PROFESSION AND SOCIETY
Peace and Power: A Theory of Emancipatory Group Process Peggy L. Chinn, RN, PhD, FAAN1 & Adeline Falk-Rafael, RN, PhD, FAAN2 1 Professor Emerita, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA 2 Professor, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Key words Group process, peace, power, relational practice, empowerment, cooperation, emancipatory nursing, conflict Correspondence Dr. Peggy L. Chinn; E-mail: [email protected] Accepted: June 26, 2014 doi: 10.1111/jnu.12101
Abstract Purpose: To present the theoretical basis for the group process known as “Peace and Power.” Organizing Construct: A dialectic between two dominant forms of power— peace powers and power-over powers—forms the basis for a synthesis that yields an emancipatory group process characterized by praxis, empowerment, awareness, cooperation, and evolvement for individuals and groups. Methods: Critical analysis of prevailing competitive group dynamics and the ideals of cooperative group dynamics was conducted to project the potential for achieving group interactions that yield profound changes in the direction of justice, empowerment, and well-being for all. Conclusions: The theoretical framework of “Peace and Power” is consistent with characteristics of emancipatory integrity that are vital for social change. Clinical Relevance: The processes of “Peace and Power” can be used to create peaceful, cooperative interactions among nurses, with other health professionals, with patients and families, and in communities.
“Peace and Power” is an emancipatory group process drawn from several traditions around the world for working together in cooperative and peaceful ways, and in ways that challenge the status quo and lead to social and political change in the direction of equality and justice for all. In the context of nursing, this process has deep and significant links to the underlying values of nurturing human potential, caring, and high-level wellness—not only for individuals, but for groups in which people live and work. The purpose of this article is to present a theoretical framework that explains the relationships between and among the theoretical concepts of the process.
Background The process of “Peace and Power” was first described in a handbook for action (Wheeler & Chinn, 1984). The handbook emerged from the practices of women’s community activist groups in Buffalo, New York, USA. The book, now in its eighth edition (Chinn, 2013c), has been used worldwide by a wide range of groups seeking exactly what the title suggests—peace (both inner peace for indi-
62
viduals and peaceful interactions in the group) and power (empowerment for all, and constructive ways to address individual and group power). A notable use of the process was in the dissertation study of Maureen Flaherty in the Department of Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Manitoba, titled “Narrating the Past to Vision the Future: Constructing Civil Society With Women In Ukraine” (Flaherty, 2010). Although “Peace and Power” initially was written as a handbook—a “how to” for group process—it also contained explicit explanations concerning why a group might work together in the ways described as “Peace and Power.” These “why” explanations contained the seeds from which the emancipatory philosophy and theory of the “Peace and Power” group process has emerged. Because both of the original authors were nurses, the process was also viewed as a means of creating healthy group interactions, and promoting health by reducing stress and distress created by hostile conflict. Because of this connection to nursing, the process has been used in nursing research, classrooms, hospital committees, and public health agencies (Falk-Rafael, Anderson, Chinn,
Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 2015; 47:1, 62–69. C 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International
Peace and Power
Chinn & Falk-Rafael
& Rubotzky, 2004; Hagedorn, 1995; Jacobs, Fontana, Kehoe, Matarese, & Chinn, 2005). A strong critical (emancipatory) feminist philosophy has been explicit from the beginning, meaning that women’s ways of knowing and being in the world form the actions that are central to the process. In particular, the feminist principle “the personal is political” informs the conceptualization and the actions of “Peace and Power.” Praxis (Freire, 1970) is at the heart of the process and makes the emancipatory dimension of the process explicit. Praxis is a constant reflection on the values that give rise to actions in a group, and shaping and reshaping of actions and interactions to reflect those values. In a sense, articulating the theoretical framework on which “Peace and Power” is based, as described in this article, completes the wholistic mind-body-spirit intention of the process. The theoretical framework presented here symbolizes the mind—the logic and reasoning that underpins the claims of “Peace and Power.” The values that form the foundation and intentions of the process symbolize the spirit and intentions that energize the process. The actions, the ways of being in relation to one another, symbolize the body—the embodied actions that make both the theory and the values visible and perceivable. The short-hand phrase “Peace and Power” represents the whole of the theory-values-action of one approach to emancipatory group process. Table 1 summarizes the essential action components of the process as it is enacted in a group meeting; these actions imply the values on which the process is based. For those using the process, the positive and satisfying outcomes for both individuals and groups are profound. Once individuals experience “Peace and Power” in a group, they tend to take elements of the process and use them in their own lives. For example, people using the processes in groups have taught their children to use critical reflection as a way to deal with conflict in the family, with positive differences for their families. The outcomes of engaging in “Peace and Power” are not typically documented, but they are deeply felt, largely remaining in the realm of personal experience and reported anecdotally. In nursing education, a number of faculty seeking alternative empowerment models for teaching have used the process, with some evidence of its effectiveness documented in the literature (Falk-Rafael et al., 2004; FalkRafael, Chinn, Anderson, Laschinger, & Rubotzky, 2003). The theoretical framework of “Peace and Power” provides an explanation for the emancipatory changes and outcomes that arise from using this approach to group interaction, and can serve as a basis for conceptualizing the process and future exploration of the process using research methods. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 2015; 47:1, 62–69. C 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International
Underlying Assumptions The theoretical framework of “Peace and Power” is based on several assumptions about the ways in which power is differentially exercised in private and public spheres. These assumptions are based on generally practiced cultural norms of Western society and in all cultures where there is a gender disparity. We take these assumptions as the foundation on which our theoretical reasoning is based.
Assumption #1 All human relationships involve the use of power. Power can be used in ways that create harmony, collective strength, and individual well-being. However the prevailing perception of power in human relationships is adversarial, where some people use power over others in ways that serve the selected interests of those in power, not the interests of the whole.
Assumption #2 Typically there is one person, or a group of people, who have relative privilege or power in any group structure, and therefore tend to be able to exert their will, or their values, on those with less power. Successful groups acquire ways to negotiate and deal with power differentials in ways that are satisfying for all who are involved in the group.
Assumption #3 People seek a space in life where they are relatively free from competition and power imbalances, and where cooperation and peace prevails. The private space of the home is typically sought as refuge, as a place of safety, as a place where one does not have to put on airs, compete, or perform. The home is not always this kind of place, but people want this and need it. Even when the home is not this kind of place, it is this ideal, born out of basic human desire, that people seek. A comfortable “at home” ideal is associated with women’s power and influence, where the prevailing values include cooperation, sharing, love, affection, peaceful resolution of disagreements, mutual participation in decision making, and an ethos of taking turns.
