “Gospel Ideals,” reprinted in Gordon C. Thomasson, ed., War, Conscription, Conscience and Mormonism (Santa Barbara, Calif.: Mormon Heritage, 1972), 277-89.
[59]Hugh Nibley, “Renounce War!” reprinted in Thomasson, War, Conscription, Conscience, 24-25.
[60]Robert B. Keeler, “A Plea for Tolerance,” in Thomasson, War, Conscription, Conscience, 10-16.
[61]For compilations of relevant scriptures and statements from church authorities, see Thomasson, War, Conscription, Conscience, 106-116 and ii-viii. Also see the New Mormon Studies CD-ROM: A Comprehensive Resource Library (Salt Lake City: Smith Research Associates, 1998).
[62]See for example James R. Clark, ed., Messages of the Fist Presidency, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-1975), 5:164; also see Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, and David O. McKay, “Bravely and Heroically Choose a Better Course of Life,” reprinted in Sunstone (December 2002): 80.
[63]Gordon B. Hinckley, “War and Peace,” Ensign, May 2003, 80.
[64]Gordon B. Hinckely, “To the Men of the Priesthood,” Ensign, November 2002, 59.
[65]Protect the Child. VHS. Salt Lake City: LDS Church, Corporation of the President, 2003.
[66]Michael E. Nielsen, “Appalling Acts in God’s Name,” Society 40, no. 3 (March/April 2003): 16-19.
[67]Winter et al., Conclusion, 371.
[68]Opotow, “Social Injustice”.
[69]The idea is expressed in several speeches and books by general authorities of the church, for example, Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., The Way to Perfection (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1931), esp. chs. 7, 15, and 16. For a more recent, “classic” analysis see Lester E. Bush, Jr., and Armand L. Mauss, eds. Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church (Midvale, Utah: Signature Books, 1984).
[70]Andy Dawes, “Psychologies for Liberation: Views from Elsewhere,” in Christie et al., Peace, Conflict, and Violence.
[71]Eugene England, “On Fidelity, Polygamy, and Celestial Marriage,” Dialogue 20 (Winter 1987): 138-154.
[72]Cardell K. Jacobson, Tim B. Heaton, E. Dale LeBaron, and Trina Louise Hope, “Black Mormon Converts in the United States and Africa: Social Characteristics and Perceived Acceptance,” in Marie Cornwall, Tim B. Heaton, and Lawrence A. Young, eds., Contemporary Mormonism: Social Science Perspectives (Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 344.
[73]Ibid, 330-35.
[74]Ibid, 334.
[75]Gordon Shepherd and Gary Shepherd, A Kingdom Transformed: Themes in the Development of Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1984).
[76]Ezra Taft Benson. To the Mothers of Zion [pamphlet] (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1987).
[77]Marie Cornwall, “The Institutional Role of Mormon Women,” in Cornwall et al., Contemporary Mormonism, 239-64.
[78]Ibid, 260.
[79]Tim B. Heaton, Kristen L. Goodman, and Thomas B. Holman, “In Search of a Peculiar People: Are Mormon Families Really Different?” in Cornwall et al., Perspectives on Mormonism, 87-117.
[80]“LDS Urged to Back Ban on Gay Marriage,” Deseret News, 5 July 1999, A-2.
[81]Gordon B. Hinckley, “Why We Do Some of the Things We Do,” Ensign, November 1999, 52-54.
[82]In their study of conference themes, Shepherd and Shepherd (A Kindom Transformed) found economic matters to be discussed only minimally, during the 1860-1889 and 1920-1949 periods. The theme of “Secular Justice” received some attention during the period of 1830-1859 and “Divine Justice” during 1890-1919, but otherwise were not addressed regularly. In contrast, sexual morality was found to be a more enduring theme, whose visibility has increased markedly during recent years.
[83]McMurrin, Theological Foundations.
[84]Armand L. Mauss, The Angel and the Beehive: The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation (Champaign, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 190-191.
[85]For illustrations, see James W. Ure, Leaving the Fold: Candid Conversations with Inactive Mormons (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature, 1999). Others can be found in the “Why We Left” portion of www.exmormon.org. Many of these stories illustrate the strain experienced by some individuals when their church and secular values collide.
[86]Russell M. Nelson, “Divine Love,” Ensign, February 2003, 20-25. A search of the church’s online publication database (http://library.lds.org) offered over one hundred uses of the term “unconditional love” as either describing God’s love, or as a means by which people can improve relations with family members or others.
[87]Carl R. Rogers, On Becoming a Person (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961).
[88]Barash and Webel, Peace and Conflict Studies, 421.
If you would like to correspond with me about this article, send me an email me -- delete the "_delete_me_" portion: mnielsen_delete_me_@georgiasouthern.edu
|