Can Peacebuilding Efforts Prevent Future Fort Hood?
By Jana Carter
The New York Times recently published an op-ed by David Brooks which explained how choosing narratives (a system of beliefs that helps us understand the world and motivates our actions within it) can enlarge or shrink our circle of concern. And, in the case of the latter, this may lead to violent conflict.
This is because, when an individual chooses a narrative of hatred, for instance, their concern for humanity is limited and as such, they are often motivated to commit violent acts against those individuals for which they have the least concern.
Brooks wrote:
“Most people select stories that lead toward cooperation and goodness. But over the past few decades a malevolent narrative has emerged. That narrative has emerged on the fringes of the Muslim world. It is a narrative that sees human history as a war between Islam on the one side and Christianity and Judaism on the other. This narrative causes its adherents to shrink their circle of concern. They don’t see others as fully human. They come to believe others can be blamelessly murdered and that, in fact, it is admirable to do so.”
In light of such a narrative and the recent violence at Fort Hood, Brooks’ article sparks several questions for the field of peacebuilding:
Can peacebuilders help radicals choose another narrative in order to prevent the violence of suicide bombing?
Could peacebuilding and conflict resolution efforts have prevented the actions of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood?
We invite you to share your comments, thoughts and questions.
CG News Article “Open Religious Discourse Can Prevent a Future Fort Hood”
New York Times Op-ed “The Rush to Therapy”
Related Posts
Fishing for Change in the Niger Delta
What Exactly Is the Conflict Around Race?
Are Personal Friendships and Political Affiliation Mutually Exclusive?
The Dawn of a New Day for the Niger Delta
Another Special Day in Bologna
Who is Responsible for Maintaining Peace?: The Need for Self-Awareness in Zanzibar and Beyond
Comments are closed.
While your post seems to have stemmed from the best of the intentions, I think it completely missed the mark on Brooks’ Op Ed on the Fort Hood incident. The piece starts almost poetically about how we all are well intentioned human beings who seek to create meaning about events and phenomena around us, and how we have the power to select the prism through which we see reality. The article then veered off-course to attribute to the “Muslim world” (if such a thing actually exists) what he calls a “malevolent narrative” that “sees history as a war between Islam on the one side and Christianity and Judaism on the other.” This assessment, or Opinion, is a flawed one since the “narrative” that he refers to is far from being an exclusive attribute of the so called Muslim world, and is rather an obsolete construct that was first theorized by (the Non-Muslim-US-Western scholar) Samuel Huntington.
The Brooks article is based on the assumption that Americans, because of their “narrative” of political correctness, have muffled a so called conversation (if there ever was such a thing) about the events and dismissed “the possibility of evil” way before the evidence was in (by evil he meant Maj. Hasan’s adherence to the previously mentioned “malevolent” narrative). What he basically says is that we should keep all options on the table, and accept the likely possibility that Hasan may (or is more likely to) have adhered to some version of radical Islam.
Now that’s Brooks opinion and he’s entitled to it, but I do think it should not be taken as a starting point for any discussion on the Fort Hood tragedy or its aftermath. It is an opinion among others, and only when other opinions are part of the discussion that we, as peacebuilders, can start asking the right questions about our role. Questions like “Can peacebuilders help radicals choose another narrative in order to prevent the violence of suicide bombing?” imply a belief that Hasan was indeed a Islamist radical which rules out other possibilities “before the evidence is in.”
Peace
SameOld’s points are both pertinent and important. As the original poster, I feel I should make one or two clarifications. The above post is condensed from a series of emails and some of the context was lost.
I had originally posed some questions after reading both Brooks’ OpEd as well as Asma Uddin’s article, posted above (“Open Religious Discourse Can Prevent a Future Fort Hood”). I found Uddin’s article to be most illuminating.
I know very little about Hasan and have no opinion on whether he was or was not a radical. I found Brooks’ OpEd interesting merely on the question of whether changing narratives can prevent violence, since this assumption also forms the basis for our work as peacebuilders. My original questions did not link Hasan as a radical, but asked whether peacebuilders can prevent all sorts of violence, including that of radical extremists, by facilitating shifts in narratives.
As for Fort Hood and Hasan, that event raises the opportunity for many discussions. For me, it raised the question of how to best be effective peacebuilders to prevent future violence both domestically and abroad. Perhaps not jumping to conclusions about those who inflict violence is part of the solution; I believe it is. So thanks, SameOld, for reminding us not to do so with Hasan.