While some analysts see it as a significant departure from conflict resolution, others like Miall, Ramsbotham, and Woodhouse view conflict transformation as a further development of conflict resolution. For them, the aim of conflict resolution is to transform conflict. Perhaps more importantly, they also suggest that the transformation concept provides some utility regarding our understanding of peace processes in the sense that transformation denotes a sequence of necessary transitional steps.
Such a transformation represents not only removing the sources and causes of the situation that brought about the conflict, but also necessitates a psychic transformation in the attitudes and relationship between the parties.
This underlying assumption—that conflict transformation provides for a transformation of the parties and their relationships, and structural changes that conflict resolution methodologies do not render—is obviously a part of the semantic subtleties, and maybe also operational differences of opinion with regards to these terms and their practical application.
The notion that social conflict and its amelioration can be delineated on a management-settlement-resolution-transformation continuum is not universally accepted. These categories are often viewed as part of a fluid and somewhat circular discussion of overlapping terms.
While they afford us a way of developing a common vocabulary for the field, the possibility of a terminological dispute over these terms lie in the question of to what degree they should be defined rigidly or separately. Consequently, conflict transformation processes are seen more in terms of nation building, national reconciliation and healing, change agentry, and social transformation. By naming the antecedents of the two terms conflict resolution and conflict transformation in such a specific manner, Diamond departs somewhat from her own notion of not defining these terms with rigid boundaries.
Rather than making such a differentiation regarding tasks and roles that would facilitate conflict resolution or conflict transformation, the range of activities to achieve sustainable peace can also be viewed as overarching and indeed as part of the same fluid process. However, the notion of conflict transformation as simply a further extension of conflict resolution seems to be in contrast with some of the strongest proponents of the term.
In their view conflict transformation is a conceptual departure in theory and practice from conflict resolution. In this concept they believe to have found a more holistic approach and understanding of their work that extends beyond the management or resolution of conflict.
Moreover, for Lederach, conflict transformation offers more than the mere elimination or control of conflict as is promised by the resolution or management of conflict. It points to the inherent dialectical process, the ability to transform the dynamic of the conflict and the relationship between the parties—indeed to transform the very creators of the conflict.
However, how is this different from the same social patterning and dynamic phases of conflict that lead to social or systemic change that is described in other texts on the topic see, for example, Rubin, Pruitt and Kim, ? Did the notion of conflict transformation truly put new ideas, and, therefore, new notions of practice in the hands of practitioners or analysts?
Or did we simply get better, or clearer descriptions of the basic conflict resolution process? For at least one peace scholar the answer is clear. He contends that underlying the conflict resolution perspective is an assumption that every conflict has a finite life and a clear end and can, therefore, be solved or declared intractable. From this argument—that conflicts are never-ending waxing and waning of social interactions—also flows the idea that the ongoing energy and behavioral contradictions that arise from this will be not be amenable to resolution, but needs to be transformed.
Not everyone is readily convinced that the term conflict transformation has greater application and value than conflict resolution. For a conflict transformation proponent such as Lederach b frameworks require a long term transformative process in which hostile relations are modified by education, advocacy nonviolent activism , and mediation.
Noticeable, however, is that much of what is claimed about conflict transformation has, until recently, been attributed to the fundamentals of conflict resolution. For example, just as Clements claims that conflict can be transformed by the parties working it out themselves, by the work of third party intervenors, or by political intervention, advocates of conflict resolution theory have been making similar claims in terms of how conflicts get worked out or resolved.
Even the argument about the need for systemic change in order to obtain conflict transformation — namely, for the conflict to be truly resolved and not to return in another form — is made by conflict resolution theorists Scimecca, The social, political, and economic changes that Clements refers to are in many ways similar to what conflict resolution theorists describe as the underlying causes and sources of conflict.
This similarity between the aims of conflict resolution and conflict transformation weakens the argument of transformationalists who profess that systemic change, in order to end conflicts, is what distinguishes transformation from resolution.
