Content uploaded by Sarah Federman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sarah Federman on Nov 30, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Introduction to
Conflict Resolution
PAGE i
................. 19252$ $$FM 06-18-19 07:53:46 PS
PAGE ii
................. 19252$ $$FM 06-18-19 07:53:46 PS
Introduction to
Conflict Resolution
Discourses and Dynamics
Edited by
Sara Cobb,Sarah Federman,
and Alison Castel
London •New York
PAGE iii
................. 19252$ $$FM 06-18-19 07:53:50 PS
Published by Rowman & Littlefield International Ltd
Unit A, Whitacre Mews, 26–34 Stannary Street, London SE11 4AB
www.rowmaninternational.com
Rowman & Littlefield International Ltd.is an affiliate of Rowman & Littlefield
4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706, USA
With additional offices in Boulder, New York, Toronto (Canada), and Plymouth (UK)
www.rowman.com
Selection and editorial matter !Sara Cobb, Sarah Federman, and Alison Castel, 2020
Copyright in individual chapters is held by the respective chapter authors.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any
electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems,
without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote
passages in a review.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: HB 978-1-7866-0851-2
PB 978-1-7866-0852-9
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Cobb, Sara B., editor. !Frederman, Sarah, editor. !Castel, Alison, editor.
Title: Introduction to conflict resolution : discourses and dynamics / edited by Sara Cobb,
Sarah Frederman, and Alison Castel.
Description: Lanham, Maryland : Rowman & Littlefield International, 2019. !Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018046342 (print) !LCCN 2018057757 (ebook) !ISBN 9781786608536
(Electronic) !ISBN 9781786608512 (cloth : alk. paper) !ISBN 9781786608529 (pbk. : alk.
paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Peace-building. !Conflict management. !World politics—1945–1989. !
World politics—1989 –
Classification: LCC JZ5538 (ebook) !LCC JZ5538 .I578 2019 (print) !DDC 303.6/9—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018046342
""#The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American
National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library
Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.
PAGE iv
................. 19252$ $$FM 06-21-19 13:20:19 PS
Contents
Preface ix
Introduction: Understanding Understanding 1
PART I: Epoch One: The Cold War to the Fall of the Berlin
Wall, 1945–1990
EPOCH ONE—TOPICS
Aggression 34
“The Individual Level” by David Barash and Charles Webel
Human Needs 58
“Needs Theory” by John Burton
Greed and Grievance 67
“Economic Causes of Civil Conflict and Their Implications for
Policy” by Paul Collier
Structural Violence 94
“Violence, Peace, and Peace Research” by Johan Galtung
EPOCH ONE—TACTICS AND STRATEGIES
Negotiation 125
“Negotiations and Resolving Conflict” by Edward Wertheim
Game Theory 148
“Game Theory” by Steven J. Brams
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) 170
“Alternative Dispute Resolution” by Frank E. A. Sander
EPOCH ONE—RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES
Global Peace Index and Global Terrorism Index 191
Failed States 192
“Failed States and International Security: Causes, Prospects, and
Consequences” by Daniel C. Esty, Jack Goldstone, Ted Robert
PAGE v
v
................. 19252$ CNTS 06-18-19 07:53:50 PS
vi CONTENTS
Gurr, Barbara Harff, Pamela T. Surko, Alan N. Unger, and
Robert Chen
Negotiation Outcomes 205
“Explaining Negotiation Outcomes” by Cynthia Irmer and
Daniel Druckman
EPOCH ONE: QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION 234
PART II: Epoch Two: Coexistence as Peace, 1991–2000
EPOCH TWO—TOPICS
Coexistence 247
“Imagine Coexistence” by Antonia Handler Chayes
Identity 253
“ ‘Us’ versus ‘Them’ ” by Louis Kriesberg
Culture 266
“Frames for Culture and Conflict Resolution” by Kevin Avruch
Religion 280
“Religion as an Aid and a Hindrance to Postconflict Coexistence
Work” by Marc Gopin
Gender 292
“Challenging the Dominant Narrative” by Sandra I. Cheldelin
and Maneshka Eliatamby
Beyond Intractability 304
“What Are Intractable Conflicts?” by Heidi Burgess
Moral Conflict 313
“The Problems of Moral Conflict” by W. Barnett Pearce and
Stephen W. Littlejohn
Chosen Trauma 341
“Large-Group Psychodynamics and Massive Violence” by Vamik
D. Volkan
EPOCH TWO—APPROACHES
Emotions 359
“Emotions Are Powerful, Always Present, and Hard to Handle”
by Daniel Shapiro and Roger Fisher
Problem-Solving Workshops 369
“Interactive Problem Solving as a Tool for Second Track
Diplomacy” by Herbert C. Kelman
Mediation 393
“Mediation” by Adam Curle
PAGE vi
................. 19252$ CNTS 06-18-19 07:53:50 PS
CONTENTS vii
World Cafe
´403
“The World Cafe
´” by Juanita Brown and David Isaacs
Appreciative Inquiry in Mediation 422
“Marrying Positive Psychology to Mediation” by Jeffrey
McClellan
Rethinking Intractable Conflict 432
“Rethinking Intractable Conflict” by Robin R. Vallacher, Peter
T. Coleman, Andrzej Nowak, and Lan Bui-Wrzosinska
Contact Theory 464
“Intergroup Contact Theory” by Jim A. C. Everett
Nonviolence 471
“Facing Acute Conflict” by Gene Sharp
Integrated Framework for Peacebuilding 481
“An Integrated Framework for Peacebuilding” by John Paul
Lederach
Truth and Reconciliation 492
“Truth Commissions and the Provision of Truth, Justice, and
