conflict
The current conflicts in my life experience range from dyadic interpersonal struggles between siblings to genocide in Sudan. In between are political, corporate, municipal and neighborhood conflicts, labor disputes, court battles, and philosophical debates. While some of these conflicts are extremely complex in their history, causes and influences, others seem extraordinarily simple and straightforward. In reality, however, all of these conflicts are at once both simple in their causes, and complex in their solutions. Like the legendary sibling struggle between Cain and Abel, these conflicts can easily be traced to basic faults in the human spirit that cause us to elevate ourselves at the expense of others. However, the Cain and Abel conflict also reflects the complex context in which those basic faults find nurture, and the tangled consequences of acting them out.
As Wehr (1998) points out, the development of our knowledge about the operatives of conflict and the tools for managing it have evolved from what he calls folk knowledge to a more sophisticated discipline of diplomacy and peace-making. The study of human conflict has changed as technological advances have changed the rate, scope and potential mortality of conflict. Our interest in conflict management has bounded forward as societies have addressed class, ethnic and religious struggles.
Today then, we have a highly bureaucratized system of conflict management: grievance procedures in the workplace, statutory limitations on behaviors, due process in the courts, arbitration boards, legions of diplomats to make peace, and soldiers to keep peace. Successive crises in human history have launched fresh attempts to understand and manage conflicts (Wehr, 1998).
The diffusion of psychology has helped drive conflict knowledge to an increasingly individual level. This is illustrated by describing conflicts as having roots in identity and feelings, as well as situational facts (Stone, Patton & Heen, 1999). Although psychology changed some of the parameters of diplomacy, the use of intermediaries is not really a new development. In Biblical texts, the earliest form of Jewish government relied upon “judges”, whose primary roles were to act as intermediaries not only between quarrelling Israelites, but also between Israel and other countries. Later, kings fulfilled this role – exemplified in the famous conflict resolution Solomon used in a dispute between two women over an infant.
Today (September 11) it is difficult not to feel in desperate need of Solomonic wisdom to manage the relgio-political conflicts. Solomon acted as an arbitrator – just one of many conflict management roles that have been identified in the various taxonomies created by conflict resolution scholars. These taxonomies define the diverse roles that third parties play in helping parties in conflict move forward. Parents, businesspeople, politicians and nations are often required to fulfill more than one of these roles at a time.
One taxonomy (Ury, 2000) includes these third-party roles:
1. Provider: is able to give one or both parties resources needed to mitigate or manage the conflict.
2. Teacher: introduces new ideas for managing the conflict, or new ways to approach the conflict
3. Bridge-builder: brings the parties together, often physically, so they can engage in processes to manage conflict
4. Mediators: help the parties work out the problems on their own.
5. Arbitrators: listen to both sides and then decide what should happen
6. Equalizers: who empower the parties with lesser power so they can negotiate more effectively with the other parties.
7. Healers: lead parties in the process of apology, forgiveness, and reconciliation.
8. Witnesses: observe what is going on and call attention to injustice
9. Referees: keep both sides "fighting fairly"
10. Peacekeepers: keeps the parties apart so they don't fight (at least physically) at all
The work of conflict resolution, like that of business ethics, seems to be led by persons with deeply held religious beliefs. From Ghandi (Hindu) to Carter (Baptist), Laue (Methodist), and Augsburger (Evangelical). This may be because the root of conflict is universally seen as an outworking of spiritual dysfunction within individuals. Augsburger in particular, looks to Biblical foundations for his concept of conflict transformation (1992). This idea that to find a “good end” to a conflict requires some kind of redemptive change within the parties speaks both to the idealism inherent in peace studies, and the overwhelming enormity of the task. Transformations are much harder to initiate and sustain than simple peacekeeping, or managing conflicts.
Yet Augsburger’s approach is perhaps the most honest, in that it readily recognizes that conflicts cannot be resolved simply by changing rules, changing issues, or changing circumstances. Peace comes when people change, and set aside self promotion at the expense of others.
Works Cited
Augsburger, D. W. (1992). Conflict mediation across cultures: Pathways and patterns. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.
Stone, D., Patton, B. and Heen, S. (1999). Difficult conversations: How to
discuss what matters most. New York: Penguin Books.
Carter J. Laue, J. (1991) A Conversation On Peacemaking With Jimmy Carter. Washington , D.C.: National Institute for Dispute Resolution, at the Fifth National Conference on Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution, Charlotte, NC, June 7, 1991. http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/example/acon7268.htm accessed September 10, 2004.