An underlying premise of conflict resolution theory and practice is that it deals more with the conflict itself than with the system political, social and economic within which it was embedded — but not exclusively so. There is furthermore a strong bias among transformationalists to work towards systemic change.
Moreover, in their writing they frequently imply that conflict resolution does not provide the necessary end-state to create peaceful societies:. Conflict transformation refers to the process of moving from conflict-habituated systems to peace systems. This process is distinguished from the more common term of conflict resolution because of its focus on systems change.
Social conflicts that are deep-rooted or intractable get these names because the conflict has created patterns that have become part of the social system. Implied in this definition — used by the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy see also Diamond, as a guidance for their conflict intervention work — is the notion that conflict transformation is a continuous process.
The argument, of course, is that it leaves the system within which the conflict occurs, or the underlying causes of the conflict, untouched. In that sense, conflict transformation has social change as its ultimate purpose.
Furthermore, it contrasts conflict resolution as a theory and process that leads to a practical end-state with the more open-ended, and indeed continuous, conflict transformation process. In sum, the definitions and pronouncements concerning the term conflict transformation are clearly still in flux and constantly in the process of being refined. While there seems to be some agreement on the basic terminology, there is still no consensus on the theoretical and practical applicability of the term.
A conceptual framework for what exactly is meant by conflict transformation — how it works in practice, who does it, and why it should be done — is under construction.
Here also, as is the case with definitions of the term, there are a host of different conceptual interpretations. The conflict behaviors of disputing parties go through certain incremental transformations and in the process conflicts are either escalated or deescalated Rubin, Pruitt and Kim , These transformations—such as contentious behaviors or conciliating gestures—can occur on either side of a conflict but they are normally mirrored by the other side and, therefore, affect the conflict as a whole.
The four dimensions that should be taken into consideration in order to transform systems can be summarized as follows:. In yet another version of the circumstances under which conflict transformation transpires, Augsburger claims that conflict transformation, as opposed to conflict management or conflict resolution, occurs when there is a metamorphosis, or at least considerable change, in one of three different elements.
The process of transformation first transforms attitudes by changing and redirecting negative perceptions. Secondly, it transforms behavior, and lastly, transforms the conflict itself by seeking to discover, define, and remove incompatibilities between the parties. Northrup , in turn, contends that the contrast between settlement and transformation is best explained through the proximity of change to core identity constructs. Transformation has a better prognosis of occurring when there are specific modifications in the identities of the parties, the nature of their relationship is redefined, and changes in their core sense of self are possible.
Such changes, as Northrup points out, take considerable time because of the rigid attitudes and behaviors among parties that set in over time in intractable conflicts.
In describing transformative approaches to conflict on their website, Burgess and Burgess n. They note, for example, that transformational conflict resolution takes many forms and is related to a number of other concepts—among them are transformative mediation, analytical problem solving, dialogue, and collaborative learning. For purists in terms of what conflict transformation is supposed to convey in theory and in practice these terms and processes would clearly fall outside their understanding of the term.
Again, for others, all collaborative processes can ultimately contribute to their conception of how transformation is attained. Which again begs the question: does this term have a clear meaning if it can be narrowly and very broadly defined?
Inherent in the above descriptions of what conflict transformation is, lies the notion that personal, relational, and structural transformation is essential to deal effectively with conflicts. What is less clear from these descriptions is exactly how this process transforms conflicts, who is involved, and how long it will take.
Based on the encompassing objectives outlined thus far, time factors seem to be an issue in obtaining successful conflict transformations. Most people are willing to enter into conflict intervention processes such as mediation because such processes are focused or limited in their scope Mayer, Yet, transformation — both personal and large scale social, political, or economic — requires a great deal of time and effort.
When changing people or societies becomes part of an ulterior purpose, rather than primarily focusing on the conflict at hand, neither objective in the end may be achieved. His comprehensive framework diagrams a number of central and guiding conceptual elements. This framework includes an integrated perspective for short- and long-term transformation for instance, getting the parties to the table or achieving a cease-fire versus the longer term challenges of land, electoral, constitutional, or military reform.