Reconciliation” by Robert Irwin Rotberg and Dennis Thompson
EPOCH TWO—RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES
Grounded Theory 511
“Developing Grounded Theory in Peace and Conflict Research”
by Demola Akinyoade
Introduction to Ethnography 523
“A Simple Introduction to the Practice of Ethnography and
Guide to Ethnographic Fieldnotes” by Brian A. Hoey
Shadows of War 533
“Shadows of War” by Carolyn Nordstrom
Case Study 545
“Genocide Studies and Corporate Social Responsibility” by Sarah
Federman
EPOCH TWO: QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION 575
PART III: Epoch Three: Transboundary Conflicts,
2001–Present
EPOCH THREE—TOPICS
Power 599
“Discourses on Violence” by Vivienne Jabri
Politics of Voice 621
“Speaking of Violence” by Sara Cobb
PAGE vii
................. 19252$ CNTS 06-18-19 07:53:51 PS
viii CONT E N T S
Beyond Coexistence 639
“Contentious Coexistence” by Leigh Payne
Politics of Victimhood 651
“When Victims Become Killers” by Diane Enns
Feminist Theory 677
“Bananas, Beaches, and Bases” by Cynthia Enloe
Silences 704
“A Politics of Silences” by Leslie Dwyer
Narrative Repair 730
“Reclaiming Moral Agency” by Hilde Lindeman Nelson
EPOCH THREE—PRAXIS
Critical Theory 759
“Critical Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice” by Toran
Hansen
Narrative Mediation 780
“Narrative Mediation: What Is It?” by John Winslade and
Gerald Monk
Radical Care 804
“Fostering Caring Relationships for Social Justice” by Shawn
Ginwright
Social Media 826
“Dignity, Violence, Geopolitics: The Arab Uprisings” by Manuel
Castells
Upending Normative Processes 833
“The Dork Police” by Michael Gardner
EPOCH THREE—RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES
Participatory Action Research (PAR) 839
“Re-membering Exclusions” by Michelle Fine and Marı
´a Elena
Torre
Decolonizing Peace 865
“The Case for Decolonizing Peace” by Victoria Fontan
EPOCH THREE: QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION 886
Bibliography 887
Index 891
PAGE viii
................. 19252$ CNTS 06-18-19 07:53:51 PS
Preface
As the saying goes, “Every generation demands its own translation of . . .” Virgil,
Marx, Madame Bovary, you fill in the blank. The same can be said about antholog-
ies or any intentional collection of previously published pieces; the difference is
that “generations” in the latter case tend to be very short, with different antholog-
ies, driven by different editorial intentions, seeming to appear within years or
months of one another, sometimes in virtual simultaneity. Thus, the current
anthology joins several contemporary collections of important readings in Conflict
Analysis and Resolution (or in Peace and Conflict Studies). What sets this one
apart is the approach taken by the editors: a combination of method and sensibil-
ity, of the “voice” they bring, in organizing and contextualizing their material.
This voice and sensibility both arise from within a particular history and
culture of pedagogy, that of the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution
(S-CAR) at George Mason University. In 1981, in the first academic program of
its kind in the world, ICAR (as it was then called, an Institute not a School), the
program matriculated its first postgraduate (MSc) class in Conflict Resolution. In
1988 (“Analysis” having been added to the degree), the PhD followed, and in
2004 (reversing the usual trajectory of degree evolutions in higher education), BA
and BS degrees were offered. In the beginning, while relying on whatever material
then existed in the emerging field—in behavioral economics, game theory, the
social psychology of prejudice, Kantian (and Gandhian) peace theory—being the
first university program of its kind meant that faculty faced the task of conceptual-
izing and tying together, into some sort of teachable coherence, what were often
disparate islands of extant research, scholarship, and modalities of practice. Some-
times we argued against the limitations of existing work as we saw them, or
pointed to gaps or lacunae; for example, we looked at the lack of attention to
culture or gender. In all cases, we who helped teach and write the field into exis-
tence were responding to events outside the academy, to the zeitgeist and to the
dominant ways of thinking (and doing) that characterized the different periods of
time during which the field—reactively—developed.
This is how the editors organized their approach to the field: in terms of three
broad “Epochs,” each anchored in time and the major events that drive the way
Conflict Analysis and Resolution scholars and practitioners conceive their projects.
In each Epoch, there is a dominant discourse that sets the parameters for how
Conflict Analysis and Resolution is conceived—and, equally important, what is
left out and what is, in a discursive sense, “inconceivable.” The editors choose
selections to illuminate exemplars of theory, research, and practice that character-
ize each Epoch. The movement through time is from models based on rational
PAGE ix
ix
................. 19252$ PREF 06-18-19 07:53:55 PS
xPREFACE
choice and positivism, to ethnographic and interpretivist notions of culture, iden-
tity, and difference to, in Epoch Three, narratives of power, reflexivity, and as
practice, participatory action research. As it turns out, this movement also charts
changes in the dominant pedagogies of S-CAR and our field in general.
