|
Welcome to our pilot project in Distance Learning on the Internet. The draft outline for the course, at left, should give you an idea of what the course will include when it is completed. The first three units (drafts only!) of the course are available below for study and comment. Use the links in the outline frame to navigate through the material. Please consult the handbook for other important information about the course.
All material © 2000, Centre for Conflict Resolution.
Suggested citation: Centre for Conflict Resolution (2000) "Introduction to Conflict Resolution: Draft Distance Learning Course." Bradford, UK: Department of Peace Studies. http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/confres/dislearn (access date).
Please be patient- this project is still under development. Updates and new material will be posted on this site regularly. If you have any comments, suggestions or would like more information, please contact Laina Reynolds, laina@earthling.net. Site last updated 02 July, 2001
This unit attempts to familiarise you with some of the basic tools and terms used in the field of conflict resolution. By listing these eight foundational concepts, we do not mean to imply that there are no other theoretical or practical insights available in the field, but that a basic understanding of the literature and the subsequent units in this course requires an initial understanding of these concepts. After studying the material in this unit and doing the exercises, you should:
- Be familiar with the basic analytical terms and tools used to understand conflict and conflict resolution;
- Be introduced to the variety of conflict resolution techniques and the main approaches to resolving conflict;
- Have begun to explore the application of conflict resolution theory or insights to conflicts that you have experienced.
In this course we use conflict to mean the pursuit of incompatible goals by different people or groups. This suggests a broader span of time and a wider class of struggle than armed conflict. We intend our usage here to apply to any conflict whether it is pursued by peaceful means or by the use of force.
Armed conflict is a narrower category denoting conflicts where parties on both sides resort to the use of force. It is notoriously difficult to define, since it can encompass a continuum of situations ranging from a military overflight or an attack on a civilian by a single soldier to an all-out war with massive casualties.
Violent conflict or deadly conflict is similar to armed conflict, but also includes one-sided violence such as genocide against unarmed civilians. We acknowledge the strong argument in peace research for broadening the concept of violence to include exploitative social relations that cause unnecessary suffering, but prefer to use the term 'structural violence' for this.
Conflict is experienced at all levels of human activity from the intra-personal to the international. Although many people and cultures regard conflict as a negative experience, it need not be. It is an intrinsic and inevitable aspect of social life, and is often a catalyst for beneficial change.
Within the field of conflict resolution the main aim is not to eliminate all conflict, which would be impossible and probably damaging, but to transform violent conflicts into processes of peaceful social change. The basic vocabulary and principles of conflict resolution can be used to analyse and resolve conflicts at all levels. The main focus of the rest of this unit will be to outline these basic terms and propositions.
|
|
Conflicts are complex processes. However, there are certain basic elements of structure and process which conflict situations have in common. One way of conceptualising the relationship between these elements is a triangle with Attitudes, Behaviours and Structure at the points. Each element influences and is influenced by the others (see Box 1). Although this definition allows the various components of conflict to be examined separately, in practice and experience they are, of course, interlinked.
Attitudes include the parties' perceptions and misperceptions of each other and of themselves. These can be positive or negative, but in violent conflict parties tend to develop demeaning stereotypes of the other. Attitudes are often influenced by emotions such as fear, anger, bitterness and hatred. Behaviours can include cooperation or coercion, gestures signifying conciliation or hostility. Violent conflict behaviour is characterised by threats, coercion and destructive attacks. Structures refer to the political mechanisms, processes and institutions that influence the distribution and satisfaction of security, recognition and identity needs.
Conflict is a dynamic process in which structure, attitudes and behaviours are constantly changing and influencing one another. A conflict emerges as parties' interests come into conflict or the relationship they are in becomes oppressive. Conflict parties then begin to develop hostile attitudes and conflictual behaviour. The conflict formation starts to grow and develop. As it does so, it may widen, draw in other parties, deepen, and spread, generating secondary conflicts within the main parties or among outsiders who get sucked in. This often considerably complicates the task of addressing the original, core conflict. Eventually however, resolving the conflict must involve a set of dynamic, interdependent changes that involve de-escalation of conflict behaviour, change in attitudes, and transformation of relationships or structures.
Conflict formations can arise out of social change, leading to processes of violent or nonviolent conflict transformation. This can result in further social change in which suppressed or marginalised individuals or groups begin to articulate their interests and challenge existing norms and power structures. Box 2 shows a schematic illustration of the phases of conflict and the forms of intervention that may be feasible at different stages. A schematic 'life-cycle' of conflict sees a progression from peaceful social change to conflict formation to violent conflict and then to conflict transformation and back to peaceful social change. But this is not the only path. The sequence can go from conflict formation to conflict transformation and back to social change, avoiding violence. Or it can go from conflict formation to violent conflict back to the creation of fresh conflicts.