Secondly, this comprehensive framework builds on the view that an infrastructure for establishing peace is needed. Creating an infrastructure or method of approaching conflict transformation not only legitimizes the process but also integrates multiple levels of the population affected, both in terms of the input in the peace process as well as in its implementation. Lederach has since greatly augmented his framework for transformation processes. To this end Lederach expounds on a nested paradigm of peace-building activities.
These tasks may range from demobilization and disarmament to governance and employment activities and affect various people, structures and processes. To this paradigm he adds four distinctions in post-conflict peace-building: the social-psychological issues regarding identity, self esteem, emotion, trauma and grief ; the socioeconomic providing financial aid, retraining, employment and development ; the social-political matters pertaining to demobilization, disarmament, troop integration, and professionalization ; and the spiritual concerns about healing, forgiveness, and mutual acknowledgement.
With these overarching aims, Lederach creates a framework that addresses both transformative and relational concerns. In sum, this multi-dimensional approach advocates for a broad set of dimensions, and more importantly, provides a number of different and complimentary ways of operationalizing or implementing transformative change. For third party intervenors the task of moving a violent conflict towards a durable peace—to transform the conflict—also requires that they must devise a multitude of negotiation forums within which transformations must occur at nearly every level of society.
For example, official diplomacy tasks range from negotiation, conciliation and mediation to a number of other formal government to government activities, such as providing good offices, sending special envoys, diplomatic sanctions, and coercive diplomacy. The scope of nonofficial conflict management is equally large, ranging from nonofficial facilitation, mediation and problem-solving workshops to the use of civilian peace monitors, nonviolent campaigns and cultural exchanges.
This expansive catalogue of procedures to prevent or mitigate a conflict and build peace also gives special attention to political and governance measures such as building political parties and civil society , as well as judicial and legal measures which may include constitutional, judicial, legal and police reforms.
Finally, the holistic nature of this toolbox of intervention activities are underscored by communications and educational measures which encompass the training of journalists, the professionalization of media systems, peace education and formal education projects.
All this simply underscores the multiple levels of activities that can be part of a conflict transformation process. In this power balancing design a larger process of transforming asymmetric relationships is envisioned similar to what was anticipated would eventually occur in South Africa. One other model of conflict transformation that warrants mentioning is dialogue as a form of conflict transformation, as is evidenced by the work of Rothman , Saunders and Yankelovich Negotiations between disputing parties often take the form of polarized debates where neither side tries very hard to gain insight or understanding into the beliefs and concerns of the other side.
Facilitated dialogues—where third parties encourage the parties to deal with the concerns of the opposing party—can create moments of transition or become vehicles for transformative insights and actions by the participants.
Such endeavors have the potential of being catalysts for change by furnishing transitional moments that unlock or dissolve polarized positions. Lesser known but equally important is the concept of conflict transformation, which also holds its own unique definition apart from its conflict management and conflict resolution cousins. Considering that each of these concepts holds their own identity, the question must be asked: What are the differences between these three fundamental concepts?
For workplace peacebuilders, there is an even more crucial question to consider: How do we differentiate between these concepts and know when to apply each pragmatically in the workplace?
In order for peacebuilders to be effective in handling conflicts, understanding the difference between these three concepts is key. In this article, we define conflict management, conflict resolution, and conflict transformation as well as offer examples of situations in which peacebuilders can utilize each of these methods.
Instead of focusing on resolving differences between people, conflict management takes a pragmatic approach to conflict by constructing agreements and practices that allow people to effectively cooperate despite their differences. These strategies may come at the interpersonal, intergroup, or systemic levels of intervention.
Often, conflict management is utilized in conflicts that have a history and exist due to differing fundamental values between those involved. This being said, conflict management should be applied to workplace conflicts when the possibility of resolution has little to no likelihood.
Here are a few examples of workplace conflicts where conflict management training can be useful:. Pollack Peacebuilding Systems offers workplace conflict management training that teaches coworkers and executives how to improve communication, healthily assert their needs, and effectively manage interpersonal or intergroup challenges. Burton argues that though this difference in definition is in the dictionary, in practice these two terms are treated as one.
