We tend to think of peacekeepers as good-doers. Peace is certainly better than war and fighting. Nonetheless, there are certain evildoers that aim to promote an appearance of peace, but not true peace.
Let us say that Jen initiates a friendship with Jill just so that she can use her. Jen stabs Jill in the back (figuratively speaking), says things to Jill that humiliate her in front of other people, and borrows things from Jill without returning them. One day Jill decides to stand up for herself and confront Jen. Gus, who is standing nearby, sees these two women arguing and decides to stop it. He overhears Jill calling Jen a horrible person who is not worthy of being her friend. Gus steps in and says “That’s not cool, Jill! That was not a very nice thing to say. You should apologize. I am sure that Jen did not mean anything bad…”
In the encounter described above, Gus is essentially siding with the perpetrator, and is suggesting to the victim that the victim apologize to the perpetrator. Why would Gus do this? Perhaps because Gus does not care why Jill would call Jen a horrible person, or even whether Jill has a good reason to call Jen a horrible person. Gus wrongfully believes that it is always wrong to tell someone something bad about him/herself, and that we should be “nice” and only tell people good things about themselves. However, if we operate by such beliefs, then standing up to evildoers is next to impossible because when you stand up to someone who is a bad person, it will involve telling said bad person bad things about him/herself. In order for Jill to stand up to Jen, Jill has to point out things about Jen’s behavior that are wrong. Jill will have to tell Jen something about herself that is negative.
Gus is an example of a faux peacekeeper. He believes that all confrontations are bad and should be broken up. He believes that nobody should tell another person something that would get the other person upset. He may even be making the judgmental assumption that Jen and Jill are only having a dispute because they are two people who just happen to not get along, and therefore just need to settle their differences.
The reality is that certain confrontations are supposed to take place, such as when an evildoer is doing harm to people on a regular basis, leaving others morally obligated to stand up to him/her. Standing up to someone who is doing wrong, and calling him/her out on his/her evil deeds is going to involve some degree of confrontation. It will also be necessary to point out things about the person’s behavior that are wrong. Even being gentle is not always appropriate because in some cases, the person doing harm to others has evident malicious intent. The people standing up to someone with malicious intent need to assert that they mean business, and being gentle would not necessarily work or be appropriate.
By breaking up a confrontation that is meant to take place, the faux peacekeeper is essentially protecting the evildoer from accountability and potentially allowing the evildoer to continue inflicting harm on others.
The true peacekeeper, by contrast, makes an evaluation as to why the confrontation is taking place and acts accordingly. Unlike a faux peacekeeper, a true peacekeeper fosters more effective communication between the two parties in an attempt to allow for a true resolution of the dispute. Unlike a faux peacekeeper, a true peacekeeper attempts to collect facts about what happened, and is willing to acknowledge when one side is truly the cause of the problem while the other side is just the victim. The faux peacekeeper does not necessarily care why the confrontation is taking place, and/or may just make narrow-minded assumptions about why the confrontation is taking place.
When a altercation is forcibly ended, we may not get true peace, but rather an appearance of peace. Forcibly stopping an altercation just stops whatever communication was taking place, and thereby renders it impossible for the dispute to resolve.
Faux peacekeepers tend to make everything worse, not better
When Gus intervenes in Jen and Jill’s dispute, he does some things that are wrong and harmful. For example, he tells Jill to apologize to Jen for telling her bad things about herself. Jill does not owe such an apology to Jen. As far as Jill is concerned, Jen actually is a horrible person, and Jill believes that she has a right to say so.
Another bad thing Gus does is tell Jill that he is sure Jen did not mean any harm. Gus does not know the facts, and is in no position to make an asseration about Jen’s intentions. Gus is only telling Jill something about Jen that is, though positive, completely false. Gus’s intervention is obviously one that makes the situation worse, not better.
Even worse, Gus may also suggest that Jill “forgive” Jen, and continue being friends with Jen as before. This faux-peacekeeper move also is harmful and wrong. Jill’s continuing to be friends with Jen would only cause Jill to be subject to more abuse. Even Jen would not benefit from such an arrangement because Jen would be given false messages that her behavior is okay when it really is not. Jen certainly knows how to be nice. She is just freely choosing to be mean and exploitative.
Do faux peacekeepers at least mean well?
If you assume that faux peacekeepers always mean well, you may have some of the mindset of a faux peacekeeper. Faux peacekeepers like to make unfounded positive assumptions about every person. Once again, true peacekeepers would rather collect the facts, and are willing to acknowledge when someone’s intentions actually are evil.
I try not to make assumptions about people’s thought processes, but I would imagine that faux peacekeepers only aim for an appearance of peace for the following reasons: 1) They do not like being present when there is a confrontation, because they want peace and quiet. 2) They are self-righteous and arrogant. They believe they are gods of peace that are better than those silly people who are bickering with each other. 3) They are afraid that the confrontation may pose an immediate danger to the ones who are involved and to others present, and they believe it is necessary to break it up immediately regardless of why the confrontation is taking place.
The first two possible intentions described above are selfish and wrong while the third item is a good intention.
