KEYNOTE SPEECH: IV WORLD MEDIATION FORUM

BUENOS AIRIES, ARGENTINA – MAY, 2003

Challenging Discourses on Violence:

From the Schoolyard to the United Nations.

© Dale Bagshaw Director of Postgraduate Studies and Conflict Management Research

School of Social Work and Social Policy University of South Australia

dale.bagshaw@unisa.edu.au

Key words: Violence, mediation, discourse, peace

Abstract Violent conflict, whether it is in the home, in the school, or in the broader international arena, can only be understood within a wider understanding of human action. Violent conflict is both a product and a constitutive part of the relationship between individuals and broader societal structures. Currently our focus tends to be on the management and regulation of interpersonal violence and war, rather than its total elimination. This serves to legitimate violence and, in some situations, to justify it by labelling it as ‘just’, ‘normal’, ‘natural’, ‘humane’, or as a ‘necessary evil’. Peace is a counter-discourse that seeks to understand the institutional and discursive structures that underpin violence and to challenge those that legitimate and allow for the re-emergence of violence. Militarism, for example, is a constant presence that renders further war as a desirable and feasible option in times of conflict. Hegemonic patriarchal discourses also continue to underpin and normalise violence in our homes, workplaces and schools. The legitimation of global warfare and violent conflict is situated in discursive practices based on exclusionist identities and a hierarchical construct, which favours some voices and subordinates or marginalises others. If we really want to promote peace in the world, mediators need to generate a critical discourse on peace and situate it within the mediation discourse. In short, our construct of peace must incorporate and value difference and pluralities of identity, recognise out own cultural and situational embeddedness and the need for self-reflexivity, and deconstruct and reject discourses on violence and their institutional underpinnings.

1

Introduction

The welfare of today’s children is inseparably linked to the peace of tomorrow’s world (Henry R. Labouisse: UNICEF)

All human beings are implicated in the generation of violent human conflict. Children who witness or who are implicated in violent conflict learn that violence is an appropriate way of dealing with conflict and there is evidence to indicate that many (although, not all) grow up to be victims and/or perpetrators of violence. This cycle of violence needs to be disrupted if we are to have peace in the world. Entire generations of children have grown up in the midst of brutal armed conflicts, for example in countries such asAngola, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Somalia, Iraq, Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Herzogovina. Between 1945 and 1992 there were 149 major wars, killing more than 23 million people. On an average yearly basis, the number of war deaths in this period was more than double the deaths in the 19 century, and seven times greater than in the 18th century (Bellamy, 1996: 13). Children have always been caught up in this warfare – as both casualties and combatants. The effects of violence on our world’s children are endless.Between 1986 and 1996:

• 2 million were killed; • 4-5 million disabled; • 12 million left homeless; • more than 1 million orphaned or separated from their parents; • some 10 million psychologically traumatized (Bellamy, 1996: 13).

Conflict, as we know, is a product of social interaction and violent conflict is fuelled by the institutionalisation of difference. Social conflict at both micro and macro levels can be defined in terms of inclusion and exclusion. Violent conflict, whether it be between students in schools or war between countries, involves a process whereby parties adopt dichotomous positions in relation to an issue or problem, which become increasingly rigid and intractable over time if there is no effective intervention. Over time parties increasingly harden their respective positions on the issue and categorise and construct the ‘other’ as the ‘enemy’. A normative discourse develops which justifies these formations, valorising the cause of one side and denigrating the cause of the other. Currently, binary discourses such as these are increasing in our global society, threatening our safety and maybe, in time, our survival.

Violence and abuse of power In violent conflicts it is not uncommon for one party to be more powerful than the other. These conflicts may involve bullying, domestic violence or other abuses of power, often with a particular ideology justifying the violence - such as ‘patriarchy’ where there is violence against women; or ‘democracy’ or ‘freedom’ in the recent war against Iraq. Because of the private nature of violence against women, domestic or family violence “is still considered different, less severe, and less deserving of international condemnation and sanction than officially inflicted violence” (Copelon, 1994: 116). However, domestic violence has been likened by some feminist legal scholars to torture, which was born in the Inquisition. Torture was evident in the European witch-

2

hunt of the 16th and 17th centuries and is still used today by so-called “terrorists”. In many cultures wife-beating conveys a sign of masculinity and is inflicted on wives for their failure to properly carry out their role -

failure to produce, serve or be properly subservient …In the case of intimate violence, patriarchal ideology and conditions, rather than a distinct, consciously coordinated military establishment, confer upon men the sense of entitlement, if not duty, to chastise their wives (Copelon, 1994: 132).

