Norris Ham - Bystander Effect and Climate Change (A response to the climate change discussion)
In terms of addressing the first question, “What is the social role of conflict as it relates to the issue of
climate change?”, I believe that it is essential to involve a global third
party in the discussions. It seems that
the current climate change debate has centered on limited opinions from
politicians and experts. But what has
failed is the inclusion of global citizens in the discussions. Global citizens, as a third party, can
provide objectivity, legitimacy, and neutrality to the discussion. The word neutral is, in many ways, a
difficult term to swallow, especially for conflict that demands engagement
instead of complacency. Global citizens
enter conflict with their own opinions, beliefs, values, and biases. However, these differences, no matter how
strong, are neutralized by the inclusion of a large, diverse sample size. Bernard Mayer would suggest that this would
resemble a “deep democracy...giving
people access to a significant voice in all the major decisions that affect
their lives” (Mayer, The Dynamics of Conflict Resolution: A
Practitioner's Guide 2000, 70). As anonymous power-holders, the collective
mindset of these global citizens can produce consensus, at least to the point
of deciding upon the issues that matter most, without having to worry about
being judged, persecuted, or discriminated against based on their beliefs. Global citizens aren’t tied to
constituencies. Global citizens aren’t
bound by political capital (spent or unspent).
Global citizens aren’t limited by power-based struggles built into the
hierarchical political systems of the world’s developed, under-developed, and
undeveloped nations. In Herb Cohen’s
book, You Can Negotiate Anything, he
suggests that “when you spread a risk so that it’s on others’ shoulders as well
as your own, you defuse and diffuse that risk” (Cohen 1980,
63). Risks – political, financial, religious, and
personal – are all diffused by spreading the risk around and including the
global community to create a general consensus on the issues and information
available. As a conclusion to my remarks
on engaging a neutral third party made up of global citizens, I encourage the
readers of this post to access the Us Now videos. The directors of the project make an
excellent case for the free market, and citizens, as being the power-holders in
decision-making.
In contrast to the thoughts shared in the above paragraph, and contradicting many opinions and views shared in
some of the most recent literature (see Ken Coke’s Conflict Revolution), climate change may demand that we, as
conflict engagement specialists (Mayer uses this term in his book, Beyond Neutrality), isolate populations
instead of encourage global collaboration.
Consideration should be given to a phenomenon known as Bystander Apathy and Bystander Effect. Bibb Latane and John Darley, originators of
the many theories surrounding the bystander
effect, suggest that it is the very presence of others (i.e. the other
parties to conflict) that reduces helping behavior. By encouraging a global approach, it may
simply mean that the proverbial “buck” stops somewhere else in our minds in
relation to feelings of shared responsibility for mitigating climate
change. Rather than focusing on a global
effort, as conflict resolution specialists, we may want to individualize the
effects of climate change, personalizing the problem and, in a way,
re-engineering the problem to fit the unique cultural aspects of the
populations we serve. By empowering
people groups as individual, separate pieces of a global puzzle, we may be able
to build a better result than if we engage on a global level. Again, this approach seems to counter the
recent trend of viewing everything from a global perspective, but as conflict
engagement specialists, we must consider how best to engage an otherwise
unmotivated public.
As far as the different types of power involved in the conflicts surrounding climate change,
I would suggest that it is the very forms of power currently involved in the
conflicts that stagnate any potential progress.
One form of power that is currently limiting progress is the power of
legitimacy. Again, in reference to what
Herb Cohen has stated on the matter, “use the power of legitimacy when it’s
advantageous for you to do so and challenge that power when it’s advantageous
for you to do so” (Cohen 1980, 58). Currently, information surrounding climate
change is completely focused on legitimacy.
But real problems, problems that demand attention, cannot be limited to
documents and other print-based media.
