CONFLICT TRANSFORMATION
INTRODUCTION
In common everyday settings we experience social conflict as a time
when a disruption occurs in the "natural" discourse of our relationships.
As conflict emerges, we stop and take notice that something is not right.
The relationship in which the difficulty is arising becomes complicated,
not easy and fluid as it once was. We no longer take things at face
value, but rather spend greater time and energy to interpret what things
mean. As our communication becomes more difficult, we find it harder
and harder to express our perceptions and feelings. We also find it more
difficult to understand what others are doing and saying, and may
develop feelings of uneasiness and anxiety. This is often accompanied
by a growing sense of urgency and frustration as the conflict progresses,
especially if no end is in sight.
If someone uninvolved in the situation asks what the conflict is about,
our initial explanations will typically be framed in terms of the specific
issues the parties are dealing with. This is the content of the conflict, the
immediate problems that must be resolved through problem
solving and negotiation.
However, the transformational approach addresses this situation
somewhat differently. This is because conflict transformation is more
than a set of specific techniques. It is about a way of looking and seeing,
and it provides a set of lenses through which we make sense of social
conflict. These lenses draw our attention to certain aspects of conflict,
and help us to bring the overall meaning of the conflict into sharper
focus.
First, we need a lens to see the immediate situation.
Second, we need a lens to see past the immediate problems
and view the deeper relationship patterns that form the
context of the conflict. This goes beyond finding a quick
solution to the problem at hand, and seeks to address what is
happening in human relationships at a deeper level.
Third, we need a lens that helps us envision a framework that
holds these together and creates a platform to address the
content, the context, and the structure of the relationship.
From this platform, parties can begin to find creative
responses and solutions
DEFINITION
Although the definition is relatively short, its various components lend it a
degree of complexity. To better understand conflict transformation, an
explanation of each component is needed. Together, these components
attempt to capture the attitudes and orientations we bring to creative
conflict transformation, the starting point of such an approach, and the
various change processes involved in such an approach.
To Envision and Respond: A transformational approach begins with
two pro-active foundations: 1) a positive orientation toward conflict, and
2) a willingness to engage in the conflict in an effort to produce
constructive change or growth. While conflict often produces long-
standing cycles of hurt and destruction, the key to transformation is the
capacity to envision conflict as having the potential for constructive
change. Response, on the other hand, suggests a bias toward direct
involvement and an increased understanding that comes from real-life
experience. Both "envision" and "respond" represent the ways we orient
ourselves toward the presence of conflict in our lives, relationships, and
communities.
Ebb and Flow: Conflict is a natural part of relationships. While
relationships are sometimes calm and predictable, at other times events
and circumstances generate tensions and instability. A transformational
view, rather than looking at isolated conflict episodes, seeks to
understand how these particular episodes are embedded in the greater
pattern of human relationships. Change is understood both at the level
of immediate issues and the broader patterns of interaction.
Life-Giving Opportunities: On the one hand, this phrase suggests that
life gives us conflict, and that conflict is a natural part of human
experience and relationships. Rather than viewing conflict as a threat,
the transformative view sees conflict as a valuable opportunity to grow
and increases our understanding of ourselves and others. Conflict helps
us stop, assess and take notice. Without it, life would be a monotonous
flat topography of sameness and our relationships would be woefully
superficial. This phrase also suggests that conflict creates life and keeps
everything moving. It can be understood as a motor of change that
keeps relationships and social structures dynamically responsive to
human needs.
Constructive Change Processes: This notion emphasizes the capacity
of the transformational approach to build new things. Conflict
transformation begins with a central goal: to build constructive change
out of the energy created by conflict. By focusing this energy on the
underlying relationships and social structures, constructive changes can
be brought about. The key here is to move conflict away from destructive
processes and toward constructive ones. The primary task of conflict
transformation is not to find quick solutions to immediate problems, but
rather to generate creative platforms that can simultaneously address
surface issues and change underlying social structures and relationship
patterns.
Reduce Violence and Increase Justice: Transformation must be able
to respond to life's on-the-ground challenges, needs, and realities. How
do we address conflict in ways that reduce violence and
increase justice in human relationships? To reduce violence we must
address both the obvious issues and content of any given dispute and
also their underlying patterns and causes. To increase justice we must
ensure that people have access to political procedures and voice in the
decisions that affect their lives.