Assumption #4 In typical Western societies the public realm tends to be associated with male power, with the ability to exercise one’s will in the world, with that which is strong, 63
Peace and Power
Chinn & Falk-Rafael
Table 1. Summary of “Peace and Power” Processes in a Group Meeting Process Principles of solidarity Check-in Rotating leadership
Value-based decision building
Conflict transformation
Closing
Description Formed by the group to represent their shared values and commitments; essential as a foundation for all other components of the process. Each person speaks briefly to share your ability and commitment to participate in the process, and your expectations for the time the group is together. Everyone participates as leader and follower. In a discussion the person speaking is the “chair” during the time they are speaking, and recognizes the next speaker to assure every voice is heard. Leadership rotates based on ability. Skills and knowledge are shared to assure rotating responsibility. Decisions are consciously based on the group’s principles of solidarity. All options are considered in light of the group’s principles. Minority views are encouraged to build understanding. A decision is selected from mutual agreement on the best option based on principles of solidarity. Everyone addresses four essential elements of critical reflection to ground understanding of the conflict: I feel . . . (core emotion), When . . . (what happened to create conflict), I want . . . (your desired outcome), Because . . . (how what you want is connected to the group’s principles of solidarity). Each person shares appreciation for specific actions/contributions, critical reflection on what might be different in the future, personal affirmation that connects one’s own intentions with the direction of the group.
powerful, and savvy. Public norms tend to require that one person or designated group of people exert their will against the will of others. Public spheres, particularly in a capitalist society, depend on denial and disavowing many of the values that assure the integrity of the home environment. Capitalist structures require competition, keeping secrets (mystification), and the ability to exercise one’s will over others. Even representative forms of democracy require the exercise of the will of the majority over the will and needs of the minority. Direct and participatory forms of democracy attempt to address the injustices that the majority can wield over the minority by providing ways for individual voices from the minority to be heard, and practices where compromise and cooperation are valued over competition. However, the norm remains that those in power can and will impose their will on others.
Assumption #5 Conflict is inevitable in all human relationships. Conflict can be handled in constructive ways, but constructive ways of dealing with conflict require cooperation and mutual desire for the good of the whole. Destructive approaches to conflict lead to damaged relationships and circumstances that are not easily repaired. Constructive approaches to conflict do not guarantee positive outcomes for the relationships involved, but they do provide for individual and collective growth that leads to positive change.
64
Assumption #6 People recognize the value of cooperative ways of working together. Recent trends in governance (e.g., shared governance, participatory management, etc.) have borrowed from the norms that are expected in private life because of a general recognition that people yearn to have some influence over what happens in their public experience, and that when people feel more connected to the process, they experience a greater level of satisfaction.
Theoretical Concepts of “Peace and Power” The two major theoretical concepts of “Peace and Power” each have subconcepts that explain both the means and the outcomes of the group process. The subconcepts of power explain the particular types of energy or actions that are required for the outcomes that the group seeks. The subconcepts of peace encompass both the intentions that underlie the process, as well as the expected outcomes of peace.
Power Power is the energy from which human action and interaction arises. People come into groups with a personal history (experience) in both private and public realms, and have learned the norms of behavior that energize action and interaction in both groups. These powers are
Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 2015; 47:1, 62–69. C 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International
Peace and Power
Chinn & Falk-Rafael
not written in a text or taught in a classroom—they are embedded in culture and become part of the “know how” that each individual acquires over a lifetime of experience. Power-over powers, which are predominantly practiced in public spheres, include, but are not limited to, the use of rules, hierarchy, command, results (ends justify the means), and expediency. The powers that are predominantly derived from private spheres are peace powers. These include, but are not limited to the use of sharing, nurturing, integration of all points of view, distribution of resources, and diversity. Table 2 illustrates the contrasts between these two forms of power. Experientially, both types of power are present in all spheres of life, and there is overlap between the private and public spheres, with one form of power tending to dominate in each specific situation. For example, people can bring some peace powers, such as cooperation and sharing, into the workplace, especially if they feel comfortable with those around them. Likewise, people can practice power-over powers in families—force, competition, manipulation, etc. The difference between the powers that tend to be expressed in private and public life derives from that which is expected and that which is most valued in each realm, particularly in terms of ethical norms. In private life, lines of loyalty for example, are clearly expected to apply more or less equally for all members of the group. In public life, loyalties are typically expected for some in the group and not so much for others, and competing loyalties are much more pronounced. In both spheres, secret keeping can be acceptable, but the rules that govern secret keeping are quite different in each of these spheres; secrets in the public realm are intended to advance gain (either personally or on behalf of the group), even if someone is damaged in the process. In private realms secrets that damage anyone or the group are typically not well tolerated. Likewise, cooperation is valued in both private and public realms; however, in public life the cooperation is limited and is not expected for all. In private life cooperation among all members tends to be not only valued but often is a matter of necessity. Conflict is viewed and acted upon very differently from the perspective of each type of power. From a power-over perspective, conflict is seen as adversarial where one person or one group is ultimately the winner, and the other the loser. Compromise and negotiation can be and often are used as a means of resolving conflict in a peaceful way, but often both sides come away feeling a loss of something they had hoped to gain. Such outcomes are often sought from the desire to avoid harm, or to “keep the peace.” In contrast, from a peace power perspective, those involved in the conflict view the conflict as an opJournal of Nursing Scholarship, 2015; 47:1, 62–69. C 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International
portunity for growth, and focus on ways to achieve an outcome that best expresses their shared values. The tension between these two very different perspectives becomes very acute when conflict occurs, but the conflict itself provides the opportunity for enacting the synthesis of peace. It is awareness of this tension, and acting with deliberate intent that brings about the shift toward peace. This tension between the powers derived from public and private experience forms a dialectic, calling for a resolution in the form of a synthesis. As a group works within a “Peace and Power” framework, they cannot set aside the learned power-over processes. Instead, the group continually examines what they do in light of what they know: they know both forms of power, and they work out as a group how they exercise both forms of power in the group. They act with awareness of the tensions between power-over power and peace power, and in practice might choose to use either of the forms of power but with full awareness. From that awareness (knowing) they create a mutually agreed path to shift and shape their actions based on the intention of peace.
