THE ART OF NEGOTIATION AND COMPROMISE


arguments for and against secrecy during negotiations





A Study in Thought

sa059



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

A violent confrontation represents a mechanism for dissolving tensions.
The results of an all-out struggle for survival.
The instinct of territoriality.
Inter-dependence, and the lingering needs for a territory.
The bonds of human inter-dependence have grown beyond national boundaries.
The territorial instincts of political leaders.
When we lose the ability to negotiate and compromise.
Dying as soldiers on the battlefield, or as civilians in vulnerable cities, is a high price to pay for saving the prestige of our nation.
When we are caught by a deadly instinct.
Rationalising our attitudes of hostility and acts of belligerence.
The cloak of "self-defense".
What makes us so sure, that we are not to blame?
We pay a high price for the comforting feeling of "being absolutely right".

We tend to think, that a belligerent confrontation, an act of hostility, or, an outright war between ethnic groupings or entire nations, is the essence of the problem for which we have to find a solution, but, in essence, the clash of arms is the solution for, or the "dissolution" of, the tensions and frustrations that have been building-up. Indeed, throughout the realm of living nature, we see, that the competitive struggle, or the predatory kill, is a solution to the build-up of tensions that have been generated as a result of diverging drives and objectives.

Often, the struggle is very un-even, such as the confrontation between predator and prey, but, competitive pressures and tensions between similar organisms are, usually, more evenly matched. Here, a number of similar or essentially identical organisms search for a possibility to exist in the same territory, or the same "ecological niche", and, they resolve their competitive tensions by a struggle. The winner lives and reproduces, while the loser flees or dies, and removes himself and his potential off-spring from the scene.

If the loser flees, he has to renew the competitive struggle somewhere else, or, he has to fight harsher ecological conditions in an area that has not been populated, as yet, by the members of his species. If he is successful and gains in strength, he may come back and challenge, once more, his original competitors.

The vigorous and mature members of a species are, often, firmly in the grip of their instincts and drives, especially, when they are subjected to severe competitive pressures. As a result, they tend to disperse themselves over as large a territory as possible, while claiming an area of space, or territory, to sustain their basic needs. Competitive dispersion, as well as the behaviour of "territoriality", are based, therefore, on the same existential needs and mechanisms, but, we associate the concepts of competitive dispersion, primarily, with uni-cellular organisms, because this concept indicates a rather passive process, while we reserve the concept of territoriality for the more complex living organisms, that show an active and purposeful behaviour of claiming and defending a certain territory.

Territoriality is a complex pattern of behaviour, centered around the instinctive drive to claim and defend a certain territory. Natural selection has sharpened such a behaviour-pattern in a large variety of animals, because it obviously helps them to survive as individuals, and, it allows them to perpetuate the species by becoming successful parents. These animals will have a territory that can sustain their basic needs and energy requirements, while animals that are unable to claim a territory, have to lead a precarious existence at the periphery of someone else's territory, or, they are driven-off into harsher territories that yield less, but, are also less densely populated.

The extent of a territory is not defined, exclusively, by a particular geographical area, because such an area often consists of a variety of "ecological niches", where different species' live side by side, with over-lapping territories. This is possible, if their existential requirements do not compete. For example, the territories of birds, mammals, reptiles and insects may overlap to a considerable extent, and their ecological inter-relationships may become quite complex. Look at a marsh or a swamp, where a large variety of species' live closely together.

Man has just as strong an instinct of territoriality as most other mammals, but, because man has also inherited the "anlage" to develop social inter-dependencies, the territories of individual human beings tend to fuse into the territory of a small group. The predominant feature of man's territorial behaviour is the tendency to defend a communal territory. The group may represent a family on a homestead, or a tribe, but, regardless of the size of the grouping, the required area is more or less defined. In our modern times, the group is likely to be the size of a nation, with the boundaries of a sovereign state. In each example, it is clear, how strong our instinctive drives are to defend the integrity of what we consider to be "our territory".

Within a social grouping, there is still a fairly strong tendency to stake or claim a certain territory as our "personal property", in particular, in societies, where the personal ownership of land is allowed, or, even encouraged. Yet, if we look closely at the division of communal property into personally owned land, we note, that the members rely rarely upon these personal territories for all their needs. Certainly, those, who farm or supply a large portion of their food requirements from working a piece of land, develop a measure of "self-sufficiency", but, nearly always, people have to engage in a trade, or an exchange of goods and services, in order to get the necessary tools, energy-supplies, building-materials or supplementary food-stuffs, which they can not produce themselves.

Indeed, the human being has a strong tendency to become dependent upon such inter-dependencies or exchanges, because man has learned that it is nearly impossible, and certainly inefficient, to try to produce, from scratch, all the necessary tools, materials, energy-supplies and food requirements.

There is another important consideration, here, because the processes of exchange, or trade, between individuals and groups of people provide, not only, tools and other materials, but, also, an increased level of knowledge and technical expertise, which is dependent upon extensive contacts between groups of people.

The exchange of goods, services and information makes it possible to live much closer together. With modern tools and technology, and, without the need to be completely self-sufficient, we can afford to be satisfied with a much smaller territory. This territory shrinks in urban and suburban existence to a small appartment, where we seek a few moments of quiet and privacy, after a period of intensive contact with other people, but, even, in a modern, rural setting, we see, that people do not need any more land than they can cultivate or work themselves.

Modern technology relies upon sophisticated machinery and petro-chemical fuels to till the earth, move it, cut-down the trees and alter a land-scape, quickly. Man's ability to alter the territory and ecological relationships is considerable, and, while the objective is to make it more inhabitable for the species of mankind, the long-term effects are, often, detrimental and contrary to this objective. The point we want to emphasise, here, is the fact, that, without tools and the knowledge, how to use and maintain these tools, we could not use the land and its resources so intensively, and, we would need a much larger territory to sustain ourselves.

This conclusion becomes clear, when we compare the modern rural life-style with the life-style of trapping and hunting, where people use only a fraction of the available resources to satisfy their existential needs. The area required is large and the utilisation of the resources is shallow compared to modern life. In contrast, we would be unable to sustain ourselves without technology in a small territory, nor, could we survive in the barren and colder areas of the globe, without knowledge, communications, transportation and a variety of sophisticated technical aids and energy-sources.

The mechanisms of inter-dependence and exchange, followed by technology and mechanisation, have freed us from back-breaking labour and made it possible to live in crowded conditions on a small territory. Certainly, we realise, now, how vulnerable crowded conditions are to social turmoil and chaos, and, we know, how dependent we are upon an outside supply of food and energy to sustain ourselves. We may, then, begin to dream of a place in the woods, where we can grow our own vegetables and have a few animals to supply our needs, but, if we are realistic, we realise, that we are still dependent upon the outside world to give us our tools and knowledge, as well as many of the supplementary foods, energy and building-materials.

As a small community, we have a much better chance to be independent and self-sufficient, compared to living alone, or, as a single, pioneering family-unit. The bonds of inter-dependence have grown, however, well beyond the boundaries of sovereign nations, and, this makes our nationalistic sentiments and patriotic pride rather hollow, rethorical and archaic.

However, national leaders still have a tendency to whip-up nationalistic sentiments and patriotic fervor, whenever they feel, or imagine, that "their territory" is endangered, or, when they fear that their authority is being challenged. It is remarkable, how easily our national leaders are persuaded to think, that they "own" the communal territories over which they have assumed a measure of leadership and responsibility. It is remarkable, how many nations, including large, prosperous and sophisticated societies, still do not have satisfactory mechanisms to elect representative leaderships. Too many leaderships still grab hold of the top positions in society by a juggling act of intrigue and intimidation, temporary and shifting alliances, as well as a measure of brute, military force.

We can state, without hesitation, that, by far, the largest category of armed conflict and acts of violence is made-up by disputes over territory. In particular, when we look at the behaviour of large groupings, we see, that the instinctive drives and emotional sentiments of territoriality play a dominant role in the growth of a conflict-situation and the preparations for war.

It never ceases to amaze me, how quickly apparently intelligent people are sliding into a belligerent stance, where they pledge, in all sincerity and fervor, the blood of their countrymen in an all-out fight against an aggressor who has not even lifted a finger against them. Our leaders become too easily puppets in the grip of their instincts, where they revert to this dangerous and pathetic game of belligerent posturing. They do not know, that they pay a high price for their belligerent rethoric, because they lose the ability to negotiate and compromise, and, they put themselves into a corner from where it is difficult to escape without a violent clash, or a severe loss of prestige. Then, the leaders will have to send their peoples into the battle-fields to slaughter each other, while they watch, safely, from their shelters, until they can toast each other after the war in a spirit of admiration for the valiant courage with which their soldiers have killed each other.

To die on the battlefields is a high price to pay for saving the honour and prestige of our belligerent leaders. Yet, time and again, people are whipped into a belligerent frenzy by their leaders, and, they seem to go willingly to the battle-fields. Many people do not seem to mind, that their leaders stay behind, when they have to go to the front-lines. It feels so good to shout "death to the enemy", and, it is so satisfying to lash-out at your evil opponent, because each side is absolutely convinced, that it fights for the honour of God and country.

The instinct of territoriality has probably killed more people than any other, single cause. I doubt, whether famine, poverty and diseases have, together, been responsible for as many death as the instincts of territoriality, because most of the poverty, diseases and famines we see in the world, are related, in one way or another, to wars between nations and communities, or, the displacement of the frightened and the weak by a triumphant and expansionist society, claiming, of course, the best territories for itself.

The territorial instinct has secured life and success, comfort and territory for the winners of a competitive struggle in each and every species of life, but, at the same time, an unbridled territorial instinct may lead to unbelievable upheavals and atrocities, and, it may, eventually, lead to a fatal and suicidal conflagration of the species of mankind because of its ability to make suicidal weaponry of mass-destruction.

Perhaps, we can still learn to control the drive to settle conflicts with violence, if we can learn to recognise what drives us to the "glory of war". We may be able to learn, how to negotiate a true pact of peaceful co-existence with each other, without getting suspicious, restless and frustrated, but we will have to learn a great deal more about our own psychological constitution, as well as the many mechanisms that take place within and between human beings.

We have inherited a strong and well-developed instinct of territoriality, and, it is remarkable, how strong this instinct shines through in our collective behaviour. This collective behaviour has, fortunately, also a well-developed trend towards cooperation and inter-dependence, and, we have discussed, how our individual territories seem to "fuse" into a communal territory, which is then "appropriated" or considered to be the private property of the leadership of this community.

Unfortunately, we do not seem to have inherited a significant tendency to cooperate at the level of the much larger social entity. As relatively small, tightly-knit communities, we show, once again, a much more primitive form of behaviour whenever we clash, because we are, then, strongly territorial in our outlook, as well as outright suspicious and hostile towards any group competing with us.

Man has learned to communicate on a conceptual level with the help of "language", consisting of arbitrary vocal sounds or symbols, and, this ability to talk, to communicate, and to reason, is, invariably, placed at the service of our existential requirements. We have learned to clothe our territorial instincts in a respectable dress of "national interests", and, we have all become very good at defending, with rethoric and arguments, those attitudes and actions, which our instinctive drives have prompted us to. We give ourselves an air of rationality and "legality", and, we can always find the most convincing reasons and arguments for calling our actions a "restraint behaviour of self-defense".

It is amazing, how a war can break-out and armies can penetrate deep into each other's territories as the result of such acts of "restraint and measured self-defense". It is amazing, how each side is always completely within its legal rights and reacts only to the unwarranted provocations of the other!

When will we learn to stop deceiving ourselves, and, when will we learn to see ourselves as we are; in the grip of a naked instinct of hostility and aggression, even, if we consider ourselves to be only reluctant defenders of a "just cause". When will we learn to drop the absolute qualifications of right and wrong, of good and evil, and, when will we consider, in a more emotionally neutral frame of mind, the mechanisms and forces that are playing with our mind, while threatening to destroy our existence? When will we learn to control our emotions and examine, in a truly broad perspective, the long history of causes and their effects, of provocations and escalations, which have been fueling the instincts of belligerent confrontation in a vicious cycle of mutual enforcement?

Certainly, we know, that we can learn to see reality this way. Can we not mediate as an outsider in a dispute, and, are we not able to see, how each side is to blame for the developments that led to a situation of conflict? If we can see, as an outsider, that the fighting parties always share the blame for their hostilities, be it to varying degrees, what, then, makes us so sure, that we are not to blame at all, and, that the other side bears all the responsibilities for the conflict, whenever we become embroiled in a conflict ourselves? Is it not naive to think, that our conflict is any different from any other conflict? Would our conflict not look to an impartial outsider exactly the same as a fight between outsiders looks to us?

Of course, there are peaceful solutions to any situation of competitive strife, and, there is no need, whatsoever, to fight wars. There is no need for soldiers to die in battle, nor, is there any reason, why our leaders should make biased and incendiary speeches. It certainly is possible to live in harmony and peace, but, we have to be willing to learn about ourselves, our instincts and emotions. We have to understand our belligerent nature, as well as our ability to be kind and generous. We have to know, what makes us tick, and, what price we have to pay for the comforting feeling of being "absolutely right".

.......

Chapter 2

Content

The functions of territorial behaviour.
The concept of an ecological balance.
Why the tensions of competitive strife continue to rise.
The lingering ferocity of our territorial instincts.
A slowly enlarging social unit.
Dividing necessary tasks and chores between a group of people.
The rise of the ability to recall memory-traces with representative symbols.
The "herd".
Herd-formation is not suitable for animals that require a sophisticated hunt in order to feed themselves.
The slow and arduous growth of a viable social entity.
Many complex developments are taking place simultaneously.
Mechanisms of social integration in small groupings.
Cultural and technical innovations are necessary for a successful, overall, large-scale social leadership.