Domestic violence is the leading cause of death among women and is prevalent in all countries in the world (Comas-Diaz & Jansen, 1995; Davies, 1997). It involves physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, social and economic abuse and causes millions of women in the world to suffer anguish, humiliation, debilitation and fear. Gender-based bullying in workplaces and schools is linked to the same phenomena. Violence in these arenas can also lead to similar effects. In addressing the issue of violence, therefore, we need to examine the links between violence at a public macro level - as we see in wars, and violence at the more private, micro level – in homes, schools and workplaces.

Children as witnesses of violence

There is much evidence to show that witnessing domestic violence has detrimental effects on children (Bagshaw & Chung, 2000, 2001; Laing, 2000) and children are also

3

deeply affected by violence in wars (Bellamy, 1996). Where there is violence, victimisation of children can operate in two main ways:

1. ‘systemically’ through social institutions, in particular juridicial, educational and welfare systems and

2. directly’ through interpersonal interaction (Brennan, 1995). It is my intention in this paper to deconstruct some of the dominant discourses on violence that we have come to accept at micro- and macro- levels in our global society and to highlight how they effect the well-being of our world’s children. We, as mediators, can collectively play a powerful role in challenging these discourses in our homes, workplaces and schools and in our various national and global institutions.

What is discourse? Discourse is the way we speak about things, such as conflict. It is a powerful force in determining our realities or ‘truths’. Dominant discourses are culturally bound and serve to construct the way we view the world. There are many ‘truths’ embedded in the implicit and explicit rules of various governments, societies, communities, families and dominant groups in schools which form part of a discourse. Dominant discourses, or ‘truths’, control who can and cannot speak, what can and cannot be spoken about, how and in what contexts, and thereby what we can and cannot hear. An analysis of a dominant discourses will indicate whose voices are heard and whose voices are silenced, whose knowledge is priveleged and whose knowledge is marginalised. Michel Foucault, the well-known French philosopher, highlighted that in any given historical period we can only speak or think about a given social practice in certain specific ways and not others. A ‘discourse’ from Foucault’s perspective is whatever constrains or enables writing, speaking and thinking within such specific historical limits. All thought and knowledge are a product of discourses, social experiences, and institutions. Thus for Foucault, discourse analysis became a powerful strategy for change (McHoul & Grace, 1993).

The institutionalisation of violence Vivienne Jabri (1996), in her book Discourses on Violence, assumes that violent human conflict is not inherent or ‘natural’ to the human condition. It is a social phenomenon emerging through, and constitutive of, our social practices through time and across space. Patterns and continuities of human conduct over time become institutionalised in discursive social or institutional systems, such as schools. Violence is thereby rendered an institutional form of conduct which is largely seen as inevitable and at times acceptable. For example, in many Australian schools teachers regard violence between boys as ‘normal’ - ‘it’s just boys being boys’. Foucault’s analysis of institutions, using the metaphor of the panopticon, illustrates the various modes of administrative control that institutions, such as national governments or schools, can achieve through categorising, surveying and temporal and spacial partitioning of individuals in order to ensure uniformity, compliance or conformity to the rules of the institution. Structures of domination which exist within these administered social systems are centrally implicated in the emergence of dominant identities in society. Schools and the broader institutions of governance in our societies are administered systems with authoritative power and are dependant on coordination of numbers of people through strategies of surveillance, control of information and

4

memory traces, and an ability to impose and reinforce sanctions and disciplinary power. Giddens highlights how dominant ways of talking about conflict and violence are linked with ideology and the interests of dominant groups in society . He suggests that there are three means by which these dominant modes of discourse are reproduced:

1. Through legitimation - by representing sectional interests as universal and claiming to represent the interests of the whole community. For example, feminists have highlighted how, historically, patriarchy has served the interests of males to the detriment of females. Patriarchy, involving the devaluation of women, is universal.

2. By denying or transmuting social contradictions thereby preventing social conflict. Dictatorships provide evidence of how preventing social conflict can serve the interests of a minority group.

3. By reifying and preserving the status quo and ‘naturalising’ the exisiting state of affairs (Giddens, 1997). For example, Jabri notes that the very existance of international conventions can be interpreted as “humanity’s acknowledgement of war as an unavoidable aspect of social interaction” (page 6). National commemorations of war can also have the unintended consequence of reproducing and perpetuating “a culture of violence where identity is constituted in terms of adversity, exclusion and violence towards past and present enemies” (Jabri, 1996: 81).

Violent conflict, whether it is in a school, or in the broader international arena, can only be understood within this wider understanding of human action. Violent conflict is both a product and a constitutive part of the relationship between individuals and broader societal structures. Currently our focus tends to be on the management and regulation of interpersonal violence rather than its total elimination. Regulations serve to legitimate violence and, in some situations, to justify it by labelling it as “just”, ‘normal’, ‘natural’, ‘humane’, or as a ‘necessary evil’, as evidenced in these World War 2 posters.

