Getting Infected

“Thought is an infection.
In the case of certain thoughts,
it becomes an epidemic.”
— Wallace Stevens

The death of Cpl. Jason Bogar last month in Afghanistan provided me with an intimate look at my own violence immune system. As I've mentioned in other postings, Jason — the son of a friend of mine — visited one of my courses on the “Violence Integrative Prevention and Restoration (PAR) Model” before he was deployed to Iraq, then Afghanistan where he was killed in combat.

When I got the news from my friend, Rev. Michael Bogar, that his son was one of the nine killed on the 13^th of July, I was deeply affected. My affection for Jason came from my brief experience of him as well as my awareness of Michael's love for, pride in, and concern for Jason.

Right: Cpl. Jason M. Bogar with
children in Afghanistan.

Powerlessness

After getting over the initial shock of the news, I felt a deep sense of powerlessness come over me. I kept mulling the memory of Jason in my mind. I thought about the incredible pain Michael and Jason's mother, Carlene Cross, must have been going through. I thought about the rest of Jason's family. I thought about my own sons. I wished there was something I could do to fix things in some way, to bring Jason back. But there was no fix for this.

Rage

As I realized that there was nothing within my power that would make things right, I felt myself go cold. Thoughts of revenge against the Taliban soldiers, the Army, our government, “warmongering” supporters of war, and any other “villains” I could think of ran through my mind. I felt as though I and those I care about had been victimized and that someone should pay for it.

Watching

As I got more agitated and frustrated, my attention turned to the PAR Model. I noticed how caught up I was in the “Objectification/Action Process” — a central concept in the model. I was moving through the five stages of the process which ends with violence.

1. Stage 1 is the transaction — the knowledge that Jason was dead and that there was nothing I could do about it.
   
   
2. Stage 2 is the accusation — I characterized the situation in perpetrator (“them”) and victim (“us”) terms. This provides the justification for violent action.
   
   
3. Stage 3 is objectification — I began to characterize those I was accusing as objects. They were “terrorists,” “warmongers,” “stupid politicians,” “mindless officers,” “enemy,” “incompetents,” and so on.
   
   
4. Stage 4 is passing sentence — making sure that what ever I thought they “deserved,” it would be congruent with the crimes I decided they committed. Here the process stopped. I didn't make it through this stage or to stage five.
   
   
5. Stage 5 is the execution of the process — the delivery of the punishment, the acts of violence.

What Happened?

A couple of things happened for me. First, I was observing the process, knowing that it was the voice of powerlessness talking. The PAR Model describes violence as a “thought-borne pathogen” — a “brain bug,” if you will. I know how it works and how I was at risk of transmitting the bug through any act of violence of my own.

Second, my violence immune system is sufficiently healthy that, other than having some angry thoughts, there was no way I was going to act out any violence. I wasn't going to hurt anyone physically, demean anyone or threaten anyone. My immune system is healthy because I have a more-than-sufficient experience of power in my life. My level of resiliency is such that the pathogen could not take over. There was no risk of hurting anyone in this case.

Recovery

My recovery from the grief, sadness, and sense of powerlessness is helped greatly by being given the opportunity (and privilege) to contribute to Jason's memorial. Taking some form of positive, concrete action dramatically speeds the recovery process. Writing about Jason (including this posting), remembering things for which I have every reason to be thankful (including the brief experience of knowing Jason), and recognizing what is going on internally have contributed to rebounding from a terrible event.

I'm still sad and disappointed. But I have no thoughts of getting even or having anyone pay. The violence pathogen's attempt to hijack me was unsuccessful.

Power and Resiliency

In forthcoming postings, I explore the notions of power and resiliency further.

War and the PAR Model

“War does not determine who is right
— only who is left.”
— Bertrand Russell

The death in Afghanistan of Cpl. Jason Bogar, the son of a friend of mine, brought home my desire to see the “Violence Integrative Prevention and Restoration (PAR) Model” applied in international conflict settings. Jason visited one of my PAR Model classes before being deployed to Iraq, then Afghanistan where he was killed. During his visit, we talked about how great it would be if we could apply the PAR Model in a military setting.

What Causes War?

There are several established theories about what causes war. One widespread theory is based on the supposition that human beings are, by nature, violent and war is thus a inevitable expression of this nature. This theory doesn't explain periods of peace, cultures which are completely devoid of war (the Amish, Ladakhi, Semai, Nubian, Mbuti), or the near-universal human belief that war is something bad and should be avoided.

The PAR Model takes a different stance by proposing that human beings are basically cooperative — and must be to survive. The violence human beings act out is a symptom of the active presence of a thought-born pathogen (a “brain bug”) that thrives in an environment of fear resulting from an experience of powerlessness.

Another school of thought proposes that, because we are animals, we compete for resources and territory like other animals do. Here again, the PAR Model differs. I suggest that humans beings are unique in that they are a hybrid between the material and conceptual, being part animal and part symbolic (I draw heavily here upon the work of Otto Rank).

Additionally, our conceptual side (sense of self, beliefs, knowledge, etc.) is evolving steadily. We are unlike any other animal in so many ways — we are aware of the certainty of our own physical death, we wear artificial skin (clothing), can conduct non-synchronous communication (voice-mail, videos, letters), and leverage the resources available to us in ways that are beyond the ability of any other organism. Again, the PAR Model posits that it is the experience of powerlessness that drives violence and war.

Left: Boys playing on an anti-aircraft
gun during World War II.

A common social theory is that war is the extension of the geopolitical process, probably best exemplified by Carl von Clausewitz's statement, “War is the continuation of policy by other means.” While this may be true, it is — again — symptomatic of a deeper issue: individual and collective fear resulting from an experience of powerlessness. In politics, this fear is often amplified by political leaders as part of a process of manipulating the general population to undertake wars which — inevitably — kill their young, cost them money, and otherwise wreak havoc upon the quality of their lives.

The Evolution of War

The nature of war has changed dramatically over the last 200 years. It has shifted from a focus upon upon masses of troops, to efficient and massive firepower, to sophisticated maneuvering, to a new, complex, borderless, networked, form called “Phase IV” or “fourth generation” war. No longer are the most troops, best weapons, and most sophisticated maneuvering enough to prevail in a war.

To end war, we must develop a more in-depth understanding of the roots of violence and its expression in international settings, become more responsive to the need to relieve or mitigate the experienced power-deficiency of those pursuing and perpetuating war, and apply new, innovative, evidence-based approaches to eliminate the malignancy of violence which results in war. Lt. Col. Thomas X. Hammes, writing in the Marine Corps Gazette, notes that “The strategic approach and tactical techniques of fourth generation warfare will require major changes in the way we educate, employ, structure, and train forces.” I agree. The PAR Model is at the center of one such initiative to do just that.

A Revolution In Thinking

Both the PAR Model and the new approaches to dealing with fourth generation warfare are examples of opportunities to reduce and eliminate warfare. I'll explore this further in a coming blog on applying the PAR Model.