![]() |
International Online Training Program On Intractable Conflict |
Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, USA |
{OLD TITLE: Framing: What is this conflict about?} The first part of a conflict assessment is to define what the conflict is about from one's own point of view. What are the key issues? What is your position with respect to those issues? In other words, what are you asking for? Conflict professionals often refer to the process of defining what a conflict is about as "framing." The term "framing" is a metaphor for the process of framing a picture or looking out a window frame. When two people look out a window, their eyes take in the same scene. However, their brains may interpret what they see very differently. One person may focus on the people walking below; another may focus on the traffic in the street; a third on the weather. Each person describes or "frames" the scene differently. Similarly, two people viewing a conflict may frame the conflict differently. One may see the key issue as jobs, while another may define it in terms of environmental quality, or quality of life. Being clear about one's goals, what one is trying to obtain from the conflict, and why that is so important is critical to success. :
After assessing one's own view of the conflict, it is important to consider who else is involved and what their view of the conflict is. We call this part of the conflict assessment "scoping."
Who else is involved?
Conflict professionals often refer to the people involved in a conflict as disputants, or parties. In order to deal with a conflict effectively, all the parties to the conflict must be identified. Often these individuals or groups are divided into categories. "First parties" are the disputants who initiated the conflict--they are the ones who are seeking a change. In legal terms, they are the "plaintiff." "Second parties" are the ones who oppose the first parties. Usually, they oppose the first party's change--they want to maintain the status quo. Lawyers refer to these parties as "defendants."
Other parties may be involved in or are affected by the conflict, even though they have not taken a side. These people are often called "third parties." Sometimes the term "third party" is reserved for people who become actively involved in trying to help the disputants to resolve the conflict. Mediators, arbitrators, conciliators, or judges, for example, are usually referred to as "third parties." In other cases, the term "third party" simply refers to people who are affected by the conflict, but who have not become involved on one side or the other.
How do the other parties define, or frame the conflict?
Often, different parties will describe or "frame" a conflict very differently. Continuing the window metaphor, an adult may look out a window, see a heavy snowstorm and react with dread, while a child may look at the same scene with delight. The adult and the child frame the scene differently because their interests and needs are different. Similarly, people who are in different situations will have different interests and needs, so they too will frame a conflict situation differently from each other.
The second step in any conflict assessment is to identify all the other people involved in the conflict, and to identify, as much as possible, how each of them views the conflict. This requires determining the other parties' positions, interests, and needs. This process is even more prone to error, as communication and understanding between conflicting parties is usually poor, and parties may not even agree within themselves what their positions, interests and needs are. In addition to communication problems (which are discussed elsewhere), common scoping problems are:
finding problems, decision making procedural problems, and escalation. These complicating factors tend to intensify or obscure the core conflict, making it harder to deal with effectively. Even when the core conflict is highly resistant to resolution, by limiting (or even eliminating) most of the complicating factors, it is possible to deal with the remaining conflict in a much more constructive way.
The following sections deal with the four most common kinds of complicating factors:
Effective communication is essential to all conflict management processes. Ironically, communication is perhaps the first things to be harmed when a conflict develops. Parties tend to close down communication entirely, or speak in anger, saying things that they do not really mean. Often the communication that takes place escalates the conflict and does more harm than good. Below is a list of common communication problems, linked to a list of strategies for limiting or avoiding these problems.
In many cases, the parties may disagree about the key facts surrounding a conflict. For example, one party might believe that a chemical plant is operating safely, while opponents believe that neighbors are being slowly poisoned. Other examples might involve disagreements over the amount of available irrigation water, the acres of farmland that both sides would get as part of a peace settlement, or the number of refugees awaiting re-settlement. Many of these factual disagreements can be resolved through some type of joint fact-finding process. Other factual disagreements, however, contain irreducible uncertainties which make such resolution impossible.
Democratic societies typically resolve public disputes using some type of governmental process in which decisions are made by the courts, legislative bodies, or the electorate. While citizens do not expect to win every dispute, they do expect to be treated fairly. If they believe they are being treated unfairly, they are likely to actively oppose the decision-making process and the decision that is made. Key to avoiding these problems is having a clear understanding of the basic principles of fairness and being sure that all decision making processes carefully adhere to those principles.
