Gandhi's World View: Beliefs Dr. Michael W. Sonnleitner

 

Gandhi's World View: Assumptions Dr. Michael W. Sonnleitner

 

Nonviolence Healing Paths from Violence and Trauma Dr. Nahla Harb

 

October 17, 2026

Healing from Trauma and Violence: Resilience and Nonviolence
Dr. Nahla Harb

Academic University College for Non-Violence and Human Rights (AUNOHR), Lebanon

 

Introduction and Welcome
Dr. Siby K. Joseph, Director, IFPNP

Friends, as it was announced, today in our midst we have Dr. Nahla Harb for the International Dialogue of IFPNP. Originally from Lebanon, she earned her PhD from the Lebanese University. She is basically a clinical psychologist and psychotherapist.

She has been one of the pillars of this IFPNP International Dialogue. She has been associating with this program from the very beginning, representing the Academic University College for Non-Violence and Human Rights (AUNOHR), Lebanon. She basically serves as a lecturer and trainer at the university, specializing in the areas of nonviolent conflict resolution, family and school mediation, self-rehabilitation, and self-care.

She held very important positions. She served as the General Coordinator of the School Counselling Unit (DOPS) and child protection framework at the Ministry of Education and Higher Education in Lebanon, in which she was designated to be its delegate to the national strategy of preventing violent extremism. She was a fellow of the Harvard Graduate School of Education's Middle East Professional Learning Initiative (MEPLI) and a facilitator of education design in 2020–2021. She studied at the Harvard Kennedy School, completing their program in Implementing Public Policy. Her responsibilities cover a range of mental health services in public education, and she was the chief of the official exam centre for learning difficulties and special needs.

It is our good fortune that such a person, who has both the academic training and field experience, is in our midst to deliberate on a very important topic: "Nonviolence: The Healing Path from Violence and Trauma." She will be focusing on resilience and nonviolence in the course of this presentation.

With this brief introduction, on behalf of everyone, I request Dr. Nahla Harb to start the session. The organizers are very pleased to welcome you all for this session. Thanks once again. Thank you all.

Dr. Nahla Harb

Thank you, Dr. Siby K. Joseph, and thank you all for having me and for the warm welcome. Actually, it is my pleasure and my honour to be with you every year in this international dialogue and to share with you some of my thoughts and the experience we have been having—especially in a very complex context like Lebanon recently.

What I hope for is that it could be like an active discussion, because every context has different paths for healing, especially from trauma and violence. I will not be presenting a recipe, a single model, or a "one size fits all" solution. These are just entry points that could serve anyone who has been experiencing trauma or violence to start with, because the healing process is a long-term process. Sometimes we think we are resilient and we think we are healed, but in fact, one single incident could show us different hidden caves in our unconscious that were not tackled.

In this session, we are going to continue somehow what we discussed last year. Last year, we started with the roots of violence and nonviolence within our system—within our psychological system. Are we made to be violent or not?

We noticed that there is a difference between aggressivity—even in the origin of the word—and violence. So, yes, we have aggressivity in our system, but what does it take to turn it into violence? We are going to talk a little bit about the contexts, the different types of violence, and how to heal—how can we start healing.

Regarding the context, I would like to present this ecosystemic model of Urie Bronfenbrenner. If you notice, there is the person in the middle in dark orange—the person and all the characteristics of the person that could help or be like an obstacle or a challenge between the trauma and the healing. Then there is the microsystem—the direct systems that are related to the person: family, work, friends, and so on. Then there is the mesosystem—those systems that talk to each other, the community. And then there is the exosystem and the social interaction, and so on. Then the macrosystem—the politics, the values, the culture.

But underneath all of these systems, there is time—the chronosystem. There is also this transgenerational element that sometimes is not shown; we cannot see it, and we just live it. Somehow, we cannot even feel it directly—we feel only its manifestations and we feel its consequences.

Why am I presenting these systems? It is to say that when in one of these systems, even if they are not too close to the person in the middle—if you can notice the arrows—there are paths for trauma and there are paths for violence. So, if our macrosystem—meaning the social norms, the values—holds a lot of violent connotations, violent excuses, or justifications for violence, somehow, it will get to us. Even if we do not like it, even if we have this attitude of refusing violence, somehow, it gets into us; it is diffused to our system without us knowing.

But again, if this dot is the person in the here and now, everything underneath it in their personal path is accumulating toward this moment. This moment could be either a decision of not engaging in a violent incident, or a decision to engage in a violent conflict or a violent moment. So, this is the person, and this is their path—their personal path.

There is also the path and all the history of the different systems. Why are they in light colours? Because they are like shadows. Our systems, we cannot concretely touch them necessarily; they are our shadows. They are like shadows that come and go without us noticing necessarily in every moment, but eventually, we feel their ultimate consequences. These shadows create this moment, which is a mosaic—a combination of those different systems.

The circle upstairs is this moment: the here and now. The here and now of you, me, and of every person is this mix of all the shadows of different systems. I can speak about Lebanon. Lebanon is experiencing lots of violence from the different shadows, and every shadow has the “creativity” of violence. This is why, when a person decides to be a nonviolent person in the middle of everything, there will be resistance, there will be challenges, and there will be a high cost. We will see how we can manage all of that toward a nonviolent resilience, because I believe there is no resilience in violence.

Okay. So, this moment is the direct violence. If it is violent, it is direct violence stemming from a hidden form of violence, which is the cultural violence in the macrosystem. Even in the microsystem within the family, if there is domestic violence and it is "okay" to be beaten, or "okay" to be disciplined violently—if it is okay, then there is cultural violence all across these systems, and then comes the structural violence.

All these regulations that establish violence as something normal. For example, recently, the international entities—the UN and INGOs—they speak about the "new normal," and in this new normal, there is nothing normal. It is just setting new standards for what is okay and what is not okay. This new normal is something really dangerous between cultural violence and structural violence most of the times. So, to have a few victims is considered okay in certain circumstances, but not “a lot” of victims. So it becomes a question of numbers, not about the fact itself.

It is okay that there is discrimination among the people “just a little bit”. So, the numbers now justify, excuse, or mitigate the effect of what is happening. These forms of violence are, of course, stemming from what Johan Galtung explains in his model and his theory: the cultural and structural violence. So back to our integrative model, these moments of direct violence in the “here and now” are stemming from the past, the very far past mostly, the transgenerational past—creating this feeling of oscillation between pain from our past and fear for our future.

So, this moment, the here and now, goes back and forth between the pain of the past and the fear of the future. It creates another triangle, a reversed triangle, because if we are not addressing the cultural violence or the structural violence across all these systems, this triangle that is converging into the here and now will regrow to the tomorrow and there. The “here and now” would be this intersection between two violent structures.

We will refer to this accumulation as the vertical types of violence—the transgenerational types. When our ancestors were subject to violence, or our families excused and justified violence in the intergenerational relationship and dynamic, all of this path creates a moment where saying "no" to violence is not so easy. It has to be designed, because the cost could be really high if it is not well planned.

The other dimension of violence is the horizontal. What do I mean by horizontal? The horizontal dimension of trauma and violence is what is coexisting. It’s the forms of violence that coexist in every here and now? For example, we could be subject to structural violence in the macrosystem and in the mesosystem—mesosystem meaning the community level. we could be subject to cultural violence in our families, in our community, and in the macrosystem. All these mixes, all these forms of violence that could coexist in the here and now, are considered the horizontal types.

