Overview of Conflict Prof. Dorcas Ettang

 

Understanding Conflict or Key Concepts of Conflict

Prof. Dorcas Ettang

 

Thank you very much for this opportunity. I will be speaking on conflict. I think the word 'conflict' is very broad, and there is a lot to say, but I will try in the next few minutes to offer some key perspectives to consider and some ideas about conflict. I always like to start with the definition. Conflict is a perceived or actual incompatibility of needs, values, or goals between two or more parties. It emerges because there is a disagreement about what our values or goals are as a family or as a community—and, of course, our needs as well. We all have different needs, and when those needs clash, we see conflict. Conflict occurs when some individuals feel that their needs, their interests, or their beliefs clash with those of another person or group.

For example, if we have a water source in a community, different members of the community look to it to meet their needs. Some need water for food, some for washing their clothes, and some for health, and so on. Even with something like that, clashes can emerge. In a community where there is a central water hole, you might have somebody who says, "Look, I need to go to work. I need to jump the line to get access to water so I can get to work, get on transport, and make it on time."

Meanwhile, somebody else says, "Well, I need water to cook and to feed my children before they go to school." And somebody else says, "Well, I need the water because I need to wash some things urgently before I go to work." Whatever the case may be, everyone's needs and interests are a priority. So, how do we balance those diversities?

Sometimes in conflict, the incompatibility is real. We can see it. There is one water hole or borehole, and everyone in the community has to get water from there. You have to join a line to access it, and the earlier you arrive, the better your chances of getting water quickly. The incompatibility is real on one hand, where opposing interests and opposing goals create that conflict.

At other times, some of this conflict is perceived; it is not truly a structural source of conflict. It becomes a conflict because there is a misunderstanding, people hold assumptions that are not true and not based on evidence, or there is miscommunication. To resolve those kinds of conflicts, communication is key. This is where parties share their views and the facts, rather than letting assumptions lead to tensions and then full-scale conflict.

Conflict is not a bad thing. It is only what it can result in if it is not addressed, or if people in conflict are not willing to resolve it. Now, I have another question for you. Please go to menti.com and enter the code shown on the screen, or you can scan the QR code with your phone." What are some of the misconceptions people have about conflict? I think one of the things I have already said is that conflict is not a bad thing, and sometimes we tend to create the idea that it is, but in reality, it is not. That is a misconception that we need to debunk.

 Let's see if we can get any results. We can see it now. "Avoiding conflict will make it go away." That is one of the responses, and that is true, right? We avoid, and we avoid, and we avoid without addressing the conflict, thinking it will go away. But then what happens is we have escalation, tensions, and assumptions; we create ideas that become our reality, even though they are not the reality of those in the conflict.

Then there is the idea that it is always negative, which is not true. Sometimes conflict leads to change. It leads to a transformed society. It leads to new ideas of thinking, new values, and so on. "Conflict is bad"—of course, that is a misconception. As we have said, it is not all bad. It leads to new ways of thinking and doing things.

"Conflict can be addressed through silence" is an absolute misconception. You know, some people say, "Let me be quiet." It is very possible that it is not an issue for some. And so that is an important point. Engagement, communication, and dialogue are key. I say this: dialogue has to become the culture of a society. We must have dialogue constantly—not just when there is conflict, and not just during elections. We must have those spaces to avoid silence and the worsening of situations.

"We should avoid conflict at any cost" is another absolute misconception. We should not just ignore it. The claim that "Conflict is unrest and violence in the mind" is also a misconception. We can have conflict that does not lead to violence.

"Aggressive people create conflict, and it is negative" is another misconception. These are very interesting points, because I think there is the idea that it is always the loud, aggressive people who are in conflict. However, it can happen to anyone and involve any group.

"One party sometimes escalates the conflict because he or she wants the problem to be visible to the other party." Escalation, too, could be a problem, and it is very worrying to let something escalate to such a point.

Then we have "conflict is negative and cannot be positive." We have already talked about that.

Regarding the misconceptions about "ego" and "jealousy"—I am not sure what the context is here, but conflict is not always about ego or jealousy. It is just unmet needs that need to be addressed, and so on.

Thank you very much for those comments.

When we think of conflict, several theories have emerged to offer ideas or context about its causes. I have pulled a few of these theories. The first is the Human Needs Theory, which argues that conflict arises when people's basic human needs go unmet.

So, the basic needs are safety, identity, respect, autonomy, and belonging. When people do not feel safe, when their identity is threatened, when there is a lack of respect for them, or when they lack autonomy, independence, and a sense of belonging, this can escalate into conflict. Conflict can emerge when these basic human needs are unmet over time, right? We have seen this in many instances, you know, where there are protests over services, protests over government response, and so on. All of these are different unmet needs.

The second is Social Identity Theory, which argues that people's desire to protect and promote their group identity can lead to conflict. If I feel my identity is being threatened—we see this a lot in ethnic conflicts between ethnic groups—and people feel that specific policies, programs, and interventions are causing a disadvantage to their groups. They would want to engage in conflict to try and protect this identity. If the laws of a country are being changed to disadvantage a group identity, then this is where we apply the Social Identity Theory.

The third is the Structural Systems Theory. This looks at the structure of our political systems; it looks at the structure of our social systems. Are there groups facing inequalities and inequities? Are there hierarchies where those of a specific class, race, or identity have access and political connections? In contrast, others of a lesser race, class, or identity lack space in that system. This could lead to conflict. Poor communication channels as well, where only some people have access to key political players, and others cannot communicate their needs effectively.

Moving forward, we have the Conflict Theory, a sociological perspective in which power struggles and competition over scarce resources drive conflict. We talked about the water hole, or water source, and how it is the only one in the community, so there is competition as others try to access it. Power struggles are often linked to resources as well. We see this during elections and political activity, where parties struggle against each other for control, or even within political parties.

Next, we look at the Psychodynamic Theory, in which conflict arises from internal psychological processes. So, when people have unmet emotional needs, past trauma, and defence mechanisms, all of these different psychological processes contribute to conflict. The issue of trauma and psychological and mental violence is something that really needs priority, because this can trigger conflict on a larger scale than ever experienced.

Another perspective is the Interest-Based Theory, where conflict emerges when people or groups have competing goals, priorities, or interests, right? So, these can be negotiated. In the case of a water issue where everyone needs water at the same time, can there be a negotiated arrangement, program, or system to manage these interests? For those who need water for food and those who need it for other purposes, is there a way to reconcile these interests?

Finally, of course, the Communication Theory argues that conflict can arise from miscommunication. A breakdown in communication, no communication, or poor communication patterns can all lead to conflict.

This is to give us some ideas of how conflicts emerge in different environments. I am also presenting the conflict wheel. When we talk about conflict, there are many theories, many approaches, and many people who have come up with ways to try and understand it—why it is happening—what are the causes?

Christopher Moore presents, I believe, five types of conflicts. He has relationship, information, interest, structural, and value conflicts. He presents these as key types of conflict that could emerge so that we can look at some of them.

We can see relationship conflict when strong emotions, misconceptions, or stereotypes are present. Poor communication or miscommunication can worsen relationships.

Then, with information, the lack of information, misinformation, different views on what is relevant, different interpretations of data, and different assessment procedures can cause conflict, according to Christopher Moore. Is the information available in a specific context? Are some people getting information because of their class or because of who they know? Misinformation features as well. We have seen in some conflicts that the misinformation online is false.

