The Taxonomy of Peace
"Neither governments nor terrorists
analyze the Defensive and Aggressive Roots of Violence
within their enemies
and themselves. 
Consequently, their policy solutions are
imbalanced, hostile, and impractical. 
The habit of antagonistic debate further impedes
the development of solutions,
while threat-oriented psychological patterns and assumptions
buttress a belief
in war."



A Comprehensive Classification

of the Roots and Escalators of Violence

and 650 Solutions for Peace


With a particular emphasis on peace

within and between



By Kristin Y. Christman



copyright © 2011 Kristin Y. Christman

An independently created peace project, inspired by 9/11.
For students and teachers of social studies, peace studies, international relations,
for governmental and non-governmental foreign policy makers and foreign policy journalists,
for all to analyze foreign policy within a comprehensive and humane framework.
I have no Internet access at home, but e-mail is checked and responded to about once a week. 
This website was last updated September 28, 2017

"So conflict is not good vs. evil, black vs. white;

conflict is like a piano, with black and white keys intermixed. 
Yet, because war cannot distinguish between black and white,
war cannot play this piano. 
And because war adds to the injustices, deprivations, and psychological scars
that aggravate aggressive and defensive roots of violence,
war, as a tool against cruelty and injustice,
is ineffective."

Mother's Day Poem, May 2015:

Op-Eds in the Albany Times Union are most easily located by going to the upper left hand corner of this homepage, and clicking on 1. Op-eds.  The Times Union has kindly provided me with pdf files of these op-eds.  They can also be located at the websites below, but the sites are often limited to subscribers of the newspaper.: 





Radio Interview with David Swanson, Talk Nation Radio, 2015:

Radio Interview with Rivera Sun and Getch Sierralupe, Occupy Radio, 2015:

Kateri Peace Conference with David Swanson, Jill Stein, and Steve Breyman, 2014:

1.  Purpose
2.  Synopsis
3.  Listing of PDF Files of The Taxonomy of Peace Available to the Reader to View or Download
4.  Introduction
5.  A Need for a New House Plan
6.  Paradigm for Peace
7.  The Need to Recognize and Respect the Science of Peace
8.  The Evolution of US Foreign Policy
9.  Ramifications of the Use of Paradigm for Peace
10.  8 Objectives of The Taxonomy of Peace
11.  Some Words of Explanation
12.  Corrections
13. Additional Bibliography Notes
14.  Acknowledgements
Paradigm for Peace is about developing in society the ability to look at any conflict through the framework of the aggressive and defensive roots of violence and the mental, legal, and physical escalators of violence and to then match the specific roots and escalators with solutions,  including any of the 650 solutions presented, in order to solve a conflict as logically, humanely, non-violently, precisely, effectively, and holistically as possible, and to do all this with an approach of cooperative dialogue and an attitude and tone of positive enthusiasm, bold amiability, consciousness in the heart, and caring equally for all.
The Taxonomy of Peace, based upon the Paradigm for Peace model, is especially designed to help foreign policy makers and students and faculty of peace studies and international relations programs learn to create more enlightened and humane foreign policy. 
The US Congress and other bodies of the US government currently have no systematic, comprehensive process for analyzing and discussing international conflicts.  Members of Congress are brought together to vote on a bill which they may or may not have had time to read and which, most likely, has not been placed in any type of full context of information about the conflict.  Without this context, Congressmembers who write and vote upon legislation cannot be aware of how any particular piece of legislation fits into the full picture of the conflict.  Without an outline of the full range of the roots of violence and the full range of solutions, Congressmembers cannot have the information necessary to create ideal legislation that is logical, humane, and cost-effective. 
Adding to the difficulty of creating effective foreign policy is the existence of an entrenched habit of antagonistic debate.  Opposing sides in a discussion try to beat each other.  "Winning" is equivalent to overpowering the other.  The habit of the debate is so deeply imbedded in American culture - everywhere from school debate clubs to editorial pages to political campaigns to the adversarial courtroom - that Americans accept it as the only form of discussion.  Yet cooperative forms of discussion are possible, quest dialogues that have the twin goals - not of beating and overpowering - but of learning the full truth and building harmony and friendship with the other side.  Participants try to express themselves and learn from one another with an attitude of amiability, curiosity, courage, confidence, and mutual appreciation.  While hostility closes off debate participants' minds, ears, and hearts, while it pits participants far apart into opposing sides of the rink, while it warps and channels discussion to the negative, hostile, sarcastic, and unproductive and thus actually impedes effective communication and, ironically, a true experience of freedom of speech, it will be found that the amiable, vigorous, open-hearted, and open-minded approach of the quest discussion enables participants to arrive much more closely at the full truth while maintaining harmony with one other.   
The Taxonomy of Peace offers a model, Paradigm for Peace, and a method of cooperative thought and dialogue, termed a Quest, by which Congress and other bodies within governments can gain a comprehensive and rapid grasp of the full array of both the aggressive and the defensive roots of violence and a much more complete set of solutions, particularly the unwisely neglected non-violent solutions.  The use of such a process can help the US government to create foreign policy that is based upon comprehensive information and analysis rather than upon haphazard ideas, hectic emotions, rushed bills, and political pressure both within and between political parties.  The Taxonomy of Peace filters the Middle East - US conflict through this model.  Also, the three appendices run the Cold War, WWII, and the US Civil War through this model in order to help dismantle the assumption that past wars were necessary and practical.  With such a model as Paradigm for Peace, the US government can prevent conflicts and respond to crisis situations with a steady hand at the wheel, with intelligence steering the course, and with consciousness in the heart.





1.  ARTICLES (New!)


Please scroll upward and click the heading on the upper left in order to view or download the Articles.  The Articles are a new feature posted December 2013 that enable readers to gain a rapid grasp of the purpose of the entire project within a brief number of pages.  Readers are strongly encouraged to begin learning about the project by means of the Articles. 


Article 0:  The Science of Peace.  (appr. 50 pages)  This article is a combination of a condensed version of the Excerpt "9 Assumptions" and the model Paradigm for Peace.  "9 Assumptions" describes faulty assumptions that lead people to believe that violence is necessary.  Ironically, these assumptions are held by those advocating violence on both sides of conflict, whether American or Mid-Easterner.   Paradigm for Peace provides a comprehensive structure for analyzing the aggressive and defensive roots of violence on both sides of conflict and for creating solutions. 


Articles 1 - 13:  Standards for Foreign Policymakers.   (appr. 8 pages each article, 100 pages total)  Ironically, American children are the subject of unrelenting evaluation and pressure to meet educational standards while US foreign policymakers are held to no standards of learning or skill when contemplating the use of violence abroad.  This series of articles provides 38 standards for foreign policymakers to uphold, whether they are formal policymakers in the US or Mid-Eastern governments, or informal policymakers within terrorist organizations. 


Article 1:  Caring Equally for All.  Standard 1.

Article 2:  Catch the Good.  Standard 2.

Article 3:  Dialogue:  Finding Truth and Harmony.  Standards 3-4.

Article 4:  Uncovering the Roots and Escalators of Violence.  Standards 5-6.

Article 5:  Solving Problems and Creating Peace:  How Does War Compare to the Options?  Standards 7-8.

Article 6:  Love and  Truth:  Antidotes to Demagoguery.  Standards 9-12.

Article 7:  Abusing Abuse to Abuse.  Standard 13. 

Article 8:  The Power of Frost.  Standards 14-15.

Article 9:  The Power of the Sun:  Approaches to Negotiation.  Standards 16-18.

Article 10:  Developing Expertise in Negotiation.  Standards 19-23.

Article 11:  Just War.  Standards 24-31.

Article 12:  DaVinci Boundaries.  Standards 32-38.

Article 13:  Conclusion and Event Horizon.


Dartmouth Alumi Magazine article.  This file is the unedited version of a letter that was later condensed and printed in the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine issue of November/December 2012.





Please scroll upward and click the heading on the upper left in order to view or download the Summary Charts.  The Summary Charts were completed in October 2012 and are designed to help readers gain a much more rapid grasp of the entire project in bulleted form.  Material is discussed in more depth than the Guide, but in less than half the detail of the entire Taxonomy of Peace.  I especially encourage you to begin with these Summary Charts.


Please click the heading on the upper left, SUMMARY CHARTS, in order to view or download:  


*Roots of Violence in the Middle East Summary Chart (about 65 pages)

*Roots of Violence in the United States Summary Chart (about 85 pages)

*Solutions Summary Chart (about 400 pages)

*Roots of Violence Blank Chart

*Solutions Blank Chart

*Diagram of Paradigm for Peace Model




Please click the heading on the upper left, OVERVIEW AND GUIDE, in order to view or download:


Overview to The Taxonomy of Peace (about 40 pages)


The Overview is a duplicate of many of the pages that appear on the homepage of this site.  The Overview includes the sections Introduction, A Need for a New House Plan Based Upon a Science of Peace, a description of the Paradigm for Peace model,  Ramifications of the Use of Paradigm for Peace, 8 Objectives of The Taxonomy of Peace, and Some Words of Explanation. 


Guide to The Taxonomy of Peace (about 175 pages)


The Guide is a very useful detailed Table of Contents for the entire Taxonomy of Peace.  The Table of Contents in the Taxonomy of Peace itself is not as detailed as in the Guide.  The Guide is a great way to skim through the entire listing of roots and escalators of violence and the 650 solutions.  The reader may prefer to look through the Guide in order to find items of special interest and then proceed to the Excerpts or to the individual sections available from The Taxonomy of Peace.




Please click the heading on the upper left, THE TAXONOMY OF PEACE, in order to view or download:


The Taxonomy of Peace: 

A Comprehensive Classification of the Roots and Escalators of Violence and 650 Solutions for Peace

with a particular emphasis on peace

within and between

the Middle East and the United States (about 2,500 pages)


The reader is welcome to open and read from the entire work, or, if it is easier, the reader can also choose the individual sections of the work which are available as separate files, numbered 00 through 36. 


