There are certain words one simply does not expect to use when reflecting on violence and atrocity. Encouraging is one of them.
And yet, from the personal stories of reentry and reintegration of people convicted of genocide in Rwanda, the efforts to structure society to rebuild after traumatic rupture, and the learning generated by communities actively seeking to promote healing shared through the research of Dr. Hollie Nyseth Brehm in her recent lecture, emerged an encouraging narrative of overcoming adversity.
Nyseth Brehm’s systematic and sensitive approach to her extensive fieldwork, and thoughtful, textured analysis are helpful not only as an eye-opening case study, but for the broader implications for peacebuilding processes at the level of the individual, the community, and ultimately society at large.
In this respect, a particularly striking theme was the role of language in the perception of self and others, and its function in the context of restorative justice and peace. More than once, Nyseth Brehm commented on the importance of abandoning person-centered labels, especially the term “genocidaire”, in personal conversations, community interactions and general social and political discourse, as a feature of successful reintegration, findings coherent with labelling theories, particularly in relation to stigma (e.g. Goffman, 1963). In a very pragmatic sense, by providing space for people to re-identify and orient to constructive engagement with the community, linguistic framing can be seen to contribute to positive peace.
Though we might like to cling to the childhood mantra that “sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me”, the power of language can take both negative and positive forms; words can close minds and reinforce stereotypes and prejudices or promote open-mindedness and mutual understanding. For example, Xu (2020) concludes that the negative effects of cyberbullying are a direct function of language, and in her reflections on women and equality Ahmadiyeh (2020) notes the impact of the deliberate and consistent use of the pronoun “she” for doctors, to prevent the hijacking of the next generation by the default male. Harnessing the power of language for positive purposes requires conscious effort, and greater awareness of how words exert influence on human minds, motivation and ultimately action.
“Peace needs language to express and sustain it,” notes Oxford (2012), and it takes many forms:
friendly in a family gathering, private in soul-seeking, formally respectful for certain types of diplomacy, reverential during worship, ecstatic in celebration, gently consoling in times of grief, detective-like in finding and unmasking deception or injustice, muscular for peacekeeping operations, and artistic in harmonies.
However, the underlying values of these varied tones remain consistent, and constitute the defining features of the language of peace, which “under any and all circumstances…is compassionate, truthful, strong, courageous, and dedicated.” It is a language with a clear purpose, applied to each context with the goal of peace in mind.
Like any language, learning it involves exposure and practice. We need to encounter and recognize peaceful vocabulary, phrases, and discourse in order to be able to understand the language. Becoming familiar with words, their definitions, derivations and connotations is essential to enabling us to appreciate their impact and purpose (Liggett, 2014), and to effectively employ them. To be able to produce the language and use it fluently requires skills developed simply through practice.
With increased exposure, we become sensitive to the key characteristics of language that fosters peace: it assumes essential human dignity, it removes barriers and emphasizes the most important level of identity as shared human identity, it acknowledges development or learning potential, it invites agency and empowers. For example, the label “genocidaire” is clearly inconsistent with these characteristics, emphasizing a barrier, and denying the possibility that personal effort could have a positive impact. Instead, Nyseth Brehm used the phrase “people convicted of genocide” and invoked essential and shared human identity as well as the possibility of learning and acceptance in rejoining society. Similarly, consider the use of the term “slave” (e.g. Zorn, 2019)– it fails to communicate dignity, to acknowledge human identity as primary, or to inspire a sense of agency. Rather, “enslaved person” is a phrase that conveys a sense of dignity and common humanity, as well as the truth of the condition that was suffered.
Generating peace language therefore requires awareness of multiple dimensions of possible impact, opportunity and implication. A statement can serve a purpose in the moment, but can also generate learning and understanding over time, build skills and capacities, shape identities and set the tone for relationships with others. For example, a child shouting disruptively who is told s/he is “rude” or “mean” or “hostile” may very well stop making noise, but one who is advised to “use a quiet voice” and guided to “imagine what it is like to be startled by a loud voice”, can in addition to ceasing the anti-social behavior begin to develop constructive skills and empathetic sensitivity, and a construct of self that includes the concept of social responsibility within a culture of peace.
We are all potentially “peace speakers” – ordinary people, who can become extraordinary because what we “say and do leads toward peace of many different kinds” (Oxford, 2012). Participating in peace discourses at any level – whether through exposure to a fluent lecture that reminds us of peacebuilding beyond our immediate experience, or the practice of mindful use of words and phrases in everyday conversation – helps us learn the language a little better.
References
Ahmadiyeh,, N. (2020). Still far from equal: reflections on Women’s inequality in America. https://blog.umd.edu/bahaichair/2020/09/28/still-far-from-equal-reflections-on-womens-inequality-in-america-dr-nasim-ahmadiyeh-m-d-ph-d/#more-1517
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity.
Liggett, L.P. (2014). PEACE TALK: Learning Peace Through “Spiritual Semantics”, in Oxford, R. L. (Ed.). Understanding Peace Cultures.
Oxford, Rebecca L. (2012). The Language of Peace: Communicating to Create Harmony.
Xu, Y. (2020). The Invisible Aggressive Fist: Features of Cyberbullying Language in China. Int J Semiot Law https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09746-1
Zorn, E. (2019). Language matters: The shift from ‘slave’ to ‘enslaved person’ may be difficult, but it’s important. Chicago Tribune, 6 September 2019. https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/eric-zorn/ct-column-slave-enslaved-language-people-first-debate-zorn-20190906-audknctayrarfijimpz6uk7hvy-story.html
About the Author:
Tiffani Betts Razavi (DPhil. Oxon) is a Visiting Research Professor at the University of Maryland Bahá’í Chair for World Peace and a senior staff writer for The International Educator. Her research and writing explore people and their environments, the changing nature of work and education, and the conversations that connect observation and insight with practice.
You can view Dr. Nyseth Brehm’s lecture on our Youtube channel here.
Right on! I strongly agree with Drs Razavi and Brehm! I spent an hour on Google and gathered together and curated some resources from highly credible source ( Stanford, Wharton, University of Michigan, etc.) that support and extend the idea that our instant and habitual word choices are astoundingly important in persuading others, and persuading ourselves, as well as in establishing empowered optimistic states or paralyzed, hopeless states in ourselves and others.
The blog post is up despite fonts running out of control at the end, but I’ll be fixing that and adding more to it as time goes on especially in the next week. Please comment there if you have something helpful to add to that topic or a personal story to share!!!
https://treecircles.blogspot.com/2020/11/how-our-choice-of-words-is-tangled-up.html