ON THE STREET
Upcycling and Christian Conflict Transformation:
How the Practice of Seeing Something New in Something Old
Might Change the World
by Aimee Moiso
When she’s not working on her dissertation for a PhD in homiletics and liturgics at Vanderbilt University, Aimee Moiso is an avid upcycler and lover of growing things. She is also an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
When she’s not working on her dissertation for a PhD in homiletics and liturgics at Vanderbilt University, Aimee Moiso is an avid upcycler and lover of growing things. She is also an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).
Peacemaking has long been valued in Christian faith and life. While Christians have differed on ethical questions such as absolute nonviolence or just war, most would align themselves with Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount that those who seek peace in a conflicted world are “blessed” (Matthew 5:9). It is no surprise, then, that Christians are among scholars and practitioners of conflict transformation, a more recent area of conflict studies that emphasizes how conflict might be transformed for the social good. Moreover, Christian proponents of conflict transformation frequently articulate their professional experiences in ways that closely correspond to understandings of Christian practice in the field of practical theology.
Some conflict transformation theorists also claim that the cultivation of creativity and the moral imagination is key to their work, and that constructive change and peacebuilding requires artistry as much as technical skill and expertise. But the development of creativity and imagination is often vague or absent in considerations of what constitutes Christian practice.
Thus in this essay, I respond to the question, what might a practice of Christian creativity or imagination for conflict transformation look like? To begin, I offer a brief overview of the field of conflict transformation with a focus on Christian conflict transformation theorists and practitioners. Using the concept of Christian practice outlined by practical theologians Dorothy Bass and Craig Dykstra, I highlight ways in which Christian conflict transformation scholars see their work as expressive of their faith, noting resonances with characteristics of Christian practice. However, some conflict transformation scholars, especially John Paul Lederach, have named the importance of the development of creativity and imagination in the work of conflict transformation, a reality not typically central to Christian practice. In response, I suggest that the secular concept and practice of upcycling might offer a paradigm for fostering the creativity and moral imagination necessary for a Christian practice of conflict transformation. Based on disciplines of the moral imagination offered by Lederach alongside perspectives from upcycling pioneers William McDonough and Michael Braungart, I propose five convictions that could inspire and cultivate creativity for Christian conflict transformation.
A Brief Overview of Conflict Transformation
In recent decades, scholars and practitioners in conflict studies and peacemaking have questioned approaches to conflict resolution that prioritize control, containment, and settlement.1 A focus on negotiating immediate needs in conflict situations frequently left underlying systems and relational patterns, as well as power imbalances and structural concerns, unaddressed.2 As an alternative, some theorists have proposed conflict transformation.
Conflict transformation is marked by several conceptual shifts.3 Where previous paradigms might have seen conflict as unnatural, intrinsically negative, and preventable, conflict transformation theorists argue that conflict is a natural and necessary part of life in human communities; conflict is inevitable because human differences—cultures, values, beliefs—in proximity produce tension.4 But transformation scholars suggest there are constructive and destructive trajectories of conflict,5 and constructive conflict can be “a vital agent or catalyst for change.”6 Processes and practices that respond to conflict have the potential not only to end something wrong, but to move toward something new and good.7
Proponents of conflict transformation also emphasize the possibilities for transformation in participant relationships. Because conflict is not intrinsically a destructive force to be feared and controlled, it can be “a positive force to be embraced and harnessed for its potential to ‘open the door’ . . . to . . . genuinely meaningful outcomes and real closure, and—equally or more important—restoration of the parties’ sense of both strength and connection.”8 Conflict transformation recognizes that relational connection is an intrinsic part of creating lasting solutions and social change.9
Conflict Transformation as Christian Practice
Though conflict transformation is a secular field, scholars and practitioners often find resonances between their work and their faith. Ethics scholar Ellen Ott Marshall writes that “Many people involved in conflict transformation understand their work to be religious in nature or to be part of a theological vocation. However, this aspect of the work has received little attention in the literature.”10 In Conflict Transformation and Religion: Essays on Faith, Power, and Relationship, Marshall brings together essays from conflict transformation practitioners, teachers, and ministers for whom faith, spirituality, and theology inform the context and substance of their work, drawing connections between their faith commitments and conflict transformation:
Some conflict transformation theorists also claim that the cultivation of creativity and the moral imagination is key to their work, and that constructive change and peacebuilding requires artistry as much as technical skill and expertise. But the development of creativity and imagination is often vague or absent in considerations of what constitutes Christian practice.
Thus in this essay, I respond to the question, what might a practice of Christian creativity or imagination for conflict transformation look like? To begin, I offer a brief overview of the field of conflict transformation with a focus on Christian conflict transformation theorists and practitioners. Using the concept of Christian practice outlined by practical theologians Dorothy Bass and Craig Dykstra, I highlight ways in which Christian conflict transformation scholars see their work as expressive of their faith, noting resonances with characteristics of Christian practice. However, some conflict transformation scholars, especially John Paul Lederach, have named the importance of the development of creativity and imagination in the work of conflict transformation, a reality not typically central to Christian practice. In response, I suggest that the secular concept and practice of upcycling might offer a paradigm for fostering the creativity and moral imagination necessary for a Christian practice of conflict transformation. Based on disciplines of the moral imagination offered by Lederach alongside perspectives from upcycling pioneers William McDonough and Michael Braungart, I propose five convictions that could inspire and cultivate creativity for Christian conflict transformation.