The main “voice” in this book is Foucauldian, and Foucault is a good choice.
As frustrating as he can be, if one tries to extract clear and stable definitions of key
terms (“power”) or consistent statements of “theory” (something rejected out-
rightly), Foucault has nevertheless taught us how to employ (his preferred terms)
an “analytic” (discourse) and a “method” (genealogy) that are persuasive less in the
abstract than when he uses them to take on a case, as in his studies of criminality
and the prison, of medicine, and sexuality. Foucault is strongest when deployed
and not deconstructed. This is how the editors use him.
The genealogical method is a good way to organize important readings in
Conflict Analysis and Resolution because first, like all the social or human sci-
ences, Peace and Conflict Studies are pre-paradigmatic in the sense that Thomas
Kuhn invoked “paradigm.” This is because there was never a period, or Epoch, as
the editors employ the term, when one could identify a “normal” science of Peace
and Conflict Studies. To be sure, as the editors persuasively argue, there were
dominant discourses, but they were never without contemporaneous alternative
or counter-discourses. In true, “normalized” science, by contrast, almost everyone
works within the same epistemological paradigm until mounting anomalies make
it impossible (though resistance by working scientists to shifting paradigms might
be fierce!).
As an example of pre-paradigmatic, take the main theorists of Epoch One.
While it is the case that rational choice theory, positivist formal modeling (game
theory), and negotiation discursively dominated writing and thinking in the field,
at the very same time, John Burton (a powerful intellectual influence at S-CAR)
pushed for the importance of “basic human needs,” not empirically quantifiable,
observable, or scalable: not at all verifiable in the positivist’s sense of the term.
Moreover, such needs drove or impelled patently nonrational (if not irrational)
behavior on the part of actors whose needs were suppressed. They are willing to
engage in struggle up to and including all-out and self-destructive “deviance, ter-
rorism, and war.” Also at the same time, in Epoch One, Johan Galtung was pro-
posing a structural theory of conflict that was diametrically opposed to the implicit
methodological individualism of the rational choice theorists and not really in
sympathy with Burton’s sociobiology or ontology of basic human needs. Geneal-
ogy is a much better way of notating the “slippage” from the near total discursive
dominance that characterizes normal science, to the heteroglossia (dominant and
sub- and counter-discourses) of Epochal Conflict Analysis and Resolution. Gene-
alogy abjures any hint of historical causality or necessity in favor of a kind of
openness to alternative paths to the present and to “outcomes” that are contested
or contestable. At home with conflict and power, genealogy is a perfect way to
organize readings in conflict and power!
Genealogy is better suited than simple chronology (“history”) to tell a conten-
tious story. Some articles, written and published in later time periods, rightly
PAGE x
................. 19252$ PREF 06-18-19 07:53:55 PS
PREFAC E xi
appear as representative of earlier Epochs; for example, in Epoch One, Paul Col-
lier’s work on “greed vs. grievance,” or the Global Peace Index. The genealogical
presentation allows students to see the “family resemblances” that link theory to
research and practice within and across all three Epochs. It also explains why
(unlike in the physical or natural sciences) old theories and practices in Conflict
Analysis and Resolution never entirely go away but live on as alternative dis-
courses. (Compare theories of phlogiston, ether, or homunculi.) With genealogy,
the past is never truly left behind. As Foucault taught, and the editors exemplify
as they narrate the story of our field, what genealogy gives us is, inevitably, a
“history of the present.” It allows earlier Epochs to be critically “read” from the
perspective of later ones.
The second reason why genealogy and discourse are good ways of organizing
this story is that Conflict Analysis and Resolution or Peace and Conflict Studies
are, more so than other social sciences, hyperreactive to the changing social and
political events of the times. This is because, from the outset, the field made
commitments to practice, to action in the world that responds to deep and destruc-
tive conflict. (This is also why, in the face of rapid and disruptive social change
from Epoch One onward, generations of thinking and practice in our field seem so
short.) Different crises and challenges characterized each Epoch. These challenges
include, from the end of World War II to the breakup of the Soviet Union, to
9/11 and Iraq-Afghanistan, such shifts as wars between states or state superpowers
(Epoch One); wars carried on inside states—genocides and ethnic cleansings
(Epoch Two); wars between states and non-state, or trans-state, actors (e.g., Tali-
ban, FARC, or ISIS), which is Epoch Three’s “conflicts without borders.” How
conflict analysis and resolution responded—conceptually, methodologically, and
practically—in each Epoch is the story this book tells.
One critical point the editors make as they move the story from Epoch to
Epoch is that older theories, methodologies, and practices may often prove ill-
suited or worse in addressing new manifestations of conflict. Recognizing this
dilemma in theory and practice, in fact, is as close as our field gets to identifying
the “anomalies” that lead eventually to genuine paradigm shifts in the physical or
natural sciences. For example, “You can’t bomb your way to peace.” It would be
akin to anomalies that shift our paradigms decisively if, in fact, they were ever recog-
nized as anomalies. Regrettably, they are not. We do our work against a different
power/knowledge nexus. This is why we as a nation keep trying to “resolve” con-
flicts by bombing our way through them. (This is also why Evolution may be the
dominant discourse of Biology but is only contentiously so in the discursive
regime of “science” textbooks in Kansas or Texas.) We have a long way to go
before ours can lay claim to being a dominant discourse.
