Dilemmas Around Making a “Safe Space” in Peacebuilding Training

Kyoko Okumoto 27 February 2024

Part One

When conducting peacebuilding training workshops, facilitators/trainers often encounter ethical dilemmas. How do values, ethics and trust interrelate each other in the peacebuilding training settings? Such a research theme was explored over a weekend in June 2023, in Davao city, the Philippines, in a workshop called “Workshop on Values, Ethics, and Trust in a Peacebuilding Network,” the third workshop for the AHRC-funded Values, Ethics and Trust in Peacebuilding Project, in collaboration with Mindanao Peacebuilding Institute (MPI). (Note 1)

Objectives of the Workshop were as follows:

to explore the unspoken values and assumptions that constitute peacebuilding training;
to explore limits/limitations of these values and assumptions in peacebuilding training and what they are;
to explore how these unspoken vales and assumptions are communicated and experienced by those communities and individuals who participate in peacebuilding training (how do they create or sabotage trust?); and
to explore how we embody these unspoken values and assumptions in peacebuilding training and how we enact and move towards spoken values and a more nuanced and inclusive ethics in practice which builds trust.

The main schedule was originally planned as follows. Of course, as the workshop proceeded, the facilitators checked in with the needs of the participants and changed it accordingly:

Opening Lunch 12:00~13:00, 3 June 2023
Session ① 13:00~15:00, 3 June 2023

Introduction & Warmup & Values: What made you who you are

Session ② 15:15~17:15, 3 June 2023

Ethics & Peacebuilding Training: When values are threatened

Session ③ 8:00~10:00, 4 June 2023

Trust and Peacebuilding Training: Discussion & Activities

Session ④ 10:15~12:00, 4 June 2023

Wrap up!

Preparation for a “Safe Space”

In anticipation of the weekend workshop, our team undertook comprehensive preparations. Collaborating closely with the MPI staff responsible for hosting the workshop and my co-facilitator, we engaged in meticulous planning and thoughtful considerations in the lead-up to the event, for the sake of making a “safe space” that is fair for all.

First, the commitment to participation was ascertained in advance by MPI staff during sessions where facilitators were not present. This approach was adopted to ensure fairness and provide participants with an opportunity to express any questions or concerns prior to the commencement of the workshop. Additionally, during the orientation meeting, the principal facilitator (myself) explained the purposes and goals of the research. Explicit emphasis was placed on the information conveyed in the consent form. Participants were clearly informed that they retained the right to withdraw from the process at any point if they were dissatisfied or encountered any reservations. This transparent communication aimed to uphold the principles of informed consent and respect for participants’ autonomy throughout the entirety of the workshop. Notably, participants were made aware of the researcher/facilitator’s dedication to upholding the confidentiality of collected data. Furthermore, an open invitation was extended to participants, encouraging them to pose any questions at any point during the workshop, either to MPI, Osaka Jogakuin University, or Coventry University. This approach aimed to foster a collaborative and supportive environment, ensuring participants felt empowered to seek clarification or express any concerns throughout the research process.

Secondly, although the Values, Ethics, and Trust in Peacebuilding Project (VET Project) initially allocated funds to compensate participants, acknowledging the value placed on respecting their time and energy, a decision was made to abstain from offering honorarium to align with the established traditions of the MPI. It is always a question of research ethics when it comes to how to use the budget, with a focus on ensuring that participant needs are adequately met. The allocated budget primarily covered participants’ accommodations, meals, and essential workshop-related items for the two-day event. It is noteworthy that participants’ involvement and contributions to the workshop were not contingent on financial incentives. Importantly, this approach aimed to safeguard against the exploitation of participants’ commitment, reinforcing the ethical principles governing the research endeavour.

Thirdly, the team made a deliberate decision not to audio/video-record the workshop sessions. Instead, a designated documenter captured proceedings in a written format, sharing the documentation exclusively with the facilitator. To augment the workshop logistics, MPI provided a class assistant responsible for managing all workshop materials and capturing photographic records only to share among the group members, if they request. Moreover, a conscious choice was made to abstain from adopting an online/hybrid format, thereby preventing external observers from accessing the sessions. This decision was driven by the desire to foster an environment of “genuine” participation and uphold the principles of transparency and sincerity between facilitators and participants. Importantly, the successful realisation of these decisions was made possible through the collaborative efforts of MPI’s support and the dedicated teamwork between my co-facilitator and myself.

Finally, as the main facilitator, the most important was that I engaged in a comprehensive preparatory session with my co-facilitator, focusing particularly on delineating the activities to be conducted and their respective objectives. A cohort of 14 participants with diverse backgrounds, encompassing variations in culture, age, gender, religion, profession, and language, represented a rich tapestry originating from eight different countries. Notably, preceding the weekend workshop, MPI had previously organised annual three-week training sessions, wherein all participants assumed roles as either participants, facilitators, or MPI management staff. The joint decision-making process between the co-facilitators regarding the alignment of training materials with the weekend workshop proved pivotal for both the research project’s outcomes and the participants’ learning experiences. While an atmosphere of trust was acknowledged, it was recognised that continual confirmation and reinforcement were essential to further strengthen this foundation, emphasising the ongoing commitment to nurturing a collaborative, trusting and thus “safe” environment.

Having a “Safe Space”?