A Brief Overview of Conflict Transformation
In recent decades, scholars and practitioners in conflict studies and peacemaking have questioned approaches to conflict resolution that prioritize control, containment, and settlement.1 A focus on negotiating immediate needs in conflict situations frequently left underlying systems and relational patterns, as well as power imbalances and structural concerns, unaddressed.2 As an alternative, some theorists have proposed conflict transformation.
Conflict transformation is marked by several conceptual shifts.3 Where previous paradigms might have seen conflict as unnatural, intrinsically negative, and preventable, conflict transformation theorists argue that conflict is a natural and necessary part of life in human communities; conflict is inevitable because human differences—cultures, values, beliefs—in proximity produce tension.4 But transformation scholars suggest there are constructive and destructive trajectories of conflict,5 and constructive conflict can be “a vital agent or catalyst for change.”6 Processes and practices that respond to conflict have the potential not only to end something wrong, but to move toward something new and good.7
Proponents of conflict transformation also emphasize the possibilities for transformation in participant relationships. Because conflict is not intrinsically a destructive force to be feared and controlled, it can be “a positive force to be embraced and harnessed for its potential to ‘open the door’ . . . to . . . genuinely meaningful outcomes and real closure, and—equally or more important—restoration of the parties’ sense of both strength and connection.”8 Conflict transformation recognizes that relational connection is an intrinsic part of creating lasting solutions and social change.9
Conflict Transformation as Christian Practice
Though conflict transformation is a secular field, scholars and practitioners often find resonances between their work and their faith. Ethics scholar Ellen Ott Marshall writes that “Many people involved in conflict transformation understand their work to be religious in nature or to be part of a theological vocation. However, this aspect of the work has received little attention in the literature.”10 In Conflict Transformation and Religion: Essays on Faith, Power, and Relationship, Marshall brings together essays from conflict transformation practitioners, teachers, and ministers for whom faith, spirituality, and theology inform the context and substance of their work, drawing connections between their faith commitments and conflict transformation:
|
The reality of power, the centrality of relationship, the influence of faith, and the potential of conflict constitute inter-related themes running through the chapters. Their presence is neither coincidental nor inconsequential since they play a significant role in transformation. For each contributor, transformation requires constructive engagement with conflict, just and creative use of power, attentiveness to relationship, and commitment to a vision of mutual well-being in community.11
|
John Paul Lederach’s book, The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace, is aimed at professionals in conflict transformation, mediation, restorative justice, and peacebuilding, and does not directly address Christian teaching or practice. But theologically laden words like “transcendence” and “vocation” permeate the book, and Christian readers are likely to hear scriptural and theological echoes in language such as “relationship with enemies,” or risking “new life” in the “mystery of the unknown.”12 Lederach also makes explicit connections between his faith and conflict transformation in other writings. Reconcile: Conflict Transformation for Ordinary Christians, for example, focuses on the spiritual experience of conflict within Christian communities:
|
Deep conflicts are stressful and painful. At worst, they are violent and destructive. Yet at the same time, they create some of the most intense spiritual encounters we experience. Conflict opens a path, a holy path, toward revelation and reconciliation.13
|
These spiritual orientations to conflict transformation correspond with definitions of Christian practice in the field of practical theology. Theologians Dorothy Bass and Craig Dykstra describe Christian practices as “things [Christian] people do together over time to address fundamental human needs in response to and in light of God’s active presence for the life of the world.”14 Participation in these practices is participation in God’s work of creation and new creation, which strengthens and deepens knowledge of God and creation in pursuit of abundant life for all.15 Christian practices
|
contain within them normative understandings of what God wills for us and for the whole creation, and of what God expects of us in response to God’s call to be faithful. . . . Christian practices are the human activities in and through which people cooperate with God in addressing the needs of one another and creation.16
|
Conflict transformation similarly tries to address fundamental human needs—specifically the transformation of destructive conflict and violence into constructive social change for the betterment of the world. For Christian peacebuilders, this commitment is grounded in a theology of reconciliation. Marshall found that Christian practitioners of conflict transformation “consistently describe God’s activity in the world in terms of reconciliation,” and point to reconciliation as the trajectory of God’s movement and intention for humanity and creation.17 Lederach writes, “Our mission is to align ourselves with God, who is working to bring all things together, to reconcile all of creation—particularly a broken, estranged humanity.”18
Christian conflict transformation demonstrates another property of Christian practices: as practices align with God’s purposes, participation in them reveals God’s purposes and will. Bass and Dykstra write, “We believe that it is precisely by participating in Christian practices that we truly come to know God and the world, including ourselves.”19 Christian conflict transformation leaders describe conflict transformation as relationally and spiritually formational. Conflict can become “holy ground,” where participants encounter God, who is the foundation of connection and relatedness between them.20 One writes, “In my experience, conflict can help me understand, like nothing else, my dependence upon something beyond myself, and my interdependence with others—in short, my need for assistance from God and neighbor. . . . The more I work with conflict the more I am aware that this is where God is most fully present.”21 Christian practices are formative both externally and internally; as practices address human needs, seek reconciliation, or alleviate human suffering, they transform the practitioner toward an understanding of the God who desires life abundant for creation. Bass and Dykstra write:
