A Different Future

Tromsø, Norway – Irony in the Arctic Circle

Oct 12, 2024



Tromsø, Norway

So, in the midst of my visits to all these peace centers, Valerie and I flew to Tromsø, almost the northernmost point of Norway, well within the Arctic Circle. Two funny, ironic things about it; one on me, the other, well, on higher powers.

The one that is on me is I had never heard of Tromsø, I found it just by Googling good places to see the aurora borealis. A number of possibilities arose, but, needing to be in Oslo and Helsinki on either side of the trip, and wanting a convenient airport, I needed something relatively easy. Tromsø it was.

Tromsø, I imagined, was a remote, sleepy Arctic Circle town on the far northern coast, probably like a fishing village, where we could do rough excursions into the wilderness to see the aurora. Though we knew it was October, not January, we also knew it could be cold and windy. So we bought clothes that would keep us warm if the temperatures plummeted to 30 below zero and we were buried under an avalanche.

It wasn’t until we got here that I realized that Tromsø has the major regional airport, the regional hospital, The University of Tromsø (The “Arctic University of Norway,” the northernmost university in the world, ranked #512 out of 20,966 universities in the world) - over 100 resident nationalities, very chic shops and restaurants, and a population of over 70,000. When people starting settling here centuries ago, the cod was so plentiful, and fishing so lucrative, that it made it one of the richest cities in Norway, known as the “Paris of Norway.” The women wore Paris fashions (albeit warm ones) and the elite traveled here as a destination city.

 
Late 19th century Tromsø schoolteachers

So much for my sleepy fishing village. A large, modern, thriving town, wifi everywhere and nice stores, and incredible natural beauty all around it. I no longer wonder why people would want to live up here.



Second ironic thing – we planned this trip to see the aurora borealis, the Northern Lights, and booked a late night excursion to the middle of nowhere to best see it. Where did we go? See the map below – the little blue circle on the top of the big map is Tromsø, and the cutout shows where our guide, Hans, took us to see the lights, Kvaløya Island. A lovely crew of Val and I and six international travelers - from China, South Africa, the Philippines, and so on. We camped for a few hours at the base of the inlet at the red circle in the cutout.

Tromsø sits almost at the northernmost point of Norway, within the Arctic Circle, and we traveled from there to Kvaløya Island for our aurora borealis adventure.

It was windy and cold, and Hans built us a small fire. He was a delightful guide, eager to please, always checking on our desires and welfare. He is also an excellent professional photographer, and so he took shots of us and the lights.


Our camp and the Northern Lights behind us (picture by Hans Markus)

Seeing the lights was wonderful, special, especially so far north.


A spectacular show, courtesy of the night sky (picture by Hans Markus)


Val and Paul looking dramatically off into the lights (picture by Hans Markus)

Just one problem. As great as it was – and the journey and the experience was 2/3 of the greatness – it was the DAY AFTER the aurora dipped into the United States, and people started sending around the pictures they took in Connecticut, Illinois, and so on just as spectacular as what we saw. With colors we didn’t see. We had to travel to the ends of the earth to see what we could have seen from Springfield, Illinois. But traveling to the Arctic Circle was worth it on its own.

Life is different up here. People travel from everywhere - our taxi driver was from Afghanistan, Hans was from Estonia, our waitress was from Argentina. The winter is long, and you are pretty far away, though these days just a short plane ride gets you to major cities like Oslo, Helsinki, or Stockholm, or even into mainland Europe. But there is a richness, a starkness, and a singular beauty to this area. I loved it here.



Off to Helsinki. Farewell, beautiful Tromsø.



My Nobel Pursuit: Monterrey, Oslo, Stockholm

Oct 10, 2024



Today the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize was announced – winner is Japanese grassroots organization Nihon Hidankyo, representing thousands of survivors of the 1945 nuclear bombs dropped by the US on Japan, honoured “for efforts to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons.” So it is a good day to write about my own Nobel journey (not to win one, just to encounter those who have). Then i will return in my next post to the cities I am visiting, the people I have met, and the lessons I am learning.


