Conceptualizing conflict

Analyzing how conflict is conceptualized from a Western perspective is theoretically necessary for two reasons. First, our exploration of scholarly literature in the English language, broadly referred to hereafter as “Western,” underscores violent conflict relations have adverse physical, social and cognitive effects on referents, which need to be addressed (Bar-Siman-Tov, 2004: 4). Second, conflicts are perceived and managed differently across cultures (Lederach, 1995: 9-10). Thus, the provision of a Western definition facilitates later juxtaposing of Western and Arab/Muslim understanding of terminology. Moreover, a definition is valuable in any cross-cultural treatment since the manner in which conflict is conceptualized influences how conflict resolution is conceptualized (Avruch, 2002: 2).

We begin our analysis by noting the term “conflict” as applied in Western academic literature is conceptually ambiguous (Aubert, 1963: 26; Lederach, 1995: 74; Rosoux, 2009:

543; Schmidt and Kochan, 1972: 359; Wilmer, 1998: 102). In political science, for instance, conflict is sometimes used as a synonym of war between societies or countries (Galtung,

181

1969: 167; Wilmer, 1998: 103, 105). Others scholars criticize that conflict is often applied as an antonym of cooperation (Aubert, 1963: 29; Deutsch, 2005: 2; Schmidt and Kochan, 1972:

359; Vasquez, 2009: 83-84). Concerning the latter, Morton Deutsch (2005: 2-3) laments

“conflict” and “competition” are theoretically interchanged, a misnomer he attributes to the influences of the field of social psychology during the 1920s and 1930s, and the adaptation of theories posited by Charles Darwin, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Similarly, Schmidt and Kochan (1972: 361) opine that the term conflict is erroneously utilized as a synonym of competition, while further interjecting that it is a value laden (customarily negative) concept absent qualitative reference to behavioral typology (violent or nonviolent). Combined, scholarship widely rejects narrow conceptualizations of conflict as war, an antonym of cooperation, or as synonymous with competition.

Taking the denoted critiques into consideration, definitions found in Western conflict and conflict resolution literature demarcate conflict, foremost, as a natural type of relationship in which referents are engaged in an incompatibility or clash (Bercovitch and others, 2009: 5; R.

Cohen, 2004: 179-180; Deutsch, 2005: 2; Galtung, 2007: 15; Lederach, 1995: 9; Mason, 1993: 14-15; Ramsbotham and others, 2011: 7-8; Vasquez, 2009: 83-84; Wallensteen, 2003:

16). The incompatibility or clash is usually rooted in competition for limited resources and/or manifests due to unfulfilled needs or grievances (Irani, 1999: 2-3; Irani and Funk, 2000: 30;

Ramsbotham and others, 2011: 17-21; Swanström and Weissmann, 2005: 7-8; Wilmer, 1998:

102-103). Avruch (2002: 2), therefore, summarizes that a conflict is a combination of competition and referents’ perceptions of the relationship and their adversary. The insights proffered here not only emphasize that referents are engaged in a competition or dispute, but highlight the interplay of perceptions and objectives held by referents engaged in a conflict relationship. Nevertheless, reference to, or the existence of, a clash or incompatibility, as elucidated hitherto, does not indicate behavioral typology according to the Western understanding (Bercovitch and others, 2009: 9; Deutsch, 2005: 1; Lederach and Maiese, 2003:

1-4; Mason, 1993: 14-15; Ramsbotham and others, 2011: 7-8; Vasquez, 2009: 25).

Nonetheless, behavior is a fundamental component of conflict and, therefore, must be factored into a definition. Producing a simple framework for classifying behavioral typology, the literature suggests that a conflict can incorporate constructive or destructive behavior (Deutsch, 2005: 2; Marsella, 2005: 653; Ramsbotham and others, 2011: 8; Svensson, 2013:

415). Its typology is qualitatively determined by the typology of interaction utilized by those engaged in the incompatible relationship (Bercovitch and others, 2009: 9; Deutsch, 2005: 1;

Lederach, 1995: 18; Ramsbotham and others, 2011: 126-127). Interactive typology can be

182

simplistically depicted on a spectrum ranging from nonviolent (or constructive) to violent (or destructive) behavior (Ramsbotham and others, 2011: 8, 126).

