My grad paper on Kegan and conflict resolution

Running Head: RESOLUTION

The Mental Demands of Conflict Resolution and Robert Kegan's Orders of Consciousness

John F. Kennedy University

Nathanael Chawkin

Human Development

Fall Quarter 2006

What's the Difference?  A Question of Consciousness

            John checks his ticket, turns the corner into the stadium and looks up the long flight of stairs that leads up into the bleachers.  "Great, all the way up in the boonies!" he remarks and begins the climb.  On his way up he smiles as he spots an attractive looking girl and seeing that there is plenty of space, sits down nearby.  A few minutes into chatting with her, her cell phone rings.  "Oh that's probably the guy I came with," she says casually.  "Not my boyfriend or anything...."  But before John has any time to ask why this guy would be sitting somewhere else, he spots a broad-chested guy about his age - early mid twenties - heading up the stairs towards them.  In the time it takes the fellow to reach them, John has little time to process the situation except to wonder, "What is going on?"  As he arrives, he looks at the two of them and then locks his gaze on John.  "What do you think you're doing man?" he says angrily, his muscular arms folded across his chest.  "You better find somewhere else to sit!" 

Let's pause for just a moment.  Envision yourself in this scenario if you can.  Remember how you have felt in a similar situation in the past when you have been confronted or attacked by someone intimidating.  Does your heart race, do you feel nervous or begin to panic?  Or do you become angry and lose control?  With this in mind - what would you do in this situation?   How would you respond?  Let's consider a few different possibilities: John lowers his gaze.  "Hey sorry man.  My mistake!"  he responds, throwing up his hands.  "Didn't realize she was taken.  I don't have any problem moving.  Plenty of seats."  Or how about another version of the story:  John stands up out of his seat and meets his gaze.  "Man, I don't even know you!  How you gonna try to tell me what to do?  You're not even sitting with her and she's not even your girlfriend!" he counters indignantly.  What happens next may vary as well.  Does the bully back down?  Or does this start a process of escalation that peaks in a physical conflict that has them swinging punches and tumbling in a ball down the stadium stairs?  Let's consider one last, slightly different option: John looks up from his seat and meets his gaze.  "You know, I'm sorry you're upset, but I don't think this has anything to do with me.  I think this is between you and her.  He pauses for a second as if to gather himself and then continues, "And I don't really appreciate you coming up here giving me a bad attitude - I don't even know you."  To which the other answers sarcastically, "Oh sorry, sir," but nevertheless seems to have calmed down.  John get's up.  "I'm gonna go grab a drink and let the two of you sort it out in the meantime."

            So what is the difference?  Looking from the outside in at the first two examples, we can summarize fairly simply.  In terms of conflict, it is the classic case of the fight or flight response.  The first example is a passive reaction to conflict, the second an aggressive reaction.  So what is it that makes the third example different?  In the last scenario, it seems as though John is more balanced - he stands his ground, yet still manages to be understanding and give space.  In the conflict resolution literature, this is referred to as responding versus reacting, and in martial arts as fight or flight versus flow (Dobson 1993).  But is this higher capacity of responding really so simple to call upon, especially given the realities of confrontation?  Can we simply choose not to take something personally or not to be scared of someone?  I think fear is perhaps always a reality, but when we are functioning from the level of fight or flight, where one is driven largely by fear and concerned with surviving, it will be very challenging to balance one's inner psycho-physiological state, let alone consider consciously how to respond to another person.  Such a response is not only highly unlikely, it is also highly unreasonable to expect given the circumstances.  If one is unsure of one's own safety and security, you can hardly expect them to take responsibility for the safety or security of others.  While the first two examples of conflict in our story dealt with a fear-based response to conflict, ones which, fight or flight, permit or act out violence, the third exemplified non-violence.  This is a noble ideal, but one of which fewer people may actually be capable.  In order to protect or serve the best interests of someone else, you must first be able to protect and have a mature sense of what your own best interests are.     