I remember reading a story about images that were spread online during a conflict, but they showed a completely different country. I think it was about a conflict in Sudan, but the images were from a completely different conflict. Now, this can lead to escalation because people who see it can share it, causing complete chaos. Social media and digital technologies play a significant role in this situation. It is very interesting because, for example, even in Somalia, the Somali diaspora living overseas is involved in the conflict due to their access to social media. They can receive and share information. It has really changed the dynamics of conflict.

We have conflicts of interest and competing substantive issues. It could be issues ranging from access to opportunity to disagreements over choice, legitimacy, and fairness. What is fair? Is the judicial system fair in a specific context? It is possible that there can be disagreement over those systems and procedures, access to education, employment, resources, and so on. Then you have psychological distress over poor human relations. This has to do with poor social support—the absence of social support for those who are going through emotional and mental trauma.

Finally, we have structural conflicts, which deal with how a situation is set up. Is the system of governance set up to prevent conflict, or is the system of governance a cause or a trigger for conflict? It also includes time constraints, unequal power, and unequal authority. Who holds more power in the system, in the society, or in the community? Unequal access to resources fits here as well.

So, there is a clash in positions and roles, as well as geographical constraints of distance and physical terrain.

Then we have value conflict, where we have competing values. These include competing values over family, society, and human rights, as well as intolerance of other values that differ—you know, judging other values as superior or inferior. All of this, I think, speaks to the fact that, as human beings, we are very complex, and at different times and stages, we experience these conflicts. It could be between us and someone else, or between our group and other groups. It speaks to the diversity of our interests and views, and how we humans feel.

So now, how do we coexist in such a state where we have different values, we have different ways of communication, and so on?

There is a method called the onion and doughnut method. This is basically based on an onion. Imagine when you peel an onion, there are different layers. If the conflict is an onion, there are three layers that one must be aware of.

The first layer is positions—the outer layer of the onion. What do parties want publicly? In a conflict between party A and party B, what do the parties want? They make this known publicly on social media, at protests, and through those channels. Those are their positions.

When you peel the next layer, it is the interests. What do they really want? Even if I protest publicly about education, is that really the interest? What do I really hope to achieve, or what do I hope for?

Then you go deeper, and that is where the needs are. What do they fundamentally need? Yes, we might protest and say we want this; when you meet with us, we might say these are our interests, but truly at the crux of it, what do parties need?

For example, consider a community land dispute. A local government wants to build a park on an empty piece of land. It wants to use the land for a park, but the neighbourhood and the communities are protesting. They are trying to block this park. The government says, "You know what? We are going to bulldoze the land. We are going to clear it, and next month we are going to work on this park." The community group says, "No, you have to cancel the project and leave it untouched. We don't want anything on this land." That is the position.

When we go deeper into the interests, what are they? On the one hand, the government wants to increase green-space metrics. It wants to improve its standing on green spaces and look like an active government—providing a park where people can come to get fit, let children run around, and all of that. They also want a park because they have money—there is unspent money, so maybe they need to spend it quickly. They think, "Let's just create a park."

On the other hand, the community group says, "No, we want to preserve this for local parking spaces. We don't want construction noise, and we want to have a section of it for a community garden."Those are the interests, and then we go to the needs.

 

What does the government truly want, or what do they want to have in this case? This could be citizen approval. They want safety and to seem as though they are contributing to the public good, and so on. Meanwhile, the neighbourhood group sees it as an issue of access to green space, of keeping the neighbourhood and the community as they are, and of wanting a voice. So maybe that is the true need: you cannot just come and impose—did you engage with us? Did you find out what we need?

The solution, then, will be to look at what both sides want. Through this, we can draw out the common areas. Both of them have overlapping interests—the government wants to increase its green space, and communities also want to have a space for a community garden, and so on. Perhaps they can reach an agreement in that regard.

Moving on is the conflict tree. This is also used to analyse conflict. Usually, with a tree, the roots are underground, and we cannot see them. We have the leaves at the top, which we can see. Then we have the tree itself —the trunk in between—the core problem. In this case, the core problem is land alienation. Some people feel alienated from the land; they lack access, even though it is supposed to be for everyone. That could be the problem, and we could end there, but the question is: what are the root causes? It is not just about the land. Yes, that is what we can see, but the causes are bigger.

Some groups do not feel equal. Some societies are experiencing high levels of corruption. Colonial boundaries have disadvantaged some. Development is unequal, constituencies are not united, and the law has, perhaps for many years, disadvantaged a group. When you have a group that has been disadvantaged for so long, these causes do not happen overnight; we are talking about years and years. Year in and year out, they have had to deal with corruption, exclusion, colonial boundaries, and unequal development. Now, there is an issue of land, and the same thing is about to happen. Because the root causes have not been dealt with, this land alienation has become a major problem.

How does it manifest? It manifests in different ways, and that is what we see: fear. There is fear among one group or another about what will happen with this land issue. It can lead to looting because of tensions and protests, and it can escalate. You can have raids by security personnel and the military, as well as killing, hatred, suspicion, and unfair representation.

This tree essentially is saying that once we face a conflict, we cannot take it at face value. We need to ask ourselves: what are the root causes? Why is this an issue today? Is there anything from the past that we need to be aware of and address? Also, when we see looting, fear, raiding, killing, and unfair representation, we should look at it in the context of its historical and current causes. Somebody is not looting and raiding just because; there are often underlying issues. So, it is not about focusing solely on land alienation as the core problem, but about going deeper.

The last tool is a conflict mapping tool for understanding who the actors involved in the conflict are. This is an example of a conflict involving multiple parties: the government, NGOs, the community, companies, and the media. All of these tools, I should say, can be used to analyse a conflict. You can pick any conflict and say, "Okay, let me do a mapping exercise. Who are the people involved in this conflict? Is it the government?"

 

Is there a community? Is there the military? Or whatever the case may be. Even with this mapping, you can pick a conflict and say, "Okay, what are the causes really about?" And then, "What are the manifestations that we are seeing currently?"

You can also do this: if you pick any conflict and ask, "What are their positions? What are their interests? What are their needs?" This is very good if you have to mediate between two groups. You can ask, "What are your positions, Party A? What are your positions, Party B, and what are your interests?" You do this until you get to the true needs. This also gives you an idea of how to track the kind of conflict you are dealing with in a community. Is it an information conflict? Is it a relationship conflict? Is it both? Is it all of them? Perhaps one conflict can have all of these elements as well.

If we look at the bottom of the map, it just gives us some ideas of how to establish relationships between these different groups. We have the thick arrows between the government and the company. This means there is significant influence and activity between the government and the company. When you have solid arrows, they indicate a direct influence or activity between the two parties.

Then you have the broken lines, which mean weak, informal, or intermittent links. It is not a solid relationship, but there is a link between them. In this case, the company may influence the media. The company, with its funds and resources, can influence the media on what it reports and similar matters.

Next, we have a relationship here between the government and the community. We can see two parallel lines crossing the connection. Two lines indicate a broken connection. This means that between the government and the community, there is no relationship; it has been broken. This could apply to the scenario I just gave about the vacant land, where there is a broken relationship between the government and the community. We need to resolve this even as we work to resolve the conflict. Maybe this relationship has been broken for months. So, we are not just going into a room to say, "Oh, resolve the conflict. Let's come up with a plan." Instead, you might need to rebuild the relationship so they can continue to coexist.

Between the company and the community, we see a zigzag line. This means discord; it means conflict. If there were lightning bolts, that would mean it is a very hot conflict. Here, the company is not getting along with the community. This appears to be an issue involving minerals or resources, where a company may be trying to enter to take those resources. So, we can see discord between those communities and the company.