Ury, W. (2000) The Third Side. New York: Penguin Books. Cited in Burgess, H. Intermediary Roles. BeyondIntractability.org. Accessed online at http://www.intractableconflict.org/m/intermediary_roles.jsp on September 10, 2004.
Wehr, P. (1998) The Development of Conflict Knowledge. Conflict Research Consortium. Accessed online at www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/essay/wehr7492.htm on September 10, 2004
As Wehr (1998) points out, the development of our knowledge about the operatives of conflict and the tools for managing it have evolved from what he calls folk knowledge to a more sophisticated discipline of diplomacy and peace-making. The study of human conflict has changed as technological advances have changed the rate, scope and potential mortality of conflict. Our interest in conflict management has bounded forward as societies have addressed class, ethnic and religious struggles.
Today then, we have a highly bureaucratized system of conflict management: grievance procedures in the workplace, statutory limitations on behaviors, due process in the courts, arbitration boards, legions of diplomats to make peace, and soldiers to keep peace. Successive crises in human history have launched fresh attempts to understand and manage conflicts (Wehr, 1998).
The diffusion of psychology has helped drive conflict knowledge to an increasingly individual level. This is illustrated by describing conflicts as having roots in identity and feelings, as well as situational facts (Stone, Patton & Heen, 1999). Although psychology changed some of the parameters of diplomacy, the use of intermediaries is not really a new development. In Biblical texts, the earliest form of Jewish government relied upon “judges”, whose primary roles were to act as intermediaries not only between quarrelling Israelites, but also between Israel and other countries. Later, kings fulfilled this role – exemplified in the famous conflict resolution Solomon used in a dispute between two women over an infant.
Today (September 11) it is difficult not to feel in desperate need of Solomonic wisdom to manage the relgio-political conflicts. Solomon acted as an arbitrator – just one of many conflict management roles that have been identified in the various taxonomies created by conflict resolution scholars. These taxonomies define the diverse roles that third parties play in helping parties in conflict move forward. Parents, businesspeople, politicians and nations are often required to fulfill more than one of these roles at a time.
One taxonomy (Ury, 2000) includes these third-party roles:
1. Provider: is able to give one or both parties resources needed to mitigate or manage the conflict.
2. Teacher: introduces new ideas for managing the conflict, or new ways to approach the conflict
3. Bridge-builder: brings the parties together, often physically, so they can engage in processes to manage conflict
4. Mediators: help the parties work out the problems on their own.
5. Arbitrators: listen to both sides and then decide what should happen
6. Equalizers: who empower the parties with lesser power so they can negotiate more effectively with the other parties.
7. Healers: lead parties in the process of apology, forgiveness, and reconciliation.
8. Witnesses: observe what is going on and call attention to injustice
9. Referees: keep both sides "fighting fairly"
10. Peacekeepers: keeps the parties apart so they don't fight (at least physically) at all
The work of conflict resolution, like that of business ethics, seems to be led by persons with deeply held religious beliefs. From Ghandi (Hindu) to Carter (Baptist), Laue (Methodist), and Augsburger (Evangelical). This may be because the root of conflict is universally seen as an outworking of spiritual dysfunction within individuals. Augsburger in particular, looks to Biblical foundations for his concept of conflict transformation (1992). This idea that to find a “good end” to a conflict requires some kind of redemptive change within the parties speaks both to the idealism inherent in peace studies, and the overwhelming enormity of the task. Transformations are much harder to initiate and sustain than simple peacekeeping, or managing conflicts.
Yet Augsburger’s approach is perhaps the most honest, in that it readily recognizes that conflicts cannot be resolved simply by changing rules, changing issues, or changing circumstances. Peace comes when people change, and set aside self promotion at the expense of others.
Works Cited
Augsburger, D. W. (1992). Conflict mediation across cultures: Pathways and patterns. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.
Stone, D., Patton, B. and Heen, S. (1999). Difficult conversations: How to
discuss what matters most. New York: Penguin Books.
Carter J. Laue, J. (1991) A Conversation On Peacemaking With Jimmy Carter. Washington , D.C.: National Institute for Dispute Resolution, at the Fifth National Conference on Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution, Charlotte, NC, June 7, 1991. http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/example/acon7268.htm accessed September 10, 2004.
Ury, W. (2000) The Third Side. New York: Penguin Books. Cited in Burgess, H. Intermediary Roles. BeyondIntractability.org. Accessed online at http://www.intractableconflict.org/m/intermediary_roles.jsp on September 10, 2004.
Wehr, P. (1998) The Development of Conflict Knowledge. Conflict Research Consortium. Accessed online at www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/essay/wehr7492.htm on September 10, 2004
Comments