When an animal has claimed its territory and staked-out the boundaries, its instincts will make it drive-off or resist a challenger. The challenger will be a member of his own species, with similar territorial requirements. If there is plenty of territory available, the problem is easily solved, because an animal, looking for a territory, and, able to choose between one that has already been claimed and one that is free, will choose the path of least resistance and leave the claimed territory alone. Sooner or later, the members of a species outnumber the territories that can be claimed with relative ease, and, some of them will not be able to find a suitable place to live.

If the challenger is unable to dislodge someone, he has to scrape a precarious existence at the periphery of someone else's territory, or, he will drift into a more difficult environment. After a period of successful growth, a species will experience the fact, that its territory or "ecological niche" has been filled to capacity, and, that it can not support more members. If the species is unable to "break-through" into new territories, the population of the species will "stabilise". The number of deaths and births will be roughly the same, and, we see a balance emerge between those forces within the species that push towards growth and procreation, and those, which are hostile to the species. Such limiting factors, or hostile forces, are, e.g. a limited territory or a saturated ecological niche, the predatory pressures from other species', or, environmental and climatological changes that endanger the existing ecological niche.

Many life-forms serve as a food-supply for another species, and, they become, therefore, a part of the territorial supply or ecological niche of its predator. This, in a nutshell, represents the balance of nature, and, nearly all species' reach a stable and sustainable population, which remains nearly constant, as long as no drastic changes take place in the constellation of factors determining this niche or ecological balance.

In many ways, the same mechanisms apply to the human species as well, and, if we look at the time when the nomadic tribes of early man were roaming over most of the habitable part of the globe, we can appreciate the fact, that, a steady increase in the number of human beings and tribal groupings sustained the tendency of competitive dispersion and fueled the drive to explore the more hostile climatic zones of the earth.

These tribes must have been self-sufficient, before the rise of more sophisticated contacts between larger social groupings, but, as we have discussed, self-sufficiency also meant the need for a relatively large territorial expanse, since the level of territorial utilisation without agriculture, animal domestication and sophisticated tools, was quite low, indeed.

It seems justified, therefore, to consider the emergence of the more populous societies, (such as the first cities and the spurt of cultural developments that made these large population densities possible), as a result of largely subconscious mechanisms, trying to solve the rising tensions associated with high levels of competitive strife between nomadic groupings. The habitable, and, certainly, the best areas, had all been taken. To challenge an established grouping and displace it from its territory, became increasingly arduous and costly, as the intensity and ferocity of the competitive battle were mounting all the time.

Mankind experienced a severe population crisis at the beginning of what we call the period of recorded history and the onset of the Great Civilisations. Many of the larger animals had been hunted to extinction or near-extinction. The quality and sustaining power of many territories was rapidly declining, at least, for a nomadic way of life. Strife between tribal groupings became more ferocious all the time. The sophistication of tools and weapons made a significant evolutionary leap, and, survival shifted from the ability to kill a large animal, to the ability to defeat another tribe and take its territory.

Perhaps, we are justified to see the lingering ferocity of our territorial instincts as a legacy of this recent past, where, during the final shaping of our genetic make-up, the accent of survival laid, heavily, upon the quality of an alert intelligence, a rapid communication between the members of a tribe, as well as a ferocious, fearless aggressiveness towards a competing grouping.

Perhaps, you would like to ask, how large such a tribe or a nomadic grouping had become, as we try to visualise, in our minds, the details of this somewhat speculative, prehistoric past; before the onset of permanent settlements and the rise of the first cities. A precise answer is not easy to obtain, but, it seems logical to assume, that the size of the human groupings that formed a viable, social unit, became gradually larger as the competitive pressures were mounting.

As we have discussed before, it is certain, that the process of human differentiation, (the development of the specific human qualities that set us apart as a distinctive, conceptualising animal), took place within a social context. This means, that the processes of symbolic representation and the manipulation of conscious awarenesses took place after the onset of social integration, and, we may consider, therefore, the tendency or the instinct to seek enhanced viability in the formation of a social grouping, as part of our biological heritage.

On previous occasions, we have elaborated upon the development of symbolic awarenesses. These are conscious mental images we can name, and, we can arouse or evoke such conscious awarenesses or mental images in each other by using symbols, gesticulations, mimicry or vocal signals that are recognised by the other members of the group to which we belong.

It is difficult to imagine the development of conscious, symbolically representable images in a species where the adult members live a solitary life. Even the isolated family-unit seems too small to allow for the development of symbolic representations between its members. It is, therefore, likely that the social unit of the pre-human animal had already evolved to a fairly large size of, perhaps, one or two dozen animals. It is also likely, that a fairly sophisticated pattern of task-differentiations between the members had already developed, such as the division between the young and strong males going out to hunt, and, the females, their children, as well as an occasional "old" individual, staying behind and carrying-out "household chores", including the gathering of local fruits, berries and other edibles. We have argued, before, that the event of the "home coming", after a separation of a few hours, or, perhaps, even, a day or more, may have been one of the strongest incentives to try to communicate to each other the happenings that took place during this period of separation.

We can imagine the beginning of a process of mimicry, gesticulations and vocalisation, representing the experiences of one group, while the other group listens and watches attentively. If a "recognition" takes place, the audience may join-in, and, some of the members may then proceed to "tell their story", while now the other group watches. In this way, it is possible to visualise the emergence of a process of symbolic representation, because the frequent occurrence of similar experiences makes it possible to act-out and recognise happenings more quickly, without elaborate reproductions of the portrayed or communicated events. As a result, the mimicry and gesticulations become "stylised", or streamlined, and the process of communication is speeded-up considerably.

We have good reasons to believe, that this process of mimicry, gesticulation and vocalisation was sufficient to explain the emergence of what we call "conscious awareness", because the ability to evoke or recall a memory-trace with the help of such a symbolic representation, (without the actual or analogous circumstances that caused the memory imprint in the first place), lies at the core of the difference between animal and human awarenesses.

We will not discuss or elaborate these ideas any further, because we have done so before. We have not discussed in any detail, however, the concept, that this increase in the size of the social unit comes-about as a slow, evolutionary process. An enlarging social unit requires remarkable changes in the ability of the members to communicate or relate to each other. The larger the social grouping, the more "social events" are taking place simultaneously, and, the more complex the communications have to become, in order to maintain the unity of such a large or enlarging social grouping and prevent the process of "social splitting".

Actually, we can see two distinct trends evolve whenever a large number of individuals are beginning to live together. The most primitive, but, one of the most rapid ways to get a large body of animals grouped-together, is to develop a "herd". A herd is, in essence, a rather undifferentiated and amorphous grouping of numerous smaller units with kinship relationships. Perhaps, a group of a dozen animals or so, constitutes the basic unit, but, these units have intuitively experienced the existential advantages of roaming the plains together. Because of the abundant supply of grasses and other edibles, the mechanisms of competitive dispersion are rather dormant. By synchronising their movements, animals in a herd become much less vulnerable to their predators, because, now, the attack of a predator upon the herd will alert the entire herd, and, all the animals will adopt defensive or evasive behaviour-patterns. If the herd would be split-up into a large number of individually grazing groupings, the alarm signal would be limited to the small group that has been attacked.

Of course, there are disadvantages as well to herding. Such a dense population-concentration would be impossible for carnivorous hunters, because they have to stalk and catch their prey in a complicated and demanding performance. However, if the food is plentiful, and, if it only requires a lowering of the head to tear-off the leafs and get a meal together, the grouping together of many smaller units into a herd is a successful mechanism to enchance viability.

Species' that rely upon a sophisticated hunt, can not form a herd, but, they can still explore the advantages of grouping-together into larger units. However, these groupings have to evolve along different principles of operation than the aggregate of the herd. Here, the grouping together has to be centered around the purpose of carrying-out a complex task. This requires the "cooperation" of a number of individuals, and, we see, therefore, that this type of social enlargement is a far slower process compared to the formation of a herd, because it involves a gradual enlargement of the basic, viable social unit. This enlargement of the social unit requires an increase in the mechanisms of task-differentiation, more sophisticated communications, as well as an extention of the lines of authority, in order to make it possible to organise and integrate the activities of a fairly large number of individuals.

Here again, you may want to argue, that it is difficult to visualise the emergence of qualities such as "active organisation and integration", as well as other sophisticated leadership functions, especially, since we do not see, as yet, a complex and sophisticated system of symbolic representation, or a widespread ability to manipulate and understand such symbols.

Indeed, we see a good argument, here, for the concept that complex developments took place simultaneously and inter-dependently, whenever the pressures of survival and the continuous need to enlarge the range of exploitable food-resources, led to a trend of permanent cooperation. Such cooperation is needed, every time a large and powerful animal is hunted, and, at the same time, we see, that the difference between success and failure in attempting such a daring exploit, meant, the difference between abundance and starvation. The hunt of a large animal required the ability to coordinate actions with specific and detailed communications, but, if successful, it would be a powerful stimulus for a relatively large grouping to stay together.

This type of cooperation and communication may, initially, have been in the form of following a good, clever, intelligent and courageous example of leadership. Indeed, existential requirements sharpened the qualities of good natural leadership into the genetic code of our human ancestors, as we have discussed on many occasions. Successful behaviour of the small group of pre-human animals was, therefore, characterised by the ability to cooperate, at least, temporarily, and, it was also characterised by clear, understandable, exemplary behaviour-patterns. Successful cooperative behaviour included the ability to share the kill peacefully with the other members of the group.

As an integral feature in this process of recurrent cooperation between a fairly large number of individuals, and, perhaps, several distinct groupings, we see the importance of the ability to communicate with gesticulations and sign language. The ability to understand, and be guided by, these tentative communication signals, may easily have spelled the difference between life and death.

Slowly, the periods of cooperation between small groupings became more frequent and lasted longer, until they formed a more or less permanent bond of cooperation, and, we may visualise, how territorially nearly equal and independent groupings fused, eventually, into a larger unit, which still displayed the same hierarchical relationships that play such an important role in the smaller units. Some members started to assume leadership reponsibilities for the entire group, while leaders with lesser qualities faded, slowly, into a more submissive role.

As we have discussed before, the extention of leadership functions over an enlarging number of people imposes a rapidly increasing stress on the energies, intelligence and alertness of the leader, because the number of potential challengers increases, and the number of events the leader has to know, escalates dramatically. The leader has to know each member of the enlarged group intimately; at least, he has to know the members in an intuitive, subconscious manner, and, we have discussed the reasons, why it is likely, that, without cultural and technological aids, the limiting factor for the growth of a social grouping becomes, quickly, the size of a social grouping that can be overseen, known or "governed", successfully, by a single, natural leader.

We do not know, what the maximum size was of a group that could exist in a condition of health and flexibility under a single, natural leader. It seems fair to conclude, however, that the limitations of the capabilities of natural leadership provided the main stimulus for the evolution of the many cultural and technological developments that took place at the beginning of recorded history. These cultural and technical innovations made it possible to extent the powers and abilities of leadership over the enlarging social environment.

However, it is likely, that, even, before the onset of recorded history, an acceleration of cultural innovations had already begun, because the growth of the successful social unit depended upon cultural and technical innovations, enhancing the "governability" of the larger social groupings, making it possible for the leaders to guide them successfully.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

Behavioural refinement; enlarging the number of factors to be taken into account.
Behavioural flexibility; a review.
The close, evolutionary relatives of mankind.
A smooth transition from being an animal to being human.
Are we still animals?
A strong sexual drive.
A portrait of "early man".
A look at the genetically encoded instructions for parental care.
The essential vulnerability of behaviourally flexible youngsters.
Yielding to an emotionally satisfying behaviour of care and protection.
The cultural break-through is made possible by an increased reliance on the ability to learn.
Cultural and genetic codes.
Pseudo-ethical behaviour-patterns; the draw-backs of a rigid, genetic encoding.
Ethical behaviour for the human being requires, necessarily, a strong element of "voluntary choice".

Before we discuss, in more detail, the refinements of leadership, as well as the enlargement of the sphere of influence and power a leadership can obtain with the help of cultural and technological innovations, we should have a good look at the behavioural differentiations that have to take place in the members of an enlarging social unit. An increased versatility and differentiation of behavioural reactions was necessary, before the larger social unit could enjoy a measure of success, but, behavioural refinement and social enlargement had to proceed simultaneously and were intricately inter-woven with each other. After all, they represented two aspects of the same event; the evolution of the human society.

We note, here, a mechanism of mutual feed-back, because existential pressures upon the survival of the members of a species provided a continuous stimulus towards social integration, but, social integration could not progress to any extent, unless the individual members were able to adopt more cooperative attitudes and tolerant behavioural responses.

The basic differentiation of the behavioural response is the distinction between a movement away from a harmful stimulus, and a movement towards one that is "pleasant" or favourable. This primary differentiation of the response is visible in the most primitive and earliest uni-cellular life-forms, and, before we reach the stage where evolution explored the existence possibilities of a "learned" or modified response on the basis of "personal" or individualised experiences, a gigantic diversity in the behavioural repertoir had already evolved.

The variety of motoric responses became incredibly large, especially, when we consider the spectrum of multi-celluar animal life, after the successful invasion of "dry land" . At the same time, the range of sensory perceptions became also larger, but, each species was still rather precisely programmed so far as its range of perceptions was concerned. This was due to its precise anatomic and physiological parameters, as well as the limits imposed on its range of responses.