We have seen these processes at play in the justifications put forward by men for abusing women, and by politicians for instigating the recent war in Iraq. The moral boundary between violent conflict and non-violent conflict is defined by the acceptance, legitimacy or justifications conferred on violent behaviour or the type of sanctions that are put in place. For example, in research I have conducted in secondary

5

schools in South Australia it is apparent that teachers will tolerate some types and levels and forms of abuse more than others. For example they tend to give lesser sanctions for verbal and relational abuse than for physical abuse. At the same time they report that forms and levels of violence that were not sanctioned a decade ago are commonplace today, and the language of individual rights makes it difficult for them to deal with it, in particular in locations where violence is prevalent in the broader local community.

Discourse on exclusion When analysing any violent conflict – whether it be war or conflict between individuals or gangs in schools - affiliation and identity are usually defined in terms of exclusionist social boundaries. The discourse on conflict aims at the construction of a mythology based on inclusion and exclusion. Social constructions of the ‘other’ serve to legitimate conflict and violence. A discourse on exclusion “evokes articulations of separateness, of limitations to access, of strict boundedness” (Jabri, 1996: 130). At a global level, many contemporary struggles are between different ethnic groups in the same country or in former States.

When ethnic loyalties prevail a perilous logic clicks in. The escalation from ethnic superiority to ethnic cleansing to genocide, as we have seen, can become an irresistible process … future generations of the enemy – their children – must also be eliminated (Bellamy, 1996: 14).

Once the concept of ‘otherness’ takes root and those ‘others’ are defined as ‘the enemy’ the unimaginable becomes possible. Rules for human behaviour change and behaviour which is normally unacceptable or taboo becomes legitimate – killing, rape, torture and so forth.

The power of language The language of war infects the minds of many people around the globe, including our children. Language has political implications and is instrumental in constructing a particular view of conflict. Using the example of the recent war in Iraq, one side talked about ‘liberation’, which the other described as ‘invasion’. So-called ‘weapons of mass destruction’, such as anthrax, have killed very few people compared to the bombs and sophisticated guns that have killed thousands. (In one radio broadcast in Australia a commentator remarked that approximately 86 million people have been killed in wars since World War 2, compared to 50,000 or so from weapons of mass destruction). The media are complicit in using battle language in reporting activities in war-time– they tend to take up phrases and use them mindlessly. We declare war on everything –

6

‘war on terror’, ‘war on poverty’ – but the targets are usually vulnerable or impoverished people and countries. Emotive phrases serve to legitimise war and create panic responses. ‘Terror’, and ‘evil’, for example are now overarching words that have a fuzzy meaning, not clearly defined and are used to describe ‘the other’. These words create an emotional response, usually of fear. ‘Collateral damage’, a term used often in recent wars, really means ‘killing people’.

Construction of the enemy Over the centuries fears of a constructed enemy have been fuelled by governments, leading to the proliferation of weapons in most countries in our world, with the more powerful nations seen as legitimately able to produce, stockpile and use unlimited weapons whilst at the same time persuading us that ‘others’ are irresponsible and a threat and therefore should be legitimately disarmed. It is common for people to use binary categories or dualistic ways of speaking – such as ‘good versus evil’, ‘them versus us’ – to construct an enemy. This way of talking and thinking both creates and fuels violent conflict. The enemy is objectified and de-humanised and described as being evil or deviant in some way - such as ‘terrorists’, ‘rogue states’, ‘axis of evil’ etc which frame the dispute in a biased and adversarial way. At both micro and the macro levels, we can trace historically how the enemy has been objectified and dehumanised. In World War 2, for example, the enemy was constructed as evil by governments on both sides with the aid of propoganda. Visual images, such as posters, depicted the enemy as objects, ‘not human’, evil, a threat to women and children, or as animals, inevitably depicting them in a derogatory way.

7

Binary categories or versions of events exclude similarities, subtlety and context and imply that you are either ‘with us or against us’. We have witnessed in the recent war in Iraq how ‘outsiders’ were constructed as ‘traitors to the cause’ (eg. France) or the ‘deserving enemy’ (eg. the Iraqui ‘regime’) by the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’. In a recent study of domestic violence, which I undertook with my colleagues at the University of South Australia, abused women reported that their partners objectify and dehumanise them in many ways on a daily basis, constantly belittling and comparing them with others, labelling them as deficient or abnormal, or in need of chastisement or correction (Bagshaw, Chung, Couch, Lilburn, & Wadham, 2000). It was not uncommon for victims to blame themselves for the violence. In schools students are also constructed as ‘enemy’ by their peers through name-calling or verbal abuse, in particular if they do not comply with the dominant ways of being masculine or feminine - which has been the focus of my PhD (Bagshaw, 2003b).

