Peace, Dialogue and Social Justice: Fari Khabirpour Reflects on Gilbert Pregno
In Peace Dialogues in Luxembourg, Fari Khabirpour offers an Adlerian psychological reflection on Omid Attar’s interview with Gilbert Pregno. This personal commentary develops the conversation about belonging, dignity, migration, mediation and social responsibility.
Dear Omid,
Thank you very much for sharing your interview with Gilbert Pregno. I read it with great interest. I find many of his reflections very rich, humane and clearly rooted in decades of professional experience. I particularly appreciate that he does not understand peace simply as the absence of war or violence, but connects it with inner security, dignity, relationships, belonging and the quality of our institutions.
His reflections on early attachment are very important. A child who experiences security, continuity, attention and care develops an important foundation for later life. From my own Adlerian perspective, however, I would perhaps put slightly more emphasis on the feeling of belonging and self-worth. A child needs not only to learn to love themselves, but also to experience: “I am valuable, I belong, and I have something to contribute.” This feeling of belonging is, in my view, one of the foundations of psychological health and also of peaceful coexistence.
At the same time, I would be careful not to place too much emphasis on early childhood as determining later inner peace. Childhood is enormously important, but human beings remain capable of development throughout life. Later relationships, friendship, therapy, community, spirituality and conscious personal choices can help us repair or reinterpret early experiences. Even a house with imperfect foundations can be strengthened later.
I especially liked Gilbert’s thoughts about “non-cooperation.” His idea that refusing to cooperate may sometimes be a form of self-protection rather than simply a lack of motivation is, in my opinion, very important. Instead of asking only, “Why does this family refuse our help?”, institutions should sometimes ask themselves, “What may have happened in this person’s previous encounters with institutions that made trust so difficult?” His emphasis on small and achievable goals also corresponds very much with my own therapeutic experience.
I also found his criticism of fragmented services very relevant. Having many services does not automatically mean that people receive better help. Sometimes families are surrounded by several institutions and professionals, while nobody really holds the whole picture. His image of the centipede, with every leg having its own brain, is provocative but very expressive.
There are, however, a few points where I would have liked more differentiation.
For example, regarding migration, I would hesitate to say generally that migrants no longer truly belong to the country they left and do not yet belong to the host country. This may certainly be the experience of some migrants, but others develop multiple identities and multiple forms of belonging. A person can become deeply attached to Luxembourg while remaining emotionally and culturally connected to Iran, Italy, Portugal, Syria or another country. Integration does not necessarily require replacing one identity with another.
I also felt that the answer concerning professional downgrading of migrants could have gone further. For a doctor, teacher, engineer or other highly qualified person to work for years far below their qualifications can affect much more than income. It can touch identity, dignity, self-esteem, family relationships and the feeling of being useful to society. Recognition is therefore also a psychological need.
The same applies to the question about mediation. Gilbert describes very well what mediation can achieve, but I would have liked him to address more clearly its limits. There are situations involving violence, abuse, intimidation or major power inequalities where mediation may not be appropriate. Peace does not always mean bringing two people back to the same table. Sometimes peace first requires protection, clear boundaries, distance, justice and accountability.
I also share many of his concerns regarding institutions and children’s rights. However, I personally would formulate some of the political and institutional criticism somewhat more cautiously. Expressions such as calling a political statement “a lie,” or making very broad judgments about the judiciary, may weaken an otherwise thoughtful and psychologically powerful interview. I prefer criticism that identifies the concrete problem, the principle that may have been violated, and what could be done differently. In this way criticism remains strong without becoming unnecessarily confrontational.
Finally, I very much like Gilbert’s idea of the “banality of good.” We often speak so much about violence, injustice and human failure that we forget the enormous number of people who quietly help others every day without receiving public recognition.
Perhaps the main thought I would add to this excellent conversation is that empathy alone is not enough for peace. Peace also requires responsibility, courage, justice, the capacity for dialogue, tolerance of differences and what Adler called social interest or community feeling.
For me, inner and outer peace are therefore inseparable. Inner peace without social responsibility can become self-centred. But social activism without inner development can easily become moralistic, angry or ideological.
Sustainable peace needs both: inner transformation and responsibility for the world around us.
Thank you again, Omid, for initiating such a meaningful conversation. I think Gilbert’s reflections offer many valuable starting points for further dialogue.
Warm regards,
Fari
Comments