Christian conflict transformation demonstrates another property of Christian practices: as practices align with God’s purposes, participation in them reveals God’s purposes and will. Bass and Dykstra write, “We believe that it is precisely by participating in Christian practices that we truly come to know God and the world, including ourselves.”19 Christian conflict transformation leaders describe conflict transformation as relationally and spiritually formational. Conflict can become “holy ground,” where participants encounter God, who is the foundation of connection and relatedness between them.20 One writes, “In my experience, conflict can help me understand, like nothing else, my dependence upon something beyond myself, and my interdependence with others—in short, my need for assistance from God and neighbor. . . . The more I work with conflict the more I am aware that this is where God is most fully present.”21 Christian practices are formative both externally and internally; as practices address human needs, seek reconciliation, or alleviate human suffering, they transform the practitioner toward an understanding of the God who desires life abundant for creation. Bass and Dykstra write:
|
The content of each practice challenges, lures and sometimes drags its practitioners into new ways of being and knowing that are commensurate with that practice—and thus, if it is rightly attuned, commensurate with the well-being of creation. Living within such practice gives [people] certain capacities that enable them to read the world differently—even, we would argue, more truly. . . . [Additionally,] insofar as a Christian practice is truly attuned to the active presence of God for the life of the world, participating in it increases our knowledge of the Triune God.22
|
A Missing Piece: The Development of Imagination
One of the tenets of The Moral Imagination is the importance of creativity and improvisation in the work of conflict transformation. For Lederach, development of a moral imagination is not tangential but central to the possibility of transcending violent conflict. “My feeling,” Lederach writes,
One of the tenets of The Moral Imagination is the importance of creativity and improvisation in the work of conflict transformation. For Lederach, development of a moral imagination is not tangential but central to the possibility of transcending violent conflict. “My feeling,” Lederach writes,
|
is that we have overemphasized the technical aspects and political content [of conflict transformation] to the detriment of the art of giving birth to and keeping a process creatively alive. In so doing we have missed the core of what creates and sustains constructive social change. The corrective . . . is to seek the genuine connection of discipline and art, the integration of skill and aesthetics.23
|
What breathes life into conflict transformation, Lederach claims, is the “capacity to imagine and generate constructive responses and initiatives that, while rooted in the day-to-day challenges of violence, transcend and ultimately break the grips of those destructive patterns and cycles.”24
Lederach’s emphasis on artistic and creative processes is a strong influence among conflict transformation theorists. Others also name the importance of creativity or imagination, often as part of a larger strategy for breaking through logjams or for brainstorming solutions, and many reference Lederach’s work in doing so. But how to develop creativity or artistry takes up a disproportionately small amount of the literature. Among Christian practitioners, the focus is on other aspects of the process: relational and listening skills, corporate discernment, and open and mutual dialogue. These elements tend to be theologically grounded and attuned to the dynamics of Christian practice, but creativity and imagination seem afterthoughts adrift from Christian moorings. As one practitioner notes, “Much of our destructive conflict is due to the failure of our imagination. A high degree of imagination is required of those in our culture who would follow Jesus and love God and neighbor. Sadly, imagination seems to be missing from much of the life of the world, as well as of the church.”25
What kinds of Christian practices could help develop imagination for productive conflict transformation? Or, put another way, what would a practice of Christian creativity or imagination for conflict transformation look like? Lederach outlines several essences or disciplines of peacebuilding that make up the moral imagination, each of which is rooted in the creative process—a “wellspring that feeds the building of peace.”26 A creative practice for conflict transformation might begin by cultivating those disciplines of the moral imagination:
Then, following Bass and Dykstra, to fit within Christian practice such creativity development would:
In accordance with these parameters, I propose upcycling as a possible and timely Christian paradigm for the development of creativity and moral imagination that fosters conflict transformation. Upcycling as both a concept and practice combines creativity and environmentalism with recognition of human interdependence and finitude. Though upcycling, like conflict transformation, is secular, its premises and values are in concert with Christian theological sensibilities and practices that respond with creativity and imagination to a world in need.
Upcycling as a Framework
The term upcycling is probably most familiar to users of Etsy and Pinterest websites, where ideas for how to make something new out of something old are prolific. Generally, the idea of upcycling is to reuse a material—particularly something that would otherwise become trash—in such a way that the new item created is of greater value than the previous one.29 Upcycling is contrasted with both recycling (reusing something for the same purpose more than once, like sterilizing and reusing glass bottles) and downcycling, which is what often happens with “recycled” materials. In downcycling, material is reused but its quality is reduced over time; for instance, plastics in soda and water bottles are typically downcycled by mixing them with other plastics that produces a lower quality hybrid used for something “amorphous and cheap,” like a speed bump or lumber substitute.30 Even steel from cars is generally not reused in cars again, because the original high-quality steel is melted down with other car parts, metals, and paint, reducing the quality of the previous unmixed steel.31
On Etsy and Pinterest, upcycling can be an old tire reused as a raised flower bed, potato chip bags woven into purses, or plastic spoons fashioned into a modern lampshade—creative “new life” given to something that would have ended up downcycled or in a landfill. In Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, upcycling pioneers William McDonough and Michael Braungart offer a more comprehensive understanding starting from the perspective of design. They suggest that a “cradle-to-grave” model of production, in which products are designed to have a “life cycle” at the end of which they’re thrown away, is simply poor design.