So, back to Galtung, direct violence is the manifestation of two bigger and hidden forms of violence, which are cultural violence and structural violence. They prepare for direct violence. They justify direct violence and they make it seem normal. One of my friends told me, "Remember that slavery was once legal." So, this is structural and cultural violence. Slavery was considered okay.

Another model or representation is stemming from Karpman drama triangle, where the imbalance of power creates a possibility of violence. For example, some people have a lot of resources; some others do not. Some people are physically strong; some others are not. Some people come from a very wealthy socioeconomic background; some others do not.

This imbalance or inequality is normal by itself, but it could create and transform people, countries, groups of people, or small groups of people from being two equal parties into a higher group and a lower group. When this imbalance of power is established, sometimes it transforms the higher group or the more resourceful group into a persecutor, and the less privileged group or person into a victim.

The dynamic starts from this imbalance of power to a status where a persecutor can carry out this exploitation, can impose his/her/their rules, and can force others to do things. When this is established, the persecutor carries out this obligation and makes the victim like a slave—like a slave.

Within this dynamic, somewhere another person—who is a saviour, or who is presented like a hero or a saviour—could come and try to find his or her benefits within this dynamic. They form a coalition with the victim. They start with a good dynamic with the victim and they support the victim in a way that is also a higher and lower level, because they come as a saviour. They present themselves as higher because saviours are stronger, saviours are higher, and saviours are more resourceful. They present the solution as their work and or achievement, as their job, or as the consequence of their intervention, without any participation from the person underneath—or the person they consider underneath.

What will happen? They will be friends together against the persecutor, creating an escalating chain of violence. Now, the saviour and the first victim are together the new persecutors. The saviour looks like a saviour, but in fact, together they become the new persecutors, and they justify their violence as a reaction to the first violence. This is very dangerous because not only does it take us in a vicious circle of violence, but it takes us into a spiral of violence—an escalation.

This modality repeats itself, but unfortunately with an increase of violence and a diversity of its forms, like symbolic violence. Instead of stopping what is happening, they are escalating what is happening with different faces.

So, what wounds could this create to everyone? The common types of wounds are usually related to abandonment—abandonment and neglect that stem from the same psychological root.

They eliminate the support, and they create this sense of loneliness and this sense of the impossibility of changing. Somehow, they create guilt: "Maybe it is my fault that this is happening to me."

Another type of wound is loss: "I lost someone or something". This happens a lot in wars, and conflicts. Even without losing the person to death, losing the contact by itself is a loss because we lose a person, we lose an asset.

Another type is the wound of trust. Trust here is a very complex concept. Trust is not just "I like you, so I trust you." Trust has different dimensions to be well-informed trust.

There is also the wound of anxiety—anxiety as this expectation and anticipation that something bad is going to happen anytime soon. We see it in PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). Mostly, people who have been exposed to violence and trauma experience these symptoms.

Then there is shame. Shame and guilt are like two sides of the same coin. Shame and guilt make the person feel less of themselves, leading to a feeling of unworthiness. If you listen to people explain why they reacted in a certain way, they say, "He acts with me like I am nothing," or "She deals with me like I am nobody." This feeling of unworthiness is like the elimination—the symbolic elimination—of a person.

Adding to that are these transgenerational aggressions, the wounds of the past. This anger of the past creates a kind of anger or a surrender in the here and now. Also, there are the wounds of the present and the wounds of the future. You might ask, "the wounds of the future, how?" We prepare our future wounds starting from now. When we do not heal from our past, we recreate different manifestations of wounds in the future.

What are the normal reactions? The fight, flight, freeze modalities, and the fawn response—there are many others, but these are the main ones. They call them normal reactions to abnormal situations, and yet, nothing is easy about them.

The fight mode: when it is violent— there would be the feeling of full power reacting to powerless. Within this violent fight—and not all fights modes are violent, by the way, we need to say that some fights are not violent, they are healthy confrontations—but when the fight mood becomes violent, there is a transgression of the frame, of the norms, and there is a cutting of contact and an eliminating of the other.

The flight mode: when it is violent—the person feels powerless, experiencing ambiguity of the frame, not knowing what is happening to them: "Do we deserve this? Why?" There is the blame, the guilt. Also, there is a cutting of contact: "I do not want to engage with these people anymore. I do not want to talk to them. I do not wish to see them. I am just running away." Of course, not all flight modes are violent; some of them are well-calculated and well-measured, where the withdrawal is strategic.

And the freeze mode: when we don’t react, not strategically for example, because we are waiting to see or to know more data, or to collect more evidence, or to really think about a solution, but because the freeze mode here is, "I am afraid, I do not know what to do." I am frozen.

Interactive Session of International Dialogue

Q& A Session

Okay, now the floor is open to questions and comments relating to the theme until now?

Question: Where does the guilt come from? Does the victim blame themselves? Is that the guilt part?

Answer: Well, the guilt is a very interesting topic. Actually, the guilt stems from childhood, where the person who is a grown-up right now thinks everything is their fault. Why? Because of a system of education that is full of guilt. Mostly, our religions force guilt into our education. You cannot say "no" to your dad and mom— because it is a sin. You cannot question authority.

So, whenever something bad happens to us, or maybe if we fall ill—if we are sick—at once people say, "Oh, you do not deserve that." But we are sick because this is nature. Why do you consider sickness as a punishment? It stems from the cultural modality of violence, as if to say, "If you do something wrong, something bad is going to happen to you." Well, not always. For most of the authoritarian leaders—nothing happens to them. They were killing lots and lots of people, and nothing is happening to them.

So, being ill, receiving a punishment, or linking the idea that "I made a mistake" to "I deserve a punishment"—this is what feeling guilty is about. It is about internalizing every negative thing that is happening and thinking, "Well, it is mine. I did something wrong, and I am the person to blame." With this compensation mode, "I have to be punished." And this guilt does not have a size.

When we speak about nonviolent education, we need to differentiate between understanding our mistake—because a mistake is something normal in our development, and it has a size (consequences), it has a context: a beginning, and an end, and it can be compensated for with some restorative measures, and we learn from mistakes—we need to see the difference between understanding a mistake and feeling guilty. Feeling guilty is not related to the mistake itself. It is related to the judgment of a person toward themselves. It is a judgment: "I am bad." It is no longer, "I did something bad"; it is, "I am bad." It does not have a start, it does not have an end, and it does not allow for restorative measures.

For instance, a person who feels guilty says "sorry" all the time. Even when they are not making any mistakes, you feel that they have a constant need for reassurance and validation: for example, they keep asking people: "Are you okay? Are you angry with me? Are you sad with me? I am really sorry if I offended you," without any offense having occurred. This stems also from the dynamic with the parents in early childhood, around three or four years old, when the Oedipus complex is being resolved. If the feelings toward the parent of the same sex are not well resolved there, it will reappear later on and it will influence the whole personality.

Our cultural systems also allow us to feel guilty. The first sin—what is the first sin? This is what makes us feel guilty. And obedience—why are we punished if we are not obedient? Obedience is a very dangerous concept. It is a violent concept, actually. Obedience means you have to say "yes." You cannot say "no," even if you do not agree. That means you are not allowed to think. That means you are not allowed to participate as an equal especially in dignity.

If you go back to old mythology, most of it punishes the people who are not obedient. If we look at Prometheus, when he stole fire from the gods to give it to the people so that they could live better, he was punished. He was punished for not being obedient. He was doing good for the people, but he was punished for not being obedient to Zeus and the other gods. Then, when Hercules wanted to save him from where he was bound on the mountains, the gods allowed it on one condition: he had to wear a bracelet with a stone from that mountain on his hand to remember his punishment because he was not obedient. With time, this bracelet became the engagement ring with a diamond stone to remind only ladies that they should be obedient. Men do not wear this engagement ring.