There are subjective and objective elements in all conflict situations and both need to be addressed in the resolution process. The objective aspects are those that are largely independent of the parties perceptions, including competition for power, scarce resources, territory, or other historically determined institutions and structures. Analysts who emphasise 'objective' elements of conflict are said to have an 'instrumental' view of the sources of conflict. Subjective approaches to conflict resolution involve attempts to improve the ways in which parties understand and behave towards each other. Analysts who emphasise these 'subjective' aspects are said to have an 'expressive' view of the sources of conflict.
Recent work suggests that conflict can be best understood if both levels of analysis are pursued. Real differences in interests can cause conflict, but once a conflict has started, the perceptions, beliefs and interaction of the parties are crucial in determining its outcome.
The conflict in Northern Ireland provides an example of how the subjective and objective elements of a conflict situation interact. There is a core issue involving a scarce resource (territory, or to be more precise, the exclusive control of that territory) and two communities with mutually exclusive preferred solutions to the territorial issue. The parties define their separate identities with the oppositional labels of religion (Catholic/ Protestant), which embraces larger cultural divisions of history, heritage and political tradition. Thus, at one level, the root of the conflict lies in the objective political issue of territorial sovereignty.
However, the objective aspect of the conflict is embedded in layers of subjective considerations. These include:
- The history of the two communities as descendants of separate indigenous and settler cultures in Ireland over several centuries;
- The deep fault-lines of social, political and economic discrimination institutionalised in 50 years of Unionist/Protestant legislative domination 1922-1972;
- The polarising and alienating effects of the institutionalisation of violence as a part of the daily norm since 1969.
This complex intertwining of elements has produced a society dominated by mutual opposition, mistrust and fear and has made Northern Ireland one of Europe's most intractable contemporary conflicts. The process of negotiation and mediation that led to the Good Friday agreement between representatives of the two communities has had to address both elements of the conflict.
One of the classical ideas in conflict resolution is to distinguish between the positions (i.e. concrete demands) held by the parties and their underlying interests and needs. Interests are often easier to reconcile than positions, since there are usually several positions that might satisfy them.
For example, two neighbours quarrel over a tree. Each neighbour takes the position that the tree is on her land. No compromise is possible: the tree cannot be sawn in half. But it turns out that the interest of one neighbour is in using the fruit of the tree, and the interest of the other is in having the shade. The positions may be irreconcilable but the interests are not.
Matters may be more difficult if the conflict is over values (which are often non-negotiable) or relationships, which may need to be changed to resolve the conflict, although the same principle of looking for a deeper level of compatible underlying motives applies. Some analysts take this to the limit by identifying basic human needs (for example, identity, security and survival) as lying at the roots of other motives. Intractable conflicts are seen to result from the denial of such needs, and conflict can only be resolved when such needs are satisfied. The argument of these analysts is that, whereas interests may be subject to relative scarcity, basic needs are not (for example, security for one party is reinforced by security for the other). As long as the conflict is translated into the language of needs, an outcome that satisfies both sides' needs can be found.
In the Camp David negotiations between Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat of Egypt over the status of the Sinai Peninsula, each took the position that his country wanted complete control of the land. On deeper investigation, they discovered that the Israeli's primary interest was in security- having fought a series of wars with their neighbours. The Egyptians interest was in sovereignty, having only recently achieved independence. This enabled the two sides to come up with a solution that satisfied the interests and needs of each without impinging on the other's. The Sinai was given to the Egyptians (sovereignty), but was demilitarised (security). By exploring a range of positions that satisfied their underlying needs, the conflict was resolved.
As in the above example of Israel and Egypt, parties to conflicts are usually inclined to see their interests as diametrically opposed. Leaders of nations are expected to defend the national interest and to defeat the interests of others if they come into conflict. The possible outcomes are seen to be win-lose (one wins, the other loses) or compromise (they split their difference). But there is a much more common outcome in violent conflicts: both lose. If neither is able to impose an outcome or is prepared to compromise, the conflictants may impose such massive costs on each other that all of the parties end up worse off than they would have been had another strategy been adopted. In conflict resolution analysis this is found to be a much more common outcome than is generally supposed. When this becomes clear to the parties (often regrettably late in the day), there is a strong motive based on self-interest for moving towards other outcomes, such as compromise or 'win-win'.