People not only poison the planet with waste (much of it toxic), materials tossed in a landfill lose any possibility of future use.32 “Humans,” they write, “are the only species that takes from the soil vast quantities of nutrients needed for biological purposes but rarely puts them back in usable form.”33 Yet because the earth is a closed system in which its basic elements (except sunlight) are finite, “Whatever is naturally here is all we have. Whatever humans make does not go ‘away.’”34
As an alternative to a “cradle-to-grave” model of production, McDonough and Braungart propose “cradle-to-cradle” design in which there is no such thing as “waste.” Products, buildings, industry, everything would be designed from the beginning with upcycling—reuse at an equal or higher quality, and “zero waste”—in mind. Natural processes, like the life of cherry trees, serve as prototypes. Cherry trees produce blossoms and leaves that fall to the ground to become nourishment for growth; “waste” thus becomes food.
Despite what appears to be a dour subject (environmental degradation), a key part of the cradle-to-cradle vision is the possibility that creativity and innovation can foster delight and joy rather than guilt and austerity. What if, Braungart and McDonough propose as an example, there were an alternative to styrofoam packing material that was made of discarded rice stalks that when thrown on the ground would fertilize the soil, or which could contain indigenous seeds that would grow where they are dropped?35 Rather than being “less bad” and seeking “eco-efficient” solutions that lessen but continue to perpetuate bad outcomes, the designers proclaim:
Lederach’s emphasis on artistic and creative processes is a strong influence among conflict transformation theorists. Others also name the importance of creativity or imagination, often as part of a larger strategy for breaking through logjams or for brainstorming solutions, and many reference Lederach’s work in doing so. But how to develop creativity or artistry takes up a disproportionately small amount of the literature. Among Christian practitioners, the focus is on other aspects of the process: relational and listening skills, corporate discernment, and open and mutual dialogue. These elements tend to be theologically grounded and attuned to the dynamics of Christian practice, but creativity and imagination seem afterthoughts adrift from Christian moorings. As one practitioner notes, “Much of our destructive conflict is due to the failure of our imagination. A high degree of imagination is required of those in our culture who would follow Jesus and love God and neighbor. Sadly, imagination seems to be missing from much of the life of the world, as well as of the church.”25
What kinds of Christian practices could help develop imagination for productive conflict transformation? Or, put another way, what would a practice of Christian creativity or imagination for conflict transformation look like? Lederach outlines several essences or disciplines of peacebuilding that make up the moral imagination, each of which is rooted in the creative process—a “wellspring that feeds the building of peace.”26 A creative practice for conflict transformation might begin by cultivating those disciplines of the moral imagination:
- the capacity to imagine oneself in a web of relationships that includes our enemies
- the ability to sustain a paradoxical curiosity that embraces complexity without reliance on dualistic polarity
- the fundamental belief in and pursuit of the creative act
- the acceptance of the inherent risk of stepping into the mystery of the unknown that lies beyond the far too familiar landscape of violence.27
Then, following Bass and Dykstra, to fit within Christian practice such creativity development would:
- align with a way of life that is responsive to the grace that is at the heart of everything
- address fundamental human conditions and needs
- involve its adherents in God’s activities in the world
- arise from and impart a profound knowledge of God and creation
- be lived together with others and in continuity across many years
- catch up those who live it in the mysterious, dynamic process by which God is bringing a new creation into being.28
In accordance with these parameters, I propose upcycling as a possible and timely Christian paradigm for the development of creativity and moral imagination that fosters conflict transformation. Upcycling as both a concept and practice combines creativity and environmentalism with recognition of human interdependence and finitude. Though upcycling, like conflict transformation, is secular, its premises and values are in concert with Christian theological sensibilities and practices that respond with creativity and imagination to a world in need.
Upcycling as a Framework
The term upcycling is probably most familiar to users of Etsy and Pinterest websites, where ideas for how to make something new out of something old are prolific. Generally, the idea of upcycling is to reuse a material—particularly something that would otherwise become trash—in such a way that the new item created is of greater value than the previous one.29 Upcycling is contrasted with both recycling (reusing something for the same purpose more than once, like sterilizing and reusing glass bottles) and downcycling, which is what often happens with “recycled” materials. In downcycling, material is reused but its quality is reduced over time; for instance, plastics in soda and water bottles are typically downcycled by mixing them with other plastics that produces a lower quality hybrid used for something “amorphous and cheap,” like a speed bump or lumber substitute.30 Even steel from cars is generally not reused in cars again, because the original high-quality steel is melted down with other car parts, metals, and paint, reducing the quality of the previous unmixed steel.31
On Etsy and Pinterest, upcycling can be an old tire reused as a raised flower bed, potato chip bags woven into purses, or plastic spoons fashioned into a modern lampshade—creative “new life” given to something that would have ended up downcycled or in a landfill. In Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, upcycling pioneers William McDonough and Michael Braungart offer a more comprehensive understanding starting from the perspective of design. They suggest that a “cradle-to-grave” model of production, in which products are designed to have a “life cycle” at the end of which they’re thrown away, is simply poor design.