Files 00-8 include the Copyright Notice, the Introduction, the Paradigm for Peace model, and the Roots of Violence in the Middle East.

Files 09-16 include the Roots of Violence in the United States.

Files 17-19 include the Mental, Legal, and Physical Escalators of Violence.

Files 20-32 include the 650 Solutions.

Files 33-35 include the Conclusion, the Event Horizon, and the three Appendices pertaining to the Cold War, WWII, and the US Civil War run through the Paradigm for Peace model.

File 36 includes the Bibliography, the 8 Objectives, a Personal Relation to the Topic, Acknowledgements, and the Copyright Notice. 




     Please click the heading on the  upper left, EXCERPTS, in order to view or download:


     Excerpts of The Taxonomy of Peace (about 800 pages)


These Excerpts primarily focus on a sampling of 220 solutions of the 650 presented in the entire work. The Excerpts also include one section on Mental Escalators and all three Appendices which run the Cold War, WWII, and the US Civil War through the Paradigm for Peace model. The Excerpts do not include any of the Roots of Violence in the Middle East and the US.




I especially encourage you to read from any of the shorter excerpts below.


**Excerpt 9 Assumptions (49 pages)  


*Excerpt Black and White Thinking (42 pages)


*Excerpt Economic Ideology and Peace (18 pages)


*Excerpt Education (US)  (85 pages)


*Excerpt Freedom (34 pages)


*Excerpt Just War (16 pages)


*Excerpt Negotiation (124 pages)


*Excerpt NSS 2006 (19 pages)


*Excerpt Psychological Patterns (116 pages)


*Excerpt Secularism (71 pages)


*Excerpt Speech 72 (3 pages)


*Excerpt Speech 431 (7 pages)


*Excerpt Speech 522 (4 pages)


*Excerpt Speech 612 (7 pages)


*Excerpt Torture (45 pages)


*Excerpt Toughness (32 pages)


*Letter to the Editor Dartmouth Alumni Magazine 



Please click the heading on the upper left, APPENDICES, in order to view or download:
*Appendix A:  The Cold War
*Appendix B:  WWII (European Front)
*Appendix C:  The US Civil War
These documents run these three conflicts through the Paradigm for Peace model in abridged form.
Please click the heading on the upper left, ORIGINAL QUEST DIALOGUES, in order to view or download:


Original Quest Dialogues

 These twenty columns of dialogues are a condensed version of the original e-mail dialogues begun April 2003 with my friend Sandy.  We each had different points of view about US foreign policy towards Afghanistan and Iraq.  In these dialogues, we strive to model a cooperative “quest” approach of discussing our perspectives with curiosity and amiability.  Many of the ideas from these dialogues were used in The Taxonomy of Peace, and seven of the dialogue columns are included in the final chapter of the larger work.  As stated in the introduction to the dialogues:  “I hope that this Quest can demonstrate a sample format and attitude that enable opposing parties of conflict to focus their energies on advancing the connection between truth, freedom, love, and harmony, rather than on splitting the truth and fighting each other.”







9/11 was a day of horror.  Yet, for many Americans, the US government’s reaction to 9/11 was also one of horror.  While numerous Americans supported US foreign policy, other Americans opposed the bombing, invasion, and occupation of Afghanistan in 2001.  And many more Americans opposed the bombing, invasion, and occupation of Iraq in 2003.  On top of all that, for a great number of Americans, it was the division itself, the division amongst Americans, that was also upsetting.  Hostility between Americans could be readily seen on the pages of letters to the editor in many newspapers.  While Americans are never homogeneous in their opinions, it was the degree of hostility and the intensity of rancor that was unsettling as Americans exchanged hateful, acrimonious opinions regarding the appropriate reaction to 9/11 and to Mid-Eastern concerns. 

Americans have been divided over the US foreign policy response to 9/11.  Whether heatedly exchanging words or courteously exchanging none, Americans have been sorely sundered, and the tear has not been addressed adequately.  Unfortunately, the tradition deeply imbedded in our culture is to discuss differences by means of the debate.  The debate pits one side against the other.  The goal is to beat the other side.  Yet, more effective forms of discussion are possible:  cooperative forms, dialogues with the goal, not of victory, but the twins of truth and friendship. 

The purpose of The Taxonomy of Peace is to address these hostilities – the hostility between Americans, the hostility towards Americans as expressed by 9/11, the hostility towards Mid-Easterners, and the hostility within the Mid-East.  Electrifying the passion behind this labor were fear and compassion for the lives of Iraqis, Afghans, and American troops and civilians beleaguered by war and violence.  Yet, while energized by feelings of compassion, hope, anger, and fear, The Taxonomy of Peace is the result of channeling this energy into the invention of a new structure and approach to foreign policy that is based upon a comprehensive classification of the roots and escalators of violence and their solutions. 

The Taxonomy of Peace is premised on the belief that heightened skills of discussion and understanding amongst Americans and amongst Mid-Easterners are necessary in order to augment the ability of the US and the Middle East to understand one another.  The focus of the work is on the international conflict between the US and the Mid-East, as well as the national conflict between Americans with differing views on foreign policy.  Hopefully, methods to relieve and to resolve conflict at one level of society can be applied to resolve conflict at other levels.

The Taxonomy of Peace is based upon two foundations: 

1.  the carefully and honestly structured organization of knowledge into a comprehensive classification of the causes of and solutions to violence can deepen understanding, broaden the options available, and create insights as to solutions, and

2.  an amiable attitude of appreciation and curiosity for the truth, for all information and perspectives, can improve relations between human beings and can improve the capacity for humans to acquire knowledge and to benefit from the truth. 

In accord with these foundations, The Taxonomy of Peace provides 1.  an entire framework of classification and 2.  a cooperative “quest” attitude for developing foreign policy. 

As Linnaeus’ classification of animals and plants greatly enhanced the ability of scientists to grasp the interrelationship amongst organisms, The Taxonomy of Peace provides a classification that can enable policymakers and the general public to grasp the nature and interrelationships amongst the causes of and solutions to violence.  The structure of the work itself is organized according to Paradigm for Peace, a model invented shortly after 9/11 that provides a comprehensive, non-partisan, and practical framework for classifying and considering the roots of violence and their solutions.  The model dissects the causes of violence into eight categories, termed the Roots of Violence, and three additional categories, the Escalators of Violence.  The model also classifies the solutions to violence into three categories, the Three Facets:  the 1st Facet of mental tools of Human Development, the 2nd Facet of legal tools of Justice, and the 3rd Facet of physical tools of Physical Control.

While the model can be used to promote peaceful relations at any level of society ranging from familial to international relations, and while peaceful relations at one level of society can be mirrored at another level, the invention was especially designed to enable foreign policy makers in the national government to automatically envision and create foreign policy in a manner that is more appropriate for a mature and intelligent nation; in a manner that sheds hackneyed habits of waffling between the constricted options of violence, pressured diplomacy, and inaction; and in a manner that opens a broad new spectrum of concrete possibilities of peaceful, dynamic action. 

Paradigm for Peace is of tremendous potential importance to the effective analysis and cooperative development of foreign policy.  Rather than perceiving terrorists, Iraqis, Afghans, or Americans to be purely aggressive or defensive, the model recognizes both aggressive and defensive motives of violence amongst all of these groups.  Rather than advocating a tough or a soft approach, the model acknowledges the need to use vigorous mental, legal, and physical approaches to avert violence.  At the same time, the main thrust of The Taxonomy of Peace is to enhance understanding and logic so that non-violent approaches that integrate and fulfill needs of all parties involved can receive enormously greater attention and appreciation. 

Ten years in the making, and with its roots taking hold in that fateful September of 9/11, The Taxonomy of Peace provides a comprehensive layout of the roots of violence and more than six hundred fifty primarily non-violent solutions by running the Middle East–US conflict through the entire Paradigm for Peace framework.  The three appendices run three other conflicts, the Cold War, WWII, and the US Civil War, through abridged forms of the same framework.  Such reviews provide possibilities for readers to better imagine and create alternatives to past wars, alternatives that may have been less costly and more effective.  The Taxonomy of Peace is therefore a serviceable demonstration of the model, and it is also a mosaic.  Different pieces of information from a wide assortment of sources are filtered through, sorted, and then pieced together according to the structure of the model.  With such an organization, scattered pieces of information take on greater meaning as they reinforce certain ideas and themes. 

An essential aspect of this project is an attitude of equality with the other authors whose works are referenced, with the other participants, and with you, the Reader.  Yet this attitude is more than a matter of equality:  even more, it is an attitude of genuine appreciation and interaction, for it is assumed that you have ideas and information of your own that could be integrated with the ideas presented here in order to create an even finer approach to peace.  You, the Reader, with your knowledge and experiences can evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the analysis of roots of violence and of the solutions presented here.  It is hoped that you will grasp the strengths in this project and improve upon its weaknesses in order to better set your own course in the internal and external pursuit of peace within every part of your life. 

Many people encourage the development of peace in a variety of ways.  By providing a useful approach and framework for foreign policy and for individual thought, The Taxonomy of Peace places in the brook one more stepping stone towards that sunlit shore of peace.  My hope is that the quest attitude of thought and dialogue and a framework for classification and policymaking such as the Paradigm for Peace model will both become standard in our nation’s approach to foreign policy.  Such a standard would ensure that the US government could pursue a much more comprehensive, non-partisan, peaceful, practical, easily-communicated, and effective approach to foreign policy. 

If, when faced with a conflict or when hoping to avert a conflict, the US executive and legislative branches could automatically consider the situation in terms of these eight Roots of Violence, three Escalators of Violence, and Three Facets of Solutions, if they were to give even half a day of thought to running the situation through the model, if they were to browse through the sub-headings alone of the 650 solutions presented here, and if these branches of government could automatically discuss their ideas with the cooperative quest attitude of bold amiability and energetic curiosity, the US government would be light years ahead in its capacity to create peace among its members, within the US, and within the world. 