He attributes the confusion in practice to this fundamental divide because dispute settlement processes have been applied to both disputes and conflicts with the expectation that parties could come to a compromise.
Such conflicts must be resolved, rather than settled. The dispute-settlement processes are inappropriate. Analytical processes are required that uncover the sources of the problem and deal with them accordingly Burton, As the field has grown and theory, research and practice have expanded, this distinction seems to be less and less visible in the literature6.
Cohen lists negotiation, adjudication, mediation, and arbitration as conflict resolution processes that share a number of similarities Cohen, Schellenberg divides conflict resolution into five areas of practice: coercion, negotiation and bargaining, adjudication, mediation, arbitration, and a catch all category of other means.
Porter and Taplin discuss conflict and conflict resolution from a sociological perspective. They list avoidance, conquest, education, spontaneous resolution, transactional resolution negotiation and mediation , arbitration, judicial decision, and nonreconciliation as the primary means of conflict resolution.
These lists are broader than some in the field are comfortable with. Adjudication, for example, is commonly thought of as a coercive process. Conquest normally includes violence.
Practitioners and scholars differ in the importance they accord to coercion and violence as a way of resolving conflict. Some intervenors take the middle ground and use power to affect conflict outcomes through the use of positive and negative sanctions, persuasion, or altruism Boulding Nevertheless, some practitioners, especially those who view conflict resolution as a social movement, disagree about what methods of conflict resolution may be appropriate especially when conflict escalation may be needed to achieve justice Cormick, Some practitioners emphasize constructive ways of waging a struggle such as nonviolent action Kriesberg, As noted in the evolution section previously, negotiation and mediation processes were a primary focus in the early decades of the field.
Those soon evolved into a range of processes including problem-solving workshops and other analytical conflict resolution processes. Burton and Dukes Burton, separated conflict resolution processes from those of settlement and management see the management discussion later in the chapter. Conflict resolution processes included citizen diplomacy, T-group resolution, Track II diplomacy, problem-solving conflict resolution, and deductive analysis, whereas settlement included adjudication, arbitration, and ombudsmanship.
This list of processes is somewhat dated, as the number and variety of processes has continued to grow. At the present, conflict resolution includes various online strategies, dialogue and circle processes, collaborative processes including large public policy participatory processes, strategic planning, education and training, restorative justice, facilitative interventions, rituals for healing and reconciliation and more.
Miall, Ramsbotham, and Woodhouse Miall, have argued for a broad understanding of conflict resolution. They believe it important to include not only mediation between the parties but also efforts to address the wider context that sustains conflict in which other actors affect the parties in conflict.
These might include international stakeholders, local constituents, spoilers or other extremists, relationships with broader communities, and social and institutional capacity for sustaining peace.
For them, the implication of this broadening of scope and applicability of conflict-resolution approaches is the need for a wider range of types of third-party interventions. Conflict Analysis As presented earlier, in the evolution of conflict resolution, analysis was and remains a key defining component for the various scholars and researchers interested in doing something about human conflict.
In the s, research initiatives of various scholars, including Christopher Mitchell, Edward Azar, Herbert Kelman, Ronald Fisher and Leonard Doob see Fisher developed into practical initiatives aimed at ongoing conflicts. In it, Mitchell also describes these processes of problem-solving as distinct from traditional mediation.
This points to another area of convergence in the field: that of human needs. John Burton was a key proponent of the idea that addressing basic human needs is core to conflict resolution. He wrote, We believe that the human participants in conflict situations are compulsively struggling in their respective institutional environments at all social levels to satisfy primordial and universal needs — needs such as security, identity, recognition, and development. They strive increasingly to gain the control of their environment that is necessary to ensure the satisfaction of these needs Burton, a.
Burton has been known to change his list of basic human needs to become more inclusive. More recently, Mayer also argues for a broader range of human needs Mayer, Without going into detail, he suggests that the question that the field must ask is what needs do people have motivating them that must be addressed for them to be satisfied with the progress of a conflict process.