With the NGO and the media, we see a relationship indicating they are in the same sector, showing a predominant direction of influence or activity. We also see a line between the community and the media.

This gives you a sense of how to map a conflict. If you want to focus on the players and actors involved in the conflict, of course, you would have to map out the issues. What are the issues that are causing this dispute? And then we have the half circle. The half-circle says this group is a third party to the conflict. They are external to the conflict, right? But when you see a full circle, it means these are parties involved in the conflict. The size of the circle represents the conflict party's power. In this case, we see that the company is even more powerful than the government, the NGO, and the community in this conflict.

 II

Moderator: Now let’s take comments and questions.

Comment 1: I have one comment. Lovely presentation, and what I could deduce from what you have lectured us on, in summary, is that conflict comes up as a result of resistance, right?

I have an example from here in Nigeria. I can remember a few years back when the government enacted a policy to tap resources from a sectional part of the country. This group already saw themselves as a minority and had to resist. They resisted the government policy, and before you knew it, conflict arose. The major role the media played back then was to improve the communication between the government and the people. They came to the table to discuss and later agreed.

The people said they owned the resources, that the resources were in their care, and that the government was enacting a policy that did not favour them. This resistance led to conflict, and eventually, they told the government, "Okay, now if you want to tap these resources, give us what we call derivation." That is how the onshore-offshore dichotomy came about, because the group agitating for one-third of the revenue generated from the area was a minority.

In summary, for that group, the conflict was favourable because the government eventually came back and said, "Okay, we will dance to your tune; we will give you what you want." Suppose they had not shown that resistance, I think things would have just gone smoothly like that without them benefiting from it. Thank you.

Response: Thank you. I see the comment in the chat asking for more explanations and examples, noting that the allotted time for discussion is not enough. Absolutely. I think each tool we have looked at can be applied in multiple instances, and the goal is for you to be able to do that. Presenting the tools to you lets us see how they apply, just like the example we had from our fellow participant who showed us how it would fit. We will talk more about conflict, and we can explore more examples then.

If there is anything specific you would like to know, I or someone else can clarify, or we can open it up. Or does anyone even have an example from their country of how this tool or these tools would apply?

Comment 2: These tools may appear academic, but they are very useful. I was thinking just briefly here—and many of you may also give examples in the small groups—of the current demonstrations in France, where over 4,000, mostly high school students, have been arrested, beginning with one high school protesting. It has gone nationwide, and with allies in the streets from unions and others, hundreds of thousands of people are now protesting in France.

In using these tools, one can see that the manifestation, of course, is extreme displeasure with the current French government's budget priorities. The core problem, superficially at least, is that classrooms are too large, people are being neglected, and water is coming in through the ceilings—literally, the schools themselves are falling apart. But the root issue, boy, the cause, is people really feeling that, with justification, their concerns are not being heard or responded to by a government that claims to be democratic. And now, over the past 10 days, this has been an amazing case study in France to share with small groups. We may also have other examples.

Response: Yes. For the small groups, we should take these tools into that conversation. I have put some questions, but we could reflect on the different tools instead of answering the group questions. Thank you.

Moderator: There is a question in the chat box: "How to handle it if one of the parties resorts to violence?" A double question mark.

Facilitator: Satyagraha—we'll be getting into it. We need to resist violence with non-violence as best we can and hope to convert the opponent. But at the very least, we must use elements of coercion against the opponent to change their stance. We need to engage in conflict not because it is good to engage, but because it's necessary to reach a solution. If we respond in kind—violence with violence, or even escalating violence—we can have a situation where an eye for an eye makes everyone blind. That is not much of a constructive solution to any conflict. There is a lot of pain there.

Response: Can I come in quickly here? Maybe because I'm thinking in a real-world scenario where conflict escalates, or conflict begins. Using a conflict-analysis lens, I think it's important to identify the key players. Conflict analysis again: who are those engaged in the violence? Who are those calling for violence? Is it Party A? Is it Party B? How do we identify who these individuals are and immediately engage them, right, and communicate with them about, "Okay, what are the issues? How do we deal with the issues?" But please inform members of your party to refrain from violence.

The first goal is to prevent escalation. Secondly, who are the players and decision-makers? Who are the—you remember the conflict tool, right? You have the company; you have the government. Who in the parties do we need to speak with immediately to prevent further escalation? We can apply those principles of dialogue and non-violence. Thank you.

Facilitator: I certainly agree. However, just as a footnote, if the opponent escalates—and they likely will if they feel threatened—dialogue is important, but holding firm to the truth as you see it is critical. When the opponent represses the movement and smashes it with detentions and even greater brutality, that is not a time to give up the strategy, if you want to call it that, of non-violence. In fact, strategic non-violence, even according to Gene Sharp, will show its effectiveness when repression occurs.

When the opponent is provoked to escalate, it is exactly the time when you need to hold firm to strategic or principled non-violence, not give it up for retaliation in kind. It is very tempting. But non-violence has not failed when repression occurs; in fact, it shows its power then. It's a good thing to go to jail for a good cause in mass. We saw that in the Salt March and at many other instances in Gandhi's life. Just wanted to say that. Thank you.

Group Feedback

Group 1: What we discussed in our group regarding question one is how we see the conflict between the parties, as per the cycle or wheel suggested here. Based on that, we discussed that we first have to identify which type of conflict it is—whether it is a relationship, information, interest, structural, or value conflict. Based on the conflict's segmentation, we have to identify the cause systematically and scientifically. We have to observe and take both parties' conflicts into account in the discussion. After that, we have to decide what type of conflict it belongs to according to the Christopher Moore cycle.

Group 2: In group two, we discussed the situation in Yemen and the difficult circumstances the country is passing through. We looked at how the dialogues there are failing to resolve the conflict, and how political parties are taking advantage of the situation by deliberately avoiding a solution. Dialogue is very important in conflict resolution, so we tried to bring it to the centre of our discussion—focusing on how to develop dialogue between two opposing parties successfully. However, since ground-level reports indicate that these efforts are currently failing and dialogue is breaking down, we discussed how vital it is for neutral third parties to step in and help resolve the conflict between the groups.

Group 3: I belong to group three, and our question is: how do we address conflict when we get involved? So, first and foremost, we need to understand the true state of affairs. That is, we need to know the type of conflict that is actually happening before we wade into it. From what we were taught today, we need to understand that we have information and relationship conflicts. I think I want to add community conflict equally, because it involves a lot of people.

Having done that, we need to understand the mapping system—that is, how to map conflicts. Having identified the type of conflict, of course, conflict cannot involve only one person; it has to involve at least two people or groups. So you identify the type of conflict and map it properly to understand the root cause, because there are always underlying causes. Once you get the root cause, that will be an instrument or a tool for you to mediate. While doing that, you don't focus on the people. You focus on the problem, not the people. At times, when you are resolving conflicts, it depends equally on your own interests.

So, I think the person involved has to be neutral. At times, if you are representing the government, for instance, to resolve a conflict between the government and the community, and you are looking at interests, you may tilt toward the government's interest, whereas you are not supposed to. Someone has to be neutral. Also, you don't react quickly to issues until you can identify the types of conflicts they involve. After that, you may speak with both parties and ensure the issues are resolved amicably and that both parties agree to the resolution. Thank you very much.

Group 4: In group 4, we discussed the crisis or conflict in France. Then a colleague shared about the case of South Africa right now, followed by a sharing about Syria. We analysed these three conflicts and applied them to some of the frameworks we looked at.

