What is an Artist Worth? A Letter to My Young Cousin

My cousin's 16 year old son and I got into a conversation over on fb after I posted a meme of Bernie Sanders congratulating LA for raising their minimum wage. This is a continuation of that conversation.

Dear Isaiah, 

Because I am no economics genius :), I thought it makes more sense to map out my position by giving you the coordinates of my values first, and to at least touch on how your assumptions feel foreign to those values. Please understand that these are not points in a political position. They are my deeply held and deeply felt core values and way of seeing the world. Many different streams contribute to this pond of values:  almost a half-a century (one more year, grrrr.) of life experience: being born into and spending my early childhood in dismal, impoverished, abusive circumstances; growing up in the chaos of a liberal, laissez-aller, and deeply dysfunctional foster family; many, many of my own mistakes, failures and wrong choices; some successes;  experiencing the often pivotal effect in my life of other’s generosity; traveling around the world and living for longer periods in several different cultures; co-parenting a family of three kind, loving and generous children; living in and leading a community; living with pain and disability; extensive reflection and evaluation of these experiences and of the good and bad role-models and examples that have figured in my story; lots and lots of books, and stories, and movies; reading and reflecting on the abundance of Christian tradition and literature, not least of all the Bible itself; profiting from the fruits of other’s scientific observation, experimentation, information gathering, discoveries, inventions etc; the years I have spent studying conflict; and perhaps most importantly, experiencing grace and being so often transformed by this mysterious and unexplainable and unforeseeable reality I would call the Spirit of God. 

So, here are things I have come to believe and hold to be true, often fail miserably to live out, but keep coming back to as a worthy compass. 

I deeply cherish the story of creation in the Bible. 

(I don’t care, whatsoever, about the creation - evolution debate.) 

For me the opening chapters of the Bible establish a change in paradigms, the understanding of which takes on a whole new depth once you have lived in an animistic culture like PNG, as I have. What I take away from the creation story is this:

1.) The planet we live on is part of a Time-Space matrix, which is not a hostile, unknowable, unpredictable, untamable “Hunger Games” arena ruled by unappeasable gods and ancestor spirits, nor by simple randomness, but rather its foundations are knowable, and it has been given to us as a great big canvas, or playground and garden; it is inherently valuable, and we should care for it and protect it.

2.) We are all Artists: I believe that this is the core of our human identity. We were created in the image of a creator (all we know at that point of the text!), the Alpha Artist to be artists ourselves! It is the foundation of human dignity, the basis of every single person’s fundamental worth, and it is the fountain of their inexhaustible potential. It establishes a baseline for the respect due to everyone, no matter their circumstances or what they have done or failed to do, for the debt we owe to every man, woman and child, to love them and let them live in dignity.

 

3.) We are all Screw Ups: In all of my years, I have never met anyone who was perfect, who never messed up, or who had a spotless record or character. Not a single one. Ever.  

4.) We are diverse: Each person is unique (and screws up in his/her own unique way). Each one of us show up somewhere on a spectrum in any given point of what we think, believe, have, look like, what we can or can’t do, where we are from, and no two people overlap in all points exactly, ever.  Unfortunately we tend to divide up and evaluate each other, favor or neglect, esteem or hold in contempt, empower or exploit, according to these four categories: a) Bodies (gender, race, disability/ability, age) b) Geographical location (which influences ethnicity, culture, language, sports team) c) Ideology (politics, religion (tho it is often connected to location, people can and do switch) d) Economic class (what we have/don’t have in wealth, property, opportunity, mobility, education, skills, and status symbols)

Because of these last two points,

5.) Conflict is an inevitable part of life: After eating, relieving oneself, and sleeping, conflict is the next thing on the list that make up our lives the moment we live in a human plural. Our ways of dealing with conflict can either be constructive or destructive, and that will depend on whether we respond with shame/hubris or guilt/grace when differences arise.

- Shame Leads to Competition, Isolation, Exploitation, Exclusion, and Violence,

- Guilt is empathic and leads to authenticity and vulnerable truth-telling (confession), restitution (Zacchaeus, Luke 19:1-10), and can lead to reconciliation, justice and deep community

6.) I believe in, have experienced, and work towards Redemption:  People (and things in a way) who have been broken by their own or other’s shortcomings, who have been rolled over by the consumer and domination systems of this world and have been isolated, exploited, excluded or violated, or who have done these things, can be resurrected, reclaimed, re-created, and reinstated in community, through grace, forgiveness, and a renewed investment in their inherent and potential value.

7.) Capitalism vs. Kingdom of God: Though the domination systems of this world are wreaking havoc all over the globe for the love of mammon, and in the name of “progress”, or purity, or glory, and tho the destruction and cruelty and suffering often seem so utterly hopeless, I do still hold on to the belief that it is never in vain to believe in, pray for, and work toward Shalom, Ubuntu, “God’s kingdom, His will on earth as it is in Heaven,” the culture of faith, hope, love, peace and justice, interdependence, mutual flourishing for everyone and all of creation and in this life, which God intended from the beginning.  