In the scientific community, this may increase legitimacy. But in the global community, a community that
derives meaning from touch, from feel, from emotion, from compassion, from our
human understanding, meaning cannot simply be conveyed through emotionless
documents. Documents do not command
action. Instead, put a human face on the
issue (and not a politician’s face i.e. Al Gore). Make the issue mean something other than
overly-complicated documents which convey impersonal information. This idea borders on using the powers of
identification and persuasive capacity (Cohen 1980) to join others collectively
through providing them opportunities to identify with each other through a
mutual understanding of shared-relevance and value. I can’t identify with a population in a low-lying
area on paper or through charts that outline areas that will be submerged in
the next hundred years. However, I can
identify with a human face – with the human condition.
As dispute resolution practitioners, we can encourage members of the global community, as well as the
leaders of our global community, to use power effectively, in concert with one
another instead of in conflict or competition with one another. Mayer (2008) argues for the use of congruence by disputants. According to Mayer, only disputants acting in
accordance with his/her values, styles, and strengths are able to use their
power effectively. On the global change
front, the global community hears a great deal of information coming from
people who are in it to profit from it.
Sure, it’s easy to be “green” if you are well-fed, well-clothed,
well-housed, and well-cared for. These
people then market themselves using global warming as a vehicle for
advertisement instead of a vehicle for change.
A genuine believer is the only believer who can convert others. In terms of power, the power of sincerity is
a long-lasting, sustainable power which can affect lasting change in
others. Cohen states that “armies are
useless unless soldiers believe in what they’re fighting for” (Cohen
1980, 65). Why are armies useless when they do not
believe in the cause? In terms of
conflict engagement, a soldier will only remain on the battlefield so long as
their belief in the cause overrides their natural fear of personal harm and
death. To present a comparable scenario
that is found often in dispute resolution literature, what keeps disputants at
the negotiating table is their belief that the cause which has brought them to
the table is worth staying at the table to resolve, a commitment wrought only
out of a genuine belief in the cause itself.
On a behavioral level, I believe Skinner and Pavlov would find it difficult for the global society to
learn the inherent value within the climate change discussion. In many ways, humans are animals that need to
learn that there is value in engagement.
When no value is seen, no reward given, no punishment levied, no visible
reinforcement for their efforts, humans will lose interest. Threats of imminent disaster in relation to
human disinterest in climate change come and go without being reinforced by
actual disasters. Even with hurricanes,
tornadoes, tsunamis, droughts all being attributed to climate change, the truth
simply is that no correlation is established between climate change and these
natural disasters. As a result, fear of
disaster as a result of climate change is not reinforced, but rather weakens as
a result of behavioral rewards or punishments.
As has been suggested by many experts in conflict resolution, sometimes
power, WATNAs, BATNAs, and inequalities must be demonstrated in conflict
engagements in order for understanding to be obtained from them. Until climate change proves to have
disastrous effects on the human race, or until we, as conflict engagement specialists,
can encourage enough thought or discussion on the matter to reward the time and
effort individuals give to the cause, climate change simply will not gain a
foothold in the human mind.
To place climate change on the continuum of human needs (Mayer 2000, 17), it is difficult to
discern where exactly it falls. In many
ways (none of which will be explained here due to length and time
considerations), climate change falls across all three levels (survival needs,
interests, and identity-based needs) of human needs. Our role as conflict resolution/engagement
specialists is to facilitate a discussion that places climate change on the
continuum of human needs. By taking climate
change out of the abstract and placing climate change into a tangible setting,
a constructive dialogue can begin. If,
and only if, climate change is discussed in terms of needs will climate change
take precedence over issues of war, famine, resource competition, hunger,
ethnic conflict, and safety. Of course,
some people will say that climate change is, or will be, the cause of all of
these conflicts. But that point is best
left for another discussion.
Bibliography
Cloke, Ken. Conflict Revolution. 2010.
Cohen, Herb. You Can Negotiate Anything. New York: Kensington Publishing Corporation, 1980.
Mayer, Bernard. Staying With Conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009.
Mayer, Bernard. The Dynamics of Conflict Resolution: A Practitioner's Guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Eileen Barker on
-
Responding to the first paragraph, how would you (or others) propose to engage global citizens?
