Notes on Understanding Conflict (Moral Conflict)

Introduction

  • Context: Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing on 1994-04-19; 170 people killed; motives unclear at the time of writing, but a statement against a group’s actions was intended.
  • Key takeaways:
    • Acts like this occur worldwide when one group tries to stop another; conflict stems from human differences not always handled humanely.
    • The central questions: Is conflict inherent, avoidable, or eliminable? Should we focus on winning, eliminating, or managing conflict?
    • The chapter situates conflict within Western thought, especially in liberal democratic theories and public discourse.

Traditional Orientations Toward Conflict

  • Three popular approaches to conflict (Nicotera, Rodriguez, Hall, and Jackson, 1995):
    • Game theory: conflict arises from rational decision making in competitive/cooperative systems.
    • Cognitive approach: focuses on individual differences, such as conflict style.
    • Institutional approach: concentrates on societal structures and processes in generating/ex expressing conflict.
  • In liberal democracy (the U.S. system since its founding): conflict is treated as a necessary evil; the system handles it democratically and judicially.
    • Individuals express interests via public declaration; freedom of speech allows diverse views within rights of others.
    • Decisions proceed through spokespersons, elected representatives, votes; the majority rules; the minority has the right of persuasion.
    • In unresolved private disputes, the court delivers judgments (focus of Barbers’ notion of "thin democracy").

Barber’s Three Ways Conflict Has Been Understood in the American System

  • Barber (1984) states three modes of handling conflict: anarchist, realist, minimalist.
    • Anarchist: conflict-denying; emphasize privacy, liberty, property; distrust of government; live-and-let-live; individuals as autonomous; allegiance primarily to individual liberty.
    • Realist: conflict-repressing; power as key resource; win/lose view; public goods framed as private advantage; communication mainly as surveillance and manipulation; attacks on opponents, security through strength.
    • Minimalist: conflict-tolerating; uneasy with power, values freedom; seeks a balance (golden mean) where government protects liberty but does not overreach; distrust of centralized power yet accepts the necessity of governance.
  • The three modes coexist in liberal democracy, described as:
    • Conflict-denying (free-market/private sector elasticity and egalitarianism)
    • Conflict-repressing (adjudication, power use in governance)
    • Conflict-tolerating (liberal-skeptical temper, pluralism)
  • The “zoo-keeping” metaphor (Barber): conflict controlled by separating groups, caging differences; a critique of thin democracy as insufficient for humane public discourse.
  • Anarchist mode emphasizes individual autonomy; Realist mode emphasizes power and competition; Minimalist mode emphasizes cautious governance and tolerance.

The New Sophistication About Conflict

  • Four core statements of contemporary thinking:
    1. There are different types of conflict.
    2. Understanding conflict is more important than knowing how to win.
    3. Some ways of managing conflict are better than others.
    4. Intervention is an art that can be practiced successfully.
  • This reframing recognizes that conflicts differ structurally and thus require different management strategies.

There Are Different Types of Conflict (from Game Theory and Beyond)

  • Structural differences in types of conflict lead to different strategies and outcomes.
  • Three primary game structures identified:
    • Zero-sum games (pure competition): one party’s gain is another’s loss.
    • Non-zero-sum games (cooperation possible): there are outcomes where both can gain or both can lose; total payoff may vary.
    • Mixed-motive games: players face a risk-reward trade-off between cooperation and competition.
  • Key concepts:
    • Zero-sum example payoff relation: W1 + W2 = 0 for all outcomes.
    • Non-zero-sum example: there exist outcomes with W1 > 0 \land W2 > 0 or at least one outcome where W1 + W2 \neq 0.
    • Mixed-motive games: outcomes depend on whether players choose cooperation or competition; cooperation can yield high joint payoffs, but defection can yield high individual gains at the expense of the other.
  • The Prisoner’s Dilemma (the most celebrated mixed-motive, non-zero-sum game):
    • Payoff order: T > R > P > S, where T = temptation to defect, R = reward for mutual cooperation, P = punishment for mutual defection, S = sucker’s payoff.
    • Additional condition for classic PD: 2R > T + S ensures mutual cooperation is not a sure-thing without trust or mechanism.
  • Implication: The realism of Machiavelli/Alinsky (as zero-sum thinkers) was incomplete; language and relationships can shift a conflict from one type to another.