People not only poison the planet with waste (much of it toxic), materials tossed in a landfill lose any possibility of future use.32 “Humans,” they write, “are the only species that takes from the soil vast quantities of nutrients needed for biological purposes but rarely puts them back in usable form.”33 Yet because the earth is a closed system in which its basic elements (except sunlight) are finite, “Whatever is naturally here is all we have. Whatever humans make does not go ‘away.’”34
As an alternative to a “cradle-to-grave” model of production, McDonough and Braungart propose “cradle-to-cradle” design in which there is no such thing as “waste.” Products, buildings, industry, everything would be designed from the beginning with upcycling—reuse at an equal or higher quality, and “zero waste”—in mind. Natural processes, like the life of cherry trees, serve as prototypes. Cherry trees produce blossoms and leaves that fall to the ground to become nourishment for growth; “waste” thus becomes food.
Despite what appears to be a dour subject (environmental degradation), a key part of the cradle-to-cradle vision is the possibility that creativity and innovation can foster delight and joy rather than guilt and austerity. What if, Braungart and McDonough propose as an example, there were an alternative to styrofoam packing material that was made of discarded rice stalks that when thrown on the ground would fertilize the soil, or which could contain indigenous seeds that would grow where they are dropped?35 Rather than being “less bad” and seeking “eco-efficient” solutions that lessen but continue to perpetuate bad outcomes, the designers proclaim:
|
We want to show you how people can move from being “less bad” to becoming part of the natural cycle of regeneration on the planet. We can be overtly good. We can finally enjoy our full human dignity. We can celebrate the unique and fruitful role we possess in perpetuating the biological system. We can proliferate. We can create more magical objects. And we can, in fact, enjoy the satisfaction that a tree, a bee, the sun enjoys: While I exist, I make this world more fruitful.36
|
Upcycling to Transform Conflict
How might this cradle-to-cradle vision of upcycling, as well as the more general understanding of upcycling as the creative reuse of otherwise wasted materials, provide a paradigm of Christian creativity for conflict transformation? Here I offer a beginning to that conversation. I interweave convictions shared by upcycling and Christian practices of conflict transformation, and then apply concepts from upcycling to spur creative thinking toward conflict transformation. I then imagine how this exercise could impact actual communities for the good, starting the creative work of envisioning possible outcomes.
Conviction 1: Celebrating interdependence and webs of relationship. Both conflict transformation and upcycling are rooted in recognition of the interconnectivity and interdependence of humans with each other and the finite planet. Braungart and McDonough emphasize that
How might this cradle-to-cradle vision of upcycling, as well as the more general understanding of upcycling as the creative reuse of otherwise wasted materials, provide a paradigm of Christian creativity for conflict transformation? Here I offer a beginning to that conversation. I interweave convictions shared by upcycling and Christian practices of conflict transformation, and then apply concepts from upcycling to spur creative thinking toward conflict transformation. I then imagine how this exercise could impact actual communities for the good, starting the creative work of envisioning possible outcomes.
Conviction 1: Celebrating interdependence and webs of relationship. Both conflict transformation and upcycling are rooted in recognition of the interconnectivity and interdependence of humans with each other and the finite planet. Braungart and McDonough emphasize that
|
the vitality of ecosystems depends on relationships. . . . Each inhabitant of an ecosystem is . . . interdependent to some extent with the others. Every creature is involved in maintaining the entire system; all of them work in creative and ultimately effective ways for the success of the whole.37
|
Lederach affirms that “peacebuilding requires a vision of relationship . . . [and the] recognition that ultimately the quality of our life is dependent on the quality of life of others.”38 Lasting peace requires the full “ecosystem,” including people from all levels of society, in processes and decisionmaking.39
Upcycling’s concept of “zero waste” has the potential to function as a metaphor for our interdependence, and thus begin to change the way we see ourselves. For example, if we were to try to eliminate the concept of “waste” in our local communities (churches, schools, even our own home) and instead to envision a world in which all products and even people are resources that cannot be “thrown away,” it could begin to shift our perceptions of the levels of loss and destruction we are willing to accept. In a “zero waste” reality, the “collateral damage” of war would be unacceptable. There can be no such thing as an object—or a person—who is “disposable,” a theological conviction that underscores the preciousness of every corner of the created world God has granted to our stewardship.
Conviction 2: Addressing fundamental human needs across generations. Upcycling and conflict transformation maintain a future-oriented vision for present practice. Conflict transformation recognizes that “the well-being of our grandchildren is directly tied to the well-being of our enemy’s grandchildren,” and the decisions we make today about how we respond to conflict have residual effects beyond our immediate experience.40 Practices of upcycling continually take into consideration what current actions mean for future realities, but the practice of upcycling does so with creativity and joy, rather than guilt, as its motivator. The upcycling desire is to add a different, inventive inquiry to the consideration of design, specifically the question, “What’s next?” as in, what’s next for this product you’ve created, where does it go next, what is its next use, and how might it be designed from the beginning with “what’s next” in mind?41 As with conviction 1, the future-oriented practice of upcycling ties us to others we cannot see and may never know, deepening our sense of interdependence and the shared reality of our world. It is an imaginative perspective that keeps the future bright with possibilities and mirrors the Christian hope in the endlessly redemptive and inventive power of God.