Conflict transformation views peace as centred and rooted in the quality
of relationships. This includes both face-to-face interactions and the
ways in which we structure our social, political, economic, and cultural
relationships. In this sense, peace is a "process-structure," a
phenomenon that is simultaneously dynamic, adaptive, and changing. In
essence, rather than seeing peace as a static "end-state," conflict
transformation views peace as a continuously evolving and developing
quality of relationship. It is defined by intentional efforts to address the
natural rise of human conflict through non-violent approaches that
address issues and increase understanding, equality, and respect in
relationships.
Direct Interaction and Social Structures: The above concerns about
violence and justice suggest that we need to develop capacities to
engage in change processes at the interpersonal, inter-group, and
social-structural levels. One set of capacities points toward direct, face-
to-face interaction between people or groups. The other set underscores
the need to see, pursue, and create change in our ways of organizing
social structures, from families, to complex bureaucracies, to structures
at the global level. This requires a capacity to understand and
sustain dialogue as a fundamental means of constructive change.
Indeed, many of the skill-based mechanisms that reduce violence are
rooted in communicative capacities to exchange ideas, find common
definitions, and move toward solutions. But dialogue also plays a crucial
role in the maintenance or change of social structures. Through
dialogue, these structures can be modified to be more responsive and
just.
Human Relationships: Relationships are at the heart of conflict
transformation. Rather than concentrating exclusively on the content and
substance of the dispute, the transformational approach suggests that
the key to understanding conflict and developing creative change
processes lies in seeing the less visible aspects of relationship. While
the issues over which people fight are important and require creative
response, relationships represent a web of connections that form the
broader context of the conflict. It is out of this relationship context that
particular issues arise and either become volatile or get quickly resolved.
Conflict and Change
Both conflict and change are a normal part of human life. Conflict is
continuously present in human relationships, and the fabric of these
relationships is constantly adapting and changing. Before discussing
practical approaches to conflict transformation, it is important to better
understand the link between conflict and change.
There are four central modes in which conflict impacts situations and
changes things:
1. the personal,
2. the relational,
3. the structural, and
4. the cultural.
The personal dimension refers to changes effected in and desired for
the individual. This includes the cognitive, emotional, perceptual, and
spiritual aspects of human experience over the course of conflict. From a
descriptive perspective, transformation suggests that individuals are
affected by conflict in both negative and positive ways. For example,
conflict affects our physical well-being, self-esteem, emotional stability,
capacity to perceive accurately, and spiritual integrity. Prescriptively,
(i.e., relating to what one should do) transformation represents deliberate
intervention to minimize the destructive effects of social conflict
and maximize its potential for individual growth at physical, emotional,
and spiritual levels.
The relational dimension depicts the changes affected in and desired
for the face-to-face relationships. Here issues of emotions, power, and
interdependence, and the communicative and interactive aspects of
conflict are central. Descriptively, transformation refers to how
the patterns of communication and interaction in relationships are
affected by conflict. It looks beyond visible issues to the underlying
changes produced by conflict in how people perceive, what they pursue,
and how they structure their relationships. Prescriptively, transformation
represents intentional intervention to minimize poorly functioning
communication and maximize mutual understanding.
The structural dimension highlights the underlying causes of conflict,
and stresses the ways in which social structures, organizations, and
institutions are built, sustained, and changed by conflict. It is about the
ways people build and organize social, economic, and institutional
relationships to meet basic human needs and provide access to
resources and decision-making. At the descriptive level transformation
refers to the analysis of social conditions that give rise to conflict and the
way that conflict affects social structural change in existing social,
political and economic institutions.
At a prescriptive level, transformation represents efforts to provide
insight into underlying causes and social conditions that create and
foster violent expressions of conflict, and to promote nonviolent
mechanisms that reduce adversarial interaction and minimize violence.
Pursuit of this change fosters structures that meet basic human needs
(substantive justice) and maximize people's participation in decisions
that affect them (procedural justice).