Language, Relationships, and Different Forms of Conflict (Rapoport, Buber, Matson & Montagu)

  • Language affects how we perceive and participate in conflict; conflicts can move from monologue to dialogue, changing moral orders.
  • Rapoport’s three forms of conflict (and their relational structure):
    • Fight: opponent is a nuisance; aim is to harm/destroy/diminish the opponent; relationship is adversarial and contemptuous.
    • Game: opponent is essential and must cooperate; governed by rules; rational under mutual recognition of the other as a rational actor.
    • Debate: opponent is the prize; goal is to persuade; outcomes measured by convincing the other to adopt your view.
  • The only rational form among these is the game; the opponent is a rational partner within a shared framework.
  • Buber (1958) stressed the quality of relationships in conflict; reflexive effects of relationship on participants.
  • Matson & Montagu (1967) argued that the major revolution in conflict was the shift from monologue to dialogue; dialogue invites answers and mutual understanding, whereas monologue aims to dominate or persuade.
  • Dangers of dialogue include: increased self-knowledge that may destabilize beliefs, misunderstandings, possible deep disagreements, and potential mental disruption.
  • The moral orders:
    • Monologue: ends justify means; alliance with friends against enemies; pursuit of one’s own interests.
    • Dialogue: ends and means are negotiable; collaborative problem-solving; intersubjective change.
  • Rapoport’s early view (science and the goals of man) originally framed conflict as debates that could be solved by applying a scientific outlook; critics argued not all conflicts are debates; fights and games also matter.
  • Thorson (1989) distinguished intractable conflicts (structurally resistant to resolution) from inefficient disputes (a resolvable conflict where solution is not reached due to misperception or failure to recognize the resolution).
  • The cake example (inefficient disputes): when one person cuts and the other chooses, a fair division exists but disputes persist due to misperceptions or negotiation failure.

The Move Toward a More Humane Understanding of Conflict

  • Dunant and the Red Cross (1864 Geneva Convention): conflict is a shared humanitarian problem; aid should be provided regardless of side.
  • Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (1863) and “better angels of our nature” emphasize healing patriotism and humanizing the enemy; war’s moral framing shifts toward shared humanity.
  • Burton (1990) and the paradigm shift: a shift from merely containing or resolving conflict to transforming relationships and addressing root causes (provention).
  • Burton argues that structural conditions, if eliminated, would lead to peace, but cautions that moral differences cannot be eliminated; the focus is on managing difference humanely rather than eradicating conflict entirely.
  • The distinction between resolving a conflict and addressing the underlying causes (provention): solving the problems that lead to conflict rather than just containing or bargaining over symptoms.
  • The new emphasis: conflict management as an ongoing practice, not a one-time fix.
  • Dispute resolution movement gains momentum: mediation emerges as a practical alternative to litigation; track-two diplomacy; a growing movement in schools and communities.

The Dispute Resolution Movement: Mediation, ADR, and Institutional Support

  • Mediation and other ADR models share the feature of a third-party facilitator helping disputants reach agreement; often complementary to the court system.
  • Growth of the mediation field:
    • Over 400 mediation centers in the United States (Bush & Folger, 1994).
    • Several states have implemented alternative dispute resolution programs (e.g., Shailor, 1994).
  • Institutional supports:
    • U.S. Institute of Peace funds research on conflict resolution, Track Two (citizen-to-citizen) processes.
    • Harvard Negotiation Project developed methods (e.g., single-text) used in peace processes (e.g., Camp David, Israel-Egypt).
    • The broader media and public discourse celebrate peace processes (e.g., South Africa’s transition, Israel–Palestine, Northern Ireland, Haiti, Bosnia).
  • Important caveat: these successes reflect shifts in conflict, not elimination; conflict is transformed into different forms rather than disappearing.
  • Provention (Burton & Dukes, 1990): aim to transform relationships and address root causes rather than simply settling disputes after they arise.
  • Key organizations:
    • Red Cross and Red Crescent international humanitarian networks; Amnesty International; Human Rights Watch.

What Is “Better” Conflict Management? (Two Plateaus and Beyond)