8

In my research with Year 9 students from a wide range of secondary schools in South Australia, the discourse of exclusion and ‘othering’ of the enemy could readily be identified in interactions between children in the schoolyard. Labels such as “slags, sluts, losers, nerds, geeks, gays etc” are used on a daily basis to define, subordinate and marginalise those who do not meet the normative standards set by the dominant or popular peer group, who are predominantly ‘macho’ heterosexist males and their female followers. Race, gender and class play a powerful role in defining who is ‘in’ or ‘out’ of the peer group, and these definitions can shift on a daily basis. If one rebels against, or objects to this behaviour one runs the risk of being further abused (Bagshaw, forthcoming). Jabri illustrates this in the following quote:

To be a dissenting voice is to be an outsider, who is often branded as a traitor to the cause, and, therefore, deserving of sacrifice on the mythical altar of solidarity … social boundaries become sharpened through a discursive focus on features, both symbolic and material, which divide communities to the extent that the desire for destruction of the enemy is perceived to be the only legitimate and honourable course to follow (Jabri, 1996: 5).

Discourse on origins In our current generation there has been a dominance of exclusionist discourse based on a discourse on origins – whether it be family, ethnicity, class, religion, region or nation of birth etc. In conflicts generated by a discourse of origins, ‘the enemy’ is constructed along with a discourse of exclusionist protection. Expressions of identity are to some extent based on shared attributes with others, or a social position or category, attracting a range of normative sanctions and social expectations which vary according to location and over time. Since the end of the Cold War, ethno-national difference has been the source of much violent conflict in the world. Ethic or national identity-based conflicts reify the local. At international, intra-national and local levels, such as in schools, we have seen numerous examples of how a discourse on origins can construct violent conflicts. Categories of origin are exemplified in dualistic constructs such as Catholic/Protestant, Muslim/Christian, indigenous/non-indigenous, Asian/Caucasian, Palestinian/Israeli. In conflicts with ‘others’, national, ethnic or religious groups draw upon their “remembered past” or sense of collective identity. To quote Jabri:

A self-image based on notions of heroism, valour and justice draws upon … collective memories and is actively reproduced in times of conflict (Jabri, 1996: 140).

In Australia, political discourse around so-called ‘illegal’ immigrants, and the need to protect our country’s borders, has sanctioned and reproduced categorisations based on notions of legitimacy, thereby fostering discrimination and violence against religious and ethnic groups defined as ‘other’. At an international level the discourse on ‘war

9

against terrorism’ is having a similar effect. Religion is also a source of much violent conflict in the world, in particular when linked to fundamentalism.

War and economics One of the most distressing realities of our time is that most wars have been fought in countries that can least afford them. The steady globalization of international finance and trade is creating wealth for a few nations and individuals within them and is leading to conditions of marginalization and social disintegration for millions. War cannot be separated from economics. War is lucritive for the wealthy countries who produce most of the armaments. Economic warfare, where sanctions are put in place to put pressure on errant regimes, gives rise to problems of poor nutrition and health. These sanctions create problems for the poor and the vulnerable (usually women and children), often leaving the real targets untouched.

Ghandi pointed out that “poverty is a form of violence”. UNICEF has also highlighted that poverty and the lack of development fuels hatred and escalates hostilities. UNICEF has also pointed out that improvements in such areas as nutrition, health, education, water, sanitation and family planning would go far to reduce the underlying causes of many wars (Bellamy, 1996: 25). Instead, large amounts of scarce resources are devoted to armaments, with industrialized countries as the dominant arms suppliers.

10

The effects of war on children During times of war children are affected in many ways by the violence surrounding them. The waves of violence that have swept the world in recent years have uprooted enormous numbers of people – at least half of whom are children – classified variously as ‘displaced persons’, ‘refugees’, or more recently in Australia as ‘illegal immigrants’. These children are at particular risk. They live in poverty, squalor and deprivation and are sometimes incarcerated in refugee centres or detention centres where they witness further violence. The majority of children who die during wartime die of starvation or sickness due to disruption of the normal production and distribution of food, clean water and medical supplies (Bellamy, 1996).

Millions of children in the world have been present at events that are beyond the worst nightmares of most adults. In 1993, UNICEF conducted surveys of the plight of thousands of children who have lived through war with horrendous findings. In Sarajevo, for example, almost one child in four was wounded in the conflict. Since 1975 landmines left after wars have killed and maimed millions of children (at least 40% of all associated injuries or deaths). These landmines remain active for decades, with children most vulnerable because their developing bodies are so small and fragile. Many children have also been tortured and raped (Bellamy, 1996). High numbers of children surveyed by UNICEF in countries such as Sarajevo, Angola, Yugoslavia and Rwanda reported experiencing “unbearable sorrow”, “depression and a sense of hopelessness about the future”, “terrifying dreams”, “bullet wounds”, “thinking they were going to die”, “seeing people murdered”, “seeing dead bodies”, “seeing people being torured, beaten or hurt”, “flashbacks of traumatic events”, “fear”, “insecurity” and “bitterness”. Adolescents who have been involved in the wars in Bosnia and Herzegovina have been reported to have “weeping crises”, “suicide attempts”, “depression” and “increased levels of aggression and delinquency” (Bellamy, 1996: 24). In the last two decades in wars around the world millions of children have volunteered or been conscripted as soldiers (200,000 in 1988 alone) (Bellamy, 1996). In some regimes (eg. Maoist, Iraqi) schools have been used to actively recruit children as active participants in violent conflicts. Recently I viewed a program about children from socio-economically deprived families (largely black) in the United States. Poor families send their children to schools run by the military so they can get a ‘decent’ education. Many of these children are then conscripted into the armed forces with offers of secure jobs with reasonable pay.

