Society honours those who hold their ground.

Holding Ground

This is evident, at the macro level, when communities and nations resist bullying aggression. This spirited resistance is epitomized in Churchill's "We will never surrender". It was obvious in the fight against apartheid in South Africa, and particularly in the courage of Nelson Mandela.

This same spirit has been evident at a middle level, when individuals and communities hold their ground on moral issues, particularly when they seek to counter prejudice and injustice. Conspicuous examples have been the promotion of the rights of indigenes, women and homosexuals. At this mid-level, holding one's ground has often involved challenging prevailing orthodoxies.

The importance of standing firm, at the micro level, is evident in the area of relationships, particularly where one senses an unequal distribution of power. Power, which is integral to all relationships, is, in itself, neutral. The ideal relationship is represented by a fruitful balance of power. However, in some partnerships the balance of power is weighted in favour of one of the parties. Ironically, it is [65] sometimes the person who feels most insecure, and who therefore needs to take the initiative in asserting what power they have, who exercises disproportionate power. Those who are the least secure are the most controlling.

It is important, at all levels of engagement, that we hold our ground when this response is called for. However, it also needs to be recognised that there are instances in which holding ground is inappropriate.

Reasons to be Wary

Because of the passion that frequently accompanies our resistance to injustice, and the initial euphoria associated with it, we can sometimes fail to see that the stance we have taken has a downside. We do not see the dangers hiding in the folds of the principled stance we adopt.

The Macro Level

It is easier for us to be seen to be taking the high moral ground when we are in the early stages of resistance. Our focus, at this time, is in challenging the evil that has aroused our indignation. We do not give a great deal of attention to working out how best to remedy the injustice. However, there is a world of difference between resisting authority and assuming responsibility for putting things right. The latter calls for a greater degree of flexibility.

In the initial euphoria, when an oppressive regime is toppled, we often forget that there is an almost inevitable tendency for liberators to become oppressors. The career of Mao Zedong illustrates this. With the overthrow of the Kuomintang in 1949, Mao was saluted as the saviour of his country. In later years, however, after becoming ensconced in power, Mao became the nation's scourge. Driven by [66] suspicion, paranoia and an insatiable desire to maintain his position, he was responsible for the deaths of millions of his fellow Chinese.

Standing firm can sometimes frustrate movement towards compromise and resolution. We can take a position that is so uncompromising that stepping back from this position is viewed by both our opponents and constituents as weakness.

Individuals, or countries, can be so influenced by their traditions and history, that they cannot avoid being committed to particular positions. This is most likely to occur when the person or country considers that they are victims of oppression. Their resentment allows them little room for movement, or compromise. It is likely to be most intense where people have been dispossessed, or have been the victims of ethnic cleansing.

It may also be the case that our "standing firm" is the result of ideological inflexibility. This response becomes almost inevitable when our ideologies become enshrined in myths. These myths are impervious to reason. We are least likely to change, or to review our position, when our "standing firm" has ideological, historical and mythological roots, and is associated with the conviction that our cause is just.

There is a shadow side to justice. There is a tendency for each side to feel that they are the aggrieved party. The greater weight of justice, at any time, may belong to one side of the conflict, rather than the other. However, a history of mutual injustice, arising from conflicts that persist over time, means that both sides of any conflict can recite instances of injustice, which they feel justify the actions they take against the other side. This mutual recrimination is evident in the Balkans, Northern Ireland and Palestine. Most "standing [67] firm" that is dysfunctional is driven by fear, and can descend into tribalism.

"Standing firm" can be a form of brinkmanship that jeopardizes the lives of countless "innocents". This was clearly evident in the embrace of the nuclear option by both America and Russia during the Cold War. Whether the state of mutually assured destruction was positive, or negative, in terms of averting a major conflict, is a question that will continue to be debated. Nevertheless, there is no question about the seriousness of the danger we all lived with during those years.

It is also clear, at the middle level, as at the macro level, that holding one's ground, in the absence of a willingness to compromise, can also be unhelpful. In holding our ground we often fail to understand that our position can become reductionist. This is evident in ideological conflict over perceptions, goals and strategies, in which various reform groups compete for supporters. The rhetoric of each group argues, "If we are right, then you are wrong". Ironically, it is often the prophetic voices that pioneer new approaches, challenging ingrained prejudices, which become the next generation of thought police. Once their position becomes established, they defend it against challenge. There is within us all a tendency to regard our position as correct, and those of others erroneous. While we are virtuous, they are malicious. The tenacity with which we hold to our opinions contributes to the development of inflexibility, myopia and ideological fundamentalism.

At the micro level, where we are dealing with human relationships, taking a stand and refusing to budge often increases tension. In the interests of preserving our power, we take up a stance that alienates others, often those on whom we depend for emotional succour. By separating [68] ourselves further from the principal source of our self-esteem, we become more insecure and therefore more rigid. As our insecurity deepens, so too does the alienation. When we are in this position, it is impossible for us to appreciate how others are experiencing us. We are blind to the effect we are having on them. While others find us obstinate and controlling, we experience ourselves as powerless. Furthermore, we are so blinded by the justice of our cause that we cannot see the injustices we are perpetuating, or the justice of the other's cause. We are so captive to the memory of our hurts that we have little insight into ourselves. In time, we identify ourselves as the "wounded ones". This becomes central to our identity. To surrender this view of ourselves as the wounded party is tantamount to relinquishing our identity.

Advantages and Disadvantages

There are a number of advantages in holding our ground. It can strengthen our determination to oppose evil. It can reinforce our identity. It also helps us feel that we have not been negligent in our duty, and it can enable us to avoid capitulation and subjugation. It can also justify our blaming others for our miseries.

Holding our ground can be a dangerous form of brinkmanship. It can lock us into positions from which it is difficult to extricate ourselves. It can also foster paranoia. It increases antagonism, which can sometimes last generations. It encourages recrimination and payback, and justifies prejudice. It fosters corrosive bitterness, which poisons us. We can end up destroying ourselves. It also cuts us off from sources of nourishment--from our souls, from others, and from the universal Spirit. [69]

Giving Ground

While there are times when one should hold one's ground, there are other times when it is appropriate to give ground.

There are certain advantages in giving ground. It can sometimes help to break the nexus that keeps antagonists apart. It can open up opportunities for compromise and reconciliation. It helps foster understanding. It can open the way for the creation of a more equitable balance of power.

There are certain disadvantages in giving grounds. In certain circumstances, it can be inappropriate, particularly where we, or others, are insufficiently protected. Australia stood its ground over East Timor in 1999. Giving ground is an inappropriate response when it derives from weakness rather than strength. When it is a result of weakness, it constitutes capitulation. Capitulation fosters rage and the desire for retaliation.

Summary

Holding ground is appropriate in situations where there is evidence of an imbalance of power or abusive behaviour, usually on the part of the party enjoying superior advantages.

Giving ground is appropriate in circumstances where one is capable of exercising a reasonable degree of power, that is, where one has the capacity to hold one's ground, but chooses to yield.

While I have dealt with "holding ground" and "giving ground" as if they were two separate processes, it is only rarely that we are called upon to exercise one of these responses in isolation. Most circumstances call for a flexible balance between holding and giving ground. [70]

[ROI 65-70]