               This all begs a deeper questions - not only how to transcend fear so that it is something we have, not that has us, but the way of knowing - the level of maturity that makes such a feat possible in the first place.  For this I will be drawing largely upon Robert Kegan's subject-object or constructive-developmental "orders of consciousness" model.  I would like to explore these orders and how they give rise to various capacities for conflict resolution.  It will be largely to question whether the capacity for the actual resolution of conflict is something that is within our capacity, or whether it in fact requires a higher order of consciousness, a fundamentally different way of knowing the self and its relationship to other.  I will keep an integral framework in mind, the domains of 'I,' 'We' and 'It,' or in the literature, Anger Management, Conflict Resolution and Self Defense to briefly examine just what demands each is making and how to modify such demands so that they are in fact accessible to their audiences.

Robert Kegan's Orders of Consciousness

            In his book, In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life, Dr. Kegan has dedicated considerable depth of vision and impressive intellectual effort to explaining what he calls "orders of consciousness."  While I can hardly hope to do justice to his work here, I would like to summarize his basic premise and use it throughout this paper: there is a "curriculum" in modern life that remains constant through each of its areas or "disciplines."  When viewed side by side, each of these different disciplines can be examined for the demands they hold in common.  What remains consistent is the way one knows the world, one's level of psychological maturity.  Yet as one grows through life, its curriculum continues to make greater and greater demands on us, ones which require greater mental complexity and emotional capacity - not just more intelligence or experience, but a qualitatively higher order of consciousness or way of knowing.  What he establishes in the process is that many people, in fact more than half of adults, may be "in over their heads" when it comes to the demands of modern life, whether it be in parenting, intimate relationships, work, education, or higher learning and psychotherapy.  That is to say, half of adults may still be striving to actually be adults - independent, self-authoring individuals.  To ask not just what we know as we grow, but how we know epistemologically is to ask what we identify with as defining of our self, what we depend on as reality as well as what we are able to stand apart from in independence and maturity.  He calls this subject-object psychology in that psychological maturation involves turning subject into object, ceasing to identify with how we were in favor of a transcendent yet more inclusive sense of self.

            While this sounds fairly abstract, when examined in light of our real-life experience of maturing as individuals, from being an adolescent to an adult for instance, it becomes instantly recognizable and intuitively accurate.  We can all identify moments in which we have to stand up to an authority figure to whom we previously relied on for approval and find approval instead within ourselves.  This feeling of co-dependency, the insecurity that goes along with immaturity is quite distinct.  I think Joseph Campbell captures this feeling very well in words when he describes it as the state of "seeking approval while simultaneously fearing disapproval" (Campbell 1994).  This quest for individuation, for self-approval and self-authorship involves disidentifying from a self that is psychologically dependent upon the approval of others, to a higher order of development where such approval or disapproval is instead treated as feedback to a self which is independent and whole, which has its own equally valid perspective.  It is not just making a rebellious mood of not needing approval, but the actual capacity or larger sense of self that in the face of great disapproval can maintain a larger perspective and not take things so personally.  Negative input is merely an object to a self that is larger than and serves a purpose larger than just what others think of it.  One can still interact with the context to which one was previously bound and see what is of value there, but one is no longer dependent on that old context for one's entire sense of value.  Growing up as a young adult and distinguishing oneself from one's family's values is precisely this process.  Another example might be a teenager who invests his or her sense of self on how others think they look.  When they receive negative feedback it feels as if they as a person, their whole self, are being rejected: "I almost died when she said that!" describes the feeling of one's self being rejected and it is perhaps this same feeling of death that we confront when we are asked to transform who we are. 

This is all not to say however that an earlier, more dependent order of consciousness is somehow deficient or damaged.  This is what is important about a constructive-developmental approach.  Each order of consciousness is a significant achievement, a triumph beyond that which preceded it.  Just several years before, a child was incapable of even considering the perspectives or opinions of others altogether, so that one may become self-conscious when one becomes capable of considering them is only natural.  When we can see both the emergent capacities and limitations inherent in each order of development, we can be compassionate when we consider how to "coach the curriculum" we find someone attempting to master as Kegan puts it, and, more importantly, make sure that what we are demanding of people is not beyond their current capacity.  The bridge must be anchored well at both sides, i.e. we must make sure we meet the learner at their level, a theme as we will see which is pivotal in conflict resolution as well.  Failing to do so is as inconsiderate and ineffective as a college professor who "wonders how his students fail to learn what he teaches so well" (Kegan 1997).