The counterpoint to taking a "global approach" is very interesting. If we were to focus instead on isolating populations, how would you go about that? How would you identify and select the puzzle pieces?
Ideas anyone?
-
Permalink Reply by Norris Ham on
-
Eileen,
I mentioned in Week 2's forum in my comments to Noam's video that one of the very roots of conflict is human interaction. While we can facilitate dialogue between people groups and we can attempt to find shared interests between groups, conflict begins because of the interaction between people groups with differing values, beliefs, norms, customs, and goals. By bringing many people groups together to discuss climate change, we may simply be adding more conflict to the discussion. When differing groups already in conflict with one another are brought to the same table to discuss a controversial topic, it could very well be that we are escalating the conflict when we should be attempting to deconstruct the conflict into manageable parts.
I think it is very important to place climate change on the continuum of human needs. Sure, it may very well fall across all needs, but climate change certainly does not constitute a "real need" (Cohen 1980, 70). By isolating people groups and focusing on their "real needs" (i.e. starvation, genocide, political unrest, education), we can link those needs with climate change and hopefully start engaging people groups in the discussion.
As Herb Cohen writes, "You will maximize your negotiating ability if you get others to identify with you" (Cohen 1980, 75). Let's look at the Inconvenient Truth video as an example. Al Gore was selected as the presenter. Did this do great things for the movie? Absolutely. But was Al Gore the right choice if the desire was to court conservatives? Absolutely not. In fact, I would posit that the choice of Al Gore as the presenter in the film, because of his historical affiliations with the left, and because of his perceived political leanings in the matter, actually set the table for the partisan approach to climate change in the United States. Because many individuals could not identify with Al Gore, the film was powerless to gain the support of many conservatives and moderates around the country. The power of identification has ramifications abroad as well. Sure, we want to champion climate change and start a discussion, but if you're telling me that almost 1 billion impoverished people in India are going to listen while some wealthy, white, upper class, christian, politic-loving man from the United States tells them about the dangers of global warming, I may have a conniption. Instead, I posit that we split the discussion up to address individual populations with culturally relevant information that is palatable to them.
For instance, recent meetings of global leaders regarding climate change have centered on creating a global commitment to reduce carbon emissions. China and India have been excluded from the carbon emissions requirements, and because of this, the U.S. has refused to sign the Kyoto Agreement. Developing nations, like India and China, should not be lumped under an agreement to reduce carbon emissions because it is only through their carbon output that they are able to produce enough crops and provide enough jobs for their growing populations. By linking the U.S., China, and India in discussions on climate change, we have put a halt to potential progress all because these countries will always be comparing themselves to each other. These countries will always view potential agreements in terms of rights-based and power-based paradigms. In psychology, we call this the social comparison theory. The United States' unwillingness to sign the Kyoto Agreement is a result of the inter-country comparisons being made by its leaders. Now, if we were to isolate these countries, I believe we could make progress on the climate change front. For instance, the U.S. is in a position to reduce its carbon footprint and reduce the amount of fertilizers used on crops. The U.S. is in this position because we have moved from and industrial nation to an information processing nation. China and India do not have this luxury. They cannot afford to reduce their carbon footprint or reduce the amount of land cleared and fertilized for crops. So an agreement on these terms simply isn't going to work. Instead, China and India can make concerted efforts to initiate massive recycling programs - reusing building materials, reducing waste, and recycling goods. Sure, these two plans are different. But what is wrong with that? Why try to set up global goals that will affect populations in different ways?
Our role as conflict engagement specialists is to create dialogue around true interests, not interests deemed best in terms of viewing the world globally, but rather, interests that are unique to each individual country. The only way we can do this is to isolate people groups and create individualized action plans (IAPs) that are geared towards their specific needs and interests.
Norris Ham
Eileen Barker said:Responding to the first paragraph, how would you (or others) propose to engage global citizens?
The counterpoint to taking a "global approach" is very interesting. If we were to focus instead on isolating populations, how would you go about that? How would you identify and select the puzzle pieces?
Ideas anyone?