So, obedience, guilt, and this societal structure have a lot to do with each other. Guilt is not an okay feeling. It is not a normal feeling. It is a feeling that serves as a red flag. Something is wrong in the system—in the cultural system. People can understand their mistakes, people can correct their mistakes, and people can compensate for their mistakes, but feeling guilty all the time is not healthy. It is a very alarming modality.

Question: I am thinking of unworthiness—that type of wound which is on the bottom of the scale but probably a result of the rest. How do you approach combating that? Through forgiveness, through self-respect? How do you heal unworthiness?

 Answer: Not just through forgiveness, because forgiveness by itself is like accepting where you are and you forgive. Unworthiness is approached usually by modalities of self-efficacy. Because it also stems from early childhood, the self-efficacy modality is to measure—scientifically, really, and concretely—what I can do and what I cannot do, and to situate myself well.

If you notice these wounds, there is ambiguity in all of them. They are like judgments, and there is ambiguity in most of them. Saying, "I am unworthy," "I am really neglected," "I am left behind," or "I am abandoned"—it is like a judgment, a static judgment. A judgment usually lacks a dynamic aspect. When we need to tackle one of those wounds—even if I say, "I am guilty," "I am anxious," or "I am ashamed"—which are general judgments. People do not say, "I am ashamed of this specific situation, and I will make it better." No, they say, "I am ashamed. I do not know what to do. I cannot face people." It comes across as if the judgment is a general judgment of the person.

One of these wounds is unworthiness. That is why one important strategy is to divide self-efficacy into different dimensions and to go with measurement. Well, you feel unworthy? How? Because of this specific incident? What are you doing with your family? What are you doing at your work? What are your attitudes with your friends, and who are you?

We are going to see this now in the healing processes. Especially when we perceive that there is a high cost, and despite that, we are willing to pay for it because the end product will be our identity and something really valuable—really valuable, not just expensive in terms of cost, but truly valuable, and we will be genuinely willing to pay it. Unworthiness is a general feeling, and there is ambiguity when trying to face it. To face it, we need to make it clear.

Clarity is one of the paths, alongside evidence-based self-efficacy modalities. If we have time, I can present one of the activities that is related to self-efficacy and that would tackle the feeling of unworthiness.

 

 Question: Dr. Nahla, thank you, it is such a poignant presentation. There is obvious violence that we understand, but you also showed some subtlety of violence that we may not even recognize. Thank you for the insightful presentation. I have one doubt—I may not understand clearly. You mentioned the nexus between the saviour and the persecutor. So, is it a universal thing, or is it only in certain cases that it happens?

Answer: Yes. Well, this triangle—the Karpman triangle—is also called the drama triangle or the triangle of violence. So, when this happens, yes, it could happen universally as in every context, but it could be changed as well. This is one of the patterns but not a fatality. It is not like, "This is what will happen and we cannot do anything about it."

Change could happen from different entry points. We have three entry points for this triangle—the drama triangle. One of the entry points is from the victim side. If the victim empowers themselves, they would become more resourceful, and they rebel. They do not accept that someone is abusing them, and they do not accept these forms of violence and they could face the persecutor directly.

We notice, for example, in domestic violence, if the wife or the husband was not working, when they start to work, they start saying "no" a lot to things they never said "no" to before. Or maybe the children, when they grow up, if they consider their parents to be persecutors, they start to stand up and face them. So, one entry point is that the victim becomes more powerful.

Another entry point is when the victim and the saviour have an understanding about the cost of what is happening. Here, we have two types of saviours. We have the saviour who is an outsider using the victim because they need something from the persecutor, they have a profit in attacking the persecutor, or they need some profit from the victim herself. Alternatively, the saviour could be someone who has a very good intention toward the victim. For example, it could be a parent. They love their children, but they always act like saviours to them.

These two types of saviours have different modalities for healing from this drama triangle—for this triangle of violence.

Option number one: if the saviour is another persecutor—a masked persecutor—then the victim needs to be aware, and they should set the price for this help from the beginning. This is why awareness is something really important. For example, between countries: "Oh, I will help you against your neighbour who is attacking you, but I need your oil." There is always a "but" in the dialogue. "I will help you, but you will have to give me all your research or water etc.."

So, if the saviour is not someone who truly cares about the victim—if it is not a parent, for example—the awareness of the victim is really important to set the cost, and the defined price for this connection with the saviour, and to set the boundaries. We are going to talk about boundaries in a minute.  The victim got to ask: “You are going to save me from what? You are going to help me in what, exactly? And how much will that cost me?” There has to be a frame. It cannot be an ambiguous support. If saviours consider themselves just absolute saviours, there won't be any frame, and this is how you can identify a problem in the dynamic.

So, this is number one: by a frame, a cost, and an understanding.

If this saviour is a parent—someone who really cares about the victim—some parents act like that. If their children have a problem at school, they will go and save them and stand beside them, even if the children made lots of mistakes. The awareness here is for the saviour to learn how to transform their position from a saviour into a coach—to a supporter, not a saviour—because when you create the solution for someone else, you are disabling them.

There was this research about butterflies. In one lab, they did this research: when the butterfly laid its eggs, the researchers helped the eggs hatch just a couple of hours ahead of the real date, and then they started their observation. They noticed that when these caterpillars grew up to be butterflies, the ones that were helped when they were in the eggs could not fly. They could not fly. Why? Because this help, which was not needed, disabled them from developing the muscles required to fly when they grew up.

That is what happens with parents who play the role of a saviour. They actually disable their children. That is why we need to change this triangle—to invert it. The persecutor would become a challenger, a normal challenge—not an overly powerful person, not omnipotent. The victim could become a creator—a creator of a new possibility, of a new existence. They could use the help of a saviour who acts as a coach—a coach and a support—without giving them the full power of acting on their behalf.

 

Question: You talked about aggressivity. My question is, at what point does that aggressivity become violence?

 Answer: That is a very important question. I love it. Usually, there are different criteria for a position of aggressivity and a position of violence. Aggressivity stems from the word ad-gressere in Latin, which means going towards. Towards who? Towards the other, which means looking for contact with the other. Whereas violence comes from the word violare. Violare means using extreme force to eliminate the other, which means looking to end contact. So, when I abuse power to eliminate the other and to break the contact—to end this contact—I am in violence. When I go and do this confrontation with the other, if it is to eliminate the other and end contact, then I am in violence.

Also, aggressivity can work within the frame, within the respect of values, and within the respect of the other person. So, it can be very creative, and we need this aggressivity to survive. We need it. Whereas in violence, there is a break of the frame. There is a breach of the rights of the other, and there is an elimination of this other.

Mainly, aggressivity cares about the self and the other, which are the two basic instincts in the human being: self-preservation and the preservation of the species. So for self-preservation, well, I have to stand up for my rights. I have to stand up for what I need, for my needs. I have to stand up if there is something wrong. That is aggressivity, which is totally okay and natural. But in violence, I need to eliminate the other to feel powerful again and to feel “satisfied” about myself. This is very dangerous because violence creates a vicious spiral, not just a circle.

