Obstacles to inspiring people to "be the change"

Gandhi's expression "Be the change you want to see in the world" gets quoted quite a bit.  But to what end?

It's one thing to consider embracing activism and avoiding burn-out for those who are already jazzed about getting involved in advocacy, but most people don’t constantly write letters or go to rallies. They don’t focus their frustration. There dozens of ribbons and hundred of groups and thousands of little causes mingling with the bigger ones. Like something on Facebook, retweet something on Twitter and you have been “active”. 

I wrote one email to an elected official this year. I clicked to “sign” a few online petitions. That’s it. And I am fairly well-informed. I know the stakes. So why don't more people turn their concerns into action?

Picnics for peace and other idiotic pacifist ideas

In the documentary film 10 Questions for the Dalai Lama, His Holiness suggests that one way we might see more peace in troubled areas such as Jerusalem is to have more gatherings like picnics and festivals. No doubt this strikes many people as foolish. After all, it is a religiously political struggle? (Or is a politically religious struggle?) Inequity and injustice require some kind of top down solution, right? Economic, military, etc. You've got to have high level meetings, and political road maps, and a week at Camp David between the leaders of the parties in conflict, right? Having people meet and greet is just idiotic. Isn't it? Do we really buy all of the teachings of such renowned spiritual leaders?

But let us ask ourselves why the Clinton initiative failed to bring a peace settlement in Israel. There is no single reason, but a huge one includes speculation that Yasser Arafat knew his people wouldn't accept the terms he was negotiating, and his counterpart, Ehud Barak, claimed he couldn't offer any more concessions. Both leaders realized they couldn't get any closer without alienating key segments of their populations, particularly powerful political supporters. This kind of impasse is rooted in the attitudes of certain groups of Palestinians and Israelis toward each other and fed by past and present conflict. These attitudes, which perpetuate and support the political and economic structures producing inequality and conflict, include distrust, fear, and hatred.

Daryl Davis and the Klan

Now let's turn to another historic example of distrust, fear, and hatred - the Ku Klux Klan and African-Americans. You may not be familiar with Daryl Davis. I first heard about him when his story was included in the film Understanding Race (part of the Films for the Humanities series). I later learned that he had published a book about his experiences going to Klan meeting called Klan-destine Relationships. None of this may strike you as peculiar until you hear the subtitle of the book: A Black Man's Odyssey in the Ku Klux Klan. His story is also told in a brief article that appeared in the Washington Post.

In brief, Davis met people who were in the Klan and was eventually invited to a Klan meeting. He was curious and friendly and non-judgmental, and became a familiar face at Klan events. In fact, an Imperial Wizard made Davis the godfather of his child. But what is really interesting is that his presence has been a catalyst which has led many members, including that Imperial Wizard, to quit the Klan. Some have even given Davis their robes, which he keeps in his closet. Imagine that - self-identified white supremacists quitting the Klan not because Davis laid on a guilt trip, not because he debated them into submission, but because of his persistent friendly presence.

The mechanics of changing perspective

One theory of how we form expectations about the world is that we organize our experiences into meaningful clusters we then name. This is called a schema. When we select a schema or a composite of schemas to be the standard for evaluating similar schemas. This standard is called a prototype. Similar schemas orbit loosely around the prototype, creating a category with fuzzy boundaries. For example, if we use our experiences to form a schema of holiday, we might include "having family over" and "preparing a large meal". When we experience a holiday without a big meal, we might remark that is just didn't seem like a holiday, because we were using that schema as a prototype to evaluate new experiences.

We can also use the example of the category automobile, in which we use our experiences with cars to form the basis of a schema which is then promoted to the prototype of the automobile category. Hence we may call a truck or jeep a "car", even though there are differences between trucks, jeeps, and cars. Trucks and jeeps are orbiting the idea of car-ness, which may include elements like "large rubber tires", "carries multiple passengers", "runs on an engine", "has pedals and a steering wheel".

This theory can help make sense of the relationship between Daryl Davis, the Klan, and the members who quit. I am not suggesting this theory must be true in every case, but a theory isn't much good if it has no explanatory power, so we can at least see if it produces a workable explanation. People in the Klan tend to have a particular kind of schema they use as the prototype for black people, which we might expect to be very negative. They had a new experience - a black man who wasn't angry or judgmental towards them and who seemed like a really friendly and sincere guy. This didn't match the expectations of the prototype of a black man. In some cases, the continued exposure formed that basis of a new schema of black people that either challenged or replaced the previous prototype (which in this case would correlate to the term stereotype). This sparked a re-evaluation of membership in an organization premised on a particular view of minorities.

This can be condensed into "they changed their minds when they actually got to know a black man", but the process involved - how and why they were prejudiced and the components of changing one's mind - are important. If Davis had been angry or judgmental, this might have reinforced a schema which includes an image of black people as angry and judgmental towards whites. It also highlights how important external influences can be in shaping our attitudes about anything and everything we encounter in our lives.

The relevance to conflict prevention and resolution

Turning back to the Dalai Lama and Jerusalem, I don't presume the Dalai Lama made his suggestion based on the mechanics of a theory from the social and behavioral sciences of the West. Instead, his Buddhist training and the wisdom of a lifetime of exposure to conflict and prejudice showed him the basic pattern, however we might wish to frame it. It would be unfair to say that he thinks that a few picnics will end all of the violence, but I do think he is pointing towards generating shared positive experiences between opposing or distrustful groups in order to offer a basis for new and more positive appreciation of each other. With such a grassroots change in attitude, the existing political and economic structures generating inequality and conflict between the sides would lose much of their support. If enough of the people want peace, they will have it.

People don't live in the abstract - in the "national" or the "global" scene. They live in the every day of their individual lives. Whether attempted solutions to the largest problems in society will either succeed or fail turns on what individuals experience and do in the everyday.