“The free market system,” capitalism, or America are no proxies for God’s Kingdom. They are not “baby sitters” until the time of judgement. They are corrupt systems of this world, which we must find someway to live in with integrity, but must never mistake for the Kingdom of God. My first allegiance is to live these “kingdom” values and culture here on earth, as part of the world wide body of Christ, and in my experience, that is usually done outside of, despite, in subversion to, and circumventing the “free market systems.”

8.) Concretely for me, this means doing the things that God does in this world:

- creating

- nurturing

- protecting

- empowering

There is no dividing these up, that some people should do one or some of them, and others something else. If you leave any one of these things out, things get messed up, people become exploited machines, get neglected, become enslaved, or are disenfranchised of rights and responsibilities as an interdependent member of community.

Everyone has been called and given the responsibility and authority to live that way. EVERYone.

10.) However, not everyone has the same amount of power at their disposal.

• Though some of that power/advantage might be self wrought (i.e. the parable of the Talents, the ones with more money did actually invest it to profit), no one is born into a vacuum. No one, anywhere, gets to greater advantage purely on their own steam and merit. Attitudes of entitlement are dangerous and out of place in the economics of God’s Kingdom.
• Always where there is a greater amount of power, there is a greater responsibility to use that power to be creative (innovative), to nurture, to protect and to empower those with less power. Contempt for those in positions of less power and advantage is never warranted. (“There, but for the grace of God, go I”)
• Even in a position of less or very little power, there are creative, nonviolent ways to circumvent and subvert abuse of power by the systems of domination and work toward mutual flourishing. (i.e. see all the Gospels)

  

11.) Sabbath, tithing, Gleaning and Jubilee: Because of all these things above, I believe that we don’t have to “go over our fields twice”, trying to squeeze every last drop of profit for ourselves, take every advantage, maximize the bottom line to the expense of other values and other people, or work seven days a week to get ahead, but that we can “leave some” for others, rest, quiet our ambitions, realign ourselves with our core values, give back and pay it forward. Jubilee addresses the devastating injustice of generational poverty, children paying for the sins, mistakes, misfortune, or outright victimization of their parents and grandparents, their ethnic group, their race, or their bodies, and gives people a clean slate, a chance to start over, an outside intervention to break this otherwise inescapable cycle of poverty, self-destruction, and, often, violence. 

So, that is where I am coming from. What follows is my breaking down how your comments and arguments sound to me, where they strike a nerve, and where they appear to collide with my values.

Assumption #1: Brain over Brawn: Cognitive labor over manual labor. White collar vs. Blue collar jobs. The “years you spent training” your brain to understand and perform complicated computer codes (time & attention) is inherently more valuable and deserves more reward than the personal cost of physical labor. So much more, in fact, that the latter does not even deserve a living wage for the time and effort he/she actually spends working.

• It is true that at different times our society needs different things and rewards those things with more money and acclaim. After WWII tenacity, hard work, practicality, elbow grease were needed to rebuild a bombed out Germany, but now that it has built a strong economy, we need creative, innovative thinkers more than ever to help solve problems in the ever more complicated world we live in: sustainability, conflicts in pluralistic, over populated societies, energy crises, etc. But those skills are not more valuable in an absolute sense. Nor does it mean that other skills become irrelevant or unnecessary. This should go without saying, but service, agricultural, educational, and industrial jobs (building infrastructure) are the backbone of a society. The unfortunate fact is, our society tends to reward those jobs the most that not only contribute little to no real value or product, but actually harm and degrade and destroy it. Think Wall street, porn, celebrities, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. It doesn’t take long to see who our free market pushes to the top. 

Assumption #2: That flipping burgers takes “0” skill. Not just less skill, or little skill, but “0” skill. 

• I hear contempt: “0” skill means “0” value, “0” respect, “0” slice of the shalom. 
• I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that this is hyperbole, and that what you really mean is “less” or “little” skill. 
• I have not “flipped burgers,” but I have bussed tables, served desserts, hosted and waited on tables, and worked with line cooks, bakers and dishwashers, and am alive to tell you, that it was the hardest, most stressful job I have ever done. It was my first boot camp of life and I had to really scramble to learn to multitask, know and recite the entire menu and wine list by heart, remember orders (an utter nightmare for me), be speedy (as in yesterday already!), be organized, balance trays, carry heavy trays, walk at least 5 to ten miles during shifts, be cordial and diplomatic while taking crap from nasty and upset people, constantly get hit on and hear rude, sexist remarks, work in a team, do math (ugh!). And I made 2,15 an hour (plus fluctuating, unreliable tips). I would get negative pay checks at the end of the month! The work was so hard, that it literally broke my back and gave me a handicap that I have had to live with the rest of my life. 