Currently, we’ve got this Old House Plan in our heads that, when faced with a 9/11, causes us (or some of us) to proclaim:  “Oh, my God, we’ve been attacked.  We’ve been attacked by Al Qaeda.  This means war.  Who should we attack?  Afghanistan?  Iraq?  Afghanistan and Iraq?  Al Qaeda has no home address.  It hides in the shadows.  Perhaps eventually we’ll attack Pakistan?  Yemen?  Iran?  When should we attack?  How should we attack?  Overhead bombing flights?  Boots on the ground?  How many troops?  What’s our exit strategy? 

But the bigger question should be: Why are these the questions that are posed?  Why do the minds of those leading American foreign policy react to an event such as 9/11 in this way? 

And there is a ready answer:  because the Old House Plan in their minds channels, restricts, and constricts their thoughts. 

In the days following 9/11, debate within the US administration revolved around the theme of who to attack and when:  Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Afghanistan and Iraq, or several nations around the world simultaneously.  Yet trying to obliterate the enemy or enemy weapons does not fully take care of the threat; it does not address why the enemy felt it was desirable to become a threat in the first place.  And if motivations are not discussed, then solutions to those motivations will be omitted. 

It is not surprising that, given the limitations of the Old House Plan, there was no wide range of solutions discussed.  For this reason, the US approach to the Mid-East has been flat, two-dimensional, like the two dimensions of a board game in which the goal is simply to defeat the opponent.  There has been no recognition of the human element, there has been no acknowledgement of the goal of understanding and caring for the other, there has been no awareness of the deeper aspects of human feelings, thoughts, and spirit in the opponent, and there has been no realization that improving the capacity for and quality of human thought and feeling both within ourselves and within the Middle East is a cornerstone in the creation of peace.  Most obviously, there has been no effort to base foreign policy upon a thoughtful, logical, and comprehensive science of peace. 

The current Old House Plan is the same as the traditional Old House Plan, and it has been used by American foreign policy leaders for generation after generation.  It is not based upon a science of peace.  Instead, despite its longevity, it is based upon a faulty foundation of several assumptions.  These assumptions underlie the belief that we can and we must resolve terrorism by attacking other nations. 


Shaky Assumptions: 

1.      We must wage war to protect our lives.

2.      We must wage war because strength is necessary to control and diminish violence.

3.      We must wage war to protect our freedoms.

4.      We must wage war because if we don’t control them, they will control us.  If we don’t shape the world, the world will shape us.

5.      We must wage war to fulfill our responsibility to the world.

6.      We must wage war because freedom, peace, and justice all require sacrifice, and we are  ready to make that sacrifice.

7.      We must wage war because force is necessary to deal with those who will not listen to reason.  We must face reality, and war is the only practical solution.

8.      We must wage war because, while we hate to get involved in killing, we didn’t pick this fight.

9.      We must wage war because this is a just war.


These assumptions, which seem an unshakeable foundation, are unsound, for while they generally contain elements of truth, this truth only serves to mask treacherous fractures in thinking and significant amounts of falsehood.  And ironically, these assumptions are held by those advocating violence on both sides of the US/Mid-East conflict.  If we believe in those assumptions, then it seems obvious that we must adhere to the Old House Plan and respond to 9/11 by attacking other nations.  But if we free our minds from an absolute belief in these assumptions, if we take the time to evaluate the truth and falseness contained within them, then it becomes obvious that the Old House Plan is ineffective, war is unrealistic, and non-violent alternatives are woefully neglected in current and traditional foreign policy.

        Instead of revering the Old House Plan as the hallowed tradition set forth by our predecessors and sacredly passed down from generation to generation, let’s get wise and notice it’s serious, debilitating flaws, for there are weaknesses with every single assumption mentioned above.


The New House Plan calls upon us to go about the entire Mid-East situation differently and ask: What are the roots of Saddam Hussein’s violence? What are the roots of the terrorists’ violence? As in any science, you need to understand the problem before you can solve it.


        The US defines problems simply as 1. the existence of terrorism against the US and 2. the existence of atrocities and weapons in nations such as Iraq. Really, for the terrorists, terrorism is not the problem; it’s perceived as a solution to some other problems. What are those problems and are there other ways to fix them?

For Saddam Hussein, committing atrocities and building/planning weapons were not problems; they were perceived as solutions to other problems. What are they and can they be resolved in non-violent ways?


The point of looking at the roots isn’t to excuse anybody. The intent here is not to sympathize with terrorists or justify their actions, but rather to analyze one part of the cold truth. The point is to figure out what makes terrorists tick and what made Saddam Hussein tick so that no more such mentalities will be created. Just as failures in human health are often the result of a complicated interaction of various factors in various systems of the body, failures in human behavior are also often the result of an array of factors interacting upon one another. And so, as a scientist can peer through a microscope and, without sympathizing with or even cursing the cancer, focus his energy on discovering how cancer cells form, we can analyze how violent individuals form. And, if some of these negative mentalities are caused in part by US behavior, then it is necessary to understand the roots behind US behavior as well.



Copyright © 2011 by Kristin Y. Christman



Paradigm for Peace is a model constructed shortly after 9/11 that provides a comprehensive framework for looking at the roots of violence and their solutions.  Peacemakers and foreign policy makers in government or in any sector of society can use the model as a non-partisan guide for creating policy to reduce and to prevent violence.  The model dissects the roots of violence into their component parts.  It then analyzes solutions by means of three facets, or categories.  In reality, the dissection is not so clearcut and there is often overlap amongst the categories of the roots of violence and their solutions.  However, in order to give a good, hard look at the roots of violence and their solutions, it is useful to analyze each category separately.  Also, such a dissection of roots and solutions can help ensure that policy makers give adequate consideration to all the roots and all the solutions. 


          In times of crisis, leaders and members of the government and community can use the model to sketch a quick, yet comprehensive overview of the problem and solutions.  By using a model, people can easily communicate their ideas to each other and to the public in a way that is meaningful rather than vague, ambiguous, and emotional.  Likewise, the public can use the model to communicate suggestions to leaders.     



            After 9/11, I sat down and thought about what circumstances would make me or anyone else angry enough to kill someone.  Then I put the circumstances in order, from most aggravating to least.  As the process neared completion, it occurred to me that this hierarchy was nothing brand new but was similar to other hierarchies created for other purposes by such social scientists as A. H. Maslow.  I then examined their hierarchies and made some modifications in my own. 


The Paradigm for Peace model presents eight categories of needs which, if perceived to be unfulfilled or threatened, could contribute to the decision to resort to violence.  Next to each category are some examples.  Note that a human need can pertain not only to a need to receive from others but also to a need to develop one’s own character and virtues. 


1.  Life and Safety - fear of death after 9/11 prompts the US to attack Afghanistan.

2. Power and Freedom – lack of representation and political power in government leads some to become terrorists; fear that US freedom is threatened prompts some Americans to support the US military effort against terrorism.

3. Wealth and Possessions – anger over poverty causes some to become terrorists; US desire for oil factors into war incentive; fighting over ownership of land creates conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

4. Values – fear of invasive Western culture provokes some to become terrorists; fear that the US way of life is threatened stirs some to support the US military effort against terrorism.

5.  Love, Worth, and Friendship – low self-esteem and alienation factor into the decision of some to become terrorists; the desire to be superior, to preserve its identity as invincible, may add to the US incentive to strike back militarily; lack of love and respect for others leads to brutal behavior towards others.

6.  Self-Potential – lack of ability to “be all that one can be” leads some to find a purpose and cause both in terrorist and military organizations; individual and societal failure to develop qualities of self-control and rational thinking leads to inability to respond non-violently to fears and frustrations. 

7.  Joyful Tranquility – lack of knowledge of how to enjoy life and how to maintain a tranquil, stimulated, playful state of mind leads some to find sport in killing people or in acquiring massive wealth from others.

8.  Truth – lack of truthful information in order to make informed decisions leads to the support of unnecessary violence; paranoia in any nation about the infiltration of enemies increases the rates of arrests, cruel punishments, and executions; lack of information about an impending attack leads to vulnerability to massacres.





The roots of violence can range on a continuum from defensive to aggressive.  It is very important to note that the Paradigm for Peace model considers both defensive roots of violence, in which one resorts to violence in order to defend the legitimate needs of oneself or others, and aggressive roots of violence, in which one resorts to violence to threaten others’ legitimate needs.  The decision to employ violence is not necessarily legitimate in either case, but, in order to fully resolve the causes of the conflict, in order to address and modify the dynamics that are leading to the violence, it is essential to examine whether human beings feel they are driven by defensive or aggressive motivations.


          Roughly speaking, a defensive root is a desire to protect one’s own legitimate needs from getting trampled.  For example, defensive roots include the belief that one is about to be killed, one’s nation is about to be attacked, one’s house is about to be robbed, one’s land is going to be seized, or one’s labor is being exploited.  The term “defensive” is not used to legitimate the violence, just to legitimate the need that is threatened.


          An aggressive root, on the other hand, is a desire to deprive others of their legitimate needs.  Aggressive roots may include sadism, excessive love of power, greed for wealth, callous intolerance towards others’ beliefs and values, desires for glory and superiority, hatred for others, jealousy for others’ accomplishments, sick and distorted forms of pleasure, desire to control and manipulate truth and information, obedience to violent orders, or simply heartless imitation of others’ violent behavior.  


         An accidental root, a less common root of violence, is a factor that causes a person to commit violence by mistake, such as when an army attacks its own side in “friendly fire” or when a drunk driver kills a pedestrian.  An accidental root is related to but different from violence based upon ignorance, for, while many decisions to resort to violence are based upon ignorance of the threat and ignorance of solutions, an accidental root is a situation that is more quickly and obviously noticed to have been a mistake, even without changing one’s general outlook on the roots of violence and their solutions.