Peace The outcome of a “Peace and Power” group process is movement that is ever shifting in the direction of peace. The synthesis arising from the dialectic tension between the two forms of power is possible because of the “knowing” embodied in the intention of peace, and the “knowing” arising from the lived experience of group interactions. The interactions of the group are constantly being shaped toward the subconcepts of “PEACE,” which are: r Praxis—synchronous reflection and action to transform the world r Empowerment—growth of personal ability to enact one’s will in the context of love and respect for others r Awareness—growing knowledge of self and others r Cooperation—commitment to group solidarity and integrity r Evolvement—commitment to deliberate growth and change (Chinn, 2013c) Figure 1 illustrates the relationships between and among the concepts of “Peace and Power.” The contexts of the private and the public realms from which people derive their history and their experience are shown in the overlapping areas at the base of the model. The peace powers deriving predominantly from the private realm, and the power-over powers deriving predominantly from the public realm, are represented as the dialectic thesisantithesis. The tension in this dialectic results in the synthesis of PEACE: values and actions that are shaped by 65
Peace and Power
Chinn & Falk-Rafael
Table 2. Contrasting Powers Derived From Public and Private Spheres of Human Interaction Power-over powers
Peace powers
Power of results—the means justify the ends. Power of prescription—actions and goals defined by rules or authority figures. Power of division—a few are privileged while others lack knowledge, skills, and resources. Power of force—penalties and negative consequences are used to assure conformity. Power of hierarchy—linear chain of command with layers of privilege and responsibility. Power of command—leaders set the agenda and followers comply without question. Power of opposites—decisions are polarized into “for” or “against” choices. Power of use—accepts exploitation of resources and people. Power of accumulation—material goods and resources are hoarded and used for personal gain. Power of causality—relies on technology as a solution for problems regardless of the consequences. Power of expediency—makes choices based on what is easy and readily available. Power of xenophobia—restricts participation to those who willingly conform to group norms. Power of secrets—relies on mystification of processes in the interest of gaining conformity. Power of rules—policies, norms, and laws govern what is to the done without consideration of situation or context. Power of fear—focuses on imaginary future disaster and harm to control the behavior of others.
Power of process—how we work together is equally important to what we accomplish. Power of letting go—actions and goals are negotiated for the best interest of the group as well as each individual. Power of the whole—knowledge, skills, and resources flow among all for the benefit of all. Power of collectivity—each person’s participation is valued for reaching strong decisions that everyone values. Power of solidarity—responsibility is distributed in a lateral network of interaction. Power of sharing—leadership shifts according to talent, skills, and interest. Power of integration—decisions are examined in context to consider both/and possibilities. Power of nurturing—values respect and protection for all people and for the environment. Power of distribution—goods and resources are shared to benefit all according to need.
Power of intuition—attuned to the long-term potential well-being of all when considering solutions. Power of consciousness—choices are derived from values that protect life, growth, and peace. Power of diversity—values equal participation of those with alternative and dissenting views.
Power of responsibility—values demystification so that all can make informed choices to promote the well-being of each individual and the group. Power of creativity—values actions that arise from ingenuity to form solutions best fitting the situation. Power of trust—focuses on building and maintaining relationships that nurture understanding of one another.
Note: Adapted from Chinn, P. L. (2013). Peace & Power: New directions for building community (8th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning.
the struggle to resolve the tension and to create a reality in which group actions and values become as one, represented by the “Knowing-Doing” sphere in Figure 1. The specific propositions of “Peace and Power” are: r Group interactions are shaped by learned habits derived from experience with both private and public norms related to the use of power. r When a group embarks on a path seeking peace in their work together, the tension between peace powers and power-over powers creates a dialectic, from which the group develops a synthesis of knowing and doing that shapes their actions. r As the group matures in their experience of knowing what they do, and doing what they know, they grow closer to the ideals of “PEACE” (praxis, empowerment, awareness, cooperation, and evolvement), which in turn opens the possibility for profound emancipatory 66
changes in the direction of justice, empowerment and well-being for all.
“Peace and Power” as an Emancipatory Theory of Group Process “Peace and Power” is grounded in the emancipatory principles developed by Paulo Freire (1970), who is widely recognized as the founder of critical approaches in education. However, the power of the process to create social change and the emancipatory integrity of the theory requires a more complete examination to fully understand the significance and the potential of the theory from an emancipatory perspective. Fontana (2004) presented a now-classic framework from which to examine emancipatory integrity. Fontana’s work focused on characteristics of research Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 2015; 47:1, 62–69. C 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International
Peace and Power
Chinn & Falk-Rafael
volunteer community activist group is not constrained by institutional rules, so the group is relatively free to shape their own group process. The ways in which “Peace and Power” is enacted is shaped by the group’s ability to address the tensions between the larger context in which the group is situated, and the expectations of the group itself, conceptually represented by the question that underlies knowing-doing: Do we know what we do, and do we do what we know?
Politics
Figure 1. A theoretical framework of “Peace and Power.”
methods that distinguish them as critical. The characteristics she identified are critique, context, politics, emancipatory intent, democratic structure, dialectic analysis, and reflexivity. As a framework, these characteristics prompt a hermeneutic circle—from the general traits of critical approaches, to the specific propositions of “Peace and Power,” and back again to the traits of critical approaches.
The theoretical framework of “Peace and Power” is based on a definition of politics as the ability to enact one’s values in the world. The values of peace are both the intent and the outcome, energized by peace powers, which overcome injustices of inequity that are embedded in dominant political systems. The processes that the theoretical framework represents are explicitly political in the sense of creating social and political change at the local level—the level of small group experience. This change in turn holds potential for creating political change on a broader level.
Emancipatory Intent Critique In group situations, inequities are sustained by powerover, hierarchical traditions that assure privilege for some and disadvantage for most. Inherent in “Peace and Power” is a constant habit of critique, enacted in regular habits of critical reflection, assuring that the group’s knowing-doing is informed by ongoing careful examination of the group’s lived experience in light of the patriarchal context that shaped the past, and the hoped-for ideals of peace toward which the group reaches. Critical reflection is a specific approach that promotes individual and group reflection that is deliberately used to shift and change actions (Chinn, 2013a).
Context “Peace and Power” processes are typically enacted in contexts where power-over powers are expected to prevail, and in which some people are relatively disadvantaged. In each group there are varying levels of power-over influence, and the knowing-doing of the group is influenced by the particular influences that most affect the group. For example, a formal classroom is situated in hierarchical institutions that impose both implicit and explicit patriarchal rules and traditions (the teacher is the power figure, and students are expected to follow the teacher’s lead without question). By comparison, a Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 2015; 47:1, 62–69. C 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International
The emancipatory intent of “Peace and Power” is embedded in the definitions of each of the concepts of PEACE: praxis, empowerment, awareness, cooperation, and evolvement. The intent and outcome of PEACE is energized by peace powers, emphasizing such emancipatory intents as empowerment for all, sharing of skills and knowledge, etc. The challenge related to the emancipatory intent is the struggle to resolve the tensions inherent in the dialectic of peace powers and power-over powers. The hope embedded in the intent, and the powers that energize sustained commitment to the intent, point the way to stay on course, moving on, in the hope that the intent will become a reality in whatever ways are possible. The group’s principles of solidarity express their specific intentions and become the anchor around which the group’s actions are shaped.