Assumption #3: “Flipping burgers is a stand in for every low wage job on the market, and therefore, these low wage jobs are equally “unskilled” and therefore less-rewardable.

• Of course there are many more factors to figure into calculating someone’s wage than the amount of skill involved. Risk of injury, danger, health risks, labor intensity, discomfort, amount of intrinsic reward, necessity to a functioning society (trash-men are paid relatively well here in Germany). Here is a list of the 10 worst paid jobs in America: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119269/ten-worst-paying-jobs-america-what-they-are-who-has-them  (Hard to believe that life guards are paid more than farm workers, and that parking lot attendants are paid more than personal care aids) 
• “According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 22 percent of Americans hold one of the lowest paying jobs that the agency categorizes.” 
• In addition to working in restaurants,  I have worked as a receptionist,  cleaned houses, worked in daycare, taught in schools, and worked retail, among other things, and none of those jobs paid a living wage, or even what the sacrifice, time, effort and, yes, skill deserved.

Assumption #4: Any such job is/should only be regarded as a stepping stone. Anyone who stays in such a low-wage job does so because they are too lazy to move themselves forward, to get themselves on the train of progress. It is their own fault (“poor life decisions down the road,” “lack of character,” “he has a disease” ), if they stay in these jobs past their teenage years.

• This is such reductionistic thinking, that I hardly know where to begin. 
• I think of the people who love to cook, and want to be cooks (even will spend their own money to do it).
• I think of my brother who is highly skilled and gifted at making homes beautiful, who does what he loves with excellence and is just barely keeping his head above water (as a single guy!).
• I think of the people who love young children, and want to be child care workers.
• I think of someone I know who is barely surviving, supporting a family, being a self employed hairdresser (not to mention the poor souls who are exploited by large chains!), who is fantastic at what he does and is a blessing to me (the cliche is totally true of hairdresser-priest-psychologist in our case, and I end up crying every time I'm in his chair): Why is that less valuable than what you do? Where should he climb to from there? He works long and hard, values excellence, wants to live creatively in charitable community doing what he is gifted to do and provide for his family. Why isn’t it enough to do those things with dignity? Why should he struggle, not to live in luxury, but to just barely scrape by?
• But beyond that, there are myriads of reasons why people don’t, can’t or choose not to move out of what you consider to be “stepping stone,” menial labor jobs. Sure laziness, hopelessness, and lack of courage are probably the reasons for some. But to assume that you know the motivations, circumstances, opportunities, roadblocks, and pressures that 22% of Americans face is uncharitable and unworthy of you. 
• I believe we are interdependent, and that everyone has something different to contribute, and that the eye should not say to the nose, “You shouldn’t just be a nose, you should strive to be an eye,” because then the thing would be a cyclops and that would be gross. (I Corinthians 12:12-18)

Assumption #5: That a free market society (pure capitalism) is the cat’s meow. That it is fair and somehow is immune to man’s sinfulness, greed and lust for power, and everyone has the same chance at making it work for them if they only tried.

• See #7, 10 and 11 of my values.

Assumption #6: Not only that, but the free market is actually a good tool for disciplining and educating and bringing about good character, motivating the bottom feeders to progress to the next rung on the latter.

• I did not make a change in my life, sign up for college, after three years of waitressing because it paid too little. I would not have stayed in the job if it had paid a decent, living wage (one where I could work just 40 hours and still pay rent, eat, not be naked). I knew that I needed to move on. I was not satisfied or fulfilled being a waitress. Maybe for someone else, that is the thing, but I was neither gifted in doing it, nor did I draw any meaning from it. These last 20 years I have been doing things that do have meaning for me and for what I am better gifted, and I have made almost no money doing them (tho, that is another bone to pick).  
• I also would not have been able to move on, if it were not for the foresight and generosity of your great grandfather, my grandpa, who steered me back in the direction of college, when it seemed like that door had closed to me, AND who covered ALL of my expenses! Talk about Jubilee! Grandma and Grandpa were my Jubilee!!!!

Assumption #7: money corrupts poor people, but not the “successful”

• see value #3 “we are all screw ups”

Assumption #8: “successful” = progress, only progress leads/should lead to more money, progress is the premium value.

• Hmmm… doesn’t look too good for a certain Nazarene I know...
• How does God measure success? I can think of several passages in the Gospels, where Jesus holds up very unlikely people as examples for the disciples.
• I would say that deep connection and charitable community are the bottom line.

Assumption #9: People only change when they hit rock bottom, so it is good to have an economic system that has a “rock bottom” built into it. 