The primary objective of the weekend workshop was to delve into the intricate connections between values, ethics, and trust within the context of peacebuilding training settings. However, an additional theme concerning the establishment and sustenance of a “safe space” in these settings surfaced in the mind of the author/facilitator. This article is dedicated to exploring this topic, specifically through the lens of the learning processes undertaken with the workshop participants and the collaborative engagement with the MPI team.

Within the realm of workshop facilitation, the notion of creating a “safe space” is frequently emphasised, seemingly treated as an inherent and uncomplicated aspect of the process. However, this recommendation often lacks a shared understanding or consensus regarding the nuanced definition of what constitutes a “safe space” for each individual present. The assumption that establishing such an environment is straightforward overlooks the varied perspectives and interpretations of safety held by the diverse participants involved.

In the context of my peacebuilding workshops, I consciously refrain from explicitly stating, “Let’s create a safe space.” Instead, my approach involves expressing the collective endeavour to collaboratively shape the environment. I convey a sentiment along the lines of, “It would be highly beneficial if we, as a group, work together to cultivate an atmosphere where many, if not all, can feel at ease and, ideally, secure in this shared space and time.” This framing underscores the collaborative responsibility in establishing a comfortable and potentially safe environment, fostering a sense of collective ownership among participants.

The concept of a “sense of safety” is inherently subjective, making it challenging to pass judgment on whether a specific situation is deemed safe for another individual. Furthermore, accurately discerning the extent of someone’s emotional distress or discomfort is a formidable task. The intricacies of human experience, coupled with the subjective nature of feelings of safety, underscore the complexity of accurately gauging the well-being of others.

Given the sensitivity of this issue, my approach in this article is to document and convey solely the insights I have personally gained. It is essential to clarify that these findings do not purport to represent the perspectives of all participants. When articulating my own viewpoints, whether in the capacity of a peacebuilding trainer/facilitator or as an individual, I will utilise the first-person pronoun, “I.” Conversely, when delineating the contents of the workshop, the term “the facilitator” will be employed. I also must express gratitude to the workshop documenter, whose meticulous documentation has provided invaluable descriptions that effectively capture the essence of the discussions. For the purposes of this article, I have chosen to incorporate some of these well-articulated descriptions. (Note 2)

In addition, in crafting this article, my commitment is to incorporate as many verbatim expressions from the participants as feasible. While certain modifications and restructuring of wording may be necessary for the article’s coherence and structure, my paramount goal is to maintain sincerity and honesty in conveying the participants’ perspectives. This approach ensures that the essence of their words is preserved, allowing for a genuine representation of their insights while adhering to the requirements of article composition.

A Small Warmup Activity for Shaping the Sense of Safety

The Workshop on Values, Ethics, and Trust in a Peacebuilding Network began with a warmup activity that focused on creating one’s own sound pattern, finding one’s rhythm, listening to the sound that their partner and others produced.

The 14 participants were given one egg-shaped shaker each and were asked to pair up with the one seated next to them. They were asked to stand up, and each one had a designated as Person A and Person B. Those called A were asked to produce their own sound patterns while the ones labeled B were first asked to listen to them attentively, and then produce simple patterns in harmony with what the A were creating.

In a few minutes, the atmosphere changed. The facilitator changed the instructions and encouraged everyone to produce new and wild sound patterns. Everyone was given the freedom to play music in the rhythmic pattern of their choice while listening to the person next to them, and to all others in the room.

The documentation summarises that 1) the group activity set the mood for receptivity and sensitivity to each individual’s sounds and gestures. 2) It also psychologically prepared each person to listen to the sounds they were creating, the silence, the rhythm, and the non-verbal cues and gestures.

This activity took place prior to the introduction of the facilitators and the orientation session, which provided an overview of the Workshop on Values, Ethics, and Trust in a Peacebuilding Network.

Getting to Know One Another Under the Facilitator’s “Intention”

The second warmup activity called “Picasso Drawing (or Blind Contour)” started by the facilitator’s instructions: Find a partner and a space in the plenary hall, and sit together, while facing each other; Hold one colour pen in your hand and draw your partner without looking down at the paper but focusing on the face of your partner.

The participants followed the instructions. Upon completion, they were asked to inscribe their names at the bottom of their artwork and the partner’s names at the top. Then they shared their respective pictures with each other and personal information about themselves, the kind of work they were doing in the peacebuilding field. Following this exchange, the group reconvened in the large circle, with each participant seated alongside their partner. Each individual then had the opportunity to introduce their partner to the larger group.

This activity served the purpose of helping participants get to know each other better and build trust among themselves. Additionally, it facilitated group reflection on their actions and responses during the activity, prompting an examination of their core value system in relation to their actions. Such activities are most effective in an environment where there is a notable sense of safety. This level of safety allows people to comfortably question and challenge each other, with the understanding that it is done to develop a collective capacity for learning together.

Then, the facilitator asked: By the way, how many of you cheated? How many of you looked at your drawing during the activity? Three participants acknowledged this by raising their hands. Conversely, the facilitator inquired about those who refrained from looking, and 11 participants raised their hands in response.

The responses from the participants were aligned with the values that the facilitator “intended” to extract from them. The facilitator commented that participants might possess values influencing their decision to either choose or refrain from looking at the paper. At the end of the activity, the participants gave the Picasso Drawing to their partner as a remembrance of this fun activity that provided them space to reflect on their own core values – which they were guided to explore further later.