Democratic Structure By definition, the process of “Peace and Power” embodies direct democracy (as opposed to elected or representative democracy). The peace powers that require a democratic structure include the power of diversity (every voice is heard), the power of solidarity (each individual is fully engaged in making decisions), and the power of integration (all views, including the minority, are integrated into actions and decisions). All components of 67
Peace and Power
“Peace and Power” processes are designed so that each and every individual is empowered to speak, to act, to learn, and to be fully involved (Chinn, 2013b).
Dialectic Analysis Modeled as a Hegelian dialectic, the thesis is the ideal of peace powers, the antithesis is power-over, and the synthesis is the knowing-doing experience that moves toward peace. To move toward peace, people in a group persistently question and critique their use of both types of power, and shift to actions based on awareness and consciousness—“doing what we know and knowing what we do.” A dialectic tension between the ideals of peace powers and learned habits of power-over powers gives the group a basis for making adjustments that gradually lead toward peace. The key is the group’s commitment to bring the tensions to full awareness so that they can make deliberate choices based on that awareness.
Reflexivity Reflexivity, a conscious and ongoing examination of the meaning of experience, is inherent in the practices of “Peace and Power.” It is this aspect of “Peace and Power” that holds the synthesis—the experience that results from the dialectic tension between the peace powers and the power-over powers. In “Peace and Power,” reflexivity is a hermeneutic circle wherein the group consciously relates how the group’s actions “line up” with the group’s values on which the group builds their actions. The group constantly returns to the question, “Do we do what we know, and do we know what we do?”
Chinn & Falk-Rafael
(Barrett & Caroselli, 1998; Barrett, Caroselli, Smith, & Smith, 1997; Caroselli & Barrett, 1998). Falk-Rafael’s theory of critical caring addresses critical awareness that informs actions to create change and that sharpens awareness of oppressive conditions (such as poverty) that negatively affect health (Falk-Rafael & Betker, 2012a, 2012b; Falk-Rafael, 2005). There are also fundamental connections between the ideals of “Peace and Power” and Watson’s foundational concepts of caring, the potential for healing in caring relationships, and her early insights related to injustices of patriarchal systems (Watson, 1985, 1990a, 1990b). The theory and the practice of “Peace and Power” adds dimensions to nursing knowledge with respect to group processes, including processes such as leadership, decision making, and conflict.
Conclusions Given the traditional structures and contexts in which nurses are educated and practice, it is no wonder that the ideas of “Peace and Power” are often greeted with skepticism. Yet the ideals that nurses also learn—caring for others and nurturing of high-level wellness and maximum human potential—also prompt an abiding hope that the promises of “Peace and Power” in human affairs might be possible. The theoretical structure proposed here provides an explanation of the dynamics inherent in the tension that may better inform the experience of the struggle itself. Further, future research could focus on the relationships expressed theoretically, yielding refinement of the proposed relationships as well as evidence to inform practice.
Clinical Resource Implications for Nursing The theory of “Peace and Power” makes an explicit connection to nursing’s core values of caring and highlevel wellness. The process in practice brings these values into action. The theoretical explanation of the dynamics of the process sheds light on the challenges that are inherent in making fundamental changes in human relationships that are nurturing and growth producing. There are also important connections to theoretical ideas in nursing concerning relationships, interrelatedness, and social justice. Barrett’s development of the concept of power as knowing participation in change, while not grounded explicitly in a critical perspective, is based on the premise that the ability to make choices and to change is based on awareness and the ability to act intentionally. This conceptualization is consistent with the theoretical framework of “Peace and Power” 68
r
Peace & Power: http://peaceandpowerblog.org
References Barrett, E. A. M., & Caroselli, C. (1998). Methodologic ponderings related to the power as knowing participation in change tool. Nursing Science Quarterly, 11, 17–22. Barrett, E. A. M., Caroselli, C., Smith, A. S., & Smith, D. W. (1997). Power as knowing participation in change: Theoretical, practice, and methodological issues, insights, and ideas. In M. Madrid(Ed.), Patterns of Rogerian knowing (pp. 31–46). New York, NY: National League for Nursing. Caroselli, C., & Barrett, E. A. M. (1998). A review of the power as knowing participation in change literature. Nursing Science Quarterly, 11, 9–16. Chinn, P. L. (2013a). Conflict transformation. Retrieved from http://peaceandpowerblog.org/conflict-transformation/ Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 2015; 47:1, 62–69. C 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International
Chinn & Falk-Rafael
Chinn, P. L. (2013b). Peace & power. Retrieved from http://peaceandpowerblog.org Chinn, P. L. (2013c). Peace & Power: New directions for building community (8th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning. Falk-Rafael, A. R. (2005). Speaking truth to power: Nursing’s legacy and moral imperative. Advances in Nursing Science, 28(3), 212–223. Falk-Rafael, A. R., Anderson, M. A., Chinn, P. L., & Rubotzky, A. M. (2004). Peace and power as a critical feminist framework for nursing education. In M. H. Oermann & K. T. Heinrich (Eds.), Annual review of nursing education (Vol. 2, pp. 217–235). New York, NY: Springer Publishing. Falk-Rafael, A. R., & Betker, C. (2012a). The primacy of relationships: A study of public health nursing practice from a critical caring perspective. Advances in Nursing Science, 35(4), 315–332. Falk-Rafael, A. R., & Betker, C. (2012b). Witnessing social injustice downstream and advocating for health equity upstream: “The trombone slide” of nursing. Advances in Nursing Science, 35(2), 98–112. Falk-Rafael, A. R., Chinn, P. L., Anderson, M. A., Laschinger, H., & Rubotzky, A. M. (2003). The effectiveness of feminist pedagogy in empowering a community of learners. Journal of Nursing Education, 42(12), 1–9.
Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 2015; 47:1, 62–69. C 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International
Peace and Power
Flaherty, M. P. (2010). Narrating the past to vision the future: Constructing civil society with women in Ukraine (PhD dissertation). University of Manitoba, Winnepeg, Manitoba. Retrieved from http://mspace.lib.umanitoba. ca/jspui/handle/1993/4466 Fontana, J. S. (2004). A methodology for critical science in nursing. Advances in Nursing Science, 27(2), 93–101. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY: The Seabury Press. Hagedorn, S. (1995). The politics of caring: The role of activism in primary care. Advances in Nursing Science, 17(4), 1–11. Jacobs, B. B., Fontana, J. S., Kehoe, M. H., Matarese, C., & Chinn, P. L. (2005). An emancipatory study of contemporary nursing practice. Nursing Outlook, 53, 6–14. Watson, J. (1985). Nursing: Human science and human care: A theory of nursing. Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Watson, J. (1990a). Caring knowledge and informed moral passion. Advances in Nursing Science, 13(1), 15–24. Watson, J. (1990b). The moral failure of the patriarchy. Nursing Outlook, 38(2), 62–66. Wheeler, C. E., & Chinn, P. L. (1984). Peace & power: A handbook of feminist process (1st ed.). Buffalo, NY: Margaretdaughters, Inc.
