To say we live in an imperfect world would be a gross understatement. Today, we face war in the Middle East and Europe, genocide in Sudan and a refugee crisis in Venezuela, among other crises. Conflict, at its core, is a failure to reach an acceptable agreement for all parties involved. In our daily lives, and here at Brown, we disagree on a lot. While the stakes of these disagreements are often lower than in these examples, the ability to find common ground in any situation might be the most valuable skill we can take away from College Hill.
Rational, smart and well-intentioned people disagree all the time. While we often associate disagreement with destruction, it is also a powerful force for change. The difference between productive and unproductive disagreement comes down to the understanding between the two parties. In my view, conflict can broadly be summarized as manifesting in one of three possible ways that constantly overlap and inform each other: a conflict of narratives, values, or structure.
A conflict of narratives occurs when different groups frame the same event through opposing lenses. One powerful example of this is in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where both groups view the events of 1948 through radically different lenses — the first as a war of independence, the second as an ethnic cleansing. In this paradigm, one group’s freedom fighters become another’s terrorists and the failure to reach a coherent narrative prevents all parties from moving forward.
A conflict of values happens when groups have fundamentally opposing ethical approaches to an issue. An example of this type of conflict is frequent in debates on climate change where developing nations prioritize economic growth over environmental protection, while wealthy, historically polluting nations lecture them about sustainability.
Finally, there are conflicts in which power structures or external factors lead to the domination of one group over another. This can encapsulate everything from race and class struggles to a war for scarce water. The challenge of addressing this form of conflict is in the complex nature of dismantling those structures that compel conflict.
So what does this mean on a practical level? We disagree, great. We understand why we disagree, but now what will we do about it? In the world, we often see an unwillingness for opposing parties to speak candidly with one another. At Brown, we see a similar polarization on campus. The debate over divestment represents a small bit of daylight in our otherwise monocultural campus political discourse. But a culture of protest without active debate is, in my view, deeply unproductive.
The world doesn’t need safe spaces, it needs brave spaces. When people fight, it’s often because they don’t truly understand what the other needs, wants or feels. An example of this hyperpolarization I have experienced was when discussing the divestment protests on campus with a friend. I was told that my perspective was unneeded because they had been to enough ‘teach-ins.’ I remain baffled by this sentiment. If one’s goal is to change the status quo, not to sit idly in righteous indignation, it is imperative to make space for understanding.
As an educational space, Brown has an important role to play in fostering discourse on campus and in the wider world. We are in a difficult moment, but instead of shying away from hard conversations, we must face them head-on. That is the true meaning of an education. I am heartened by the work being done by J Street U Brown, In-Progress, and other student organizations to support these efforts. But, institutionally there is more that can and must be done. Brown should strive to create spaces on campus for vigorous debate between scholars, students and the wider community. This effort must be intentional. Productive academic discourse must aim to deconstruct the roots of misunderstanding and identify shared values, structural barriers and common narratives so that we can find a way forward. To put it simply, to work towards peace, we must first reach some idea of truth and reconciliation.
The world is full of complex issues, and I don’t presume to know the answers to them all, but what I do know is this — trying the same thing over and over again is the definition of insanity. Instead of approaching diplomacy as a “where do we go from here” endeavor, what if we also ask, “How did we get here?” Let’s talk to each other, craft a narrative we can all resonate with and define our shared values for the future.
Tas Rahman is a staff columnist at the Brown Daily Herald writing about issues in higher education. When he's not coding or studying biochemistry, you can find him hiking and enjoying the great outdoors.