For the South African case, we applied the conflict tree to the current situation—its manifestations, root causes, and so on. Then we talked about the Syrian conflict, its complexities, and the many interests involved. Some of the issues are blamed on previous governments and institutions, which also adds a completely different layer to the conflict. Then we talked about the Paris example—what are some of the manifestations of the conflict, the protests on the streets, and those things, and what are some of the persistent issues that have not been addressed which have now led to these manifestations?

Group 5: Well, I was in group five, and I think also we—and I would say these tools provided to us—can be very usefully applied to understanding most conflicts in a very in-depth way. I mentioned in our small group Champaran, which we may have a session on later, where Gandhi, without knowing these constructs, actually used them to help see what the conflict was about—its manifestations, its core, and the roots of the tree. He went further to provide a solution to help those roots become healthier. That's one small step that hasn't been adequately looked at: once we have analysed, what do we do? Providing a solution is a required step that, of course, may help resolve the conflict more than simply analysing it. That's my view.

Final Response

Thank you. I want to emphasise some points quickly.

Conflicts are complex. They are very complicated. When you want to analyse a conflict, you are not just thinking of the causes. You are thinking of the manifestations as well. You are thinking of the actors involved in the conflict. And sometimes there are external parties not in the country that are also involved in the conflict, right?

The second thing is dialogue. You know, if we had systems of dialogue in place, maybe we could prevent a lot of these issues.

One of the points discussed in our group was the need to emphasise non-violence in these frameworks. It was emphasised that non-violence should be the starting point and the baseline, the foundation. If that becomes our standard, we wouldn't find ourselves in situations where we are analysing conflict and trying to understand its manifestations, root causes, players, and all those kinds of things. I think that's a valid point, you know: if we embrace non-violence, we will still have conflict—yes, we agree—but we address those non-violently and commit to finding a solution through dialogue.

Then we don't see death, killing, or looting if we are guided by non-violence as a standard, a method of engagement, and a system of engagement. I think that's absolutely key to how these feed into conflict and non-violence: let's embrace non-violence to prevent violent conflict.

 

Different Views of human Nature Prof. Michael W Sonnleitner

Different Views of Human Nature

 Dr. Michael W. Sonnleitner

Hello everyone. Today we look at different views of human nature. I want to make this complicated and uncomplicated at the same time. You could say we have heard it said, "It's just human nature." It's just human nature to kill. It's just human nature to be evil, individualistic, and competitive. It's just human nature to be saintly and kind. It's just human nature to be nothing.

We're simply conditioned responses to our environment. It's just human nature. I've confused everyone, and yet perhaps I've confused no one because we've heard it all. I would like to analyze this reality of our perception of human nature. The first slide relates to the blind and the elephant. I wanted to start by saying: beware of binaries. What does that mean? A binary is either-or, dualistic thinking.

It's manifest in saying there is either peace or war, either nonviolence or violence, either conversion through nonviolence or coercion through nonviolence. By the way, we're also told we are either female or male. Binary thinking is dominant. I'd like us to briefly understand why I believe it is dominant and why it creates lots of problems for understanding Gandhi and the world. First, I think it is reflected in Aristotle, who many declare the founder of political science.

A bunch of Western thinkers began with the Greeks. Aristotle argued for his view of the law of the excluded middle, which was that something cannot both be and not be at the same time. Something cannot both be and not be. It's the foundation of Western logic. And by the way, we need to recognize that Aristotle was materialistic. That is, he believed in the five senses. The only thing that is real is what we can see, feel, taste, touch, and smell.

So, for him, for example, looking at human nature as male and female, the male is by nature superior. A woman is a deformed male according to him. How does Aristotle come to believe in patriarchy as being the truth? He looks around at his society where he is, at what he can feel, taste, touch, and smell, and he sees patriarchy. What is becomes what ought to be. Now, there's a logical leap.

Aristotle looks at what is—male dominance, patriarchy—and… Professor Michael, then he says to himself, "It is natural. I can observe it." Yes, yes, yes. Understand that this is a trap. I believe you can accept it if you want, but people argue capitalism ought to be, men should be dominant, or human beings are selfish because that's what they see all the time. They say, "It is human nature. It is what is." Do you understand? I'm not going to beat this to death, but I want you to understand that Aristotle was looking at the world in a very materialistic orientation.

Not in terms of wealth, but in terms of what is real is what I can see, feel, and touch. That was his foundation for data: the five senses and only the five senses. But there are other ways. We have Mahavira and Buddha. Mahavira, the accepted founder of the Jain religion, heavily influenced Gandhi and his concept of ahimsa. Mahavira and others have this view of anekantavada. Now, that is the many-sidedness of truth.

And here is the blind and the elephant. You can look at the slide if I'm looking at it on my screen. Many of you have heard of this. Sometimes it's seven blind people. I guess for some reason they like odd numbers. The simple story is, let's say there are three blind people and an elephant. They're blinded by their gender. They're blinded by their culture. They're blinded by the physical, economic situation that they find themselves in. They're blinded by their conditioning. One says, touching the trunk of the elephant, "It is like a snake."

The other touches the body and says, "No, it's like a wall." Another touches the tail and says, "What? You're both wrong. It's like a rope." The point of the story is very simple. They are all right and wrong at the same time. What Aristotle missed was his own blindness. You understand? He thought what he saw was absolutely true. He didn't have the concept of anekantavada. Mahavira says you can be both right and wrong at the same time.

Take the person who is touching the tail. Yes, the elephant is like a rope. It's just that that's not the whole elephant. But it's true. Yes, we could say the same thing about human nature. And if we had the elephant as human nature, we could say human nature is self-centered, individualistic, competitive. That's one part. Human nature is selfless, sharing, collaborative. That's the body.

"No, no, no. You're all wrong. The elephant, human nature, is completely a conditioned response to your environment." They may be all right and wrong at the same time. I hope this isn't confusing to you, but if you can't grasp this idea of being blind and seeing the world through a vision that is often very limited, like Gandhi noted, you will not be able to understand the complexities of peace, nonviolence, or human nature.

Okay, I want you to understand. So, let's start with that. Let us go on a little to the second slide, if you want, which is the nine views of human nature. Gandhi himself was interesting, I would suggest, because he was West meets East. He was both Aristotle and Mahavira. He was both very empirical and pragmatic, and very spiritual in understanding that there is much beyond the five senses.

Gandhi was, I believe, an incredibly "both-and" person. An extremely BOTH-AND person. He would agree with that, and sometimes speak about how there is either violence or nonviolence, and yet in the very same communication, he will talk about how we are both violent and nonviolent at the same time. It's confusing. I'm sorry.

Aristotle avoided the confusion by setting up a logical system that is simplistic. Gandhi may be confusing, but so also is life. And I think we need to try to grasp this non-binary way of looking at human nature. Now, this categorization is mine. I created it. It has its limitations. This outlines nine distinct views of human nature.

There can be a great many more. What is human nature? This is one way of looking at it: nine ways. You'll notice that you can be social-sharing, selfish-unsharing, and conditioned if you go left to right at the top of the screen, and this is individually. If you view human nature in groups on the left side, you can see the columns for social, selfish, and conditioned. Right?

So now we have kind of a graph. This is not too complicated, but it's complicated enough, and this gives us nine distinct ways of looking at human beings. Now, because I taught political philosophy—and that's mostly in the Western tradition—I've learned a lot from the East. I have given examples within each of these boxes of Western political thinkers who I'm not going to argue today because it would take all of our time, but they can arguably be in that box. I'll just deal with three to be quick.