Eleven Nobel Peace Laureates and representatives of 9 winning organizations.

I was invited to Monterrey, Mexico in September to speak at the19th World Summit of Nobel Laureates for Peace. Every few years there is a summit that moves around the world (https://www.nobelpeacesummit.com/), though Covid put them on hiatus for a while. In Monterrey, there were 11 Nobel Laureates, such as Óscar Arias Sánchez, Shirin Ebadi, Kailash Satyarthi, Rigoberta Menchú, and Lech Walesa, alongside representatives from 9 Nobel Prize winning organizations like the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). There was a student day before the Summit and then the three day summit. I was invited to participate in the student day and speak on a panel during the Summit called “Peace Education: Curriculum Integration” about how to incorporate peace courses into the university curricula.

The conference was fascinating  - over 4000 people, the majority students, and professionals and academics working in peace related fields. Some fascinating speeches and presentations - most notably former President of Costa Rica Óscar Arias Sánchez, one of those people whose gravitas demands immediate respect (reminded me in that aspect of Elie Wiesel). He gave a powerful speech of the need for each citizen to be part of the resolution of the conflicts raging right now.

 
Nobel Peace Laureate and former President of Costa Rica Óscar Arias Sánchez speaking at the Summit

One interesting aside, a notable observation especially for me as a Jew: the situation in the Middle East was mentioned frequently. Calls of “Free Palestine” rang out here and there from the largely international student audience. A number of panelists mentioned the suffering of Gaza, and one talk, by Jeffrey Sachs, economist and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, was a virtual screed against Israel. But not from a single Nobel Laureate. Every single one, when they brought up the Middle East, tried to articulate some sense of balance, even when their main point was the suffering of the Palestinians. It was deeply refreshing to hear balance, not to have people forget the Simchat Torah massacre  of Oct 7, 2023, when expressing sympathy, or even outrage, for the terrible loss of life, property, and community that is the reality in Gaza ever since. It becomes clear why these are Nobel Prize Laureates.

My panel was a great experience but ended up having little to do with the topic. I was on the panel with four Deans from Mexican universities (and I was advertised as a Dean, so thanks for the promotion, Nobel Summit. How do I tell Emory?), and with Shirin Ebadi, the Nobel Laureate from Iran who had been one of Iran’s first female  judges, was fired after Khomeini’s revolution in 1979, opened a law firm defending victims (especially women) of the regime, and was eventually jailed. A heroic and impressive person. Unfortunately, she knows little about integrating peace education into the curriculum, so after a few comments from the panel the rest of the session was her recounting her (very harrowing) experience in Iran, her passionate defense of justice, and a call to the audience of young people to get involved and fight for justice everywhere. But the panel ending up not being at all about peace education. It was still worth it, to hear a story of true courage in the face of a repressive regime.

 
On a panel with a true hero, Nobel Peace Laureate Shirin Ebadi

A few weeks later I was in Oslo, where the peace prize is actually determined. Alfred Nobel’s will - a very impressive and far-sighted fellow, the more you know about him - stated that the prizes for physics and chemistry are to be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences (he was Swedish); those for physiological or medical achievements by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm; and  literature by the Swedish Academy. But the Nobel Peace Prize he stated should be chosen by a committee selected by the Norwegian Parliament. No one knows why he split it that way.

Nobel’s will also stated that the prize not just be given to Scandinavians but to the world community, irrespective of nationality; and that it be “prizes to those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind.” Noble guy, that Nobel.


Nobel Peace Center in Oslo, with “broadmindedness, hope, commitment” under the windows.

The Nobel Peace Center is in Oslo. I was not able to tour it due to time constraints, but I did go in the bookstore. Time for a mini-rant. In the Nobel Peace Center bookstore - a building with “broadmindedness, hope, commitment” emblazoned on the front - was a display on the situation in the Middle East, consisting of six books about how Israel oppresses the Palestinians.  Not a single book on Israel or its history, never mind an Israeli perspective on the war. A major contrast with the Nobel Peace Laureates themselves. 