Orders of Consciousness and Conflict Resolution Capacity

            I would like to briefly go over the capacities that relate to conflict resolution at each of Kegan's orders of consciousness.  To the extent he has accomplished this already in his book, I would like to highlight those points as well.  This will allow us to begin to examine the mental demands of the current conflict resolution literature as well as to further explain what each order actually looks like in a more step-by-step fashion. 

2^nd Order - The Typhon: Emerging From the Reptile Mind

            For the purpose of explaining what developmental levels of conflict resolution capacity might look like, I will borrow from Ken Wilber's terminology.  The Typhon is a mythical creature that is half human, half serpent (Wilber 1996).  I think this creates a helpful image in our minds for what Kegan's second order of consciousness is about.  It is fitting that the higher functioning part of the brain actually emerges from the lower "reptilian" cortex, just as the human torso emerges from the serpent in the image of the Typhon (Caine & Caine 1994).  That the human portion is still fused with its lower animal instincts represents that the higher rational capacity is just beginning to emerge, and the self is still very basic and concerned with its own survival.  At the second order, one has not yet developed the mental complexity to consider the perspectives of others.  One has just become capable of perceiving one's self as an individual, separate from its prior dependency and identification with its immediate origin - parental or other family figures.  As such, exercising one's basic ability to "do it yourself" is important in affirming a newly budding self, and you will often hear young children at this stage insist emphatically on doing things on their own.  Conflict at this level is highly competitive and self-absorbed and lacking higher reasoning or perspective taking capacity can easily descend into hitting, shoving or other kinds of fighting.  A basic awareness of rules, with an emphasis on simple reciprocity - namely the punishments that will result if rules are broken is the main motivator for delaying one's impulses (Crain 1985).  At this level, one is consumed with one's self-interest and so there can be notion of conflict resolution, which would require considering an other with whom to consciously resolve differences.                    

3^rd Order - Horse and Rider: Body-Mind Duality (Who's Riding Who?)

As the self matures towards becoming psychologically distinct, it develops as well the mental complexity to infer the distinctness of others.  In this moment, one's whole self becomes a part in a greater whole - what was subject alone becomes object to a greater sense of subjectivity - a subject in society.  When one comes to realize that others' have their own perspectives and may be looking at them, it naturally makes one highly self-conscious.  Now one's own self is seen in contrast to the needs, perspectives and motives of others - to what 'they' think.  The challenge of becoming an individual remains, but now in the greater, more challenging context of what 'they' - peers, society, or authorities demand of us.  This is, again, Campbell's notion of "seeking approval, while fearing disapproval," of seeking a sense of belonging in a larger community at the same time, paradoxically, as one also seeks to become an independent individual.  The image of rider and horse represents the main balancing act at the third order to establish a sense of personal authority.  With the newfound sense of self-consciousness and insecurity, one compensates one of two ways: one attempts to affirm one's self either by asserting it or by seeking the approval of others.  It is, simply put, a variation on the theme of fight or flight - rebellion versus compliance - and although the fear of annihilation is psychological and not directly physical, it is nonetheless every bit as real as we considered before.  This struggle of the third order self was exemplified in the first two versions of our story about John, who lacking a strong sense of self, was unable to reconcile the needs of self and other - the predominate tendency was either to submit to or attempt to dominate the other.

This is not to be entirely disparaging of the third order, as there are many important emergent capacities that come along with self-consciousness.  Now that one can consider both self and other, one can also work in terms of actual conflict resolution.  The ability for abstract thought, which peaks at this stage, enables basic perspective taking, cooperation, rational discussion in terms of fairness, rules and roles, control of one's anger, expression of needs and the ability to resolve differences in light of what generally constitutes good relationships (Crain 1985).  At this point however, the relationship of self and other is quite basic, and so thinking is still largely in the concrete, dualistic terms of good and bad, right or wrong, us or them, win and lose.  And although the self is capable of cooperation at this level, it is still on a quest for its own authority, and so its mode of behavior is bound to be based in insecurity or deficit motivated, and therefore still overly competitive (Kohn 1993).  For this reason as well, the third order self thinks largely in terms of a victim mindset: an injured self that takes revenge against an enemy.  Even though one has a basic ability to take another's perspective and even experience basic empathy, this is most likely possible when one is on the outside looking in at someone with whom one identifies versus the much higher capacity to actually have empathy for one's own enemy.

