George Mason University

MA in Sociology

Theories of Conflict and Conflict Resolution

Final Paper

Submitted to Professor Solon Simmons

By Lucian Rosca
06/24/2011

A World of Conflicts

A babys first minute of life in the human society is a reason of happiness and celebration for family, friends and even for the nurses and the doctors that helped the mother deliver the child. At the same time, it is already too late for the baby to choose his/her parents, race, ethnicity, gender and country of birth. One is going to have to live with these characteristics for the entire life and sometimes, these may become reasons for controversy, unhappiness and conflict. Despite the initial joy, the baby is going to face small conflicts from the very beginning because the world changed dramatically within seconds, becoming this noisy, lightened, unsafe place, very unlike to the other one where there was no pain, hunger, thirst or any other basic needs. Conflicts are present everywhere, both in nature and in human society, being generated by a variety of causes: basic needs, interests, opinions, religion, power, social status, class, race ethnicity, gender, justice, freedom etc. They can be considered and interpreted from different perspectives depending on the discipline that approaches and studies them: Philosophy, Anthropology, Sociology, Politics, International Relations and Conflict Analysis and Resolution. In this paper I will present the problem of conflict from the perspective of Theories of Conflict and Conflict Resolution in connection with the disciplines mentioned above, yet I will also emphasize what makes CAR distinctive and important as a perspective to the study of society. Along with the development of technology, communications and transportations, the contemporary human society is continuously developing and improving a network of social connections between different individuals, social groups and countries and that generates higher

population mobility, increased immigration, higher intercultural exchange, new cultural experiences and approaches, and new interest and needs. On one hand, these factors generate a higher tolerance for different cultures, traditions, ethnics, religions, languages, differences; on the other hand, they generate opposition to new and change, fear of assimilation, new needs, competition, envy, hatred, misunderstanding and violence. All these continuously solve and create new conflicts, some of them positive. As long as they are non-violent, these conflicts create competition and their resolution also produces positive effects (for example the fair economic competition between a local company and a foreign one, or a non-violent conflict on fundamental rights between a minority and a majority, solved through negotiation). Needless to say, conflicts are also negative as they generate long lasting disputes, violence, discrimination and sometimes degenerate in war. Even though the conflict represents a part of the normal social life, generating competition, innovation, curiosity, opening and understanding, there is a tendency to perceive the conflict as a negative phenomenon or experience. The field of Conflict Analysis and Resolution is more interested in the last category of conflicts, the ones considered to generate violence, war, abuses and discrimination, in a genuine attempt to find better, equitable resolutions for all the parts involved in the conflict. To emphasize the contemporary perception of conflict, it is important to state an ordinary, common definition, found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary: a conflict is 1 fight, battle, war <an armed conflict> 2 a: competitive or opposing action of incompatible: antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons) b: mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands.1

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conflict

In order to better understand the different causes and circumstances that generate conflicts and to find the best solutions for each of them, the discipline of Conflict Resolution gives special attention to the concept of justice. Ancient Greece would be a good place to start as Athens was one of the worlds first known democracies that set the foundation of rational thinking, moral values, philosophy and science. Plato, one of the ancient Greeces most known philosophers, speaking through the voice of his teacher, Socrates, in The Republic2 tries to give an answer to the question: What is justice? He demonstrates that justice is something like a virtue of the soul and virtue of the soul is according to him the health of the soul, then justice is desirable because it is healthy for the soul therefore, injustice is not desirable. This would have been a good reason in regard to a conflict and its possible solutions through the idea of justice, favoring that participant involved in conflict and entitled to justice. At this point, there are some problems, at least in terms of applying this conflict resolution method to an antique conflict: 1. Who and how is going to decide what is just and unjust? 2. Who is going to apply that decision so that the parts involved in the conflict will respect and follow the decision? In other words who had the power, authority and legitimacy to do that in a historical period when the state authority was weaker than today, when the state institutions where fewer and not enough developed, the communication was poor and the population was small and spread on a wide area. In order to apply this idea to contemporary conflicts and to offer a solution, one needs a clear definition of the concept of justice and a legitimate and independent instance to apply the concept to the specific case. Other disciplines like Philosophy and International studies would not regard and analyze the idea of justice or injustice as a source of conflict or conflict resolution but as a social value or a social necessity.
2

Plato. The Republic. Translation and commentary by Allan Bloom. (1968) 1991. New York: Basic Books

