How the Other Looks

When dealing with questions of Justice and Peace, one of the symbolic and cultural issues we often encounter is the way in which we represent the other, the presuppositions about the other that were passed on to us through schooling or through our family. These representations that we give to the other determine our behavior, our aggressiveness toward the other or our desire to collaborate and act in a friendly fashion with her/him. This problem of "images" that we tack onto others, these "labels" that we accept all too often uncritically spawn racism, daily conflicts and multiple tensions...

This process always works in the same way, be it for men/women, lay/clerics, superior/inferior... and we need to be very aware of it!

In major multi-cultural and multi-religious countries such as India, work on representation is particularly important, this is why our brothers of Nagpur have established a pedagogical process to deal with this issue. The process is supported by a video and a pedagogical kit. To find out more about it you may contact Prakash Lohale or Reetha Mechery who are the regional promoters for Justice and Peace in Asia (see Workbook #1). The Adrian Dominican Sisters have also organized seminars on this theme in the context of their "cultural diversity" program (contact: Toni Harris, Workbook #1).

Here are a few elements, produced by the brothers that can be reworked, transformed, inculturated...through some form of group facilitation.

1. Man/Woman

This exercise lasts some 30 minutes and consists in attributing to individuals or groups a certain number of characteristics such as: aggressiveness, patience, vulgarity, generosity, jealousy, courage, forgiveness, punctuality, intelligence, sensitivity, logic, pettiness, ambitiousness, careerism, gossipiness, quarrelsomeness, emotivity, dependency, noisiness, boastfulness.

A classification is established, based on each participant's opinion followed by a discussion.

The facilitator can ask the group why a specific value was attributed to a particular individual or group? Where did that stereotype come from? What was its value? Do these stereotypes affect our behavior? How do we react in respect to them? Do we not react as society expects us to? Do we not use these stereotypes to judge others? Do you think these stereotypes are beneficial or not? How do our families, the media and schools produce or reinforce these stereotypes?

2. How the other looks

This exercise lasts some 45 minutes. Small groups of 5-6 persons are given drawings representing faces.

Faces

Each group must determine what it thinks is the community to which the face is related, (ethnic, tribal, religious...), what the person is thinking, what would be his/her moral and social characteristics. A reporter from each small group presents the results to the plenary.

A discussion is undertaken on those points where the sub-groups were unanimous. Why? What criteria were used? People then reflect on the behavioral effects generated by each stereotype and on the process that allows them to appear. The assembly is then invited to recognize the positive and negative dimensions of such stereotypes.

Based on these two exercises a deeper reflection may be suggested using the following elements:

-If we accept that stereotypes are not a complete representation of the truth and that they are often used in racial propaganda, we may want to remember a person we often meet and say: 'Are the stereotypes I have on this person justified by my personal experience of him/her? Do I not often have reactions based on stereotypes? Do I foster a behavior that enhances harmony or not? Do I manage to communicate better than others?'

-Do you check out the facts for yourself before you become caught up in spreading a false rumor about a particular community? Are you able to denounce publicly the functioning of attitudes through stereotypes?

-Are you able to dialogue and collaborate with persons or a community other than your own? Would you accept that your children become friends of their children?

3. The dilemma of the prisoners

(there are many variants on this game)

This exercise lasts almost an hour. Set up two groups of participants and explain the rules of the game. The goal is to make as much money as possible without hindering or helping the other group. The way to make money depends on the combination of cards that each group will play. Here are the possible combinations.

A. If there are two groups:

Cards Played Money earned
Team A Team B Team A Team B
X X -2 -2
Y X 0 +5
X Y +5 0
Y Y +3 +3

B. If there are four groups:

Cards Played Money earned
4X each group loses 1,000
3X and 1Y those who played the X win 1,000;
those who played Y lose 3,000
2X and 2Y those who played the X win 2,000;
those who played Y lose 2,000
1X and 3Y those who played the X lose 3,000;
those who played Y win 1,000
4Y each group wins 1,000

Each group receives an X card and a Y card and a sheet representing the above allocation of points. There will be ten rounds (but this is not known to the players). The facilitator writes down the score for each round.

Before the 6th round, the facilitator invites one representative per team to a negotiation table (negotiations last 5 minutes). Before the 8th round, another negotiation session is proposed. But immediately afterwards the facilitator states that the scores of the game will be doubled. The game is stopped at the end of the 10th round.

A discussion is suggested and each group is invited to explain how they played. The facilitator might indicate the apparent motivation of the groups as observed for each round: to win and allow the others to win, to win to the detriment of the others, bring the others down with them... Did the groups trust the others? why?

There is then a discussion on the internal functioning of each group: on the leader who established the majority opinion, on internal democracy, on the opinions (or persons) rejected...

Based on this, the facilitator might want to point out how parts of the game apply to cases in society: trust in other groups, the role of the leaders, the experience of exclusion in terms of intervention and decision-making, the necessity to establish dialogue between groups... What is required is a situation where everyone wins.

4. The Broken Squares

This exercise lasts approximately 30 minutes and seeks to develop a sense of cooperation. Groups of 5 participants are established plus one observer per group. They are given an envelope containing the parts of 5 squares cut up according to the following forms:

Broken Squares

The facilitator explains each one's task: to create squares of equal size. The group's task is not fulfilled until each participant's square is finished. No one is to speak. Parts of the puzzle can be passed on to another person of the group, but no one is to take or ask for parts for himself or herself.

The observers must note how each person started out doing their task. How long did it take for some form of cooperation to appear? Who asked without offering in return? How was success or failure managed in the group? Was there any cheating? At the end of the game the facilitator has people reflect on that which was experienced by each one during the game.

The purpose of the game is to recognize the mutual interdependence required to establish the squares, as is the case in our own society. Were people judged unable to work thing out? were some people refusing to cooperate? Without the will to work together, we will fail.

Based on this experience, it might be good to reflect on each one's behavior, on that of each community, each society... in relationship to others.

Cooperation is possible as long as...

| Back | Index | Next |