In other words; each animal species was built and programmed to receive a specific range of stimuli, and, its responses were rather stereo-typed, in spite of the fact, that these responses allowed for a great deal of motoric variability. For example, insects inherited a fixed stimulus-response pattern, or, rather, a limited number of precisely delineated behavioural programs. Just like a crystal-tuned receiver, an insect could, and, still can, switch its responsiveness, as well as its range of perceptions from one mode to the next, but, there are only a limited number of steps that can be taken.

Even in those animals which we classify as stereo-typed and "fixed" in their response-patterns, we see, when looking at a very small scale indeed, that the motoric responses depend upon a continuous feed-back of sensory data; e.g. the flight of an insect that is able to avoid numerous obstacles, depends on the accurate sensing of its environment and the ability to adapt its motoric responses accordingly.

However, during the evolution of the behaviourally flexible animals a most remarkable shift in emphasis took place. Behaviour-patterns became much less precisely determined by genetic instructions, because they were only "given in outline" by the genetic code. The precise adaptation of the behavioural response of the individual came to depend upon the "decisions", or judgements, of a living member of the species. This meant, that, behavioural adaptations started to rely, increasingly, upon a range of experiences from the past. These experiences must have been registered and classified by the central nervous system of the organism, in one way or another.

As we have discussed many times before, the human species is a direct descendent of this evolutionary line of behavioural flexibility, which culminated in a small sub-grouping of the mammals; the primates. Let us accept, for the time being, that the human being is, indeed, one surviving branch of this group of primates. This group used to be much larger and consisted of many more living species' than it does today. Our only close, living relatives, are the chimpanzee, the orang-oetang and the gorilla, but, it is likely, that, during the emergence of man, many closely related species' were also on the evolutionary road towards conscious awareness and the ability to conceptualise.

The existential pressures upon the primates were severe, and, many closely related species' became extinct. Eventually, the human species triumphed and became the undisputed master-hunter of the plains. Some of the primates managed to survive, because they retreated further and further away from man, and escaped, to a large extent, the ferocious hunting and killing instincts of "Homo Sapiens".

Early man inherited, not only, a highly sophisticed anatomical and physiological constitution, but, also, a basic repertoir of behaviour-patterns, such as those of parental care, small-scale social behaviour, as well as a tendency to explore and roam around whenever its territory became depleted of edibles and prey. Man roamed at the edge of the plains and the forests in small groupings, just as the surviving anthropoids still forage in small groupings deeper into the jungles, away from the human habitat.

Let us trace, carefully and slowly, a picture of the changes and refinements that took place in the behaviour of the human being, so that we may develop a "feel" for the smooth transitions that took place from being an animal to becoming a human being. Some people will argue, that we are still animals, and, that it does not require a spectacular leap in the powers of our imagination to visualise such a transition, but, most people, today, as well as in the past, felt so overwhelmed by their ability to think, speak, love and kill each other, that they considered themselves to be more akin to the deities of their beliefs, rather than to the beasts of the plains.

We remind ourselves, that man had lost contact with the other anthropoids species' a long time ago. Probably, the last relatives disappeared already from the same ecological niche at or around the time that Homo Sapiens began to think and speak, and, as we mentioned, the surviving anthropoid species' learned, quickly, in that dim and distant past, that they were no match for the ferocious members of early mankind.

In contrast to the basic, positive or negative response of the uni-cellular organisms, proto-man was a complex animal, with a variety of instinctive behaviour-patterns. He could be highly aggressive when hunting or confronted with an enemy, or, he could be relaxed, tender and careful, when playing with his offspring, playmates, or members of the opposite sex.

We should not romanticise, here, and, we should acknowledge, that the sexual drive was, and still is, a strong instinct that took its course when aroused. From our current physiological and psychological make-up, we can safely conclude, that proto-man was easily aroused sexually. After a successful hunt, his belly full and feeling secure, he would either sleep or engage in sexual contact.

This strong sexual urge was, probably, the result of an evolutionary spurt that preceded the differentiation of the human species. Man's evolutionary ancestors were small, vulnerable mammals with a precarious existence. A high mortality-rate required a high birth-rate, and, as an heir to the legacy of behavioural flexibility, their offspring were extremely vulnerable creatures and required a prolonged period of care.

It is, therefore, reasonable to sketch the proto-human being as a furtive, fugitive, ever-alert and intelligent creature, always sheltering its vulnerable family, making quickly use of opportunities to gather some edibles, or to hunt a small animal. Fear must have been, at that time, an even more predominant feature than ferocious aggression, and, when relaxed or sheltered, it must have tried to forget its fears for a moment in the pleasures of sex.

The pre-human ancestor would save his life as often by intelligent fore-sight and clever opportunism, as by the surprise attack with an unexpectedly effective blow from a stick or a stone. Weapon and tool handling was made possible by a pair of grasping hands, which were a legacy of an earlier period of evolution within the great tropical forests that covered much of the earth.

Survival depended, therefore, upon insight and judgement. It depended on the ability to know when to hunt, and when to hide; when to look for food, and, when to look for safety, but we should emphasise, that this act of "knowing" was, of course, entirely sub-conscious or intuitive. It was entirely below the level of conceptual awareness, because these animals had not entered, as yet, upon the road towards voluntary memory-recall and the manipulation of representative symbols.

We should have a good look at the genetic instructions for parental care, because the survival of the species depended upon the ability of the parental generations to guide their vulnerable offspring through the treacherous periods of infancy, childhood and adolescence. In addition, the attitudes or drives of parental care became a rich treasure for behaviour-patterns that still shape, to a large extent, the behavioural characteristics of human beings today.

When nature began to experiment with the existence possibilities of behavioural flexibility, it had to abandon, at least, to some extent, the route of instructing, precisely, an adequate behavioural response via the mechanisms of genetic encoding. These instructions were replaced with an overall "outline", or, a range of behavioural responses, where the "finer details", so to speak, had to be synthesised by the organism itself. These details would depend upon the incoming sense impressions and the circumstances of the moment, as well as upon past experiences of the individual or the parents.

This means, that a behaviourally flexible organism has to be "programmed" during its life; at least, during the early part of its life, when going through the phases of infancy, childhood and adolescence, such an animal has to acquire a large number of useful behavioural responses, and, the absence of precise genetic instructions for appropriate behavioural responses leaves the offspring of behaviourally flexible species', indeed, extra-ordinarily vulnerable. The only way to compensate for this vulnerability, is to load upon the parental generations, not only, the task of careful protection and conscientious feeding, but, also, the function of becoming a source of "input" and sense impressions for these youngsters. The stimuli from the parents function, then, as a source for learning, and, this source of stimuli "programs" the behavioural responses of the younger generations.

Such a shift from genetic instructions to "cultural" or environmental and parental instructions has the advantage, that the younger generations can be given an appropriate parental example, leading to a behaviour that is finely tuned to local circumstances and conditions. This makes a quick and rapid fine-tuning of behaviour possible, but, it also has severe draw-backs. If, for one reason or another, the parental example is defective and less suited to the prevailing circumstances, the younger generations are inappropriately programmed, and viability suffers.

Certainly, a faulty and deficient example of parental behaviour can be corrected, at least, to some extent, whenever a few of the most intelligent and adaptable members of the new generations survive and learn "on their own", from the feed-back of their environment. However, the toll in casualties is high, as most of the offspring is too vulnerable and too confused to synthesise an appropriate behavioural response from scratch.

These generalised concepts apply to the earliest, natural experiments with the opportunities and possibilities of behavioural flexibility, long before we see the human species emerge, but, the reader will recognise, how appropriate and applicable these generalised principles still are, even today, when we look at the problems of guiding, instructing and protecting the younger generations, especially, if they grow-up in a confused and chaotic society. The point we want to emphasise, here, is the inevitable trade-off between the benefits of a more rapid adaptation to fluctuating circumstances, and, the dangers of confusion and helplessness due to a defective parental example or a decaying cultural code.

The more a species has come to rely upon the possibilities of behavioural flexibility, or "learning" by example and instruction, the more vulnerable its younger generations are to cultural decay, and, most people will be able to agree, that the human species has traveled this hazardous route of behavioural flexibility and cultural decay further than any other species.

We have often traced the characteristics of the vulnerable human infant, and, we will not do so again. Every reader is familiar with the total helplessness and incredible vulnerability of the newly born infant. Let us look, this time, a little more closely at the features of parental behaviour.

Since the parents are, of course, members of a behaviourally flexible species, the genetic instructions for appropriate parental behaviour can not be very precise. Nevertheless, nature has sharpened a fairly strong instinct of parental care for its offspring in the members of mankind. The behaviour-patterns of care and protection, as well as nursing or nourishing the infant, are strongly instinctive, and, these behaviour-patterns are evoked by the crying and whimpering, or, even, the mere presence of an infant. Because these behaviour-patterns are instinctive, we see, not only, that they are quite stereo-typed throughout the human species, but, also, that "giving-in" to such behaviour is emotionally satisfying.

It is probably correct to say, that nature has sharpened into the genetic instructions of the parents, slightly different patterns for the male and female members of the species. Obviously, the anatomical and physiological differences in the constitution and role of the sexes during procreation, are genetically determined, but, there are also differences in the behaviour of male and female parents. Yet, let us emphasise, that, in contrast with the precise genetic instructions that determine the anatomical and physiological features of human existence, the behavioural differences are less clear-cut and are more likely to overlap.

The mother is, primarily, programmed to feed, cuddle and maintain physical contact with the infant, while the male parental instinct becomes visible as a heightened drive to protect and provide for the vulnerable unit of mother and child. Yet, even the male can be stimulated to a behaviour of tenderness, care or carefulness, in contrast to his more customary role as protector and provider.

Before the faculties of conceptual awareness arose, the parental example, together with the constancy and reliability of the behaviour of care and protection, determined, to a large extent, whether or not the younger generations would become viable members of the adult population. However, with the development of the "cultural break-through", the processes of learning and instruction became amplified to a truly remarkable extent. In the many millions of years that passed between the onset of conceptual imagery and the establishment of the "first recorded civilisations", the cultural content of the society grew steadily, as the groupings showed a consistent tendency to become larger.

Let us outline, first, in some detail, what sort of behaviour-patterns, attitudes and subconscious, emotional experiences developed prior to the evolution of symbolic representation. We should also repeat, here, a definition of culture, where we consider "cultural influences", or the "cultural code" of instructions, to comprise all the influences that are coming from the parents or the other members of the group. This definition includes, therefore, all forms of influence upon the offspring, excercised by parental behaviour, and the function of "culture", or the presence of a cultural code is, therefore, not restricted to the human species.

While we have defined, on previous occasions, all influences from the outside, or the environment, upon the behaviour of animals as "cultural" in nature, (in contrast to the patterns of behaviour that are a result of genetic instructions), it seems better to restrict the definition of cultural influences to those of the "social environment". We leave, then, the influences of the natural environment as a separate category. Behaviour of an animal becomes, then, determined by its genetic instructions, (which determine its anatomical and physiological constitution), as well as its range of instinctive behaviour-patterns, together with the stimuli or sense impressions that come from the "environment". If these stimuli arise from the behaviour and activities of the other members, we talk about the "social environment", while all other stimuli arising from the living and non-living world, constitute the "natural environment".

From a conceptual and philosophical point of view, the main importance of the development towards behavioural flexibility and parental care lies in the fact, that the sharpening and rewarding of the instincts of care, tenderness, protection and "responsibility" has added a dimension of refinement to the behavioural repertoir of socially integrated animals. Originally, the multi-cellular organism was programmed by a long, evolutionary history to act, entirely, with its own survival or well-being as the central motivation for its behaviour. Its instinctive behaviour-patterns ranged from an aggressive confidence to a defensive fearfulness, but, the entire range was designed to preserve or maintain its own existence.

We have discussed, before, how, as a "side-line" of the condition of well-being, nature sharpened the instinct of sexual behaviour. While mating behaviour has no immediate existential benefits for the individual, (and is often a hazard, a burden, or an expensive energy-expenditure), the strong sensations of sexual gratification represent the "lure" with which the animal is enticed to engage in activities that do not contribute directly to its own security or longevity.

In the behaviourally rigid animals, such as the insects, there is nothing resembling the behaviour of parental care, and we see nothing like the social inter-actions of the members of flexible species'. The colonies of insects are organised, rigidly, along the lines of strict genetic instructions, and, the members of an insect-colony resemble, therefore, the unit of a multi-cellular organism, where the individual insects are comparable to the cells of a multi-cellular body. Certainly, it is remarkable, how a viable cohesion between the members of an insect-colony has been found, without the fixed spatial relationships of cells within a multi-cellular organism, but, the rigidity of the behaviour and the anatomic specialisation of the insects, resembles the cells within a multi-cellular body, rather than the social animals with their flexible inter-dependencies.

The instincts of parental care also develop under the pressures of natural selection, and, these instinctive drives introduce into the behavioural repertoir of the flexible animal, for the first time in evolutionary history, a behaviour-pattern that is geared towards taking the well-being and needs of another individual into consideration.

You may argue, that, many insects behave in such a way, that, they too, serve the existential needs of someone else, or the colony as a whole, rather than their own existential needs. Certainly, this is true, but, the crux of the matter lies in the fact, that such a "pseudo-ethical" or "supra-individual" behaviour has been rigidly programmed by genetic intructions, just as the cells of our own body are rigidly instructed to behave in such a way, that their actions benefit the society of cells as a whole.