-
-
Excellent discussion Norris. I agree that Gore helped politicize climate change, but also to bring understanding to millions who wouldn't have otherwise paid attention, so it was a mixed blessing (aren't they all?).
Climate change is the ultimate multi-party negotiation, is it not? And you are exactly right, that in any mediation or negotiation the task is to identify each party's needs and interest. The problem here is that not only can you not lump "China, India and the U.S." together, you can't lump anyone together . . . Even within countries, different regions have different interests and needs, cities v. rural, and so on. . . .
So 6 billion+ humans have a shared problem, and different needs, which may often be competing . . . .
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Thompson on
-
Instead, China and India can make concerted efforts to initiate massive recycling programs - reusing building materials, reducing waste, and recycling goods. Sure, these two plans are different. But what is wrong with that? Why try to set up global goals that will affect populations in different ways?
Good point- there would need to be some sort of global assessment group that would then set the standards for each nation individually, right?
Would nations be willing to participate in this?
What would the buy-in be?
This reminds me of the World Court (or Tribunal??) and how the U.S. refuses to particpate in it.
-
Permalink Reply by Milton Hammerly on
-
Eileen,
When everyone's responsible, no one's responsible. When everyone decides, no one decides. I have serious doubts about the viability and effectiveness of somehow having the global citizenry weigh in in a meaningful and credible way.
I think there are billions of internal disputes that people need help managing in a way that allows constructive action at the individual level. Global change is a puzzle with billions of pieces. This puzzle is far too complex for any entity, or group of entities to assemble. The pieces need to assemble themselves in a manner consistent with the self-organizing of interactive agents in complex adaptive systems. The key is to introduce simple rules that facilitate/encourage constructive climate change behaviors and interactions at the individual level. Education on the relevant issues and on the skills of mediaton will allow individuals to manage their internal disputes and indecision in a manner that they can move forward with constructive behaviors despite uncertainty. In other words, this would help individuals move from indecision with behavioral status quo to indecision with constructive behavioral change. I think the answer is not an answer, a definitive win-lose, right-wrong, resolution of the climate change dispute. In my mind the answer is understanding how to help individuals move forward constructively in the face of an ongoing dispute (both internal and external) and uncertainty.
Milt
Eileen Barker said:Responding to the first paragraph, how would you (or others) propose to engage global citizens?
The counterpoint to taking a "global approach" is very interesting. If we were to focus instead on isolating populations, how would you go about that? How would you identify and select the puzzle pieces?
Ideas anyone?
-
-
Hi Norris,
There are a couple of points in your post that particularly resonated with me. You mention the need to put a human face on the the climate change issue (as opposed to a politician's face). Does that mean politicians aren't humans? ;-) That might be a topic for another discussion.
I couldn't agree with you more about the need to tell stories and tap into emotions to engage people and persuade them that behavioral change is warranted. Joe Tye, a motivational speaker who does a lot of work in health care, summarizes it this way, "The left brain counts and the right brain matters." While data and graphs and charts appeal to the analytical left hemisphere of the brain they have little or no impact on the right hemisphere of the brain. Stories that people can identify with and that translate numbers into emotionally meaningful impacts engage the right brain. We need to appeal to both sides of the brain if we want to increase the likelihood of people changing their behaviors.
You also alluded to the absence of a Skinnerian or Pavlovian mechanism to drive behavioral change on climate issues. The problem is the lack of a timely feedback loop. If we can't see the impact of our individual behaviors there's no learning and no associated behavioral change. The natural climate change feedback loop is extremely delayed for learning purposes and is only meaningful at the collective, global level. If we want to use behaviorism to drive change it will require the introduction of an artificial feedback loop that rapidly links individual behaviors to consequences. While this should work in theory, people are not laboratory animals or volunteers in an experiment so I think it is unlikely they will take kindly to the type of tinkering that would be needed to create a feedback loop that links their climate-related behaviors to personal consequences.
Cheers,
Milt
-
-
As always Milt, I love the way you have approached this. Biologically, appealing to both sides of the brain is an incredibly brilliant idea.