Kevin Avruch,
Dean, School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University
PAGE xi
................. 19252$ PREF 06-18-19 07:53:55 PS
PAGE xii
................. 19252$ PREF 06-18-19 07:53:56 PS
Introduction
UNDERSTANDING UNDERSTANDING
This is no ordinary textbook. It is different, perhaps even extra-ordinary, because
you will see that “we” (first person plural) are present, as writers, rather than
hiding behind the ubiquitous third person authoritative voice. Even though this
is an anthology, “we” authors have a perspective; as such, “we” have a responsibil-
ity to name it so that you, as a reader, can critically evaluate it. Our job as authors
is to present our perspective as a framework, a story, to help you make sense of
the development of the field of conflict resolution. We believe that this story will
enable you to be critical, as a reader, in your effort to understand how the field of
conflict resolution understood itself as it developed. So we will, in this text, offer
you a way of making sense of how pioneers in the field of conflict resolution made
sense of violent conflict and its resolution over time.
We could begin our story about violent conflict in prehistory, as anthropolo-
gists of war have done, documenting the nature of the weapons, and the numbers
of deaths, across time and around the world. However, this approach, as Brian
Ferguson has noted,
1
often problematically framed some groups as culturally
prone to conflict. Considerable research seeks to address the question as to whether
human beings are driven by natural Darwinian impulses to compete for resources
(both food and reproductive).
2
However, Ferguson has argued, in our view rightly
so, that conflicts are historically situated and grounded in the local conditions.
Therefore, he moves us away from the Darwinian explanations of violence toward
an effort to understand the cultural and political systems that underlie violent
conflict. We follow Ferguson, focusing on the development in the West of the
theories that have been used to assess and intervene in conflicts.
While we might wish it to be different, the West has been ground zero for the
emergence of conflict resolution as a discipline. The main academic centers that
anchored conflict resolution research have been in the United States and Europe:
these include the universities of Harvard, George Mason, Georgetown, Bradford,
as well as the Peace Research Institute in Oslo and the Uppsala Conflict Data
Program, and so on. Therefore, the field emerged largely in response to changes
in Western contexts but has, in fact, expanded well beyond. Degree programs and
conflict research centers proliferate across the world. Students can now choose
from more than a hundred graduate programs and more than fifty undergraduate
programs globally. The ideas espoused in these programs carried forward by their
graduates and through publications shape thinking in government, business, and
within civil society. In this book, we choose not to display the multitudinous and
multicultural approaches to the field of conflict resolution. We tell a story about
how the field developed.
PAGE 1
1
................. 19252$ INTR 06-18-19 07:53:57 PS
2 INTRODUCTION
Because the field of conflict resolution developed in the West, our story will
be limited to Western approaches. Of course, every society throughout human
history developed means for addressing conflict. To say that the discipline of con-
flict resolution developed in the West does not mean the West created all
approaches to conflict. For example, we credit Mahavira (599 BCE–527 BCE)
with introducing nonviolence to humanity; Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther
King Jr. demonstrated the power of this approach in the face of oppression. In the
field of conflict resolution, however, Gene Sharp became the approach’s largest
promoter. Therefore, we consider how Sharp’s work shaped the field not because
he matters more than the others; in fact, he acknowledges being influenced by
their ideas. However, it was his work that moved this idea more centrally into our
discipline.
Similarly, to say that the West started working with truth and reconciliation
models in the wake of genocide seeks not to undervalue or ignore the cultures that
have long used similar approaches. Native Americans and the Ma
¯ori people, for
example, employed restorative models upon which these Western models draw.
Despite these acknowledgments, we also know how focusing on the Western
appropriations of these approaches has and continues to hamper the ability of the
field to address conflicts effectively in non-Western settings. This text will provide
you, as a reader and a student, an opportunity to critically reflect on those limita-
tions. We also cannot deny the influence of Western approaches to conflict on
global institutions such as the United Nations, international courts, the World
Bank, and regional organizations such as the European Union and regional banks,
as well as nation-states all over the world. To focus on them reflects not their
perfection but rather their dominance—warranted or unwarranted.
Focusing on Western theories of conflict and resolution developed in the last
hundred years cannot provide all the “truths” or approaches but rather offers a
framework to trace how people understand and respond to conflict. From this
perspective, this book offers more than an introductory understanding of conflict; this
book helps us understand our understanding of conflict. Students learn to understand
conflict by “standing under” the theories, research methodologies, and practices
that are core to the field. This standing under allows students to trace the conse-
quences of these practices on the dynamics of conflict itself.
We believe competency requires more than the ability to use the frameworks
for analysis or resolution, such as the ability to assess and critique the frameworks
themselves. This text extends beyond listing and describing a set of analytic tools
used to understand conflict, choosing instead to educate students to understand
these tools as a set of discourses; then, as practitioners, they can more skillfully
choose among them. For this reason, we made this book an anthology. We expose
students to the most dominant frameworks in the field through the voices of
those who anchored them. Students will read the foundational concepts from the
foundational thinkers and then reflect upon them as discourses that both
responded to world events and then went on to frame the field. In this way, the
book develops critical thinking skills as well as an understanding of the field.
