Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. John Paul Lederach, 1997. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace 63-71.
This chapter addresses the idea of peace as a process and conflict as a progression. Lederach places a strong emphasis on two points: (1) That conflict should be seen as going through stages (he uses Curle's model as to exemplify this), and (2) That peacebuilding can involve different roles, functions, and activities. He makes a point that it is common in society today to focus on the personality of the independent mediator rather than the combination of roles and activities usually necessary to make mediation successful.
I thought this chapter mirrored a lot of the ideas seen in the readings for last class. There is definitely a trend of supporting the view of peace and conflict as dynamic. I enjoy seeing the application of different models and ideas in this chapter because it helps me to put it all together. The simplicity of Curle's model is appealing to me because it leaves room for the intricacies that I think are often unique to different conflicts while at the same time providing a clear guide for the path of conflict and the peace process. I also like Lederach's description and interpretation of the Curle model because it helps the reader to see how this model can be used to develop a successful intervention strategy.
Peacemaking and the Consultant’s Role. C. R. Mitchell. Gower Publishing Co. 1981. Westmead, Hampstead, UK 102-136.
This chapter initiates a discussion on third parties in consultant conflict resolution. Mitchell talks about descriptive dimensions of different consultancy approaches, such as the emphasis put on long term versus short term solutions, and the importance of the nature of the parties, participants, and the conflict overall in determining the successfulness of the effort. Mitchell talks about different types of third parties in terms of affiliation, qualities, and functions. The author introduces a "cube" diagram that puts three important descriptive dimensions (distance, focus, and format) on each literal dimension of the shape to help plot different types of consultant resolution. This diagram is one way, the author argues, at taking a beginning step toward seeing what types of consultant conflict resolution are successful.
Although this chapter was much harder to read than Lederach's, I enjoyed it in a way. I liked that Mitchell began by giving a definition of what can be regarded as "consultant conflict resolution". This reminds me of Reimann's reference to the confusing use of terminology in the field of Conflict Resolution because he does a good job of laying out the boundaries around what it really means (at least in his study). Mitchell also addressed the idea that it is the consultant's job to improve communication between the parties. Although this seems like an obvious, I can appreciate the idea that sometimes parties in conflict need a "translator" of some kind to help sort out information. During meetings in my house, two people might be agreeing and still arguing because they are approaching a topic from different viewpoints. I have always found this both interesting and frustrating and I can see how helpful a consultant would be in such a situation. I was slightly disappointed in a way by this chapter because I felt like the author went into so much detail about different descriptive dimensions only to end with a simple diagram using only 3.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
January 27, 2009: Overview of Conflict Theory
Carpenter and Kennedy Ch. 3
This chapter focused on the ten principles of creating a program for conflict management that works. The ten principles are (1) Conflicts are a mix of procedures, relationships, and substance, (2) To find a good solution, you have to understand the problem, (3) Take time to plan a strategy and follow it through, (4) Progress demands positive working relationships, (5) Negotiation begins with a constructive definition of the problem, (6) Parties should help design the process and solution, (7) Lasting solutions are based on interests, not positions, (8) The process must be flexible, (9) Think through what might go wrong, and (10) Do no harm.
The fifth and seventh principles in this chapter really seemed to grab my attention. Just like definitions need to be made clear for terms in the field of conflict resolution (as noted by Reimann), when managing disputes, interests need to be made clear to all parties involved. For example, if two people are talking about peace, one person meaning harmony and the other lack of violence, they may have a disagreement about certain points, even though they would agree if they were using the same definition. In a dispute, two parties may feel that they have opposing interests, but really their needs are not mutually exclusive. I also like the idea of defining what the problem truly is for the same reason. I feel that doing this makes conflict resolution more of a science, with its own type of scientific method.
Cordula Reimann: Assessing the State-of-the-Art in Conflict Transformation
This reading gave guidance about what is involved in conflict management and conflict transformation. The author addressed one major problem in this field today: inconsistent use of terminology. The main areas of research and analysis in this field have been (1) the sources and nature of the conflict and (2)third party characteristics and strategies that may help improve conflict managent. The author introduces three tracks that can be followed for different methods of conflict resolution and also emphasizes the idea that it is often useful or even necessary to use more than one approach. Track one involves "political and military leaders as mediators and/or representatives of conflict parties" and focuses on the outcome. Track two involves people on all levels of society, from "private individuals" to "local, non-governmental organisations" and is process-oriented. Track three is process and/or structure oriented and involves grassroots organizations and humanitarian agencies (among other groups).
I found this reading helpful; i especially liked the beginning where the author addresses the difficulties in consistency of terminology in the field of conflict resolution. I always get confused by the many terms used in this field and I also know that the sheer number of individual books/readings needed to gain a basic understanding of what peace and conflict studies involves makes it difficult to find a universal word bank such as what is found in older areas of study.
Darby and Mac Ginty: Introduction: What Peace? What Process?