In the behaviourally flexible animals, the genetic coding can only "instruct" its members to develop a strongly "instinctive" tendency towards displaying the behaviour of care, tenderness and protectiveness, and, the parents are encouraged, and "rewarded", by a strong sense of satisfaction, when giving-in to such behaviour. However, the instincts of parental care do not remain a short burst of activity, to be forgotten as soon as the urge has been spent, as is the case with the sexual drive. The continuous need to give care, protection, guidance and leadership to the younger generations over a period of perhaps fifteen years, or longer, cultivates a remarkable constellation of attitudes. These attitudes are charaterised by the fact, that the well-being of the self is fused with, and sometimes, even, supplanted by, the well-being of another individual; the child, or the unit of mother and child. We have to seek, here, not only, the "anlage" for truly socially integrated behaviour, but, also, this entire complex of attitudes and beliefs, which we have learned to abstract and conceptualise under the term "ethic".

.......

Chapter 4

Content

Why we often revert to a narrow sphere of concern.
The need to place restrictions on the behavioural range of young and adult members of a socially integrated unit.
Unfolding the "ego-drive".
An ever more prominent "contest of wills".
The disastrous results of a defective "cultural transfer"
Mechanisms of social integration in the early, pre-human societies.
A "failure to separate" when the growth to maturity has been completed.
A secondary fusion of related groupings.
Stimuli for cultural and technical innovations.
The "administration of justice".
The three basic mechanisms of settling a dispute; all-out combat, yielding or fleeing, and, a differentiation into somewhat different ecological niches.
Varying manifestations of dependence and inter-dependence.
Solutions, found and applied by the mechanisms of natural selection.
Social integration is a solution based on differentiation and inter-dependence; the "third" method.
A conscious contract of "essential equality".
Alliances, and the art of diplomacy.
Forming an alliance against a common enemy is a useful rehearsal for the much more difficult task of negotiating a compromise with an adversary.
The "blind" search for social possibilities of existence.
When an alliance becomes, gradually, less "voluntary".
Cultural developments and refinements in the art of forming alliances.

We have seen, how the instincts of parental care lead to attitudes of concern for the well-being of someone else, but, it is clear, that this sphere of concern is still quite narrow and limited to "immediate kin". The behavioural orientation of the growing youngster is also primarily egocentric, and, it requires careful guidance and good examples from the parents in order to nurture a "socially acceptable" form of behaviour. This behaviour can mature, later, into responsible parenthood, whenever the time has come to take part in this essential link between successive generations.

When observing parental behaviour of the socially integrated species', it becomes quite clear, that the attitudes of care, concern and protection also include the setting of limits, or tolerances, upon the behaviour of the young. No species will let its offspring behave without restrictions, because the random search for behavioural possibilities by youngsters would quickly lead to dangerous or socially impossible situations.

The success of behavioural flexibility is based on the fact, that the parental example will be imitated by the youngsters, and, that the parents, as well as other members of the social unit, will not tolerate too large a deviation from "the norm".

The ego-drive of the growing generation gets stronger and more differentiated as it grows older, while, at the same time, the need increases to channel these youthful energies into socially acceptable patterns. The newly born infant shows its ego-drive only in a cry, if it is uncomfortable, hungry or dissatisfied for one reason or another, and, all parents with a measure of common-sense know, that, even, as a baby, the human being tends to become ever more demanding, if it is always picked-up, fed or cuddled at the slightest whimper.

In nature, there is a limit to the patience and attention of the parents, and, in a normal family, parents, too, have other duties and problems to tend to. They are, therefore, prevented from lavishing an anxious, neurotic and unstable excess of concern and attention upon their child or infant.

When the child becomes an adolescent, an ever more prominent "contest of wills" takes place. In most intances, these tensions are channeled into useful activities, where the adolescents can "burn-off" their excess energies, as they slowly learn to appreciate the wisdom and soundness of their parents' attitudes. If the parental example and guidance is defective and confused, and, if the social environment of the growing child is also unstable and confused, it is logical, that the processes of "cultural transfer" become defective as well. The younger generations are then poorly brought-up, and, these defects may accumulate, within a few short generations, to the point, that the viability of a social environment is seriously jeopardised.

However, let us go back to the pre-human family, where the contacts between parents, siblings and other members are not complicated by conceptual communications, structures of beliefs, or verbal arguments. We see, that the will of the parents remains dominant. While the youngsters are allowed to play and frolick, there are definite limitations to what they are allowed to do, and, the adolescents have to accept the authority of their parents and the leaders of the group, or, they are driven-off.

When the leader gets older, he may be successfully challenged by a younger contender for the position of leadership and authority. Careful observations seem to indicate, that the hierarchical positioning of the members of a small social grouping is, not only, necessary to make the group coherent and create an opportunity for efficient leadership, but, we may consider the hierarchical positioning within a family-grouping to be a fore-runner of the hierarchical ordening taking place within a somewhat larger social unit of related individuals.

In a species without any form of social contact or integration, the special relationships between the youngsters and their parents cease, as soon as the youngsters reach a stage where they can feed themselves. Certainly, they may remain together as a hierarchically ordened sub-unit within a herd or a flock, based on the mechanisms of dominance, but, there is no specific relationship between parents and off-spring. In the socially integrated, flexible animals, there is a tendency for this "break-away" to be delayed, and, the members retain a relationship that recognises the ties of kinship, even, after they reach adulthood and have started to form a family themselves.

This "failure to separate" may be one mechanism to explain, or visualise, the territorial fusion of adult members, as well as the emergence of a hierarchical order, functioning as a substitute for the attitudes of "strict territoriality". On other occasions, we have postulated that a secondary fusion of territorially behaving animals may occur as a result of environmental pressures, and, it seems logical to see, here, a fluid balance, or, a shifting equilibrium between labile and opposite force-fields. If the territories are rich and plentiful, and, if there is relatively little effort required to establish an independent family-unit in a neighbouring territory, then, this will happen, and, we will see a rapid expansion of the population under such fortunate circumstances. However, if the environmental conditions are deteriorating, and, if it becomes much more difficult and hazardous to establish a new social unit, then, the tendency for adult members to remain "fused" within a hierarchical relationship is much stronger, and, we may well see a "secondary fusion" of related groupings living in the neighbourhood.

However, such a larger grouping will show, inevitably, more tensions between the members, as well as an increased tendency towards acts of strife and attitudes of hostility. These trends have to be suppressed, and, it is clear, that the pressures, responsibilities and demands upon the leadership rise steeply, whenever there is a growth in the size of the social unit. These conditions promote or necessitate cultural and technological innovations, which increase the powers of the leadership to control a large unit, and enhance the possibility to make use of naturally available resources.

Every time a social unit reaches a crisis-point, where the surrounding territories become insufficient to sustain the members of the group, we see a strong trend towards cultural and technological innovation. For example, there may be innovations in the way the essential housekeeping chores of the group are being carried-out, leading to more "free time" and a greater ease of existence. Innovations may also take the form of an improved organisation of other communal chores, or an improved ability to cope psychologically with stress.

Methods to suppress mutual hostilities and settle disputes may be improved, lowering the level of internal tensions and strife. Here, we see the importance of a coherent and inspiring belief structure, an improved "administration of justice" by a wise, efficient and benevolent leadership, or, a new technology; a new tool, or, a more effective weapon.

All these innovations improve the technical, intellectual or psychological mastery over the many problems and challenges a social unit has to face. Cultural and technological innovations are inter-twined and influence each other, often, to such an extent that they become a nearly inseparable complex of causes and effects.

It seems fair to state, as a generalised principle, that the human society evolved its numerous innovations because of a variety of needs and challenges, and, each and every evolutionary step was an intuitive or subconscious attempt to find a solution for one challenge or another. We have no reason to doubt, that the epochal developments of symbolic representations, conscious awarenesses, and verbalisable belief structures, were also the result of challenges and pressures, which brought-about an evolutionary spurt of adaptative mechanisms, including the rise of conscious awarenesses.

It is time to zero-in on our professed goal to discuss the art of negotiation and compromise, and, we hope, that this background sketch will help us to understand the possibilities, as well as the limitations, of the process of compromise and negotiation. The first feature we should discuss is the specifically human endeavour to try to settle a dispute with negotiation and compromise, because we imply, here, a process of dialogue. It is an attempt to streamline view-points and interpretations of reality, and, it is clear, that no animal settles a dispute in this manner.

In nature, there are three basic mechanisms to settle a conflict of interests, or a confrontation based on competitive strife. The first, is all-out combat, where the winner takes all and the loser is killed, or eaten, and, the loser is, thereby, permanently removed from the scene. The second method is the flight, or the submission of the loser to the winner, and the third manner in which a conflict of interest can be subdued, is the differentiation of competitors into slightly different ecological niches.

This third method is related to the second, because, as we discussed before, the hierarchical ordening marks the beginning of a process of task-differentiations. Task-differentiation has the advantage of defusing tensions, and, it may lead to a state of inter-dependence in a position of essential equality, whenever these mechanisms take place within a large social entity. If the dependency is nearly equal, we talk about a form of "symbiosis", but, if it is weighted heavily in favour of one party, we are dealing with a state of parasitism.

However, we should add, here, that these mechanisms are, in essence, evolutionary solutions, rather than the deliberate or conscious solution of a conflict of interest between indviduals, because it takes too long for the mechanisms of differentiation and subsequent inter-dependence to work as a solution to a specific situation of conflict. Yet, man is duplicating, unknowingly, in his conscious attempts to solve the problems of tension and strife, some of the evolutionary solutions to the same type of chronic competitive pressures. In an academic environment, we may see an example of this solution of differentiation, because, people, who start out as competitors of each other, may wind-up in specialised but inter-dependent and complementary functions.

The human being makes use of all possible solutions to a conflict-situation, and, it is clear, that the most primitive solution of all-out combat seems to appeal, most strongly, to our instincts, because we revert to it, time and again. We have discussed the idea, that, the final period of genetic evolution of the human species took place in this ferocious period of intense competitive strife, prior to the establishment of the first great civilisations. The solution to chronic over-crowding of the nomadic societies, together with the steadily dwindling supply of the large animals, which had become an essential food-supply for these enlarging nomadic tribes, was found in the merger of social groupings into much larger social entities, but, the heritage of an all-out fight, as well as the elimination of the loser, had already been engraved by the mechanisms of natural selection into the biological heritage of mankind.

From now on, man was always faced with this curious dilemma; would he seek survival by killing his opponent, or, by trying to cooperate with him? Man, as a single individual, had a strong tendency to cooperate rather than fight, because this evolutionary step had been taken many hundreds of millions of years ago, but, the integration of small nomadic groupings into a much larger social unit of cooperation, only took place about twenty thousand years ago. This is the reason, why we still see the tendency to settle a conflict between groupings by all-out warfare, while the competitive tensions within a socially integrated grouping are solved by the mechanisms of hierarchical positioning, task-differentiation and cooperation.

In the larger and more complex societies, hierarchical ordening or positioning of the members became increasingly difficult, and, it was eventually replaced by a conscious contract of essential equality. The maintenance of such a contract of essential equality was accomplished by the formulation of a widely acceptable set of rules and guidelines, and, the enforcement of these rules ensured a "situation of justice". As we have discussed, this "contract" was not a fully spelled-out and conscious agreement, but, rather, a tacit or implied understanding, that all members should behave according to the "laws", customs, mores or beliefs of their social environment.

However, let us go back to the time when the population pressures were rising, and the larger social units were being formed. Territories and food-supplies became scarcer, and, the intensity of competitive strife and the ferocity of all-out warfare were rising too. The cost in suffering, loss of life and psychological stress was staggering, and, this meant, that the pressures were mounting to seek new adaptations and better ways to solve inter-tribal disputes and rivalries. It is logical, that a tendency developed to seek a temporary alliance between neighbouring groupings, whenever they were subjected to a common threat, or, whenever they perceived a common bond of interest.

Such an alliance may arise quite naturally between tribes or groupings which had already some sort of peaceful contact, and, it seems reasonable to postulate, that ties of kinship would form a natural basis for such contacts. It slowly dawned on fiercely independent and suspicious tribal leaderships, that a common enemy could be defeated, if it would be possible to form an alliance, to set grievances and disputes aside, at least, for a while, and, to organise a common battle-plan, which would give the alliance an edge of advantage.

It is ironic, that, many of the skills and techniques necessary to negotiate a settlement and come to a common understanding, or a mutually acceptable compromise, were learned and refined, not, in the pursuit of peace, but in the hope of winning a victory over a common enemy.

A successful alliance between essentially independent social units requires, even now, after so many generations of intense contacts and a long search for a more peaceful way of life, a great deal of skill and patience. Leaders of rival groupings have to learn, intuitively, about each other's strengths and weaknesses, as well as psychological characteristics and peculiarities, as they approach each other tentatively and with a great deal of hesitation.

The art of diplomacy developed, slowly, and the suspicions and doubts of the leader, whose alliance or allegiance was being sought, were carefully placated with gifts and promises. Of course, many tribes existed in unequal relationships with each other, because some of them were dominated by a more powerful neighbour, or, they were in debt or owed allegiance for one reason or another. The history of previous relationships and belligerent contacts would determine, to a large extent, with whom it would be possible to form an alliance, and, who would have to be avoided or placated.

In addition to the soothing of suspicious feelings, as well as the careful, if intuitive, psychological assessment of partners, we see, also, the other side of the diplomatic coin, where it became possible to remind a leader about previous events, his dependence or vulnerability in one area or another. Here, we see the subtle, and, often, not so subtle art of "arm-twisting", or diplomatic pressure-tactics.