It appears that all of the participants enjoyed the activity, with many expressing that they could relate to their partner well through the process. However, they acknowledged the challenge of the task, as it required them to focus on the partners and remember where their pens and strokes were so that they could complete the partner’s face. They mentioned the need to strike a balance and make a decision on prioritising either “respect” for the aesthetics of drawing their partners or “respect” for the facilitator’s instructions. This situation can also be viewed as a kind of a “test” if they prioritise the facilitator’s guidance or not.

Values, Assumptions and Expectations

In the next section of the workshop, the group was asked to identify their three most important values on separate meta cards and share these with their partner. They were also requested to provide an explanation as to why these particular values held paramount importance to them.

The most important values written by the participants were – forgiveness, trust, love, honesty, appreciating uniqueness, humility, integrity, dignity, self-care, being neighbourly, rights, responsibility, honour, respect, caring for others, equity, equality, peace, transparency, to live out what you say you believe in (honesty), fairness, kindness, Everyone is beautiful., diversity, freedom, and non-bias. Among the 26 values listed by the 14 participants, the values of honesty, trust, and kindness were repeated by different individuals as part of their top three values.

Each individual picked one of their three values and explained it to the big group. Meanwhile, they were also asked the question to explore their core values: Who influenced you as you grew up? When was it that you realised that you are a peacebuilder or want to do something for peace? Why do you do what you do (peacebuilding)?

Many participants stated that every peacebuilder holds certain values that they live by and that guide them in their peacebuilding works. Importantly, these values were not arbitrary; rather, they were deeply rooted in and shaped by a range of personal experiences, both positive and negative. Participants highlighted that their values were influenced by various factors such as individual and childhood experiences, the surrounding environment, key individuals who played significant roles in their upbringing, cultural background, faith orientation, and the communities to which they belonged, including the opportunities given to them. The values of each individual have a history, context, and story out of which they are formed.

They also explained that in addition to the drive of an expectant hope for a peaceful and harmonious community and world, the motivation to become a peacebuilder comes from the force within a person that either overcomes unpleasant experiences and makes them better, or cultivates pleasant experiences and shares them with others and their community to address certain brokenness in the society. The value of love mentioned many times is expressed by the group as treating every individual fairly and equally and with dignity, and respecting other people, regardless of social status and social symbols, cultural practices, gender and faith orientation.

Values wield a considerable impact on an individual’s actions and influence the perceptions of others around a certain individual or in a certain group of people and community can also be passed on. The strengthening of values is dependent on how one person embodies and enacts them, and lives out the conviction and beliefs that they hold within. How individuals will live it out will also impact all others around themselves.

Following the group discussion, participants were instructed to place the three meta cards, each representing their most significant values, in proximity to their respective Picasso Drawings that have their own names at the top.

All the opportunities for sharing their own stories, significant or minor, were actively encouraged by the facilitator. It was emphasised that the act of story-sharing and storytelling contributes to the meaningful and substantial nature of peacework. The facilitator highlighted that the significance extends beyond the storyteller alone; it also involves the listener. Therefore, participants were urged to attentively listen to their partners during these story-sharing moments.

Drawing out Ethics Based on Values and Dismantling Assumptions and Expectations

In the next section, a joint poetry writing activity was initiated. Participants were directed by the facilitator to designate three separate islands using tables within the room. Then, they were encouraged to interact with individuals whom they were less acquainted with.

Participants were then tasked with collaboratively composing a poem, granting them the freedom to select a topic and allowing for unrestricted contributions from each member. Emphasis was placed on the spontaneous and inclusive nature of the activity, with participants not required to be concerned about spelling, grammar, or rhyme. They used a large paper and some colour markers.

After enough time for all the groups to produce a poem, new instructions arrived from the facilitator. These instructions were conveyed in written form, presented to the groups within an envelope so that only the group members can access to the instruction delivered to the particular group.

You have 3 minutes. Please keep silent and read the following:

Revise (improve and edit) the poem with a red marker/pen, so that the poem becomes better.
Give the paper back to the original group.

This was delivered to Group A.

Another set of instructions was delivered to Group B and C. Those two groups received the same instructions as follows:

You have 3 minutes. Please keep silent and read the following:

Tear (rip) the paper quietly.
Put all the pieces into the envelope, and give it back to the original group.

Some silence. Then, someone in a group starts to take action. Eventually, the consequences take place. I have personally engaged in the Poetry Activity approximately ten times, initially as a participant and subsequently in the role of a facilitator. Typically, the Poetry Activity unfolds in a consistent manner across different instances. Some participants often initiate the process by tearing a small portion of the sheet—some do so with a sense of joy or playfulness, while others follow suit, mirroring the actions of their peers. There are also individuals who choose to remain silent and refrain from much action. The varied responses contribute to the unique dynamics of the activity.

When the original broken or revised “poetry” returns in an envelope, groups take out the shattered pieces of paper on their table. Again, people keep silence. Someone shows sense of confusion. Someone shows anger. Then, someone utters some words. Sometimes, they start talking quietly. At times, participants initiate the restoration process without engaging in prior discussion.

The “safe space” is symbolically torn away. This is the end of Part One. Part Two is the next phase where the workshop participants share reflections with one another.

