Betteln – Bedürfnisse, Ambivalenzen, Dilemmata Wilfried Graf Linda Schönbauer-Brousek

Widerspruch Mehr Kontrolle Mehr Solidarität Compromise is a win / win. Transformation: does not mean necessarily that the parties get what they fought for, they do not reach their original goal, but they could define a new goal, and ideally they get even more than they fought for, or get something which makes what they originally fought for less interesting! Story! Mehr Solidarität

1. Ebene: Konkreter Konflikt INTENTION & VERHALTEN „Konfliktpsyche“ Konfliktstrategie Conflict is not the same than violence. We all know that conflict can be something positive. It depends mainly on our behavior, do we act in a violent way, then it is destructive, or are we able to use non violent means? Then it can can become very constructive. And actually the behavior is all we can see in a conflict. Often we do not know about the contradictions, the incompatible goals, because violent conflict create a kind of self dynamics, which let forget about the root causes of a conflict. And we do not know anything about the attitudes, feelings of the conflict parties. But a conflict is always defined by these three aspects. And as conflict workers we always have to keep them in mind. One shortcoming of peace-building in my point of view is that often we only focus on one of these three aspects. Lederach f.e. says that there is a process - structure gap in peace-building. Some Pbers are very process oriented, but not outcome oriented. So they mainly try to transform behavior and attitudes and believe that this is sufficient to find a solution, an overarching goals for all conflict parties, they go even as far to say that there is no solution, but only transformation. Peace is the process of transforming conflicts from violence to dialogue. Some Pbers think that a new structure will resolve the conflict, without looking at behavior and attitudes and that imposed structures could be accepted. Peace is a structure, static, which needs to be controlled. But we have to combine both, we need a process and structure oriented approach. ANNAHMEN & HALTUNGEN WIDERSPRUCH Konfliktkultur Konfliktstruktur

2. Ebene: Gesellschaftlicher Kontext POLITISCHE STRATEGIEN (direkte Macht und Gewalt) Conflict is not the same than violence. We all know that conflict can be something positive. It depends mainly on our behavior, do we act in a violent way, then it is destructive, or are we able to use non violent means? Then it can can become very constructive. And actually the behavior is all we can see in a conflict. Often we do not know about the contradictions, the incompatible goals, because violent conflict create a kind of self dynamics, which let forget about the root causes of a conflict. And we do not know anything about the attitudes, feelings of the conflict parties. But a conflict is always defined by these three aspects. And as conflict workers we always have to keep them in mind. One shortcoming of peace-building in my point of view is that often we only focus on one of these three aspects. Lederach f.e. says that there is a process - structure gap in peace-building. Some Pbers are very process oriented, but not outcome oriented. So they mainly try to transform behavior and attitudes and believe that this is sufficient to find a solution, an overarching goals for all conflict parties, they go even as far to say that there is no solution, but only transformation. Peace is the process of transforming conflicts from violence to dialogue. Some Pbers think that a new structure will resolve the conflict, without looking at behavior and attitudes and that imposed structures could be accepted. Peace is a structure, static, which needs to be controlled. But we have to combine both, we need a process and structure oriented approach. KULTURELLE WERTE (symbolische Macht und Gewalt) SOZIALE INTERESSEN (strukturelle Macht und Gewalt)

3. Ebene: Menschliche Grundbedürfnisse PSYCHISCH PHYSISCH z.B.: Kontrolle / Selbstbestimmung Wertschätzung / Verständnis / Liebe Lebenssinn Muße Kreativität Transzendenz z.B.: Überleben Sicherheit / Schutz Lebenserhaltung Subsistenz KULTURELL z.B.: Wohlbefinden Teilnahme / Partizipation Zuwendung Entwicklung Erkenntnis / Wissen Gerechtigkeit SOZIAL z.B.: Zugehörigkeit Raum für emotionalen Ausdruck Kulturelle Identität

BettlerInnen: Ich kann die Sprache nicht, hab keine Schule gemacht, hab keine Chance. Darum habe ich mich auch nicht um Arbeit bemüht. Ich würde von Herzen gerne eine Arbeit annehmen … der Rest ergibt sich dann von selbst. VerweigerInnen/VermeiderInnen: Das kann auch aggressiv werden, wenn ich so oft angebettelt werde. Das ist zu eng. Das will ich nicht. Ich möchte auch ganz böse sagen können: Leute wir wollen euch hier nicht. GeberInnen: Mitgefühl und Mitleid schwingt oft mit und veranlasst mich eher etwas mehr zu geben. Vielleicht stimmt doch wieder einiges was man über diese Menschen sagt. Das ist emotional sicher da auch wenn ich etwas gebe.

Gruppendiskussion Erfahrungen und Vorschläge aus meiner Rolle heraus: Was habe ich erfahren bzw. was habe ich gefühlt? Welche Bedürfnisse, Ambivalenzen, Dilemmata? Was würde auf einer tieferen Ebene von den Anderen wirklich brauchen - als BettlerIn, aber auch als GeberIn, und auch als VerweigerIn/VermeiderIn? Was glaube ich brauchen die Anderen? FAZIT: Was von diesen Erfahrungen erscheint mir notwendig zu berücksichtigen, um zu kreativen, nachhaltigen Lösungsperspektiven zu kommen?