The logical pursuit of such a principle leads even further than the type
of compromise which Ruth Fry has described, to the establishment of a
new basis of understanding which may not include any of the principles
for which the parties in conflict may have been striving, and yet which
brings about reconciliation.
Eric Heyman, speaking in religious terms, has said of this process of
discovering a new basis of understanding through the exercise of
positive goodwill, even toward an oppressor:
"That is the way of God, and it is therefore the way of our
discipleship as reconcilers; the way of non-resistance to evil, of
the total acceptance of the consequences of evil in all their lurid
destructiveness, in order that the evil doer may be reconciled to
God.... The whole consequences of his presence, whether small or
great must be accepted with the single realisation that the whole
process of the world's redemption rests upon the relationship which
the Christian is able to create between himself and his oppressor.
This course has nothing in common with resistance; it is the
opposite of surrender, for its whole purpose and motive is the
triumphing over evil by acceptance of all that it brings.... The
resistance of evil, whether by way of violence or 'non-violence' is
the way of this world. Resignation to evil is the way of weak
surrender, and yields only a powerless resentment; at its best it
is non-moral, at the worst sheerly immoral. Acceptance of evil is
the triumphant answer of the redeemer. In the moment of his
acceptance he knows of a certainty that he has overcome the
world."[130]
This process of finding a new basis of relationship has been called "a
third alternative, which produces no majority rule and no defeated
minority."[131] The Quakers have long used this method in arriving at
decisions within their own meetings. They refuse to make motions and
take votes which produce clearcut divisions within the group, but insist
that no action shall be taken until all divergent points of view have
been expressed, and a statement drawn up which embodies "the sense of
the meeting" and is acceptable to all. As Elton Trueblood has said, "The
overpowering of a minority by calling for a vote is a kind of force, and
breeds the resentment which keeps the method of force from achieving
ultimate success with persons."[132] Douglas Steere has described the
process in these words:
"This unshakable faith in the way of vital, mutual interaction by
conciliatory conference is held to be applicable to international
and interracial conflict as it is to that between workers and
employer, or between man and wife. But it is not content to stop
there. It would defy all fears and bring into the tense process of
arriving at this joint decision a kind of patience and a quiet
confidence which believes, not that there is no other way, but that
there is a 'third-alternative' which will annihilate neither
party."[133]
M. P. Follett, twenty years ago, wrote a book entitled _Creative
Experience_, in which she supported this same conclusion on the basis of
scientific knowledge about the nature of man, society and politics.
Speaking of the democratic process she said:
"We have the will of the people ideally when all desires are
satisfied.... The aim of democracy should be integrating desires. I
have said that truth emerges from difference. In the ballot-box
there is no confronting of difference, hence no possibility of
integrating, hence no creating; self-government is a creative
process and nothing else.... Democracy does not register various
opinions; it is an attempt to create unity."[134]
It might be said that in so far as democracy has succeeded, it has done
so because of its adherence to this principle. The division of a society
into groups which are unremittingly committed to struggle against each
other, whether by violent or non-violent means, until one or the other
has been annihilated or forced to yield outwardly to its oppressors for
the time being, will inevitably destroy the loyalty to a common purpose
through which alone democracy can exist.
The contrast between the British and American attitudes toward the
abolition of slavery presents us with a case in point. In Great Britain,
the Emancipation Act contained provisions for the compensation of the
slave owners, so that it became acceptable to them. In the United States
the advocates of abolition insisted that since slavery was sin there
could be no recognition of the rights of the owners. Elihu Burritt and
his League of Universal Brotherhood were as much opposed to slavery as
the most ardent abolitionists, yet of the League Burritt declared: "It
will not only aim at the mutual pacification of enemies, but at their
conversion into brethren."[135] Burritt became the chief advocate of
compensated emancipation in the United States. Finally the idea was
suggested in the Senate and hearings had been arranged on the measure.
"But," Burritt said, "just as it had reached that stage at which
Congressional action was about to recognize it as a legitimate
proposition, 'John Brown's raid' suddenly closed the door against
all overtures or efforts for the peaceful extinction of slavery.
Its extinction by compensated emancipation would have recognized
the moral complicity of the whole nation in planting and
perpetuating it on this continent. It would have been an act of
repentance, and the meetest work for repentance the nation could
perform."[136]
The country was already too divided to strive for this "third
alternative," and, whether or not slavery was one of the prime causes of
the Civil War, it made its contribution to creating the feeling which
brought on the conflict. In the light of the present intensity of racial
feeling in the United States, it can hardly be said that the enforced
settlement of the war gave the Negro an equal place in American society
or eliminated conflict between the races.
One of the virtues of the method of reconciliation of views in seeking
the "third alternative" is that it can be practiced by the individual or
a very small group as well as on the national or international scale.
James Myers has described its use within the local community in the
"informal conference." In such a conference, the person or group
desiring to create better understanding or to eliminate conflict between
elements of the community calls together, without any publicity,
representatives of various interests for a discussion of points of view,
with the understanding that there will be no attempt to reach
conclusions or arrive at any official decisions. James Myers' experience
has indicated that the conferences create an appreciation of the reasons
for former divergence of opinion, and a realization of the possibilities
of new bases of relationship which have often resulted in easing
tensions within the community and in the solution of racial, economic
and social conflicts.[137]
Even on the international level, individuals may make some contribution
toward the elimination of conflicts, although, in the face of the
present emphasis upon nationalism, and the lack of common international
values to which appeal may be made, their labors are not apt to be
crowned with success. As in all the cases which we have been
considering, however, concerned individuals and groups may act in this
field because they feel a compulsion to do so, regardless of whether or
not their actions are likely to be successful in producing the desired
result of reconciliation, and the discovery of the third
alternative.[138]