Here is the point: you do not solve conflicts through imbalance. That does not mean the two sides are equal, that some grievances aren’t greater than others, that profound criticism is not due to one or both sides, that we cannot condemn unequivocally certain actions. But conflicts are not solved through ignoring the grievances of either side. They are not solved by demonizing one side (or the other) and thinking that will stop things. The experts I have spoken with who do this kind of work emphasize the need to listen, deeply and sympathetically, to both sides, in the service of the first most important goal: to stop the killing. Historical grievances can be reconciled and dealt with after the killing ends. Apparently the Nobel Peace Center does not get this.


Nobel Prize Museum in Stockholm

After Oslo, off to Stockholm, where I did tour the Nobel Prize Museum, and was there for the announcement of the winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics.



They have displays of objects associated with many of the winners - not just peace - a cathode ray tube, models of molecules, the shawl Malala wore when she addressed the UN, The dress Nadia Murad made for a wedding before ISIS destroyed her village and captured her as a sex slave, a prosthetic leg from the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, a model of the toy car that Eric Kandel (who I have published an article with) got on his ninth birthday in Vienna. Small information sheets on every Nobel winner (there have been 973 individuals and 27 organizations) circulate on a track above your heads (see one of my favorites below, who I had dinner with when he spoke at my father’s synagogue).


Isaac Bashevis Singer, 1978 Nobel for Laureate for Literature

Sure the Nobels are elitist in some ways, quirky (some winners do not stand the test of time – though the majority do), can be discriminatory, are flawed. But I think what they symbolize is important, recognition for work that changes the world for the better, in the sciences, in the humanities, and in the pursuit of peace.

 

Oxford, London, and Frankfurt

Aug 25, 2024



Brasenose College of Oxford University

OXFORD: Harvey Whitehouse, Director of the Centre for the Study of Social Cohesion



The house where we stayed was conveniently located between London and Oxford, a little closer to Oxford, which was good because I had to make day trips to each place. So Val and I drove into Oxford, a lovely town to walk around except for all of those tourists - damn it, I was there for work, and here are all these tourists crowding out the streets…).

My contacts there generously arranged for a parking space - no easy task in Oxford - so Val and I drove in and spent the day. Walking around. But NOT AS TOURISTS. Just visitors, walking around, seeing the sites, sitting in cafes…

Anyway, I met with Harvey Whitehouse, and enjoyed that he comes at all this from the other side. His interest is not conflict but cohesion; what is it that holds societies together? Now, as a sociologist myself, that is my field’s bread-and-butter; sociologists try to study exactly how societies work how they manage to stay together despite all the pressures and competing needs of groups of people.

Harvey and his colleagues look at cohesion and what threatens it. Why are people so motivated to get into conflicts? There are theorized reasons: tribalism is one, or kinship, or some other collective identity - some “shared essence,” as he put it, things that define who you are and you associate with the group you feel a part of. While what is called “identity fusion” is often cited, meaning what creates and fosters in-group and out-group definitions, shared essence, to Harvey, is deeper.

He studied soldiers in Libya. Once they had fused with other fighters, once they had developed a sense of collective identity, there was nothing they would not do for each other. They would fight, die for each other. The key is a shared life-changing experience, one you see as fundamental to who you are, breaking down the barriers between you and the group. Shared transformative and self-defining experiences.

The group coalesces around a unique set of experiences, and constructs a story of its exclusivity. So when people from groups antagonistic to each other start sharing experiences, listening to each other, they learn that the experiences and feelings associated with them, that felt so singular and unique to them, are actually shared. You see the suffering and perspectives of the other side, and that begins to break down exclusivity and create an opening for dialogue.

The Oxford department has a group looking at violent extremist as well, and they have discovered four elements in common in such individuals and groups:

1. Fusion, as mentioned; a sense of strong mutual identification (not a bad thing itself, just when combined with the other three).
2. Perceived (or constructed) out-group threat, coupled with lack of perceived peaceful options;
3. Demonization of the out-group; and
4. Norms and narratives that condone violence as a solution.