If you believe that human beings as individuals are unselfish, sharing, caring, social creatures, and if you believe in groups, we are naturally also social, sharing, cooperative group people, then you have a lot in common with St. Francis of Assisi, the person in the upper left box. Yes, St. Francis of Assisi, the Christian saint of all of Europe. He was not a great thinker; he was a feeler. He was sensing the unity of life. And Franciscans were typically anarchist. Ultimately, they saw no need for the hierarchy of the church or the hierarchy of the state. If people are naturally, normally caring and sharing both individually and in groups, why do we need a government? We can simply and spontaneously care for one another. Francis wasn't stupid. He saw pain, he saw war, he experienced it, and he even participated in it before he became aware of other realities. And yet, these things he thought were abnormal. These are things that bring out the worst in us, and the best is there inherently. That was St. Francis's hope and his faith.

If you go to the middle box, Thomas Hobbes is the opposite of St. Francis. Hobbes believes that human beings as individuals and in groups are selfish and unsharing. It's a dog-eat-dog world. That's Thomas Hobbes. The natural state of humankind according to Hobbes in the Leviathan is a natural state of war, or preparation for war, of all against all. The consequences of Hobbes's thinking that that is human nature becomes his declaration of belief that we should have an absolute ruler for life. Hobbes himself believed we should have a president or a prime minister elected for life that will give us one person to live in fear of, and that one person who we all fear will keep us from killing one another. It keeps us from falling into a state of anarchy where human beings are, unlike St. Francis's view, inherently competitive individuals. Everyone has their price. Love, according to Hobbes, is simply a way of manipulating you for my needs. That's all. And when I'm finished with you, I'll throw you away like a fast-food container and I'll find someone else to satisfy my sexual needs.

We have extremes with Francis and Hobbes. If you go to the far-right bottom, Karl Marx is also extreme. For him, human nature is a conditioned response to your environment. There are no absolutes for Marx; you are simply a conditioned response to your environment. He's very binary—there's always the oppressed and the oppressor. There are always two classes competing for power in the history of the world, and the history of the world is described as class conflict, graduating from one stage to another where we have different oppressor and oppressed classes. So, he's very binary, but he doesn't think human nature is anything other than a conditioned response to your environment. I don't want to get into the others, but if you really, really want to, perhaps in the breakout sessions—if we survive them in this class—it may encourage you to think about where you are, in which box, and you'll find that you probably disagree amongst yourselves.

I would suggest to you that if you kind of want to understand Gandhi better, he doesn't fit into these boxes very well. That's because, like I mentioned, he is extremely "both-and" and non-binary in his way of looking at the world. If you were to draw a line from the top corner left through Marx, through Hobbes, through St. Francis, and just take it out a little bit at the top, you'd probably find Gandhi. Because Gandhi would probably say, "Yes, we are conditioned responses to our environment. Yes, depending upon our environment and our state of mind, we can have a world like Thomas Hobbes describes: nasty, brutish, and short. We can also, if we go up in our understanding, live in a world closer to St. Francis where we are naturally and inherently surrendering our body to our soul within. We have become spiritually enlightened, self-actualized people." So, Gandhi would probably say all of these nine views have truth. We have nine blind people and an elephant. And yet, to illustrate this, I'm suggesting that he would say Marx, Hobbes, and Francis are all right and wrong at the same time.

To make this maybe fit a little bit better, I would like us to have the slide relating to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and you can give us that if you want. We will be reminded that according to Abraham Maslow, the psychologist, every person has five levels of needs—not four, but five. And these are the five levels of needs: physiological, safety, belonging, self-esteem, and self-actualization. Now, the belonging and self-esteem needs we could collapse if we wanted to, as I think was done before, into describing them as feelings, and that's okay. We can do that; it's just another way of looking at it.

But with these five, we can begin to see perhaps how Gandhi could say Marx, Hobbes, and St. Francis are all right and wrong at the same time. How can you say that, Gandhi? My god, you're just blowing my mind! No, relax. Look at the physiological and safety needs. The physiological needs—the most basic according to Maslow—include breathing, water, food, shelter, clothing, and sleep. Yes, basic physiological needs that the body needs. And safety and security are also matters of matter; that is, we can feel, taste, touch, and smell them. We need them: employment, family, social abilities. One could put sexual reproduction in there. The first two levels are fundamentally materialistic—we can feel, touch, and smell them. Aristotle would be pleased; that's what we can really focus on.

And if they are met, according to Maslow, we can then begin to go into the more social or emotional needs: love, belonging, and self-esteem. If physiological needs, safety, and security needs are not met on the individual level or in groups, then we have what Thomas Hobbes lived in—a period of almost constant conflict in Europe during the Thirty Years' War. The years were 1618 to 1648; you can look it up. Hobbes's view of what is—and in that sense, he was very much like Aristotle, looking at the world that he saw around him and deciding what is ought to be—was that the world is nasty, brutish, and short. Everyone has their price. It's a state of war, or preparation for war, of all against all. This was the environment that Thomas Hobbes lived in. Between those years, 1618 to 1648—Hobbes's intellectual years where he did his writing and his publishing—half of the population of Europe died. Half! Either through war, combat, disease, or starvation. The bubonic plague, which people didn't know at the time was basically transmitted through rats and the propagation of rats, took away people from almost every family. Hobbes's view of the world was conditioned by his reality.

Your individual views of the world may very well be conditioned by your reality as you see it in your world. The key, I believe, for us to see is that we're both blind and not blind at the same time. We're blind by our historical circumstance. By our realities in Sudan, or Syria, or Congo, or the United States, or France, or Manipur in India, or Bangalore in India, we are heavily influenced. Whether we come to see that or not, I hope will be able to happen by our mind—our rational capacity to reflect upon our reality.

We are the only creature that we know of that has that capacity to reflect upon who we are, to have a mental awareness. I believe we're not alone. I think porpoises and dolphins quite possibly are smarter than we are. They have larger brains compared to body size, and they don't make war, which to me is an indication that they may be a lot smarter than we are. But we give ourselves the credit for having the capacity to think. And according to Gandhi, we can use that capacity to reflect.

"Am I primarily a soul?" That's his kind of dualistic way of looking at things, kind of a Western way. And yet he knows that between body and soul there's a lot of emotion. There's a lot of physiological and safety needs for love and belonging. We need to have self-respect before we can have self-actualization. He knows that—in his mind, he knows that.

But simplistically, Gandhi will sometimes suggest that if you identify primarily with your body, that is the primary source of violence in the world. If you are overwhelmingly materialist in the way you look at the world, you believe only what you feel, taste, touch, or smell—the five senses. If that's the foundation for all of your data, you're not going to believe anything else. You're probably going to be very concerned about self-defense. What's that? Self-defense. No, it's not obvious. What is your "self"?

If you are primarily identifying in your mind with your body, your "self" is your body. So, what you're talking about with self-defense is really body defense. And primarily, you defend your physical body through physical force. That makes sense, doesn't it? You'll fight over food, you'll fight over water, and you'll fight over property of different kinds. You'll never have enough because your body is never adequately protected. You need to have more of a surplus. We need to have the best weapons possible to prevent other people from violating our safety and security needs.