In spite of the essentially hostile and divisive aims of forming alliances and blocks of power, (a diplomatic aim and an explicit foreign-policy of many contemporary nations), we can appreciate the remarkable benefits resulting from the need to seek friends and form bonds of shared interests. It seems logical to visualise these same mechanisms to have made the slow evolution possible of a small grouping of ten or twenty individuals into a tribal unit of, perhaps, a few hundred or a few thousand people.

We saw in the speculative imagery of the protoplasmic primordium, how molecules were forming, breaking-apart and re-forming their electron-bonds with neighbouring molecules, always searching for new and more viable possibilities of existence. In the same manner, we visualise the human social units to form bonds, break and re-form them in a continuous search for opportunities to overcome their adversaries and adversities.

Slowly, the more viable social existence possibilities were found in a series of cultural and technocratic innovations. We see the emergence of the ability to form alliances, to settle internal disputes, to find a mutually acceptable compromise, as well as the ability to pursue the ideals of essential equality and equal treatment under the laws of a specific social environment. Slowly, the conscious awareness of a sense of justice arose. The sense of justice is closely linked to a subconscious or tacit contract of mutually acceptable behaviour, and it is based on the recognition of a "deserved position" within the social unit.

Slowly, the size of a viable social unit became larger, in spite of the fact, that there was always the danger that these tacit contracts and implied agreements would be broken. The sense of justice would, then, be wounded, resentment and mistrust would rear their head, and, the focus of hostility switched, once again, from the outsider to an individual or group within society.

Because of the vulnerability of the cultural code, the viability of a social unit is a tentative affair, always in danger of losing its essential appeal or awareness of the need for its existence. Often, the sub-groupings had been persuaded, in the past, to participate in an alliance that gradually and imperceptibly became less voluntary and less beneficial.

In particular, when the process of "dispersion", the breaking-up of a larger social unit and its diffusion into many smaller, more or less independently existing units became impossible because of the scarcity of territories and the rising competitiveness between neighbouring groups, the possibility of exploitation and abuse by a small, dominant segment led to severe tensions of injustice and resentment within the larger social groupings.

Wise, intuitively sensitive and psychologically intelligent leaderships could, often, defuse such a trend towards injustice and minority domination, but, until our contemporary times, we see the problems of haphazard accession to leadership; of unreasoned and unreasonable differences and disparities between the privileged and the masses, the elite and the poor, and, there are many problems associated with the haphazard grouping-together of ethnic units into political entities that were forged by the sword of a conqueror.

With the advent of the larger civilisations and their many cultural and technological innovations, it became less customary to kill those, who had been defeated in a war, because the conqueror learned to handle and dominate a large group of prisoners or slaves. A variety of methods were used to impose allegiance upon a defeated society. Hostages were taken from prominent families. Severe penalties were imposed for a rebellion against the new authorities. Many people were driven-off or deported to less desirable areas. A heavy tribute or taxation was imposed on the defeated communities. But, there were also more humane and wiser techniques of dominance and benevolent leadership, such as the technique of allowing a limited self-rule, the tolerance of existing cultural manifestations and religious practices, as well as the imposition of a moderate level of taxation.

The art of making alliances and securing loyal followers flowered, as larger groupings were brought together under a single political leadership, culminating, eventually, in the birth of a number of remarkable empires, which often flourished economically, artistically as well as militarily. It is interesting to note these developments, and, it is important to study the conditions that made such large groupings viable, just as it is so important to understand, why the solution of all-out combat lost its meaning, as soon as it led to the likelyhood of mutual destruction.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

The increasing devastation of acts of warfare.
People are likely to scrutinise, in the future, more intensely the reasons for a situation of conflict.
The fragile faculty of rational attitudes and evaluations.
Memories and awarenesses fade quickly.
A library of documentaries.
Understanding the basic needs of people.
When a "compromise" is only a freeze in the status-quo.
A review of the mechanisms of an alliance.
The importance of honesty and openness.
A genuine effort to shoulder one's share of burdens and responsibilities.
The weakness of a "tough stance".
The art of mediation.
When there is a secret expectation to profit from a situation of conflict.
The imposition of a binding settlement.
World-opinion; a federation of considered attitudes and fair decisions.
Opening-up the road for a satisfying judicial settlement of international disputes.
A look at the art of international negotiation and mediation.

The reason why all-out combat is becoming a less desirable solution to tensions and conflicts of interest, is related to the enormous devastation caused by modern warfare. This leaves less "spoils", or usable resources and revenues from the conquered territories, and, it causes an unacceptable burden of casualties and devastation for the conqueror himself. However, there are other factors that make all-out conflict an obsolete method for settling disputes. Increased contacts between people, as well as a widening sphere of awarenesses, have led to a much more sophisticated and inquisitive attitude towards the reasons for a situation of conflict. More and more people are becoming aware of the fact, that both sides contributed to an escalation in hostilities, and, that both sides are going to lose, if the solution is, again, sought in a violent confrontation.

In other words; a more rational attitude and a less instinctive approach to the problems of conflict by either side in a dispute, will make it less likely, that all-out warfare on a large scale is going to be tolerated by informed world-opinion. The extent of our knowledge about each other, as well as the recognition of our essential similarities, is enlarging all the time. Political leaders can not easily indulge, anymore, in acts of hostility towards each other, but, by and large, we, the people, still fall-short of an active concern for each other's well-being, and, we are still reluctant to help each other overcome our problems.

Certainly, we have learned to extend a helping hand to our own people, and, we may be moved, occasionally, by a well-publicised tragedy of gigantic proportions that is taking place in a far-away country, but, our concerns easily lose contact with a distant and far-away event, as we concentrate on the pressing problems at home.

However, the mood of reasoned compromise and a rational approach to competitive problems is a fragile flower, and, first-hand knowledge of disastrous consequences caused by all-out warfare, fades quickly. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to transfer these memories and experiences to the younger generations, born and brought-up after peace has returned, and after the most serious effects of the war have been erased.

This lack of a permanent awareness of the devastating consequences of warfare is, perhaps, the main reason, why, after a few short generations, the people are again willing to sacrifice on the altar of war, and, to spill their blood in profuse quantities, regardless, how severely previous generations have suffered from the same attitudes and behavioural trends.

Perhaps, we can overcome this difficulty in the future, as we build-up a vivid, but accurate and honest library of documentary films, chronicling the atrocities and barbaric consequences of all-out warfare. Perhaps, we can, then, transmit vivid memory-images from one generation to the next, motivating them to avoid the deep-seated lure of belligerent and hostile behaviour. Perhaps, we can, then, educate them to become sensitive and wise human beings, who are willing to put-in a genuine and conscientious effort to understand the mechanisms and events that lead to war.

Part of the problem is the fact, that the younger generations do not have any first-hand knowledge about the horrors of warfare, but, an equally important cause for the recurrence of warfare, is the lack of understanding and insight into the basic mechanisms and requirements of human existence.

We need to teach our younger generations a coherent picture of the way the human being functions; what motivates him; what drives and instincts come to the fore under various conditions, and, what possibilities there are to come to a mutually acceptable solution of the tensions of competitive strife and conflict of interest.

Certainly, before we can teach the younger generations, all over the world, such a coherent picture of human behaviour and its many motivations, we have to work hard to develop an imagery we can all agree with. If we understand the basic needs of people, individually as well as collectively, and, if we can agree about the conditions of justice and equality we need to exist in a condition of well-being, we would already have made significant progress along this road.

We will have to understand, that, our attempts to negotiate a solution or compromise in a situation of conflict are doomed to failure, unless we can agree upon, at least, some form of common conceptual ground. If there are no common principles of conduct, or, generally agreed-upon principles for a common reality perception, then, there can be no dialogue and no understanding. Any "compromise" will, then, only constitute a freeze of the status-quo, reflecting the relative positions of strength and weakness on both sides, as they happen to exist at a particular time.

We should discuss these ideas in more detail, but, let us first look at the mechanisms, attitudes and events that play a role in the formation of an alliance. In many ways, the attitudes and objectives that motivate people to form an alliance with each other, are the fore-runners and useful rehearsal mechanisms for the much more difficult process of negotiating a compromise or settlement between adversaries.

In an alliance, the two parties are able to synchronise their goals and belligerent attitudes towards a common enemy, and, in the process of synchronising their objectives and actions, they come to a more or less specific agreement about the tasks that have to be carried-out, as well as the manner in which the spoils of victory will be divided. Such an agreement forms a bond of understanding, but, it is never assured, that both parties interpret the agreement in the same manner. The more precise and explicitly an agreement of alliance has been spelled-out, the less likely differences in interpretation will lead to feelings of resentment and tear the alliance apart.

There is always a tendency to interpret an agreement in an egocentic manner. To avoid the problems that arise from a variable interpretation of an agreement, it is useful for the partners to base themselves upon a set of common concepts; a common language, as well as an agreed-upon set of rules, laws or religious beliefs. The usefulness and durability of an agreement of alliance can be enhanced, if the terms of the agreement are extensively discussed and debated beforehand, and, if an impartial outsider can mediate any disagreement about the interpretation of the contract or alliance.

Concluding an agreement between two more or less independent and equally powerful parties is, of course, a voluntary affair, in spite of the fact, that there may be many factors of common interests to compel the partners to come to an agreement, and form an alliance. However, with a contract of cooperation, or agreement of alliance, we see, not only, the inevitable tendency to interpret the meaning and consequences in the most favourable light for the well-being of one's own side, but, it becomes also possible to carry-out acts of deception or treachery; to break a promise, whenever the opportunistic advantages outweigh the burdens of honouring an agreement or commitment.

We see, then, how important it is to be honest and open, and, to adhere, conscientiously, to the terms of an agreement. Otherwise, no alliance or agreement will survive. There is a remarkable parallel, here, with the emotions, motivations and mechanisms of cooperation and disagreement that come to the fore, whenever a group of youngsters decides to play a game. It is clear, that, each participant has to adhere, honestly and scrupulously, to a set of rules in order to make the game possible and meaningful. At the same time, we see, that, any agreement or contract to cooperate for a particular goal or objective, sows the seeds for a conflict or episode of discord, with ruffled feelings, disappointments or outright hostilities.

The techniques of forming an alliance and concluding a contract or agreement may lead to an increased degree of viability and unity for those who have mastered these cultural innovations. These skills also lead to a better grip over existing circumstances and conditions, but, at the same time, a Pandora's box of troubles and causes for conflict has been opened.

Yet, the conclusion of a contractual agreement, as well as the onset of a period of cooperation and lowered suspicions, may also accentuate positive attitudes and promote feelings of friendship and mutual respect. If one makes a genuine effort to shoulder one's share; if there is an atmosphere of trust and good-will; if there is a willingness to do, voluntarily, a little more than agreed-to, and, if there is a spontaneous tendency to help each other when needed, the bonds of friendship and mutual respect grow stronger, but, there always remains the possibility of a sudden misunderstanding, as well as a resurgence of the feelings of suspicion and hostility.

Before we are discussing, here, the art of negotiation and compromise between hostile factions, let us summarise, once more, the essential features, as well as the existential mechanisms, that take place in a voluntary alliance. The synchronisation of goal-patterns is relatively easy, because it is based upon the shared threat from a common enemy, and, there are, frequently, already extensive contacts and shared cultural regulators between the partners of an alliance. Even so, the partners have to make some sacrifices, and, they have to agree to some compromises, because there are always divergences in goals and interests, regardless, how much agreement there is about the overall objectives of an alliance.

The driving force behind the formation of an alliance is the awareness of anticipated benefits that will arise from this alliance, and, here, we see, why it is so much easier to form an alliance between partners against an outsider, compared to the negotiations and compromises needed to defuse a situation of hostility between adversaries; with the task of transforming the feelings of hatred and suspicion into a workable contract of cooperation and trust.

In every attempt to mediate between warring factions, the emphasis falls on the arrangement of a "cease fire"; a cessation of acts of hostility or violence, as well as on a cooling-off period, where emotions and instinctive patterns of behaviour get a chance to come to rest. Mediation-attempts have to prevent a rise in tensions through belligerent posturing and bellicose commitments, because belligerent leaders are, invariably, manoeuvering themselves into a position from where they can not withdraw without losing face or prestige.

Acts of warfare are always preceded by a series of mutual accusations, as well as the assumption of an ever more inflexible and "tough" stance or commitment, which depletes, rapidly, all room for negotiation and compromise. The role of the mediator is, primarily, to facilitate an understanding by the adversaries of each other's needs and aspirations. Such a dialogue is not possible by direct contact because of the tensions and suspicions, as well as the biased and rigid opinions that prevail on either side. Belligerents are unable and unwilling to listen to each other. A dialogue between belligerents becomes a shouting match, impeding progress towards mutual understanding.

The mediator tries to explain the positions of the adversaries towards each other, without evoking the anger of the "listening" party. If the positions taken by the belligerent parties are inflexible, and, if there is no basic agreement that it is preferable to settle the dispute peacefully, then, war is inevitable. It will take place, run its course, and take its toll.

If there is no stronger outside party who can or wants to intervene, the bloodshed will have to continue, until the parties are exhausted, or, until one of them has been decisively defeated. If the belligerents want to fight and are not willing to negotiate, we should let them learn their lessons, once again, from scratch, but, it is a tragedy to see, how the intolerant and ignorant attitudes of the people and their leaders are responsible for the slaughter of thousands of citizens on the battle-fields.