In short, a defensive root pertains to a legitimate grievance while an aggressive root pertains to an illegitimate grievance.  In both cases, however, resorting to violence may not be legitimate.  Resorting to violence, even with a legitimate grievance, is certainly not legitimate if other means are available to amend the situation.  It also is clearly not legitimate if the need that is threatened is relatively minor. 


In general, the solutions to the defensive roots of violence are to protect and fulfill the needs of the person/nation who feels threatened.  This is important to recognize because too often nations or groups who commit violence stemming from defensive roots are then punished with further threats that only escalate their sense of injustice and insecurity.  On the other hand, the solutions to the aggressive roots of violence are to stop the encroachment and sometimes to threaten the encroacher’s own needs.  For example, people shooting away into an innocent crowd should have their need for power and freedom threatened in the form of an arrest and confinement.  


That said, it can be impossible or at least tedious and time-consuming to separate defensive and aggressive roots in reality and to identify who was behaving for what reason.  A person/nation may have an illegitimate grievance but believe it is legitimate.  Or a person/nation may perceive a threat exists which really doesn’t, but attack an opponent anyway.  In such a case, the person/nation feels it is behaving defensively but is perceived by others as aggressive.  Or the nation may not be aware of non-violent means to amend a legitimate grievance.  Confusing matters more is the fact that even a person with aggressive motives, such as hatred or greed, may still be motivated deep down by defensive feelings of fear.  Finally, a mix of aggressive and defensive motives could exist even within the same person.   


So it’s difficult to pinpoint all the motives and sometimes impossible to draw the line between defensive and aggressive.  But instead of becoming all harried about that, it is important simply to be aware and open to the fact that defensive and aggressive roots do exist and that different roots require different solutions.  Without necessarily identifying who exactly is driven by defensive or aggressive reasons, foreign policy solutions should be created that address both aggressive and defensive motives.  


If the US were very careful to thoroughly and satisfactorily address defensive roots of anti-Americanism, it becomes more likely that those who are still killing and terrorizing tend to have more aggressive motives.  If the US makes enthusiastic efforts to understand and address the obvious causes of anti-Americanism, the US can be more sure that those who continue to behave violently towards the US are more likely to have illegitimate reasons and aggressive motives, such as jealousy or pleasure in violence.  Those with aggressive motives will be filtered out and then become more easily identified.  Yet for the filtering process to work, it is essential to listen and try to understand all people’s grievances instead of assuming their motives are illegitimate or instead of merely pronouncing that their violence is unacceptable.  True, the violence is unacceptable, but the grievance must be understood. 




            We still need an explanation as to why some people choose violence as the preferred means of responding to a threat.  After all, someone whose needs are unfulfilled could take nonviolent action, violent action, or no action.  Sometimes, employing violence may truly be the best or only way to save someone’s life or freedom.  At other times, the decision to resort to violence, either for defensive or aggressive reasons, may not be ideal but may be chosen due to mental, legal, or physical factors.  Mental, legal, and physical circumstances can all factor into the equation of violence and make it more likely that violence will be employed.  In some or perhaps many cases, these factors are even more influential than an unfulfilled need.  I’ll call these factors the escalators of violence.  They may exist in various ways at all levels of human society:  within families, organizations, nations, and internationally. 


Note that the Escalators of Violence can overlap at times with certain Roots of Violence.  Most noticeably, a lack of love could be considered a Root of Violence:  the need for love, or as a Mental Escalator.  Similarly, a lack of accurate information and perception could be considered a Root of Violence:  Truth, or a Mental Escalator.  The lack of power could be considered a Root of Violence:  the need for power, or a Legal Escalator.  Yet while there is sometimes overlap, I felt it was useful for the reader and the policymaking analyst to consider the problems of violence both in terms of the eight categories of the Roots of Violence and the Mental, Legal, and Physical Escalators of Violence, particularly since the three-fold division of the escalators naturally lends itself to the creation of the mental, legal, and physical tools of the Three Facets of Solutions, discussed next.  Moreover, there is not always overlap and these two ways of looking at the problem of violence help to ensure that the analysis is comprehensive. 


1.  Mental Escalators:  These include lack of knowledge of non-violent solutions, misinformation and misperceptions about a perceived threat, tendency to exaggerate or to perceive threats that do not exist, differing perspectives on fairness, inability to trust others, low respect for others, inability to love, inability to empathize, tendency to dehumanize others, self-hatred, lack of self-control, selfishness, belief in the acceptability of violence, enjoyment of violence, addiction to alcohol and other drugs, and social acceptance of irresponsible or violent behavior.  The Mental Escalators also overlap with the mental aspects of the eight categories of needs above, such as deprivation of love, feelings of inferiority or superiority, need for a purpose, lack of joyful tranquility, and lack of truth, as well as the mental consequences of enduring trauma and war. 


2.  Legal Escalators:  These include lack of just laws, lack of enforcement procedures, inconsistent enforcement, laws that are too vague to enforce, laws and sentences that are too lax and allow violent people and criminally negligent people their freedom, improper functioning of an organization that is relevant to foreign policy or law enforcement, and lack of an effective nonviolent means of expressing and remedying grievances.  This category can include the legal access to finances, such as a legislature’s approval of funds to support a military operation.  The Legal Escalators overlap with the legal and organizational aspects of the eight categories of needs above, such as lack of enforcement of laws prohibiting torture, lack of legal structure and procedures to share power, and lack of laws providing for economic justice.


3.  Physical Escalators:  These include possession of weapons on the person committing violence, possession of arms by the nation committing aggression, lack of security and lack of weapons on the person being attacked, lack of secure walls and locks on doors, lack of secure national borders, lack of physical confinement of violent people, use of drugs that escalate violent behavior, and access to automotive vehicles and weapons when under the influence of drugs.  This category can include physical access to finances in order to purchase weapons and arms, such as a terrorist ring’s access to funds and the US government's legal and illegal access to funds for war.  To take just one example, during the 1980s the US government illegally sold weapons to Khomeini's Iran, illegally acquired cocaine and marijuana from Latin America, and shipped the narcotics to the US.  The US government then used the profits from the illegal sale of both the weapons and the drugs (both of which harmed lives, including American lives) to fund the illegal contra war in Nicaragua, a war whose funding had been specifically prohibited by the US Congress.  The Physical Escalators overlap with the physical aspects of the eight categories of needs above, in particular with regard to the need for life and safety.





9/11 made me start thinking in a more organized way about what might cause people to commit violence, and I also tried to figure out how to group the solutions to violence into useful categories.  I thought the categorization of solutions would be helpful to ensure that no type of solution would be neglected from policy-making and so that, perhaps, different groups of people working on peace, such as in a US Department of Peace, could focus on different realms of solutions.  I came up with three categories that appeared to create the most useful organization of solutions.  Peacemakers are intended to cooperatively apply solutions from these categories to improve the capacity for peace within their own nations/groups and in other nations/groups.  In other words, creating peace involves improving the enemy and improving ourselves. 


1.  Human Development to improve people’s mental, emotional, psychological, and spiritual abilities to be peaceful, understanding, and skillful in non-violent conflict prevention and resolution.  The Facet of Human Development uses Mental Tools to develop people’s minds:  their minds and habits of thinking change and they become peaceful.


2.  Justice to satisfy people’s legitimate needs and to prevent the rage caused by unfairness.  The Facet of Justice uses Legal Tools to change legal conditions and systems within society which in turn help people’s minds to change and become peaceful and content.


3.  Physical Control to physically prevent a person from behaving with violence upon another.  The Facet of Physical Control uses Physical Tools to physically control people’s behavior whether or not they change their minds.   


The Paradigm for Peace model designates these three realms of peacework with their corresponding sets of Mental, Legal, and Physical Tools as the Three Facets.  The solutions help to prevent and to stop violence by addressing the Mental, Legal, and Physical Escalators of violence.  Moreover, each facet tends to focus on particular Human Needs from the list of eight Human Needs.  Each facet addresses both defensive and aggressive roots of violence.


There is overlap amongst the Facets and there’s no sense in getting mired down in arguments over what belongs in which Facet.  Any policy can involve all Three Facets.  In particular, 1st Facet development of intelligence, understanding, and awareness, and an evolution in human mental, emotional, psychological and spiritual capacity is often a prerequisite to the development of more enlightened usage of the 2nd and 3rd Facets.  Raising awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of various economic ideologies is a 1st Facet solution that affects 2nd Facet economic policy decisions.  Increasing knowledge of the negative effects of the violence of both war and terrorism is a 1st Facet solution that also affects one’s usage of 2nd Facet policymaking and 3rd Facet weapons.  In this sense, the Three Facets are really part of one cohesive whole. 


However, despite the overlap, in order to think and to communicate clearly and comprehensively, in order not to let one of the Facets slip through the cracks of policymaking, it can be highly helpful to roughly separate within discussion and policymaking the whole into these three components, the Three Facets.  To avoid the error of assuming that one has exhausted all routes towards peace and justice except the violent route, and to avoid the error of jumping to the “war solution” or the “terrorism solution” prematurely, it is important to lay out all the solutions of the Three Facets in detail and to imprint into national, activist, opposition, and jihadist leaders’ minds the need to consider and to evaluate the merit of alternatives from all Three Facets. 




A more detailed description.





1st Facet of Human Development: Addresses the Mental Escalators of Violence, including threat identification, conflict analysis, decision-making, and problem-solving abilities; and the mental aspects of the Roots of Violence, in particular, those pertaining to Values; Love, Worth, and Friendship; Self-Potential; Joyful Tranquility; and Truth. Focuses on encouraging mental changes, that is, the development of mental and emotional health and intelligence, improvement of mental, interpersonal, and parenting skills, and increased accurate information, to promote peace. Improves human relations skills, problem-solving skills, and reduces the cognitive aspects of conflict, the parts of conflict that are due to lack of information and misperceptions in the mind and miscommunications between individuals. Focuses on how the fulfillment of such mental/emotional/spiritual needs as values, love, respect, affiliation, identity, joy, play, tranquility, and truth through all stages of human life can maximize human potential and society’s potential for peace. Uses mental tools such as education, media, and public diplomacy to help people fulfill needs and develop compassion, empathy, respect, and self-control in order to not encroach upon others’ needs. This Facet also includes developing the intelligence to make responsible use of the 2nd Facet and 3rd Facets. In particular, acute knowledge of the severely negative consequences of the use of 3rd Facet violence upon humanity is essential in order for leaders and their followers to develop sufficient intelligence to refrain, when other alternatives towards peace and justice are possibly available, from the use of violence.