The cultural dimension refers to the ways that conflict changes the
patterns of group life as well as the ways that culture affects the
development of processes to handle and respond to conflict. At a
descriptive level, transformation seeks to understand how conflict affects
and changes cultural patterns of a group, and how those accumulated
and shared patterns affect the way people in a given context understand
and respond to conflict. Prescriptively, transformation seeks to uncover
the cultural patterns that contribute to violence in a given context, and to
identify and build on existing cultural resources and mechanisms for
handling conflict.
Platforms for Transformation
We come now to the operational side of transformation. The key
challenge is how to support and sustain a platform with a capacity to
adapt and generate ongoing desired change while at the same time
responding creatively to immediate needs. To engage this challenge we
have to think about platforms as process structures.
Margaret Wheately refers to process structures as "things that maintain
form over time yet have no rigidity of structure."
The two terms that make up this term, "process" and "structure," point to
two interdependent characteristics: adaptability and purpose.
Transformational change processes must feature both of these
characteristics. They must be both linear and circular.
In simple terms, linear means that things move from one point to the
next in a straight line. It is associated with a rational-logical
understanding of events in terms of cause and effect. However, in the
social arena, events are likely moving along broad directions not always
visible from a short-term perspective. In this arena, a linear perspective
asks us to stand back and take a look at the overall direction of social
conflict and the change we seek. It requires us to articulate how we think
things are related and how movement is created. Specifically, it asks us
to look at the patterns of interaction, not just the immediate experience,
and understand the changes in these broad patterns.
Circular understanding suggests that we need to think carefully about
how social change actually develops. This notion of circularity
underscores some defining elements of transformational change
processes. First, it reminds us that things are connected and in
relationship. Second, it suggests that the growth of something often
"nourishes" itself from its own process and dynamic. In other words, it
operates as a feedback loop. Third, and most critical to our inquiry, an
emphasis on circularity makes it clear that processes of change are not
unidirectional. Figure 2 represents change as a circle, featuring four
experiences common to those in the midst of a difficult conflict.
1. There are times when we feel as if desired change is
happening. Things move forward and progress, and what we
hope to build seems to be in sight.
2. At other times, we feel as if we have reached an impasse or
"hit a wall." Nothing is happening or all pathways forward
seemed blocked.
3. Sometimes we feel as if the change processes are going
backwards, and what has been achieved is being undone. In
worst-case scenarios we hear language like, "In a single
stroke, years of work have been set back." Common to the
change process is the feeling that we are "swimming against
the tide" or headed upstream.
4. Finally, we sometimes feel like we are living through a
complete breakdown. It seems as if everything is falling apart
and collapsing. These periods tend to be deeply depressing,
and are often accompanied by the repeated echoes of "we
have to start from ground zero."
All of these experiences are integral parts of the change process and
provide us with some important insights about change. First, no one
point in time determines the broader pattern. Rather, change
encompasses different sets of patterns and directions. Second, we
should be cautious about going forward too quickly. Sometimes going
back may create more innovative ways forward, and falling down may
create new opportunities to build. Third, we should be aware that life is
never static and that we must constantly adapt
Figure 3 represents a simple process structure, which features a web of
dynamic circles that create an overall momentum and direction. One
might think of this as a rotini, a spiral made up of multi-directional
internal patterns that create a common overall movement. It features
both the purpose associated with linearity and the feedback loops
associated with circularity.
The key to create a platform for transformation in the midst of social
conflict lies in holding together a healthy dose of both circular and linear
perspectives. A transformational platform is essentially this: The building
of an on-going and adaptive base at the epicenter of conflict from which
it is possible to generate processes that create solutions to short-term
needs and provide a capacity to work on strategic long-term constructive
change in systemic relational context.
We can visualize this idea in Figure 4 by adding to our process-structure
the rising escalation of conflict episodes. In order to understand a
transformational platform, we need to visualize the idea of an on-going
base from which processes can be generated. The escalation of conflict
creates opportunity to establish and sustain this base. From the
transformational view, developing a process to provide a solution to the
presenting problem is important but not the key. Central to
transformation is building a base that generates processes that 1)
provide adaptive responses to the immediate and future iterations of
conflict episodes, and 2) address the deeper and longer-term relational
and systemic patterns that produce violent, destructive expressions of
conflict.