69
Peace and Power: A Theory of Emancipatory Group Process Peggy L. Chinn, RN, PhD, FAAN1 & Adeline Falk-Rafael, RN, PhD, FAAN2 1 Professor Emerita, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA 2 Professor, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Key words Group process, peace, power, relational practice, empowerment, cooperation, emancipatory nursing, conflict Correspondence Dr. Peggy L. Chinn; E-mail: [email protected] Accepted: June 26, 2014 doi: 10.1111/jnu.12101
Abstract Purpose: To present the theoretical basis for the group process known as “Peace and Power.” Organizing Construct: A dialectic between two dominant forms of power— peace powers and power-over powers—forms the basis for a synthesis that yields an emancipatory group process characterized by praxis, empowerment, awareness, cooperation, and evolvement for individuals and groups. Methods: Critical analysis of prevailing competitive group dynamics and the ideals of cooperative group dynamics was conducted to project the potential for achieving group interactions that yield profound changes in the direction of justice, empowerment, and well-being for all. Conclusions: The theoretical framework of “Peace and Power” is consistent with characteristics of emancipatory integrity that are vital for social change. Clinical Relevance: The processes of “Peace and Power” can be used to create peaceful, cooperative interactions among nurses, with other health professionals, with patients and families, and in communities.
“Peace and Power” is an emancipatory group process drawn from several traditions around the world for working together in cooperative and peaceful ways, and in ways that challenge the status quo and lead to social and political change in the direction of equality and justice for all. In the context of nursing, this process has deep and significant links to the underlying values of nurturing human potential, caring, and high-level wellness—not only for individuals, but for groups in which people live and work. The purpose of this article is to present a theoretical framework that explains the relationships between and among the theoretical concepts of the process.
Background The process of “Peace and Power” was first described in a handbook for action (Wheeler & Chinn, 1984). The handbook emerged from the practices of women’s community activist groups in Buffalo, New York, USA. The book, now in its eighth edition (Chinn, 2013c), has been used worldwide by a wide range of groups seeking exactly what the title suggests—peace (both inner peace for indi-
62
viduals and peaceful interactions in the group) and power (empowerment for all, and constructive ways to address individual and group power). A notable use of the process was in the dissertation study of Maureen Flaherty in the Department of Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Manitoba, titled “Narrating the Past to Vision the Future: Constructing Civil Society With Women In Ukraine” (Flaherty, 2010). Although “Peace and Power” initially was written as a handbook—a “how to” for group process—it also contained explicit explanations concerning why a group might work together in the ways described as “Peace and Power.” These “why” explanations contained the seeds from which the emancipatory philosophy and theory of the “Peace and Power” group process has emerged. Because both of the original authors were nurses, the process was also viewed as a means of creating healthy group interactions, and promoting health by reducing stress and distress created by hostile conflict. Because of this connection to nursing, the process has been used in nursing research, classrooms, hospital committees, and public health agencies (Falk-Rafael, Anderson, Chinn,
Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 2015; 47:1, 62–69. C 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International
Peace and Power
Chinn & Falk-Rafael
& Rubotzky, 2004; Hagedorn, 1995; Jacobs, Fontana, Kehoe, Matarese, & Chinn, 2005). A strong critical (emancipatory) feminist philosophy has been explicit from the beginning, meaning that women’s ways of knowing and being in the world form the actions that are central to the process. In particular, the feminist principle “the personal is political” informs the conceptualization and the actions of “Peace and Power.” Praxis (Freire, 1970) is at the heart of the process and makes the emancipatory dimension of the process explicit. Praxis is a constant reflection on the values that give rise to actions in a group, and shaping and reshaping of actions and interactions to reflect those values. In a sense, articulating the theoretical framework on which “Peace and Power” is based, as described in this article, completes the wholistic mind-body-spirit intention of the process. The theoretical framework presented here symbolizes the mind—the logic and reasoning that underpins the claims of “Peace and Power.” The values that form the foundation and intentions of the process symbolize the spirit and intentions that energize the process. The actions, the ways of being in relation to one another, symbolize the body—the embodied actions that make both the theory and the values visible and perceivable. The short-hand phrase “Peace and Power” represents the whole of the theory-values-action of one approach to emancipatory group process. Table 1 summarizes the essential action components of the process as it is enacted in a group meeting; these actions imply the values on which the process is based. For those using the process, the positive and satisfying outcomes for both individuals and groups are profound. Once individuals experience “Peace and Power” in a group, they tend to take elements of the process and use them in their own lives. For example, people using the processes in groups have taught their children to use critical reflection as a way to deal with conflict in the family, with positive differences for their families. The outcomes of engaging in “Peace and Power” are not typically documented, but they are deeply felt, largely remaining in the realm of personal experience and reported anecdotally. In nursing education, a number of faculty seeking alternative empowerment models for teaching have used the process, with some evidence of its effectiveness documented in the literature (Falk-Rafael et al., 2004; FalkRafael, Chinn, Anderson, Laschinger, & Rubotzky, 2003). The theoretical framework of “Peace and Power” provides an explanation for the emancipatory changes and outcomes that arise from using this approach to group interaction, and can serve as a basis for conceptualizing the process and future exploration of the process using research methods. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 2015; 47:1, 62–69. C 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International
Underlying Assumptions The theoretical framework of “Peace and Power” is based on several assumptions about the ways in which power is differentially exercised in private and public spheres. These assumptions are based on generally practiced cultural norms of Western society and in all cultures where there is a gender disparity. We take these assumptions as the foundation on which our theoretical reasoning is based.
Assumption #1 All human relationships involve the use of power. Power can be used in ways that create harmony, collective strength, and individual well-being. However the prevailing perception of power in human relationships is adversarial, where some people use power over others in ways that serve the selected interests of those in power, not the interests of the whole.
Assumption #2 Typically there is one person, or a group of people, who have relative privilege or power in any group structure, and therefore tend to be able to exert their will, or their values, on those with less power. Successful groups acquire ways to negotiate and deal with power differentials in ways that are satisfying for all who are involved in the group.
Assumption #3 People seek a space in life where they are relatively free from competition and power imbalances, and where cooperation and peace prevails. The private space of the home is typically sought as refuge, as a place of safety, as a place where one does not have to put on airs, compete, or perform. The home is not always this kind of place, but people want this and need it. Even when the home is not this kind of place, it is this ideal, born out of basic human desire, that people seek. A comfortable “at home” ideal is associated with women’s power and influence, where the prevailing values include cooperation, sharing, love, affection, peaceful resolution of disagreements, mutual participation in decision making, and an ethos of taking turns.