PAGE 2
................. 19252$ INTR 06-18-19 07:53:57 PS
INTRODUCTION 3
“Discourse” as a Frame for
Analysis
A discourse exists as a system of meaning that, as a unit, extends beyond a sen-
tence.
3
Discourse operates as a set of words functioning together to describe or
explain something, or to tell a set of stories about something. For example, allo-
pathic medical discourse describes diseases as well as pharmaceutical and surgical
treatment processes; however, a naturopathic doctor uses a different discourse, one
that centers on “imbalances” and natural remedies supporting the body’s ability
to heal itself. Most disciplines have discourses, and similar to the example above,
each discourse has within it sub-discourses. We also have discourses for child-
rearing, for example, wherein “spare the rod, and spoil the child” promotes strict
discipline. We also have an entirely different discourse about child-raising that
is focused on “exploration and discovery.” In this parallel discourse, the parent
encourages the child to move at their own pace and to engage in their own inter-
ests and curiosities. In the spare-the-rod discourse, the natural interests of the child
may not exist. Thus, each discourse, no matter the domain, carries with it ways of
being,associated sets of practices, and accounts/explanations that all fit together coher-
ently and offer a framework for both understanding and action. Nonexistence for
a discourse means no one discusses or speaks of it.
As such, “discourse” refers to the system of words used as a form of speaking
and sense-making that is associated with a set of practices (Foucault 1982). Fields
and disciplines do not simply have their distinct discourses; they are shaped by
them. So, for example, medical discourse shapes the functioning of hospitals and
clinics; educational discourse shapes schools and the educational process; parent-
ing discourse shapes how we raise children. Each broad discourse helps form and
regulates the associated institutions that practice the discourse. Michel Foucault,
a famous philosopher of discourse, studied the development of the prison system
as a function of the development of a new, technical discourse of punishment.
“Criminals” become items in the justice system, almost similar to widgets on a
conveyer belt in a factory—mandatory sentencing laws set prison terms no matter
the context of the crime. This reinforces discourses of uniformity and robs the
accused of a unique self. This thinking still shapes prisons today.
Discourses also shape how we view and what we do with our bodies. In
addition to prisons, Foucault also studied sexuality and published his insights as
The History of Sexuality in 1978. Foucault considered how the repression of dis-
course about sexuality and the body led by religious institutions and practices,
along with the Victorian culture, separated people from their experience of them-
selves as having bodies and as sexual beings. However, today, we see the LGBT-
QIA communities challenging discourses that deny or control the experience of
the body, or seek to regulate the expression of sexual preferences. The develop-
ment of the discourse in relation to gay people evolved from a discourse about
promiscuous sexual behavior (in the 1980s) to a discourse that now includes rela-
tionships, love, commitment, and marriage.
PAGE 3
................. 19252$ INTR 06-18-19 07:53:58 PS
4 INTRODUCTION
Foucault also studied how the rise of the medical “clinic” or the medicaliza-
tion of illness and pain framed the body. In this discourse, bodies are spoken about
as disconnected from the spirit, the heart, or social relationships. The language of
medical practice takes for granted that doctors and nurses have the privilege and
the authority to regulate the bodies of patients—their knowledge is power to
structure and regulate. From this perspective, “power” in conflict resolution lies
not with certain individuals or groups that can impose their will on others, but in
the discourse that shapes how we account for human nature, how we define con-
flicts, and how we describe peace or conflict resolution. Moreover, these discourses
are not static—they can and do change over time in response to world events and
in relation to changing social norms.
For example, consider the invention of the birth control pill in the 1950s. As
the pill became more widely available, the social norms surrounding sex began to
change. Prior to the pill, there were not excellent ways to prevent pregnancy, so
social norms (more or less) regulated who could have sex and under what circum-
stances. Discourse emphasized the importance of marriage and positioned sex out-
side of marriage illicit. However, women’s newfound freedom gave birth to the
“women’s liberation movement”—women now controlled their own bodies and
spoke more openly and directly about their oppression and the need for equality.
The Pill, as an event, contributed to the emergence of feminism, a discourse about
the capacity of women to be the architects of their own lives and deserving of
equal rights. Note, during the 1950s and 60s in the United States, the discourse
of “rights” came to the fore more generally. Vibrant national discussions about
equality, segregation, injustice, civil rights, and the women’s movement drew on
these discourse streams. Together we see these streams constituting a period of
time where the discourse of equality in the United States shaped, and was shaped
by, the civil rights movement and the women’s liberation movement as well as
anti-war protests and social justice movements across the Americas and Europe.
Using this “discourse” optic, we see how important events or world conditions
shape how we make sense of ourselves and conflicts. We can also see the ways that
discourses themselves recursively shape how we see these events.