• This has been shown not to be the case with addiction. People are more inclined to change, when they think there is a hope and a possibility that they will be able to.
• Tell that to Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10), who after years of being punished for his sins with shunning and exclusion from the Jewish community to no effect, instantly responded to the kindness, respect and inclusion that Jesus showed him with repentance and restitution and was re-instated in the community of God’s children.

Assumption #10: That the value of hard work, which your parents instilled in you, is the full extent of the privilege you enjoy.

• Really? 
• In just about every category I mentioned in value#4 you come out a lap ahead of the rest. 
• And so does my son. 
• Location, Body, Ideology, Class … do I really need to take you through a head to head comparison with some of the people I have met in my travels? ‘Cause, I will if you want me to.
• None of that is your fault, nor is it something anyone has the right to try and take away from you or make less of. But many of the things that give you and my son an advantage in this world came to you the very day you were born and could do absolutely nothing about. To look at the distance between you and someone far, far behind you and pat yourself on the back for it makes me wince. 
• Gratitude. That is the only appropriate response. Gratitude and a commitment to create, nurture, protect, and empower those who have not been dealt a full house in the grueling economics of this world.
• This is a truth that has touched our son in a profound way during his time in PNG. In the many Skypes we have had with him, he must have told us dozens of times, that he keeps asking himself, with tears, “How did I get so lucky? Why was I born in Germany? Why was I born into such a great family? How did I get so lucky to have the best parents? (see what I did there?). I pray and hope that this realization and gratitude of his also translates to a life-long commitment to create spaces of justice, feed the hungry, give living water to those who are thirsting for meaning and relevance, clothe the naked with dignity, and give strength and confidence to the weak to live in the fullness of their rights and responsibilities as Artists on this earth.

Assumption #11: That you are smarter than Bernie Sanders.

• Um… I am not smarter than Bernie Sanders, so...
• :-)

Argument #1: That the wage raise will, must be, passed on to the consumer.

• Or not - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/14/gravity-payments-raise_n_7061676.html

Argument #2: Wage raise for some will mean job loss for others.

• Nope -
• “Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.
• Not true: A review of 64 studies on minimum wage increases found no discernable effect on employment. Additionally, more than 600 economists, seven of them Nobel Prize winners in economics, have signed onto a letter in support of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016.”

Argument #3: Wage raise will lead to product devaluation/inflation (??)

• Think again:
• Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for the economy.
• Not true: Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. For more than 75 years, real GDP per capita has steadily increased, even when the minimum wage has been raised.

Argument #4: There are alternative ways to betterment (self, community, environment), which circumvent the current capitalistic and consumer addicted society. (retooling a computer you found in the trash).

• YEAH!!!!!  We agree on something! Yippy! Only my most favoritest thing ever! My house is full of “trash,” things, furniture, appliances (Jan got my espresso machine from the street! No fixing needed!), that we found on the street, in flea markets, or thrift stores, hand-me-downs, give aways, and cheapo finds at the 2nd chance corner of Ikea. My #1 hobby is refurbishing and repurposing such furniture finds. But then, hey, Peter and Sharon are your Grandparents and my favorite Aunt and Uncle, so what else can you expect? :) (but you can literally chase me out of a room by opening up and doing surgery on a computer! I can’t even look at it or my brain will blow a fuse)

No, Shame is Not Good. Never is, Never Was

It is all swirling around in my head at such a great speed, I don’t know how to slow it down.   The blog post I just read, by my dear, ultra-conservative-pastor-uncle, comes down hard on someone brave enough, or dumb enough, to be honest about the hard parts of his life on the public platform of Christianity Today’s magazine.  No matter the context of gender-conflict, the crux of my uncle’s beef with the CT article is summed up in the following paragraph from his blog post:

"This is the seduction of postmoderns. Sin and guilt have been replaced by victimhood and shame. Postmoderns have been robbed of forgiveness and left with shamelessness—a shamelessness most promoted (as with Merritt) precisely at those places shame ought rightfully to be most alive, most active, and most redemptive. Shame is a gift of God ordained by Him to assist us in forsaking wickedness and fleeing to the Cross. God's Law gives the gift of shame to the unbeliever so he may flee to Christ. Shame is much of the weight Christian felt as he ran from his village and family, covering his ears and crying out, "Life! Life! Eternal life!" Where do we hear such cries today?  Postmoderns don't know the language of sin and redemption. Sin has morphed into brokenness. Conversion and redemption have been replaced by self-disclosure's emotional and spiritual catharsis."

Then there are the articles I’ve just read, which revisit the unimaginable challenge that the perpetrators and the survivors of genocide have of living together as neighbors twenty years after the harrowing events in Rwanda.

And somehow, it is all connected, at least it is in my mind, in a paper I wrote called, Rwanda: Identity Crises to the Core, for my Conflict Analysis course a couple of years ago.
Shame, Guilt, Victimhood, Violence, Forgiveness, Sin, Language, it is all in there somewhere.