Part Two

The Purpose of This Article: Having a “Safe Space”?

Part One provided a detailed account and analysis of the occurrences mainly on the Day One of the workshop. Following a series of warm-up activities designed to foster a sense of group safety, participants engaged in an experimental Poetry Activity that involved vandalizing another group’s artwork. Consequently, it became evident that the notion of a “safe space” was not preserved during this particular exercise.

Part Two intends to examine the reactions, comments, questions and claims put forth by the workshop participants.

Experiences, Emotions and Lost Trust: How could you do this to us?

The groups encountered a collective experience marked by silence, tension, doubts, and disappointment upon receiving an envelope containing the disassembled pieces of their artwork. The facilitator instructed the participants to convene with their respective groups to engage in a collective discussion, sharing their feelings and reflections with one another. (Typically, participants are already gathered together, but at this stage, the facilitator formally recommences the process after a period of silence, bitterness, pain, and disappointment has elapsed.)

Guide questions from the facilitator were: When you received the first envelope with an instruction inside, how did you feel/react to it? Then, when you received the last envelope with the transformed poetry sheet, how did you feel/react to it? What was lost in the process?

This process of discussion leads to the next question for reflection: When your values are threatened, when you are forced to make a choice or when you have no choice, when you have to compromise, or/and when you have power or no power, how do you usually react to it?

First of all, according to many of the participants, it seems that the poem-making was a joy and fun. One participant later remembers: In the beginning, it was hard, but after a while, boom! Another shares: As the poem was produced together, the sense of achievement, being together was there. The participants seemed to enjoy the “safe space” where they could respect each other’s values and actions.

However, when they came to the realisation that the envelope they received contained the fragments of their original artwork, now shattered into pieces, their “heart was broken, energy was down, and trust was lost.”

In the Poetry Activity, one participant claimed: How could you do this to us? Apparently, the comment was directed not only towards the participants who had dismantled her group’s poem but also served as a commentary on the facilitator, myself, who had issued such a cruel instruction. Indeed, immediately following the moment when the group received their own dismantled artwork, a palpable atmosphere surrounded the room—a blend of tension, resentment, pain, and sorrow.

One participant writes in the worksheet that was delivered by the facilitator/researcher later at the end of the session: During the second phase, when the poem returned and I saw that it’s been broken, my heart was broken, too. The poem is our dream. I felt like we lost our dreams, hopes, and input as a group. Our dream is to make our dreams come true. But our inputs were lost, and we lost our trust in others, too. When they returned the broken poem to us, it leaves a feeling that we should not trust them anymore because our things are not safe with them. Another one shares: I felt like I do not have dignity, and that we lost that spiritual strength. I feel shattered and it is difficult to trust others again.

Questioning the Sense of Safety: Reflecting on Ethics Based on Values (1)

Pressures upon the Participants

Knowing that the “safe space” disappeared, the facilitator prompted participants to revisit their Picasso Drawings, examining how their selected values aligned or conflicted with their actions. They were encouraged to signify these connections or contradictions by adding arrow signs onto the sheet. Guide questions were: What were challenges to your original values? What was challenged/lost?

Some reflected: What have we done to others? However, it was an order coming from the “boss.” One commented that this person was afraid of the “penalty” if he did not obey the instruction. Obviously, there was a dilemma. They found themselves sandwiched between the facilitator’s directive and the significance of their fellow workshop mates’ artwork.

Another participant writes in the worksheet: I realised through this activity that everything is governed by what’s been set up by the government, the national law, and the international level and by our workplaces. If we do not follow the law, there is non-compliance. Because the other party was given instructions, I know they had to follow. However, they could have decided and chosen to follow their heart by not destroying the other group’s output.

Obviously, some kind of pressure was there. The pressure was from the “superior,” a facilitator that the participants were supposed to trust and respect. She was someone who was supposed to provide a “safe space” for all. Within the limited time frame (only three minutes to act upon the written instruction), first, there was the sense of frozenness. No alternatives seemed to exist. In addition, there was a certain pressure in the framework of “research” to which the participants willingly agreed previously in the consent form to participate and contribute.

Questioning the Sense of Safety: Reflecting on Ethics Based on Values (2)

The Issue of Justification

One participant claimed: We really didn’t want to destroy it. We were in a dilemma. There was a choice but there’s a supposed notion that there will be consequences if we won’t do it as instructed. So, we chose to cut it in strips rather than into small pieces. So, we can later argue that we followed the authority, and justify ourselves.

It was also interesting to hear that one participant explained: We come to a point where we justify our actions. No matter how beautiful the art is, we have to go through the process, but it doesn’t mean that modification cannot be done. Even if there is a need to follow the instructions given, we can vary our action and keep what the other group treasures.

Another added: We were asked to revise an output that does not belong to us. We had assumptions about some of the things since we were chosen to do the changes to it. Later, we realised that our assumptions were wrong, and we have done harm because we perceived the instructions as a requirement to be delivered. There was no consultation and participation from the people who will receive it. I have realised, some things may seem different to them, and it can harm them. We may replace and change their understanding of others, too.

Another in the same group reflected: I was not in the group that needs to destroy the poem. However, for other groups that had to destroy others’ poems, there seems to be room for them to make their own decisions. It seems that those in other groups have tried to follow their own conscience and beliefs in their own way.