I need to protect my warehouse full of bananas. No one else can have my bananas. I will shoot anybody who takes my bananas. I may need to develop a nuclear weapon to scare the crap out of you to keep your hands off my bananas. Right. So, keep in mind, if you in your mind, according to Gandhi, identify primarily as a body—where material reality is your only reality—then don't be surprised if this becomes a foundation for war, for conflict, for class conflict, for all sorts of violent conflict where you're willing to harm and even kill other people's bodies for the sake of protecting your own. Like Hobbes said, it's a dog-eat-dog world, and I'm going to be the top dog. I'll eat you before you eat me.

"You're all blind. I'm not blind. I see clearly. The elephant is as I say it is. I don't have to listen to you who hold the tail. You hold the ear; I don't have to listen to you. My security needs come first, and that's just the way it is." It's not evil people or violent people who are the problem in the world, according to Gandhi. The problem is the way we are thinking—our minds.

If we think of ourselves primarily as soul—as that which cannot be harmed, that which is immortal, that which is the life force that manifests itself in everything from butterflies to trees to human beings to algae in the ocean—if we are the life force, if in a sense God is within us, if we focus our mind upon our soul within, the drop of water that is within us, we can focus on that drop of water and it becomes the ocean. The ocean is the entire life force that manifests itself in all of creation. You are God, and yet you are not God at the same time. According to Gandhi, you are atman. You are the soul, but you are not paramatman. You are not the ocean, the supreme soul. So, you're both—and you are both body and soul.

If you focus your mind primarily upon the reality that you are ultimately the soul within you, according to Gandhi, then it becomes logical that you should be willing to sacrifice your body for the sake of understanding better ultimate reality, that is your soul. You may be willing to suffer. The body suffers; that is the nature of life. In Buddhism, suffering is there. How do you go beyond suffering? Ultimately, spiritually, you come to see that what is immortal—the life force within you—is ultimately real.

Bring us back here. What about self-defense? Doesn't Gandhi believe in self-defense? Again, what is human nature? If your mind thinks of your body as who you are, then self-defense needs to be physical defense, and all forms and kinds of violence—including very coercive nonviolence—become very acceptable. The more materialistic you are in believing your five senses, and I would suggest the more like Gene Sharp you are from our last session, then nonviolence becomes a method, a tactic preferable to the overt taking of life and doing greater harm. But for Gandhi, nonviolence is not merely a method, or a tactic, or a strategy. His thinking says, "My self ultimately is my soul, and those who want to save their soul may need to give up their life." It's not such a big sacrifice because you cannot be killed. Your soul cannot be harmed.

Gandhi had no enemies because he saw soul, or spirit, or God in all of creation, including his opponent. By calling them an enemy, it would be to disrespect himself, because the same life force that is in me is in Adolf Hitler. In a sense, my real enemy is the way I think. My attachments to this world, my perceiving it as being entirely data-driven by taste, touch, and smell—the five senses. We need to transcend those things. According to Gandhi, we need to see truly that Vasanta, who is right here, looks to be a woman, but she's a person before she is a woman. And she's not only just a person; she is the life force embodied in all of creation. She is not just a member of my family; I see God in her. Why in the world would I want to do any violence or harm towards Vasanta if she is God?

Are you beginning to see a little bit how Gandhi is looking at human nature and how it reflects throughout just about everything else? I'm not evangelizing, though I know I sound like I am, because honestly, Gandhi's picture is right behind me. He has been a guiding spirit in my life for over 50 years. I've met and been inspired by over 30 people that knew Gandhi personally. I have interviewed two of his personal secretaries. I went to Afghanistan to meet with Abdul Ghaffar Khan. I spent a week with Vinoba Bhave. And yet Gandhi is not perfect. You will see in the future, I have plenty of criticisms of him. And he would not mind, because he did not claim to be perfect. His soul was perfect, but he was not a great soul. Gandhi did not allow anyone who lived with him to call him Mahatma. He was not worthy of Mahatma. You understand? He recognized that he was a blind person trying to learn from other blind people in a dynamic, revolutionary way that will increase his capacity to understand the whole elephant.

And human nature for him was just that—it's a matter of conditioning, and how we respond to our environments will bring out a Thomas Hobbes or a St. Francis of Assisi. We have about as much free will as a person on a crowded ocean liner. According to Gandhi, you might not have a lot of control over the ship that is crossing the sea. You don't have control over the weather, the hurricanes, and the typhoons that may be hitting the ship. You don't have control over this, but you do have some control over being on the ship, where you sleep on the ship, and how you relate to other people on the ship—whether you have a democratic sort of system on the ship that helps tell the captain where you want to go, or whether you have a dictator, in which case you might need to have a small revolution on the ship to be able to replace the captain with someone who's more worthy of leadership. So, we both have free will and yet there's determination at the same time. We have some free will, but it's very limited according to Gandhi.

 

Question Answer Session

Q. It was a wonderful and insightful talk that we heard from you. And if you're asking the question about reality, or anekantavada as you mentioned from Jainism, I think that is the only way to look at the world. I think we are blind, maybe not only by physical appearance, but even our inner eyes are also closed if we think that this is the truth. So, the only way to look at it is that there can be multiple sides to any one phenomenon or anything that we observe. So, I totally agree with you on what you are telling. But in reality, today, if you have any social or academic or whatever circles we are in, and if we agree or disagree equally to two different ideologies or different views, we will be tagged as indecisive. So, I feel that there is a practical conflict. Personally, I face that. So...

A. Gandhi understands that, and that is why a satyagrahi—one who holds firm to the truth at any point in time—must always be open to learning from others and then adopting a new truth. But at any point in time, you are not indecisive. Gandhi was very decisive. The obligation is to hold firm to the truth as you see it, even as if it were absolute. But Gandhi knows it isn't. That's why he's willing to modify and change his truth over time. That's really revolutionary. That's personally and also politically revolutionary. He's humble, not because he's proud of his humility; he's humble because he knows that he has various degrees of being blind himself, and he admits it. I don't think Gene Sharp had that awareness. I'm trying to be a little bit hard on Western dualistic thinking. If we only accept nonviolence as a method or a tactic, it is as likely to be abandoned when repression comes as for it to be continued. Gandhi would say when four thousand people are arrested in Delhi or more, that's a sign of effectiveness. It's not a sign to give up and become violent. Nonviolence is powerful precisely when it brings repression, when it shakes up the status quo. That's the time to hold more firm to your truth, not abandon it to take up weapons of another kind. We're running in one more comment and then we'll try small groups.

Q. When we go into a conflict, let's say it's important to agree on something for us to proceed with the talks, right? For example, if you and I had an argument, and I said, "Michael stole my pencil," we have to agree on what happened, right? We have to have some observation to at least start. If you say, "Yeah, you have your perspective, I didn't steal it," then what was Gandhi's—how to say—how did he proceed in situations like this where I agree that we can all have different perspectives, but then something happened and what is the agreement?

A. I don't think it's human nature, but Gandhi himself, I've seen many times, can be very hard to live with because he wants to so live what his values are that he, without even trying, demands that of others. And certainly, in his ashrams, in his living communities, you were not supposed to eat meat, for example, or have sugar or even salt. And yet Kasturba, his wife, would serve guests to the ashram cookies and tea with sugar. So, he and his wife, they have conflicts, and I think they simply learned to live with one another. He didn't kick her out of the ashram. And there were times when he would have a guest to the ashram like Abdul Ghaffar Khan, who was a meat-eating Muslim from the Northwest Frontier Province. And Gandhi would actually have meat to serve Abdul Ghaffar Khan out of respect for Badshah Khan's truth. Even vegetarianism, which I personally believe in, is the rule, but the house needs to be broad enough to include everyone. Does that make sense? So, Gandhi was a dictator and yet very democratic at the same time. I find it amusing. He could be very patriarchal and yet extremely non-binary and even feminine at the same time.