At the destructive end of the conflict behavioral spectrum, referents deploy violence (physical, structural, and cultural) and coercive behavior to pursue goals or to address/express grievances vis-à-vis their relational counterpart (Kriesberg, 2004: 90-91). At the other extreme of the spectrum, they utilize specific techniques, such as negotiation or rewards, to affect a mutually satisfactory nonviolent arrangement or compromise as a means of negotiating or resolving the incompatibility (Bercovitch and others, 2009: 9; Kriesberg, 2004: 90-91). While simplistic, this dichotomous framework is useful for classifying conflict relationships as constructive or destructive. If violent behavior predominates, the relationship is defined as deconstructive (Kriesberg, 2004: 90-91). Conversely, if constructive behavior predominates, the conflict is referred to as nonviolent (Kriesberg, 2004: 90-91). Through this dichotomy, we observe that a conflict relationship can incorporate non-violent and/or violent behavior (Deutsch, 2005: 26). Our attention now turns to explaining how behavioral typology is selected by referents engaged in a conflict.

Louis Kriesberg creates a model that contains three practices that actors utilize when engaged in a conflict relationship to achieve their goals (Bercovitch and others, 2009: 9).

According to Kriesberg, responses include persuasion, reward or coercion (Bercovitch and others, 2009: 9). The model defines the noted concepts using the following terms: first, persuasion nonviolently appropriates cognitive reasoning to alter opinions or change goals among adversaries; second, rewards tender perceptible incentives to influence the behavior or goals of an adversary; and third, coercion deploys violence, or the threat of violence, to precipitate desired changes to the status quo (Bercovitch and others, 2009: 9). While the first two actions are deemed non-violent, the latter is violent.

When referents select to deploy violence, it can manifest in several manners. Johan Galtung (1998: 4-5) identifies three types of violence: physical, structural and cultural.

Physical violence is overt and its manifestation results in death, maiming or damage to the physical body, psyche and spirit. Structural violence is obscurely perpetrated through institutionalized structures, governance and societal norms marginalizing and oppressing others (Galtung, 1998: 5-7; Reimann, 2004: 9). For example, structural violence can manifest in the form of alienation, exploitation or repression of particular individuals or groups (Galtung, 1998: 5-7). By comparison, cultural violence delineates the normalization and social justification, and at its extreme the glorification, of violence through practices including patriarchy, patriotism or nationalism (Galtung, 1998: 5-6; Reimann, 2004: 9). Cultural

183

violence, thus, incorporates ideologies that can be manipulated and propagated to justify the projection of violence onto others (Galtung, 1998: 5-6). All forms of violence are destructive in some capacity and, therefore, deconstructive for relationships and those exposed. To summarize our analysis hitherto, conflict is depicted as a clash or incompatibility, which can include constructive or deconstructive behavior determined by referent behavior.

Upon this theoretical foundation, four additional Western theories associated with conflict can be deduced from the literature. We include these into our assessment due to their relevance when making cross-cultural comparisons later. Abridged, Western scholars are suggested to perceive conflict as: universal; able to produce positive benefits; resolvable; and as having an impact limited to those referents immediately involved (Irani, 1999). Each assertion is critically examined in turn to determine its applicability in Western theory.

First, it is suggested that Western scholars perceive conflict as universal. Confirming the theory, Kenneth Boulding (1978: 132) articulates, “Conflict is a universal phenomenon in social systems; it exists within the individual, within the family, in all organizations, between individuals, between organizations, between states, and so on.” According to Boulding, conflict is ordinary and inevitable at all levels. This hypothesis is shared in both the natural (Aureli and de Waal, 2000: 3), political and social sciences (Bercovitch and others, 2009: 3;

Boulding, 1978: 132; Lederach and Maiese, 2003: 1-3; Lederach, 1995: 9; Ramsbotham and others, 2011: 7), as well as among military analysts (Dunlap, 2013: 137). Hence, Western scholars generally perceive conflict is normal.