Indeed, the series of discussions serves as a poignant reminder of the complexities inherent in navigating real-world scenarios. We often find ourselves grappling with the delicate balance between our professed values and ethics and the practicalities of our actions, which may sometimes diverge from these ideals. In our efforts to reconcile these discrepancies, we often resort to justifications as a means of forging ahead in life. Critiquing such contradictory behaviours is an easy task, yet transcending this dilemma proves to be considerably more challenging.

Questioning the Sense of Safety: Reflecting on Ethics Based on Values (3)

Maybe Practice of Nonviolence or/and Practice for Trainers?

One participant thought that this could be a good exercise for practicing nonviolence. She explained that nonviolent civil disobedience is an action that many societies can take in an oppressive situation—to figure out ways to stay within the confines of the “law” and still protest.

Some participants pointed out that the activity could have possibly shaken the bad memories or trauma, and there should be some balance of teaching and context. One of them proposed based on her own facilitation experience, “If this activity is to be used for peacebuilders, I would co-facilitate with a person for this kind of activity, but I would not use the said activity with a traumatised community.”

Someone commented that this activity should be good in the setting of a trainers’ training, not with the beginners’ training. Someone else added that it could be an opportunity to learn, and as Augusto Boal called, it could be a “rehearsal for change” since it produces powerful energies toward uneasy tensions, and it can bring about positive changes.

“When we experienced the activity, we all went silent. This activity made me realise that I can now relate to those who experienced the disaster for I could now feel their trauma,” was one honest sharing. How can trainers/facilitators transform this activity into a peacebuilding tool? One has to understand what the community has gone through—its history, pains, and struggles. One needs to ask: Do we really do this training? Is it the right time to conduct this activity?

In addition, it was inspirational and humbling to see how the participants behaved after the “disaster.” In instances where participants perceived a significant lack of respect from their peers, there was a noticeable hesitation before they initiated the process of rearranging and reconstructing the poem. However, eventually, many participants naturally began the task of mending, restoring, and affixing the small pieces of the previously destroyed paper. It felt as though I bore witness to the manifestation of resilience, respect, and care. They appeared to reclaim the sense of safety through their own agency.

Facilitators’ Dilemma around Everyone’s Ethics

As a facilitator/trainer, I confront a dilemma. In seeking participants/trainees’ immersion in the profound comprehension of the nature of brokenness and the essence of deprivation, I have deliberately steered them through a journey demanding significant emotional turmoil and cognitive dissonance. Despite the trust and kind respect bestowed upon me by the participants, I have inadvertently “betrayed” their expectations and “entrapped” them in a challenging process. How arrogant could that be? How manipulative should facilitators be allowed to be?

I confessed to the participants saying: I have this dilemma in this framework of research. Is this an appropriate activity to be used in a workshop? How do you regard the ethical side of the activity?

One participant mentioned: When you received the instruction either to revise or tear the poem, it takes your morality. But either way, your choices are dependent on the situation you are in. Here we learned that when any instruction is given to us, the group needs to carefully think. But sometimes, we act immediately without thinking, and we become so over-smart. Sometimes it is what happens in our life, and in our community.

Another participant explained: When our artwork came back and was not destroyed, I was thinking that maybe they didn’t follow the instructions, and their group made an interesting choice. I was wondering if our group could have done the same—not follow the instructions. (The fact was that their group received a different type of instructions.) When we were told to tear up the artwork, our group mate came up with the idea to cut it into strips so that it could easily be put back together. I saw this as a compromise. We were following the instruction, but we were not destroying the artwork. I was asking myself—what are the implications of this activity? I was a bit perplexed.

I gratefully understand the participants’ endeavours trying to make meaningful learnings within this complicated activity. Nevertheless, it remains undeniable that I compelled them to undergo two arduous paths: experiencing the roles of both victims and perpetrators. Facilitators knew that this would have been likely to happen: See? I knew it! I know better than you! Is this not such an arrogant attitude of facilitators?

Closing the Poetry Activity: Efforts to Regain Trust and Forgiveness through a Challenged “Safe Space”

For closing, the facilitator asked: How shall we close this session? What are the contradictions you see in what you say your values are and what you actually did? How would you interpret the experience? Furthermore, the facilitator extended apologies for the diverse effects engendered by this activity on the participants and the intensity of emotions that it elicited among them.

According to the documentation, it was observed that the group had already built good relationships with each other, and a spirit of camaraderie existed. This was evident in their willingness to listen to each other, share openly their thoughts and feelings, comfort each other, and apologise to each other willingly and sincerely. Gestures were observed that showed confidence and trust among the participants. This may be because they have known each other for the past three weeks during the MPI 2023 Annual Peacebuilding Training. The way the reflective listening session was conducted showed the humility and openness of the facilitators and the participants. This created a healing and comforting space for the group, making it easier to navigate acceptance and understanding of various perspectives and offering forgiveness, and forgiving one another.

At times, it’s beneficial to “sleep over” emotions and thoughts to settle overnight. The second day of the workshop commenced with a grounding activity. Participants collectively engaged in breathing exercises, accompanied by an action song, fostering a sense of connection and interaction within the group. The circle format allowed everyone to feel and respond to each other’s vibes and presence in a circle.