Question: Thank you, Dr. Siby, and thank you, Dr. Nahla. I agree to a very large extent. I agree with the analogies and contextualization that you gave toward the topics. But again, I want to ask: I need you to shed more light with regard to the context of disobedience. If obedience tends toward violence, why do we have laws, rules, and guides that frame how we live—whether at the minimal social level, call it family or organization, or at a country level? At what point do we see obedience as not being violent if there are laws, rules, and regulations?

Answer: That is a very nice question. Usually, when we work with education, we also highlight the difference between abiding by the laws and respecting regualtions, and being obedient. Respecting the law is a social contract. Rules usually come to organize social contracts among individuals and among social institutions and countries etc.. When we are abiding by the law, we agree to deal with each other within the frame of this social contract, where every action has its responsibility and every action has consequences.

Of course, we are responsible for what we are doing. But responsibility has different frames. Even in legal frames, we deal with young people—minors—differently from adults. Why? Because mistakes are normal in their development. Usually, they have to restore them by doing good for society because there is a responsibility; they harmed someone and they have to take full responsibility with corrective measures, which also serve as a manual for their adulthood.

Whereas being obedient usually means being obedient to other people who are in a position of authority. This is why in our cultural and structural systems, sometimes when there is a leader—one person who decides—people simply obey this leader, and we find ourselves in a violent system.

But when it is a system of dialogue and respect, people can say "no." People can update laws and regulations. In an obedience modality, we are not allowed to question even the laws. Once you question the law, you are viewed as someone who is really harmful to the system. This is why the obedience modality creates years and years of misery without people daring to question the leader or the system.

However, when you are in a system where it is okay to question, we are abiding by the law. We are abiding by the rules, and the rules serve us all. If the rules are not serving us, let us think about them again and let us upgrade them. We are abiding by a social contract; we are not obedient to this social contract. It is a dynamic contract that deals with the needs of all people—not a system where someone orders and the rest have to follow.

Question: I have never fully understood the difference between self-esteem and self-confidence, but I believe we are born with high self-esteem. When it comes to something like violence, what does it actually affect? Does it impact our self-esteem, our self-confidence, or both? Furthermore, does our self-esteem remain the same as we grow into adulthood?

 Answer: Regarding self-esteem and self-confidence: actually, when we are speaking about healing, usually some of our colleague’s use "increase self-esteem" and "increase self-confidence" interchangeably. This is very dangerous because if you increase the self-esteem and the self-confidence of a person and you tell them, "Oh go, you can do it, you are very strong, you can go jump from the third floor and nothing is going to happen to you," it is really dangerous.

What we need to have is a moderate and grounded self-esteem. Yes, trauma and violence both affect self-esteem and self-confidence, especially through this feeling of unworthiness. So, what we do and what we tackle is to go through self-efficacy, because self-efficacy can moderate self-esteem. We do not want people to think of themselves as really higher than their capacities because that is dangerous. But we do not want people to think less of their capacities—nor of themselves, but of their capacities.

In a nonviolent situation, people have this self-respect for themselves regardless of their capacities. Capacities are something that could grow or could be less at different moments in life, but it should not affect their self-respect. Self-respect is accepting oneself with their weaknesses, with their strengths, with their moments of high and their moments of low, and not accepting to be judged by others. They know themselves.

Using these two concepts interchangeably creates confusion. But what is more important for someone is to know their efficacy on different levels, to have self-respect regardless of their power, and to have respect for others regardless of their power. In a system of violence, people only respect the more powerful, and that really breaks moral values. In a system of nonviolence, people respect every person as a person, and they can assess efficacy, strengths, weaknesses, and attitudes—they can assess anything. But they do not judge people as lower, inferior, or superior.

 Question:  You spoke about transgenerational trauma. I was thinking about how we can distinguish between the trauma that is actually passed between generations through parenting, and the other that is passed through generations via culture. Is there a difference between the cultural, biological, or memory parts, and how can we distinguish between those parts?

Answer: I would like to highlight that resilience from trauma can be very different from resilience from violence. This difference is very delicate. If a trauma comes from a coincidence, like a car accident, it is still a trauma. But if it comes from violence—where someone deliberately tried to hurt someone else because they think of them as inferior—it has a different path of healing. In general trauma could be anything; you do not have to be inferior to be traumatized. But when it is violence, the persecutor actively puts us in an inferior position. Violence, yes, creates trauma, but trauma does not necessarily come from violence; it could come from different sources. Therefore, healing from violence has an additional component related to people's dignity and identity. This is an additional dimension in their resilience compared to resilience from normal or regular trauma.

In true resilience, violence is not present. If violence is directed toward the other, then we are not resilient because we are not healthy. Why? Because the instinct of preserving the species is jeopardized. It is not healthy; we are in a state of deviation. This is why resilience and being psychologically healthy means being someone who does not want to eliminate the other, someone who does not want to hurt the other to prove themselves, and someone who goes toward the other and opens up—not someone who is scared of the other or who breaks contact with the other.

 Question: Could you clarify the difference between intergenerational and transgenerational trauma, and how we can differentiate them? It feels quite abstract to us, and it is difficult to figure out without a specific method or approach.

Answer: Yes. Actually, the intergenerational is a small component of the transgenerational. The transgenerational is wider and bigger way the intergenerational, though the intergenerational is deeply affected by it. The intergenerational is more direct as a trauma—it is more direct between immediate generations. The transgenerational, however, can manifest as a very indirect trauma.

For example, one of the patients I have been seeing for a while had an eating disorder. When we looked into her intergenerational relationships, she had issues with anorexia, she had issues with her mom, and she had issues with the aggressivity and the violence in the cultural system. She did not like her femininity because she had problems with her mom.

But when we went deeper into the transgenerational history, we noticed that one of her great-great-grandmothers died from famine during the World War. We noticed there were different issues relating to food and nutrition back then. Once we noticed that, we understood. We had been tackling the intergenerational aspects—the mom issues, the femininity issues, the media image of a female—but there was still a kind of resistance. When we went back to the transgenerational level, we were shocked. Many people among her transgenerational ancestors had issues related to nutrition, especially this great-great-grandmother who died from famine.

Sometimes the transgenerational is not so obvious to detect. There are specific tools, such as genograms, and different psychotherapeutic methods to investigate through it. It is not always obvious; you have to actively look for it.

Question: How do we deal with neglect and shame wounds?

Answer: Neglect creates shame because neglect has an exterior component—the actor is external; someone neglects us. But shame is a consequence. First, being neglected is one of the most difficult wounds to treat because it affects the perception a person has toward themselves, especially regarding unworthiness: "I do not deserve it." We notice this with children in orphanages, especially if they have parents who are alive but placed them there like a boarding school, but they are not orphans. Those children develop a serious deep sense of unworthiness, feeling they do not deserve to be happy. So they do everything to act like a magnet for unhappiness.

To heal neglect, the easiest way is to find an alternative source of love—an alternative, healthy source of love—whether through institutions, especially educational institutions, or within personal relationships. Secondly, is to seek professional help because this is really tricky. When we suffer from neglect, it is not easy; sometimes we run away from our happiness. This is common between neglect, shame, and guilt.

Whereas with shame, we need to heal and address the system of moral values. We need to reframe the cause of the shame, and some measures are restorative for the cause of shame. For example, in our context, sexual relationships before marriage are not accepted in our culture. For girls, it is not acceptable, whereas for boys, it is accepted. When a girl does that, her sense of shame can take her sometimes to suicide, or sometimes it stops her from starting any kind of relationship with others.