Short-Term versus Long-term Involvement Some scholars feel that conflict resolution implies that conflict is a short-term, undesirable event that can be ended permanently through intervention processes University of Colorado, Vayrynen argues that conflict resolution implies the understanding that all conflicts should be resolved or ended.
Some feel that Vayrynen is being too simplistic here Tidwell, And some have argued that the field includes a variety of short and long-term processes Mayer, ; Mitchell, They add that when intermediaries are located within social institutions, that natural tendency to short-term responses can be heightened because of a desire to maintain stability in the institution.
Many promote neutrality as one of the core competencies of conflict intermediaries Abramson, ; Moore, ; Saposnek, and most accept that one of the core characteristics of a conflict resolution intermediary is one of impartiality. Nader has been a consistent critic of conflict resolution, especially when intervenors claim neutrality because of the potential for conflict resolution efforts to become an instrument of control over parties and outcomes.
She argues that weaker parties tend to give up more in a mediated or negotiated agreement and therefore neutral mediators maintain the status quo of power imbalance which ultimately may contribute to social injustice Nader, The understanding and use of the word neutrality is often used interchangeably with this definition of impartiality. As the previous discussion suggests, the boundaries of the field of conflict resolution are not strictly defined. Some are comfortable with the malleable edges of the field, but Fast warns, If conflict resolution does not delimit its boundaries, it is possible to co- opt the field and argue that it is not needed.
If, for example, international development projects address conflicts at the grassroots and mid-range levels, and diplomacy addresses conflict resolution efforts at the top level. Then what need is there for Conflict Resolution as a field Fast, ? Conflict Resolution Practitioners As has been shown, the field of conflict resolution practice is a large and diverse one. Much of the literature already cited includes descriptions and expectations about practice.
Conflict resolution practitioners, Mayer says, operate in different domains courts system, public policy, labor-management relations, interethnic relations or international diplomacy. Their ideas and theories come from a wide range of sources including law, psychotherapy, management theories, group dynamics, peace research, decision theory, the study of conflict resolution in traditional societies, and theoretical models based in the entire range of the social-science disciplines.
Miall, et al, argue that conflict resolution practice involves different kinds of actors, addresses different groups, and varies in form, duration and purpose. Mitchell has been defensive of conflict resolution with the emergence of conflict transformation. He argues that this definition of conflict resolution does not mean that the parties will never again engage in conflict, nor does it guarantee a conflict-free future Mitchell, The key identifying features include a process that is cooperative, is used in conjunction with a third-party, includes analysis of the underlying issues, seeks a jointly crafted solution to the problem, and meets underlying interests and needs.
These are the key identifying characteristics for the field in use for this research study. As noted in the introductory section of this chapter, the term transformation has been used broadly in referring to the changes that occur because of conflict or conflict intervention. However, one of the contributors to the formulation of a conflict transformation concept was James Laue. The title of his inaugural lecture for the Vernon M.
Laue spoke of transformation as a qualitative shift in individual behaviors of the parties that leads to a transformation in their relationship. He thought that this ultimately also leads to a transformation in the substantive issues and outcomes. Therefore conflict transformation for Laue was a crucial component required for conflict resolution to happen Laue, , reprinted Another extremely influential figure in conflict transformation theory was Johan Galtung.
His work on direct, cultural and structural forms of violence and their relationship to power asymmetries is foundational to the conflict transformation literature. His ideas on intervention are collected in his book Peace by Peaceful Means Galtung, He spoke especially about transforming social space in order to increase peaceful relationships. He put forward a model that showed how relationships can be transformed through a shift from unbalanced to balanced power.
This transformation may rely upon processes of education what Curle called conscientization , confrontation, negotiation and development see Figure 1 from Lederach, Source Note: Taken from Lederach She identifies four key assumptions of resolution: Parties to conflict are rational. Misperception constitutes a central cause of conflict. Conflict resolution principles apply across social settings i. High value is placed on peaceful resolution.