Conviction 3: Risking the possibilities of grace. Models of conflict prevention, management, and resolution suggested that conflict was destructive and needed to be controlled and contained. Conflict transformation theorists recognized that conflict had both constructive and destructive potential, but was not inherently bad. Their desire was to enhance the “good” of conflict—the constructive and positive possibilities for social change toward human flourishing and reconciliation. Likewise, McDonough and Braungart suggest that a conceptual shift is needed in environmental design, away from “less bad” and toward “100 percent good,” arguing that design need not succumb to the idea that humans are inevitably destructive and must be curbed and contained.42 Both conflict transformation and upcycling reflect the desire for a conceptual shift about the capacity of human beings for creativity and constructive outcomes if they are given the opportunity and tools to engage in them.
If upcycling were practiced in daily life—for example, by communally examining objects that were otherwise headed to a landfill and creatively imagining how they might be used in a new way—the practice could be combined with intentional reflection on the unending grace of God that continually renews us with creative solutions and possibilities. Active reuse of materials—especially if those materials are used in productive, imaginative, and beautiful ways—could generate not only creative energy for other problem solving, but a continual reflection on the renewing and free gift of the grace of God.
Conviction 4: Building curiosity that sees beyond visible limits. In cycles of conflict, complex history is often reduced to simple, dualistic polarities: biased, unbiased; violators, violated; perpetrators, victims; with us or against us.43 Lederach coined the phrase “paradoxical curiosity” to reflect a resistance to these dualisms and a respect for complexity that includes “an inquisitiveness about what may hold together seemingly contradictory social energies in a greater whole.”44 Braungart and McDonough have proposed something similar with upcycling. They encounter many skeptics who believe that business and the environment are inherently in conflict, and “The conventional wisdom seems to be that you sit on one side or the other.”45 But, they counter, these are false dichotomies. What is best for business, social systems, and ecology is interconnected, but only when they are truly considered together, from the start, before design begins. This orientation breaks through visible limits (“We can’t make an environmental product at that price”) by encouraging attention to shared goals, positively and creatively, from the outset.
In a world where individuals are not themselves designing new products on a day-to-day basis, this aspect of upcycling may seem less relevant. But what if the “product” we consider is theological education? How might the idea of paradoxical curiosity—a staunch resistance to imposed dualisms and a respect for complexity—be coupled with upcycling’s commitments to interconnectedness from the start to generate creative ideas for the future of seminaries? What if seminary boards and faculties could have creative and imaginative conversations that started with, “What if you were creating a seminary from scratch: What would it look like? Why would it exist? How would it be different from everything around it? What innovative and inspiring reality could it reflect? How do we get there from here?”
Conviction 5: Believing in the creative act and the fundamental abundance of God. Conflict transformation and upcycling infuse problem solving with artistic and creative sensibility, which is both solution and goal. Put another way, both upcycling and conflict transformation see innovation, imagination, and creativity as critical components of solving the very real problems of destructive conflict and environmental degradation. But they also see artistry and creativity as the objective and result of their work. McDonough and Braungart proclaim, “What if humans designed products and systems that celebrate an abundance of human creativity, culture and productivity?”46 If nature focused on efficiency, there would be fewer songbirds, fewer trees, less diversity, less creativity and delight—all things most people would rather have more of, not less. So why do we so often prioritize efficiency over creativity, abundance, and joy?47
For Lederach, creativity “moves beyond what exists toward something new and unexpected while rising from and speaking to the everyday,”48 a critical skill for moving into new possibilities in the midst of strident conflict. But Lederach also envisions communities that have been transformed as places of continued moral imagination. While a creative act can bring into existence processes that have not existed before, “to sustain themselves over time processes of change need constant innovation.”49 Relational platforms created for conflict transformation processes can be supported, adapted, and continued in creative and responsive ways beyond the resolution of an episodic issue.50 Delight and joy help to sustain the creativity and energy needed for innovation and transformation over the long haul, and remind us of the extravagance of God that abounds in creation.
Innovation, creativity, and imagination are indispensable tools to advance toward desired outcomes and intrinsic processes that are part of an abundant life. The cultivation of curiosity and creativity is thus a critical theological task and practice within and beyond conflict transformation. As Dykstra and Bass claim, such Christian practices are constituent elements in a way of life “that becomes incarnate when human beings live in the light of and in response to God’s gift of life abundant.”51
NOTES
Upcycling’s concept of “zero waste” has the potential to function as a metaphor for our interdependence, and thus begin to change the way we see ourselves. For example, if we were to try to eliminate the concept of “waste” in our local communities (churches, schools, even our own home) and instead to envision a world in which all products and even people are resources that cannot be “thrown away,” it could begin to shift our perceptions of the levels of loss and destruction we are willing to accept. In a “zero waste” reality, the “collateral damage” of war would be unacceptable. There can be no such thing as an object—or a person—who is “disposable,” a theological conviction that underscores the preciousness of every corner of the created world God has granted to our stewardship.