When you reframe it and you say, "Well, in this context it is not accepted, but maybe in another context you can go and start your family," it helps, because some of them will not start their families because they are ashamed that a husband would discover it. So, when they change their context—maybe if they travel—and some of them are well-educated women, when they change the context, they are liberated from this shame. Shame is like a prison. Reframing the problem, the reason, or the cause that provoked this shame is one of the good paths in the healing process the project of healing.

 Question: We talked about disobedience earlier, and you mentioned that it is a highly violent concept, which I agree with. However, from what I have noticed, whenever we choose to be disobedient, we are immediately subjected to intense shame. For example, if I disobey a rule, I am made to feel deeply ashamed of my actions simply because I did not comply. What is the societal psychology behind this dynamic, and why do people react this way?

 Answer: This is cultural violence. Absolutely. When we are disobedient, this judgment—this cultural judgment and this collective judgment on us—can be so tough. That is why in rigid systems, rigid cultural systems, and authoritarian systems, direct disobedience alone will not do it, because one person or a small group of people cannot face an entire system.

This is why in the strategies of nonviolent resistance; there are levels of confrontation. There are levels of facing violence and authoritarianism; we cannot face authoritarianism by being individually and directly disobedient. That is why in the healing process—and I do not think we are going to have time to fully look at it, but maybe I can show you just one slide with the skeleton of it—one of the strategies is that we need to design our confrontation. We need to design it carefully, not just in any random way. We need to assess it. We need to be very delicate about how to do it because one person cannot change a system.

There is something called the homeostasis of the system. It is like when you throw a stone into a river. The stone will create circles, which are “change”, but very soon the river will correct its path and those circles will disappear, no matter how big the stone was. To change something in the flow of this river, you need a system.

What to do? Maybe next year we can start from this point and how to do it. I just want to show this one slide because it was already in the presentation and it is very important to see how to deal with it.

The beginning of healing starts with knowledge, thinking, and detecting these contradictions. Detecting these contradictions means identifying: Where am I? What are my wounds, and how do I set my priorities? What are my needs, my desires, my meaning, and my identity in life? And then studying possibilities. It is not just about being disobedient; it is about studying possibilities, alternatives, and opportunities, and also studying the cost. Sometimes it is very difficult to change a whole system, so maybe you have to create an alternative system—a parallel system with some of the people who think the same way you do.

Second—and this is a big step—we are going to think about attitude change. How to plan for this change, and why is it important to me? What would this give me? What kind of benefit? How can I live differently?

And three, the third big component, is the change of behaviour and action as an iterative project. You can have Plan B, C, D, and Plan X—a Plan X which is very flexible. You have to be very flexible because violence is a rigid authoritarianism, and violence works within a very rigid system. They do not allow flexibility; they do not allow change. By being flexible, we are directly addressing the process of violence and its creative resistance. And then we must re-evaluate all the time.

That is what I can say very briefly. I hope we had some more time, but maybe next year we will start directly from the healing process.

 

 Concluding Remarks

Dr. Siby K.Joseph: Thank you very much. Now, I request Prof. Michael Sonnleitner to share his final comments and conclude this session.

 Dr. Michael Sonnleitner: Thank you, Dr. Siby. You always surprise me with these gifts. I have been taking extensive notes. Dr. Nahla, this has been an outstanding presentation. I do not give such accolades easily. You have covered a massive amount of ground. I will have to take at least a week or more to digest my single page of notes. I found the frameworks that you presented to be very provocative. Clearly, that was reflected in the range of questions that were brought up. The discussion could go on and on, and already I am inspired to slightly modify my presentation for next session so that it will partly flow from yours. Without getting into great detail, I do not know what more I can say except a really and sincere thank you. Much more came out that was useful to me from the interactions. Like many people, I believe the concepts are helpful; they are good frameworks. But when you bring it down to more specific examples—especially coming from our own lives—then it becomes a much greater learning opportunity. So, thank you for providing both the framework and a very fine learning opportunity.

Final closing words from the Speaker

Your words of appreciation mean a lot to me. Thank you all, and thank you for your questions and all your insights. Thank you very much, and thank you for the wonderful interaction. I like interaction more than just a standard presentation. It is always a pleasure. The questions open up windows and opportunities for reflection. Thank you so much, and have a wonderful journey through this this yearly IFPNP program.

*******************************************************************

First Assignment, Attendance, Tutorials: Guidelines

 

First Assignment, Attendance, Tutorials October 2026

International Online Fellowship Program Nonviolence & Peace

October 2, 2026 to January 30, 2027

Assignment Attendance Tutorials 

October 16, 2025

Dear friends in peace,

Greetings.

As we progress in to the IFPNP-V, we need to intensify our learning exercises. Some of the self-study exercises are:

1.Assignment: Monthly one assignment

2. Tutorials: Fortnightly (2 hours) for those interested in exploring any subthemes for further details

3. Journal writing: Regular recording of one’s Learning and self-reflection on Nonviolence/Peace

4.Attendance: Complete attendance expected. Attendance less than 80 percent   indicates, ‘Course-not-completed’

5. Project: Periodical sharing and final report submission 

Progress of the participants will be assessed by their involvement and comprehension that are evident in their self-study exercises.

I.     Submission of the Assignment (for the first month):

a.       Assignment guidelines

 i.            Each assignment can be between 1500-2000 words

 ii.            A4, Times Roman, Font size 12

 iii.            Assignment can be hand written or typed. However, it has to be submitted in PDF Format.

 iv.            Title Page of the Assignment should have the following details in the given sequence

·               Title of the Program (IFPNP V)

·               Assignment No.  (Assignment 1 or 2 or 3)

·               Title of the Assignment

·               Name of the writer

·               Date of submission

    v.            Name of the PDF file should contain the following

·        Your name_IFPNP V_Assignment 1/2/3

       vi.   Last date for the submission of first month assignment is Nov. 5, 2026.

        vii.    Email id for submission: peace.nonviolence2022@gmail.com

b.      Assignment Topic

    i.            Assignment for the first month -October

Assignment #1 

Showing how well you understand information discussed in IFPNP course sessions, briefly discuss three main obstacles to applying Gandhi’s conceptualisation and ideas of nonviolence in the current security context in the world, and how each obstacle can be mitigated.

II. Tutorials                                     

a.   Those interested in getting further details on any of the topics of the IFPNP can ask for tutorials.  Special interactive focused sessions, with a specialist will be arranged exclusively for them.

Fortnightly ( 2 hours) for those interested in exploring  any subthemes for further details.

 III. Journal writing                                         

a.       Every individual candidate is requested to maintain a journal and do regular recording of one’s learning and self-reflection on Nonviolence and Peace.  This can be from the sessions or your own introspection / insights.

b.       Organizers would be pleased to review your journal and give their remark.

 IV.  Attendance                               

a.       Candidates of IFPNP-V are expected to attend all the sessions.  Maintaining complete attendance is desired. Attendance less than 80 per cent by any would amounts to, ‘Course-not-completed’

V.  Project                                                        

a.       By the middle of December, each one of will choose a project topic and carryout it, with the help of the guide / mentor assigned by the organizer.

                                                                   

Yours in Peace and Friendship,

Siby K. Joseph

Director, IFPNP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conflict Resolution Prof. Dorcas Ettang

 

October 16, 2026

Understanding Conflict Resolution

Prof. Dorcas Ettang

In the last session, we discussed the foundational dynamics of conflict, deconstructed several widespread misconceptions, and explored various analytical frameworks to help us make sense of it. I hope those models provided valuable insights into your own local contexts, helping you better understand the historical root causes, manifestations, and structural layers of the conflicts occurring around you.