Northrup argues that in response to these four assumptions, conflict transformation practitioners and theories may argue that 1 rationality depends upon cultural context; 2 misperception is too shallow a concept to represent the deep feelings associated with different world views; 3 conflict is always in flux and different stages may require different approaches; and 4 not all parties may want peace as an outcome but may want to continue fighting. Another early publication with a specific use of the term conflict transformation is the book, New Directions in Conflict Theory: Conflict Resolution and Conflict Transformation, edited by Raimo Vayrynen.
Vayrynen argued that there is an implicit value in conflict resolution that all conflicts should be resolved. Vayrynen also presented four areas in which transformation may take place actor, issue, rule and structural transformation. The last of these, structural transformation puts forward the idea of changes in the whole structure of relationships between parties. His ideas complement those of Galtung ; who developed his views on the resolution of the structural, attitudinal and behavioral aspects of conflict into a full theory of non-violent conflict transformation.
He wrote, The concept of solution, or more specifically conflict resolution, is associated with a purposeful search for ways of accommodating the explicit interests of the parties in conflict. Thus, it does not mean the same as termination of conflict through victory, nor does it refer to transformation of conflict.
Victory means that one party dominates the other and is able to impose its order on the other. Transformation of conflict is the result of the struggle itself where the contention transforms the parties, their interests and actions. Thus, transformation can occur through victory or through conflict resolution, but can best be understood on a more general level.
It is no longer the individual war or battle that is of interest, rather the focus is the more general experience of conflict over a longer period of time.
Transformation may occur as a result of repeated experience involving struggle, victory, defeat, resolution. Transformation, in short, is a generalized learning from historical experience Wallensteen, The framework included a rationale for a short and long-term perspective, a proposed infrastructure for peace, and encouragement for the building of a peace constituency.
Lederach went on to develop his framework and strategies for practicing conflict transformation in several publications, Preparing for Peace, Conflict Transformation Across Cultures and Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies Instead, it has key characteristics that separates conflict transformation from conflict resolution eliminate and conflict management control. The definition includes the key understanding that conflict causes social change descriptive of the conflict dynamics and that conflict transformation as an intervention practice is also interested in social change prescriptive of the overall purpose that building peace pursues.
This understanding is complemented by the recognition that conflicts can be enacted in either constructive or destructive destructive ways, that changing relationships is an important component of the work relationship patterns , and that conflict transformation is concerned with broad structural change systemic change. By choosing to term his work as conflict transformation and not conflict resolution, Lederach contributed to a growing literature on conflict transformation.
By , Tidwell was able to identify a conflict transformation school that he believed could be identified by its assertion that conflicts are always changing and always being transformed into something else. He also argued that this school was indebted to the functionalists, Simmel and Coser, for their formulation of theory related to conflict and social construction of conflict Tidwell, Miall also supports this idea of a distinct theory of conflict transformation that is different from conflict resolution Miall, Values and Philosophical Foundation How scholars and practitioners define their work, create goals for practice, and generate expectations for outcomes relates directly to the values they hold and the philosophical foundation from which they think about conflict and conflict intervention.
He sees peacebuilding as a long-term transformation of a war system into a peace system, inspired by a quest for the values of peace and justice, truth and mercy. By articulating conflict transformation in this way, Lederach highlights the values of reducing suffering and increasing well-being, acknowledging interdependence between people at all levels , increasing justice both in the sense of equality in participation in outcomes, but also in creating equal social structures and social, economic, and political institutions, and finally in changing the structure of society.
Social Justice Lederach has been critical of resolution approaches because he felt that they involved the continuation of injustice and the perpetuation of the status quo.
His sensitivity to justice concerns came partly from the values of the Mennonite community of which he is a part. Lederach was also influenced by the work of Adam Curle Curle, ; , Paulo Freire Freire, , the popular education movement, and liberation theology.
Lederach is not the only writer who expresses social justice values for conflict transformation. It is not domination by one party over another, but the transformation of dominatory and violent relationships and structures and manifestations of violence. Conflict transformation instead aims towards relationships of respect, cooperation and consent and constructive means and norms for dealing with conflict Francis, This emphasis on going beneath the structures that exist, rather than working within them for social change, is another key difference from conflict resolution.