Leadership becomes so important, as the last three elements can be encouraged or suppressed by leadership. A leader can fan the flames of the threat, contribute to demonization, encourage violence, or they can become a peacemaker. I don’t need to point out models of each in our current political environment.

Approaching the idea of conflict and peace from the perspective of social cohesion meshed well with my sociological training, so I appreciated Harvey’s approach and ideas. Thanks, Harvey, for the time.

LONDON: Luke Cooper and Mary Kaldor, London School of Economics

Luke Cooper, Conflict and Civicness Research Group, Dir. of PeaceRep’s Ukraine Program

Mary Kaldor, Director of the Conflict Research Programme, LSE “IDEAS” (LSE’s foreign policy think tank)

Speaking of being a sociologist, in my graduate years I studied “conflict sociology,” the theory that the best way to understand society is through the lens of competition and conflict, the ways people in group compete for, and allocate, resources. People pursue their interests, and every social interaction is a negotiation of conflict. Even on the micro scale; we want to see a movie, and our spouse wants to, and we begin negotiation - a romcom, a superhero flick, a documentary? I may compromise without being completely satisfied; I may “settle.” Agreement thus is simply a well-negotiated conflict, (which often does not satisfy the needs of all the participants), and peace is a successful set of agreements about how to manage conflicting needs.

It came to mind as I met with Luke and Mary. They study peace agreements. There are actually hundreds of small, local peace agreements generated, it is a feature of modern wars. Luke said that he also was interested in social cohesion, and how we gain, maintain, and lose it. And when he and Mary started talking, I heard echoes of the ideas I learned from conflict sociology. For example, they said wars aren’t really about conflict itself, but are usually about competition for some set of resources. War becomes in some place a long-time and sustained social condition, where leaders (warlords, for example) exploit the tensions of violence to make money - and the financial gains are more important than resolving the war, even more important than winning. People pursuing their interests.

They also criticized much of conflict resolution theory and activity, suggesting that what is seen as a successful intervention - stopping the conflict - often simply entrenches those already in power, as in Bosnia. So looking at peace agreements helps understand how to break that cycle of both conflict for monetary gain and leveraging violence to stay in power. How do local peace agreements create and maintain security, generate humanitarian help? But peace agreements can also be a vehicle for oppression - the Taliban took over in part by negotiating individual local peace agreements, thus keeping local groups from banding together to resist them.

For peacemaking to be successful, local groups are necessary. It can’t just be imposed from above. But as governments become more dependent on non-tax revenue (oil money, Western aid) the governments become less responsive to the citizens and do more to construct ideologies and systems that maintain those sources of revenue. You rally citizens around a nationalistic narrative. So the tension between local groups and governments can increase.

It was, of course, interesting to listen to them analyze the worldwide situation and see how profoundly it also all applies to what is going on in the United States.

FRANKFURT: Stefan Kroll, Head of Science Communication Department, Peace Research Institute of Frankfurt (PRIF)



PRIF is a well-known and well-regarded research institute internationally, and I was delighted to meet with Stefan Kroll, a researcher there, a Board member, and Head of Science Communication Department. PRIF was founded in the 1970s and is the biggest such organization in Germany. Like many I met, PRIF is primarily interested in international conflict, though it does have an arm that looks at conflict in Germany (including anti-semitism, Kroll noted). Their Research Center for Social Cohesion is the best place in Germany for domestic conflict resolution.

However, their particular expertise is in arms control and disarmament. They work in many countries and are both a research and consulting organization. They generate blogs, research papers, policy briefs, reports for journalists and others, and engage in collaborative projects worldwide. They have social scientists and others (they even employy physicists, chemists, and biologists). They are also consulted by the government of Germany.

Rather than talking about conflict resolution theory or approaches, as I did with others, my conversation with Stefan was more about how to approach the public and structure an organization like his. Their blog has been very successful (PRIFblog, if you want to check it out). We created a nice link, and I will be reaching out to them in the future.