My uncle claims that, “Postmoderns don’t know the language of sin and redemption.”  I would counter, that this type of religious-speak isn’t clearing things up for us, especially when it promotes shame as a good thing.

So here it goes; I’m going to weave together the relevant parts of my paper to hopefully introduce a more helpful language about shame and guilt into this conversation, which I believe applies whether one is religious or not.

In my paper, I was trying to understand and apply Edward E. Azar’s model of Protracted Social Conflict (PSC) to the Rwandan genocide and its aftermath, and asked if it could adequately account for the epic scale and intensity of violence that took place in those tragic 100 days of Rwanda’s history.  I’ve left out the brief review of Rwanda’s colonial past and the historical developments that lead up to the atrocities of 1994, and jump in here, where I give a brief summary of Azar’s analytical tool.  It may be a little technical at first, but bear with me, because I think the model not only translates to other social conflicts (even the gender debate), but especially in the dramatic context of genocide, begs us to dig even deeper and discover just how dangerous and volatile shame really is.

Azar’s model of Protracted Social Conflict: a big step in the right direction.

Azar’s theory sees basic needs for security, recognition and distributive justice as the driving motivation of prolonged and violent struggles between diverse communities, and there are three components to his approach: Genesis, Process, and Outcomes Analysis.

Genesis

As the word implies, “Genesis refers to a ‘set of conditions that are responsible for the transformation of non-conflictual situations into conflictual ones,” and is itself composed of four conditions.  The most consequential of these factors leading to PSC, so Azar, is “Communal Content.”  Societies made up of divers communities, whether through migration or the “divide-and-rule policies of former colonial powers,” commonly lead to one group dominating other sub-groups and demonstrating a disconnect to the needs of these groups in society.  As we have seen, this was clearly the case in Rwanda. (Omitted in this post)  

Human Needs

But the driving force to PSC, and Azar’s second component, is ‘Human Needs,’ which suggests that “individual or communal survival is contingent upon satisfaction of three fundamental sets of basic needs variables: acceptance needs (recognition of communal identity); access needs (effective participation in society); and security needs (physical security, housing, and nutrition)."  When these needs are not met, or access to procuring these needs is closed off, grievances arise and are usually vented collectively through an ‘Identity group.’  Unlike ‘interests,’ needs are ‘ontological and non-negotiable’ and will inevitably surface as an area of conflict.

Government and the States Role

The third condition of Azar’s Genesis component, is Government and the States Role.  Azar positions the state as primary custodian of the communal groups under its jurisdiction and underlines its responsibility to ensure that each group is able to meet their basic needs.  In countries which are in protracted social conflict, one identity group will secure political power, and rather than use its resources to ensure that the basic needs of its constituency are met, it utilizes available resources to maintain exclusive domination.

International Linkages

Azar recognizes that states are usually not acting independently from a Global reality, but that quite often the policies and institutions of a state are also marked by the international ties it has.  This fills a final condition that contributes to the inception of PSC, and is termed International Linkages.

Process Dynamics

   Process dynamics is the second component of Azar’s PSC theory and describes the interplay of identity groups, which may initiate intentional public disruption to draw attention to basic human needs; the state, which responds with coercion and suppression; and the mechanisms of mistrust and ego-centrical perceptions, which further escalate the conflict.  

Outcomes Analysis describe the possible consequences: the breakdown of social and economic structures; perceptions of collective victimization, and increased dependency on external actors.

The diagram below depicts Azar’s model as it has been understood and described above.  Access, Acceptance and Security needs are in the center.  These are both expressed through, but also withheld based on identification with an identity group depicted as the second substantial ring, and grouped together for this paper as biological, ideological, geographical and socio-economic.  Much thinner and significantly more brittle is the outermost ring, which depicts the state affiliation, buttressed by military power, western political philosophy and international institutions and states.  This identity ring is the first to crumble when basic needs are not being recognized by the state.

Important paradigm shift for states and mediators

 Azar’s needs based analysis introduced an important paradigm shift from traditional assumptions about conflict, and opened the door for new approaches to conflict resolution.  First and foremost, it changed the idea that conflicts were about mere ‘interests’ over which the state was at leisure to drive a hard bargain, to the understanding that the majority of conflicts worldwide are about ‘basic needs,’ and will not go away until these needs are met.  Secondly, it moved the lens of analysis away from the state as the legitimate stake-holder in conflict, and placed it on the ‘Identity groups,’ as not only the legitimate stake-holder, but also the ‘legitimizer’ of the state.  States whose authority rests in the power of its military strength or in the backing of international super powers instead of in fulfilling their obligations to maintain infrastructures and institutions that meet the basic needs of its diverse identity groups, are bound to feel the backlash in protracted conflict.  

