From: Dr. M. Harun uz Zaman <mhzaman@hotmail.com>To: <shetubondhon@onelist.com>Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 3:29 PM
Subject: [Shetubondhon] Conflicts and the Geometry of ParadigmsMany of us have been exposed to fundamentals of solid geometry in our middle or high school years. We have been taught that the orthogonal (i.e., perpendicular) projection of a straight line on a plane surface is another straight line. The length of the projected line is either equal to, or less than, that of the original. The length depends on the orientation, or angle, of the plane with respect to the straight line. The greater is the angle, the smaller the projection. Only if the plane is parallel to the original line, the lengths of the original line and the projected line are equal.
Now picture the original line as "reality," and the plane as "perception space." The function of the "perception space" is to provide a receptacle to "map" reality. One could liken the perception space, in combination with the "projection rule" (e.g., drop two lines from the "reality line" perpendicular to the "perception plane"), to a paradigm or model that lets us interpret and comprehend reality. It provides us with an image of reality. The image, however, is rarely an exact copy of the reality. The degree of approximation depends on how the perception space is oriented with respect to the "reality space" - the plane that contains the original straight line. The larger the angle, the more the image deviates from
reality.Now consider two groups of people that have two different perception spaces and the same projection rule. The same reality will appear to be different to these two groups. This can lead to a conflict. The conflict is not necessarily - or entirely, caused by the reality, but at least in part by how the reality is perceived. Of course, the reality itself can sometimes
be a source of conflict. For example, if both you and I lay claim to a piece of land, this is a real conflict, not a perceived one. Yet perceptions can add another layer of hostility to the conflict. If I am a Muslim and you are a Hindu, we may harbor an extra degree of hostility
toward each other that is not warranted by the "real" conflict. This means that a conflict can be introduced where none exists in reality, and a conflict that exists in reality can be exacerbated by the existence of differing perception spaces.To compound the problem further, I may attempt to project your perceptions into my perception space. In doing that, my images of your perceptions will be different from what they "really" are (please forgive the pun). Now, not only do I have a distorted image of impersonal reality, I also have distorted images of your perceptions. One can compound the problem further by making the projection rules different (e.g., one group uses perpendicular projections and the other uses non-perpendicular projections). One can make the problem
even more complex by making one or more of the spaces (the reality space and the perception spaces) curvilinear spaces.
In other words, we can have conflicts at three levels. There can be real conflicts (e.g., the real economic and socio-political conflicts between Hindus and Muslims in pre-1947 India, or between Bengalis and non-Bengalis in pre-1971 Pakistan). There can be conflicts introduced by less-than-exact perceptions (e.g., conflicting interpretations about the character of the Hindu-Muslim conflicts) of reality. Finally, there can be conflicts caused by less-than-exact perceptions about perceptions (e.g., each side's interpretation of the knowledge and motives of the opposing side in a conflict).
Looking at conflicts this way provides us insights about why most conflicts are so hard to resolve. It may tell us why a conflict lingers even when the real causes of the conflict cease to exist. It may also provide us guidance about how to resolve conflicts. As a first step, we can break down a conflict into three components: (1) conflict in reality, (2) conflict in perceptions about reality and (3) conflict in perceptions about perceptions.For example, we can separate the pre-1947 Hindu-Muslim conflict into three parts: (1) how Hindus and Muslims actually treated each other, (2) how each community thought it was treating, and was being treated by, the other community, and (3) what each community thought about the other community's thinking (i.e., knowledge and motives). I have this suspicion that (2) and (3) might have contributed more to the conflict than (1). I also have the
suspicion that the same is true of most conflicts, from interpersonal to international.
Having delineated conflicts into its components, we can explore ways to mitigate conflicts. There are two options: (1) realign each perception space closer to reality and (2) realign each perception space closer to the other. The first option means each side trying to be more "objective," and getting a better grip of reality. The second option (i.e., realigning perception spaces closer to each other) translates into each side making an attempt to understand better the other side's point of view. Both options require reorientations of perception spaces, changes in the projection rules, or both. Each change in the perception space/projection rule
combination may be characterized as a "paradigm shift." An effective paradigm shift can reduce the conflict closer to its essential, and "real," dimensions. It can thus make the conflict smaller, both in scope and in magnitude. The residual real conflict may be easier to resolve than the original one. Or it may still be irresolvable. In either case, it is no mean achievement to have cut a conflict down to something closer to its "real" size.
We humans have used geometry and its sister mathematical disciplines to achieve many marvels of technological design, from bridges to space ships. Could we use it, metaphorically speaking, to "redesign" conflicts and reduce their scopes and magnitudes?