In other words, a conflict-transformation platform must be short-term
responsive and long-term strategic. The defining characteristic of such a
platform is the capacity to generate and re-generate change processes
responsive to both immediate episodes and the relational context. It is in
this way an adaptive process-structure, one that can produce creative
solutions to a variety of problems.
Practices For Transformational Strategies
In earlier sections, I described conflict transformation as a set of lenses
that combine to create a way to look at social conflict and develop
responses. Here I explore how to make this framework applicable by
outlining several core practices that are useful in addressing social
conflict from a transformational approach.
Practice 1: Develop a capacity to see presenting issues as a window
A transformational approach relies on a capacity to see the immediate
situation without being overwhelmed by the demands of presenting
issues, the urgency that pushes for a quick solution, and the anxieties
that often develop as conflict escalates. The pursuit of broader
transformational goals requires us to look beyond the immediate
problems and to see these issues as a window. Just as we look through
the glass, focusing our attention on what lies beyond the window, we
look through the immediate issues to discover the relational context and
the underlying causes of conflict. This is what some authors have called
the capacity to see the difference between content of a conflict and its
emotional and relational context.[5]
Practice 2: Develop a capacity to integrate multiple time frames
Approaching the immediate situation as a window also involves the
ability to think about change without being constrained by a short-term
view of time. This is not to say that short-term perspectives are never
appropriate. The key is the ability to recognize the needs of multiple time
frames and create strategies that integrate short-term response with
long-term change. Addressing immediate episodes and broader
relationship patterns requires processes with different time frames.
Processes that will be effective in one case are not likely to be effective
in another. For the transformation-oriented practitioner, the key capacity
is an ability to recognize what sorts of processes and time frames may
be needed to address the different kinds of change.
Practice 3: Develop a capacity to pose the energies of conflict as
dilemmas
Posing conflicts as dilemmas involves shifting from an either/or frame of
reference to a both/and frame of reference. In settings of sustained
violence, we sometimes face what appear to be impossible decisions
that involve outright contradictions. For example, those of us working in
relief and aid agencies in Somalia in the early 1990s struggled with
choices about where to put our energies and responses when none of
the apparent options seemed adequate. Should we send food and relief
aid even though we know armed groups will take advantage of it to
continue the war, or should we not send food but then feel helpless
about the enormous humanitarian plight? Far too often how we framed
our questions limited our strategies. Framing choices in rigid either/or
terms made it difficult to handle complexity.
A shift in thinking emerged when we reframed our questions to reflect
the legitimacy of different but not incompatible goals. Rather than
accepting a frame of reference that posed our situation as choosing
between one important goal or another, we reframed the questions in
terms of interdependent goals. How can we build capacities for peace in
this setting and at the same time create responsive mechanisms for the
delivery of humanitarian aid? The formula is this: How can we address
"A" and at the same time build "B"? This way of formulating the question
creates a capacity to recognize different but interdependent aspects of a
complex situation and develop integrative responses. The capacity to
reframe conflict in this way enables us to more clearly identify our goals
and seek innovative options for action.
Practice 4: Develop a capacity to make complexity a friend, not a foe
In conflicts, especially when there has been a long history of patterns
and episodes that were not constructively addressed, people feel
overwhelmed. It may seem that that situation is just too complicated, that
there are too many things going on to even try to explain it. At times of
escalated conflict, complexity describes a situation in which we feel
forced to live with multiple and competing frames of reference about
what things mean. We are also faced with lots of things happening at
multiple levels, between different sets of people, all at the same time.
This often leads to a sense of ambiguity, which produces three feelings:
we feel insecure about what it all means, we are not sure where it is
going, and we feel as if we have little or no control over what happens.
This often leads people to seek escape or to find a quick solution.
But in order to constructively deal with complexity, we must make it a
friend rather than a foe and recognize its potential for building desired
change. One of the great advantages of complexity is that change is not
tied exclusively to one thing, action or option. The first key is to trust the
capacity of systems to generate options and avenues for change.
Second, we must pursue those options that appear to hold the greatest
promise for constructive change. Third, we must not lock rigidly onto to
one idea or approach. The potential avenues of change generated in
complex systems are numerous. Complexity is especially a friend when
cycles and episodes of conflict seem to narrow toward the same
outcomes every time. It is here that paying careful attention to the
multiplicity of options can create new ways to look at old patterns.