Subsequently, this was followed by a Peer-to-Peer Sharing Activity. Guide questions were: 1) What have you found joyful in yesterday’s activity? 2) Would you share about your top three values with each other? 3) What is one idea that struck you from the discussion yesterday? The group wrote in pearl points the dilemma that arose in relation to their three values and their actions with the Poetry Activity.

Comments were as follows: I have realised that I could not keep up with my faith and honesty after following the instructions to vandalise other people’s artwork. After appreciating and cheering each other’s output on values, the value of integrity and kindness that we profess has been challenged. I lost mutual respect, and belief, and values toward others. The acceptance level in the community is so low and has become another challenge. It showed that we also did not care about others. Even if we appreciate them with our words but our actions have shown injustice, resulting in broken trust at the individual and family level. There is broken trust. And rebuilding trust is a difficult job.

In expressing my sincere gratitude and respect towards the participants, I humbly offer additional words from their perspectives:

I was hurting myself and I was hurting others. I felt as if I lacked understanding of the context and the people. I was trying to control and dominate their emotions. Suddenly I felt disconnected.
We were given three minutes to make decisions. We froze and were not able to make decisions that are nonviolent. To love, this one is very difficult. Within the limitation of time and the circumstances.
My values were broken and I am wondering if my foundation was not that strong. My action of tearing another island’s work is not in line with my values. I was asking myself: Do I really believe in these values? I forgot the head, heart, and hands values. They were in conflict. I was hurt and I got the feeling—do I still respect my values? How do I deal with my situation?
Prevention is better than cure. We should not simply believe in forgiveness but we must be cautious not to injure others, or do something like the act of tearing their poem into pieces that hurts others.

Indeed, apologies may be warranted in certain cases. However, it is important to acknowledge that apologies do not justify or erase the preceding harm. It is also inherently selfish and egoistic to presume that offering an apology guarantees forgiveness. I believe it is imperative for me to delve deeper into exploration to enhance my effectiveness as a trainer. Simultaneously, I recognise the importance of striking a delicate balance between the processes and the outcomes of the trainings. Any training/teaching endeavours provide a specific framework to guide (or, control/manipulate) trainees/students toward achieving goals commensurate with their existing level of preparation. However, I have come to realise that, as a facilitator entrusted with a certain amount of “authority,” it is imperative for me to consistently prepare myself to remain receptive to critical feedback. Probably, that way, we as a group can guarantee a certain level of sense of safety for the workshop settings.

Peacebuilders as a Work in Progress

Peacebuilding is inherently challenging and demanding, and there are moments when our lives are at stake. However, as peacebuilders, we possess the capacity to engage in negotiations within the limited timeframe of three minutes, potentially saving the lives of others. During the reflection session, a pressing question emerged: Why did no one exhibit the courage to inquire directly to the facilitator providing instructions, or why did we not contemplate running to neighbouring islands to seek clarification on these instructions and explore potential solutions? How come as peacebuilders we forgot our mandate to consult and build peace for all sides?

The activity has the potential to evoke experiences that we believed we had already processed. The group provided a space for reflection, highlighting that all peacebuilders are continually evolving, and responses may vary based on the context at hand. The collective responses, coupled with sincere and genuine support, fostered a healing and comforting space, thereby broadening perspectives and deepening understanding among all participants.

Profoundness evolves over time. Throughout the activity, a multitude of diverse emotions unfolded. Participants and facilitators collectively gleaned the insight that values undergo growth and evolution as we progress. Is my value solid enough as a peacebuilder? In response to the question, as many of us in the workshop reached a consensus, we came to the realisation that we are all “works in progress” as peacebuilders, as evidenced by the dialogues that transpired. We shared that multifaceted and diverse factors help us grow, and that is a reason why we have each other and why we continuously have work to do so.

The documenter of the workshop summarises the session by listing up insights from the learnings. One of them is: Cultivating a safe space for others and being a safe person are important in helping others strengthen their values. She also writes: Be conscious about the things happening around us. The actors involved help us act in accordance with the values that guide us. Finally, humility, openness, and commitment to rebuild broken trust is a necessary ingredient in building peace.

Part Three

Part One provided a detailed account and analysis of the occurrences mainly on the Day One of the workshop. Following a series of warm-up activities designed to foster a sense of group safety, participants engaged in an experimental Poetry Activity that involved vandalizing another group’s artwork. Consequently, it became evident that the notion of a “safe space” was not preserved during this particular exercise.

Part Two intended to examine the reactions, comments, questions and claims put forth by the workshop participants. On the Day One and at the first part of the Day Two, participants engaged in reflections regarding the disparities between the values they professed to hold and the actions they actually took. Facilitators’ dilemmas around ethical elements in peacebuilding training settings were also discussed. Finally, efforts to regain trust after experiencing a challenged “safe space” were explored to discover that peacebuilders are all a “work in progress.”

In the previous parts, we learned how we embody the unspoken values, assumptions and expectations in peacebuilding training, how we deal with challenges that contradict such values, and how we make efforts to regain harmed emotions and lost trust. We also gained insights into the relationship between our ethics, which are grounded in embodied values, and the concept of a “safe space.” Part Three explores how we enact and move towards spoken values and a more nuanced and inclusive ethics in practice which builds trust. Ultimately, a “safe space” is the result of continuous, collective and nurturing efforts.