EPOCHS: DESCRIBING DOMINANT
DISCOURSES
Without fretting about causality—how and whether events give rise to a dis-
course—we can say certain discourses become, for a variety of reasons, dominant
in a given time frame. We refer to these time frames that reflect a dominant
discourse as “Epochs.” Of course, within an Epoch the dominant discourses shap-
ing our understandings of ourselves and our lives intertwine with other discourses
in other sectors of society. For example, the equality discourse in the 1960s in the
United States supported legislation for equal rights that also intertwined with
discourses in the peace movement, which was connected via themes of social jus-
tice. The injustice of the Vietnam War and discourses around this injustice
expanded beyond peace as the absence of war or violence. These discourses of
PAGE 4
................. 19252$ INTR 06-18-19 07:53:58 PS
INTRODUCTION 5
equality, peace, and social justice demanded a new social order whereby govern-
ments treat people as human beings worthy of dignity. People deserve to have
their needs met and be equal before the law. In sum, every Epoch’s dominant
discourse is comprised of a set of discursive streams that flow into it, also intersect-
ing with one another. In spite of the separate domains of practice (legal domains,
university classrooms, and newsrooms, in the case of “equality”), each having their
own distinct discourses associated with those practices, we argue that certain
notions (equality, peace, etc.) often connect to dominant discourse associated with
a given Epoch in time.
More than notions, words, or thoughts, discourses eventually become mate-
rial; they allow us to see and do some things while also governing and regulating
what we see and what we do. For example, medical discourse enables doctors to
conduct diagnosis and design treatments while this same discourse hampers doc-
tors from attending to the patient as a human being or helping families address
grief. Likewise, some educational discourses enable teachers to promote reading
skills while at the same time discouraging creativity. The current push for educa-
tional testing pulls attention away from, for instance, developing the social skills
needed to live happily and productively. Discourses about equality provided the
foundation for changing legislation in the courts. This improved equality before
the law, but also sidelined the wonderful differences that make groups special and
unique. We see similar dynamics at play in the field of conflict resolution. Each
set of discourses around conflict, its causes and effects, facilitate some action and
understanding while disregarding or not completely acknowledging others. In the
long term, understanding how each discourse shapes understanding and action
proves more powerful than mastering any one approach.
These examples of discursive regimes highlight several important points: first,
discourses are institutionalized and anchored in practices and organizations; sec-
ond, discourses regulate what we can say and do, what we notice, and what we
take for granted—they structure what we know and what we can know; third,
social change always alters our discourse and our way of making sense of some-
thing; finally, we see how any large discourse adopted as a practice, institutional-
ized via policy and organizations, will have offshoots, streams that draw on it,
while remaining associated with a particular set of associated practices. In sum, a
discourses approach offers us a window into how we understand the world and
provides an excellent method for systematic, scientific inquiry—no matter what
the field.
The Implicit Association Test, developed by Project Implicit at Harvard
aims to reveal implicit attitudes. Take a test at https://implicit.harvard.
edu/implicit/.
Understanding the world through the examination of discourse might seem
to be problematic, if we presume scientific observation occurs undistorted by the
meaning or frames we have prior to observation. However, we know assumptions
PAGE 5
................. 19252$ INTR 06-18-19 07:53:58 PS
6 INTRODUCTION
shape “observations,” and the vast majority of these assumptions are anchored in
implicit attitudes or stereotypes. Assumptions shape how we know the world. The
discourse approach of this book helps make assumptions visible because stereo-
types live not in the minds of individuals but rather in the discourses and the
systems for sense-making. Therefore, “bias” can be as understood as social phe-
nomena, anchored in institutions and part of accepted knowledge. We seek not
individual perpetrators (or wrongdoers), but rather we make visible belief systems
that frame our world. Therefore, we examine accepted knowledge not to increase
our approximation of the truth, but to make explicit the implicit. We explore
conflict resolution as a set of discourse streams not to “get the facts” about con-
flicts, but to liberate us of assumptions handed down to us, over time, as theories
about the sources of conflicts, its dynamics, and the pathways to peace.
When addressing violent conflict, how we work with and respond to these
assumptions can have life-and-death consequences. We, the authors, argue for a
relationship between descriptions of the world, the language used in those descrip-
tions, and how we can mitigate violent conflict. We think understanding anything
requires understanding how it is being understood; this second-order level of
understanding allows us not just to reflect on the observed phenomenon, but also
to reflect on the process of observing itself. We resemble both the athlete on the
field as well as the commentator looking down from above; we are in the game
and reflecting upon it.
This allows us to use the meaning systems and associated discourses used to
observe/frame violence as well as examine them. As such, this anthology makes
sense for our discursive approach to study; through a wide selection of articles, we
can present the voices and frameworks that most consistently define and circulate
in our field.
DISCOURSE AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Looking with a discursive “eye” at the development of conflict resolution, we
propose three broad discourse streams that emerged, sequentially, over time. Each
stream is associated with a set of world events to which the conflict resolution
discourse responded. Even after the era that bore them past, these streams
remained viable, legitimate sources of discourse anchored in institutions and
mobilized by policymakers. In the sections that follow, we offer a description of
each discourse stream, setting the stage for the organization of the book, which is
divided into three sections, each one addressing a given discourse stream. In each
of these sections, we explore the use of this discourse in conflict resolution theory,
as well as in forms of conflict resolution practice (praxis) and in the research
methods. This textbook’s point of difference is that we do not “teach” conflict
resolution as a static set of theories and practices; instead we pull back the curtain
on the discourses that structure and regulate what we know about conflict and
how we practice conflict resolution. In the section that follows, we introduce you
to the three discourse streams pertinent to our story, shaping the development of
the field of conflict resolution.