4^th Order: Rider and Horse: The Rational Rider

The image of a rider in control of his horse, steering it in a self-determined direction is the notion of a mature, self-authoring adult.  Instead of an insecure self-consciousness, one is instead conscientious, capable of considering other yet without the former sense of obligation.  To a larger, independent sense of self, one is not ruled by the views of others but has the capacity to consider them with receptivity; one does not need to aggressively assert one's views but has the capacity to express them with self-confidence.  What was subject has become object - what was limitation has been transcended yet included as capacity.  Now we can begin to speak of conflict reconciliation - since one has developed a secure sense of self, one is now freed to assume responsibility for the limitations of others - to meet them at their own level rather than vie with them for superiority.  It is this responsibility, vision and direction that largely defines the fourth order of consciousness.  Couched in terms of martial arts, one must be able to control or protect one's self first before one is able to control or protect others.  As a self-responsible individual, one is capable of self-awareness - not of just controlling anger, of counting to ten for instance, but of inquiring into and operating upon the unconscious thoughts and judgments that are its triggers.  Rather than reacting based on one's purely selfish impulses, one can seek to respond in a way that supports not just co-operation, which may be based on an agreement merely for the sake of convenience or expediency, but collaboration - mutually benefiting, win-win scenarios.  One takes conflict one step less personally at this level as in the third version of our story about John who is able to see that the conflict may not be about him at all.  One begins to regard more compassionately the real motivations behind aggressive or violent behavior in one's self and in others, although not yet at the level of complexity where one's enemy is within (one's enemy is a mirror of one's own unconscious).  The self has also made an important step from body-mind duality to integration - in being able to stand apart from our emotional reactions - albeit sometimes in the moment, sometimes in retrospect - we have gained control over the animal upon which we ride. 

Just as we have accomplished establishing a sense of authority and personal power on our own terms, we are asked to question its validity.  This is the shift from modernity to postmodernity, from an authority that is absolute and opaque to one which is relative and translucent.  Again, a sense of ego must be built before it can be transcended yet as soon as it is built, a new paradox arises, a new dialectic challenge, in this case to transcend the limited, pathological aspect of one's authority yet include what is good in the context of a larger, more mature sense of reality.

5^th Order - The Centaur: Integration of Body and Mind, Self and Other

            The image of the Centaur is a wonderful reminder of what the fifth order represents.  Rather than a rider who is tossed about by the impulses of the emotive body-ego or a rational rider who represses these impulses, the two are fused into one (Wilber 2001).  This body-mind integration implies that thinking in the mind is rooted in emotional equilibrium in the body.  This kind of emotional centeredness is dependent upon a self that is ego aware - that can stand apart from and question its own authority, its own motivation.  Doing so is the basis not only of being integrated in body and mind, but of being literally in integrity in relation to other.  This is a transcendent sense of authority that has can now consciously employ the self-doubting capacity of the third order on the one hand and the assertive authority of fourth on the other without being limited by either.  This balance is represented in the eastern yin-yang symbol where the black is integrated with a dot of the white and vice versa - an integration of opposites into a larger, more balanced sense of self as in Kegan's subject-object theory.  At the fifth order, authority does not just demand of others, it demands as well the translucency of its own authority, the capacity to embody and mutually reciprocate that which it enforces.  If we attempt to disparage the perspective of another but cannot acknowledge the partiality of our own, then we embody not integrity, but hypocrisy - the basic ego tendency to project onto others what we fail recognize within ourselves.  As Kegan states so well:

"...conflict is a likely consequence of one or both of us making prior, true, distinct, and whole our partial position.  The conflict is potentially a reminder of our tendency to pretend to completeness when we are in fact incomplete.  We may have this conflict because we need it to recover our truer complexity."

Recognizing this pattern within ourselves is exactly what is meant by ego awareness - to locate the situations in which one fails to practice what one preaches and to ask not just if I have been able to maintain my ideals amidst outside pressure, but if I am able to transform myself based on such pressure.  To take as partial one's own authority such that we can acknowledge the source of our own projections is what allows us to root thinking in a place of selflessness and emotional calm beyond ego. 