Norris
Milton Hammerly said:Hi Norris,
There are a couple of points in your post that particularly resonated with me. You mention the need to put a human face on the the climate change issue (as opposed to a politician's face). Does that mean politicians aren't humans? ;-) That might be a topic for another discussion.
I couldn't agree with you more about the need to tell stories and tap into emotions to engage people and persuade them that behavioral change is warranted. Joe Tye, a motivational speaker who does a lot of work in health care, summarizes it this way, "The left brain counts and the right brain matters." While data and graphs and charts appeal to the analytical left hemisphere of the brain they have little or no impact on the right hemisphere of the brain. Stories that people can identify with and that translate numbers into emotionally meaningful impacts engage the right brain. We need to appeal to both sides of the brain if we want to increase the likelihood of people changing their behaviors.
You also alluded to the absence of a Skinnerian or Pavlovian mechanism to drive behavioral change on climate issues. The problem is the lack of a timely feedback loop. If we can't see the impact of our individual behaviors there's no learning and no associated behavioral change. The natural climate change feedback loop is extremely delayed for learning purposes and is only meaningful at the collective, global level. If we want to use behaviorism to drive change it will require the introduction of an artificial feedback loop that rapidly links individual behaviors to consequences. While this should work in theory, people are not laboratory animals or volunteers in an experiment so I think it is unlikely they will take kindly to the type of tinkering that would be needed to create a feedback loop that links their climate-related behaviors to personal consequences.
Cheers,
Milt
-
Permalink Reply by NIcolle Y. Clarke on
-
As someone who has before now been completely unengaged in the climate change topic, I somewhat agree with you about the need to break the need down to smaller pieces and deal with the effects individually and specifically. My question is, however, at what point do we say we have accomplished as much as we can on our own and need to reach out globally in order to accomplish more? Are we at that point now? I know that the typical American citizen has the
Norris Ham said:Eileen,
I mentioned in Week 2's forum in my comments to Noam's video that one of the very roots of conflict is human interaction. While we can facilitate dialogue between people groups and we can attempt to find shared interests between groups, conflict begins because of the interaction between people groups with differing values, beliefs, norms, customs, and goals. By bringing many people groups together to discuss climate change, we may simply be adding more conflict to the discussion. When differing groups already in conflict with one another are brought to the same table to discuss a controversial topic, it could very well be that we are escalating the conflict when we should be attempting to deconstruct the conflict into manageable parts.
I think it is very important to place climate change on the continuum of human needs. Sure, it may very well fall across all needs, but climate change certainly does not constitute a "real need" (Cohen 1980, 70). By isolating people groups and focusing on their "real needs" (i.e. starvation, genocide, political unrest, education), we can link those needs with climate change and hopefully start engaging people groups in the discussion.
As Herb Cohen writes, "You will maximize your negotiating ability if you get others to identify with you" (Cohen 1980, 75). Let's look at the Inconvenient Truth video as an example. Al Gore was selected as the presenter. Did this do great things for the movie? Absolutely. But was Al Gore the right choice if the desire was to court conservatives? Absolutely not. In fact, I would posit that the choice of Al Gore as the presenter in the film, because of his historical affiliations with the left, and because of his perceived political leanings in the matter, actually set the table for the partisan approach to climate change in the United States. Because many individuals could not identify with Al Gore, the film was powerless to gain the support of many conservatives and moderates around the country. The power of identification has ramifications abroad as well. Sure, we want to champion climate change and start a discussion, but if you're telling me that almost 1 billion impoverished people in India are going to listen while some wealthy, white, upper class, christian, politic-loving man from the United States tells them about the dangers of global warming, I may have a conniption. Instead, I posit that we split the discussion up to address individual populations with culturally relevant information that is palatable to them.