Second, some Western scholars suggest that conflict can generate positive outcomes (Briggs, 2003: 287-306; Galtung, 1998: 3-4; Irani, 1999: 3; Lederach, 1995: 17; Reimann, 2004: 9-10). For instance, conflict is perceived as a vehicle for producing positive social changes, such as increased suffrage; a theory prompting Lederach (1995: 17) to state that conflict is (sometimes) necessary. The conceptualization of conflict as natural and having the potential to generate positive outcomes explains why some Western scholars hypothesize that conflict per se should not be eschewed, but its violent manifestations neutralized (Bercovitch and others, 2009: 3; Briggs, 2003: 287-306; Galtung, 2007: 19; Lederach and Maiese, 2003:

3-4; Lederach, 1995: 17; Reimann, 2004: 9-10). Thus, some Western scholars prioritize the neutralization of violent interaction rather than eliminating conflict because they view conflict as a catalyst for positive change (Lederach, 1995: 16; Spangler, 2003). Consequently, some Western scholars view conflict as having a potential to produce positive benefits.

Third, Western scholars are suggested to perceive conflicts are resolvable (Irani, 1999: 2).

With this mindset, resolution practitioners analyze a violent conflict relationship to identify

184

structural, cognitive and discursive elements that precipitate incompatibility (Bar-Tal, 2000:

352-356; Ramsbotham and others, 2011: 8-15). Once identified, it is believed that these elements can be manipulated, changed or managed to alter the quality of a relationship (Bar-Tal, 2000: 356-359). For example, if misunderstanding among adversaries is a key instigator of the conflict, a third party can take up a mediating role to increase mutual understanding (Kelman, 2004: 112). Nonetheless, other scholars hypothesize that not all conflicts are subject to resolution and are thereby intractable (Ramsbotham and others, 2011: 61, 377; Rosoux, 2009: 557-559). Thus, some Western scholars perceive conflicts are resolvable while others recognize they can become intractable.

Finally, Western scholars are suggested to conceptualize conflict as a struggle, or incompatibility, limited to those referents directly involved (Briggs, 2003: 287-306; Irani, 1999: 3-4). The perception that conflict is restricted in its effects and referents has theoretical and practical implications since it confines conflict resolution to those immediately engaged (Briggs, 2003: 287-306; Irani, 1999: 3-4). However, containment of resolution to immediate referents is contentious in Western literature, as other scholars and practitioners recognize the systemic nature of conflict and advocate resolution be focused on a wider spectrum than those immediately engaged (Bar-Siman-Tov, 2004: 65; Stover and others, 2005: 852-853). Namely, the conflict resolution and conflict transformation schools—as introduced in section 3.3 of the present chapter—conceptualize conflict as systemic in nature and implement resolution strategies accordingly (Bar-Siman-Tov, 2004: 62; Bar-Tal, 2000: 352; Lederach, 1995: 18).

Amalgamated, the Western conceptualizations presented broadly identify conflict as a universal, complex, incompatible social-political relationship that can manifest in numerous ways (economic, social and political), among diverse referents (individuals, groups, societies), utilizing multiple typologies of interaction (violent or nonviolent). Conflict, according to the literature examined, is also sometimes viewed as capable of producing positive effects, while its violent manifestation should be curtailed or eliminated. With conflict defined, we revisit the components of a conflict and how the phenomenon can produce negative effects. The insight provided aids in the understanding of how conflicts evolve, factors which impacts how resolution is conceptualized and implemented.

3.2.1 Elements of a conflict

Conflicts are complex, unpredictable and subject to escalation and de-escalation since they are in a constant state of flux (Lederach, 1995: 15; Ramsbotham and others, 2011: 12-13;

Wilmer, 1998: 105). Nonetheless, subsequent to the development of a conflictual relationship