Ken Wilber calls this kind of spiritually-integrated thinking vision logic in that it reveals a highly complex interrelationship:  that body and mind, self and other are actually not two.  This is yet another interpretation of the yin-yang symbol - the white contains a dot of the black and vice versa.  This implies not just the golden rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," a basic kind of integrity that one is capable of following at the fourth order, but the inter-subjective realization that as I do unto others I unconsciously do unto myself - what I perpetrate on others I also perpetrate on myself, that which I hate in my enemy is an embodiment of something I hate within myself.  This requires a great deal of maturity, a higher order of integrity and a person at the fifth order is calm at the center of the storm as a result of this deep level of self-knowledge and vision.  Such wisdom about self and other is naturally complimented with compassion, the sense of empathy on this basis that can give rise to great healing: in bringing love to what I cannot accept in another, I bring love to what I cannot accept within myself and further, when I am able to forgive someone for their transgressions, I allow us each to forgive ourselves.  Conflict at this level is not taken personally or not personally, it is taken transpersonally - it is conceived in terms of an enlightened self-interest, of an altruistic regard for others whereby one can respond to a conflict not based on one's own ego, but with an intuition towards the true motivation underlying one's opponent.  Really, there is no sense of even having an opponent and if one begins to make this judgment, it is used as a mirror towards working on one's own authoritative ego - one only goes about changing someone else by first changing one's self (Katie 2003).  This results not in resolution where self and other remain fundamentally unaltered, but where, empty of self-interest, self becomes a gateway for the mutual transformation of self.   While victory over one's self became possible at fourth order, the fully empathic experience of locating the enemy within becomes mature at fifth order.  Each person serves one part in a two-way mirror, and though there are two people in reflection there is only one image - that of the self projecting onto itself.  Here to truly understand is to truly feel - one can understand and feel compassion for the hatred of others because one has the vision that more than anything, this hatred is directed unconsciously at their own self and is a framework that creates their whole reality.  Paradoxically, if one inquires deeply enough with one's heart, one perceives that what is truly right for self is right for other; what injures an other secretly injures the self.  This is the triumph of the fifth order.    

Anger Management and Conflict Resolution: Coaching the Curriculum

Now that we have established what conflict resolution might look like at each of Kegan's orders of consciousness, I'd like to take a brief look into the popular literature and see exactly what is required to coach the curriculum as at each level.  In my review, I looked for common themes and techniques and given that most people are working on the shift from the third to the fourth order, I kept a sharp eye for any material that might make unreasonable demands at this level and consequently put people in over their heads.  Some books, like one from New Harbinger publications talks about "designing your own treatment plan" immediately throw up fourth order flags.  Another, incidentally from the same publisher, which has a title that includes the term "dialectical," and within the first few pages talks about what should be assumed of the reader "before taking up this book" has the same effect.  Other titles however, like Terry Dobson's Aikido in Everyday Life: Giving in to Get Your Way, seem to be making efforts at bridging third and fourth orders together.  Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life was particularly striking in that, unknowingly or not, it seemed to evolve from third to fourth to fifth order as it moved through its chapters.  As such, it captured the basic structure for what was being required in the literature in general at each order: observing vs. judging, identifying and expressing feelings, taking responsibility for feelings (our own), making requests vs. demands, listening for feelings and needs, empathy that heals, connecting compassionately with ourselves, expressing our anger, protective use of force, liberating ourselves and counseling others, expressing appreciation.  One starts by affirming one's own needs, then moves slowly towards connecting with and listening to others, then to self-introspection, authority, the deeper relationship of self and other and lastly to appreciation and love.

The basic point here is that at the third order, having the integrity to "make your enemies your greatest teachers," to do what's right for the other person or the capacity to inquire into why someone feels angry or behaves a certain way are all really unfair requests as the self is still attempting to affirm its own self-worth.  Since the basic underlying mode at third order is insecurity, whether unconscious or highly-self conscious, it is best to reinforce the self at this level.  Focusing instead on asking people to express their own emotions, and acknowledge their own needs by learning to make requests is bound to be a more developmentally appropriate expectation as it affirms a healthy sense of self and helps in settling out the expression versus suppression double-bind.  Empowering them towards calm, clear self-expression allows them voice their anger or fear without fearing disapproval.  After all, no one can argue with the way you feel.  This in turn lays the grounds for the fourth order challenge of owning or taking responsibility for one's feelings.  As awareness of self and other is a focus as well, separating observations from judgments and basic reciprocation of requests versus demands is a good way to "coach the curriculum" towards deeper empathy and perspective taking capacity.  Kegan explains in terms of making "I" statements as well as an exercise in which a teacher has students in debate class repeat another's point of view to the other's satisfaction before they can proceed with their own point of view.  Another very skillful example of "bridging" that I came across in anger management discussed forgiving others not primarily for the other person's sake, but for to free yourself from all the stress and negativity that comes along with an inability to let go (Ingram 2006). 

