BAYERO UNIVERSITY KANO

Department of Political Science

IRS 3309: African Conflict and Conflict
Resolution
By
Prof. Abdulmalik Auwal
08033477182
[email protected]
 General Introduction
• Conceptualization of Conflict:
• Conflict is considered to be a product of disagreement that is
rooted in the belief system and perceptions of threat to peoples'
goal attainment. For Chaplin, (cited in Mohammed, 2006:7),
conflict can be defined from the tendency of human beings to
become antagonistic, particularly when they are faced with
irreconcilable or opposing views. In his words, conflict is "the
simultaneous occurrence of two or more mutually antagonistic
impulse or motives".
 Conflict
• Conflict is an important aspect of human life; there is bound to be conflict
either over the acquisition of scarce resources, or for other reasons.
• Coser sees conflict as a “process; thus the struggle over values and claim to
scarce resources, status and power in which the aims of the opponent is to
neutralize, injure or eliminate their rivals” (1967: 61).
• In a similar view, Galtung sees conflict as a condition in which there exists
two or more incompatible goal-states (1982:112). At this stage, conflict
viewed as a process refers to the interaction between societies or nations,
in their attempt to achieve their goals, while conflict as a condition is
essentially a situation in which the source of the discrepancy between
value expectation and capabilities is seen in another group competing for
the same value.
 Conflict
• Conflict is the result of opposing thoughts, actions or ideas
disrupting the status quo. Conflict is seen in everyday life, and is a
natural, often selfish, and sometimes productive phenomenon.
Because it can lead to violence and war in certain situations, the
word 'conflict' often appears with a negative connotation. The
reality is that, if dealt with properly and maturely, conflict can lead
to positive results and personal growth. In dramatic literature,
conflict is considered the driving force of the plot.
• Conflict may be defined as: incompatibility of interests, goals,
values, needs, expectations, and/or social cosmologies (or
ideologies). Ideological conflicts especially have a tendency to
become malicious (cf. Berger & Luckman, 1966).
 Conflict
• Webster’s Dictionary definition: “Clash, competition or mutual
interference of opposing or incompatible forces or qualities (as
ideas, interest, wills)”.
• Coser (1956) defined social conflict as “a struggle over values and
claims to scarce status, power and resources in which the aims of
the opponents are to neutralize, injure or eliminate their rivals”.
• McEnery (1985) suggests as a new definition of conflict: “the
interaction of any two or more value systems”.
• Conflict is either malignant or benign depending on whether the
particular interaction of the value systems tends to destructive
disruption or creative progress.
 Conflict
• According to Galtung (1965), an action-system is said to be in
conflict if the system has two or more incompatible goal states. In
the case of one actor the conflict is called a dilemma, l’embarras de
choix, or intra-individual conflict, consisting of incompatible
motivational or behavioral tendencies (approach/approach,
avoidance/avoidance, and approach/avoidance conflict: see Hinde,
1966 for a thorough review of this literature).
• Distinction should be made between conflict, conflict attitude, and
conflict behavior, which may be depicted as a triangle.
• A conflict process may get started in any corner of the triangle. One
of the means of conflict resolution is to eliminate or incapacitate
one or more of the actors in the conflict. This may be done either
nondestructively or destructively.
 Conflict
• The latter we call violent conflict. “Thus we may distinguish
between destructive and non-destructive conflict behavior,
although this is, of course, a continuum and not a dichotomy.
• Two of the most celebrated propositions about conflict can now be
made use of: conflict behavior tends to become destructive
behavior (because of the frustration-aggression cycle) and
destructive behavior tends to become self-reinforcing” (Galtung,
1965).
• Fink (1968) defines social conflict as: “any social situation or
process in which two or more social entities are linked by at least
one form of antagonistic psychological relation or at least one form
of antagonistic interaction.
 Conflict
• This emphasizes that while antagonism (which for the moment
remains undefined) is the common element in all conflicts, there
are a number of different kinds of psychological antagonisms (e.g.
incompatible goals, mutually exclusive interests, emotional
hostility, factual or value dissensus, traditional enmities, etc.) and a
number of different kinds of antagonistic interaction (ranging from
the most direct, violent, and unregulated struggle to the most
subtle, indirect, and highly regulated forms of mutual interference),
none of which is necessarily present in all instances of conflict.
• This is a disjunctive definition which subsumes any form of social
antagonism, thus making the theory of conflict equivalent to a
theory of antagonistic social relations in general”.
 Taxonomy and dimensions of conflict
• Taxonomy and dimensions of conflict:
• Objective vs. subjective;
• horizontal vs. asymmetrical;
• fractionating vs. cross-cutting;
• zero-sum vs. variable-sum;
• absolute vs. relative;
• realistic vs. projected;
• violent vs. nonviolent;
• perceived vs. non-perceived;
• regulated vs. unregulated;
• indirect (parallel striving) vs. direct (mutual interference);
 Taxonomy and dimensions of conflict
• unconscious vs. conscious;
• impersonal vs. personal;
• continuous vs. intermittent;
• communication absent vs. communication present;
• large admixture of cooperation vs. relatively pure antagonism;
• object-centered vs. opponent-centered;
• based on scarcity vs. based on incompatibility, inconsistency, etc.;
• economic goals vs. noneconomic goals;
• nondisruptive vs. disruptive; etc.
 Taxonomy and dimensions of conflict
• Dimensions of conflict: number of actors, number of goals, level of
complexity of actors (individual, group, state); etc.
• Stagner (1967) distinguishes: size, duration, evaluation, intensity,
polarization, regulation.
• Two conflicting paradigms of conflict:
• cataclysmic vs. strategic (or Tolstoylan vs. ClausewitzIan)
(Rappaport, 1966), and three models of conflict dynamics: Fights,
games, and debates (Rappaport).
 Two basic and polar types of conflict
structures
• Two basic and polar types of conflict structures (Freeman, 1972):
(a) Overlapping conflict structures exist when opponent groups are
cleaved apart by differences on all significant value fronts –
economic, political, educational, religious, ethnic, racial.
Adversaries are opponents on all.
• There are no cross-cutting attachments to common values. There is
no common ground upon which to compromise, no incentive to
negotiate. Opponents ascribe to each other less than human
qualities reflecting their lack of shared values.
• Violence is condoned by both groups in order to protect against the
extreme threat represented by the other.
 Two basic and polar types of conflict
structures
• (b) Cross-cutting conflict structures exist when opponent groups are in
opposition over a limited number of cleavage fronts, but are allied in
common cause in other significant conflicts. Actors in disagreement over
one or more value preferences find shared attachments when they
approach other issue areas. Here lay the roots of social cohesion. Cross-
cutting cleavages over values stitch society together by facilitating
constantly renewed willingness to negotiate disputes and seek ground for
compromise. Total involvement of an actor in any one conflict against any
single opponent is precluded. Roles and statuses include interaction with
a range of opponents one some issues who are allies on other conflict
fronts. Multiple involvement in cross-cutting social cleavages precludes
polarization on any one axis and keeps social groups open to ideas and
innovations from each other. Cross-cutting cleavage patterns make for
low propensities to engage in violence and for high propensities to
tolerate change, deviance, and innovation.
A landmark in the history of the study of conflict