2nd Facet of Justice: Addresses the Legal Escalators of Violence and the legal and organizational aspects of Roots of Violence regarding Life and Safety, Power and Freedom, Wealth and Possessions, and Values, and, to a lesser extent, Love, Self-Potential, Joyful Tranquility, and Truth. Focuses on improving domestic and international systems of law to fulfill needs for justice and thus promote peace. Ensures that laws exist and are enforced to outlaw and to prosecute perpetrators of violence and injustice. Uses legal tools to help people fulfill needs and not encroach upon others’ needs for life, safety, health, water, food, air, power, freedom, wealth, possessions, shelter, a fair exchange for labor and resources, and truth. Ensures that all victims of injustice have access to an effective nonviolent means of expressing and remedying grievances.


3rd Facet of Physical Control: Addresses the Physical Escalators of Violence and physical aspects of the Roots of Violence, in particular, Life and Safety. Pertains to the ability to prevent/stop violence by making it physically impossible to do so. This does not necessarily mean killing or crippling a person. Ways to make violence physically impossible include separating a violent person from society, protecting an intended victim from the violent person or nation, separating a violent person or nation from a weapon, separating a person from violence-inducing drugs, and separating a potentially violent person from finances needed to commit the violence. Focuses on using physical tools, such as weapons and prisons, to help protect people from violent individuals and to deter an attack. Focuses on how limiting arms and access to weapons in one’s own nation and in other nations can promote peace by reducing violence due to fear, rage, and accidents. Uses intelligence gathering to monitor others’ weapons and violent plans. Uses systems of security to prevent violence. Uses physical tools to help people fulfill needs and not encroach upon others’ needs for life and safety, power and freedom, and wealth and possessions. Reduces physical escalators of violence. Physically prevents those who are likely to be under the influence of drugs from using automotive vehicles or weapons. Eliminates the use of physical control methods that are unethical, undemocratic, and/or illogical and that thus undermine peace.


Paradigm for Peace is comprehensive yet simple to understand. In times of crisis, the Paradigm for Peace structure enables decision-makers to analyze problems and to create solutions in a manner that is both rapid and thorough. One self-evident advantage of the model is that it clearly and specifically conveys the undeniable profusion of approaches to prevent and to reduce violence. Terrorist and military methods can then shrink in perspective, for violent approaches are recognized as only a slim section of possible solutions.


When faced with a national crisis such as 9/11, or when seeking to create foreign policy that acts preventatively and creates conditions of peace, US policymakers can develop the habit of automatically thinking in terms of various combinations of these Three Facets. Or, policymakers specializing in each of the Facets can recommend various solutions within each Facet. Synthesis teams can be responsible for making recommendations regarding the coordination of the timing and the mix of different steps in each of the Three Facets. A plan to prevent or to respond to violence in a certain nation, for example, might involve proceeding first with certain solutions from the Human Development Facet and a few solutions from Physical Control. Later there might proceed several solutions from Justice with a few more solutions on hand from Human Development. Depending upon how events transpire, more alternatives might take place from any of the Facets.


One over-simplified but memorable way to recall the rough gist of each of the Three Facets is to think of them as the protons, neutrons, and electrons of building the atom of peace: 

1st Facet:  generates amongst human beings positive feelings (+)

2nd Facet:  promotes amongst human beings equal feelings (=)

3rd Facet:  physically controls those with dangerously negative feelings (-)



Paradigm for Peace illustrates the three major approaches towards pursuing peace.  This pyramid with three triangular facets, a trigonal pyramid, uses each facet to represent a different realm of peacework.  To create a realistic plan for peace, all Three Facets must be considered and integrated.  The inner triangle represents the Three Facets of the internal pursuit of peace while the outer triangle represents the Three Facets of the external pursuit of peace.  Any organization or nation striving to create peace for others must work for an internal pursuit of peace within its own organization or nation as well as an external pursuit of peace for those it serves.  A major error of traditional and current foreign policy is the near total neglect of the 1stFacet and insufficient attention to the 2nd Facet.  Such a stool cannot stand.
A complete diagram of the Three Facets of the Paradigm for Peace model is available under the heading Summary Charts and also in the Overview, Guide, Excerpts, and The Taxonomy of Peace pdf files which the reader may access by clicking on The Taxonomy of Peace in the upper left corner of the screen.  However, here a part of the diagram can be provided:
1st Facet Mental Tools of Human Development.   This Facet promotes peace by generating positive feelings and addressing topics such as:

mental/emotional intelligence, negotiation skills, communication, parenting skills, values, love, worth, friendship, affiliation, identity, self-potential, moral strength, self-control, joy, play, tranquility, understanding the effects of war, understanding different ideologies, understanding history, removing cognitive conflict, truth

2nd Facet Legal Tools of Justice.   This Facet promotes peace by promoting feelings of equality and addressing topics such as:

Laws against torture, representation of people and ideas, election rules, freedom, responsibility, separation of powers, payment for labor, distribution of wealth, land, payment for resources, conservation, trade, secular or religious government

 3rd Facet Physical Tools of Physical Control.   This Facet promotes peace by controlling dangerously negative feelings by addressing topics such as:

Airport, train, and bus security and inspections, national border inspections, cargo inspections, bridge inspections, security of water supplies, security of power plants, security of hospitals, arrests, imprisonment, locks, walls, defensive barriers, airlifts, lethal weapons, non-lethal weapons, control of weapons, disarmament control of finances, control of drugs, defensive weapons, security, disarmament, intelligence gathering





The spirit of the Paradigm for Peace model rests upon one more important element:  a “quest attitude” of exchanging information and making decisions.  Paradigm for Peace encourages quests to take place as the standard means of discussion and learning at all levels of society and within government in discussions about the roots of and solutions to violence.  Those using the Paradigm to plan for peace must be a role model of peace themselves by continually striving to adhere to a quest attitude. 


Procedure.  The quest attitude involves a frank and eager willingness to imaginatively step into others’ shoes and consider the strengths and weaknesses of all points of view, not just the strengths of one’s own opinion and the weaknesses of others’.  Here is a useful Five Step Procedure for successfully participating in cooperative discussion that is from Organizational Behavior:  A Management Challenge, by Northcraft and Neale. 

            1.  Prepare positions:  Meet with others who hold your perspective and master the arguments for your point of view.

            2.  Present positions:  Be strong when presenting your position.  Take notes and clarify anything you do not understand when the opposing side presents.

            3.  Discuss the issues:  Both sides work together to get the facts out.  Present all facts to support your position.  Ask for facts to support the other’s position.  Make sure each side understands all facts.

            4.  Reverse perspectives:  Be strong and persuasive in reversing roles and arguing the opposing position. 

            5.  Reach a decision:  Summarize the strengths of both positions.  Detail the facts to support these positions.  Come to a decision to which all agree.  Explain the basis for the group’s decision.[2]  


Quality of Mind, Heart, and Spirit.  It is not only the procedure that is important but even more so, the attitude, the quality of mind, heart, and spirit.  Whether those creating peace are within the UN, an executive cabinet meeting, Congress, a US Department of Peace, a work organization, or a family, it is essential that those discussing policy strive to be role models of peace themselves.  An organization embroiled in issues of turf, status, jealousy, or control, an organization sunk in habits of exclusion, cliques, and stale conformity, will not be fertile ground for inspiring peace in others.  


Ideally, the attitude of thought and discussion should be one of bold amiability, or caring scientific curiosity.  Notice that “bold amiability” and “caring scientific curiosity” entail certain features that should be present in each participant’s mind and heart:  confidence and courage about oneself, the giving of courage to all others in the discussion, love for others and oneself, love for truth and solutions to puzzles, and cheerfulness.  Peace must be pursued peacefully, or else an irate and dismal process may abort the goal.  


What happens to the peace between us if we discuss foreign policy in angry tones?  What is gained and what is lost if we strive for international peace in our discussions while simultaneously cutting each other down?  We need to try to work together on this puzzle, to work as a team finding strengths and weaknesses in all our ideas.  The sincerely caring nature of a peaceful process of dialogue is what keeps minds and hearts open to learning from others, to patiently expressing oneself, to honestly evaluating ideas, and to creating new options.  Participants will discover that it is the open-minded and open-hearted approach to understanding others’ perspectives that leads to the richest vein of solutions.


Twin Goals.  The goal in discussion should not be to defeat the other side but rather to develop the qualities of mind, heart, and spirit capable of working with the other side in order to use the greater capacity of all minds and hearts to solve a problem.  Instead of two people on opposite sides of a table fighting against each other, dialogue should be envisioned as two people on the same side of the table figuring out a puzzle together.  Even if one side actually does have greater intelligence than the other, it is necessary to understand the other’s way of thinking in order to see why they think the way they do.  Most likely, that side also has some information or personal experiences which are important to appreciate and which lead to certain ways of thinking.  By sincerely trying to understand one another’s thoughts, participants in dialogue can more likely arrive at the twin goals of a greater understanding of the truth and heightened positive human relations among all sides. 







We wouldn’t kick a car to make it go.  If something were wrong with it, we would figure out which system wasn’t working and why:  How is it not working?  Is it turned on but not moving?  Is something keeping the wheels from moving?  Is the brake on?  Is it in gear?  Is it stuck in the mud?  Is it not turning on?  Does it turn on a little or is it completely dead?  Does the battery need to be recharged?  Is there snow in the exhaust pipe?  Does it need gas?  A new fuel filter?  An air filter?  Is the engine working?  How is the electrical system? 


