Bertarelli Summer2024 FINAL - Flipbook - Page 69
CO M M UNIC AT IO N
|
RE W I L D I NG
We need to recognize that people—scientists included—make
decisions based on emotions.
the different layers of conflict we conservationists need to go
through to reach a genuinely collaborative and lasting
place of understanding. Say you have a dispute: the rats
are eating the tortoise eggs, for example. If that were
the only thing at stake in a political, cultural, and social
system, then that would be easy. But often, there’s
deeper roots to this conflict, a history of unresolved
disputes.
If something happened last week, or last year or
even 10 years ago, between the people making these
decisions, and some people were left feeling bad, then
that’s going to influence any attempt to solve the current dilemma. Beyond that, we can go deeper to the
identity-based conflicts, the us versus them. We might
think of these as the “isms” of the world; sexism, racism, ageism, anti-semitism. In the context of conservation, these conflicts can look like urban versus
rural, liberal versus conservative, government versus
citizen. These conflicts enable us to form prejudicial
assumptions about the other group, impeding our ability to genuinely work together and solve each others’
problems.
What this should tell us is that focusing on the substance—the “what”—of the dispute is not going to cut
it. Instead, we should focus on the “how”—how decisions are made—and the “who”—what relationships
govern those decisions. We need to address all three
factors—the what, the how, and the who—to have a
truly strong resolution. Think of it like a three-legged
stool. If one leg is weak, and you put pressure on the
stool, then it is going to topple. We need to adapt our
processes to the specific contexts that we are in, otherwise we won’t have that strong foundation to solve
problems on.
To do that, we need to consider one of the most
important elements of conflict, and that’s a concept
called Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
Conceived by American psychologist Abraham
Maslow, the simplified version of the theory identifies
five buckets of needs, including identity or self-actualization, self-esteem, physiological needs (like food and
water), security and safety, and love and community.
Identity can be described as how you see yourself in
relation to the rest of the world. And when one’s identity is under threat, or isn’t being legitimized, then the
instinct is to fight. The gut feeling is that if you are trying to annihilate them, then they will try to annihilate
you. People need recognition, respect, and dignity of
self-worth. They need security, which can mean physical or economic security, but it can also mean cultural,
emotional, and social security as well. At the same time,
we crave connection, that feeling of being accepted
and loved.
So what has this got to do with conservation? Consider that all these human needs intersect with one
another. What that means is that, if we are part of a
multi-party project, and one side is pulling back, what
might really be happening is that their identity is not
being legitimized, or they feel it is under threat. When
people’s identity is under threat, then they pull back
and close ranks within their group to make that identity more secure. You can’t create a shared identity in
a multi-party project if your own identity is not secure.
In turn, people need to feel a sense of control and
autonomy, and a meaningful say in decisions that affect
you. In conservation, we have a history of treating the
communities we work with as a box to tick. And if it
feels to them like a box-ticking exercise, you’re not
going to get the trust, or the collaboration, or shared
problem solving. You’re also not going to get the longevity that you need to really address the problem once
you’ve found a solution.
At the Center for Conservation Peacebuilding,
where I work, we try to foster this ethos of conservation
conflict transformation through a few strategies. First,
THERE9S ANOTHER WAY TO THINK ABOUT
67