An opposite answer to Platos idea of justices comes from Machiavellis Prince3 through the idea of power imposed by the head of a state through any means: The end justifies the means4. The book was written as an advice for Lorenzo di Medici, the prince of Florence, but some scholars interpreted it as a satire addressed to the political class of the time, or as an extreme solution to unify Italys rival city-states. In Princes case there is no room for justice, democracy, laws and agreement, because there is only one ruler, who has the power, who is always right, who makes the laws and whos only objective is the war. In many cases, the same doctrine was successfully applied by dictators around the globe and is still present nowadays, in upgraded forms, in countries like North Korea, Iran, Libya and Cuba. For example, in Libya, Muammar Gaddafi is the projection of Machiavellis Prince, who is trying to keep the power by any means, whose unique objective is war, who attacked his weak neighbors any time he had the occasion, used his allies and enemies to keep the power, and divided and ruled. Through the perspective of Machiavellis book, The Prince, one cannot find a resolution for a conflict unless the book is considered a satire and is used to reveal the real characteristics of the dictator in a manner that would force him to make a compromise or to abdicate without becoming even more violent. Another interesting approach to Conflict Analysis and Resolution is provided by the realism theory and the first example is the The Melian Dialogue5 in which the people of Melos, a small island, refused to surrender and pay tribute to the strong Athenian army knowing that they will be killed. From the point of view of contemporary realism, the Melian choice was unrealistic because they actually chose not to survive but if we go back in time and think about
3 4

http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince00.htm http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince18.htm, Chapter 18, page 1 5 http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm

the real meaning of surrender in the context of the greater conflict, the Melians knew they are going to be dishonored, and almost become slaves for Athenians. At the time, slavery would have been worse than death. On the other hand they would have been seen as traitors by the Spartans and thus, caught in the conflict, killed sooner or later. From this perspective, one can say that the Melians made a realistic choice. From a philosophical approach, the destruction of Melos becomes a problem of morality together with the terms of surrender that may be considered a humanitarian act. Both actions: the refusal to surrender and the destruction of the city would be seen today as an opposite solution for a conflict resolution. In Leviathan6, Thomas Hobbes speaks about the natural condition, the state of nature of mankind before society, government and the invention of law, the war of every man against every man7. He first introduced the concept of power, associated with the human terrible appetite to achieve it and found three main causes for conflict: competition, diffidence, glory. He also proposed several human feelings, actually human needs, that incline men to peace: fear of death ; desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them8. These feelings which are actually the savior of the human being- will later appear in John Burtons book: Deviance, Terrorism and War as human needs, that play an important role in conflicts. For Burton, fear is actually seen as one of the most important human needs, the need for security. The state of nature represents a continuous struggle between power and fear, power being the source of human problems and misery, and fear being the savior who determines the humans to attempt to escape from the state of nature. Besides fear, reason shows the man how to
6 7

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html, chapter XIII 8 http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html, Chapter XIII

escape and to lay the foundations of the natural laws and then the social contract that becomes a foundation for peace. Considered in the historical context of the English Civil War, Hobbes ideas of state of nature and the war of every man against every man is meant to point out the importance of an organized society, based on the idea of social contract versus the instability and horrors of a society destroyed by the civil war. On the other hand this may also be a warning for the king, demonstrating that the abuse of power and injustice can break the social contract and lead to a war of everybody against everybody. From a Conflict Analysis and Resolution perspective, Hobbess idea of social contract and voluntary renunciation to some of the natural right in order to stop the war of every man against every man creates the necessary condition for negotiation and peace based not only on fear but also on rationality. A contemporary example for a conflict resolution through the idea of state of nature would be the riots that recently took place in Egypt and resulted in abdication of the countrys president Hosni Mubarack. From the perspective of Hobbess social contract, the violence between the authorities and populations that burst out and intensified in Egypt, were a sign that the social agreement is no longer accepted by the population and it needs to be changed or cancelled. Since that didnt happened fast enough and the authorities became even more violent against the civilians, the riots almost transformed into a civil war, threatening to transform into a war of everybody against everybody. The fear and reason determined the president and his loyal to abdicate in order to allow free elections to take place - in Hobbes terms - to negotiate the terms of a new social contract. There are also other factors that make the situation different than