We need to be aware of the science of peace.  An approach to the US / Mid-East conflict that relies primarily on military and other types of threatening solutions does nothing to distinguish between the various causes of violence and does little to address the original aggressive and defensive causes of violence.  Reading various authors’ viewpoints on terrorism and US conflicts with Afghanistan and Iraq is an experience like the story of the blind men describing the elephant.  One man touches only the trunk and describes the elephant as its trunk; another touches only the feet and describes the elephant as its feet.  Similarly, various authors make good points, but some seem more aware of the aggressive roots of violence while others seem much more aware of the defensive roots. 


Authors and politicians will argue emphatically that terrorists are motivated primarily by one set of reasons or the other, but the truth is, various terrorist individuals and factions are motivated by various reasons.  The great majority appear to feel they are fighting defensively in response to unbearable injustices they or others have suffered.  The violence of a minority may be instigated by aggressive thoughts and feelings of sadism, malice, greed, envy, or hatred.  For US foreign policy to succeed, both sets of reasons need to be addressed.  Neither defensive nor aggressive reasons are a legitimate excuse for violence and events such as 9/11, but, to resolve Mid-Eastern violence, it is essential to understand and address both sets of motivations. 


Similarly, individual Americans advocating certain foreign policies or fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq are motivated by a mixture of aggressive and defensive reasons.  Neither set of reasons is a legitimate excuse for waging war, but, to resolve American violence, it is essential to understand and address both sets of motivations amongst American leaders and troops.  Without sympathizing with the violence, without excusing it or accepting it as legitimate, we must have the capacity to stare at Mid-Eastern/US conflict and recognize motivations which may in themselves be legitimate and positive in nature. 


Some Americans, perhaps particularly those with conservative political leanings, tend to be highly aware of the aggressive roots of terrorism and the defensive roots of the US’ own behavior.  Other Americans, perhaps particularly those with liberal political leanings, tend to be highly aware of the defensive roots of terrorism and the aggressive roots of the US’ own behavior. 


Unfortunately, the makers of US foreign policy appear to be cognizant only of the aggressive motivations behind terrorism.  A military solution utterly ignores the defensive reasons spurring terrorists.  This is especially unfortunate because the majority of terrorists appear to be motivated by defensive reasons.  If these reasons, some of which may be legitimate grievances, are allowed to fester, and if Mid-Easterners are met only with weapons of war, rage against Americans will only accumulate.  Yet this awkward and unwieldy imbalance in the US response to terrorism will only undermine attempts to create peace, for the enormous weight given to the attitude of hostility within US foreign policy can lead to a heavy and over-used reliance on physical threats and attacks. 


If the US government focuses its awareness and the awareness of the American public on the most illegitimate aspects of terrorism, then US foreign policy will be excessively hostile.  It will be failing to build friendships with the majority of the Middle Eastern population, many of whom abhor US foreign policy, yet who are not interested in killing or harming Americans in any way.  If the US could instead labor to cooperate with the Mid-Eastern populations to create more mutually harmonious policies and to address the causes of anti-Americanism, the wind would be taken from the sail of terrorism.  Yes, some terrorists would continue to act only upon their aggressive intentions or erroneous perceptions of the US, but their base of support would be absent.  Others would be more likely to turn them in, arrest them, try to change their minds, or at least not help them.   


Terrorism must be addressed within the larger framework of anti-Americanism.  If the US retains its focus on addressing and fighting only terrorism, it will be failing to address some of the legitimate grievances provoking the majority of Middle Easterners.  Terrorism is the worst, the most illegitimate, and the most violent aspect of anti-Americanism, but those who possess anti-American sentiments have many valid grievances and are primarily composed of peaceful people.  Failing to address anti-Americanism is like simply try to hack off the tip of the iceberg that is visible above the ocean waters.  What is not visible, what is not so showy and violent, deserves caring attention.


Yet, by ignoring the roots of violence and by instead lashing out with war, the US not only fails to address the aggressive and defensive roots of violence, the US actually provokes both the defensive and aggressive roots of violence.  For the defensive part, it is only natural for Iraqi and Afghan citizens to resist an invasion of American forces, to feel fear at the approach of Americans in combat gear, even more so if those Americans are pounding down the doors of homes at midnight, holding guns to the heads of praying women, yelling and waving their weapons about, destroying systems of sewage and clean water, using their dogs to threaten children, and burning a village with unstoppable white phosphorus. 


For the aggressive part, the US is concocting the exact atmosphere of tension, insecurity, and distrust that exacerbates the psychological state of mind conducive to the growth of an aggressive mentality and to violence.  Moreover, the US is creating the climate of chaos in which those already possessing aggressive, criminal motivations can reign and prey – not only upon US troops, but upon their fellow citizens.  War effectively passes the reins from the Peace Society[1], those on all sides of a conflict who choose to address conflict logically and non-violently, to the War Society, those who actually thrive upon war and wish for it to continue, those who destroy the peace between Sunni, Shia, Kurd, and Sabian to vent their rage and gain wealth and merriment from kidnappings, extortion, and murder. 





It is time to develop self-actualized foreign policy that uses the full human potential to create the highest quality foreign policy.  Instead of limiting foreign policy work to American skills of violence and pressured diplomacy, we must reap the benefit of the full range of human intelligence, skill, and talent and apply it to improving international relations for the good of all people. 


Instead of assuming the enemy is simply wrong, dangerous, unreasonable, and deserving of punishment, we must look at the full array of the defensive and aggressive roots of violence on both sides of a conflict, and examine the mental, legal, and physical escalators of violence. 


Instead of limiting foreign policy work to threatening the people labeled enemies, we must seek largely to help these other people solve the problems and threats they face by drawing solutions from all Three Facets:  1st Facet mental tools of Human Development, 2nd Facet legal tools of Justice, and 3rd Facet physical tools, non-violent or violent, of Physical Control. 


It is time to take the load off the 3rd Facet and stop depending upon the traditionally destructive approach of the military to solve all our problems.  We must start taking advantage of the many hands of many people, including those currently serving within the military, who can use their talents constructively to solve problems of human relations and justice in the 1st and 2nd Facets. 


It is time to recognize the positive energies within humankind, whether they are within Afghans, Iraqis, terrorist organizations, US military troops, or US civilians, and direct these positive energies into constructive actions, not destructive actions, in order to peacefully and cooperatively improve human relations and justice.  We must develop a new specialty to offer the world – non-violent conflict resolution.  We must recognize and use the positive motivations that can prompt people to join the US military and that can prompt people to join terrorist organizations:  hopes to defend life and freedom, to seek camaraderie, adventure, and noble purpose.  We must recognize and use the non-violent human relations expertise in this country – psychologists, negotiation experts, social workers, community problem-solvers, religious and spiritual helpers, mental health healers.  These individuals with human relations expertise understand causes of violence within individuals and groups.  They routinely work with Americans in compassionately and non-violently resolving their problems of rage, depression, negotiation, and violence.  They have ideas for revamping foreign policy yet their ideas are neglected. 


Why not send people with human relations talent over to work directly and cooperatively with Middle Easterners and those with human relations expertise in the Middle East to help guarantee that every child growing up in the Middle East will have his or her needs met for love, for friendship, for inner joy?  Why not channel US government tax money – instead of towards buying new weapons that destroy the social fabric of trust and sanity – towards promoting programs such as these, whether they are international cooperative programs of human relations, or indigenous grassroots programs within the Middle East?  Why not allow Americans and Mid-Easterners to activate their positive energies and passions - without the wars?


And it is time to create job descriptions and organizational missions for peace within government.  We must create a new higher level position, such as a top level cabinet secretary, whose purpose is to think precisely about how to identify and to understand threats, how to understand aggressive and defensive roots of violence, how to consider the effectiveness of fulfilling needs and threatening needs, and how to weave the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Facets together. 

[1] War Society and Peace Society are terms used by Thomas Friedman in From Beirut to Jerusalem.



The ramifications of using Paradigm for Peace as an automatic framework for foreign policy creation and discussion are significant:

1.  Clarity in Times of Crisis and Peace.  With a clear listing of eight categories of roots of violence and Three Facets of solutions, foreign policy makers, even in times of crisis, can have a steady hand at the helm as the list prompts them to quickly and efficiently consider the role of each root and each facet of solutions.  Paradigm for Peace is simple to understand.  Whether planning to prevent conflict or rushing to respond to an emergency, the Paradigm for Peace structure enables decision-makers to analyze problems and to create solutions in a manner that is both rapid and thorough. 

    2.  Balance and Comprehensiveness in Grasping the Roots of Violence.  Because the eight categories of roots are comprehensive, foreign policy will not be imbalanced in paying attention to only certain causes of violence and neglecting other causes.  The model’s comprehensive approach to peace dissolves the walls that have habitually sequestered the subjects of cultural values, love, child-raising, self-potential, school, religion, joyful tranquility, play, and truth from the “harder” topics of military defense, distribution of power, freedom, and economic systems.  It is necessary to discuss and integrate all of these topics in the same plan for peace so that a nation’s resources of people, time, talent, and money and its ideas for solutions are not self-limiting and imbalanced.  This is especially important, because often the causes of violence that are addressed by policymakers are the ones that seem to require a violent solution in response.  Other causes of violence, which might play an equal or even greater role in contributing to the violence, may very well require non-violent solutions.  If these causes are ignored, our foreign policy response will tilt lopsidedly towards the violent.  The imbalance itself can contribute to greater world violence as well as a mentality of violence within the culture.  