The people themselves will have to learn to call a halt to the belligerent attitudes of their leaders, and, they will have to replace belligerent leaders with people, who are willing to sit-down and listen, and, who are willing negotiate an end to the mechanisms of violent conflict. If the people let themselves be swept-up by their leaders, they will have no choice but to take-up arms and repeat the follies of their forefathers, once again.

Even, if strong outside pressures induce the belligerent parties to call a halt to their hostilities, and, to negotiate a peaceful solution, there has to be a set of common principles and commonly agreed-upon codes of conduct, or a commonly shared source of authority, before the dialogue can become meaningful. There must be a genuine conviction, that a negotiated settlement is preferable to war. If either side secretly thinks that it may profit, if the war continues or breaks-out in full force, then, there is no incentive to negotiate seriously. Such a party will not make genuine concessions, and, it will only pay lip-service to the process of negotiation, while it holds-on to hard-won privileges and positions of advantage, which, it knows, can not be taken-away by force.

The process of negotiation becomes, then, meaningless, because the parties are waiting for an opportune moment to resume armed conflict. If there is no genuine effort to compromise, or, to acknowledge the rights and aspirations of the adversary, a negotiated settlement will reflect, only, the power relationships between the adversaries. Such a settlement or treaty does not satisfy the sense of justice, and, it is essentially unacceptable to the weaker party, emotionally, as well as intellectually, even, if this party acquiesces in the status-quo, because it has no choice. The treaty becomes only a "freeze", and, the battle will resume, as soon a the weaker party has gained in strength and thinks, that it has a chance to take what it considers to be its legitimate right.

Obviously, this is not a useful solution, even, if it requires a great deal of patience, sensitivity and persistence on the part of intermediators to find sufficient common ground between the warring parties to begin a dialogue and arrange a halt to the fighting. In order to be effective and meaningful, negotiations have to be based, either, on a set of commonly accepted ground-rules from which a compromise position can be argued, or, in the absence of such commonly accepted rules of conduct, a stronger, impartial force will have to impose, after careful study and scrutiny, a binding solution upon the belligerents.

Within a socially integrated environment, the imposition of a binding solution has replaced, by and large, armed conflicts between the members. The common ground-rules are, then, the laws and mores of society. An impartial and stronger force will carefully scrutinise the origins of a dispute, the events that have taken place, as well as the arguments both sides are bringing to the fore. Eventually, in due course, a judicial settlement is imposed on the belligerents.

The same mechanisms should take place in international disputes, but, the problem, here, is, of course, that there is no stronger, impartial, judicial force to impose a settlement, whenever a voluntary agreement and compromise proves to be out of reach. In particular, if the belligerents are strong and large nations, there is no authority that can intervene and impose a settlement, and, there is a growing danger that such a confrontation between major powers may get "out of hand", and, that it may cause unimaginable, and, perhaps, irreparable damage to the terrestial eco-systems and its many species' of life.

It is tempting to advocate the solution of one, strong, world-empire, which would be able to impose its benevolent(?) standards of human rights and essential equality for all on the rest of the world, but, we know, now, that, even, the best of intentions and the most humane leaderships will always provoke resentment and suspicion, somewhere, because we still lack this common framework of understanding that would enable us to communicate on a world-wide scale, and create truly acceptable conditions of global justice and harmony for every individual and social grouping.

At the present time, our best intentions are all too easily interpreted as simplistic and elitist solutions that impose arbitrary standards and debatable values, because we can not agree amongst ourselves what these values and standards should be. Besides, the process of trying to impose a world-empire will be so costly, so devastating, and so contrary to the avowed objectives of such an empire, that it seems best to reject this option as a dangerous illusion.

Historical records show, that, even the most advanced civilisations and empires, comprising the entire "known world" at the time of their existence, inevitably declined and fell prey to corruption, abuse of power and internal strife. We are better of searching for other solutions, such as the gradual strengthening of a "world opinion", or a " global consensus", within the nations and regions of the earth.

Let us try to discuss, in an open dialogue, how we should organise our societies; how we can ensure the election of truly representative leaderships; how we can educate the peoples of the world to make wise decisions, and help themselves obtain a reasonable standard of living.

Let us discuss the concepts of justice and essential equality; of freedom and responsibility; of "the good life" and the "quality of life". Let us discuss what it means to live under conditions of justice and equality. If we would have an effective body of world opinion, with supervising and scrutinising capabilities, it should be possible to formulate a set of globally acceptable guidelines for leadership functions and individual human rights. Then, most governments would be elected according to the wishes of the people, and, most people would live under conditions that are fair and just under the circumstances.

This would minimise, not only, the disputes and tensions that erupt, time and again, within and between societies, but, it would, also, give us a global standard of lawful behaviour and ethical conduct by which we could judge a dispute. We could, then, make wise and sound suggestions, how a process of negotiation and compromise could lead to a restoration of the conditions of justice and peace, without the need to have powerful armies impose a settlement. Yet, it may be necessary to expand the role of "peace keeping" units, in order to let tempers cool-down as a preliminary measure to facilitate the processes of negotiation and compromise.

On previous occasions, we have discussed, in more detail, what we consider to be the conditions of global justice and essential equality, and, we have reviewed what sort of a globally acceptable interpretation of human existence has now come into view. We have discussed, in detail, what is necessary to create and maintain the practical realities of justice and essential equality, as well as freedom from corruption and bureaucratic inertia. Here, we want to come back upon the mechanisms of negotiation and compromise, as well as the conditions necessary to cool a conflict situation, or to halt a violent confrontation.

So far, we have outlined, in general terms, the possibilities and difficulties associated with efforts to mediate a dispute, and bring-about a negotiated settlement, and, we have compared the process of negotiating a settlement in a conflict-situation with the mechanisms involved in forming an alliance.

In the final part of this essay, we should have a look at the international negotiations, dealings and transactions that go-on in the world, today, and, we should discuss the many aspects that are associated with these largely secret activities. We should consider the secrecy and intrigues behind the activities of espionnage and counter-espionnage, or, "intelligence" and "counter-intelligence", as we like to call these activities, whenever our side is doing the spying. Let us examine the entire question of secrecy and security behind which our leaders and governments like to hide their wheelings and dealings from public scrutiny.

Finally, we should look at the concepts of secrecy and "privacy" for individual people in our complex, contemporary societies. We will become aware of the fact, that, major changes have to take place in our attitudes and opinions, before we can even begin to fulfill the conditions of justice and equality on a global scale. We will become aware, how erroneous the arguments are that support the practice of secrecy in all kinds of negotiations and dealings. We will see, that secrecy is a hinderance, rather than a help, for reaching just, lasting and mutually satisfactory compromises and settlements.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

The weapon of secrecy represents a tool for aggression and deceit.
The psychology of secrecy and ostentatious display.
The thought processes of a multi-individual leadership.
The ideal of complete openness in thoughts, plans and actions.
Secrecy and existential interests.
Hypocritical attitudes about spying.
A practical need for some secrecy; at least, for the time being.
A proper schooling for the tasks of public office.
The Parliamentary debate.
The roads of war are so much easier to travel than the roads of peace.
Free-enterprise and the mechanisms of competitive strife.
In an atmosphere of competitiveness and mistrust, secrecy is a weapon that is used by all sides.
The inevitable rise of existential anxieties in a competitive society.

Secrecy is a weapon. It is a tool of aggression and deceit, but never an instrument of peace. Secrecy is used aggressively, whenever we try to outwit our adversaries with a surprise attack, or, defensively, when we try to outmanoeuver and deceive them by hiding our weaknesses. In a conflict-situation, it is logical, that each side tries to confuse the reality perception of the other side, because this hampers the design of an appropriate defense or a clever initiative.

Even our tendency to be secretive in everyday life has an air of hostility, suspicion and aggression. We do not want our neighbours to know our problems and troubles, because we feel vulnerable, embarrassed or ashamed, and, we do not want to become a center of gossip, or target for sympathy. We do not want our neighbours to know, how much we earn, what our assets are, or, how we make a living; whether or not we have debts, and, how much we owe to whom.

We do not want anyone to know these facts, because we do not want to face embarrassing questions or a close scrutiny. We do not want other people to form a judgement, whether or not we deserve, what we own; whether or not we obtained our assets honestly and our financial behaviour is above board.

We may want to impress our neighbours with a display of affluence, such as lavish spending powers, or an abundance of assets, but, we do not want them to know, exactly, how we got those assets, or, why we are able to spend so freely. We do not want questions; just admiration and submission.

This is, of course, in essence, a form of aggression, where we jockey for a place in the hierarchy of our social environment. In short, we do everything we can to hide our weaknesses and short-comings, our troubles and our family-squabbles, and, we try to make as good and as strong an impression as we can, while shielding ourselves from questions and scrutiny.

It is clear, therefore, that we always use secrecy as a weapon in a situation of conflict or potential conflict, and, perhaps, the only exception in this string of aggressive, defensive and confrontational attitudes towards other people, is the incidence, where we throw a surprise-party for one of our friends. Yet, even, here, the good-natured intentions of our desire to surprise someone we care for, is mixed with a certain delight in seeing someone else vulnerable and emotionally moved by our actions.

If we function as the leader of our nation, or, as a representative of our community, the weapon of secrecy is used even more ferociously. This weapon is then used, not only, to try to get the best deal in complex negotiations with an adversary, but, it is also used to protect ourselves from close scrutiny by those, who may be inclined to challenge our position of influence and prominence. The weapon of secrecy has a dual purpose, here; to secure a position of advantage for the group we lead or represent when dealing with an external competitor, and, to protect ourselves from internal rivals.

However, there is another reason for secrecy in the leadership functions of a society. Leaders, and their representatives, require frequent consultations, when negotiating with their competitors and adversaries, in order to map-out, or design, a behavioural response that is acceptable to the community as a whole. This form of "internal communication" is comparable to the mechanisms of thinking by an individual who is deliberating his next move. Just as we may not want the people around us to know all the doubts and difficulties we have in making-up our mind, so is a social leadership reluctant to let the outside world know, what it is thinking, and, how it is deliberating its options, until a firm response has been formulated.

This is one of the reasons, why negotiations between complex social units are so much slower than between individual people, because the negotiating representatives on either side have to keep checking, constantly, whether or not they are "running ahead" of the leadership and the community. It is logical, that a measure of understanding develops between the negotiators from either side, and, this level of understanding may run ahead of the understanding reached by the peoples they represent. As a result, a kind of dialogue and a type of discussion may take place between negotiators who have come to know each other well, which would leave them vulnerable to criticisms by their own people, if their contacts and exchanges would be made public.

Experienced and seasoned negotiators develop a unique expertise in their jobs, and, they develop contacts and avenues of communication that are not available to the less experienced members of their community, including their own leaders. This places them in a position of power, which they are likely to exploit to their own advantage. Existential interests of negotiators and leaders are, therefore, responsible for the tendency to keep many, if not most, of the substantial discussions and contacts secret.

The discussions between various levels of government, or, the members of a multi-individual leadership, are comparable to the activities of judgement, evaluation and deliberation a single person carries-out, whenever one is faced with a difficult decision that requires a measure of thought. The bureaucratic and diplomatic structures of a society can be compared to the central nervous system and the sense organs of a single individual, and, if we are in a position of conflict, it is logical, that we do not want our adversaries to know, what we are thinking and planning, because such an insight in our mental processes would give them a significant advantage anticipating our responses.

The attitude and practice of secrecy is a weapon, regardless, how we look at it. We also know, that secrecy heightens the feelings of suspicion between adversaries, because they become increasingly strangers to each other. Here, we see the curiously contradictory existential needs to hide from our adversary as much information as we can, while we try, desperately, to break-through the shield of secrecy of our adversary. Of course, we know, that our adversary is doing the same thing, and, he knows, that we are trying to steal his secrets.

Therefore, it is inevitable, that there is a battle of espionnage and counter-espionnage going-on between nations who are distrustful of each other, and, it never ceases to amaze me, that people are still so gullible and naive, that they see the espionnage and counter-espionnage by their own society as "virtuous", calling it "intelligence" and "counter-intelligence", while the identical activities of their adversaries are causing howls of protest and cries of indignation, whenever a spy has had the misfortune of being caught. Nowhere, do we see a clearer example of double standards in judgement and feelings, because we tend to revere our own intelligence people as heroes, while condemning the same intelligence people of the other side, as monsters or amoral opportunists.

No wonder, that the cynical individual who gets caught in this web and is unable to extricate him- or herself, has a tendency to play both sides against each other; trying to get as much financial security as possible, in order to make a dash for freedom; in secrecy, somewhere, in the world; away from the cat and mouse game of intelligence and counter-intelligence.

Secrecy, espionnage and counter-espionnage are indispensible activities, as long as it is considered necessary to arm ourselves against an aggressor, but, we have to acknowledge, clearly, that these activities are hostile acts towards another nation or group of people, and, we have to realise, that all spying and acts of counter-espionnage heighten the tensions of suspicion and mistrust.

Secrecy is always a tool of conflict, but, you may ask, whether or not the secrecy in the discussions between the members of a leadership, or the cabinet of an administration, should also be considered a weapon of aggression, or a tool of hostility; whether or not secrecy is a necessary screen of privacy to make honest discussions possible. Many of you will argue, that it would paralyse the processes of decision-making, if the members of a cabinet could not speak their minds in private. If the entire nation could listen to everything that was being said, then, no-one would be able to give an honest opinion, because everyone would have to consider, continuously, what impression one is making on the electorate.