the one from Hobbes lifetime: the international pressure to solve the conflict, the progress of technology and communication, the absence of monarchy. From this perspective, Hobbes conception about state of nature and social contract is a modern solution for peace only if we take into consideration the idea that the social contract is not given by God or by a leader of any kind, but is negotiated and created by the members of the society. Therefore, when it proves not to correspond to human needs, the contract can be renegotiated and changed and it is best if that happens peacefully. From a sociological perspective I consider Thomas Hobbes one of the most important liberal thinker, in a period of absolutism, as he brought the ideas of the natural equality of all people, the artificial character of the political order (thus making a change possible), the right of the individual, and the need for a legitimate political power based on the consent of the people. This view would be opposite to Machiavellis conception on Political power in his book The Prince unless this is considered a satire, an example not to follow as a ruler. A different approach to the problem of conflict is explored by the Theory of Functionalism, one of the first perspective being the one of Plato in The Republic, and The Myth of the metals9. This is a rigid vision of the ideal city where the good of the state is above all other considerations, even the idea of Good. In Platos society there is no social mobility, each class being organized and stratified according to its own nature, individuals finding their place in society also according to their nature. An important distinction is made by Plato in regard to the citys guardians or rulers who are not allowed to own property as they may begin to abuse their power and to rule for their own good and not for the good of the city.

http://api.ning.com/files/yLBGfqJNowgmSqJCVAMsDW0x4b5iHwbf0dA1HxvB*P0LGn-bEeebSoHuC9OdwPNyElZB2odrXH-f-h-7qZ*f2eR1FJgLiiX/Plato_NobleLie.pdf

The philosophical and moral problem that appears in this model of utopian society is the fact that the good of the city (state) overrides the individual rights, freedom, and the moral values. As for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, this social model has many problems: individual rights and freedom, social mobility, even discrimination as the social mobility doesnt exist, no possible alternative because this is the model of the ideal city or state. Another problem would be who decides and how decides what is everybodys real nature and what is ones position in society. As a result, this ideal society, applied to the contemporary world would actually create and amplify conflicts instead of offering reasonable solutions. A different functionalist approach comes from Lewis A. Coser10 who actually finds some positive features of different conflicts around the globe: conflicts set boundaries between groups, they establish identity of groups within the system and the reciprocal repulsion creates a balance between various groups. Coser also presents and analyzes some other thinkers ideas to reveal the functions of the social conflict: Karl Marks idea of social classes that only appear through conflict, and George Sorels idea that violence maintains the group cohesion. In Cosers opinion, individuals become aware of the community of their interests only through conflict. An important idea in Cosers readings is that of legitimacy which determines the population to accept the social differences. In this case, the example is the Indian society formed of casts where there is no social mobility, but there is no desire to move to the upper casts or to emulate them. The western societies are open class systems where social mobility exists and the feeling of interclass hostility is present and is likely to turn into resentment. These societies also need and create venting mechanisms or suppression valves to release tensions and to temporarily
10

Lewis A. Coser: The Functions of Social Conflicts http://api.ning.com/files/Pw1dkMtiMTtRVkr5GsfjAyOJb3WpWS9AWcIlYGHuPxqb7nPENREpDMSi55Uc5TSytHTGy64wUOCAK4xwyQR0ypLuM3uH80d/Coser195623.pdf

solve conflicts or to postpone them: satire, sports, witchcraft, scapegoating and in this case, it can take the form of racial, religious or sexual prejudice. One of the most important distinctions in Cosers texts is that between realistic and unrealistic conflict. In a realistic conflict, the actor has an object for the source of his anger and the conflict ends when the actors confrontation with the source satisfies his need, while in an unrealistic conflict, there is a way of expressing the anger or frustration through other means not aiming the source of conflict. In this case, an excellent example is scapegoating. From a Conflict Analysis perspective, Cosers functionalist approach of the problem of conflict is important because it emphasizes a positive aspect of conflicts, and analyzes conflicts between different groups in different societies and between inter-groups and intra-groups helping us to better understand the positive relationship between the structure of the group and the conflict. Cosers ideas would be a great benefit in the field of conflict resolution. For example, the Afghan War could be analyzed through a realistic and unrealistic point of view because the discriminatory conflicts between inter-groups may be just a way of expressing the anger or frustration through other means not aiming the real source of dispute. The actual conflict may just be a suppression valve for other conflicts that remained unsolved for decades (economic status, lack of education, lack of communication and information, unsatisfied basic human needs). Speaking of basic human needs, we can approach the conflict in Afghanistan from this perspective, following John Burtons11 opinion on this problem. He considers that any attempt to subordinate individual values to social values, inconsistent to human needs, will receive
11