      3. Balance and Comprehensiveness in Applying Solutions.  Because the Three Facets of solutions are comprehensive, foreign policy will not be the imbalanced sort that responds primarily with physical, military solutions, or pressured forms of diplomacy.  In particular, the model brings the neglected yet potent 1st Facet of
      Human Development on center stage, as a Facet that is at least an equal with the 2nd and 3rd Facets.  In doing so,
      the model brings to light an abundance of non-violent solutions.  Terrorist and military methods can then shrink in perspective, for violent approaches are recognized as only a slim section of possible solutions within only one of the Three Facets.  When government policy makers and legislators create US foreign policy, they must have a firm and expansive understanding of these Three Facets as a foundation for their thought processes and decisionmaking.  Neglecting the 1st Facet in foreign policy is like driving a horse and buggy without the wheels. 
      4.  Attention to Both Defensive and Aggressive Roots of Violence.  The model insists upon an examination of both the aggressive and defensive roots of violence.  Rather than perceiving terrorists, Iraqis, or the US to be purely aggressive or defensive, the model recognizes both aggressive and defensive motives of violence amongst all of these groups.  The neglect of either category of motive could be disastrous.  Ignoring aggressive motives could leave a nation vulnerable to malicious behavior and the causes of aggression unaddressed.  Ignoring defensive motives will also leave a nation a target for anger because legitimate needs and grievances remain unaddressed.  Attention only to aggressive causes of violence will more likely bring justification for the use of angry, violent solutions in response.  However, the defensive roots of violence, which may play an even larger role, may often require non-violent solutions.  If the defensive roots of violence are ignored, violence will fester and fear and rage will grow as needs are left unmet and people who are upset by legitimate grievances will feel the lack of justice of a solely punitive response. 


      5.  Non-Partisan Spirit.  The comprehensive nature of the eight categories, the Three Facets, the examination of both aggressive and defensive roots of violence, and the pervasive emphasis on a questful approach to discussion and thought all nurture a non-partisan spirit amongst policymakers.  Instead of viewing a certain nation or group as completely aggressive, or completely defensive, and instead of focusing in on a certain political party’s favored approach towards comprehending and responding to violence, the model accepts the possible existence of a variety of causes and motivations for violence and a variety of solutions.  Mental, legal, and non-violent and violent physical solutions are all on the table for discussion.  One purpose of this non-partisan model is to encompass the concerns of Americans on all sides of the foreign policy debate:  those who support and those who oppose the US foreign policy response to 9/11.  This is useful not only for the pleasant and practical sake of unity, but for the sake of effectiveness resulting from truth.  After all, there are sane and reasonable ideas on all sides that must be taken into consideration and woven together into the best pattern possible. 


      6.  Peaceful and Productive Tradition of Discussion.  The model’s emphasis on the Quest style of dialogue holds promise of raising to higher and more meaningful, fertile ground the habits of discussion within all levels of society.  Instead of frittering away energy and resources in attacking and outfoxing one another, people can unite to learn the full truth of a situation and to find common ground in their interests.  For example, some anti-war and pro-war individuals may even find common ground in their compassion for the suffering of others.  With compassion as an anchor to hold their teamwork together, both sides can cooperate to determine the most effective means of demonstrating compassion around the world.  And, by improving our ability to amiably discuss and problem-solve within our own nation and within our own organizations, we can improve our ability to apply those skills and habits to peaceful discussions internationally. 


      7.  Clear and Meaningful Communication.  The model enables the clear and meaningful communication of ideas amongst policymakers and between policymakers and the public in a way that is meaningful rather than vague, ambiguous, or emotional.

      10.  8 OBJECTIVES OF




      1.  To provide a useful structure to logically analyze the roots of violence and to emphasize the abundance of non-violent solutions.  The Taxonomy of Peace introduces an original model, Paradigm for Peace, which was created during the autumn months following 9/11 and which includes eight categories of Roots of Violence, three categories of Escalators of Violence, and three categories of Solutions to Violence, termed the Three Facets.  The model is actively enrolled into the book, for the very structure of the book is organized according to this model. 


      2.  To provide a comprehensive approach to peace that dissolves the walls that have habitually segregated important topics.  The Taxonomy of Peace breaks down barriers that have sequestered the subjects of cultural values, love, child-raising, self-potential, school, religion, joyful tranquility, play, and truth from the “harder” topics of military defense, distribution of power, freedom, and economic systems.  It is necessary to discuss and integrate all of these topics in the same plan for peace so that a nation’s resources and ideas for solutions are not self-limiting and imbalanced.

      The Taxonomy of Peace also removes the partitions that separate peace-building on different levels of human society.  For example, one section may be analyzing a particular international conflict and then take out a magnifying glass to scrutinize a similar situation within the nation or then extract a microscope to observe the same dynamic in an individual’s personal experience.  When gazing back out upon the world, the reader can benefit from the understanding gained from the analysis of a more local experience to feel increased compassion for both sides of an international conflict.  In addition, examination of human relations within a family or community may be useful because at times, the tension on the larger scale may be aggravated or even caused by the tensions experienced within those smaller levels of society. 


      3.  To provide a catalog of 650+ solutions to violence:  a solution-oriented reference book for peace to elucidate the options.  The Taxonomy of Peace is positive and uplifting because it is solution-oriented.  More than half of the work is devoted to a discussion of solutions, which, for ease in reference, for aid in action, and for impressing upon the reader the sheer number of primarily non-violent possibilities, are numbered.  With more than 650 solutions included in The Taxonomy of Peace and with a particular emphasis on non-violent solutions, the choice of war can then be placed in perspective as an extremely thin slice in the pie of alternatives. 


      4.  To provide a model of dialogue and thought characterized by cooperation and an eager readiness to state one’s own opinions and to step into the other side’s shoes.  The tradition deeply imbedded in American culture is to discuss differences by means of the debate.  The debate pits one side against the other.  The goal is to beat the other side.  Yet, more effective forms of discussion are possible:  cooperative forms, dialogues with the goal, not of victory, but of truth and friendship.  The Taxonomy of Peace not only talks about peace, but it also strives to create peace both in its cooperative, open-minded attitude towards other authors’ ideas and the readers’ ideas, and in its format which systematically considers all sides of a situation.  Moreover, various sections within the work illustrate the importance of cooperative dialogue and provide examples of such dialogues.  Without even trying, the reader can come away from The Taxonomy of Peace with an amplified ability to automatically discuss issues in a cooperative, curious fashion:  a foundation for peace itself. 


      5.  To actively engage the reader as an equal.  In The Taxonomy of Peace, the author speaks as an equal with other participants, with other authors, and with readers.  Much research and extensive thought are foundations for the opinions presented in The Taxonomy of Peace.  However, many unanswered questions as well as opportunities for personal opinion are repeatedly offered to the reader.  There are no awkward qualms about acknowledging either the absence of an answer for every question or the presence of differing perspectives.  Consequently, The Taxonomy of Peace does not leave the readers passively and languidly lounging on the sofa but engages readers’ minds with questions, encouraging them to churn on their own and function freely.  


      6.  To apply a mother’s perspective to foreign policy that draws significant parallels between international and familial relations.  Mothering influenced the tone of the work because, at least to some degree, the valuable information provided in books, journals, newspapers, encyclopedias, and Internet articles is all appreciated and reflected upon much as a mother would value the opinions of her children and not wish to foment sibling rivalry.  Also, observations as a mother raising children contributed to thoughts about human behavior, parenting styles and habits, the quality and quantity of love and play, and conflict causes, prevention, and resolution.  A solid creation of peace requires the human capacity to foster loving human relationships in childhood and a culture’s capacity to support such loving familial relationships.  Yet this essential aspect of peace is not commonly discovered in the typical book on international relations. 


      7.  To provide a “civilian’s approach” that will encourage other “common humans” to have confidence in their own ability to create and to implement solutions and to contribute their ideas on peace to other citizens and leaders.  Many books about international relations and peace do not reflect upon the daily experience of Americans, and many of our national leaders are far removed from the lives and values of ordinary citizens.  The experiences of the “common human” living the American life and adhering to values that are not necessarily represented by American political leaders absolutely must be taken into consideration when evaluating the ability of the US to create peace both within and outside of its own borders. 


      8.  To recognize the Science of Peace by role modeling vigorous, creative thinking about the roots of violence and their solutions and by providing insightful and helpful ideas gained from research and original thought.  There is no assumption that the “common human” or the common mother is interested only in “sound bites” and shallow responses.  This book doesn’t settle for illogical leaps or assumptions but demands logic and proof.  The Taxonomy of Peace dissects each of the numerous books and articles under study and carefully classifies each idea according to the Paradigm for Peace structure.  Building this mosaic, sorting into categories and putting side by side related pieces of information from various authors, has resulted in much greater understanding.