This chapter introduced the idea of a peace process. The authors stressed the importance of flexibility in working toward peace (As did Carpenter and Kennedy and Reimann). The chapter talks about five criteria a successful peace accord must meet: (1) The protagonists are willing to negotiate in good faith, (2) Key actors are included in the process, (3) Negotiations address the central issues in dispute, (4) Force is not used to achieve objectives, and (5) The negotiators are committed to a sustained process. The authors also addressed the criticisms of the "peace process": (1) Many contemporary peace processes fail to address the underlying cause of the conflict, (2) Contemporary peacemaking is more closely connected to the elite of the international community and is not as aware of the needs/interests of the masses in the affected area(s), and (3) Contemporary peacemaking often reinforces power-holders and does not change the patterns of social and political relations.
As a response to the third criticism, Is this a criticism involving the ideas of negative versus positive peace? This criticism conveys to me the idea that contemporary peacemaking does not change the structure of society and therefore only brings about what some might call negative peace.
I was struck by the comment made by the authors that many peace-support interventions conform to traditionally Western norms. As Carpenter and Kennedy outlined, "Progress demands positive working relationships". If this is true, then it seems as though it would be hard to create lasting peace agreements when the norms used by the peace-makers are not those of the people. The idea of cultural relativism is hard in a peace process because it seems like it involves so much ethical and moral thought, however I think that trying to act from this standpoint is vital for the future of conflict resolution. I also think that it is becoming more feasible as the world becomes more of a global community.
This chapter focused on the ten principles of creating a program for conflict management that works. The ten principles are (1) Conflicts are a mix of procedures, relationships, and substance, (2) To find a good solution, you have to understand the problem, (3) Take time to plan a strategy and follow it through, (4) Progress demands positive working relationships, (5) Negotiation begins with a constructive definition of the problem, (6) Parties should help design the process and solution, (7) Lasting solutions are based on interests, not positions, (8) The process must be flexible, (9) Think through what might go wrong, and (10) Do no harm.
The fifth and seventh principles in this chapter really seemed to grab my attention. Just like definitions need to be made clear for terms in the field of conflict resolution (as noted by Reimann), when managing disputes, interests need to be made clear to all parties involved. For example, if two people are talking about peace, one person meaning harmony and the other lack of violence, they may have a disagreement about certain points, even though they would agree if they were using the same definition. In a dispute, two parties may feel that they have opposing interests, but really their needs are not mutually exclusive. I also like the idea of defining what the problem truly is for the same reason. I feel that doing this makes conflict resolution more of a science, with its own type of scientific method.
Cordula Reimann: Assessing the State-of-the-Art in Conflict Transformation
This reading gave guidance about what is involved in conflict management and conflict transformation. The author addressed one major problem in this field today: inconsistent use of terminology. The main areas of research and analysis in this field have been (1) the sources and nature of the conflict and (2)third party characteristics and strategies that may help improve conflict managent. The author introduces three tracks that can be followed for different methods of conflict resolution and also emphasizes the idea that it is often useful or even necessary to use more than one approach. Track one involves "political and military leaders as mediators and/or representatives of conflict parties" and focuses on the outcome. Track two involves people on all levels of society, from "private individuals" to "local, non-governmental organisations" and is process-oriented. Track three is process and/or structure oriented and involves grassroots organizations and humanitarian agencies (among other groups).
I found this reading helpful; i especially liked the beginning where the author addresses the difficulties in consistency of terminology in the field of conflict resolution. I always get confused by the many terms used in this field and I also know that the sheer number of individual books/readings needed to gain a basic understanding of what peace and conflict studies involves makes it difficult to find a universal word bank such as what is found in older areas of study.
Darby and Mac Ginty: Introduction: What Peace? What Process?
This chapter introduced the idea of a peace process. The authors stressed the importance of flexibility in working toward peace (As did Carpenter and Kennedy and Reimann). The chapter talks about five criteria a successful peace accord must meet: (1) The protagonists are willing to negotiate in good faith, (2) Key actors are included in the process, (3) Negotiations address the central issues in dispute, (4) Force is not used to achieve objectives, and (5) The negotiators are committed to a sustained process. The authors also addressed the criticisms of the "peace process": (1) Many contemporary peace processes fail to address the underlying cause of the conflict, (2) Contemporary peacemaking is more closely connected to the elite of the international community and is not as aware of the needs/interests of the masses in the affected area(s), and (3) Contemporary peacemaking often reinforces power-holders and does not change the patterns of social and political relations.
As a response to the third criticism, Is this a criticism involving the ideas of negative versus positive peace? This criticism conveys to me the idea that contemporary peacemaking does not change the structure of society and therefore only brings about what some might call negative peace.
I was struck by the comment made by the authors that many peace-support interventions conform to traditionally Western norms. As Carpenter and Kennedy outlined, "Progress demands positive working relationships". If this is true, then it seems as though it would be hard to create lasting peace agreements when the norms used by the peace-makers are not those of the people. The idea of cultural relativism is hard in a peace process because it seems like it involves so much ethical and moral thought, however I think that trying to act from this standpoint is vital for the future of conflict resolution. I also think that it is becoming more feasible as the world becomes more of a global community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)