Now I want to transition to conflict resolution—specifically, focusing on the different styles that individuals and institutions use to respond to friction. While there is a vast amount of behavioural research available on this topic, our focus will be on the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, widely known as the TKI model. Later in this program, we will dedicate an entire session to digging deeper into the practical mechanics of dialogue and structured mediation.

The TKI framework posits that human responses to conflict are driven by two basic behavioural dimensions: assertiveness—the extent to which you attempt to satisfy your own concerns—and cooperativeness—the extent to which you attempt to satisfy the other person's concerns. Based on these tracks, the model identifies five distinct conflict resolution styles: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating. As we move into our breakout groups later, I want us to reflect deeply on these categories. Which style aligns most closely with your natural response? Does your approach shift dynamically depending on exactly who you are in conflict with?

Let us begin with the Competing Style.

This approach is characterised by high assertiveness and low cooperativeness. When individuals or groups adopt this mode, they are completely intent on pushing their own agenda and opinions. They stand rigidly in their positions and display no willingness to cooperate. It becomes an uncompromising stance: "It is my way or no way at all." Consequently, the operational objective of competition is inherently zero-sum: I win, and you lose.

This raises a vital question for our cohort: if we are advocating for nonviolence as our universal standard of engagement, shouldn't our baseline objective always be I win, and you win?

The competing style is fundamentally power-oriented. A person pursues their own individual goals strictly at the other party's expense, relying on whatever power seems appropriate to dominate the situation. It is entirely about asserting authority and standing firm in the face of structural opposition. When two highly assertive, uncooperative parties are locked in a room together, finding common ground or a peaceful resolution becomes extraordinarily difficult. Competition naturally draws sharp lines, creating an "us versus them" dynamic that frequently damages relationships.

However, the TKI model notes that a competing style can occasionally be useful. It is necessary when a situation requires a split-second decision or decisive emergency action. In a crisis scenario, there is simply no time for long-term collaboration; an authoritative figure must make an immediate command decision to move everyone forward. Furthermore, competition is justified when you must act decisively to protect your family, your community, or vulnerable populations from imminent physical harm.

This presents an interesting intersection with our studies on nonviolence. Can strategic nonviolence be applied in a highly assertive manner? Absolutely. We can be intensely assertive and unyielding when we are defending fundamental human rights, upholding vital principles of tolerance, or resisting institutional oppression. There is a profound space for reflection on how assertiveness can be leveraged non-violently as a tool for justice.

Nevertheless, the long-term risks of overusing a competing approach are severe. First, it inflicts serious damage on human relationships. If a party routinely forces their way through a dispute, what happens to the social fabric once the crisis settles? Is the relationship safe? Can mutual trust ever be restored? When resolving a conflict, we must prioritise the long-term relationships among the parties involved, ensuring that mutual respect endures the decision-making process.

Second, an overuse of raw authority and competition rapidly escalates conflict. We see this play out internationally when state actors or warring factions enter peace negotiations. If either side relies exclusively on heavy-handed coercion and assertion, the dialogue fractures, frequently leading to an escalation of real-world violence.

Third, competition leaves others feeling completely steamrolled, ambushed, forced, and deeply resentful. Even if you "win" the immediate conflict and secure your specific outcome, the resentment harboured within the marginalised group will steadily grow, creating a volatile atmosphere that can trigger future catastrophes.

A simple everyday example of this is a corporate manager who rigidly enforces a strict project deadline while completely ignoring and silencing the valid constraints raised by their team. This dynamic applies directly to governance as well. When a local municipal councillor acts with high assertiveness and refuses to foster a cooperative space for public participation, it naturally sparks intense community resistance.

Our second framework is the Collaborating Style.

Collaboration is the polar opposite of competition, characterised by high assertiveness and high cooperativeness. This is the authentic I win, and you win scenario. In this mode, the parties join forces to solve a shared problem because they recognise that the issue impacts them collectively.

If we look back at the example of the community borehole dispute, a collaborating approach asks: how can we design a shared system where everyone wins? How can we balance the immediate needs of those who require water for cooking and medical purposes with those of those who must wash clothes or catch public transport to work? The hallmark of collaboration is open, highly constructive dialogue aimed at discovering a mutually beneficial solution that satisfies the core concerns of both parties.

If we apply this to our other case study—the land dispute between the municipality and the local neighbourhood—we see that by utilising the Onion Method, we can systematically peel back the outer layers of public political positioning. This allows us to discover the true underlying interests and core needs of both sides.

Collaboration is highly effective when the issue at hand is deeply complex and intensely important to both parties. Given that real-world conflicts are rarely simple, working together to untangle the structural layers jointly is the only way to achieve a lasting resolution. Crucially, collaboration is the preferred style when preserving the relationship between the parties is paramount...

 

 

You want to protect the relationship and build trust. That is absolutely important in any interaction: how do we build trust? How do we strengthen relationships and ensure successful collaboration?

Collaboration is exceptionally useful when you have the luxury of time and a genuine willingness from all sides to explore multiple options. Because many conflicts are deeply complex, you need time to weigh the different paths forward. Collaboration provides exactly that—the structural time and space to interrogate, explore, and closely evaluate different approaches and options to resolve the issue.

However, there is also an inherent risk with collaboration: it can be incredibly time-consuming. As the old saying goes, "nothing good comes easy." If we are dealing with a severe, persistent issue that has festered over time, collaborating on a solution will demand a significant investment of hours and energy. It takes time because we need to look at the problem from entirely different angles, explore various solutions, and actively include multiple parties.

Think back to our session when we did the actor relationship mapping and structural analysis. In a conflict of that nature, you are dealing with a private corporation, the government, an NGO, the local community, and the media all at once. If you want to collaborate to find a unified solution among all these actors, it will take time. Consequently, collaboration might not be practical when a situation is fast-moving, quickly evolving, and demands an immediate response. It would be wonderful to hear your thoughts on this later during our discussion. Do you agree with this assertion, or do you disagree?

To visualise this style, consider an example in which two department heads or two local ward councillors have entirely different priorities regarding a piece of public land. One wants to use the space for a community garden, while the other wants to develop it into a park. Instead of fighting over whose plan will be approved, where municipal funds will be channelled, and whose authority will prevail, they can meet to brainstorm. By collaborating, they can design a joint proposal that achieves both of their goals, using the time and space to review their different priorities and identify a common objective.

This brings us to our third style: Compromising.

Compromise is defined by moderate assertiveness and moderate cooperativeness. The basic philosophy here is simple: you give a little, and I give a little. It is not a zero-sum "I win, you lose" situation, nor is it a fully integrated "I win, you win" outcome. Instead, it is an approach where each party gives up something of value to reach a mutually acceptable, though not necessarily perfect, middle ground. It is a process of give-and-take.

If we apply compromise to our community water conflict, we might ask: could we negotiate a give-and-take arrangement? Could we perhaps interface with local transport providers and say, "Look, for the workers who need to fetch water at this specific peak time, can their morning shifts start slightly later?" This highlights how we can think creatively about conflict, exploring different ways to negotiate, compromise, and manage the options available to us.

When you look at modern media and current global events, the dominant narrative often suggests that we should be highly assertive or focus entirely on eliminating the opposing party. However, these conflict-resolution frameworks show that there are always options and alternative paths available—pathways we may not have even considered yet.

You typically employ a compromising style when you need a quick, decisive solution or a temporary fix. Once again, the specific nature of the conflict and the immediate issue at hand will define your approach. If time is severely limited and an issue must be addressed immediately, we must ask: are we willing to compromise?

