My capstone project for the Fulbright Distinguished Teachers’ Programme is a series of lessons/ workshop components which draw on experiences within and around the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The object of these lessons is to encourage participants to embrace and implement non-violent conflict management strategies in their daily lives. An example of a lesson would be to introduce participants to a specific set of stories from the TRC – for example the various reactions to the Guguletu 7 hearings – through various primary and secondary sources and use these stories to explore conflict resolution options available to the people involved. Ideally this would be done in a variety of ways, including structured exercises, role-plays and discussion.
The dilemma lies in how to balance the need to take differing points of view seriously with my goal of advocating non-violence. I intend to implement these workshops in a variety of contexts, both in the USA and South Africa with participants with cultural capital and paradigms which will very likely differ from my own. My dilemma thus lies at the heart of my project: on the one hand my workshops will only be effective if participants accept that non-violence and reconciliation are the best option; on the other hand if I deny conflicting worldviews I fail to reconcile within the workshop itself. The essential question is how do I approach and embrace diversity in the workshops without becoming morally relativist?
Having completed my Honours research paper on the accommodation and struggle between Western and Indigenous knowledge systems, I have become very aware that differing opinions are no surface matter. Knowledge systems inform the very bedrock of being, how a person views, interacts with and judges the world. Certain knowledge systems (or even certain individuals’ personal ethics) may very well judge retributive justice to be more ethically sound than restorative approaches. In this case my goal would be to change this view, to promote reconciliation and to prioritise restorative approaches. I do not for a moment believe that knowledge systems and beliefs are static objects; I understand the protean nature of individuals and of cultures as a whole. However, imposing a non-violent paradigm seems paradoxically inequitable and violent.
At the same time, I reject cultural relativism. The idea that all ethics and beliefs are entirely relative to culture and must all be accepted fails on a number of grounds. Sketched simply these include the circular basis of the relativist argument which undermines itself; the idea that certain things are essentially morally reprehensible regardless of culture and the belief that there are ethical essentials, supportable by valid, sound logic which must thus be followed. If I were to accept cultural relativism it would present me with a second dilemma – I would have to accept that certain conflicts (where ethics or paradigms are opposed) cannot be resolved through negotiation and reconciliation, if at all.
Does rejecting relativism mean I fail to acknowledge and embrace diversity? Can my project work if my desired outcome is a specific view of conflict management? I find myself upon the horns of a pedagogical dilemma.