Assumption #4 In typical Western societies the public realm tends to be associated with male power, with the ability to exercise one’s will in the world, with that which is strong, 63
Peace and Power
Chinn & Falk-Rafael
Table 1. Summary of “Peace and Power” Processes in a Group Meeting Process Principles of solidarity Check-in Rotating leadership
Value-based decision building
Conflict transformation
Closing
Description Formed by the group to represent their shared values and commitments; essential as a foundation for all other components of the process. Each person speaks briefly to share your ability and commitment to participate in the process, and your expectations for the time the group is together. Everyone participates as leader and follower. In a discussion the person speaking is the “chair” during the time they are speaking, and recognizes the next speaker to assure every voice is heard. Leadership rotates based on ability. Skills and knowledge are shared to assure rotating responsibility. Decisions are consciously based on the group’s principles of solidarity. All options are considered in light of the group’s principles. Minority views are encouraged to build understanding. A decision is selected from mutual agreement on the best option based on principles of solidarity. Everyone addresses four essential elements of critical reflection to ground understanding of the conflict: I feel . . . (core emotion), When . . . (what happened to create conflict), I want . . . (your desired outcome), Because . . . (how what you want is connected to the group’s principles of solidarity). Each person shares appreciation for specific actions/contributions, critical reflection on what might be different in the future, personal affirmation that connects one’s own intentions with the direction of the group.
powerful, and savvy. Public norms tend to require that one person or designated group of people exert their will against the will of others. Public spheres, particularly in a capitalist society, depend on denial and disavowing many of the values that assure the integrity of the home environment. Capitalist structures require competition, keeping secrets (mystification), and the ability to exercise one’s will over others. Even representative forms of democracy require the exercise of the will of the majority over the will and needs of the minority. Direct and participatory forms of democracy attempt to address the injustices that the majority can wield over the minority by providing ways for individual voices from the minority to be heard, and practices where compromise and cooperation are valued over competition. However, the norm remains that those in power can and will impose their will on others.
Assumption #5 Conflict is inevitable in all human relationships. Conflict can be handled in constructive ways, but constructive ways of dealing with conflict require cooperation and mutual desire for the good of the whole. Destructive approaches to conflict lead to damaged relationships and circumstances that are not easily repaired. Constructive approaches to conflict do not guarantee positive outcomes for the relationships involved, but they do provide for individual and collective growth that leads to positive change.
64
Assumption #6 People recognize the value of cooperative ways of working together. Recent trends in governance (e.g., shared governance, participatory management, etc.) have borrowed from the norms that are expected in private life because of a general recognition that people yearn to have some influence over what happens in their public experience, and that when people feel more connected to the process, they experience a greater level of satisfaction.
Theoretical Concepts of “Peace and Power” The two major theoretical concepts of “Peace and Power” each have subconcepts that explain both the means and the outcomes of the group process. The subconcepts of power explain the particular types of energy or actions that are required for the outcomes that the group seeks. The subconcepts of peace encompass both the intentions that underlie the process, as well as the expected outcomes of peace.
Power Power is the energy from which human action and interaction arises. People come into groups with a personal history (experience) in both private and public realms, and have learned the norms of behavior that energize action and interaction in both groups. These powers are
Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 2015; 47:1, 62–69. C 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International
Peace and Power
Chinn & Falk-Rafael
not written in a text or taught in a classroom—they are embedded in culture and become part of the “know how” that each individual acquires over a lifetime of experience. Power-over powers, which are predominantly practiced in public spheres, include, but are not limited to, the use of rules, hierarchy, command, results (ends justify the means), and expediency. The powers that are predominantly derived from private spheres are peace powers. These include, but are not limited to the use of sharing, nurturing, integration of all points of view, distribution of resources, and diversity. Table 2 illustrates the contrasts between these two forms of power. Experientially, both types of power are present in all spheres of life, and there is overlap between the private and public spheres, with one form of power tending to dominate in each specific situation. For example, people can bring some peace powers, such as cooperation and sharing, into the workplace, especially if they feel comfortable with those around them. Likewise, people can practice power-over powers in families—force, competition, manipulation, etc. The difference between the powers that tend to be expressed in private and public life derives from that which is expected and that which is most valued in each realm, particularly in terms of ethical norms. In private life, lines of loyalty for example, are clearly expected to apply more or less equally for all members of the group. In public life, loyalties are typically expected for some in the group and not so much for others, and competing loyalties are much more pronounced. In both spheres, secret keeping can be acceptable, but the rules that govern secret keeping are quite different in each of these spheres; secrets in the public realm are intended to advance gain (either personally or on behalf of the group), even if someone is damaged in the process. In private realms secrets that damage anyone or the group are typically not well tolerated. Likewise, cooperation is valued in both private and public realms; however, in public life the cooperation is limited and is not expected for all. In private life cooperation among all members tends to be not only valued but often is a matter of necessity. Conflict is viewed and acted upon very differently from the perspective of each type of power. From a power-over perspective, conflict is seen as adversarial where one person or one group is ultimately the winner, and the other the loser. Compromise and negotiation can be and often are used as a means of resolving conflict in a peaceful way, but often both sides come away feeling a loss of something they had hoped to gain. Such outcomes are often sought from the desire to avoid harm, or to “keep the peace.” In contrast, from a peace power perspective, those involved in the conflict view the conflict as an opJournal of Nursing Scholarship, 2015; 47:1, 62–69. C 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International
portunity for growth, and focus on ways to achieve an outcome that best expresses their shared values. The tension between these two very different perspectives becomes very acute when conflict occurs, but the conflict itself provides the opportunity for enacting the synthesis of peace. It is awareness of this tension, and acting with deliberate intent that brings about the shift toward peace. This tension between the powers derived from public and private experience forms a dialectic, calling for a resolution in the form of a synthesis. As a group works within a “Peace and Power” framework, they cannot set aside the learned power-over processes. Instead, the group continually examines what they do in light of what they know: they know both forms of power, and they work out as a group how they exercise both forms of power in the group. They act with awareness of the tensions between power-over power and peace power, and in practice might choose to use either of the forms of power but with full awareness. From that awareness (knowing) they create a mutually agreed path to shift and shape their actions based on the intention of peace.