For those working in the field of conflict resolution, the shift has meant a move away from coercive, mediator-centered power-brokering on behalf of the state, and a move toward problem-solving workshops, where the mediator is a facilitator helping to foster “valued” relationships and to uncover the basic needs of all the parties involved.  On the whole, this paradigm shift is a significant step in the right direction.  

Getting to the core of violent conflict: 

The question must be posed, however, if such a model can sufficiently explain a massacre of such proportions as the Rwandan genocide, or if Azar’s Needs Theory offers enough of a framework to rebuild a stable, post-conflict Rwanda considering the personal participation of almost its entire population in the slaughter.  Why do some identity groups, who have suffered similar colonialism, or racial, ethnic, gender, or political domination, assert the needs of their identity group pro-actively and mostly non-violently (India’s independence, US Civil Rights movement, Eastern European Block, Liberia) and others do not?  What does Rwanda have in common with other historical genocides?  Germany’s extermination of the Jews cannot be explained by the PSC model, and yet one must wonder if there is some common denominator between the two atrocities.  It seems that Azar’s description successfully lists the combustible components of PSC, as one would the makings for a camp fire: one needs dry leaves, kindling, dry wood, air and something to ignite it.  What it does not explain, however, is why one combustible pile spontaneously bursts into flames and burns down the whole forest, and another, equally combustible pile ignites a controlled torch, which then ignites other torches until there is a clearly lit path out of the jungle and much less collateral damage along the way.

- Shame-Hubris prone identities 

* shame as ultimate root of violence

James Gilligan, M.D. who was director of mental health for the Massachusetts prison system and directed the Center for the Study of Violence at Harvard Medical School, adds the central puzzle piece to this picture based on his extensive experience working with the most violent perpetrators in our western prison system.  In his words "...the basic psychological motive, or cause, of violent behavior is the wish to ward off or eliminate the feeling of shame and humiliation- a feeling that is painful, and can even be intolerable and overwhelming- and replace it with its opposite, the feeling of pride."  "Suzanne Retzinger, for example, in Emotions and Violence (1991) wrote that "a particular sequence of emotions underlies all destructive aggression: shame is first evoked, which leads to rage and then violence."  Numerous studies have been done which show that insulting participants of the study was the only sure way to arouse anger and aggression, and not by attempts to frustrate them, as they had presumed.

* shame seeks to defeat and deflect

What this suggests in relation to the Needs Theory is that violence does not arise out of a frustration of having ones basic needs denied, nor is violence being utilized in order to appropriate basic needs, but that violence erupts in response to deeply felt shame, or a shame persona that people experience as a result of coercion, lack of due recognition or respect, injustices suffered, extreme inequality and one’s own perception of inadequacy.  Perpetrators of violence in this light are not out to “reclaim” their fair share of the pie, but their sole purpose is to deflect from their own shame by humiliating others.  Violence is employed to replace, cover or escape the excruciating feelings of inadequacy and inferiority, i.e. shame, with the feelings of superiority and power one gets from humiliating someone else.  We will call this the ‘Shame-Hubris core.  (We use 'Hubris' instead of 'pride' because of its purely negative connotations.  Pride can also denote a positive self-esteem and identification with others’ success.  Hubris expresses exactly the kind of self-boasting which exalts itself at another’s expense.) 

* victim and victor identities

The person or culture with a ‘shame-hubris’ core has organized their entire identity around the dualistic concept of being either a “victim” or a “victor.”  Shame or be shamed.  They are two sides of the same coin.  A shame core can remain passive and apathetic, assuming a “victim” identity by finding in their own ‘unworthiness’ or helplessness reason enough for the assaults and deficiencies that they suffer.  The ‘victim’ identity fails to identify their needs and insist that they be met, because they blame themselves and their inferiority for their predicament, and asserting those needs would only further expose their shame and inferiority.  It can be that the ‘violence’ they perpetrate is either self-directed, or never amounts to more than what they might imagine doing to their victimizers, but which can, after years, erupt as desperate moments of viciousness.  

The violence of the ‘victor’ side of the ‘shame-hubris’ core, is not ‘self-assertion (!!!!),’ but a deflecting away from what one believes is an unworthy or disdained self in the eyes of external judges.  If no other means for raising one's esteem in the eyes of others is perceived available, and lacking other emotional or social constraints (such as empathy, fear of consequences), then violence is used to either avert the judging, external ‘eyes’ toward another object of disdain, or the external judges themselves will be eliminated.  Herein lies the correlation between the Rwandan genocide and that of Nazi Germany.  In the humiliating aftermath of WWI, the Jews became the scape-goat to undo “the shame of Versailles."  Hitler exhibited a hubris of boastful self-reliance not only toward the Jews, but toward all his neighboring nations to cover the gaping wound that the shame of defeat had left in Germany.

