I was first introduced to attachment theory last semester through a good friend and fellow student at the (CJP) who was conducting research as a graduate assistant. Her enthusiasm for the subject matter at that point was catching.

At first, attachment theory seemed be the kind of theory that would fill in the gaps in my own self-understanding.  Almost as if the theory created one of those “Ah-ha!” moments where I could say to myself “now that explains what I’ve been missing all this time!”  So I added the theory to my decoupage-like assortment of newly acquired theories and concepts stored within the confines of my cerebral cortex.

Then along came second semester and Theory class where our professor, , implored us not to ‘marry any one theory’.  So I released attachment theory to roam freely within the perimeter of my thought processes along with a mish-mash of development paradigms, conflict coaching skills, research design literature review articles, theories of change, with a bit of strategic this and planning that.  As 91����Ƶ’s on attachment theory drew closer, I began to read a bit more on attachment and its potential role in peacebuilding and conflict transformation.  The question we were asked to consider is: “Does it scale up?”  In other words, can the concepts and theory of attachment based on psychological and therapeutic research be understood through the lens of intergroup conflict?  My initial response was, “Good question! I have no idea.”

But of course, we are graduate students here at CJP; intellectual men and women on the cusp of a burgeoning field of study!  It would never do to simply answer with “I have no idea”.  Standing there on the figurative corner of Muddle Avenue and Perplex Street I began to corral my free-range ideas into a more coherent semblance of thought.  Can attachment theory be scaled up for intergroup conflict?  Can we as peacebuilders apply the concepts we’ve learned from attachment?  How would it affect our practice?

Although attachment theory focuses on the individual and how she grows and responds to her environment, the peacebuilding field is exploring its implications for larger scale conflicts and intergroup conflict.  I have begun to see attachment theory as yet another lens through which we can view the world and the conflicts therein.  Attachment theorists have already proposed ways in which conflict between individuals can be understood in part by understanding how a person’s past and current affective experiences shape their thought and behavior. Peacebuilding, on the other hand, spends more time focusing on conflict on a larger scale, within groups (ethnic or otherwise) or full-scale, enduring conflicts which occur over decades and through generations.

I disagree that attachment theory can be scaled up in all conflict scenarios; for example, when trying to analyze the conflict between two warring ethnic groups or nations or for analyzing the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Despite my misgivings, let’s try on attachment theory and peacebuilding for size by exploring a certain type of conflict and subsequent peacebuilding work in the field.

Attachment theory might be utilized when analyzing an enduring conflict within a country whose government looks more like a dictatorship than a democracy.  In this context, the head of the regime or government has power and authority over the people with little to no system of checks and balances.  In many situations, this type of government is accompanied by a significant and often oppressive military presence.  It may be helpful for peacebuilders to utilize attachment theory when analyzing this type of conflict for points of possible entry.  Possible points of entry are analyzed through an interactive process of organizing peacebuilding conceptual frameworks that assist in planning for conflict situations.

In summary, attachment theory provides another lens, or, another way of viewing the history and experience of the person or small group of people in power within the hypothetical situation listed above.  Creating a successful peacebuilding program or policy for a specific conflict requires a clear and thoughtful assessment of the context of the conflict, the needs of the people on the ground, and the ability of both local and international stakeholders to address the challenges.  In addition to the other lenses that we use to analyze conflict here at CJP, perhaps we should consider developing an attachment-based lens that could be applied to certain conflict assessments such as the one listed above.

Peacebuilding truly is a burgeoning field of study.  I encourage and challenge my professors and colleagues to continue thinking both critically and creatively about cross-section between attachment theory and peacebuilding and its implications for the future of peacebuilding work and study.

As I have reflected on attachment theory in recent weeks, attachment seems to be adept at stirring up emotion in people. Perhaps because it gets to a core element of who were are as human beings, a core element that often puts us in a position of vulnerability and can take us back to places of deep hurt and pain, or in contrast, places of deep love and joy. I too can easily find myself thinking back to those people, places, and times where connection with others has left its mark.

In addition to the emotion-filled memories, attachment theory also has the ability to bring me to a state of cognitive dissonance. Not one in which I am left paralyzed by the very shaking of my world, so to speak, but rather a to state filled with pondering and dreaming.

Having been born and raised in the United States, my mainstream culture has engrained in me ideals very contrary to concepts of attachment. As Craig Shealy articulated in his breakout session at , “human beings will acquire the belief systems that are available for acquisition.”  His session was entitled “Attachment in Core Beliefs and Values: Implications for Self, Others, and the World.” Although exceptions can likely be found, this statement operates out of the belief that we do not come to believe something which has not already been made available to us in one fashion or another.