At the fourth order, people are emotionally independent enough not to take things quite so personally.  Instead of aggressive behavior being taken as an affront to one's self, one can think more dispassionately in terms of what is really causing the conflict and what can be done to solve it.  Being consciously proactive versus emotionally reactive, acknowledging the validity an attack without losing control or needing to "save face," noticing one's trigger points, and seeing more to the roots of violent behavior means that we are now actually capable of "taking responsibility for our feelings."  As I said in the outset, the capacity of the fourth order to take responsibility is unfair in those terms for someone at the third order.  Such a demand in those words is bound to be perceived as insensitive and make someone think that you don't care about them or their perspective - that you're not on their side - even though what you're actually wanting for them is the positive resolution that results when one can take responsibility for their feelings.  This is often the limitation of the fourth order, that lacking the deeper compassion of the fifth order, there is a certain authoritative arrogance that asks, why can't they just do it, just take responsibility for themselves, just be intrinsically motivated?  Since I have gone to the trouble of doing this, everyone else ought to be able to reciprocate; it's just a matter of choice.  The reality is that if we really are at a higher order of complexity we should need no such reciprocation - we should be able implicitly and unconditionally be able to understand and sympathize with the other person's way of making sense of the conflict or difference between us having one time viewed the world from that lens ourselves.  This, however, may be then again too unfair a demand to make of someone at fourth order, yet it is still interesting to notice the subtle hypocrisy at this level.  You can't very well resolve a conflict by making demands of your enemy.  This is about as useful telling someone who is upset that they shouldn't be angry.  One has to be careful of assumptions so as not to misuse some of what is found in the literature at the fourth order. 

However, since most of the literature is available to individuals at the fourth order, they should be well up to the challenge of books that recommend deeper self-inquiry and self-awareness, that utilize techniques for emotional centering or conflict resolution and emphasize how we can take responsibility for ourselves.  Books like the ones from New Harbinger as well as self-improvement books from the popular or new age literature e.g. Eckhart Tolle, Byron Katie, Dale Carnegie, Wayne Dyer, the Dalai Lama, or whomever your preference are all very accessible.  Focusing on how to competently manage one's self in relation to others, on how to take responsibility for others as well in this sense, affirms a purpose in terms that the fourth order identifies with (self-responsibility, self-authorship), yet starts to serve a higher purpose as well.  Learning to resolve conflicts and trying to help others to do the same eventually leads to the integrity that comes from acknowledging what this really requires, not just in terms of the relativity of different approaches and learning styles, but the relativity of one's own authority.  This understanding goes hand in hand with the feeling of empathy for the state in which others find themselves and as such a natural compassion for the emotions and frustration that arises along with their perspectives.

Self-Defense: On Using the Physical to Transcend the Physical

            I would like to conclude with a short discussion of how the physical dimension of conflict resolution, namely martial arts training, offers a natural bridge from the third to the fourth order.  Martial arts which involve grappling such as Aikido, Judo or Jiu-Jitsu all offer support for the non-violent resolution of conflict, of controlling one's opponent ideally without inflicting injury.  Aikido in particular offers this philosophy expressly through its notion of blending with an opponent's force without fighting, yet all the above arts involve using techniques that utilize leverage, redirecting the opponent's energy, and other great metaphors for conflict resolution.  As one learns about these physical qualities through feeling and experiencing them in their bodies, they naturally begin to make sense in context of one's everyday life - the physical transcends the physical.  Dojo communities offer a great opportunity for developing self-confidence, commitment, competence, role-modeling, and service.  All of these qualities support secure growth from the third to fourth orders, and that these qualities are developed largely through physical training and bodily experience provides the bridge over which this growth proceeds.  As well as martial arts training, stress-management techniques such as meditation, breathing, mindfulness-awareness practices are also based in practice instead of theory and can provide support for conflict resolution so long as they are made to be developmentally appropriate as well.  A curriculum which utilizes physical practices in order to teach more abstract principles of conflict resolution could be a highly effective, integral approach that helps address the problem of stress and violence in today's schools.  It is my hope to use this paper as a developmental step of my own towards appropriately and considerately building such a curriculum.      