• A landmark in the history of the study of conflict has been the so-called
Simmel Coser propositions on conflict (Simmel, 1903; Coser, 1956). Some
of their more counterintuitive findings include:
• 1. Conflict serves to establish and maintain the identity and boundary
lines of societies and groups.
• 2. Conflict with other groups contributes to the establishment and
reaffirmation of the identity of the group and maintains its boundaries
against the surrounding social world.
• 3. Patterned enmities and reciprocal antagonisms conserve social divisions
and systems of stratification.
• 4. A distinction has to be made between conflict and hostile or
antagonistic attitudes. Social conflict always denotes social interaction,
whereas attitudes or sentiments are predispositions to engage in action.
A landmark in the history of the study of conflict

• 5. Conflict is not always dysfunctional for the relationship within

which it occurs.
• 6. Social systems provide for specific institutions which serve to
drain off hostile and aggressive sentiments. These safety-valve
(Ventilsitten) institutions help to maintain the system by preventing
otherwise probable conflict or by reducing its disruptive effects.
• 7. Aggressive or hostile ‘impulses’ do not suffice to account for
social conflict. It has often been pointed out (Bernard, 1951;
DeVree, 1982; among others) that hostile stereotypes, prejudice,
threat perception, general hostility, and aggression (however
conceptualized) are more likely to be the result of conflict than its
cause.
A landmark in the history of the study of conflict

• 8. Antagonism is usually involved as an element in intimate

relationships. A conflict is more passionate and more radical when
it arises out of close relationships.
• 9. Conflict with another group leads to the mobilization of the
energies of group members and hence to increased cohesion of the
group.
• 10. Groups engaged in continued struggle with the outside tend to
be intolerant within. Rigidly organized struggle groups may actually
search for enemies with the deliberate purpose or the unwitting
result of maintaining unity and internal cohesion.