Peace The outcome of a “Peace and Power” group process is movement that is ever shifting in the direction of peace. The synthesis arising from the dialectic tension between the two forms of power is possible because of the “knowing” embodied in the intention of peace, and the “knowing” arising from the lived experience of group interactions. The interactions of the group are constantly being shaped toward the subconcepts of “PEACE,” which are: r Praxis—synchronous reflection and action to transform the world r Empowerment—growth of personal ability to enact one’s will in the context of love and respect for others r Awareness—growing knowledge of self and others r Cooperation—commitment to group solidarity and integrity r Evolvement—commitment to deliberate growth and change (Chinn, 2013c) Figure 1 illustrates the relationships between and among the concepts of “Peace and Power.” The contexts of the private and the public realms from which people derive their history and their experience are shown in the overlapping areas at the base of the model. The peace powers deriving predominantly from the private realm, and the power-over powers deriving predominantly from the public realm, are represented as the dialectic thesisantithesis. The tension in this dialectic results in the synthesis of PEACE: values and actions that are shaped by 65
Peace and Power
Chinn & Falk-Rafael
Table 2. Contrasting Powers Derived From Public and Private Spheres of Human Interaction Power-over powers
Peace powers
Power of results—the means justify the ends. Power of prescription—actions and goals defined by rules or authority figures. Power of division—a few are privileged while others lack knowledge, skills, and resources. Power of force—penalties and negative consequences are used to assure conformity. Power of hierarchy—linear chain of command with layers of privilege and responsibility. Power of command—leaders set the agenda and followers comply without question. Power of opposites—decisions are polarized into “for” or “against” choices. Power of use—accepts exploitation of resources and people. Power of accumulation—material goods and resources are hoarded and used for personal gain. Power of causality—relies on technology as a solution for problems regardless of the consequences. Power of expediency—makes choices based on what is easy and readily available. Power of xenophobia—restricts participation to those who willingly conform to group norms. Power of secrets—relies on mystification of processes in the interest of gaining conformity. Power of rules—policies, norms, and laws govern what is to the done without consideration of situation or context. Power of fear—focuses on imaginary future disaster and harm to control the behavior of others.
Power of process—how we work together is equally important to what we accomplish. Power of letting go—actions and goals are negotiated for the best interest of the group as well as each individual. Power of the whole—knowledge, skills, and resources flow among all for the benefit of all. Power of collectivity—each person’s participation is valued for reaching strong decisions that everyone values. Power of solidarity—responsibility is distributed in a lateral network of interaction. Power of sharing—leadership shifts according to talent, skills, and interest. Power of integration—decisions are examined in context to consider both/and possibilities. Power of nurturing—values respect and protection for all people and for the environment. Power of distribution—goods and resources are shared to benefit all according to need.
Power of intuition—attuned to the long-term potential well-being of all when considering solutions. Power of consciousness—choices are derived from values that protect life, growth, and peace. Power of diversity—values equal participation of those with alternative and dissenting views.
Power of responsibility—values demystification so that all can make informed choices to promote the well-being of each individual and the group. Power of creativity—values actions that arise from ingenuity to form solutions best fitting the situation. Power of trust—focuses on building and maintaining relationships that nurture understanding of one another.
Note: Adapted from Chinn, P. L. (2013). Peace & Power: New directions for building community (8th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning.
the struggle to resolve the tension and to create a reality in which group actions and values become as one, represented by the “Knowing-Doing” sphere in Figure 1. The specific propositions of “Peace and Power” are: r Group interactions are shaped by learned habits derived from experience with both private and public norms related to the use of power. r When a group embarks on a path seeking peace in their work together, the tension between peace powers and power-over powers creates a dialectic, from which the group develops a synthesis of knowing and doing that shapes their actions. r As the group matures in their experience of knowing what they do, and doing what they know, they grow closer to the ideals of “PEACE” (praxis, empowerment, awareness, cooperation, and evolvement), which in turn opens the possibility for profound emancipatory 66
changes in the direction of justice, empowerment and well-being for all.
“Peace and Power” as an Emancipatory Theory of Group Process “Peace and Power” is grounded in the emancipatory principles developed by Paulo Freire (1970), who is widely recognized as the founder of critical approaches in education. However, the power of the process to create social change and the emancipatory integrity of the theory requires a more complete examination to fully understand the significance and the potential of the theory from an emancipatory perspective. Fontana (2004) presented a now-classic framework from which to examine emancipatory integrity. Fontana’s work focused on characteristics of research Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 2015; 47:1, 62–69. C 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International
Peace and Power
Chinn & Falk-Rafael
volunteer community activist group is not constrained by institutional rules, so the group is relatively free to shape their own group process. The ways in which “Peace and Power” is enacted is shaped by the group’s ability to address the tensions between the larger context in which the group is situated, and the expectations of the group itself, conceptually represented by the question that underlies knowing-doing: Do we know what we do, and do we do what we know?
Politics
Figure 1. A theoretical framework of “Peace and Power.”
methods that distinguish them as critical. The characteristics she identified are critique, context, politics, emancipatory intent, democratic structure, dialectic analysis, and reflexivity. As a framework, these characteristics prompt a hermeneutic circle—from the general traits of critical approaches, to the specific propositions of “Peace and Power,” and back again to the traits of critical approaches.
The theoretical framework of “Peace and Power” is based on a definition of politics as the ability to enact one’s values in the world. The values of peace are both the intent and the outcome, energized by peace powers, which overcome injustices of inequity that are embedded in dominant political systems. The processes that the theoretical framework represents are explicitly political in the sense of creating social and political change at the local level—the level of small group experience. This change in turn holds potential for creating political change on a broader level.
Emancipatory Intent Critique In group situations, inequities are sustained by powerover, hierarchical traditions that assure privilege for some and disadvantage for most. Inherent in “Peace and Power” is a constant habit of critique, enacted in regular habits of critical reflection, assuring that the group’s knowing-doing is informed by ongoing careful examination of the group’s lived experience in light of the patriarchal context that shaped the past, and the hoped-for ideals of peace toward which the group reaches. Critical reflection is a specific approach that promotes individual and group reflection that is deliberately used to shift and change actions (Chinn, 2013a).
Context “Peace and Power” processes are typically enacted in contexts where power-over powers are expected to prevail, and in which some people are relatively disadvantaged. In each group there are varying levels of power-over influence, and the knowing-doing of the group is influenced by the particular influences that most affect the group. For example, a formal classroom is situated in hierarchical institutions that impose both implicit and explicit patriarchal rules and traditions (the teacher is the power figure, and students are expected to follow the teacher’s lead without question). By comparison, a Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 2015; 47:1, 62–69. C 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International
The emancipatory intent of “Peace and Power” is embedded in the definitions of each of the concepts of PEACE: praxis, empowerment, awareness, cooperation, and evolvement. The intent and outcome of PEACE is energized by peace powers, emphasizing such emancipatory intents as empowerment for all, sharing of skills and knowledge, etc. The challenge related to the emancipatory intent is the struggle to resolve the tensions inherent in the dialectic of peace powers and power-over powers. The hope embedded in the intent, and the powers that energize sustained commitment to the intent, point the way to stay on course, moving on, in the hope that the intent will become a reality in whatever ways are possible. The group’s principles of solidarity express their specific intentions and become the anchor around which the group’s actions are shaped.
Democratic Structure By definition, the process of “Peace and Power” embodies direct democracy (as opposed to elected or representative democracy). The peace powers that require a democratic structure include the power of diversity (every voice is heard), the power of solidarity (each individual is fully engaged in making decisions), and the power of integration (all views, including the minority, are integrated into actions and decisions). All components of 67
Peace and Power
“Peace and Power” processes are designed so that each and every individual is empowered to speak, to act, to learn, and to be fully involved (Chinn, 2013b).