The Blindfolded Activity to Simulate an “Unsafe Space” Experience

On Day Two after some reflections from Day One, the participants were divided into two groups, each comprising several members. The facilitator proposed that Group One consist of all female participants, and Group Two consist of all male participants. The participants were then given the freedom to choose whichever group they felt most comfortable joining. Then, both groups were instructed to position one member in the centre of a circle formed by the other members, with the central person instructed to cross their arms at chest level. The central person then was encouraged to “fall” to whichever side they felt inclined toward. It was encouraged to experience the act of “falling” first with their eyes open, and then with their eyes closed. Also, all members were suggested to take turns being the central person, one by one, within their respective groups.

After they enjoyed the Falling Activity, everyone was requested to find a partner. In pairs, one participant was blindfolded while the other, unblindfolded, served as the guide to the blindfolded individual. Together, they navigated through the workshop classroom. During the first round, the guide could use words to give directions, but in the next round, the guide was not allowed to speak but was allowed to give nonverbal signals.

Subsequently, all blindfolded participants formed a train with one individual leading, who was not blindfolded. The one with the lead role was encouraged to speak. Any participant who expressed a desire to experience the lead role took over one by one in succession.

At the end of the series of activities that were designed to engage the senses of sight, sound, and touch, enabling participants to discern and acknowledge their sense of safety, everyone lined up along a rope-line. From one end of the line, representing “very comfortable,” to the opposite end denoting “very uncomfortable,” participants were instructed to stand at the point that corresponded to their emotions they possessed as a guide/leader, as a follower, in a pair, and within a group.

Verbalization of Values, Ethics and Trust

By concentrating on human “senses” combined with verbal aspects, the participants have explored their “sense” of safety, which is heavily influenced by all of them. The activities elicited a variety of responses from the participants. Some participants verbalized their complete trust in their partners, while others indicated varying degrees and levels of trust.

With the Falling Activity, one participant later writes in the worksheet: Even if I fall, I have a support system to hold me, and for those who were falling, I supported them by not letting them fall down. Another one describes: It connects to the trusting because I first did not fall down 100% because I was afraid that the team could not hold on to me. But after a few times, I started putting my trust on them and gave it a try. I could trust more and feel comfortable with opening my eyes because I can ensure myself that everyone is going to hold me, so I know I am safe. Another sharing was: I found it a bit uncomfortable and hesitant to fully trust the supporting group, and harboured concerns about the possibility of unexpected accidents or secret instructions being followed without notice. Reflecting on the activity in relation to reality, it becomes apparent that trust can easily falter when personal interests or demands arise from others.

With the Blindfolded Activity, one participant said: I trusted my partner completely because she guided me, held my hand, and gave me specific instructions. Another reflected: I was both comfortable and uncomfortable at the same time. I was wondering if something might happen. It made me nervous during the second round when we could not communicate in words.

We found that maintaining and/or building trust can occur immediately in some instances, while in others, it requires several attempts. It also hinges on the attitude and the behaviour of the other person. The documenter also records that there were comments on “doubts” for not being able to see and “vulnerability” for unexpected things might happen. Many participants also paid attention to how the guide was speaking to the follower and assuring the partner’s safety verbally. In addition, they discovered that there were different kinds of “leadership” when one person leads the whole group, and that it is easier to trust during the pair activity than when they were put together as a group.

One participant mentioned: Fear paralyses and freezes us. Building trust needs time. We need to see carefully if we can rely on the person. Another participant commented: Building trust requires a lot of elements, in a particular, time and space and in various levels of relationships. Another claimed: I feel a little uncomfortable as I struggle with trusting others. It depends on the situation, and the people we work with. Trust building is a process to me. It is about engagement, commitment, integrity, respect, and relationship. Trust gradually grows in the process. Also, we know that there are many times that trust is affected by various circumstances and actions.

Then, the facilitator asked: The ability to trust depends upon our experiences, histories, and willingness to nurture trusting each other. Is there a difficulty of nurturing the trust? To the question, someone responded: In many of our work situations, trust is very important. What helps me develop my trust is my background as an activist and having a right perspective on peace and justice. Most important is to look at their heart and look for the goodness in their hearts. Believe and look for one little spot even if it’s just an iota of goodness in their hearts.

The participant continued: When I am blindfolded, what increases the trust is when the person becomes specific with directions. Even when we weren’t talking, she started guiding and holding me with her hands. When it was my turn, I also used her technique.

Someone added: Rebuilding a broken trust requires time and consistent actions to make people feel at peace and find evidence in your integrity and consistent actions. Also, another participant resonated: It is necessary to provide time and space to regain and rebuild the trust.

Connecting Values, Ethics and Work on the Issue of Trust

At the last session of the two-day workshop, the facilitator asked: Do you think values, ethics and trust are important to peacebuilding work? How are they organically interconnected?