Concern about social justice has informed the practice of conflict transformation by insuring the participation of all those affected by a conflict and those who care about the outcome. Miall, et al, Miall, argue that with its focus on social relationships and addressing the root causes of conflicts, transformation is especially useful in asymmetrical conflicts.
Thus they suggest that in situations of injustice or unequal participation, conflict transformation may be an approach that can help balance relationships. Francis identifies an identity group of people who share the values of equality and inclusive participation common in conflict transformation. This group she says is, formed by the adherents to conflict transformation and the wider value group from which they come culturally liberal, philosophically egalitarian, politically democratic, concerned with socioeconomic justice and unhappy about war.
These values are confined to no particular culture and are universal in none, but they constitute a culture in themselves. They are in clear opposition to the universally prevalent culture of domination, which has its own long-term as well as short-term agenda. They are also in clear opposition to sexism, racism and discrimination of all kinds. This needs to be honestly acknowledged.
He lists the following attributes of effective conflict transformation: Multi-level participation, involving elements from all social levels of all the involved parties, from top, middle, and grass roots, including those who may normally be excluded from formal negotiations.
Efforts to ensure that those directly involved in the conflict can control the process to their own satisfaction. Outcomes are approved by those affected. A focus not merely on immediate issues, but also on longstanding traumas and hurts, and on past injustices.
Appropriate intermediaries who understand the cultural and social structures in which the parties are embedded. Co-creation of a new understanding of the conflict. An ability to create and put in place procedures that will maintain and continue the changes found necessary to resolve the current conflict and prevent future ones from arising.
The mutual, inter-active education of adversaries about the nature of the socio-political and economic systems from which the conflict arose and of the dynamics of that conflict; and their training in skills that will enable them to deal with that conflict and others that may arise abridged from Mitchell, This list points out values for participation at all levels of society, equality of participation and input into outcomes across those levels, dealing with long-term effects of conflict, violence, and injustice while also dealing with current issues, culturally sensitive practice, shared creation of a shared future, and education.
The following is a short list of themes encountered while seeking out definitions and interpretations of conflict transformation. To the extent that conflict transformation is, to many people, a reaction to the conflict resolution school, many of debates described here are related more to distinctions between conflict transformation and conflict resolution than to debates within the conflict transformation school of thought. Nonviolence Along with practitioners and scholars in conflict resolution, writers on conflict transformation typically describe nonviolence as a foundational concept Galtung, ; Lederach, However, not all conflict transformation writers share the general focus on nonviolence.
For example, with the armed intervention in Kosovo as the backdrop and foundation for the book, the authors of The Quest for Viable Peace advocate for conflict transformation in certain military operations Covey, In their operation in Kosovo, they dealt with the problem of establishing peace where there are persistent internal conflicts in which violence continues even after peace processes or peacekeeping is in place.
In those cases, the authors argue that only by seriously addressing the need to transform these types of conflicts in postwar periods can peace evolve. The strategic imperative should be to transform internal conflict in the first years of an intervention. Constructive vs. Destructive Change Processes Conflict transformation theorists argue that conflict is caused by and causes changes in relationships.
Therefore, in this view, it is impossible to treat conflict as something that has an end if the relationship is ongoing. In order to build peace, negative or destructive interaction patterns within relationships need to be transformed into positive or constructive relationships and interactions Lederach, As noted earlier, Clements uses the terms conflict resolution and conflict transformation interchangeably.
For this reason, the conflict transformation school does not promote conflict prevention, but rather a reduction of violence in all of its forms direct, structural, and cultural Galtung, Rather than attempting to reduce or lessen conflict activity, in some cases, conflict transformation seeks to bring conflict to the surface in order to help constructively address problems.
Miall has developed a generic framework for conflict transformation in protracted conflict. In discussing these five areas, Miall does not assume that transformation necessarily moves in a benign direction. Rather, it may require nonviolent escalation of conflict in order to address justice and power issues.