11

Those children who escape direct involvement in violence during war-time, are affected by witnessing violence or exposure to violence in the media, which can be seen in the way they emulate militaristic behaviour in games. Even in times of peace, many young children, in particular boys, play ‘war games’ using toy guns, battleships, tanks etc. If they do not have real guns they fashion make-believe guns out of pieces of wood.

1940’s 1990’s

Schools and violence A study that I undertook with colleagues in the late 1990’s demonstrated that violence is relatively common in our schools in South Australia, with teachers complaining that levels of violence between students, and between students and teachers, are seriously high, particularly in high schools in our poorer socio-economic areas. Children in these schools report that they both use violence and watch violence to “relieve boredom”. In interviews I conducted with 13-15 year old students from a wide range of secondary schools in metropolitan Adelaide, students describe how on a weekly basis and as a ‘normal’ practice, the word gets out that a fight is about to happen,

12

usually on the oval at lunch-time. After class there is a rush to see the fight and, as if they are watching a football match, onlookers encourage one or other of the combatants by shouting or cheering and are known to close ranks against teachers so they cannot breakup the fight. Many students have told me in interviews that watching a good fight relieves the boredom of an otherwise tedious day - it is treated as a form of sport (Bagshaw, 1998). However, the physical fights in the schoolyards of some of our poorer schools are so serious that police or security guards are permanently employed as staff. It is not uncommon for these fights to involve weapons, including knives, knuckle-dusters and chains, and occasionally guns. These fights can lead to hospitalisation and even teachers sometimes get hurt in the fray. They can also lead to suspension from school. We have heard via the global press of the shooting of students by other students in high schools in the United States. Unfortunately, since these reports have appeared on our television screens, similar shootings have also occurred in Australia. Recently, during the early stages of the war in Iraq (3rd April, 2003), a 16 year old boy from New South Wales was charged with attempted murder after shooting two female classmates with a cross-bow and throwing a home-made lethal explosive at them. It has been alleged that the boy had purchased the crossbow from South Australia with deliberate intent to use it to harm the victims. Both of the girls he targeted, one an ex-girlfriend, sustained life-threatening injuries. From media reports, the boy’s alleged justification was that his ex-girlfriend and her girlfriend taunted him after their relationship breakdown. I do not believe that we can divorce incidents such as these from the violent global context of war. One of my PhD students, David West, is currently analysing the occupational health and safety data for all the secondary schools in South Australia which indicates that student violence against teachers (verbal and physical) is at a seriously high level and increasing, leading to poor health outcomes for both teachers and students (participants and bystanders). Physical fights between boys are common to most schools, often trivialised or explained away by teachers and others as “boys being boys”. In most Australian schools physical prowess and the ability to win a fight, or to be good at a rough sport like our Australian rules football, is necessary to the construction of a popular ‘macho’

13

masculine image. Exaggerated forms of masculinity are popular in many schools, in particular in those in poorer socio-economic areas. Boys report that they feel pressured to engage in physical fights in order to demonstrate or prove their masculinity and run the risk of being called a ‘girl’, ‘wuss’ or a ‘poofter’ if they decline to do so.

My research also suggests that girls are increasingly handling their differences through physical means, in particular in schools in our poorer socio-economic areas. Changes in the way that femininity is constructed in the Western world are reflected in recent books, such as Susan Hopkin’s Girl Heroes (Hopkins, 2002). In general, teachers and others will intervene if physical conflicts get out of control. However they do not respond in the same way to non-physical forms of violence such as verbal abuse, taunts and insults, which serve to subordinate and marginalise girls and boys who do not conform to the gender norms set by the dominant or popular students. Students report that verbal and relational abuse can be far more damaging than physical abuse in the longer term, but it tends to be seen and ‘nromal’ by teachers and does not attract serious sanctions.