PAGE 6
................. 19252$ INTR 06-18-19 07:53:58 PS
INTRODUCTION 7
Three Discourse Streams:
The Genealogy of Conflict
Resolution Theory and Practice
Ideas, like individuals, cultures, nations, and institutions, have histories—they
have genealogies. Responses to conflict also have genealogies. A genealogical
approach asks, how do we know what we know? Where did these ideas come
from, and what are the limits of our knowledge? Applied to conflict analysis and
resolution, we can ask how we know about the nature of conflict as well as its
possibilities for resolution. Answers to these questions help us see the ancestry of
our field.
In the West over the past seventy-five years the nature of conflict has shifted
dramatically from wars between states, such as the Cold War, to intrastate wars,
and from intrastate wars to “transboundary wars” where violent groups join
together across regions of the world to enact violence. These shifts became three
distinct discourse streams, each one reflecting its own “rules of the game” for the
analysis and practice of conflict resolution. Rules of the game govern each stream’s
way of talking about the nature of conflict, about how it works, and about how it
can and should be resolved or addressed. While designed to solve problems, dis-
courses can colonize the conflict resolution landscape. This book traces the nature
of these discourses that shape our understanding of conflict to help us work with
ideas without being colonized by them. This is a challenging task. We must recog-
nize ideas that we take as true and explore their evolution over the past hundred
years. During this short time period, tectonic shifts have dramatically changed
how we make sense of conflict, which has, in turn, shaped the nature of how we
intervene in conflict.
While the field of conflict resolution has had many iterations since the end of
World War II, the field has not developed in a vacuum. All of the conflict theories
emerged, in part, as a response to world events and were then framed and defined
by the policy community, largely in the United States, as well as by scholars,
largely in the West. Furthermore, these theories have also emerged in the context
of certain scientific traditions, each with its own set of assumptions about the
nature of knowledge, how it is created, and for what purpose. So these two con-
texts, the actual world events as well as the specific scientific methods used to
research violent conflict, have both influenced the nature of the theories and the
practical solutions that have developed over time.
To be clear, each of the three streams addressed in this book remain in use
today—none of them are obsolete, and all remain in operation in different institu-
tional settings and associate with different policy frameworks.
U.S. State Department policies and initiatives rely on discourses of the danger
and threat posed by extremists portrayed as violent automatons, bent on killing
others to promote their radical ideology.
4
Unsurprisingly, related policies and
practices focus on blocking, countering, and destabilizing terrorist groups and
partnering with others in that effort. We see “terrorists” framed as non-people, as
PAGE 7
................. 19252$ INTR 06-18-19 07:53:59 PS
8 INTRODUCTION
Figure Int.1. Discourse Approaches
groups without a history (the recognition that the label “terrorists” frames groups
as non-people resembles Foucault’s recognition of how the penal system treated
criminals as objects as non-people). A personal narrative of this “terrorist”—were
he allowed to tell it—might include accounts of oppression and marginalization,
not to mention the negative impact of the wars that the United States has initiated
or perpetrated on them. No counter discourse exists to engage or build relation-
ships with the people policymakers and others frame as “terrorists.” Indeed, once
framed this way, the only options are to kill or contain them. We see in this
example how the system of meaning, the discourse stream, fits a given set of
practices and policies anchored in and by particular institutions.
THREE EPOCHS OF CONFLICT
RESOLUTION DISCOURSE
There are, we posit, three basic discourses used to describe or account for violent
conflict. Each of these discourses emerged in a given time frame, an Epoch, associ-
ated with a set of world events and an approach to science itself. While the emer-
gence of each of these discourses is tied to a given time frame, each one of these
continues today.
We have named these discourse streams Epoch One, Epoch Two, and Epoch
Three. Across these three discourses, the field of conflict resolution has accumu-
lated theories for understanding conflict, practices for intervention, and research
methods for assessment (of both conflicts and interventions). Each Epoch has a
PAGE 8
................. 19252$ INTR 06-18-19 07:54:01 PS
INTRODUCTION 9
dominant discourse stream. Each Epoch enriched the set of resources available for
addressing and redressing conflict. Each Epoch has its own signature visible in the
way it made sense of conflict. All three Epochs provided much-needed frameworks
for understanding and research. All three anchored critically important tools for
resolving conflicts. Examining the contributions of each Epoch allows us to gener-
ate a story that highlights the strengths and limitations of the approaches associ-
ated with a given Epoch. Even though the Epochs are delineated by a particular
time frame, the approaches that emerged during that period continue well beyond
the end of the Epoch. So, for example, discourses that emerged in the wake of
World War II are still used and often useful today, as are those that emerged in
the wake of the genocide in Rwanda and now those in the wake of 9/11. Careful
readers will notice that selected readings do not always chronologically match the
era about which we are writing. A theory or approach need not be written in a
particular time frame to reflect its values and governing frameworks.
The following introduces the three Epochs and their emergence in response
to global events. Each Epoch will be described more fully within the book through
an introduction to each era.
Epoch One (1945–1990) developed after World War II in response to the
threat of nuclear annihilation and the shadow of nuclear war. During the Cold
War, leaders in the West focused on how to deter the Soviet Union from building
nuclear arsenals, all while negotiating treaties and “gaming” strategies to win.
