Response to Robert’s post-Conflict and Cooperation 7.1-LDRS 501

Response to Robert’s post 7.1-LDRS 501

Post 7.1 Conflict and Cooperation

Thank you, Robert, for sharing your experience, and I would like to share with you some thoughts

Lederach (2003) consider conflict resolution is content-centered, aims at an immediate agreement and is committed only to de-escalate in comparison to conflict transformation which is relationship-centered, points at the long-term process, including escalation and pursue constructive change (Ramsbotham, Miall, & Woodhouse, 2011, p.9). However, resolving conflict must involve a set of dynamic changes that mean de-escalation of conflict behavior, change in attitudes, and a transformation of relationships or clashing interests that are at the core of the conflict structure. (Ramsbotham, Miall, & Woodhouse, 2011, p.10). Conflict transformation (beyond intractability, 2017) is an engaging self in constructive change initiatives that include and go beyond the resolution of particular problems. “Conflict transformation is a comprehensive orientation or framework that ultimately may require a fundamental change in our way of thinking” (Lederach, 2015).

Defining features of systemic conflict transformation by Wils, Hopp, Robers, Vimalarajah, and Zunzer (2006, p.14) summarised as follows:
1. Systemic conflict transformation based on the recognition that highly escalated inter-group conflicts constitute highly complex “systems” which can only be “modeled” to a limited extent so that all interventions can only draw on limited knowledge.
2. An appropriately complex analysis of the conflict system is therefore especially important; this must be undertaken with local actors and take particular account of the self-reinforcing nature of many inter-group conflicts.
3. When analyzing and intervening in a system, it is essential to define the system’s boundaries precisely and be aware of the interactions and interdependencies in supra- and sub-systems. Here, a shift in perspective offers an overview of the system as a whole (“bird’s eye view”) and individual sub-systems (“frog’s eye view”).
4. Interventions in the system require an analytical reduction of complexity to a series of working hypotheses which permit viable interventions with a “leverage effect” as well as facilitating the identification of agents of peaceful change and the critical mass needed for political and social change.
5. It is helpful to make use of the methodologies of applied systems theory (especially in the areas of organizational development consulting, psychotherapy and cybernetics).

Peter Senge, argues that “the art of systems thinking lies in seeing through complexity to the underlying structures generating change.” Not yet, “Systems thinking, according to Senge, does not mean ignoring complexity, but organizing it into a coherent story that illuminates the causes of problems and how they can be remedied in enduring ways” (Wils et al., 2006, p.13).
Additionally, Wils et al., (2006) argue in favor of “a creative systemic approach, which means not being forced into the narrow confines of one particular school but utilizing the innovative opportunities afforded by systems thinking and interpretation as creatively as possible” (p.13). Conflict transformational begins with a central goal to build constructive change out of the energy created by conflict (beyond intractability, 2017). The key is to move the conflict from a destructive process toward constructive processes. The idea of using transformational conflict strategy is not to have a quick solution to immediate problems, instead, is to generate a creative platform that can communicate and address surface issues and change the underlying social structure and relationship patterns.

Lederach (beyond intractability, 2017) considered human relationships at the heart of conflict transformation. Therefore, consider when dealing with conflict the four primary modes that have impacted on conflict when arise.
1) The personal dimension: this includes the cognitive, emotional, perceptual, and spiritual aspects of human experience throughout conflict;
2) The relational dimension: this covers emotions, power, and interdependence, communicative and interactive aspects of conflict at the central;
3) The structural dimension: deals with the underlying cause of conflict in which social structure, organizations, and institution built and sustained and the intuitional relationships to meet basic human needs and provide access to resource and decision-making;
4) The cultural dimension, which 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 (beyond intractability, 2017).

The ideas for practice transformational strategies suggested by Lederach are (beyond intractability, 2017):
Practice 1: Develop a capacity to see presenting issues as a window
Practice 2: Develop a capacity to integrate multiple time frames
Practice 3: Develop a capacity to pose the energies of conflict as dilemmas
Practice 4: Develop a capacity to make complexity a friend, not a foe
Practice 5: Develop a capacity to hear and engage the voice of identity and relationship

Conclusion

The transformation strategy brings to the table multiple avenues of responses dealing with the complexity of today’s very complicated and rapidly changing conflict landscapes. It is a potential seed for change both peacemaker as well as in the society in conflict. Considering conflict as normal in human relationships and also is a motor of change. Applying the systematic approach to conflict transformation guides individuals, organizations and social network towards a complex-sensitive way of thinking; therefore, acting without losing focus on the necessary details and factors.

Reference

Beyond Intractability. (2017, April). Conflict Transformation. Retrieved from: https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/transformation

Lederach, J. (2015). A little book of conflict transformation: Clear articulation of the guiding principles by a pioneer in the field. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc.

Ramsbotham, O., Miall, H., & Woodhouse, T. (2011). Contemporary conflict resolution. Polity.

Wils, O., Hopp, U., Robers, N., Vimalarajah, L., Zunuer, W., (2006). Systematic Approach to Conflict Transformation: Concept and Field Application. Berlin, Germany: Berghof Foundation for Peace Support. Retrieved from: https://www.berghoffoundation.org/fileadmin/redaktion/Publications/Other_Resources/SCT_Systemic_Conflict_Transformation_Complete.pdf