The proximity of conflict and role of the media At a global level the proximity of the media greatly influences official and non-official responses to violent conflicts and also imparts stories and images of violence to our children, which in turn influence their attitudes and behaviour. We recently witnessed how war correspondents influenced the community’s acceptance of war during the course of the events in Iraq. Media reports, however, rarely provide a balanced view. Sanitised, censored one-sided versions of ‘the truth’ are disseminated by various governments and the military via control of the media, in particular where there are journalists ‘embedded’ with the troops. Miltitary powers on both sides have sought to harness the image factory for their own purposes. However, with sophisticated technology and the wide availability of the internet, censoring and managing the news is much more difficult today than it used to be.

14

Since the war in Vietnam in the 1960’s, often described as the first television war, it has been generally acknowledged that image manufacturers are key players in the politics of military conflict. Images of terrified Indochinese children fleeing the dragon’s breath of a napalm attack made a real difference to Australian people’s attitudes to the war in Vietnam (Slattery, 2003).

Tecommunications have brought the suffering of citizens in so-called enemy countries, and other horrific events, into our sitting rooms so that we can no longer treat them with indifference. The world has grown smaller and the faces of the enemy are now far less blurred and indistinct, making it much harder for our respective governments to convince us that all people in a nation are evil or ‘the enemy’. We are now exposed to more and more stories and images that affirm our common humanity. When we cannot or do not see the faces of our enemies it is much easier for governments and the military machinary to objectify or demonise them. Increasingly, however, new technologies not only show us the faces, but let us hear the perspectives of ‘others’ who we can see are not really much different from us, despite the colour of their skin or the shape of their nose. However, in opposition to the assumption that war imagery and commentary is powerful enough to shift national or world opinion are concerns about the increase in our levels of tolerance for violence and the effects of such imagery. Some people report that they have been anaesthetised or de-sensitized to violence and war by overexposure to violent events. Hearing the cries of wounded or starving children and seeing the suffering and anguish of their parents can lead to ‘compassion fatigue’ and some switch off the TV set or move to another channel. “The cult of ‘instantaneity’ that technology encourages can flatten information into a homogenous stream of violent images and instant analysis” (Bellamy, 1996: 31). American writer, Susan Sontag, describes the emotionally neutralising impact of repeated exposure to photography. In her most recent book – Regarding the Pain of Others - she argues that photography is less important than the principal medium of the news – television - which is organised to “arouse and to satiate, by its surfeit of images. Image glut keeps attention light, mobile, relatively indifferent to content” (Slattery, 2003). Sontag wants the imagery of war to regain some power to move and laments the loss of an innocent eye that would allow this. I agree that we must continue

15

to be pubically outraged by violence and war and work actively to challenge discourses that normalise, justify or condone it. Whilst modern technology and media reports are exposing us to many ‘truths’ that now cannot be downplayed by our own governments, my greatest concern is the possibility that violent discourses are being elevated and normalised in the process. At times it felt as if the reporters covering the war zone in Iraq were commenting on a football match. TV channels competed with each other to see who could offer the most sensational reports. Alarmingly, as the war continued, the support for it from the citizens in countries such as Australia and the UK increased. We cannot deny that to some extent we are trapped by our own national and cultural perspectives, fuelled by the perspectives of our local media, which depict some nations and peoples more remote and distant and less valued than others. Local stories and tragedies are given far more prominance in our local print and television media than global stories, unless others ‘like us’ are involved. In a recent and eloquent article in our Weekend Australian Magazine, Philip Adams provided examples of how our particular world views distort our perceptions.

A million dead in China is equivalent to 500,000 dead in India, is equivalent to 1000 dead in the United States of America, is equivalent to 200 dead in London … or a couple of people dead in your own street .

In the West a couple of thousand deaths in New York are presented as the most significant and dreadful deaths imaginable, averting our gaze from the 20,000 or more murdered in Afghanistan in retaliation in the ‘War Against Terror’ – faceless and nameless victims who were “not like us” (Adams, 2003: 11). In Australia, the tragic loss of life, including those of mothers and children, in the sinking of a refugee boat heading from Indonesia to Australia was given far less prominence than the deaths of Australians in the recent bombings in Bali. Almost twice as many people died in the boat tragedy but they were faceless and nameless, objectified and even demonised by the current Australian government’s stance against so-called ‘illegal’ refugees and asylum seekers. The media were kept at a distance from the Norwegian boat, the Tampa, during an earlier crisis – all Australians could see were blurred figures on the boat deck. They were shown blurred and distant pictures of a baby being thrown overboard from a refugee boat, which our government used to their advantage in a subsequent election as evidence of the evil nature of the people onboard. It was subsequently discovered that the images were taken out of context and restoried. In recent years the current Australian government has also depicted refugees arriving on leaky boats as ‘others’, not like us, using dehumanising words such as ‘illegals’, ‘queue-jumpers’, often with the suggestion that they are ‘real enemies’. Finally, with the fall of the Iraqi regime, soldiers were being depicted in our local press as heroes in the eyes of children, as these photos illustrate. I can not see how men in military uniforms and carrying guns can possibly be the sort of role models for the world’s children that we would want.