                The Three Facets.  The Three Facets can be an automatic way for leaders in the executive and legislative branches or the equivalent within any nation to consider foreign policy.  It is a way of thinking.  The people that actually carry out the work of the Facets can be various agencies within a national government, or a Department of Peace, or non-governmental and private sector organizations and individuals.  Actually, much of the work of the Three Facets already is taking place; it’s just not coordinated, prioritized, and budgeted for according to a comprehensive Three-Faceted look at foreign policy priorities.  Certainly, not all peacework should be coordinated and directed by a national government.  However, the national government should take into consideration all public, private, and not-for-profit efforts at peacework in order to learn about their effectiveness and evaluate which types of efforts are most beneficial.  Such an overall review may help it to realize, for example, that various not-for-profit organizations’ human relations efforts are more effective than dropping bombs.
              While the focus of this project is on foreign policy, the Three Facets can be used in planning peacework within a nation, community, workplace, school, or family. Different sectors of society will have different mental, legal, and physical tools at hand, but the basic division into Three Facets remains the same. People of any nation can consider the approach and ideas when seeking to improve the relationships amongst the circle of human beings in their own lives.
              In all cases, there is never intended to be any suggestion within this work that the US should be dominating or directing in the area of the development and implementation of solutions in other nations. Every nation has its own valuable resources of intelligent people who are fully capable of creating and implementing their ideas. However, international cooperation is encouraged because cooperation itself can help to further international ties and understanding, and cooperation can sometimes bring in new ideas and new resources. Moreover, because the US is already so over-involved in many nations in the 3rd Facet sense of the word, getting involved in a 1st and
      2nd Facet sense would help to shift the US’ foreign policy focus and also improve US 1st and 2nd Facet skills in
      working abroad. So, as long as each nation takes care to approach international involvement in a way that is
      highly aware and respectful of others, US involvement in helping to improve other nations, and other nations’ involvement in helping to improve the US, can be a positive means of nurturing an attitude of friendship, love, and caring between nations.
              In working on this project, I find that many solutions fall under the 1st Facet of Human Development,
      primarily because many problems seem to stem from a lack of understanding other people, a lack of huma
      n relations skills, and an inability to accurately identify the source and nature of threats. Once this understanding and accuracy are achieved, there is a greater ability to then select the relevant 2nd Facet Solutions of Justice and 3rd Facet Solutions of Physical Control.  Although 2nd and 3rd Facet Solutions are important, this project will focus largely on the mental tools of 1st Facet solutions. In reality, all Three Facets are important, but because they have been so out-of-balance, because the 1st Facet has been so sorrowfully neglected, and, frankly, because I find the 1st Facet and mental tools more interesting to write about, this project will devote more space to 1st Facet Solutions.
              By coincidence, the Three Facets of solutions have a strong similarity to the “Three Faces of Power” developed by Kenneth Boulding, a Quaker and interdisciplinary philosopher.[3] I truly believe that we must automatically consider foreign policy in terms of these three categories in order to free our minds from habitual narrow-mindedness as well as from negativity. In particular, and as Boulding would agree, much greater attention must be paid to 1st Facet mental/emotional/spiritual tools (called mental tools for short), tools such as love,
      compassion, understanding, and knowledge.
      While it may seem obvious that mental tools should be part of every decision, policymakers and the public must recognize that we need to actually think about our thinking and our feelings; we must look for problems and half-truths within our individual and group habits and assumptions in order to create patterns of thinking and feeling most conducive to peace and truth. For this and other reasons, the 1st Facet must be recognized as a Facet of solutions that is equal to and potentially greater in its importance than the 2nd and 3rd Facets. Once the hundreds of almost completely non-violent solutions are presented, it becomes obvious that US foreign policy has long suffered from a drastic and unhealthy imbalance of attention upon violent tools of the 3rd Facet. All Three Facets must be on stage in order to rectify the balance, and the 1st Facet must play a lead role.

              Terminology. Middle Eastern people and nations are a varied group, with differing needs, interests, opinions, and histories. But, for simplicity’s sake, and to avoid excluding anybody, I will often refer to “Middle Easterners” as one group, and I will make suggestions for US policy with the “Middle East”. In reality, the policy analysis and recommended solutions will require more specific understanding and application to particular Middle Easterners and particular Middle Eastern nations.

             Similarly, I will often use the term “US”, when at times US may mean the US government, US corporations, and/or US citizens.  Note also that in determining “US interests” and “US priorities”, the “US” should never be defined narrowly to mean a certain strata of the US, or a certain strata’s opinion.  Nor does an enormous increase in the quantity of Americans represented by “US interests” totally fix the definition.  “US interests” should equal the interests and opinions of the entire US population with the generous addition to those interests and opinions an overarching quality of goodness of heart and enlightenment of mind. 

              Lastly, it has been difficult to decide what to call those nations of the world traditionally called “Western” and those called “Third World”.  I have been advised that the Third World has not liked the term Third World, perhaps because “Third” sounds less important.  Plus, some “Western” nations, such as Japan, are located in the East, and some “non-Western” Third World nations, such as Guatemala, are located in the West.  The terms “developed” and “developing” or “less developed” or “underdeveloped” nations are also an option.  However, I find that these choices also seem to be narrow-mindedly evaluating one set as better than the other.  It is not that all nations are automatically equal in every way, but these terms imply that all nations should be focusing primarily on pursuing the same Western road of development.  “Wealthy” and “poor” nations could work, but it has some Marxist overtones and biases to it, and it doesn’t encapsulate the non-financial differences between nations as well as enormous financial differences within nations. 

              Then some authors use the terms “North” and “South”, nomenclature that seems to parallel the break-up of the ancient super-continent Pangaea into the two continents of Laurasia and Gondwana during the time of the dinosaurs.  The conflict is perceived as largely between the nations of the “North” and “South,” although Australia, “North” in character, is geographically in the South.  Another option is “industrially developed” and “traditionally agricultural” nations.  Those terms are probably most accurate, but clumsier for the tongue.  Confusing matters more is that some non-Western nations are highly industrialized yet are probably not a part of the Third World either.  What is needed is a term for those nations that are wealthier, more powerful in world politics, and with a much more Westernized type of culture, and a term for those that are not.  Probably some completely novel words must be created. 

              In the end I decided to generally use the terms “underdeveloped” and a new one I made up, “overdeveloped.”  If underdeveloped sounds slightly negative, as if these nations would benefit from some improvements in terms of medical care and medical systems, the efficiency of transportation systems, rooting out corruption, eliminating hostile takeovers of governments, and improving treatment of human beings within their borders, that is true.  If “overdeveloped” sounds slightly negative, as if these nations have reconfigured the shape of the land too much, there are too many roads, too much asphalt, too many parking lots, too many cars, too much pollution, too little care for concepts other than “development,” and an overall lack of freedom once enjoyed of being able to walk from one place to another over dirt roads and through fields and forests, that is true.  In some ways each region also has its positive characteristics that are neither underdeveloped nor overdeveloped, but these two terms seemed to be the most egalitarian and accurate way of distinguishing the two regions.  If I refer to “Third World” at times, I do not mean “Third” to sound inferior, as in third place.  Three is my favorite number.  And if nothing is referred to as First or Second World anyway, then Third World is first in line. 

              Other Participants.  Some sections of dialogue are included in The Taxonomy of Peace.  Those with whom I converse are friends, with no agenda of their own and no particular expertise in the area, but who kindly allowed themselves to be roped into this at times in order to get some additional information and perspectives.  Perhaps because they are not experts in this area, these participants generally preferred to be discreet about their identity and so are referred to only by their first names, though one first name is an alias.  Two work in the field of computer software, one has performed extensive research in atmospheric science, and one has worked as a school teacher.  Three of the four are fellow college alumni.  So, don’t be alarmed if snatches of conversation are included here and there and the names of Sandy, Andrew, Dave, or Jackie come popping in.

              Material for Research.  You’ll notice that not all of the books researched were written in the past few years.  Some books were written in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s.  The reason for this lack of modernity is that perspectives read from earlier decades provide a closer comprehension of history as understood at that time.  Plus, some of these older books were the ones that I happened to have in my house.  If information is not completely updated, it was felt that the data, though dated, was adequate to make the point.

              Most of the books used for this project were obtained from the library, and there are numerous other books and journal articles that I would have liked to have read before completing this.  However, I trust that the structure presented here is sound enough that readers can apply their own perspectives and knowledge gained from books and experiences in order to fill in any holes of topics not discussed or to provide other helpful perspectives on points made here.  Readers are encouraged to build upon the model and ideas presented here with their own rich array of thoughts. 

              Scope of Research.  This project does not discuss more recent developments in the Middle East, such as the popular uprisings which have led in some cases to the deposal of dictators, as in Egypt, and in other cases to civil war, as in Libya.  However, the material presented in this project is just as urgent to understand, whether or not these latest events are covered.  Truth, as described more fully in a later section, can be considered a combination of length, width, and depth, and coverage of the latest developments, while interesting and useful, would add actually only a relatively small segment to our understanding of each of these dimensions.

      [1] These assumptions are evaluated in various places throughout the work, but are addressed in summary form together in the section Solutions:  Truth. 

      [2] Gregory Northcraft and Margaret Neale, Organizational Behavior:  A Management Challenge, (Orlando, Florida:  The Dryden Press, 1990), p. 227.


      [3] Boulding’s ideas are summarized in the section Solutions:  Structure and Mission. 

      12.  CORRECTIONS
          Despite the fact that this project has been reviewed and edited over a period of ten years, errors and typos do surface.  As the errors are encountered, they - at least the most glaring and important ones - will be corrected here in this section.  The page numbers below refer to the pages in The Taxonomy of Peace.  Here are some:
      p. 1324 Section J168.  The 7th line from the bottom should not read "the US".  It should read "Afghanistan" !
      p. 1349 Section B185.  The 9th line from the bottom should not read "It is especially important to realize that...is intentional."  It should read "unintentional"! 
      p. 1488 Section F257.  The 5th line from the bottom should not read "appropriate".  It should read "inappropriate" ! 
      In creating the Summary Charts for The Taxonomy of Peace in 2012, two additional works were read and referred to.  These books are not contained within the bibliography file and are instead included here:
      Ellis, Deborah.  Children of War:  Voices of Iraqi Refugees.  Groundwood Books/House of Anansi Press, 2009.  Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
      Goleman, Daniel.  Destructive  Emotions:  How Can We Overcome Them?:  A Scientific Dialogue with the Dalai Lama.  Bantam Dell, 2003.  New York, NY. 
      Many, many thanks to Dave for kindly and skillfully creating this website and patiently re-creating it and continually updating it.
      Special thanks also to Lena and Marina for their caring and thoughtful advice for setting up the website.
      Sincere thanks to Stein Tonnesson of the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo for his thoughtfulness and help in being the one to first suggest that I place this work on a website.
      Many thanks to the cheerful and competent staff at Office Max for their xeroxing, printing, faxing, computers, printers, ink, disks, paper, and helpful advice.
      And gratitude to the local town library for its terrific book selections, computer facilities, friendly and spacious environment, and the patient and essential help of the information technology staff. 
      A more complete listing of acknowledgements for participation in the project and for help in the actual writing and reviewing of the project, including acknowledgement of five Dartmouth College members,  is located in a file within The Taxonomy of Peace itself .