Practice 5: Develop a capacity to hear and engage the voice of identity
and relationship
We have mentioned time and again the need to look for and see the
patterns in the context that underpin the presenting situation. This
involves an ability to recognize and then develop response processes
that engage the deeper core of the conflict. Two central "root causes" of
social conflict are identity and relationship.
Identity is best understood as a relational dynamic that is constantly
being redefined. It is not primarily about negotiating an agreement to
solve a material problem, but rather is about protecting a sense of self
and group survival. While it is rarely explicitly addressed, identity shapes
and moves the expression of conflict. At the deepest level it is lodged in
the narratives of how people see themselves, who they are, where they
come from, and what they fear they will become. It is also deeply rooted
in their relationships with others.
A central challenge for transformation is how to create spaces and
processes that encourage people to address and articulate a positive
sense of identity in relationship to others but not in reaction to them. This
can be accomplished in three ways.
First, be attentive to language, metaphors, and expressions
that signal the distresses of identity. In order to deal with core
issues of identity, one must acknowledge them as issues.
Second, move toward appeals to identity rather than away
from them. Acknowledge that the conflict requires a process
that more explicitly addresses issues of identity and
relationship. Generating solutions to immediate problems is
not enough.
Third, design transformation processes as dynamic platforms
that create repeating patterns of exchange and exploration
rather than produce immediate negotiated solutions.
Three guiding principles that characterize this process of exchange and
exploration: honesty, iterative (i.e. repeating and cumulative) learning,
and appropriate exchange.
First, we should work toward the creation of spaces where
people feel safe enough to be deeply honest with themselves
and others about their fears, hopes, hurts and responsibilities.
Honesty reflects parties' sense of safety and builds trust.
Second, we must create multiple points of access and
repetitive examination for addressing identity. The negotiation
and definition of identity is a complex process that requires
processes of interaction with others as well as inner reflection
about self. Identity work is not a one-time decision-making
process, but rather an ongoing learning process about self
and other. This requires an iterative platform for addressing
identity concerns within a framework of broader constructive
change.
Third, appropriate exchange calls attention to the need to
design work on identity in ways that respect people. Beyond
direct face-to-face dialogue, there are many ways that
learning and deepening understanding about identity and
relationship can occur. This includes dialogue-as-music,
dialogue-as-sport, and dialogue-as-shared-work to preserve
old city centers, parks and mountains. All of these may do
more than traditional dialogue to advance learning and
understanding.
In addition, it is important to be attentive to people's perceptions of how
identity is linked to power and the definition of the systems and
structures that organize and govern their relationships. This is
particularly important for people who feel their identity is eroded,
marginalized or under deep threat. When addressing identity-
based concerns, processes must strive to understand the roots of
people's perceptions and address the systemic changes needed to
assure access and respectful participation
Conclusion
The lenses of conflict transformation focus on the potential for
constructive change emergent from and catalyzed by the rise of social
conflict. Because the potential for broader change is inherent in any
episode of conflict, from personal to structural levels, the lenses can
easily be applied to a wide range of conflicts.
A key advantage to this framework lies in its capacity to think about
multiple avenues of response. To use our earlier comparison, we
suggested that transformation builds on and integrates the contribution
and strengths of conflict-resolution approaches. A transformational
approach inquires about both the specifics, immediately apparent in the
episode of conflict, as well as the potential for broader constructive and
desired change.
Clearly there are arenas in which transformation is limited and a quick
and direct resolution of the problem is more appropriate. In disputes
where parties need a quick and final solution to a problem and do not
have a significant relationship, they typically appeal
to negotiation and mediation. In such cases the exploration of relational
and structural patterns are of limited value. For example, a one-time
business dispute over a payment between two people who hardly know
each other and will never have contact again is not a context to explore
a transformational application.
However, in cases where parties share an extensive past and have the
potential for significant future relationships, and where the episodes
arise in an organizational, community or broader social context, simple
resolution approaches may be too narrow. Though they may solve the
immediate problems, they miss the greater potential for constructive
change. This is even more significant in contexts where there are
repeated and deep-rooted cycles of conflict episodes that have created
destructive and violent patterns. In such cases, avenues to promote
transformational change should be pursued.