- Guilt-Grace prone identities 

* making a clear distinction between shame and guilt

To understand more fully the destructive and debilitating nature of the ‘shame-hubris core,’ it is necessary to examine its counterpart, guilt.  It is worth cutting through the jungle of emotional taxonomy to understand and distinguish as clearly as possible between shame and guilt, as they build fundamental aspects of our core identity and can steer us toward either isolation (through withdrawal or violence) or toward a socially integrated existence in even the most challenging of circumstances.  Dr. Brené Brown, who has spent a decade studying shame and empathy, defines shame as follows, "Shame is the intensely painful feeling or experience of believing we are flawed and therefore unworthy of acceptance and belonging."  And though shame and guilt are both “emotions of self-evaluation” shame is best understood as “I am bad,” whereas guilt is understood as “I did something bad.”  Fossum and Mason’s definition of shame is fuller but corroborates with that of Brown’s, “Shame is an inner sense of being completely diminished or insufficient as a person.  It is the self judging the self…. A pervasive sense of shame is the ongoing premise that one is fundamentally bad, inadequate, defective, unworthy, or not fully valid as a human being.”  Guilt, on the other hand, “does not reflect directly upon one’s identity nor diminish one’s sense of personal worth.  Guilt is a painful feeling of regret and responsibility for one’s actions (and the consequences they have for others), while shame is a painful feeling about oneself as a person.”  

June Tangney’s extensive research substantiates these distinctions adding that whereas shame motivates one to “deny, hide or escape,” guilt motivates one toward “reparative actions of confessing, apologizing and undoing.”  Guilt produces empathy, which demonstrates the ability to feel the other’s pain and take their perspective.  Shame is wrapped up in one’s self and “interferes with an empathic connection.”  Shame prone individuals are more likely to succumb to “feelings of anger and hostility, and once angered, manage it in an unconstructive fashion and blame other people.”  People with a guilt prone core “handle anger pro-actively and constructively” when they are wronged by others.

* borrowing the word ‘grace’

Just as a shame culture or core has revealed ‘hubris’ to be the reverse side of the same coin, so also does the ‘guilt’ culture or core have its positive corollary, and to name it, we shall have to borrow a word from the Christian faith and only tweak it somewhat to suit our purposes here.  The word is ‘grace,’ and it is understood by Christians to be “God’s gift of God’s self to humankind, a spontaneous gift from God to man - “generous, free and totally unexpected and undeserved."  Without getting into a theological discourse, it is necessary to borrow this word from the realm of theology, for I can think of no other word which conveys the concept of vulnerable, undeserved, self-giving as does the word ‘grace.’  In the case argued here, the one word, ‘grace,’ will refer not to ‘God’s’ gift of himself to humankind, but to a person’s gift of themselves to another or to the larger community.  It is a stand-in for the courageous, compassionate, generous attitude of vulnerable self-giving, which assumes responsibility for one’s own identity- needs, desires, strengths and short-comings- even in environments of hostility, coercion or injustice.  Where shame says “I am bad and must hide,” and hubris says, “you make me feel bad and must be defeated,” guilt says, “what I have done has damaged relationship, and I must make amends,” and grace says, “here I am, as I am, include me (as I include you) in a flourishing, safe and just community.”

- Diagraming the big picture 

To understand how these core identities play out in respect to Azar’s PSC model, I have included diagrams to show how the different elements relate to one another.  These two diagrams depict both an adjustment to the needs ring (which I explain in my original paper) and a major altercation to Azar’s PSC theory by inserting an innermost core.  

* Shame-Hubris Core

The first of the two diagrams shows the addition of a ‘shame-hubris’ core.  The shame-hubris core can be activated (the jury is still out on what actually causes some to be shame-prone and others not) or intensified when basic needs are not met, or are perceived to be threatened, which then triggers either apathy, helplessness and self-blame, i.e. a victim identity is assumed, or rage and violence are expressed through an identity group to defeat and humiliate the threatening ‘other’ identity group, i.e. a victor identity is pursued.  Persons or identity groups acting from a shame-hubris core fail to take responsibility for voicing their basic needs or grievances, blame (either themselves or others), can become violent, are divisive (leading to more entrenched identity groups) and destructive (vandalism, physical abuse and murder), which in turn only serves to deepen the shame-hubris core of their identity causing deeper isolation.

* Guilt-Grace Core

The second diagram shows the addition of a ‘guilt-grace’ core.  When persons of the ‘guilt-grace’ core perceive that their basic-needs are not met because of their affiliation with an identity group, they take responsibility to articulate those needs and grievances, alone or in chorus with their identity group, in such a way that diffuses identity groups, at least to some degree, in search of a common humanity.  Paul in his letters to the Galatians asserts, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female...”  Martin Luther King worked toward a day when “a man will no longer be judged by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.”  What marks many such non-violent movements is their ‘inclusivity,’ welcoming other identity groups who were willing to stand in solidarity with them.  Many whites also joined arms with African Americans in the struggle for their civil rights.  The ecumenical, women’s peace movement in Liberia identified themselves as “mothers” in their petitions to the warlords, communicating that they were all one family and should work together for peace.  This is because the ‘guilt-grace’ prone person’s attitude is, “here I am, as I am, include me (as I include you) in a flourishing, safe and just community.”  The methods to voice basic needs born out of this core identity are creative, non-violent, relational, inclusive and lead to greater self-worth and integration.