Compromise works best when the stakes are moderate, and both sides are genuinely willing to settle the dispute. They want the matter resolved, so they naturally calculate what they need to let go of to achieve a functional resolution.

However, the primary risk of compromise is that both parties might leave the table feeling dissatisfied. It forces us to ask a difficult question: how much are we truly willing to give up in the name of peace? This is a vital consideration in peacebuilding.

When you look at conflict research regarding signed peace agreements between warring factions, the statistics show that the majority of peace agreements globally fail within five years. Why does this happen? Often, it is because, once the agreement is signed, the compromises made become deeply unpalatable to one of the parties over time, or the terms agreed upon were simply unrealistic given the conditions on the ground.

Furthermore, during high-level peace negotiations, it is impossible to bring every single constituent into the room. Leaders choose two or three individuals to represent the whole group, and these representatives occasionally agree to systemic compromises that their members back home completely reject. This creates a severe disconnect. For a compromise to hold, the parties must engage in a balanced give-and-take where they can realistically live with what they have agreed to share and concede.

Another major risk of compromise is that by rushing to find a middle ground, you often overlook the deeper, underlying issues and miss out on truly creative solutions. In such instances, taking the time to collaborate would be a much more effective response, as it allows you to explore deeper systemic layers. When a conflict spans years, previous generations, and historical cycles of violence, merely splitting the difference makes long-term success very difficult to achieve.

A simple everyday example of compromise is when two colleagues disagree on how to divide responsibilities or share tasks for a joint project. Rather than one dominating the project or spending weeks collaborating on a perfect structural redesign, they engage in a quick give-and-take, dividing the role down the middle so they can both move forward immediately.

This give-and-take dynamic could play out in a community setting, or even in a domestic setting between partners or between parents and their children. For instance, when deciding how to divide household or team responsibilities, a group might split the tasks 50/50 and try to compromise. While it might not be the most innovative arrangement or the most structurally efficient system, you accept it by saying, "You know what? That is perfectly fine; you can take that half," and you move forward.

The fourth style in the TKI framework is Avoiding.

Avoidance is defined by low assertiveness and low cooperativeness. The basic formula for this stance is I lose, and you lose—but at least we are not actively fighting. The relationship remains pleasant on the surface: "Hi, hello, how are you?" You deliberately choose to set the issue aside. You live together peacefully as neighbours, but you choose to structurally withdraw from or sidestep the conflict rather than addressing it directly.

Across various organisational and community contexts, we frequently encounter natural avoiders—individuals who immediately step back and state, "I do not want to get involved in this friction."

It is fascinating to note that within the Thomas-Kilmann model, each of these five responses has its own utility. Each style brings specific structural benefits, just as each carries distinct disadvantages.

An avoiding style is highly useful when the issue at hand is completely trivial and simply not worth your limited time, emotional energy, or institutional resources. Of course, some peace practitioners might strongly disagree with this approach. They would argue, "Yes, the issue appears small right now, but if you leave it unaddressed for a few weeks, it will inevitably fester and escalate from one minor grievance into a massive, multi-layered crisis." Therefore, the utility of avoidance depends entirely on the nature of the issue.

Avoidance is also incredibly useful as a temporary measure when collective emotions are running high, and the situation demands an immediate pause. When raw tension, aggression, and anger dominate the room, a temporary withdrawal is highly strategic.

Remember our discussion about applying nonviolence when facing an intensely oppressive adversary. If you are called into a highly volatile space to help mediate a conflict, and you observe that one or both groups are experiencing intense emotional spikes, how do you manage that space? If you allow the parties to keep debating the issues while their tempers are flaring, it will directly escalate hostility. In that exact moment, the correct tactical move is to enforce a pause. You separate the parties, let everyone step back temporarily, and then—as mediators—you go into their respective spaces to speak with Party A and Party B privately to calm the emotional temperature.

In this sense, avoidance functions as a calculated, temporary pause to gather your thoughts or collect more reliable data. However, some unique conflicts might genuinely need to be avoided permanently.

The primary risk of this approach is that important, substantive issues may fester and dramatically escalate over time. Simply because Party B avoided a structural grievance this month does not mean they will be able or willing to avoid it next month. Furthermore, persistent avoidance signals a deep institutional disinterest or passivity. It communicates the message, "I do not care about this issue, and I am not invested in maintaining this relationship." It looks laid-back, detached, and completely unbothered.

This passive stance severely impacts long-term relationships due to a total lack of meaningful communication. When we avoid, avoid, and avoid, we are merely pushing toxic issues under the rug. This is precisely why continuous dialogue and regular institutional check-ins are so necessary.

A standard everyday example of this style is an employee who strongly disagrees with a co-worker’s counterproductive behaviour but says absolutely nothing, silently hoping the issue will magically resolve itself over time. We see this happen in broader civic spaces as well: citizens might deeply disagree with a newly enacted government policy, yet they choose to go about their daily business without launching a protest, writing a formal letter to their representatives, or demanding a public engagement forum. They accept the status quo, hoping that the structural defect will resolve itself over time. Sometimes it does, but frequently, it does not, leading to severe long-term civic implications.

Finally, our fifth framework is the Accommodating Style.

Accommodating is the absolute inverse of competition, operating on the formula "you win, I lose." In this mode, an individual or a group is completely willing to concede their position. You deliberately place the other person's interests, needs, and preferences ahead of your own to preserve structural harmony or to avoid a confrontation altogether. In the name of peace, you say, "You win." To ensure that the human relationship remains strong, positive, and intact, you choose to yield.

This style works exceptionally well when the issue matters significantly more to the other person than it does to you. Returning to our community borehole conflict, suppose a person who needs water urgently for critical health and medical purposes encounters someone who needs water to wash their clothes. The person washing clothes might choose to accommodate them, saying, "You know what? Go ahead and jump the line. Your health is a priority, and it matters much more than my immediate interest in doing laundry." In this instance, honouring the relationship and the shared humanity of the other party is far more important than winning the argument. You willingly choose to give them this victory.

Accommodation is also the most appropriate response when you realise that your position was factually or morally wrong. It signals an authentic acceptance of your mistake, an acknowledgement of the error, and a genuine willingness to grant the other party what they rightfully desire or need.

However, the severe risk of constant accommodation is that if an individual or a group is perpetually giving up their ground to satisfy another's demands, it directly leads to deep internal resentment and burnout. Eventually, that unvoiced resentment will destroy the very relationship you were trying to protect.

When you overuse accommodation, the fundamental needs and boundaries of one party are completely neglected and erased from the equation. A simple everyday example is a team member who agrees to completely rewrite and redesign their presentation slides at the absolute last minute to match a dominant colleague’s aesthetic preferences, even though they fundamentally disagree with the changes.

This brings us directly to our core discussion question for today’s session: Which of these five conflict resolution styles do you relate to the most, and why?

Are you naturally an avoidant person? Are you a fierce competitor? I see some of you laughing right now because you recognise exactly which category you fall into! Are you naturally accommodating, or does your style depend entirely on the specific issue and the person you are dealing with? Are you someone who defaults to a quick compromise, or are you a dedicated collaborator?

Let us establish, from the outset, that within this framework there is absolutely no right or wrong answer. Every single style serves a purpose. The profound question we must answer is: What does your chosen style mean within the broader context of nonviolence? Because you are committed to the path of nonviolence, do you automatically default to avoidance because you want to keep the peace at all costs? Or can you engage in a highly competitive, unyielding struggle while remaining completely nonviolent?

