Part 10 (1/2)
”This unshakable faith in the way of vital, mutual interaction by conciliatory conference is held to be applicable to international and interracial conflict as it is to that between workers and employer, or between man and wife. But it is not content to stop there. It would defy all fears and bring into the tense process of arriving at this joint decision a kind of patience and a quiet confidence which believes, not that there is no other way, but that there is a 'third-alternative' which will annihilate neither party.”[133]
M. P. Follett, twenty years ago, wrote a book ent.i.tled _Creative Experience_, in which she supported this same conclusion on the basis of scientific knowledge about the nature of man, society and politics.
Speaking of the democratic process she said:
”We have the will of the people ideally when all desires are satisfied.... The aim of democracy should be integrating desires. I have said that truth emerges from difference. In the ballot-box there is no confronting of difference, hence no possibility of integrating, hence no creating; self-government is a creative process and nothing else.... Democracy does not register various opinions; it is an attempt to create unity.”[134]
It might be said that in so far as democracy has succeeded, it has done so because of its adherence to this principle. The division of a society into groups which are unremittingly committed to struggle against each other, whether by violent or non-violent means, until one or the other has been annihilated or forced to yield outwardly to its oppressors for the time being, will inevitably destroy the loyalty to a common purpose through which alone democracy can exist.
The contrast between the British and American att.i.tudes toward the abolition of slavery presents us with a case in point. In Great Britain, the Emanc.i.p.ation Act contained provisions for the compensation of the slave owners, so that it became acceptable to them. In the United States the advocates of abolition insisted that since slavery was sin there could be no recognition of the rights of the owners. Elihu Burritt and his League of Universal Brotherhood were as much opposed to slavery as the most ardent abolitionists, yet of the League Burritt declared: ”It will not only aim at the mutual pacification of enemies, but at their conversion into brethren.”[135] Burritt became the chief advocate of compensated emanc.i.p.ation in the United States. Finally the idea was suggested in the Senate and hearings had been arranged on the measure.
”But,” Burritt said, ”just as it had reached that stage at which Congressional action was about to recognize it as a legitimate proposition, 'John Brown's raid' suddenly closed the door against all overtures or efforts for the peaceful extinction of slavery.
Its extinction by compensated emanc.i.p.ation would have recognized the moral complicity of the whole nation in planting and perpetuating it on this continent. It would have been an act of repentance, and the meetest work for repentance the nation could perform.”[136]
The country was already too divided to strive for this ”third alternative,” and, whether or not slavery was one of the prime causes of the Civil War, it made its contribution to creating the feeling which brought on the conflict. In the light of the present intensity of racial feeling in the United States, it can hardly be said that the enforced settlement of the war gave the Negro an equal place in American society or eliminated conflict between the races.
One of the virtues of the method of reconciliation of views in seeking the ”third alternative” is that it can be practiced by the individual or a very small group as well as on the national or international scale.
James Myers has described its use within the local community in the ”informal conference.” In such a conference, the person or group desiring to create better understanding or to eliminate conflict between elements of the community calls together, without any publicity, representatives of various interests for a discussion of points of view, with the understanding that there will be no attempt to reach conclusions or arrive at any official decisions. James Myers' experience has indicated that the conferences create an appreciation of the reasons for former divergence of opinion, and a realization of the possibilities of new bases of relations.h.i.+p which have often resulted in easing tensions within the community and in the solution of racial, economic and social conflicts.[137]
Even on the international level, individuals may make some contribution toward the elimination of conflicts, although, in the face of the present emphasis upon nationalism, and the lack of common international values to which appeal may be made, their labors are not apt to be crowned with success. As in all the cases which we have been considering, however, concerned individuals and groups may act in this field because they feel a compulsion to do so, regardless of whether or not their actions are likely to be successful in producing the desired result of reconciliation, and the discovery of the third alternative.[138]
FOOTNOTES:
[130] Eric Heyman, _The Pacifist Dilemma_ (Banbury, England: Friends'
Peace Committee, 1941), 11-12.
[131] Carl Heath, ”The Third Alternative” in Heard, _et al._, _The New Pacifism_, 102.
[132] D. Elton Trueblood, ”The Quaker Method of Reaching Decisions” in Laughlin, _Beyond Dilemmas_, 119.
[133] Douglas V. Steere, ”Introduction” to Laughlin, _Beyond Dilemmas_, 18.
[134] M. P. Follett, _Creative Experience_ (New York: Longmans, Green, 1924), 209.
[135] Quoted in Allen, _Fight for Peace_, 428.
[136] Quoted in _Ibid._, 437.
[137] James Myers, _”Informal Conferences” a New Technique In Social Education_, Leaflet (New York: Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, 1943).
[138] See George Lansbury, _My Pilgrimage for Peace_ (New York: Holt, 1938); Bertram Pickard, _Pacifist Diplomacy in Conflict Situations: Ill.u.s.trated by the Quaker International Centers_ (Philadelphia: Pacifist Research Bureau, 1943).