As far as prescribers of attachment theory are likely concerned, my ray of hope against an individualistic culture has come in the faith tradition I was exposed to from the start of life. From my immobile, diaper-filled days in Sunday School, I was learning about a way of life centered on connection with not only my God but also with the world around me.

So here I am as an adult, living in a culture debatably becoming more and more focused on “me”, but increasingly feeling like an alien within it. As a follower of Christ and as a peacebuilder, my worldview does not include getting ahead at the cost of others or pursuing my own interests only to isolate myself from others. But as the dreamer and optimist that I also am, I’m not inclined to give up on my culture and write it off as a lost cause.

Here enters my cognitive dissonance, my pondering and dreaming: What American culture has taught me and what has become my innate perspective on human connection are in opposition to one another. What happened along my journey that has left myself and likeminded others in a position of differentiation from what we encounter on a daily basis? Is it really that being genuinely connected with others is a way of life unattainable for Americans, or is it that what’s hardwired in all humans is somehow being suppressed? What is stopping us from living with one another, rather than just existing together? How can that be changed and how would the landscape of conflict be changed in our world as a result of an American shift in how we view relationship?

Questions, ponderings, and dreams. Questions that today, I have very few answers for. Thoughts I will continue to ponder. Dreams I will continue to dream. Perhaps one day, actions we will be able to take, together.

Following is a collection of audio interviews with CJP-affiliated professors, talking about 91����Ƶ’s recent .  The interviews were conducted, produced, and edited by undergraduate students from a spring 2011 audio production class in 91����Ƶ’s department.  Students asked faculty members how attachment theory might inform their teaching and practice of peacebuilding.

An increasing pile of evidence points to the biological imperative of attachment – not only in our early formative years, but throughout our entire lives. For some, this is revolutionary; for others, it’s old news.

Throughout the gospels, Jesus makes clear the necessity of attachment, both with God and amongst ourselves – analogizing that he is the vine and his followers are the branches, Jesus says, “Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me” (John 15:4, NRSV). Later, when he commissions his disciples, he doesn’t send them out alone – he sends them out in pairs.

Other religious traditions also make clear the value and importance of attachment, though perhaps with different words (and unique insights). Interbeing, for example, is the Buddhist teaching that nothing can be by itself alone, that everything in the cosmos must “inter-be” with everything else. Thich Nhat Hanh writes in Living Buddha, Living Christ, “When we see the nature of interbeing, barriers between ourselves and others are dissolved, and peace, love, and understanding are possible. Whenever there is understanding, compassion is born.”

Though it isn’t technically considered a “religion,” Alcoholics Anonymous also exemplifies this value of attachment as a core principle, embodied through the practice of sponsorship – something that many describe as the backbone of AA.

And yet here we are, over a decade deep into the 21st century, and we’ve got neuroscientists and Ph.D.’s talking about connectedness in venue’s like 91����Ƶ’s recent as if it’s some sort of groundbreaking idea. There is certainly something positive to be said for affixing solid, scientific evidence to what many would call intuitive knowledge. In the Western world of skepticism, if you want to give something legitimacy, you have to back it up with research and quantifiable evidence (check out Brian Gumm’s for more on the history and impact of this). But for those who see these “discoveries” as nothing more than new words affixed to old concepts, the trending enthusiasm may feel like something of an insult.

Western peacebuilders often speak of mutuality in their work – that they seek to both teach and learn from the international communities that they’re engaging with. Unfortunately, there are too few examples of truly reciprocal relationships. Too often the question is, “How do I make this tool/strategy/theory that I’ve already established work in a different context?” We aren’t so foolish as to suggest that peacebuilding is a one-size-fits-all sort of endeavor, but we do tend to stubbornly insist on adapting preconceived methodologies.

A famous Buddhist story tells of a young student visiting a famous Zen Master. When tea is served, the teacher pours his guest’s cup full and then continues to pour. The student watches in shock as tea spills over the rim and all over the table. The master continues though, seemingly oblivious to the expanding puddle until finally the student can stand it no more – “Stop! The cup is overflowing! No more will go in!”

“Like this cup,” the teacher explains, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”

John Paul Lederach told a group of CJP folks after the conference that having an attitude of humility means “preparing yourself every day to be surprised by something new.” We as peacebuilders need to empty our cups and prepare ourselves for surprise. Some of those surprises might be revealed to us through charts and diagrams and books and lectures, but I’d venture to say that most of them are already available to us in the untapped wealth of relationships that surround us every day; after all, our best opportunity for learning about connection is through actual connectedness, right?

Now we just need to convince the Academy that potlucks and tea parties are valid replacements for papers and tests…