Conviction 2: Addressing fundamental human needs across generations. Upcycling and conflict transformation maintain a future-oriented vision for present practice. Conflict transformation recognizes that “the well-being of our grandchildren is directly tied to the well-being of our enemy’s grandchildren,” and the decisions we make today about how we respond to conflict have residual effects beyond our immediate experience.40 Practices of upcycling continually take into consideration what current actions mean for future realities, but the practice of upcycling does so with creativity and joy, rather than guilt, as its motivator. The upcycling desire is to add a different, inventive inquiry to the consideration of design, specifically the question, “What’s next?” as in, what’s next for this product you’ve created, where does it go next, what is its next use, and how might it be designed from the beginning with “what’s next” in mind?41 As with conviction 1, the future-oriented practice of upcycling ties us to others we cannot see and may never know, deepening our sense of interdependence and the shared reality of our world. It is an imaginative perspective that keeps the future bright with possibilities and mirrors the Christian hope in the endlessly redemptive and inventive power of God.
Conviction 3: Risking the possibilities of grace. Models of conflict prevention, management, and resolution suggested that conflict was destructive and needed to be controlled and contained. Conflict transformation theorists recognized that conflict had both constructive and destructive potential, but was not inherently bad. Their desire was to enhance the “good” of conflict—the constructive and positive possibilities for social change toward human flourishing and reconciliation. Likewise, McDonough and Braungart suggest that a conceptual shift is needed in environmental design, away from “less bad” and toward “100 percent good,” arguing that design need not succumb to the idea that humans are inevitably destructive and must be curbed and contained.42 Both conflict transformation and upcycling reflect the desire for a conceptual shift about the capacity of human beings for creativity and constructive outcomes if they are given the opportunity and tools to engage in them.
If upcycling were practiced in daily life—for example, by communally examining objects that were otherwise headed to a landfill and creatively imagining how they might be used in a new way—the practice could be combined with intentional reflection on the unending grace of God that continually renews us with creative solutions and possibilities. Active reuse of materials—especially if those materials are used in productive, imaginative, and beautiful ways—could generate not only creative energy for other problem solving, but a continual reflection on the renewing and free gift of the grace of God.
Conviction 4: Building curiosity that sees beyond visible limits. In cycles of conflict, complex history is often reduced to simple, dualistic polarities: biased, unbiased; violators, violated; perpetrators, victims; with us or against us.43 Lederach coined the phrase “paradoxical curiosity” to reflect a resistance to these dualisms and a respect for complexity that includes “an inquisitiveness about what may hold together seemingly contradictory social energies in a greater whole.”44 Braungart and McDonough have proposed something similar with upcycling. They encounter many skeptics who believe that business and the environment are inherently in conflict, and “The conventional wisdom seems to be that you sit on one side or the other.”45 But, they counter, these are false dichotomies. What is best for business, social systems, and ecology is interconnected, but only when they are truly considered together, from the start, before design begins. This orientation breaks through visible limits (“We can’t make an environmental product at that price”) by encouraging attention to shared goals, positively and creatively, from the outset.
In a world where individuals are not themselves designing new products on a day-to-day basis, this aspect of upcycling may seem less relevant. But what if the “product” we consider is theological education? How might the idea of paradoxical curiosity—a staunch resistance to imposed dualisms and a respect for complexity—be coupled with upcycling’s commitments to interconnectedness from the start to generate creative ideas for the future of seminaries? What if seminary boards and faculties could have creative and imaginative conversations that started with, “What if you were creating a seminary from scratch: What would it look like? Why would it exist? How would it be different from everything around it? What innovative and inspiring reality could it reflect? How do we get there from here?”
Conviction 5: Believing in the creative act and the fundamental abundance of God. Conflict transformation and upcycling infuse problem solving with artistic and creative sensibility, which is both solution and goal. Put another way, both upcycling and conflict transformation see innovation, imagination, and creativity as critical components of solving the very real problems of destructive conflict and environmental degradation. But they also see artistry and creativity as the objective and result of their work. McDonough and Braungart proclaim, “What if humans designed products and systems that celebrate an abundance of human creativity, culture and productivity?”46 If nature focused on efficiency, there would be fewer songbirds, fewer trees, less diversity, less creativity and delight—all things most people would rather have more of, not less. So why do we so often prioritize efficiency over creativity, abundance, and joy?47
For Lederach, creativity “moves beyond what exists toward something new and unexpected while rising from and speaking to the everyday,”48 a critical skill for moving into new possibilities in the midst of strident conflict. But Lederach also envisions communities that have been transformed as places of continued moral imagination. While a creative act can bring into existence processes that have not existed before, “to sustain themselves over time processes of change need constant innovation.”49 Relational platforms created for conflict transformation processes can be supported, adapted, and continued in creative and responsive ways beyond the resolution of an episodic issue.50 Delight and joy help to sustain the creativity and energy needed for innovation and transformation over the long haul, and remind us of the extravagance of God that abounds in creation.