Yes, I agree with you, that, under the present circumstances, in the contemporary realities of our modern societies, this secrecy is necessary. We see, here, a parallel with the situation we described before, where a group of negotiators works together to find a commonly acceptable solution, and to initiate a program of cooperation between groups that are, in essence, suspicious and hostile towards each other.

The members of a cabinet are, usually, elected representatives, each representing a certain group of people, and, these groupings in society are often divided by mutual hostilities and feelings of suspicion. The elected representative of a group of people, or a certain geographical region, has to keep in mind the image he or she creates for his or her voters, regardless, where one speaks. The representative knows, very well, that, each time he speaks his mind, he will affront some people, while pleasing, perhaps, a few others.

Besides, the elected representative of a group of people, or, anyone else called into prominence as a cabinet-minister by an elected leader, has to go through a period of learning. Every question and every misconception, error or misunderstanding would be broad-cast nation-wide, and, many people would ask themselves, how such an ignorant individual got into a position of responsibility. This, by the way, is a good argument; not for keeping this learning period secret, but, for making sure, that people, who are asked to serve in a responsible leadership position, are competent and capable individuals, and, that they have had a chance to become thoroughly schooled and properly trained, before they are asked to occupy an important position of leadership.

Certainly, many societies have recognised the importance to have their elected representatives debate the issues in public, and, we see many desirable features associated with a Parliamentary debate that is recorded or broad-cast. However, Party strategy, as well as all sorts of internal deliberations are still secret, and, we are, even, kept in the dark about the many conversations and consultations that take place between elected representatives in the corridors and back-rooms of the Parliament buildings, away from public scrutiny.

There is only a beginning of openness in our social relationships, and, the open Parliamentary debate is only a meager start. It is sad to see, that this instrument of openness and public confidence is, so often, blatantly abused as a "stage", where the representative "actors" play upon the emotions, sentiments and gullibility of their electorate.

In stead of being an instrument to bring people together in an attitude of greater mutual trust and respect, the public debate becomes, once again, a weapon and an instrument of aggression, where political leaders and elected representatives carefully stage and play-act a series of speeches in order to "impress" the people. It will take a far greater degree of sophistication, insight and recognition by the members of the electorate, before they are able recognise what is taking place, and, before it is possible to continue upon the road towards greater openness, harmony and trust.

The road of war is so much easier to travel than the road of peace, and, as we have argued before, it does not take long for people to forget, why they should travel the roads of peace, and, what it really means to travel the roads of war. So often, people pay only lip-service to the roads of peace, while, in essence, they are holding-on to their positions of advantage and privilege, and are looking for an opportunity to secure their positions even further.

Wherever we see competitive strife, we see the use of weapons, including the weapon of secrecy and intrigue, and, nowhere do we see this more clearly than in the world of business. We have discussed, before, this curious anomaly in thought, when the philosophy of free-enterprise advocated a serious game of competitive strife within the laws of society, and still expected everyone, including the many losers, to obediently adhere to the laws and regulations of society, in spite of the fact, that they have lost their status of essential equality and have become enslaved to a rich and powerful elite.

However, in societies that adhere, at least, to some extent, to the ideas and ideals of free-enterprise, there are still a number of competing business-concerns in spite of an accelerating trend towards mergers. This trend towards mergers is rapidly reducing the competitive aspects of the world of business-enterprise. It is not surprising to see, that secrecy rules supreme in the competitive world of business strategy, financial assets, relationships with governments and related enterprises, as well as in the positions of power and influence held by top executives.

We, ordinary members of society, do not have any idea, how far this influence reaches; how much power the top business people have over our politial representatives, and, how strongly we all have become enslaved to an "economic momentum". This economic momentum has become an essential life-line that keeps us financially afloat, including the gigantic commercial enterprises. We have no idea, to what extent their strident commercials have influenced our way of life, our buying and spending habits, and, even, our emotions and appetites. Ironically, the glaring publicity of advertising campaigns hides, in secrecy, a lot of the undesirable side-effects within our commercialised societies.

However, let us not pursue, here, the "evils" of advertising, because we have done so before. We want to come back upon the fact, that secrecy is a tool of conflict; in society, as well as in the world of business. It is a strategic tool to maintain a competitive edge, and, few ardent free-enterprisers can see anything wrong with this. I have no objection to comptitiveness on a small scale, where individuals or small enterprises are motivated to do their best in order to win praise or a modest livelyhood. Such a competitive drive lies behind the desire to win a game, and, these competitive efforts can easily be converted into a gain or an advantage for everyone.

In the small, competitive enterprise, it remains possible for the overall guidelines of society to maintain the essential conditions of fairness and openness in inter-personal relationships, as well as a condition of essential equality in living standards. As soon as the competitive game is over, the players revert to their usual and widely accepted status-quo, but, if we allow multi-national, commercial enterprises to become huge dinosaurs, vague in their outline and inscrutable in their power-structure, then, we have lost control over our societies without realising it.

In an atmosphere of competitiveness and mistrust, secrecy is a universal weapon, and, we all are prone to the temptation to make use of the existential advantages that come with secrecy, or inside information. Is it not logical, that, officials and bureaucrats, locked into a gigantic, unoverseeable and contradictory structure of government institutions, are keeping the facts about their productivity, redundancy, or usefulness, a closely guarded secret? They are not going to tell the outside world, how to abolish or streamline their jobs. They are not going to show us, that these jobs are not really necessary, or, how the work-load could be restructured and done much quicker and more efficiently. Similarly, unions are not going to cooperate with management to streamline productions processes or bring-in automation, because a large number of union members would lose their job.

We all are locked into a competitive position, looking for a steady and significant income in order to maintain security, freedom and influence. At a time, when our anxieties are aroused, job opportunities are dwindling, and the security of our positions is being challenged, we use every weapon at our disposal to maintain or fortify our position in the social hierarchy, as we look with mistrust and suspicion to our neighbours. This high level of internal strife, suspicion and mistrust is a serious weakness of the competitive, free-enterprise society, and, we should not be surprised to see a fatally high level of hostility and mistrust within a social environment, where the members use all sorts of weapons, including the weapon of secrecy, when trying to win, or survive, the rigors of the competitive battle.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

The right to "privacy".
The needs of individuals, versus the needs of the social environment.
Reflection and re-assessment; a period of psychological meta-morphosis.
The role of private property.
Why should people not be able to know, what kind of a person we really are?
A two-way street of scrutiny.
The presssures of transparence have to be applied evenly.
A matter for careful study.
Progress by careful, incremental steps.
The art of mediation, and the ability to accept compromises; an important element in the educational curricula of the future.
A clear exposition of opposing points of view.
Mechanisms to slow-down the out-break of armed hostilities.
A large number of simmering disputes are still nearly completely neglected.
The festering sores of injustice.
Preventing a "boiling point" of anger and frustration.
The techniques of mediation and compromise are still in a rudimentary stage.
World Opinion may become an instrument of great prestige.
How to prevent the damages caused by opportunism and egocentric attitudes.

After denouncing the practice of secrecy, you may want to ask me about the concept and role of "privacy". You may agree, that, in an ideal social environment, there will be a remarkable degree of openness and mutual trust, but, is there no need, then, for privacy? What is the function of privacy, and, how are privacy and secrecy related to each other?

In most affluent, free-enterprise societies, there are a variety of concepts, practical measures, as well as generally accepted laws that regulate to what extent an individual has the right to be left alone, to keep his assets and income secret; to keep the details of his life-style and personal history confidential, including the records of medical, legal or financial events. There has been a growing awareness, that the rights and the dignity of an individual have to be safeguarded against harassment by over-zealous government officials, an over-bearing commercial enterprise, or, the threats of blackmail from unscrupulous elements.

However, there are many aspects of the right to privacy that are harmful, or, potentially harmful, to other people in the social environment, because these safeguards may hamper the investigation and early detection of criminal activities and anti-social behaviour-patterns. In many cases, the rights and practices of financial privacy are used to hide income, to avoid, or minimise, the payment of taxes, or, to shelter illegally obtained gains.

We have to distinguish, carefully, between the psychological need for a certain "shell" of privacy in which people can relax and be themselves, and, the right of others to know, whether or not a member of society is "playing by the rules". No-one will deny the need for such a shell of privacy. The more introvert, reflective individual will need more time in such a shelter of privacy, compared to the extrovert, exuberant youngster, who is well adapted to his or her social environment.

However, each individual will go through periods of re-assessment and re-evaluation, in particular, when difficulties and tensions accumulate. We do not want to suggest, that isolation in a shelter of privacy is the only way, or, even, the best way to adapt to problems, but, there is, undoubtedly, a need for reflection and re-assessment, in order to tie an individual over a period of "psychological meta-morphosis". These people are in a process of psychological change, and, they need the time to seek new contacts, new areas of interest, and new sources of awareness, otherwise, such a period of uncertainty and heightened inner as well as external tensions may lead to a prolonged and essentially fruitless depression.

In addition to the psychological need for a shell of privacy, an individual requires, also, a variety of personal possessions. Everyone will collect a certain number of items with which his or her memories are associated in a particularly meaningful way. Some of these possessions will be small gifts from relatives and friends. Then, there is a category of possessions assisting an individal in the perfomance of a sport, an art, a handicraft or some other useful activity.

It may not be necessary to build-up a large, personal library or outstanding collection of sports attributes, because, as we discussed before, we visualise the societies of the future to provide good, all-round sport`s facilities, libraries, art collections and educational institutions in which the interested individual can search for, and study, whatever captivates one's interests and appeals to one's abilities. Such activities of self-fulfilment will be encouraged by future societies as an essential human need and right.

As a corollary to the idea, that the individual needs a shell of privacy to relax, to think, to re-assess, and to satisfy psychological needs, we certainly agree with a stringent set of safeguards that have been constitutionally enshrined and protect an individual from being harassed and exploited. These safeguards will also guarantee and maintain the essential equality between the members of society, as well as between the individual citizen and a variety of private organisations, government bureaucracies, and special-interest groupings.

Should such safeguards include the right to withold financial and other personal information? It would be a mistake to think that this is indeed the case, and, I am convinced, that the quality of transparence will be a help rather than a burden for a great majority of people, including those, who are somewhat introvert by nature.

What is wrong with the idea that people around us have the opportunity to know, what kind of a person we really are? Why should they not know, what we have done in the past, what we have accomplished, but, also, what mistakes we have made? What is wrong with the possibility, that other people could know, if they were interested, what income we have, what kind of work we do, what responsibilities we carry, how long and how hard we work, what we own, whether or not we save or spend it all, how our state of health is, with whom we associate or what our views and ideas are?

Certainly, transparence has to be a two-way street. If other people are able to scrutinise the file of our personal data and circumstances, so should we be able to scrutinise and learn about anyone, or, any institution, we are interested in. What is wrong with such a universal transparence? True, others could immediately know, whether or not we are engaging in somewhat shady or anti-social activities, and, such a high degree of transparence will deter us from doing things we should not do, but, what is wrong with that?

The pressures of transparence apply to us all in the same manner, and, what better method do we have to ensure, that every citizen is abiding by the rules of society and contributes to society according to one's abilities and the circumstances of the moment? We have discussed, before, how a fair share of the burdens of contribution require a very high level of transparence, but, it is now possible to distribute the stress-load of belonging to society over us all in an equal and equitable measure.

I believe, that, many of the current laws and regulations, designed to safeguard the privacy of individual citizens, are, in essence, against the best interests of ourselves and our societies, but, I agree, also, that, at the present time, as long as our societies contain many ignorant and opportunistic, predatorial and criminal elements, we have to protect the individual from harassment and exploitation.

Let us study this matter of privacy and secrecy, carefully, and, let us look at these aspects in a truly broad and wide perspective. Let us then formulate, clearly, the long-term, overall direction into which society has to evolve. Let us distinguish the temporary stop-gap measures that have to be taken because of prevailing conditions and circumstances, from the necessary long-term goals and objectives.

If we make such a clear distinction, we can agree with current attempts to safeguard the rights of the individual citizen, but, it is naive to formulate only the rights, and, not the obligations of the members of society. It is necessary to discuss and debate, thoroughly, the merits and possibilities of a gradual, but simultaneous, move towards a greater measure of transparence within and between social environments.

The crux of the matter lies in the concept, that we should make every effort to reduce the barriers of secrecy that exist between us. It is the only way to create a measure of mutual trust and facilitate the formation of new bonds of inter-dependence, which are going to be the prelude to a contract of essential equality and global justice.

I know, we have a long way to go, before we are noticeably on the way towards a more transparent and just society, and, for many people in the affluent societies, these ideas will sound foreign and utopian, because people are so used to a state of chronic competitive strife, that they accept these conditions as "normal".

Certainly, any progress towards these overall, long-term goals of universal transparence has to be obtained through small, careful, incremental steps, as we try to change the existing trends into a desirable direction, without risking a total collapse and chaos by trying to bring-about changes too quickly. This would increase the incidences of injustice and disparity, rather than reduce them.

We should also make a clear distinction between a temporary, practical solution, and a long-term, overall goal, whenever we are trying to inaugurate beneficial social changes, and, in the same careful and thoughtful manner should we approach the difficult and delicate task of trying to negotiate a compromise settlement between belligerent factions.

We have discussed the need for patience, intelligence and sensitivity, before a mediator can accomplish his basic objectives. The essence of the task of the mediator, or negotiator, is the lucid, calm, emotionally neutral exposition of the attitudes, opinions and feelings of the adversaries to each other. By reducing emotional fervor and uncompromising attitudes, it may be possible to make the opponents realise, gradually, that there is some merit in each other's point of view. As soon as this awareness starts to emerge, the basis for a compromise is being laid, and, careful guidance of the combatants should lead to a cessation of hostilities, as well as the convening of a conference, where the combatants can face each other directly.

