This chapter differentiated "intractable" from "tractable" conflict. The author suggests that intractable conflicts have similar characteristics related to their context, core issues, relations, processes, and outcomes. The author then gives five paradigms for looking at intractable conflict, each from different disciplines. He presents the paradigms in order from most to least influential currently in the field of conflict resolution. The paradigms are: 1. The Realist Paradigm, 2. The Human Relations Paradigm, 3. The Medical Paradigm, 4. The Postmodern Paradigm, 5. The Systems Paradigm. The author then gives a list of guidelines that should be followed for intervention in intractable conflicts. Lastly, the author discusses the need for training of interveners in intractable conflict. He also gives advice of what this training should address.
I found this chapter really interesting. I liked the authors description of intractable conflict and the characteristics he presented because it made the terminology clearer. In discussing outcomes, the author notes that, "...the links between trauma and intractability seem to lie in the degree of impairment of individuals and communities and, in particular, in the manner in which trauma is or is not addressed post-conflict." This reminded me of our discussion in class of the importance of post-negotiation work. Not only is it important to make sure a negotiation is followed by the parties and implemented correctly, it is also important to address aspects of the conflict and the parties that may have been affected by the intrinsic harmful characteristics of intractable conflict. When looking at the paradigms for conflict presented in this chapter, I found the Medical Paradigm especially interesting. This paradigm "pictures intractable social conflicts as pathological diseases... that can spread and afflict the system and that therefore need to be correctly diagnosed, treated and contained." This paradigm reminded me of the structural functionalist view in sociology, which views members of society as separate parts with distinct functions that work together to form a larger whole organism. When a part of society does not function as it should, it has an effect on the society as a whole. I think it's interesting to look at conflict from this viewpoint because it places a strong emphasis on "diagnosis" or analysis. In medicine, doctors follow-up with their patients to make sure treatment is working correctly and to possibly change treatment. Therefore, I would argue that this paradigm places a strong emphasis on post-negotiation work. In these ways, I think this paradigm is extremely useful for looking at intractable conflict.
No comments:
Post a Comment