  • Plateaus in conflict management:
    • First plateau: focus on conflict per se, not strategies for advantage.
    • Second plateau: some theorists deny conflict is inherently problematic and propose viewing conflict as an opportunity for growth and transformation (empowerment and recognition).
  • Transformative perspective (Bush & Folger, 1994): conflict can be an opportunity for empowerment and recognition; aims to change the relationship and the conditions producing conflict.
  • The Harold/Fisher/Brown line of thought:
    • Getting to Yes (Fisher & Ury, 1981): principled negotiation; three types of bargaining styles and a move toward interest-based negotiation.
    • Three bargaining styles identified by Fisher & Ury:
    • Hard bargaining: adversarial; seek victory; demand concessions; threaten; win-lose orientation.
    • Soft bargaining: pleasing the other; seek agreement; concessions to preserve relationship; avoid confrontation.
    • Principled negotiation (hard on the problem, soft on the people): focus on merits, not positions; separate people from the problem; focus on interests, not positions; invent options for mutual gain; use objective criteria; insist on fair standards.
    • Fisher & Brown (1988) extended this by prioritizing relationships; they advocate an unconditionally constructive strategy that sustains the relationship while solving the problem.
    • Six areas of the unconditional constructive strategy (Fisher & Brown, 1988):
    1. Rationality: balance emotions with reason.
    2. Understanding: try to understand the other’s perspective even if there is misunderstanding.
    3. Communication: engage in dialogue with those affected; seek input before decisions.
    4. Reliability: remain trustworthy and reliable even if others act deceitfully.
    5. Noncoercive influence: resist coercion; invite persuasion; avoid coercive tactics.
    6. Acceptance: respect the other as worthy of consideration, even if concerns are rejected; care about them and learn.
  • The authors emphasize that ethical negotiation aligns with practical effectiveness; good ethics support good decisions and are revisited as circumstances evolve.

What Counts as “Intervention” in Conflict? (The Role of the Intervener)

  • Intervention is an art, not a mechanical process:
    • Mediators do not simply impose change; they become part of the system and influence it, while being influenced themselves by the conflict.
    • Conflicts are systemic; participants’ actions are reflexively linked to the intervention.
  • The mediator’s role includes entering the dispute system as a participant among many, recognizing that outcomes emerge from interactions among all actors.
  • This view supports a shift from a single, linear solution to a nuanced, systemic approach to influence.

The Ethical and Practical Implications for Public Discourse

  • The new synthesis recognizes that:
    • Conflict can be constructive and transformative if managed well; it can enhance empowerment and recognition.
    • Ethical considerations are not merely about what not to do but about what should be done to maintain or improve relationships and social structures.
    • Public discourse should cultivate dialogue, not just competition or coercion.
  • The societal costs of unresolved or mismanaged conflict are high (e.g., costs of jails, ethnic conflict, deterrence costs, and coercive measures).
  • The contemporary paradigm encourages ongoing engagement with conflict, not quick fixes.

Practical Implications: Education, Policy, and Practice

  • The Dispute Resolution movement proposes integrating conflict resolution into education (the so-called Fourth R) and broader policymaking.
  • Policy instruments and practices:
    • Mediation centers as a complement to courts.
    • Training programs for peacemakers; professional associations (e.g., SPIDR) and conventions.
  • In policy and governance, there is an emphasis on Track Two diplomacy and civil society engagement to prevent escalation and to find common ground beyond official channels.
  • The Harvard model and other negotiation frameworks provide tools for resolving disputes without zero-sum or adversarial approaches.

Summary of Core Concepts and Key Names to Remember

  • Major perspectives: anarchist, realist, minimalist (Barber) and their liberal-democratic context.
  • New sophistication: four statements; different conflict types; importance of understanding over winning.
  • Types of conflict (game theory): zero-sum, non-zero-sum, mixed-motive; Prisoner’s Dilemma with payoffs and inequalities: T > R > P > S, \ 2R > T + S.
  • The relational view (Rapoport, Buber, Matson & Montagu): the nature of conflict depends on relationships and whether conflict is monologue or dialogue.
  • Historical pivots toward humane conflict handling: Dunant, Red Cross; Lincoln’s Gettysburg address; Burton’s provention concept.
  • Dispute resolution movement: mediation, ADR, Track Two, peace processes; the growth of mediation centers; 6-point ethical framework for relationships in negotiation (Fisher & Brown).
  • Transformative view of conflict: empowerment and recognition; conflict as a potential catalyst for growth when managed well.
  • Intervention as an ongoing art within a systemic social context: mediators are participants, not external dictators.
  • The practical implication: better public discourse and conflict management can reduce costs and improve outcomes, but it requires sustained effort, training, and structural changes.

Key Formulas and Notation (LaTeX)

  • Zero-sum payoff relation: W1 + W2 = 0
  • Prisoner’s Dilemma payoffs satisfy:T > R > P > S, \ 2R > T + S
  • General description for mixed-motive outcomes: there exists outcomes where W1 > 0 \land W2 > 0 or at least one outcome where W1 + W2 \neq 0.
  • The three values in payoff ordering for Prisoner’s Dilemma can be denoted as a typical 2x2 matrix:
    • If both cooperate: R,R
    • If one defects while other cooperates: T,S
    • If both defect: P,P
    • If one cooperates while other defects: S,T