We all may be called-upon to negotiate in a dispute, at one time or another, and, our educational system should pay a great deal of attention to teaching the basic behavioural instincts, drives and mechanisms of the human being. Youngsters and adolescents should get a thorough training in understanding the factors and circumstances that lead to a conflict-situation, be it between individuals, groups of people, or, between sovereign nations. It will be one of the most important tasks for a globally organised program of education, to teach each and every human being the art of negotiation and compromise, and, it should be possible to wean people, slowly, from their cultural and religious prejudices, which result, so often, in an attitude of rigid righteousness and an uncompromising adherence to an absolute truth.

As long as we do not have such a globally acceptable and operative educational system, (able to teach the basic mechanisms of human behaviour, as well as the outlines of a natural attitude of good-will and mutual concern), we will have to rely on the skills and insight, the patience and intelligence of negotiators. These people know, how to evaluate and manipulate the psychological dynamics of the combatants, and, they have learned many tricks and techniques to soothe the over-heated super-egos of the adversaries, because, they know, that this is the only way the combatants can gradually return to a state of emotional near-neutrality.

A clear exposition of each other's points of view, as well as an outline of the areas of agreement between the combatants, such as the common need for security, dignity and terriorial integrity, may lay the foundation for an attitude of compromise and a willingness to cooperate, but, often, the aggressive instincts are so much in command of the personalities involved, that we see only bellicose posturing and uncompromising attitudes, entangling the combatants, ever more deeply, into rigid positions from where any retreat appears to be an ignominious defeat.

We should, therefore, add to the art of compromise and negotiation, a series of measures designed to prevent leaderships and combatants from "talking tough". How can this be done? Ideally, the peoples of the world should regulate and guide the behaviour of their elected representatives and political leaders with the twin instruments of a responsible House of Assembly, or a Parliament of Elected Representatives, and, a detailed Constitution that will guide the behaviour of every member in society.

Eventually, every nation will have a democratically elected leadership and Parliament, and, all major decisions will be taken by the people as a whole. For example, the declaration of war, or, even, the accusation of wrong-doing, should be subjected to a popular referendum and should require an overwhelming majority, before it is officially made or declared. The declaration of a state of war, as well as the preparations for war, are so important, that they have to be regulated, in detail, by Constitutional Guidelines, but, eventually, it should be possible to make such actions unnecessary, and, to make it internationally illegal for any nation to initiate hostilities against another nation or society.

Before definite warnings or threats are made to an adversary, Parliament and the leadership should debate, completely openly, all the view-points and aspects of the case. Before a declaration of war can come into effect, such a ful-fledged debate has to take place, and, a vote has to be taken to see, whether or not the required popular majority is available. Only in such circumstances, and, with these types of safeguards, can a precipitous escalation of charges, counter-charges, insults and emotions be prevented. Besides, there should also be a consultation with other nations, as well as with a world-body such as the United Nation, before any belligerent action can be initiated.

There is more to this problem, than to provide, merely, an emergency mechanism for the prevention of hostilities. As we all know, wars do not break-out overnight, and, every conflict has a long history of simmering discontent, resentment and grievances. There is a long series of events that are interpreted, more and more openly, as grave injustices or insults by the peoples on both sides of a situation of conflict.

Unfortunately, the number of simmering disputes is so large, and, the technical difficulties of studying and defusing them are still so overwhelming, that we do not do anything at all, until it is too late. We do not even pay attention to these disputes, until they are ready to break-out into open warfare, and, even, then, we usually try a "band-aid" approach by soothing the boiling tensions, and by perpetuating an unjust status-quo.

It is obvious to anyone who cares to think for a moment, that the tensions of injustice and the origins of a conflict have to be dealt with decisively, and, they have to be given adequate attention, long before the festering sores become a huge, rotting wound, which can only be cured by the enormous upheavals of armed conflict or a violent revolution.

We still lack a global agreement about the definition of social justice, and, many people, especially, the powerful and privileged, will consider the conditions of justice to be synonymous with those that preserve and perpetuate their positions of advantage. On the other hand, many oppressed groups can only see the solution of armed conflict and violent revolutions. It does not require a great deal of intelligence to know, that, a hardening of attitudes on both sides makes a violent conflict inevitable.

Therefore, if we are serious in our desire to see a peaceful earth, we have to think, seriously and consistently, about the gigantic task of bringing-about social justice on a global scale. We can not come to a truly globally acceptable definition of social justice, if we try to maintain, somehow, a position of advantage, but, neither can we expect those groupings, occupying a position of privilege, to give-up their security voluntarily, without the guarantee, that they will, at least, be treated fairly and equitably.

We need a clear philosophy about the way we want to exist and inter-relate with each other on a world-wide scale, and, then, we can start to examine the numerous simmering disputes that exist between people all over the world. We have to study, document and discuss each one of these disputes thoroughly, carefully, and in great detail, allowing, thereby, an exchange of views and a measure of contact, before the emotions have risen to the boiling-point.

It is logical, that there is a greater willingness to listen to the other side of the argument, if the instinct to use violent aggression has not been aroused as yet, and, the technique of comparing a dispute with other conflicts, and tracing the origins of these disputes deep into their historical roots, will contribute, greatly, to bringing these disputes into a comprehensive perspective.

Besides, a globally acceptable code of ethics and a standard of living that is shared, at least, potentially, by everyone, will make it easier to judge a dispute and suggest an acceptable and reasonable solution to a specific conflict. However, there is no globally acceptable philosophy, as yet, and, there is not even a widespread awareness that we need such a standardised view of our own existence.

We do not have the technical, nor the organisational instruments, to study and record each simmering dispute in detail, and with sure-footed expertise. Neither do we have a majority of efficient, honest, responsive and popularly elected leaderships that follow Parliamentary procedures and are accountable to their people. We still have too many primitive dictatorships, where the intincts of aggression and the power of a military elite dictate what is happening within society.

It is not surprising, that mediation and compromise are, now, often a futile, fruitless and frustrating excercise, because the negotiators have little power to put pressure on the belligerents, and, the activities of mediation and negotiation still reflect, all too often, a clumsy emphasis on specific national interests. A compromise is, then, not based on a thorough understanding of the conflict-situation, but, on arguments of political expediency.

Rather than seeking a solution through the influence and power of outside forces with their political interests, it would be preferable, if an informed world-opinion could grow into an effective instrument with great prestige, which no nation, large or small, could afford to ignore. If a development takes place into this direction, the art of negotiation and compromise will gradually become a legal or judicial form of settlement, where, after carefully hearing all arguments, a judgement is formulated and a settlement is imposed, which will be backed by the force of world public opinion.

Then, mediation will become a powerful tool, not only, to prevent serious conflagrations between hostile groups of people or entire nations, but, it will, also, become an effective way to defuse growing situations of injustice, or the tensions of a conflict of interest, before they begin to harm the attitudes of cooperation and good-will.

Where does secrecy fit into this picture of global justice and integration? There is no place at all for any form of secrecy in the just world-society of the future, but, as we mentioned, the practice of secrecy is unavoidable in our contemporary societies. However, if those in power, as well as those who are negotiating as representatives for their societies, keep in mind the overall objectives of a just society, as well as the need for a gradual change towards a condition of increased transparence within and between nations, then, we do not have to despair, or despise, the practice of secret negotiations.

Nevertheless, we should keep a watchful eye upon our delegates and leaderships, in order to make sure, that they negotiate indeed honestly, and to the benefit of the peoples they represent. It is important, that all parties to a conflict refrain from opportunistic and egocentric attitudes during the efforts and hard work of negotiating and compromising an end to a situation of conflict, otherwise, the tensions of disappointment and the insults to the sense of justice, may send, once again, the peoples of many nations to their death, either, as soldiers on the battle-fields, or, as innocent civilian victims who are being bombarded in their defenseless cities and villages.

.......

Summary

1. A violent confrontation represents a mechanism for dissolving tensions.
   The results of an all-out struggle for survival.
   The instinct of territoriality.
   Inter-dependence, and the lingering needs for a territory.
   The bonds of human inter-dependence have grown beyond national boundaries.
   The territorial instincts of political leaders.
   When we lose the ability to negotiate and compromise.
   Dying as soldiers on the battlefield, or as civilians in vulnerable cities, is a high price to pay for saving the prestige of our nation.
   When we are caught by a deadly instinct.
   Rationalising our attitudes of hostility and acts of belligerence.
   The cloak of "self-defense".
   What makes us so sure, that we are not to blame?
   We pay a high price for the comforting feeling of "being absolutely right".
   
   
   
2. The functions of territorial behaviour.
   The concept of an ecological balance.
   Why the tensions of competitive strife continue to rise.
   The lingering ferocity of our territorial instincts.
   A slowly enlarging social unit.
   Dividing necessary tasks and chores between a group of people.
   The rise of the ability to recall memory-traces with representative symbols.
   The "herd".
   Herd-formation is not suitable for animals that require a sophisticated hunt in order to feed themselves.
   The slow and arduous growth of a viable social entity.
   Many complex developments are taking place simultaneously.
   Mechanisms of social integration in small groupings.
   Cultural and technical innovations are necessary for a successful, overall, large-scale social leadership.
   
   
   
3. Behavioural refinement; enlarging the number of factors to be taken into account.
   Behavioural flexibility; a review.
   The close, evolutionary relatives of mankind.
   A smooth transition from being an animal to being human.
   Are we still animals?
   A strong sexual drive.
   A portrait of "early man".
   A look at the genetically encoded instructions for parental care.
   The essential vulnerability of behaviourally flexible youngsters.
   Yielding to an emotionally satisfying behaviour of care and protection.
   The cultural break-through is made possible by an increased reliance on the ability to learn.
   Cultural and genetic codes.
   Pseudo-ethical behaviour-patterns; the draw-backs of a rigid, genetic encoding.
   Ethical behaviour for the human being requires, necessarily, a strong element of "voluntary choice".
   
   
   
4. Why we often revert to a narrow sphere of concern.
   The need to place restrictions on the behavioural range of young and adult members of a socially integrated unit.
   Unfolding the "ego-drive".
   An ever more prominent "contest of wills".
   The disastrous results of a defective "cultural transfer"
   Mechanisms of social integration in the early, pre-human societies.
   A "failure to separate" when the growth to maturity has been completed.
   A secondary fusion of related groupings.
   Stimuli for cultural and technical innovations.
   The "administration of justice".
   The three basic mechanisms of settling a dispute; all-out combat, yielding or fleeing, and, a differentiation into somewhat different ecological niches.
   Varying manifestations of dependence and inter-dependence.
   Solutions, found and applied by the mechanisms of natural selection.
   Social integration is a solution based on differentiation and inter-dependence; the "third" method.
   A conscious contract of "essential equality".
   Alliances, and the art of diplomacy.
   Forming an alliance against a common enemy is a useful rehearsal for the much more difficult task of negotiating a compromise with an adversary.
   The "blind" search for social possibilities of existence.
   When an alliance becomes, gradually, less "voluntary".
   Cultural developments and refinements in the art of forming alliances.
   
   
   
5. The increasing devastation of acts of warfare.
   People are likely to scrutinise, in the future, more intensely the reasons for a situation of conflict.
   The fragile faculty of rational attitudes and evaluations.
   Memories and awarenesses fade quickly.
   A library of documentaries.
   Understanding the basic needs of people.
   When a "compromise" is only a freeze in the status-quo.
   A review of the mechanisms of an alliance.
   The importance of honesty and openness.
   A genuine effort to shoulder one's share of burdens and responsibilities.
   The weakness of a "tough stance".
   The art of mediation.
   When there is a secret expectation to profit from a situation of conflict.
   The imposition of a binding settlement.
   World-opinion; a federation of considered attitudes and fair decisions.
   Opening-up the road for a satisfying judicial settlement of international disputes.
   A look at the art of international negotiation and mediation.
   
   
   
6. The weapon of secrecy represents a tool for aggression and deceit.
   The psychology of secrecy and ostentatious display.
   The thought processes of a multi-individual leadership.
   The ideal of complete openness in thoughts, plans and actions.
   Secrecy and existential interests.
   Hypocritical attitudes about spying.
   A practical need for some secrecy; at least, for the time being.
   A proper schooling for the tasks of public office.
   The Parliamentary debate.
   The roads of war are so much easier to travel than the roads of peace.
   Free-enterprise and the mechanisms of competitive strife.
   In an atmosphere of competitiveness and mistrust, secrecy is a weapon that is used by all sides.
   The inevitable rise of existential anxieties in a competitive society.
   
   
   
7. The right to "privacy".
   The needs of individuals, versus the needs of the social environment.
   Reflection and re-assessment; a period of psychological meta-morphosis.
   The role of private property.
   Why should people not be able to know, what kind of a person we really are?
   A two-way street of scrutiny.
   The presssures of transparence have to be applied evenly.
   A matter for careful study.
   Progress by careful, incremental steps.
   The art of mediation, and the ability to accept compromises; an important element in the educational curricula of the future.
   A clear exposition of opposing points of view.
   Mechanisms to slow-down the out-break of armed hostilities.
   A large number of simmering disputes are still nearly completely neglected.
   The festering sores of injustice.
   Preventing a "boiling point" of anger and frustration.
   The techniques of mediation and compromise are still in a rudimentary stage.
   World Opinion may become an instrument of great prestige.
   How to prevent the damages caused by opportunism and egocentric attitudes.

.......