Just as in Part Two and Part Three, I must once again express gratitude to the workshop documenter, whose meticulous documentation has provided invaluable descriptions that effectively capture the essence of the discussions. For the purposes of the articles, I choose to incorporate some of these well-articulated descriptions. Also, in respect and gratitude to the participants who have wholeheartedly joined the workshop for this experiential and experimental research, below are some valuable comments shared:

I am happy to see the diversity here in this workshop at MPI. Here, the practice of religion can be counted as a value. We may be hitting the insensitivity and sensitivity of the topic. But being sensitive to others is not only about the food served, but it is also about other religious and cultural practices. We must be sensitive in our response to each other.
In the Blindfolded Activity, when my partner verbalised her trust by actually saying, “I completely trust you,” it felt as if it reached my drive and desire to be a better and trustworthy person. It is encouraging. And trusting the other is a complex process. Persistence really matters in the process of building trust and the consistency of actions.
In my country, as we enter a new place and whenever we leave, we always do the ritual with cultural peacebuilding tool. It means respect for the elders, the others, and the land; and the land is with us as its people. The land, people, church, and government are one. If I will go to a certain province, there I introduce myself to them and explain where I come from, so the people in the community find the connection. For example, in our existing intervention and peacebuilding work, the community with whom we are journeying together are going through a severe case of climate change. We went and did the ritual to introduce ourselves. We came back and did the ritual again. During the ritual we conversed with the people, got to know each other, and built friendly relationships. We did not overwhelm them with questions about the peacebuilding program, but simply asked them three questions about their normal lives. The relationship between us thrived in time. (In this story-sharing, the storyteller used the specific local cultural terminology, but for the sake of research confidentiality, the author decided not to include them to avoid identification of the participants.)
I believe we are in the process of a paradigm shift, a shift in our mindset, and our worldview where we relate to people as human beings. We will not see a Chinese or Filipino, Muslim or Hindu, or “straight” or gay, but we will see the person. Our personhood is what connects us. There is so much in our world that is working against us, against this belief in our common humanity. The pandemic showed us the wounds of the world which cannot be erased. I believe that something is changing, a process is underway, but we are not certain as to what is being created.
I reflect from the perspective of the macro level, the bigger picture. It is important that values, ethics and trust are part of our peacebuilding work. But then the next step is how do we live out those values? For example, why did MPI chose the place, Mergrande, for our training and accommodation? MPI chose it as the training setting because it is simple, in line with our values of simplicity. There must be a connection between our values and actions at all levels.
The peacebuilding process has to have a foundation, and it is the values that we are talking about. Actions at the micro level and those at the macro level must be put together so that we do not forget the bigger picture in order for us to embrace another worldview that is different from the prevailing one and which will be defined by consciously practicing and living the values we have articulated in this workshop.

Reflecting the workshop participants’ insights, I believe that they are the evidence of the firm relation between the values, ethics, and trust. Values are the foundation of peacebuilding, ethics are derived from values and are to be practiced in peacebuilding actions, and trust is obviously nurtured by the collective and continuous efforts. Values, ethics, and trust synergistically contribute to the establishment of a “safe space.” Some participants also pointed out that the more you know who you are, the more you would be able to trust yourself, and finding alternative methods and ideas within yourself empowers you. When empowered individuals come together, there would be better balance between the key elements that were explored in this research. Sense of safety does not maintain itself without endeavours of all people. Once again, I remind myself that a “safe space” can also be easily compromised or destroyed, so that sustainable and collective efforts must be consistently pursued.

Closing of the Workshop

The workshop ended with a gesture of affirmative trust and support as participants, facilitators, and MPI staff gathered together in a big circle. There each affirmed and encouraged the other as peacebuilders and comrades on the journey of building peace by simple gestures of hugs, taps, hand-holding, and affirmative messages filled with respect and love for entrusting their lives, stories and context to each other, as the documenter records.

As a researcher/facilitator, I am thankful to all the people voluntarily involved in this research. The co-facilitator was constantly holding a “safe space” for preparatory or emergency consultations between herself and me. Also, with her remarkable skills and playful and positive attitudes as an artist-facilitator, the workshop space consistently emanated a vibrant and enjoyable atmosphere. The MPI team diligently upheld a sense of safety for all individuals involved. I strongly believe that thanks to the organization’s persistent and ongoing efforts in the past years, participants felt confident in placing trust in the workshop opportunity.

Some participants mentioned at the end of two days, that the research with various areas of the world with the cross-cultural factors and the values, ethics, and trust coming from this research would be able to help more peacebuilders. I hope to continue “our” journey to explore on this theme in years to come.

In gratitude to co-facilitator, co-hosts, documenter, class assistant and most of all, the generous and honest participants, I acknowledge that it was only possible that this workshop came to be a successful experimental and experiential research on values, ethics and trust in peacebuilding training settings.

NOTES:

Note 1. This project is funded by UKRI Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and is headed by Dr. Miho Taka and Dr. Michaelina Jakala of Coventry University in the UK. This workshop took place immediately following the close of the MPI 2023 Annual Peacebuilding Training at MPI on 2 June 2023, and was facilitated by the author assisted by a co-facilitator, Ms. Rosanna Quesada Palm. The workshop participants have attended the MPI 2023 Annual Peacebuilding Training in the previous three weeks. MPI support team was consisted of Ms. Christine Vertucci (Director), Ms. Queenilyn Liwat (Peacebuilding Training Program Officer) and Ms. Catherine Joy Catulong (Class assistant). It took place at Mergrande Ocean Resort, Talomo, Davao City, the Philippines, and the dates were from 3 June 2023 (starting at noontime) to 4 June 2023 (ending at noontime).

Note 2. This workshop was documented by Ms. Queenilyn Liwat, Peacebuilding Training Program Officer at MPI.

This article is originally published on TRANSCEND Media Service. (1) (2) (3)

Login

Network News