16

Mediation as an instument for peace? The big question we should be addressing in this forum is: how can we, as mediators, challenge discourses on violence in our homes, schools, workplaces when violence is being promoted by some of our leaders at an international level as a ‘just’ or appropriate way of dealing with differences? My philosophy is: “It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness”. Mediation is a practice which provides us with an opportunity to make a difference to the way people view and handle conflicts, within cultural and structural constraints. Mediation is not a uniform activity – there are many models and approaches which traverse many domains and cultures. However, most approaches to mediation bring people face to face and generate a move away from violent confrontation towards mutual respect, recognition and understanding. In general, the mediator recognizes and enhances the transformative capacity of individuals, groups and communities to cooperatively resolve their own conflicts. Mediators foster tolerance and acceptance of difference, in a climate of respect and openness, so conflicted parties can deal with their conflicts constructively and peacefully co-exist. Much of the mediation literature and research focuses on mediator qualities, mediation techniques, the recognition and management of imbalances of power, negotiation and decision-making processes and the effectiveness of different types of intervention. The emphasis in earlier models of mediation was on the resolution of conflict through problem-solving and later models have highlighted the importance of language and the transformative nature of the process (for example Winslade & Monk, 2000). However, the literature and practices of mediation rarely address discourses on violence and the

17

institutional legitimation of violent conflict, nor question the cultural embeddedness of the mediator. For mediation to be useful, our theories and practices must be critical and self-reflexive and question societal assumptions and views of conflict in ways that enhance peace. This means developing our ability to analyse, deconstruct and challenge discourses on violence and incorporating a counter-discourse of peace into our mediation theory and practice.

What is discourse analysis? Discourse analysis sees language as more than a mode for transmitting information in the process of communication. In analysing discourses - for example written or verbal social texts and other modes of representation such as news media or posters such as those I have shown you today - it is assumed that they do not merely describe things. Language, or the way we talk about things, actively constructs our reality and constructs and reproduces social systems, and therefore has political and social implications (Potter & Wetherell, 1989). As I said earlier, what can or cannot be depicted or talked about and who can and cannot say certain things will give us a clue as to whose discourses are dominant at a particular historical point in time and whose discourses are subordinated or marginalised.

Peace as a counter-discourse Open warfare is only part of a much broader picture of violence. For many children guns and knives are a part of daily life – on the streets of urban cities, in homes and in schoolyards around the world, including in Adelaide, South Australia where I have conducted a great deal of research. Children from all walks of life are witnessing high levels of family violence in their homes (Bagshaw, 2003a; Bagshaw et al., 2000), communities and in their schoolyards world-wide (Davies, 1997). Peace is a counter-discourse which seeks to understand the legitimation of violence and to challenge the discursive and institutional structures and frameworks which allow for its emergence. Militarism, for example, is a constant presence which renders war as a desirable and feasible option in times of conflict.

If even a fraction of the resources devoted to building military capacity could be diverted to achieving basic development goals, we would be living in a world with fewer social and environmental problems and far fewer and less destructive wars (Bellamy, 1996: 26).

We need to challenge the hegemonic patriarchal discourses that underpin and normalise violence in our homes, workplaces and schools. To do this we need more people with mediation knowledge and skills, including women, in positions of influence in our national governments and in global organisations such as the United Nations. With a strong Steering Committee and committed membership, the World Mediation Forum would be a prime position to influence such organisations. In addition, mediators need to generate a critical discourse on peace and situate it within the mediation discourse if we are to really make a long-lasting difference in our conflicted world. We need to analyse and challenge discourses that justify violence,

18

such as binary discourses that divide people and the world into categories of inclusion and exclusion and thereby legitimate the violent fragmentation of groups, societies and communities.

Discourse analysis as a strategy for change It is the recognition of the plethora of legitimate readings, representations and identities that constitute individuality which must lie at the heart of transformative, critical discourses of peace (Jabri, 1996: 140-141).

Our construct of peace must incorporate and value differences and pluralities of identity, recognise our own cultural and situational embededdness (as mediators), and deconstruct and reject discourses on violence and their institutional underpinnings. We know that violent environments contain the seeds of future conflicts. The postmodern world is now moving into a more fluid and uncertain era in which underlying tensions are erupting to the surface, leading to the potential for violence to escalate in the world. One practical objective must be to focus on early intervention and prevention and introduce emancipatory knowledge and promote social transformation in schools in relation to the legitimation of violence. There are a variety of strategies available to assist our children to learn to develop mutual understanding, to embrace human diversity and to resolve differences without recourse to violence. Conflict resolution knowledge and skills should become part of the mainstream curricula, starting from the first year at school. I believe that we also have a moral obligation to teach young children to deconstruct violent discourses and to develop their skills to handle their conflicts peacefully, for example through promoting and implementing strategies in schools such as:

• peer mediation • Anatole Pikas’s Method of Shared Concern (Rigby, 2002) • the International Drama and Conflict (DRACON) approach to teaching conflict

handling (Bagshaw & Halliday, 1999; Bagshaw & Lepp, 2003), • Jannawi Kids Family Centre’s kits using puppets and workbooks to teach

conflict resolution skills to children affected by domestic violence (Bagshaw, Campbell, & Jelinek, 2002); or

• UNESCO’s Culture of Peace Media News Network (CPNN) on-line initiative to encourage, promote and value stories about peace and non-violence written by children in schools around the world (http://www.cpnn.org/).