Another scenario
Let us say that there is a dispute between two parents and their son. The parents view the son as an extension of them, and want the son to be a certain way, which may not be aligned with the son’s true inner identity. Perhaps the parents expect the son to follow a certain career path, and they express grave disappointment otherwise. Throughout the son’s life, the parents always expected the son to get perfect grades in school. 98% on an exam was not good enough. All exam grades had to be 100%. As an adult, the son is fed up and wants to live his own life. He has decided to confront his parents about their continued attempts to control his life and tell him how to live his life.
A faux peacekeeper may say something like “you should be grateful that your parents at least love you”. Here, the faux peacekeeper is telling the son something about his controlling parents that is, though true, irrelevant. Regardless of whether his parents love him, their behavior towards him is still overly controlling, harmful and with selfish intentions. Furthermore, the faux peacekeeper’s statement is like an implicit put-down to the son because it implies that the son is somehow ungrateful that someone loves him. The faux peacekeeper has no business judging the son as being ungrateful for his parents’ “loving involvement in his life”.
Strangers are not the only ones who can be bad people. Close family members of ours can be bad people, too. As is discussed in this article, bad people can intentionally inflict harm on the people that they love. Some possible reasons are lack of empathy, self dislike, low self esteem or just wanting to get what they want regardless of the harm done to others in the process. Because bad behaviors from those close to you can be so harmful, such bad behaviors need to be acknowledged and addressed before more harm is done. Faux peacekeepers make things worse by drawing attention away from the bad behavior, which needs to be addressed, and onto something positive, but irrelevant. In the case of the son and the controlling parents, it is irrelevant that the parents love the son. Their behavior is still potentially harmful, and is being done with bad intentions. Adding to that an attempt to convince the son that he is somehow being ungrateful for his parents’ love would place guilt onto the son where guilt does not belong.
Giving someone the benefit of the doubt can be deadly
Saying “I sure he is a nice man” when you know nothing about the other person not only does not help, but also is toxic. We may think we are being kind when we say such a thing, but we are not necessarily promoting an accurate perception of reality.
A lot of people — even those who are not faux peacekeepers — believe it is a virtue to see the good in people and give them the benefit of the doubt. In other words, when there is doubt as to someone’s intentions, just assume that the intentions are good by default. This sounds nice until we see the contexts in which assuming the best of someone can have devastating consequences.
Giving someone the benefit of the doubt can involve trusting someone who is not meant to be trusted. When we trust someone who is not meant to be trusted, bad things happen. Let us say that there is a neighbor down the street. Word has it that he has been guilty of sexual misconduct, but it sounds like it is only gossip. Maybe you want to give this neighbor the benefit of the doubt and figure that he seems like a nice guy, and those things you heard about him are just gossip. Would you allow him to babysit your children while you and your spouse go out for the evening? Such a move may result in your children being sexually molested if indeed it turns out that the rumors are true. This scenario is just one of many scenarios where giving someone the benefit of the doubt can have devastating consequences.
In another scenario, let us say that you are engaged to be married, but you suspect that your fiance has been having sexual relations with someone else during your engagement. Your fiance insists that he/she has been faithful, but you suspect that he/she is lying. Do you give your fiance the benefit of the doubt, figure that he/she is good at heart and marry him/her anyway? Many people would agree that the answer is no. Marriage is a lifelong commitment, and marrying the wrong person can have very bad consequences, including ugly divorces, loss of large amounts of money and years of bitterness and heartbreak.
Faux peacekeepers may try to tell you to “see the good in people” and give people the benefit of the doubt. Assuming the best in people can appear to promote peace, but the costs can be very high depending on the context. Any peace that seems to come from assuming the best in someone can result in more harm later on.
Is it good to get along with everybody?
Let us say that someone is terrorizing you and your family to the point that on a few occasions, you and your family have to stay at a hotel in order to feel safe. Let us then say that someone, who you thought was your friend, gets along pretty well with the person who is terrorizing your family. You mention to your friend the bad things that this person has been doing, to which your friend replies “Hey, I just get along with everybody.” Is this friend still your friend?
Getting along with everybody is nothing to be proud of. Never being angry at anybody or anything does not make one a god of peace. Rather, it can be a sign of apathy. An individual who truly cares about people is going to get angry at someone and/or something because there is always someone or something that is harming innocent people. This does not mean that we should be angry all the time. What it does mean is that when there are things we truly care about, there is going to be something somewhere that will make us angry at some point in time.
Summary
The true peacekeeper will care about why a dispute or confrontation is taking place because the true peacekeeper is concerned with coming to a resolution to the conflict. The faux peacekeeper, on the other hand, may not care why the confrontation is taking place, as long as it is interrupted and stopped. The faux peacekeeper may even make judgmental assumptions about why the confrontation is taking place, such as assuming that the confrontation is just two people who don’t get along for whatever reason.
The true peacekeeper will recognize that certain altercations are meant to take place, such as when someone is doing something wrong that is harming others and needs to be stood up to. The faux peacekeeper may not recognize that certain altercations need to take place. After all, if the faux peacekeeper cared about why the altercation was taking place, then the faux peacekeeper would recognize the necessity of certain altercations. Faux peacekeepers would rather force everyone to cover everything up with nice words than go through the harder work of actually resolving the conflict. Faux peacekeepers may take an issue, which is meant to be brought out into the open, and lock it away into a state of dormancy where it does not belong.
True peace is not to be confused with an appearance of peace. We can put on an appearance of peace by acting like everything is okay, but such a move can allow any underlying problems to worsen.