References and Resources

Caine, R. & Caine, G. (1994).  Making Connections: Teaching and the Human Brain.  Dale             Seymour Publications.

Campbell, J. (1994) The Way of Myth.  Shambhala Press.

Chawkin, N. (2006) The Embodied Mind as a Metaphor for Spiritual Integration.  Private Transcript.

Crain, W. (1985) Theories of Development. Prentice-Hall. pp. 118-136.  (Kohlberg)

Cornfield, J. (1999).   "Another Way."  Chicken Soup for the Soul: Living Your Dreams.  HCI.

Dobson, T. (1993).  Aikido in Everyday Life: Giving in to Get Your Way.  North Atlantic Books.

Gentry, W. (2007) Anger Management for Dummies.  Wiley Publishing.

Ingram, L. (2006) Anger Management Tool Kit - Proven Techniques.  Received from

<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 200%">http://www.angermgmt.com/techniques.asp on December 8th, 2006.

Katie, B. (2003).  Loving What is.  Three Rivers Press.

Kegan, R.  (1998)  In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life.  Harvard University Press.

Kohn, A. (1993) No Contest: The Case Against Competition. 

McKay, M. Davis, M. Fanning, P. (1997) Thoughts & Feelings: Taking Control of Your Moods and Your

Life.  New Harbinger Publications. 

NVC (Non-violent communication) Research.

Retrieved November 14^th, 2006 from http://www.cnvc.org/nvc-research.htm

Online Etymology Dictionary.  Attitude. Empathy.  Spirit. Temper. 

Retrieved November 13^th, 2006 from http://www.etymonline.com/

Rosenburg M. (2005) Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life. (2^nd Edition)  Puddle Dancer

Press.

Rosenburg, M. (2002) Getting Past the Pain Between Us: Healing and Reconciliation Without

Compromise.  A presentation of Nonviolent Communication ideas and their use.  Puddle Dancer Press.

Rosenburg M. Key Facts About the Non-Violent Communication Process

    Received November 14^th, 2006 from http://www.nonviolentcommunication.com/aboutnvc/keyfacts.htm

Spradlin, S. (2002) Don't Let Your Emotions Run Your Life: How Dialectical Behavior Therapy Can Put

You in Control. New Harbinger Publications. (disclaimer)

Stevens, J. (2002) The Art of Peace.  Shambhala Press.

Thompson, G. & Jenkins, J. (1993) Verbal Judo: The Gentle Art of Persuasion.

Tolle, E. (2004).  The Power of Now.  New World Library.

Wilber, K. (1996) The Atman Project: A Transpersonal View of Human Development (2^nd Edition). The

Theosophical Publishing House.

Wilber, K. (2001).  No Boundary: Eastern and Western Approaches to Personal Growth.      Shambhala Press.

Addendum: Another Way

From Chicken Soup for the Soul

The train clanked and rattled through the suburbs of Tokyo on a drowsy spring afternoon. Our car was comparatively empty - a few housewives with their kids in tow, some old folks going shopping. I gazed absently at the drab houses and dusty hedgerows.

At one station the doors opened, and suddenly the afternoon quiet was shattered by a man bellowing violent, incomprehensible curses. The man staggered into our car. He wore laborer's clothing and was big, drunk and dirty. Screaming, he swung at a woman holding a baby. The blow sent her spinning into the laps of an elderly couple. It was a miracle that the baby was unharmed.

Terrified, the couple jumped up and scrambled toward the other end of the car. The laborer aimed a kick at the reatreating back of the old woman but missed as she scuttled to safety. This so enraged the drunk that he grabbed the metal pole in the center of the car and tried to wrench it out of its stanchion. I could see that one of his hands was cut and bleeding. The train lurched ahead, the passengers frozen with fear. I stood up.