Finally, many parts of the world are currently experiencing instability with violence as a likely outcome. The international community needs effective warning systems to permit preventive diplomacy, including early and timely mediation, to occur. We know that mediation can be a powerful catalyst for change. There is also an urgent need for us to train more mediators at every level in our various societies. This training should be a pre-requisite for all people in positions of influence, including teachers and politicians. I would like to leave you with a story to think about:

19

A grandfather was talking to his grandson about how he felt. He said: I feel as if I have two wolves fighting in my heart. One wolf is full of selfishness, anger and criticism. The other wolf is full of compassion, kindness and love”.

The grandson asked, “Which wolf will win this fight in your heart?”

The grandfather answered: “The one that I feed.”

Col. J. Z. Goldstein.

References

Adams, P. (2003). No names, just numbers. The Weekend Australian Magazine(February 22-23), 11.

Bagshaw, D. (1998). What Adolescents Say About Conflict in Schools. Children Australia, 23(3), 17-22.

Bagshaw, D. (2003a). Contested Truths: Disclosing Domestic Violence in Family Law Mediation. In W. J. Pammer & J. Killian (Eds.), Handbook of Conflict Management (pp. In press). New York.

Bagshaw, D. (2003b). Language, power and mediation. Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal, May.

Bagshaw, D. (forthcoming). Policing Gender: Verbal abuse and gendered adolescent identities. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.

Bagshaw, D., Campbell, A., & Jelinek, L. (2002). Children and Domestic Violence: An evaluation of Jannawi resources. Adelaide: Attorney-General's Department Crime Prevention Unit.

Bagshaw, D., & Chung, D. (2000, 26-27 April). Reshaping Responses to Domestic Violence: The Needs of Children and Young People. Paper presented at the National Forum on Children, Young People and Domestic Violence: The Way Forward, Melbourne.

Bagshaw, D., & Chung, D. (2001). The needs of children who witness domestic violence: a South Australian Study. Children Australia, 26(3), 9-17.

Bagshaw, D., Chung, D., Couch, M., Lilburn, S., & Wadham, B. (2000). Reshaping Responses to Domestic Violence. Canberra: Partnerships Against Domestic Violence and Department of Human Services.

Bagshaw, D., & Halliday, D. (1999). Teaching Adolescents to Handle Conflict through Drama. NJ (Drama Australia Journal), 24(2), 87-104.

Bagshaw, D., & Lepp, M. (2003). Ethical considerations in drama and conflict resolution research in Swedish and Australian schools. Conflict Resolution Quartery, In press 2003.

Bellamy, C. (1996). The State of the World's Children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brennan, C. (1995). Beyond Theory and Practice: A Postmodern Perspective. Counselling Values, 39(January), 99-107.

Comas-Diaz, L., & Jansen, M. (1995). Global Conflict and Violence Against Women. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psycholgy, 1(4), 315-331.

Copelon, R. (1994). Intimate Terror: Understanding Domestic Violence as Torture. In R. J. Cook (Ed.), Human Rights of Women. National and International Perspectives (pp. 116-152). Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.

20

Davies, M. (Ed.). (1997). Women and Violence: Realities and Responses World Wide (Second ed.). London and New York: Zed Books Ltd.

Giddens, A. (1997). Central Problems in Social Theory. London: Macmillan. Hopkins, S. (2002). Girl Heroes: The new force in popular culture. Annandale: Pluto

Press. Jabri, V. (1996). Discourses on violence. Conflict analysis reconsidered. Manchester

and New York: Manchester University Press. Laing, D. L., University of New South Wales: Partnerships Against

DomesticViolence,2000. (2000). Children, young people and domestic violence. Sydney: University of New South Wales.

McHoul, A., & Grace, W. (1993). The Foucault Primer: Discourse, power and the subject. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1989). Discourse and Social Policy: Beyond Attitudes and Bahaviour (Second ed.). London: Sage.

Rigby, K. (2002). New perspectives on bullying. London: Jessica Kingsley. Slattery, L. (2003, April 12-13). Mother of all prattles. Weekend Australian, pp. 32. Winslade, J., & Monk, G. (2000). Narrative Mediation. A New Approach to Conflict

Resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

21