In an increasingly fractured society as conflicts erupt all around us, most of us don’t know what to do. We don’t want to take sides as that might make matters worse so, in desperation, we hop onto the fence. The trouble with the fence is that, whether we like it or not, choosing a passive-bystander position is a way of taking a side. It also doesn’t tend to help resolve the conflict.
So what can we do if we don’t want to be either partisan or bystander?
William Ury, anthropologist, negotiator and co-founder of the Harvard Programme on Negotiation suggests that there is a side we can take that can help solve conflict. This “side” involves all of us, the community, because while we may not be in the eye of the storm we are often impacted by the consequences of any conflict – whether that’s as ordinary as rows in a family or as devastating as war.
Societies are collections of individuals, communities and institutions and our interconnectedness, for good or ill, is undeniable
We all have skin in the game whether or not we have taken a side and so it may be helpful to consider what Ury calls “taking the Third Side”. This side focuses on solutions and justice for those involved directly, as well as those suffering the ripple effects of the conflict. Ury has many stories about community-based conflict resolution. One such story is a variation on the following:
‘I’m having fun with a flirtatious man, but worry he might want sex. The body prep is too much effort’
Mark Moriarty: Get your bold flavours fast with these two simple Asian dishes
Kathy Sheridan: The aggressive speed and silence of cyclists is a cultural problem that needs tackling in Ireland
The VW Buzz is a superhero, here to save us from villainous SUVs
“Once upon a time there was a man named Paddy who had three sons and a herd of horses. Paddy made his living breeding and hiring out his horses. Then, unexpectedly, Paddy died. When Paddy’s will was read, everyone learned that he had bequeathed his herd of 17 horses to his sons, but in a very particular way.
“To his eldest son, Tommy, Paddy had left one half of his herd. His middle son, Gerard, was to inherit one-third of the herd. And youngest son, Séamus, was to inherit one-ninth of his father’s herd. Paddy’s will also stipulated that the horses had to be kept alive and healthy or his sons would forfeit their inheritance.
“Tommy, Gerard and Séamus were upset. How could they divide 17 horses as their father had wanted? How could each have his rightful inheritance while his brothers also had theirs?
“They started to argue. The differences between the brothers spread and the neighbours began to take sides. Eventually almost everyone in the parish was either for or against Tommy, Gerard or Séamus. And meanwhile the horses grazed idly in a field enjoying their holiday from work.
“A local wise woman offered to solve the dispute to everybody’s satisfaction. The brothers agreed. She listened to the terms of the will and to what each of the young men had to say. Then she made a proposal, ‘If you’ll agree,’ she said. ‘I would like to add my own horse to your father’s herd.’
“They thought she was crazy to give away her only horse, but they agreed. Now there were 18 horses in the herd.
“The woman gathered the brothers. First she instructed Tommy to take his half of the herd. He went to the field and took nine horses. Then she called on Gerard and told him to take his third of the herd. He agreed and took six horses. Finally she called Séamus and told him to take his ninth, so he took two horses.
“Tommy, Gerard and Séamus were now happy as each had received his rightful share. And as it happened, there was one horse left over. So the wise woman took her own horse home.”
William Ury’s version of this story features camels not horses but the “moral” of the story remains the same – it’s often possible to solve even seemingly intractable disagreements if the element of community is introduced.
From this perspective, useful and just solutions can emerge as, instead of supporting one or other side, we invest our energy, our ingenuity, our courage, our hearts, into finding a solution that works not only for those in the eye of the storm but for the entire community.
Choosing a passive-bystander position is a way of taking a side. It doesn’t tend to help resolve the conflict
Societies are collections of individuals, communities and institutions and our interconnectedness, for good or ill, is undeniable. When we fail to search for solutions that will benefit everyone, we also fail ourselves. Which means it is always in our best interests to find and promote a “side” that is invested in the wellbeing of all rather than any side engaged in a zero-sum game of winning and losing.
Every religion teaches – and nowadays much science supports – the idea that working from a place of unity means we are working from the most powerful place of all.
As it says in the Bahá’í Writings: “So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole Earth.” Because, as the Irish seanfhocal points out: “Ní neart go cur le chéile” (There’s no strength without unity).
In other words, working together to restore or create unity is the most powerful “side” of all.
Patricia Rainsford is a writer and public affairs officer for the Bahá'í community in Ireland
- Listen to our Inside Politics Podcast for the latest analysis and chat
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
