|
By Marianne Perez
July 2008
In peace studies, conflict is often defined as a situation in which two or more parties perceive that they have incompatible goals, strategies, values or interests. Conflicts can be as simple as a couple trying to decide how to spend their vacation or as complex as the situation in the Middle East. Let's take a closer look at the definition:
"Two or more parties" – conflict involves at least two parties (whether they are individuals, groups, states, civilizations, etc.). It is nearly impossible to have a conflict with only one party. When asked about an internal conflict, peace scholars often say that even if a conflict is happening within a single person, there are different parts of the person that are in conflict (i.e. id-ego, left brain-right brain, etc.). On the other end of the spectrum, conflicts tend to involve more than just two parties. The couple trying to figure out their vacation plans obviously involves the two members of the couple, but can also implicate their children, their parents, their friends, the people to whom they will or will not give their business, etc.
"Perceive" – to me, this is the key. Often times, conflicts escalate to violence because of the perception of incompatibility or intractability. When the parties stop and take the time to clarify their positions, it nearly always comes out that the conflict is a result of a misperception. This could be a misperception of one's own or the other's goals and values. It is in this space where dialogue and creativity can positively transform conflict. This is where conflict becomes an opportunity to explore each party's needs and to search for an outcome that meets all parties' needs.
"Incompatible goals, strategies, values and interests" – conflicts can be about what a desired outcome should be, how to attain it, why it is important or what the motivation is for it.
Outside the field of peace studies, conflict is often confused with violence. Most conflicts do not result in violence. I am in conflict dozens of times a day with myself (and my schedule!), my family, my colleagues and my friends over my career choice, politics, project implementation and personal relationships. This does not mean that we are physically, verbally or psychologically abusing each other. Rather, I am in a state of dynamic introspection and expression, always looking for creative ways to bridge the gap and find outcomes based on shared values and visions.
In order to achieve peace, it is not enough to stop the violence. The underlying conflict, which may result in violence, needs to be addressed. Peace scholars like Johan Galtung and John Paul Lederach see three parts to a conflict: the behavior, the contradiction and the attitude.
"Behavior" is how we act in the conflict—violently or constructively. The "contradiction" is the perception of an incompatibility of goals and values.
"Attitudes" are the cognitive and emotional assumptions and feelings we have about a conflict or the parties to a conflict. Often times in conflicts, we tend to just focus on the behavior (Stop hitting each other!) without looking at the contradiction (What has led you to hit each other?) or the attitude (How does it feel to hit and be hit?). This more nuanced understanding of conflict lends itself to tremendous opportunities for positive change.
Conflict usually arises when basic needs are not met. The field of peace studies has developed a gamut of analytical tools to map conflicts, to identify actors and their needs, and to propose viable solutions. And it is these tools that a U.S. Department of Peace would make more widely available.
Have a question or a comment? An idea for future discussion?
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
|