 Gilligan, Braithwaite and Tangney push for approaches to deal with crime that will reduce shame but increase guilt.  Tangney suggests specifically that these approaches should: “have an emphasis on community, personal responsibility and reparation; include active participation of offenders, victims and the community;  aim to repair the fabric of the community rather than dole out punishment; and should encourage offenders to take responsibility for their behavior, acknowledge negative consequences and empathize with the victim, feel guilt for having done wrong, and act to make amends.” 

Identity Transformation From The Inside Out 

Informing Azar’s model of Protracted Social Conflict with the extensive research and experience of sociologists, criminologists and clinicians, I have attempted to show that the primary element to violent conflict rests in our core beliefs about ourselves as being either a “Victim/Victor” or as being a “Valid member of the community.”  For the Tutsis and Hutus of Rwanda the task of transforming a shame-hubris core to that of a guilt-grace one is all the more difficult in the aftermath of genocide and the current elaborate sorting and labeling of a retributive reckoning of those horrible days.  But if there is any hope for the future of Rwanda, or any Nation or people for that matter, then it lies in the ability of each person to understand that their humanity is not something parceled out to them in the form of rights and privileges of a political body, that it is not bound up in an obvious identity group, and that they are not merely the sum total of their needs, but that their humanity is distinguished through their own creative, generous, and vulnerable self-giving to design environments of flourishing, safety and justice for everyone.  Creative non-violence is more than a strategy.  It can only arise out of a deeply felt self-perception of one’s own worth and the worth of others- even the enemy- and the strong belief in our interdependence, indeed the interdependence of all living and non-living elements on our planet.

¹ Wikipedia. Protracted social conflict. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protracted_social_conflict#cite_note-Ramsbotham86-7² International Alert. Fact Sheet about Azar. In. Wikipedia. Protracted social conflict. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protracted_social_conflict#cite_note-Ramsbotham86-7³ Byrne, S., & Irvin, C. L. (2000). Reconcilable differences: turning points in ethno-political conflict. Kumarian Press Inc., p. 67)⁴ (International Alert )⁵ Burton, J. W. (1988). Conflict Resolution as a Function of Human Needs. In R. Coate & J. A. Rosati (Eds.), The Power of Human Needs in World’s Society (pp. 187-204). Boulder and London: Lynn Rienner Publishers, p. 194)⁶ (Byrne & Irvin, 2000, p. 68)⁷ (Byrne & Irvin, 2000, p. 68)⁸ (Byrne & Irvin, 2000, p. 69)⁹ (International Alert; Byrne & Irvin, 2000, p. 69)¹⁰ (Burton, 1988)¹¹ (Burton, 1988, p. 198)¹² (Burton, 1988, p. 193)¹³ (Burton, 1988, p. 198)¹⁴ Gilligan, J. (2001). Shame and the Death of Self. In T. & Hudson (Ed.), Preventing Violence (pp. 29-55). Thames & Hudson, p. 29)¹⁵ (Gilligan, 2001, p. 34)¹⁶ (Gilligan, 2001, pp. 32-33)¹⁷ (Gilligan, 2001, p. 33)¹⁸ (Gilligan, 2001, p. 53)¹⁹ Lamb, S. (1996). The Trouble with Blame: Victims, perpetrators, and Responsibility. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press., pp. 5-6)²⁰ (Gilligan, 2001, p. 37)²¹ (Gilligan, 2001, p. 51)²² (Gilligan, 2001, p. 53)²³ Brown, B. (2008). I Thought It Was Just Me (but it wasn’t): Telling the truth about perfectionism, inadequacy and power. N.Y., New York: Gotham Books, p. 5²⁴ (Brown, 2008, p. 5)²⁵ Fossum, M. A., & Mason, M. J. (1989). Facing Shame, Families in Recovery. N.Y. New York: W.W.Norton., 1989, p. 5²⁶ (Fossum & Mason, 1989, p. 5)²⁷ Tangney, J. Shame and Guilt, the good, the bad, and the ugly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=febgutDYP7w.²⁸ Grace', Komonchak et al (eds), Joseph A (1990). The New Dictionary of Theology. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan. p. 437.²⁹ (Tangney)³⁰ Galatians 3:28, In NIV.³¹ (Tangney, )³² (Ingelaere, 2008, p. 16-17)