John Burton:Deviance, Terrorism and War, The process of Solving unresolved Social and political Problems, pages 55-84, http://api.ning.com/files/zc7lfWIbrdYNriCkHyB-kkkH3P0-XSVU43ayR2RtXOJ2z1IrbaIzjgprr5OsFC9bcvJXrWkLyeOxfwrul9MGCDnW9jstgFs/Burton_79.pdf

10

responses that will harm both, the individual and the social system. The goal of social organization should be the satisfaction of human needs as institutional values change with the time and create tensions and conflicts because they dont correspond anymore to the basic human necessities. For the war in Afghanistan, some of the human needs that are not met are: the need for security (people are not safe), need for justice (in this case justice belong to the stronger armed groups or factions), need for stimulation and the need for response (violence that continued for decades offers no stimulation or response), and the need for a sense of control (in a civil war, unarmed civilian have no power or control and they can lose their properties and even their lives in a second). However, the theory of the human needs doesnt offer a perspective of the problems generated by long wars with different other countries- in the case of Afghanistan with Russia and England-and the effects of these wars on the actual conflict. On the other hand, from the point of view of Culture and Context, Jeffrey Alexander considers that One must insist that social power be justified and that authority be accountable, but one also must acknowledge that even the most democratic and individuated societies depend on the ability to sustain collective belief.12, but in the Afghan society the beliefs become fragmented, divided and there is no social cohesion capable of finding solutions to conflicts. Another approach to the problem of conflicts can be realized through Multiculturalism. Will Kymlicka13considers that we have to make an important distinction of group-specific rights

12

Jeffrey Alexander: Cultural Pragmatics: Social Performance Between Ritual and Strategy http://api.ning.com/files/K4J5EOVUeUG6rNU0NDFIq-acwYvyN6HOYRWNhw*Dv*rs1lGubou4f9vS2ooyIPypZblig6MTlC4WBtqci1RKPaSywiYmR5d/Alexander_04.pdf 13 Will Kymlicka:Multicultural Citizenship, pages 1-33, 49-74, http://api.ning.com/files/jqXeFM7kcu5tyz2m*m3*ahjPcYZ8vv2dFUYXGOZzt9TdM8e2fyqFvSaUSI24Sh0YMwPFiRCSUfRG53ETAVCM8Xqf*bYdVSX/Kymlicka0001.pdf

11

between external protection and internal restrictions. External protection between groups could be justified in order to promote equality but it doesnt have to allow exploitation or oppression. Internal restrictions couldnt be justified from a liberal perspective, because they restrain personal autonomy, yet they could be granted in certain conditions to national minorities. This concept could be applied in Afghanistan but it first needs an agreement to stop the war and the violence, in order to begin negotiation in regard to group-specific rights. It also needs a certain civil right education and experience for the population to which this concept is applied.

Conclusion:
The human history is a long chronicle of disputes, wars, rivalry, conquests, defeats and victories bearing different numbers and names. Many of them brought death and suffering, some of them founded empires that flourished and produced prosperity and happiness while instilling more pain to their survivors. Each historical period had its own interpretation in regard to worlds history, to the wars, crimes, social values and needs, dreams about future; however, the best, objective, impersonal judges remain the future generations who will also bear the consequences of the actions of their ancestors. I consider that all the theories studied during the course of Theories of Conflict and Conflict Resolution are important and bring a different perspective on the nature of conflicts that occur in human society. They all have a contribution to a better solution to past, present and future conflicts, but they will continue to evolve and develop along with the human society, human values and needs as well as the new conflicts that may appear. The best solution to every

12

conflict is unique and can only be acquired through discussions and negotiation, with all parts involved, based on Conflict Analysis and Resolution theories and experience.

References

1. Alexander, Jeffrey C. (2004). Cultural Pragmatics: Social Performance Between Ritual and Strategy, Sociological Theory, 22 (4): 527-573. 2. Burton, J. (1979). Deviance, Terrorism and War: The Process of Solving Unsolved Social and Political Problems, published by Palgrave Macmillan. 3. Coser, L. (1956). The Function of Social Conflict, the Free Press, New York, NY. 4. Hobbes, T. Of Man, Being the First Part of Leviathan. Information retrieved on June 20th, 2011 from http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html 5. Kymlicka, W. (1996):Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights, Oxford University Press, pages 1-33, 49-74 6. Machiavelli, N. The Prince. Rendered into HTML by Jon Roland of the Constitution Society. Information retrieved on June 21st 2011 from http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince00.htm 7. Plato. The Republic. Translation and commentary by Allan Bloom. (1968) 1991. New York: Basic Books 8. Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, information retrieved on June 20th, 2011 from http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm

13