Innovation, creativity, and imagination are indispensable tools to advance toward desired outcomes and intrinsic processes that are part of an abundant life. The cultivation of curiosity and creativity is thus a critical theological task and practice within and beyond conflict transformation. As Dykstra and Bass claim, such Christian practices are constituent elements in a way of life “that becomes incarnate when human beings live in the light of and in response to God’s gift of life abundant.”51
NOTES
- Carolyn Schrock-Shenk, “Introducing Conflict and Conflict Transformation,” in Making Peace With Conflict: Practical Skills for Conflict Transformation, ed. Carolyn Schrock-Shenk and Lawrence Ressler (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1999), 35.
- Ellen Ott Marshall, ed., “Introduction: Learning Through Conflict, Working for Transformation,” in Conflict Transformation and Religion: Essays on Faith, Power, and Relationship (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2016), 2.
- I am indebted here to Marshall’s synthesis of these shifts. See ibid., 3–6.
- Thomas W. Porter, The Spirit and Art of Conflict Transformation: Creating a Culture of Justpeace (Nashville, TN: Upper Room, 2010), 13.
- John Paul Lederach, Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1995), 19.
- Hugh Miall, “Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task,” in Transforming Ethnopolitical Conflict: The Berghof Handbook, ed. Alex Austin, Martina Fischer, and Norbert Ropers (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 2004), 4; http://edoc.vifapol.de/opus/volltexte/2013/4682/pdf/miall_handbook.pdf.
- Ronald S. Kraybill, Peace Skills: A Manual for Community Mediators (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001), 5.
- Robert A. Baruch Bush and Joseph P. Folger, Promise of Mediation: The Transformative Approach to Conflict (San Francisco: Wiley, 2005), 256.
- Stephen W. Littlejohn and Kathy Domenici, Communication, Conflict, and the Management of Difference (Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2007), 243–44.
- Marshall, “Introduction: Learning Through Conflict, Working for Transformation,” 8.
- Ibid., 2.
- John Paul Lederach, The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).
- John Paul Lederach, Reconcile: Conflict Transformation for Ordinary Christians (Harrisonburg, VA: Herald Press, 2014), 14.
- Craig Dykstra and Dorothy C. Bass, “A Theological Understanding of Christian Practices,” in Practicing Theology: Beliefs and Practices in Christian Life, ed. Miroslav Volf and Dorothy C. Bass (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 18.
- Ibid., 21.
- Ibid., 22.
- Ellen Ott Marshall, “Conflict, God and Constructive Change: Exploring Prominent Christian Convictions in the Work of Conflict Transformation,” Brethren Life and Thought 61, no. 2 (Fall 2016): 8.
- Lederach, Reconcile, 126.
- Dykstra and Bass, “A Theological Understanding,” 24.
- Marshall, “Conflict, God and Constructive Change,” 12.
- Porter, The Spirit and Art of Conflict Transformation, 17.
- Dykstra and Bass, “A Theological Understanding,” 25.
- Lederach, The Moral Imagination, 70.
- Ibid., 29.
- Porter, The Spirit and Art of Conflict Transformation, 47.
- Lederach, The Moral Imagination, 5.
- Ibid., 5.
- Dykstra and Bass, “A Theological Understanding,” 29.
- Merriam-Webster, “Upcycle”; [accessed April 20, 2018], https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/upcycle.
- William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things (New York: North Point Press, 2002), 56.
- Ibid., 56–57.
- Ibid., 27.
- Ibid., 96.
- Ibid.,104.
- Ibid., 140–41.
- William McDonough and Michael Braungart, The Upcycle: Beyond Sustainability—Designing for Abundance (New York: North Point Press, 2013), 22.
- McDonough and Braungart, Cradle to Cradle, 121–22.
- Lederach, The Moral Imagination, 35.
- Miall, “Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task,” 14.
- Lederach, The Moral Imagination, 35.
- McDonough and Braungart, The Upcycle, 59.
- McDonough and Braungart, Cradle to Cradle, 155.
- Lederach, The Moral Imagination, 35.
- Ibid., 36.
- McDonough and Braungart, Cradle to Cradle, 149.
- Ibid., 16.
- Ibid., 76–77.
- Lederach, The Moral Imagination, 38.
- Ibid., 73.
- Ibid., 48–49.
- Dykstra and Bass, “A Theological Understanding,” 21.
Unknown, Wall Clock, Upcycled bike gears, photo courtesy of Aimee Moiso
Aaron Moiso, Grandpa’s Collection, 2010, Upcycled insulators and metal pipe, photo courtesy of Aimee Moiso
Aimee Moiso, Nana’s Cup, 2018, Upcycled silver cup with dirt and succulent, photo courtesy of Aimee Moiso
(top of article) Aimee Moiso, Bud Vase, 2011, Upcycled lightbulb, photo courtesy of Aimee Moiso
Aaron Moiso, Grandpa’s Collection, 2010, Upcycled insulators and metal pipe, photo courtesy of Aimee Moiso
Aimee Moiso, Nana’s Cup, 2018, Upcycled silver cup with dirt and succulent, photo courtesy of Aimee Moiso
(top of article) Aimee Moiso, Bud Vase, 2011, Upcycled lightbulb, photo courtesy of Aimee Moiso