Conflict Resolution
It is probably safe to say that the act of resolving conflict has always
been part of human interaction and social development. Every society has
created various means of regulating disputes among its own members and
between it and other societies. These have most often involved people in
positions of authority judging between the right and wrong actions of others
and deciding the proper means of punishing, controlling or redressing
wrongs. For governments, authority is backed up by the ability to use force
against individuals and groups within society and to make war against other
states.
In most societies -- whether it is a case judged by a parent over a child,
village elders over adults, or an international court judging the rights or
wrongs of nations -- the basic principles of resolving disputes remain the
same. A party who feels aggrieved complains and the case is argued before
someone whose role it is to decide who is right and who is wrong. In some
cases, the person found to be in the wrong can be punished with force, made
to apologise, seek forgiveness or provide some compensation, or is simply
warned not to repeat the offence. This process implies that the judge or
arbiter has authority and credibility, as well as the power -- either moral
or coercive -- to impose a decision on a wrongdoer. It also implies that the
decision is accepted by all involved as being the appropriate outcome.
Since the 1960s, social scientists and others with an interest in lessening
the dangers and consequences of widespread violent conflict through peaceful
processes have been attempting to more systematically describe, evaluate and
refine different means of settling conflicts. This has involved testing
assumptions about what conflict is, how it escalates or de-escalates, and
how and by whom it can best be managed, resolved or transformed. Many
proponents of conflict resolution have also attempted to promote the
substitution of negotiation and mediation for the use of force in resolving
disputes, while others have retained the possibility of the use of force as
one instrument among many that can be used to terminate a dispute.
There are two broad orientations or approaches to conflict resolution --
competitive and co-operative. The competitive processes are often associated
with what are now termed "zero-sum" situations, where the winner takes all,
and which involve adversarial behaviour. Co-operative approaches are said to
result in "positive-sum" situations, resulting in a 'win-win' outcome, where
all are winners. Ranged along this competitive/co-operative continuum are
the actual or threatened use of force, litigation, adjudication or
arbitration, conciliation, traditional mediation, and facilitated
problem-solving aimed at coming to integrative and collaborative solutions.
These different kinds of approaches are used in conflicts between
individuals, groups, communities, and states.
In general, much of conflict resolution theory builds the case for using
co-operative and peaceful means of resolving disputes. Rather than a
judgment being brought down on two adversaries, conflict resolution seeks to
build consensus among parties to a dispute and those affected by it -- a
family, an extended family, a clan, community or national polity. This kind
of process can involve prolonged discussion leading to better understanding
of the issues involved and the gradual realisation by all involved that
alternatives exist to pursuing the original claim for punishment or
compensation or a combination of the two.
Current definitions of conflict differ whether you are talking to a
political scientist, a communications expert, religious philosopher, a
security expert, a psychologist or others -- and often among practitioners
of the same discipline. A key problem with coming to a hard and fast
definition of conflict is that it is regularly described in subjective
rather than objective terms. In fact, rigidly defining conflict may hinder
our ability to understand conflict in all its complexity.
With those qualifications in mind, one general working definition is that
conflict is a situation in which an individual or group is engaged in
conscious opposition to one or more individuals or groups because both are
pursuing goals which are perceived to be incompatible. Another way of
looking at conflict is as a multi-dimensional social phenomenon which is an
essential part of human interaction and interdependence. It is often
directly related to change, sometimes violent change, and in general terms,
represents part of a decision-making process which leads to making a choice
between perceived possibilities.
For many, violence is the most extreme manifestation of conflict. Peace
researcher Johan Galtung draws a distinction between physical and
psychological violence, the first being direct physical violence against a
person that causes hurt and can include killing, and, the second, "violence
that works on the soul" -- lies, brainwashing, threats. Galtung also
differentiates between direct or personal violence and structural violence,
the latter being synonymous with social injustice. Within these two broad
categories, types of violence can be broken down further into ethnic,
religious, social, political or economic violence.
Often, various types of violence are part of a widespread interwoven dynamic
which can engulf or directly affect localities, states or entire regions.
For example, in many parts of Africa, intergenerational conflict and blocked
economic and educational opportunities are seen to partly explain the
readiness of disaffected youths to become involved in violence.
Evidently, conflict is both the cause and consequence of change.
Nevertheless, some consider conflict to be an aberration from the norm
because it can provoke deviant and often dysfunctional behaviour. Others
have equated conflict with sex because it provides cathartic events
necessary for human existence. Conflict is also seen by some to be a useful
means of bargaining at both the domestic and international levels of human
society. Kwame Ninsin describes conflict "...as a struggle for access to
opportunities, life chances -- to the existing rights and privileges of
society, which define citizenship within the nation state. Citizenship
refers to the rights and obligations associated with membership of the
nation-state. Conflict is the means by which deprived groups seek to obtain
those rights and privileges, which define one's position in the prevailing
political order."
One cause of conflict has been identified by social scientists as the
non-fulfilment of needs. A fundamental element in this framework for
describing conflict is the role of communication, which can generate
perceptions and misperceptions about issues such as justice and injustice.
"Fear and threat, denial of participation rights, perceived injustice,
disappointment in expectations are typical origins of conflict," according
to conflict resolution theorist and practitioner John Burton. Misperceptions
of the environment in which conflict takes place are also causal factors.
The socio-biological interpretation of what conflict is also differentiates
between values, interests and needs. Internal and international conflicts
are not simply products of misunderstandings or misperceptions or competing
definitions of national interest. Interests are negotiable, values are
cultural and less subject to change, but universal human needs for security,
participation, identity, and recognition are non-negotiable. The argument is
that these needs are considered vital to both the individual and the
organisation and survival of the society as a whole and will be relentlessly
pursued.
As soon as conflict turns violent, its nature changes. Immediately, concerns
about security and survival form a layer on top of the matrix of conflictual
but, until then, non-violent competition over interests and needs. Resolving
violent conflict must take into account these two dimensions -- underlying
interests and needs and the dynamics and consequences of violence. Often, in
attempts at putting a rapid end to violence, the latter takes precedence
over the underlying causes of conflicts -- addressing issues of insecurity
then takes precedence over achieving just relationships in society.
Essentially, conflict resolution for social scientists is meant to change
attitudes and perceptions of disputants and allow them to absorb new
information and engage in a process of creative problem-solving through the
reviewing or "reframing" of the conflict situation with the use of
"controlled" communication. This is based on the premise that resolving
conflicts is possible by bringing about altered perceptions through the
drawing of attention to options not previously considered. This is done by
improving communication between conflicting parties.