Dialectic Analysis Modeled as a Hegelian dialectic, the thesis is the ideal of peace powers, the antithesis is power-over, and the synthesis is the knowing-doing experience that moves toward peace. To move toward peace, people in a group persistently question and critique their use of both types of power, and shift to actions based on awareness and consciousness—“doing what we know and knowing what we do.” A dialectic tension between the ideals of peace powers and learned habits of power-over powers gives the group a basis for making adjustments that gradually lead toward peace. The key is the group’s commitment to bring the tensions to full awareness so that they can make deliberate choices based on that awareness.
Reflexivity Reflexivity, a conscious and ongoing examination of the meaning of experience, is inherent in the practices of “Peace and Power.” It is this aspect of “Peace and Power” that holds the synthesis—the experience that results from the dialectic tension between the peace powers and the power-over powers. In “Peace and Power,” reflexivity is a hermeneutic circle wherein the group consciously relates how the group’s actions “line up” with the group’s values on which the group builds their actions. The group constantly returns to the question, “Do we do what we know, and do we know what we do?”
Chinn & Falk-Rafael
(Barrett & Caroselli, 1998; Barrett, Caroselli, Smith, & Smith, 1997; Caroselli & Barrett, 1998). Falk-Rafael’s theory of critical caring addresses critical awareness that informs actions to create change and that sharpens awareness of oppressive conditions (such as poverty) that negatively affect health (Falk-Rafael & Betker, 2012a, 2012b; Falk-Rafael, 2005). There are also fundamental connections between the ideals of “Peace and Power” and Watson’s foundational concepts of caring, the potential for healing in caring relationships, and her early insights related to injustices of patriarchal systems (Watson, 1985, 1990a, 1990b). The theory and the practice of “Peace and Power” adds dimensions to nursing knowledge with respect to group processes, including processes such as leadership, decision making, and conflict.
Conclusions Given the traditional structures and contexts in which nurses are educated and practice, it is no wonder that the ideas of “Peace and Power” are often greeted with skepticism. Yet the ideals that nurses also learn—caring for others and nurturing of high-level wellness and maximum human potential—also prompt an abiding hope that the promises of “Peace and Power” in human affairs might be possible. The theoretical structure proposed here provides an explanation of the dynamics inherent in the tension that may better inform the experience of the struggle itself. Further, future research could focus on the relationships expressed theoretically, yielding refinement of the proposed relationships as well as evidence to inform practice.
Clinical Resource Implications for Nursing The theory of “Peace and Power” makes an explicit connection to nursing’s core values of caring and highlevel wellness. The process in practice brings these values into action. The theoretical explanation of the dynamics of the process sheds light on the challenges that are inherent in making fundamental changes in human relationships that are nurturing and growth producing. There are also important connections to theoretical ideas in nursing concerning relationships, interrelatedness, and social justice. Barrett’s development of the concept of power as knowing participation in change, while not grounded explicitly in a critical perspective, is based on the premise that the ability to make choices and to change is based on awareness and the ability to act intentionally. This conceptualization is consistent with the theoretical framework of “Peace and Power” 68
r
Peace & Power: http://peaceandpowerblog.org
References Barrett, E. A. M., & Caroselli, C. (1998). Methodologic ponderings related to the power as knowing participation in change tool. Nursing Science Quarterly, 11, 17–22. Barrett, E. A. M., Caroselli, C., Smith, A. S., & Smith, D. W. (1997). Power as knowing participation in change: Theoretical, practice, and methodological issues, insights, and ideas. In M. Madrid(Ed.), Patterns of Rogerian knowing (pp. 31–46). New York, NY: National League for Nursing. Caroselli, C., & Barrett, E. A. M. (1998). A review of the power as knowing participation in change literature. Nursing Science Quarterly, 11, 9–16. Chinn, P. L. (2013a). Conflict transformation. Retrieved from http://peaceandpowerblog.org/conflict-transformation/ Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 2015; 47:1, 62–69. C 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International
Chinn & Falk-Rafael
Chinn, P. L. (2013b). Peace & power. Retrieved from http://peaceandpowerblog.org Chinn, P. L. (2013c). Peace & Power: New directions for building community (8th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning. Falk-Rafael, A. R. (2005). Speaking truth to power: Nursing’s legacy and moral imperative. Advances in Nursing Science, 28(3), 212–223. Falk-Rafael, A. R., Anderson, M. A., Chinn, P. L., & Rubotzky, A. M. (2004). Peace and power as a critical feminist framework for nursing education. In M. H. Oermann & K. T. Heinrich (Eds.), Annual review of nursing education (Vol. 2, pp. 217–235). New York, NY: Springer Publishing. Falk-Rafael, A. R., & Betker, C. (2012a). The primacy of relationships: A study of public health nursing practice from a critical caring perspective. Advances in Nursing Science, 35(4), 315–332. Falk-Rafael, A. R., & Betker, C. (2012b). Witnessing social injustice downstream and advocating for health equity upstream: “The trombone slide” of nursing. Advances in Nursing Science, 35(2), 98–112. Falk-Rafael, A. R., Chinn, P. L., Anderson, M. A., Laschinger, H., & Rubotzky, A. M. (2003). The effectiveness of feminist pedagogy in empowering a community of learners. Journal of Nursing Education, 42(12), 1–9.
Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 2015; 47:1, 62–69. C 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International
Peace and Power
Flaherty, M. P. (2010). Narrating the past to vision the future: Constructing civil society with women in Ukraine (PhD dissertation). University of Manitoba, Winnepeg, Manitoba. Retrieved from http://mspace.lib.umanitoba. ca/jspui/handle/1993/4466 Fontana, J. S. (2004). A methodology for critical science in nursing. Advances in Nursing Science, 27(2), 93–101. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY: The Seabury Press. Hagedorn, S. (1995). The politics of caring: The role of activism in primary care. Advances in Nursing Science, 17(4), 1–11. Jacobs, B. B., Fontana, J. S., Kehoe, M. H., Matarese, C., & Chinn, P. L. (2005). An emancipatory study of contemporary nursing practice. Nursing Outlook, 53, 6–14. Watson, J. (1985). Nursing: Human science and human care: A theory of nursing. Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Watson, J. (1990a). Caring knowledge and informed moral passion. Advances in Nursing Science, 13(1), 15–24. Watson, J. (1990b). The moral failure of the patriarchy. Nursing Outlook, 38(2), 62–66. Wheeler, C. E., & Chinn, P. L. (1984). Peace & power: A handbook of feminist process (1st ed.). Buffalo, NY: Margaretdaughters, Inc.
69