This reinforces the idea of transformation as descriptive of conflict change processes as well as prescriptive for conflict intervention practices. Despite the fact that scholars and practitioners typically describe constructive conflict as part of the conflict transformation school, numerous authors have articulated these concepts in relation to conflict resolution and conflict management.
Conflict resolution is about how parties can move from zero sum, destructive patterns of conflict to positive-sum constructive outcomes Miall, Next, I shall consider the more difficult question: What can be done to change a destructive conflict into a constructive one? Louis Kriesberg has also focused on the possibility of constructive conflicts with publication of his book on Constructive Conflicts Kriesberg, and its updated editions.
In the most recent edition, Kriesberg includes a chapter on conflict transformation 3rd edition, Levels of Conflict and Levels of Practice Some authors claim that unlike conflict resolution, conflict transformation seeks to involve actors at all levels.
Track II processes occur outside government or formal structures. Some have reported about Track II processes as conflict transformation Davies, Lederach promotes not only a focus on the grass-roots, but rather an integrated approach to relationship-building with actors especially leaders at all levels see Figure 2.
Figure 2 Approaches to Peacebuilding Processes included in the Approach A number of writers have described conflict transformation as a philosophical rather than practical distinction from conflict resolution.
This sharing of practical approaches by different schools of thought in the field adds to the confusion in terminology about practice. Nevertheless, a number of practitioners from the conflict transformation school have written about their practice. Kraybill writes about mediation process and facilitation skills.
While much of his recommended practice is based on familiar models, his rationale for practice and his interest in structural level change including dealing with power are purely from the conflict transformation school. His mediation techniques are distinct from the transformative mediation school, however, and could be said to be a blending of both problem-solving and transformative goals and processes.
Frank Dukes writes about public policy processes and the deeper structural and relational goals while advocating straightforward collaborative public policy process. Simon Fisher, Dekha Ibrahim, et al, Fisher, and others Dane, have written about large-group consensual processes for working with inter-ethnic conflict.
While they term this work peacebuilding, they are conceptually working from the conflict transformation school while promoting conflict analysis and other facilitative interventions. Conflict resolution exists in a middle position where processes of adjudication, arbitration, negotiation, and mediation are included.
Assefa does not include force as a component of either conflict resolution or reconciliation see Figure 3. The ACResolution special issue on paradigms of practice, for example, includes a look at facilitative mediation, narrative mediation, evaluative mediation, as well as transformative mediation see discussion on transformative mediation later in this chapter ACResolution, Francis and other conflict transformation practitioners have also contrasted conflict resolution to conflict transformation in this way.
Lederach distinguishes conflict transformation from conflict resolution by charging that resolution is primarily focused on content and that its purpose is to achieve an agreement and solution to the presenting problem. However, many people still believe that conflict management and conflict resolution are synonymous and this leads to confusion when discussions around the two processes are had.
Here at ADR Times, many of our articles revolve around the idea of conflict resolution and how to solve problems.
But what happens when the parties are okay with the conflict and just need some rules or parameters on how to interact amid the conflict to continue to do well? This article will focus on the difference and how conflict resolution and management can be used effectively to solve conflict or make life easier for parties who are dealing with long-term conflicts.
Before discussing the difference between conflict resolution and conflict management , it is important to discuss the definition of the common factor between each one—conflict. Conflict is used often as a catch-all for any disagreement between people ; however, a more accurate definition would include differentiation between conflict and disputes. There are many different definitions of each, but most experts agree that disputes are typically short-term disagreements that are relatively easy to resolve if the parties are willing to work together.
Disputes can often be solved by a solution that meets the needs of both sides, at least partially. On the other hand, conflict is often a long-term problem that is held deeply within each side. Conflict often involves issues that are seen as non-negotiables and the parties are often resistant to change or resolution. Disputes often arise out of conflict or take place within a larger conflict. During the life of a conflict, it may bubble up into disputes or will stay silent.
Conflict will move in and out of view as the parties learn to adapt and gather themselves for the next round of dispute. Occasionally, this ebb and flow may be interrupted if a dispute within the conflict is settled effectively and sets the parties up to move forward with their lives.
0コメント