Resume/Vitae:

Michael Warren Sonnleitner

 Birthplace: Wichita, Kansas, USA (July 11, 1949).

(“maiden” name before 1983 marriage: “Johnson”); Wife: Kristine; Children: Margarita, Sonrisa, Shaman, Mira.

Home: 581 Bonnie Ct., Seaside, Oregon, 97138 U.S.A. Email: soulom2u@gmail.com Cell: +1 971-988-2427.

EDUCATION: PH.D. University of Minnesota (Minneapolis): March, 1979. M.A. March, 1976.

Major: Political Science; Supporting Program: India/China Area Studies.

Examination Areas: U.S. Constitutional Law, History of Political Thought, Comparative Political Systems.

Dissertation: "Soul Force & Social Change according to Mohandas K. Gandhi & Martin Luther King Jr."

Published in 2019: (Lambert Academic Publishing: Latvia, EU.) ISBN#: 9786200314185.

B.A. Whitman College (Walla Walla, Washington): June, 1971 (Phi Beta Kappa, Summa Cum Laude,

with Honors in Political Science & transfer credits from Fisk University in Nashville, Tennessee).

High School Diploma Highline High School (Burien/South Seattle/SeaTac, Washington): June, 1967.

Elected Trustee (Zone 3), Portland Community College Board of Directors (2015-2023).

Co-Chair, PCC Board Committee on Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (2018-20); Vice-Chair,

PCC Board of Directors Audit Committee (2018-21); Oregon Community College Board representative (2020-2023).

Portland Community College: FT Political Science Instructor: 27 years (1988-2015); PT 2023-now.

NOTE: Originally hired as full-time split-campus appointment, Taught courses at PCC Sylvania (1988-2024),PCC Rock Creek (1988-2011), PCC Cascade (2000-2015), and PCC S.E. (2004-2007 & 2013-15).

2007-2023: Portland State University: Graduate-level courses taught part-time for the M.A. Program in Conflict

Resolution; Undergraduate courses also for Political Science Department

1985-1987: University of Northern Iowa: full-time assistant Professor of Political Science.

1984-1985: Loyola University of Chicago, University of Illinois at Chicago; Northwestern Illinois University: part-time Instructor of Political Science teaching Judicial process, U.S. Security Policy, Politics of China & Japan.

1979-1983: Illinois Wesleyan University: full-time Assistant Professor of Political Science.

1973-1979: University of Minnesota (Minneapolis): Teaching Assistant & part-time Instructor of Political Science.

FULBRIGHT SCHOLAR in India: six months (November 29, 2009 to May 29, 2010).

PROJECT TITLE: “Teaching Peacebuilding for Social & Structural Change in Multicultural Societies & a Multipolar World”.

COURSES TAUGHT: (at St. Thomas College, Palai, Kerala): Gandhian Thought; American Government; International Issues.(at Mahatma Gandhi University): International Relations: Theory & Practice; Nonviolent Action.

IFPNP (International Fellowship Program on Nonviolence & Peace), PARTNER/TEACHER (2021-present).

Other Training/Travel Experiences:

Likely trip to India on publication of new book: Sojourn in Time: Experiences in Nonviolence (1971-72), in 2027.

Ten weeks in India: participating in the Bharat Jodo Yatra, teaching “Gandhian Nonviolence” & lecturing: Jan-March, 2023.

Five weeks in India: lecturing on Gandhi & participating in a re-enactment of the Salt March of 1930: Feb-March, 2020.

Two weeks at a China Seminar at the East-West Center (University of Hawaii-Manoa) Title VII Grant: Summer, 2013.

Fulbright Scholar returning to the U.S. via Italy (one month), Israel & Palestine (one month), & Egypt (one month): 2010.

Invited Scholar to the International Association of Gandhian Studies Conference in New Delhi: 1987.

Delegate to the UNICEF International Seminar on Training for Nonviolent Action (3 weeks in Mexico): 1977.

Summer Peace Internship working with kids during the “troubles”: Londonderry (Derry), Northern Ireland (2 months): 1974.

Thomas J. Watson Fellowship: to study "Experiments in Nonviolent Action" in India (6 months), & 1-4 weeks in Japan,

Hong Kong, Thailand, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Republic of S. Africa, Italy/Sicily, & Great Britain: 1971-72.

Exchange student attending Fisk University in Nashville, TN: autumn of 1969.

U.S. Senate Internship (in Washington, D.C. Office of U.S. Senator Henry M. Jackson): Summer, 1969.

Orchard worker at Auvil Fruit Company, Orondo, Washington (with migrant workers): 15 summers during 1962-1981.

Other Awards/Honors:

Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation Award for “Promoting Gandhian Values Outside India”, 1 of 3 Finalists in 2026.

Invited Keynote Speaker for Centennial Celebration at Gujarat Vidyapith (Ahmedabad, India): January 10, 2023.

Elected President, Peace & Conflict Studies Consortium (Pacific Northwest regional association): April, 2007-2010.

Outstanding Faculty Person of the Year Award (Portland Community College, Rock Creek ASPCC): 2006.

Male Faculty of the Year Award (Portland Community College, Rock Creek ASPCC): 2000.

Nominee for Portland Community College Faculty Excellence Award: 1992, 1998, 2003.

Excellence in Teaching Award: Illinois Wesleyan University: 1982

All-expenses fellowship grant for graduate study in Political Science at the University of Minnesota: 1972-75.

Ford Foundation Graduate School Fellowship recipient at the University of Minnesota: 1972-75.

Thomas J. Watson Fellowship to study ‘Experiments in Nonviolent Action” abroad: 1971-72.

Sloan Foundation Scholarship recipient at Whitman College: 1968-71.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN OREGON:

HCAO (Healthcare for All Oregon) (June of 2026-now): serving as a primary organizer & Co-Chair of the Clatsop

County Chapter; working to create, propose, and implement an Oregon State Universal

Healthcare (“Single-Payer” System) that may serve as a model to be adopted nationwide.

MigraWatch (December of 2025-now): actively associated with Clatsop County activists locating, monitoring, and serving as an in-person “observer” of efforts by ICE (Immigration, Customs, Enforcement) and other US federal officersengaged in efforts to detain and deport those targeted relating to their alleged undocumented immigration status.

82nd Ave. Improvement Coalition (June of 2014-2023): Coordinating Committee member & member of the 82nd Ave.

Business Association Board (2018-present); successfully lobbied for a $200,000 study

funded by the Oregon Department of Transportation and jurisdictional transfer to the Portland Bureau of Transportation in 2022.

Interfaith Movement for Immigrant Justice (2007-2020): formerly the “New Sanctuary Movement”; helped to develop support networks for undocumented persons; seeking meaningful immigration reform via educational actions; achieved passage of the expanded Oregon Sanctuary Act in 2021.

Ascension Catholic Church (2004-2020): assisting my wife in providing occasional educational programs while participating in fundraising efforts (like the annual Spaghetti Dinner), and a variety of services associated with the Daybreak Homeless Shelter Network as overnight host/supervisor 12 nights/year for 13 years (2004-2017).

Montavilla Neighborhood Association (January of 2014-2017): regularly attending meetings, Board Chair (2015-16),otherwise Vice Chair. Became more involved in the neighborhood where my family lives, on issues ranging from land use to transportation, affordable housing and crime issues.