Escalation can dramatically increase the level of hostility far beyond what would be justified by the core issues. Escalation occurs when one party responds to an intentional or unintentional provocation with an even greater counter provocation. This in turn leads to a further counter-counter provocation in an endless cycle which dramatically intensifies the conflict. This is especially likely to happen when personal attacks, violence, or polarization are involved. Despite its costs, escalation is often viewed by disputants as desirable because it focuses attention on the importance of an issue and helps parties mobilize supporters.
In the introduction, we differentiated between two parts of a conflict: the core conflict and the complicating factors. The core conflict involves the basic things that the conflict is about --the incompatible interests, the unmet needs, the fundamental value differences, or the struggle for justice. Although conflicts can be about almost anything, conflicts that most commonly seem to resist resolution are often focused on particular types of problems. These include:
The Denial of Identity - Conflicts often arise between racial, ethnic, or other groups when one group denies the legitimacy or equal status of another group.<!-- Example Links: 6320, 6811, 5746, 1975, 5338, 1249-->.
The Denial of Other Human Needs - In addition to identity, people also have fundamental needs for security and recognition. When these needs are not fulfilled, the group being threatened will usually do everything in their power to remedy the situation. Unlike conflicts of interest, which can often be negotiated, human needs are not compromisable. Thus needs conflicts tend to be protracted.
Deep-rooted Value Differences - Many resolution-resistant conflicts involve disputes about fundamental values--beliefs regarding what is right and what is wrong. Often these are religious conflicts, but they can revolve around secular values as well. For example, some people place a very high value on the protection of the environment and endangered species, even when doing so harms human welfare. Others think human welfare is far more important. Conflicts over value differences such as these are very hard to resolve.
Domination conflicts
Similar to identity conflicts, domination conflicts are conflicts that develop when one person or group tries to dominate another.
People involved in such conflicts can do one of two things. They can withdraw from the conflict, or they can confront it in some way. (For a short discussion about withdrawing from a conflict, see 7274).* When people confront a conflict, they are trying to influence the situation in a way which will benefit themselves. They may do so in a variety of ways--they may use force, they may try to negotiate, or they may try to persuade the opponent to change his or her attitudes and/or behavior through emotional or rational appeals. Often people or groups try a combination of several strategies in an effort to prevail. Their success is determined by a number of things: their sources and amount of power; their opponents' sources and amount of power, and their ability to utilize power wisely.
The following section describes how power can be used and abused to confront resolution-resistant conflicts. *First we discuss the use of force and examine the problems that often develop when force-based strategies are used. In the linked "solutions" sections we consider how these problems can be avoided and how force can be used as an effective confrontational strategy. We then discuss persuasive or integrative* strategies--strategies for bonding groups together and using persuasion to convince people to respect each others' interests and needs. This also is presented in a problem-solution format. Third, we look at negotiation opportunities and examine problems and solutions that are available to determine when negotiation will work and how it should be accomplished. Lastly, we look at combination strategies-approaches to conflicts that use a combination of force, negotiation, and/or persuasion to pursue a party's goals.
Parties often attempt to use force-based strategies to advance their interests. In simple terms force-based power takes the following form: "you do what I want you to do, or I will do something that you do not want me to do." Thus, parties attempt to force their opponents to submit by threatening to impose unacceptable sanctions if they do not.
Many different type of force are available and each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Some types of force involve efforts to obtain government (and police) support through legal or political processes. Other types of force involve violent threats leveled by military or paramilitary units or by individuals. Still other types of force involve economic activities (e.g. strikes and boycotts) or non-violent demonstrations and protests.
Integrative power encourages people to do the right thing because they want to, not because they are being forced or paid to do it. In some cases, integrative power arises from successful efforts to persuade people to change their behavior. In other cases change can result from an individual's own moral decisions or from their decision to follow the examples set by others. Integrative power can be very effective--often more effective than force. However, it must be pursued correctly and in the appropriate circumstances. When it is used incorrectly, it can be ineffective, or even harmful. Problems relating to the use of integrative power are found below.
Disputants can also advance their positions through exchange or negotiation. In some cases, these exchanges may truly be win-win. The disputants may redefine the conflict, allowing a solution to be developed which was not recognized before, or the disputants may be able to reach a limited win-win agreement on some aspects of the conflict, while other issues remain unresolved.
Often, however, negotiated agreements require significant compromises and sacrifices. If the parties have reached a stalemate and see no way to do better with continued conflict, the negotiation of a solution is sometimes the best choice. In other cases, negotiation is done at the end of a power contest when one side has clearly won. In this case the parties use negotiation to define the terms of surrender.
Copyright ©1998 Conflict Research Consortium -- Contact: crc@colorado.edu