For instance, recent meetings of global leaders regarding climate change have centered on creating a global commitment to reduce carbon emissions. China and India have been excluded from the carbon emissions requirements, and because of this, the U.S. has refused to sign the Kyoto Agreement. Developing nations, like India and China, should not be lumped under an agreement to reduce carbon emissions because it is only through their carbon output that they are able to produce enough crops and provide enough jobs for their growing populations. By linking the U.S., China, and India in discussions on climate change, we have put a halt to potential progress all because these countries will always be comparing themselves to each other. These countries will always view potential agreements in terms of rights-based and power-based paradigms. In psychology, we call this the social comparison theory. The United States' unwillingness to sign the Kyoto Agreement is a result of the inter-country comparisons being made by its leaders. Now, if we were to isolate these countries, I believe we could make progress on the climate change front. For instance, the U.S. is in a position to reduce its carbon footprint and reduce the amount of fertilizers used on crops. The U.S. is in this position because we have moved from and industrial nation to an information processing nation. China and India do not have this luxury. They cannot afford to reduce their carbon footprint or reduce the amount of land cleared and fertilized for crops. So an agreement on these terms simply isn't going to work. Instead, China and India can make concerted efforts to initiate massive recycling programs - reusing building materials, reducing waste, and recycling goods. Sure, these two plans are different. But what is wrong with that? Why try to set up global goals that will affect populations in different ways?
Our role as conflict engagement specialists is to create dialogue around true interests, not interests deemed best in terms of viewing the world globally, but rather, interests that are unique to each individual country. The only way we can do this is to isolate people groups and create individualized action plans (IAPs) that are geared towards their specific needs and interests.
Norris Ham
Eileen Barker said:Responding to the first paragraph, how would you (or others) propose to engage global citizens?
The counterpoint to taking a "global approach" is very interesting. If we were to focus instead on isolating populations, how would you go about that? How would you identify and select the puzzle pieces?
Ideas anyone?
-
-
As someone who has before now been completely unengaged in the climate change topic, I somewhat agree with you about the need to break the need down to smaller pieces and deal with the effects individually and specifically. My question is, however, at what point do we say we have accomplished as much as we can on our own and need to reach out globally in order to accomplish more? Are we at that point now? I feel that the typical American citizen has the mentality of "how can we best serve my needs", but in many other countries, the saying, "it takes a village to raise a child" speaks to their readiness to think globally and how things not only affect them as individuals, or cities, or as nations, but how it impacts everyone. Perhaps the global community is the best place for this discussion and our best chance to seek and find resolution?
Norris Ham said:As always Milt, I love the way you have approached this. Biologically, appealing to both sides of the brain is an incredibly brilliant idea.
Norris
Milton Hammerly said:Hi Norris,
There are a couple of points in your post that particularly resonated with me. You mention the need to put a human face on the the climate change issue (as opposed to a politician's face). Does that mean politicians aren't humans? ;-) That might be a topic for another discussion.
I couldn't agree with you more about the need to tell stories and tap into emotions to engage people and persuade them that behavioral change is warranted. Joe Tye, a motivational speaker who does a lot of work in health care, summarizes it this way, "The left brain counts and the right brain matters." While data and graphs and charts appeal to the analytical left hemisphere of the brain they have little or no impact on the right hemisphere of the brain. Stories that people can identify with and that translate numbers into emotionally meaningful impacts engage the right brain. We need to appeal to both sides of the brain if we want to increase the likelihood of people changing their behaviors.
You also alluded to the absence of a Skinnerian or Pavlovian mechanism to drive behavioral change on climate issues. The problem is the lack of a timely feedback loop. If we can't see the impact of our individual behaviors there's no learning and no associated behavioral change. The natural climate change feedback loop is extremely delayed for learning purposes and is only meaningful at the collective, global level. If we want to use behaviorism to drive change it will require the introduction of an artificial feedback loop that rapidly links individual behaviors to consequences. While this should work in theory, people are not laboratory animals or volunteers in an experiment so I think it is unlikely they will take kindly to the type of tinkering that would be needed to create a feedback loop that links their climate-related behaviors to personal consequences.
Cheers,
Milt
About
@ADRHub Tweets
ADRHub is supported and maintained by the Negotiation & Conflict Resolution Program at Creighton University
© 2024 Created by ADRhub.com - Creighton NCR.
Powered by