The spectrum of such outcomes may well be wider than conflictants suppose. Box 3 shows various possible outcomes of the rivalry between Cain and Abel for the Lord's favour. Any point towards the right is better for Abel, any point towards the top is better for Cain. Cain sees the situation as a zero-sum conflict: at point 1 (his best outcome) he gets the Lord's favour, at 2 (his worst) the Lord favours Abel. All the other possibilities lie on the line from 1 to 2 in which the Lord divides his favour, more or less equally, between the two brothers. Point 3 represents a possible compromise position. But it is the other diagonal, representing the nonzero-sum outcomes, that is more interesting from a conflict resolution perspective: the mutual loss that actually occurred, at 0, when Abel was slain and Cain lost the Lord's favour, and the mutual gain they missed, at 4, if each had been his brother's keeper.
Traditionally, the task of conflict resolution has been seen as helping parties who perceive their situation as zero-sum (Self's gain is Other's loss) to re-perceive it as a nonzero-sum conflict (in which both may gain or both may lose), and then to assist parties to move in the positive sum direction. Taking account of the future relationship is one way out of the trap of win-lose thinking. At the deepest level, treating conflicts between parties with long-term relationships such as family members, communities, or neighbouring states as win-lose situations is a pure fiction, because if conflicts are 'resolved' at the expense of one of the parties, they are likely to resurface. In a complex conflict, the parties will typically have different values or opinions regarding the relative importance of each issue, predictions about future gains, the importance of symbolic acts and so on. These differences can be leveraged so that the solution has a high relative value for each disputant, while minimising painful compromises or trade-offs. In conflict resolution theory it is generally noted that in order for conflict settlements to be durable they should have integrative (win-win) outcomes so that the interests and needs of the groups in conflict can be recognised and satisfied mutually
|
|
So far we have been considering conflicts of interest between relatively similar parties. These are examples of symmetric conflicts. Conflict may also arise between dissimilar parties such as between a majority and a minority, an established government and a group of rebels, an employer and her employees, a master and his servant, or a publisher and her authors. These are asymmetric conflicts. Here the root of the conflict lies not in particular issues or interests that may divide the parties, but in the very structure of who they are and the relationship between them. It may be that this structure of roles and relationships cannot be changed without conflict.
Classical conflict resolution, in some views, applies only to symmetric conflicts. In asymmetric conflicts the structure is such that the top dog always wins, the under-dog always loses. The only way to resolve the conflict is to change the structure, but this can never be in the interests of the top dog. So there are no win-win outcomes, and the third party has to join forces with the under-dog to bring about a resolution.
From another point of view, however, even asymmetric conflicts impose costs on both parties. It is oppressive to be an oppressor, even if not so oppressive as to be oppressed. There are costs for the top dogs in sustaining themselves in power and keeping the under-dogs down. In severe asymmetric conflicts the cost of the relationship becomes unbearable for both sides. This then opens the possibility for conflict resolution through a shift from the existing structure of relationships to another.
The role of the third party is to assist with this transformation, confronting the top dog if necessary. This means transforming unpeaceful, unbalanced relationships into peaceful and dynamic ones. Box 4 illustrates how the passage from unpeaceful to peaceful relationships may involve a temporary increase in overt conflict as people become aware of imbalances of power and injustice affecting them (stage 1, education or 'conscientization'), organise themselves and articulate their grievances (stage 2, confrontation). They may then begin to negotiate on a more equal footing with those who held power over them (stage 3), and finally join in restructuring a more equitable and just relationship (stage 4, resolution).
There are many ways in which this can be approached without using violent coercion. There is the Gandhian tactic of 'speaking truth to power,' influencing and persuading the power-holders. Then there are the tactics of mobilising popular movements, increasing solidarity, making demonstrations of resolve, establishing a demand for change. Raising awareness of the conflict among those who are external or internal supporters of the top dog may start to weaken the regime (for example, the mobilisation against South Africa's apartheid system by many outside countries). An unequal power structure is unbalanced—it is held up by props of various kinds. Removing the props may make the unbalanced structure collapse. Another tactic is to strengthen and empower the under-dogs. The under-dogs may withdraw from the unbalanced relationship and start building anew: the parallel institutions approach. Non-violence uses 'soft power' to move towards a more balanced relationship.
Many terms are frequently, and almost interchangeably, used in the field of conflict resolution to describe the activities and processes that bring conflict to an end. However, some of these terminological approaches have distinct implications for the outcome of a conflict situation. Here we will briefly examine the three most significant approaches.
Conflict management, like the associated term 'conflict regulation,' is often confusingly used as a generic term to cover the whole gamut of positive conflict handling, including settlement and resolution. However, it used here to refer to the limitation, mitigation and containment of conflict rather than the durable elimination of the causes of conflict.
