Sign in or 
| Version | User | Scope of changes |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 13 2009, 10:18 PM EST (current) | mikicesari | 1 word deleted |
| Feb 13 2009, 10:16 PM EST | mikicesari | 2 words added, 11 words deleted |
Changes
Key: Additions Deletions
If we try visualise how our societies are structured, we can imagine them as a triangle. The triangle may be of various sizes; it may have a fat base and a low peak, like Triangle 1.
Or, it may have a rather narrow base and a very high peak, like Triangle 2. If it is a fairly flat triangle, then there are fewer people in positions of power, and
most are at the grassroots. If it is a tall, narrow triangle then there are many people at each of the different levels, although there are a few more in the grassroots than the middle level, and a few more in the middle level than the top level.
Whatever type of triangle it is, the base section of the triangle can be understood to represent local communities and grassroots leaders. Local Caritas organisations usually work with these leaders. The middle section of the triangle represents middle level leaders. These are people who command respect, and may include NGO leaders, ethnic and
religious leaders, as well as others. The top of the triangle represents the top level or highly visible leadership. This includes government officials, military personnel and religious leaders, among others.
Using these three levels as guides, we can identify different levels of society where we can aim peacebuilding programming (Lederach, 1995, 1997): we can work with grassroots groups, middle level leaders, and high level leaders either separately or in a coordinated way. Working at one level does not exclude the others. In fact, in order to achieve more comprehensive peacebuilding programming, it is better to work across these levels.
Usually in situations of social injustice it is particularly important to work across these leadership levels, because it is here where groups are alienated from leadership and excluded from making decisions for their own communities and groups. We can understand social and distributional justice in part as an unequal distribution vertically within the triangle (see Figure 4.1). High-level leaders who are not accountable to those at lower levels of social organisation often pursue excess benefits for themselves at the expense of those below them; they do not let citizens have a voice in who or how they should be represented in government, and, in doing so, violate the basic Catholic Social Teaching concept of subsidiarity. For justice to be present, the top level leaders at the peak of the triangle and the grassroots participants at the bottom of the triangle need to be accorded equal dignity and respect.
Represented at each level within the triangle are groups on each side of the conflict. Depending on the intensity of conflict, these groups may be more or less integrated. If
the conflict is very intense and marked by violence, the society will be deeply divided and there will be almost no movement between groups, even at the same level. People who do move between groups and meet with others across the conflict divides are often called “traitors” by those in their home communities, and labelled “spies” by those in the
enemy community. If the conflict is at a stage where the tensions are low, people are able to move easily across social lines. However, when conflicts spiral again into intense violence it becomes extremely difficult to talk, let alone meet with people who come from different ethnic, religious or political groups. Therefore, one way to understand social peace is that people are able to move horizontally across the cleavages in their countries and regions.
Successful peacebuilding allows people to move vertically and horizontally within their societies.It is important to note that using this triangle model is only one way of capturing what our societies look like. It describes how we are socially organised but does not tell us how to change it. The model does not capture the dynamic action going on inside of the triangle within groups at different levels. It is also unable to capture the relationships between societies, such as the relationships between governments, the global church, international organisations, or multinational corporations – relationships outside the pyramid – which are also discussed in Module 3. In order to understand the Catholic Social Teaching concept of global solidarity, and understand how to change social systems we need to step outside this diagram and look at the larger context. We can do this visually by adding other triangles or drawing a circle around the triangle (as depicted in the box) to highlight that each state is part of the larger global context. Even with these limitations, the triangle provides a very useful tool to help assess where peacebuilding programmes can focus. The next section examines this in more detail.
Source: Adapted from Neufeldt, R., Fast, L., et al., Peacebuilding: A Caritas Training Manual, Vatican City, Caritas Internationalis, 2002, pp. 81-83. The manual is avialable in a free pdf file at www.caritas.org.
Or, it may have a rather narrow base and a very high peak, like Triangle 2. If it is a fairly flat triangle, then there are fewer people in positions of power, and
most are at the grassroots. If it is a tall, narrow triangle then there are many people at each of the different levels, although there are a few more in the grassroots than the middle level, and a few more in the middle level than the top level.
Whatever type of triangle it is, the base section of the triangle can be understood to represent local communities and grassroots leaders. Local Caritas organisations usually work with these leaders. The middle section of the triangle represents middle level leaders. These are people who command respect, and may include NGO leaders, ethnic and
religious leaders, as well as others. The top of the triangle represents the top level or highly visible leadership. This includes government officials, military personnel and religious leaders, among others.
Using these three levels as guides, we can identify different levels of society where we can aim peacebuilding programming (Lederach, 1995, 1997): we can work with grassroots groups, middle level leaders, and high level leaders either separately or in a coordinated way. Working at one level does not exclude the others. In fact, in order to achieve more comprehensive peacebuilding programming, it is better to work across these levels.
Usually in situations of social injustice it is particularly important to work across these leadership levels, because it is here where groups are alienated from leadership and excluded from making decisions for their own communities and groups. We can understand social and distributional justice in part as an unequal distribution vertically within the triangle (see Figure 4.1). High-level leaders who are not accountable to those at lower levels of social organisation often pursue excess benefits for themselves at the expense of those below them; they do not let citizens have a voice in who or how they should be represented in government, and, in doing so, violate the basic Catholic Social Teaching concept of subsidiarity. For justice to be present, the top level leaders at the peak of the triangle and the grassroots participants at the bottom of the triangle need to be accorded equal dignity and respect.
Represented at each level within the triangle are groups on each side of the conflict. Depending on the intensity of conflict, these groups may be more or less integrated. If
the conflict is very intense and marked by violence, the society will be deeply divided and there will be almost no movement between groups, even at the same level. People who do move between groups and meet with others across the conflict divides are often called “traitors” by those in their home communities, and labelled “spies” by those in the
enemy community. If the conflict is at a stage where the tensions are low, people are able to move easily across social lines. However, when conflicts spiral again into intense violence it becomes extremely difficult to talk, let alone meet with people who come from different ethnic, religious or political groups. Therefore, one way to understand social peace is that people are able to move horizontally across the cleavages in their countries and regions.
Successful peacebuilding allows people to move vertically and horizontally within their societies.It is important to note that using this triangle model is only one way of capturing what our societies look like. It describes how we are socially organised but does not tell us how to change it. The model does not capture the dynamic action going on inside of the triangle within groups at different levels. It is also unable to capture the relationships between societies, such as the relationships between governments, the global church, international organisations, or multinational corporations – relationships outside the pyramid – which are also discussed in Module 3. In order to understand the Catholic Social Teaching concept of global solidarity, and understand how to change social systems we need to step outside this diagram and look at the larger context. We can do this visually by adding other triangles or drawing a circle around the triangle (as depicted in the box) to highlight that each state is part of the larger global context. Even with these limitations, the triangle provides a very useful tool to help assess where peacebuilding programmes can focus. The next section examines this in more detail.
Source: Adapted from Neufeldt, R., Fast, L., et al., Peacebuilding: A Caritas Training Manual, Vatican City, Caritas Internationalis, 2002, pp. 81-83. The manual is avialable in a free pdf file at www.caritas.org.