S.E. UPLIFT (March of 2014-2016): attending meetings, serving as an active Board member (at large), having also gone to meetings of most of the 20 neighborhood associations with members elected to the S.E. Uplift Board as a means of facilitating communications and action among groups with common community concerns.

PCC PACS Program (1990-2015): helped establish the Portland Community College (PCC) Peace & Conflict Studies

Studies (PACS) Program in 1990, serving as PACS Co-Chairperson (1990-2015); NEWSPEAK organizer of "free speech" events at Sylvania Campus (1998-2003), Rock Creek (2004-2011), and at Cascade (2011-2015).

PCSC (1988-2017): Peace & Conflict Studies Consortium (previously the Oregon Peace Studies Consortium): Board member representing the PCC PACS Program (2004-2015), helping organize annual regional gatherings and national conferences; involving hundreds of people while serving as President (2007-2010).

DaVinci Middle School (1998-2002): was among the 20 founding families who created, organized, and functionally serving as a volunteer staff /Principal for this Arts Magnet Charter School within the Portland Public School(PPS) District; also served on a PPS Committee to set up criteria to review applications to such all schools.

Foster Parent Program (1998-2000): my wife & I were trained as foster parents under emergency conditions, providing a home to an undocumented teenager, who later completed her high school and community college degrees, gain dual U.S./Mexican citizenship, became a daughter to us, and now has provided us with 3 beautiful grandchildren.

Nobel Peace Prize for 2026 to Navi Pillay

 

Nobel Peace Prize for 2026

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2026 to Navanethem “Navi” Pillay for her efforts to promote peace and international law.

9 Oct 2026

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2026 goes to a person who with exceptional courage and integrity has led the way towards a more comprehensive global legal order. This year’s laureate has been instrumental in ensuring that war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide are prosecuted.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2026 to Navanethem “Navi” Pillay for her efforts to promote peace and international law.

Navi Pillay’s commitment to universal legal principles and her firm moral compass are constants in a long career. Born into a family of Indian Tamil origin under apartheid in Durban, South Africa, Pillay became a lawyer and legal pioneer, confronting deep structural discrimination, segregation and exclusion. A common thread runs from her early work defending Nelson Mandela and others who stood up against apartheid to her service as a judge in some of the key international court cases of our time

This year’s laureate has significantly enlarged the scope and impact of international law. She has served as a judge on the High Court in South Africa, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court. She was the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and, until recently, she chaired the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Today Navi Pillay is a judge on the International Court of Justice in the case where Myanmar stands accused of genocide

In historic international court cases, she has shown that legal measures can help prevent acts of war and violence. Navi Pillay has also contributed to strengthen the institutions of international law. Her independence, expertise and steadfastness have made her one of the most respected international jurists of our time.

The first Nobel Peace Prize was awarded 125 years ago. Already then, the Norwegian Nobel Committee underscored the importance of resolving conflicts through international law – a theme that has remained prominent throughout the history of the Peace Prize. The reach of international law expanded after the Second World War, in particular with the creation of the UN institutions. The key insight was that lasting peace must be built on legal principles, not on the will of the strong or a fragile balance of power. Additional legal mechanisms were introduced in the post-war decades, and momentum picked up further after the end of the Cold War

However, the rules-based international order has never been perfect. The greatest powers have often evaded responsibility. In practice, cases brought under international law have produced different results depending on who is the perpetrator and who is the victim.

Nonetheless, we have seen that more and more conflicts are being addressed through diplomacy, treaties and legal mechanisms, rather than threats, violence and warfare. Leaders and populations alike have come to the same conclusion: international law is a foundation for a more peaceful world.

At a time of existential challenges – including more wars and conflicts than the world has seen in a long time – international law is no longer just a supplement to peace and security. It is an absolute necessity. 
And yet, the system of international law is under tremendous pressure, and its institutions are under attack. We see a shift towards power politics at the expense of legal frameworks and global respect for law and justice. Whenever might overtakes right, it undermines stability, trust and peaceful co-existence.

In awarding this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian Nobel Committee wants to remind the world that the rule of law – national and international – underpins the system we have set up to ensure peace and resolve conflicts non-violently. Peace requires justice

History has shown that a world operating without the rule of law is unjust, unwise and inhumane. The judges – those who guard the thin red line between order and chaos – are therefore highly deserving of our praise. But today, as these same judges are sanctioned, and their institutions are attacked, we need people of courage, vision and determination – qualities that Navi Pillay demonstrates in her work on the bench

Navi Pillay has held states and national leaders accountable and brought hope to victims of violence and conflict. In all the positions she has held, she has stressed the responsibility of individuals and states to comply with the rule of law. She has also helped define the relevant norms and legal principles. When the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda established that rape and sexual violence could constitute a crime against humanity – as well as genocide – her influence was a significant factor. In the same case, Ms Pillay was instrumental in a separate legal breakthrough: for the first time, a defendant faced charges of incitement to commit genocide purely on the basis of spreading propaganda

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2026 springs directly from Alfred Nobel’s will. Navi Pillay strengthens fraternity between nations and – by systematically advancing the use of tribunals for peace and justice – she provides substance, direction and motivation for peace conferences in their modern form.

Navi Pillay is one of the great defenders of international legal principles in our time. Her distinguished career reminds us of the need to support, fortify and expand the global rule of law. Navi Pillay’s commitment to justice and human dignity is a source of hope and inspiration to all who seek to bring about a more peaceful world.

To cite this section
MLA style: Press release. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Prize Outreach 2026. Sat. 10 Oct 2026. <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2026/press-release/>

Navi Pillay

Facts

Ill. Niklas Elmehed © Nobel Prize Outreach

Navanethem "Navi" Pillay
Nobel Peace Prize 2026

Born: 23 September 1941, Durban, South Africa

Prize motivation: “for her efforts to promote peace and international law”

Prize share: 1/1

Champion for international legal order

Navanethem “Navi” Pillay has been at the forefront in the development of an international legal order. Ms Pillay was educated in the law and soon began defending activists who stood up against apartheid. She grew up in a family of Indian Tamil descent in Durban, South Africa, where in 1967 she founded her own law firm. In the 1980s she studied at Harvard University and earned her Doctor of Juridical Science degree there in 1988.

Dr. Pillay was appointed to the High Court of South Africa in 1995. Four years later she became a judge and President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), where she gained distinction for her role in establishing that sexual violence and rape as well as the spreading of propaganda could lead to indictment for crimes against humanity and genocide. She was then named to serve as a judge on the International Criminal Court (ICC). From 2008 to 2014 she served as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Navi Pillay also chaired the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory from 2021 to 2025, and in 2019 she became an ad hoc judge on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case in which Myanmar stands accused of genocide.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee attaches importance to Navi Pillay’s role as a driving force in the development of an international system of law and order, while further emphasising her judicial rigour, personal integrity and considerable courage. At a time when the number of wars and conflicts is rising, and when judges and institutions of international law are under political attack, the Nobel Committee wishes to issue a reminder that the ability to resolve conflicts without force or violence is dependent on the international rule of law. An international legal system in which war criminals are held to account and the victims of abuse see justice served is a precondition for a peaceful world.

Navigate to: Summary-- Facts-- Interview-- Photo gallery-- Other resources Prize announcement Press release

To cite this section
MLA style: Navanethem Pillay – Facts – 2026. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Prize Outreach 2026. Sat. 10 Oct 2026. <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2026/pillay/facts/>