Conflict settlement refers to an approach emphasising the reaching of agreement between the parties through negotiation and bargaining. A settlement, in this definition, means an agreement about the conflict issues that often involves a compromise or some concessions from both sides. Using this approach, neither side may achieve all of their goals, but the disappointment may be offset by the mutuality of the compromise. Third party mediators in settlement-type process often use pressure, inducements and/ or threats in order to compel the conflict parties to agree to a compromise solution.
A settlement is often the quickest solution to a difficult or violent situation. Critics charge, however, that its efficacy is temporary because the underlying relationships and structures that have caused the conflict remain unaddressed. In practice, conflicts that have reached settlements are often re-opened later. The Versailles peace treaty that ended World War I is one example of a settlement which failed to resolve the causes of the conflict. It did bring an end to the open hostilities of the war, but in imposing harsh conditions on a defeated Germany, it laid the seeds of future conflict.
Conflict resolution is a more comprehensive approach based on mutual problem-sharing between the conflict parties. Resolution of a conflict implies that the deep-rooted sources of conflict are addressed, changing behaviour so it is no longer violent, attitudes so they are no longer hostile, and structures so they are no longer exploitative. The term is used to refer both to the process (or the intention) to bring about these changes, and to the completion of the process, so it is difficult to avoid ambiguity about its precise meaning. The process of conflict resolution includes becoming aware of a conflict, diagnosing its nature and applying appropriate methods in order to:
- Diffuse the negative emotional energy involved;
- Enable the disputing parties to understand and resolve their differences;
- Resolve the differences so as to achieve solutions that are not imposed, which have been agreed by all the key parties, and which address the root causes of the conflict.
A resolution process is based on the needs of the primary parties to a particular conflict, rather than on the interests or assumptions of the 'resolvers'. This approach is seen to be in clear opposition to traditional notions of power politics. The main objective of this approach is that any conflict should not be viewed as a contest to be won but as a problem to be solved. Box 5 summarises the main differences between the settlement and resolution approaches to conflict.
There are a variety of strategies employed within the field of conflict resolution to manage and resolve conflict at all levels of social interaction. In practice, the most appropriate way to approach a particular conflict will vary according to the level on which it occurs, our personality, the power or resources we possess, our perspective on the future, the strength of our feelings and the complexity of the problem. This section examines the most prominent techniques in the field.
Negotiation is a process whereby the parties to the conflict seek to settle or resolve their conflicts themselves. It is a process of direct communication between the conflict parties, without the presence of a third party facilitator, in an effort to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Negotiation sometimes means a very formalised process, such as the negotiations between labour union and management representatives. It can also refer to the informal process through which everyday decisions get made, for example, negotiation between family members about who gets to use the newly purchased car.
Mediation refers to a dispute resolution process involving the assistance of a third party; it is voluntary and the parties retain control over the outcome, although it may include positive and negative inducements. Mediation occurs on many different levels and can refer to very different types of third-party intervention. In most contexts, including community-level mediation, the mediator acts as a neutral facilitator of the process of communication, and remains impartial between the parties and with regard to the outcome of the conflict. This sort of mediation is sometimes referred to as 'soft' or 'pure' mediation. The Camp David agreement between Israel and Egypt, mediated by then-US President Jimmy Carter, provides an example of what is sometimes called 'mediation with muscle' or 'official' mediation. Although the agreement at which Sadat and Begin arrived was mutual and voluntary, Carter's role as the third party was neither entirely disinterested nor powerless. He was able to offer the powerful incentive of improved relations with the US in order to encourage the parties to reach an agreement. Box 5 summarises the different relationships between the conflict parties and the third party in arbitration, mediation and negotiation.
Conciliation or facilitation is close in meaning to pure mediation, and refers to non-coercive intermediary efforts to encourage the parties to move towards negotiations, as does the more minimalist role of providing good offices. The Quaker model of mediating between warring parties is a good example of facilitation (about which more in Unit 2), while the most prominent provider of good offices is the United Nations Secretary-General.
Problem-solving is an unofficial third-party intervention technique in which conflict parties are invited to participate in jointly analysing their conflict with the goal of reconceptualising their relationship and situation in order to find creative, win-win outcomes. Problem-solving usually takes place in a workshop format involving a panel of academic facilitators with experience in social psychology and conflict resolution. Non-official community members, including prominent activists, lawmakers and other influential people, normally represent the conflict parties. The approach gets its name from the goal of changing the parties' perception of the conflict from a contest to be won to a problem to be solved. The origin and development of problem solving will be discussed in more detail in the section of Unit 2 dealing with the contributions of John Burton to conflict resolution.
|
|