We'll go into our groups, and then everyone should have a chance to share their views, thoughts, and choices.

Feedback from Group Discussions

• Group 1: I was in Group One. Most participants relied solely on the collaborating mode. When it comes to solving the problem, they were in collaborative or compromising mode. I would say that, thinking globally from an economic point of view, capitalism is in the tree of compromise: "I give less than you, and I make money." And I think this is across the globe.
• Group 2: I was in Group Two, and their views on their experiences were very diverse; most focused on collaboration and its benefits, not just at a theoretical level. Everyone was speaking from their experiences. It was very wonderful to hear from all of them. Collaboration—and even in the time of conflict, even in the time of competition, we can still collaborate. It doesn't have to be one or the other; we can start with competition and still end up in collaboration. So, it was great listening to the group members.
• Group 3: I was in Group Three. My group mates' discussion was prioritised more toward collaboration, of course. They chose collaboration because it's a win-win approach, meaning "I win, you win." This means it's a deep problem-solving approach. Unlike compromising and unlike competing, the parties or the actors actively engage in safeguarding something equally. That's why we selected collaborating. It has the highest assertiveness because, as said before, it's a win-win and it's deeper problem-solving. Further, it builds and preserves trust because it’s, by nature, about togetherness. Unfortunately, you may collaborate with others in a win-win situation for equal benefits, or you may also actively engage in difficult situations where you lose. Unlike competing and compromising—when you compromise, you may lose something.
• Group 4: Actually, we discussed all the methods of conflict resolution, such as avoiding, competing, accommodating, compromising, and collaborating. We discussed a few thoughts on each topic. We also came up with a strategy: our response to this situation depends on how conditioned we are and on our personality. People will take action as per their personality and conditioning. Our response also depends on the resources—how many we have—and on our actions in the situation. In response to competing, one fellow cited an Indian mythological reference: how Krishna encouraged Arjuna to take part in the war. We had an example from Sudan showing how difficult the situation is there and how they will pursue cooperation. These are some of the discussions that happened in our group.
• Group 5: In our group, there was a wide range, and it was very effective, I think, for us to learn from one another—from three people saying, "We are primarily avoidant," to others saying, "We prefer collaboration, but we will go to compromise," and several people saying, "It depends on the circumstances." I thought I was the only one who could focus on collaboration while also being very assertive. I see this in Gandhi also: holding firm to the truth as you see it can have disadvantages.
• Group 6: We believe that a bit of each option is necessary to consider, depending on the situation and the type of conflict we face. We really don't like competition. We don't want that competition. We prefer all of the other choices. For the moment, we have a situation in Nigeria where gas is expensive, and there's inflation—so what we chose to do, what we started to do in Nigeria, was to accommodate the price. We did it, all of us; there was no protest, nothing of the sort, so we just went by it. I think, at times, the situation determines which options to choose.

Further Individual Reflections from Fellows

1. When we talk about conflict resolution, it is a reactive process, because a conflict is already in place. And across all the tools given to us now—under conflict styles, be it avoiding, competing, collaborating, accommodating, compromising, and the rest—what matters most is that we understand the type of conflict on the ground. Then we'll be able to determine the style applicable to addressing that conflict.
2. I think—this is my personal opinion—that competition and nonviolence can never go together. Competition is the source of all violence because, mainly, first of all, competition has the assumption that there are scarce resources that we need to fight for or that we need to compete for, which is a myth. And this idea of scarce resources leads us to become very covetous, to try to keep things for ourselves, and to feel insecure.
   The second thing is what Gandhi taught about greed: he said that if I have even more than one coat, I'm stealing it from someone who could use it. So, if we all had spiritual education—which, unfortunately, there's a huge lack of today—and we worked on ourselves to address our own greed, then I don't think there would be any need for competition. So, I feel like competition has no place in nonviolence. Of course, the reality is very far from the truth of what I'm speaking; it is a very high ideal. This is what I believe.
   I was talking about avoidance as a strategy when, for example, I don't have the mental resources, or when someone has more power than me, and I don't have the mental, physical, or material resources to compete with them. Then avoidance is better as a strategy for my mental health and for my own safety. For example, if I feel like someone doesn't have integrity and that, if I compete with them, I won’t get a fair chance, then avoidance is better.
3. I want to emphasise that avoidance invites more problems in the long run. Yes, it's violence. You do it to yourself because it's never going to go away; it's going to keep coming back. It's not going to lead to any resolution, whether it's in the issue we are discussing or in a personal relationship. Even if progress is little, it is better to address it and make peace with ourselves and others. Just putting it off or avoiding it won’t solve any problem. That's my opinion.
4. Avoiding is a kind of lifestyle in India as well, not just religious, but also due to conflict conditions, because here people belong to different backgrounds, different religions, and different cultures. So, when there is any conversation or even the beginning of the conflict itself, you have two options: first, to avoid or to cooperate. I don't think there is a middle ground here in India. Honestly, I prefer to avoid and be uncooperative from the first 10 seconds of the conversation or situation.
5. I want to say I think the relationship is a bridge, and to communicate effectively, both sides need to build this—this half of it. Thus, I go up to a person and try to have a conversation, but the doors—I'm not avoiding; I'm just trying—but the other person doesn't want to.
6. I agree with everybody about avoidance, but I personally do not think it should be a final solution. Maybe, in the meantime, to avoid violence or escalation, you could use avoidance and accommodation, but mind you, it could send a message of weakness. Trying to avoid or accommodate someone to make them win could give the impression that you are weak or something. I think, in the meantime, for peace to reign and to avoid violence, you apply avoidance and accommodation there. We can revisit that in the future and apply a collaborative method to reach a lasting solution.
7. We need to look back and recall what we learned about conflict prevention—specifically, the part of the theory that addresses physiological, safety, and emotional needs. And if you see anyone who perceives a conflict and chooses to avoid it, I don't think there is anything wrong with that, because you cannot do something that will come back to hurt you. Personal safety is paramount. You need to protect yourself before others. That's what I'm talking about regarding avoidance as one of the tools to apply.
8. We have an issue. One of the issues was this tribal sentiment from our political leaders. One can say it started with the former regime, when the head of state—the former head of state—always pointed out one tribe and insulted them, even though this tribe is the majority in the Gambia. So, in that aspect, people were very afraid of him, and they started avoiding it; they didn't talk about it. What is happening now in the Gambia is that people—religious leaders, youth leaders, among others—have started advocating openly, talking about it to address the issue instead of avoiding it. They are telling the different tribes that, absolutely, what is important is being a Gambian, not the language that you speak at your own house.
9.  I want to clarify that I meant avoiding will always create more problems. I was specifically referring to personal problems when you do not address a certain conflict and you avoid it; with family members and friends, those things will come back. It will spoil your relationship. However, we are in different countries. I live in a peaceful country. If you are in a foreign country and dealing with political unrest and all that, we need to discern whether avoiding it is a good idea. Maybe it's a good idea for your own personal safety or emotional well-being. If that's the option, we should choose it.
10.  I want to add something. You're completely right, because avoiding is harmful in our personal lives. If we use avoidance in our personal lives, we will regret it later. The condition, the society, the people—everything is shaping us, shaping our response to everything around us. You are completely right. And yes, as you mentioned about politics and the condition of the country, yes, avoiding is compulsory for a person to even be at peace. But in personal life, no; it harms the person, harms the people we care about, and harms us as well after some time.