I was young, then, some 20 years ago, and in pretty good shape. I'd been putting in a solid eight hours of Aikido training nearly every day for the past three years. I liked to throw and grapple. I thought I was tough. The trouble was, my martial skill was untested in actual combat. As student of Aikido, we were not allowed to fight.

"Aikido," my teacher had said again and again, "is the art of reconciliation. Whoever has the mind to fight has broken his connection with the universe. If you try to dominate people, you're already defeated. We study how to resolve conflict, not how to start it."

I listened to his words. I tried hard. I even went so far as to cross the street to avoid the "chimpira," the pinball punks who lounged around the train stations. My forbearance exalted me. I felt both tough and holy. In my heart, however, I wanted an absolute legitimate opportunity whereby I might save the innocent by destroying the guilty.

"This is it!" I said to myself as I go to my feet. "People are in danger. If I don't do something fast, somebody will probably get hurt."

Seeing me stand up, the drunk recognized a chance to focus his rage. "Aha!" he roared. "A foreigner! You need a lesson in Japanese manners!"

I held on lighly to the commuter strap overhead and gave him a slow look of disgust and dismissal. I planned to take this turkey apart, but he had to make the first move. I wanted him mad, so I pursed my lips and blew him an insolent kiss.

"All right!" he hollered." Your gonna get a lesson!" He gathered himself for a rush at me.

A fraction of a second before he could move, someone shouted "Hey!" It was earsplitting. I remember the strangely joyous, lilting quality of it - as though you and a friend had been searching, diligently for something and he had suddenly stumbled upon it. "Hey!"

I wheeled to my left; the drunk spun to to his right. We both stared down at a little old Japanese man. He must have been well into his seventies, this tiny gentleman, sitting there immaculate in his kimono. He took no notice of me, but beamed delightedly at the laborer, as though he had a most important, most welcome secret to share.

"C'mere," the old said in an easy vernacular, beckoning to the drunk, "C'mere and talk with me." He waved his hands lightly.

The big man followed, as if on a string. He planted his feet belligerently in front of the old gentleman and roared above the clacking wheels, "Why the hell should I talk to you?" The drunk now had his back to me. If his elbow moved so much as a millimeter, I'd drop him in his socks.

The old man continued to beam at the laborer. "Whatcha been drinkin?" he asked, his eyes sparkling with interest. "I been drinkin' sake," the laborer bellowed back," and it's none of your business!" Flecks of spittle spattered the old man.

"Oh, that's wonderful," the old man said, "absolutely wonderful! You see, I love sake too. Every night, me and my wife (she's 76 you know) we warm up a little bottle of sake and take it out into the garden, and we sit on an old wooden bench. We watch the sun go down, and we look to see how our persimmon tree is doing. My great-grandfather planted that tree, and we worry about whether it will recover from those ice storms we had last winter. Our tree has done better than I expected, though, especially when you consider the poor quality of the soil. It is gratifying to watch when we take our sake and go out to enjoy the evening - even when it rains!" He looked up at the laborer, eyes twinkling.

As he struggled to follow the old man, his face began to soften. His fists slowly unclenched, "yeah," he said "I love persimmons, too....." His voice trailed off.

"Yes," said the old man, smiling," and I'm sure you have a wonderful wife."

"No," replied the laborer. "My wife died." Very gently; swaying with the motion of the train, the big man began to sob. "I don't got no wife, I don't go no home, I don't go no job. I'm so ashamed of myself." Tears rolled down his cheeks, a spasm of despair rippled though his body.

As I stood there in my well-scrubbed youthful innocence, my make-this-world-safe-for-democracy righteousness, I felt dirtier than he was.

Then the train arrived at my stop. As the doors opened, I heard the old man cluck sympathetically. "My, my" he said, "that is a difficult predicament indeed. Sit down here and tell me about it."

I turned my head for one last look. The laborer was sprawled on the seat with his head in the old man's lap. The old man was softly stroking the filthy, matted hair.

As the train pulled away, I sat down on a bench in the station. What I had wanted to do with muscled had been accomplished with kind words. I had just seen Aikido in action, and the essence of it was love. I would have to practice the art with an entirely different spirit. It would be a long time before I could speak about the resolution of conflict.

• - Terry Dobson

Currently reading : In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life By Robert Kegan Release date: By 21 July, 1998