Epoch One begins as World War II ends and comes to a close when the Cold War
ends. In Epoch One discourse, people are seen as “rational actors” that make
“choices” in line with their “interests.” Conflict arises, according to this era of
thinking, when competition exists over resources. Actors seek to maximize their
gain in the context of a zero-sum game. The world was framed as a fixed pie: if I
win, you lose. Preventing conflict meant addressing issues of scarcity. In Epoch
One tactics and strategies, participants often speak of “good guys” and “bad guys”
or “us” and “them” with middle or overlapping positions ignored or sidelined.
The rise of social media, especially Twitter which promotes simplistic language,
facilitates the binary framing of events and actors.
Epoch One approaches say that people can become violent if and when their
basic human needs are not met (John Burton). The cause of violence was less
focused on rational choices of individuals and more focused on the structures
(public and private) that contributed to marginalized people (Johan Galtung).
During this Epoch, we see the emergence of controversies about the determinants
of conflict such as greed versus grievance that are often grounded in economic
frameworks for understanding conflict (Paul Collier). These models situate indi-
vidual behavior as a central factor in understanding conflict and operate under
contested assumptions that individuals are inherently aggressive or violent (David
Barash and Charles Webel). Today, those interested in individual behavior as a
source of conflict and healing increasingly draw on advances in neuroscience.
Neuroscientist Daniel Reisel (2013), for example, studies stimulating growth in
the brain’s amygdala through restorative justice practices.
5
Both of these discourse streams (one of negotiation, one on “structural vio-
lence”) populate and regulate the early stages of the development of conflict reso-
lution. These discourses are still dominant today. The post-2016 rise of fascist and
PAGE 9
................. 19252$ INTR 06-18-19 07:54:01 PS
10 INTRODUCTION
nationalist discourses in the United States and Europe that promote racial and
national boundaries reflect an Epoch One insider/outsider approach to conflict.
These current discourses also reflect Epoch One’s discursive dominance even
though, as we will show, the field has and continues to advance others. Research
in Epoch One centers on causality and studies focused on the factors that contrib-
uted to violence or to peace by identifying variables useful for predicting out-
comes. As a result, researchers produced predictive models to provide early-
warning indicators, with examples that include the Global Peace Index and the
Failed States Report.
Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance uses similar models to help
understand local challenges and ongoing structural inequalities. Artificial Intelli-
gence (AI), through more sophisticated algorithms based on increasingly complex
data inputs, makes these models increasingly useful while also replicating some of
their fallibilities. In June 2017, for example, at the Good Global Summit in
Geneva, Amnesty International’s Secretary General Salil Shetty highlighted the
potential of artificial intelligence for peacebuilding. But there are challenges. These
systems, now able to code themselves through learning algorithms, make it
increasingly difficult to understand how computers generate output. This becomes
a crucial question, for example, when militaries use these outputs to determine
targets and a group’s likely links to insurgencies.
The rise of transnational corporations and their increasing role in conflicts
provides yet another example of how Epoch One discourses continue to operate.
Corporations are increasingly recognized as legitimate, rational actors on the world
stage as they focus on the interests of profits and shareholders. Their actions are
often studied using Epoch One theories and methods. Transnational corporations
continue to expand. Some are larger in revenue than the GDP of the countries in
which they operate. Engagement with these powerful actors requires understand-
ing of their motivations and needs. This “rational actor” or “structural violence”
discourse center on negotiation and mediation framed as processes for developing
win-win solutions, introducing cooperation into otherwise competitive environ-
ments (Edward Wertheim). William Ury’s highly referenced book, Getting to Yes,
tried to shift the conversation—via the field of negotiation—from win-lose to
win-win. This approach to conflict moved toward more positive engagement
between parties but still treated people as rational actors motivated by interests.
Epoch Two (1991–2000) is the largest part of the book because the discourses
of this era are still prolific in our field today. This new discourse stream appeared
in the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall. When the Soviet Union collapsed,
signaling the ending of the Cold War, the West expected a prolonged period of
peace. Instead, inter-ethnic conflicts, perhaps held in place by large state actors,
emerged. A horrific genocide erupted in Bosnia and another in Rwanda. People
were being slaughtered for their supposed ethnic or tribal affiliation. While this
occurred in World War II during the Holocaust, during the Cold War period the
dominant form of conflict seemed to be a struggle for power and world domi-
nance. The turn toward ethnic cleansing seemingly from an inability to coexist
with difference gave rise to Epoch Two discourse.
PAGE 10
................. 19252$ INTR 06-18-19 07:54:02 PS
INTRODUCTION 11
In response to the war in Bosnia and the genocide in Rwanda, identity and
culture became central to our understanding of violent conflict. These events were
accompanied by developments in research, or scientific methods, as well as the
emergence of new forms of practice in the field of conflict resolution. In this
discourse, conflicts were described as a function of identity—culture, religion, gen-
der, and ethnic differences became the source of violent conflict. Students access
these discourses through foundational articles by Kevin Avruch (culture), Marc
Gopin (religion), Louis Kriesberg (identity), and Sandra Cheldelin (gender). Bar-
nett Pearce and Stephen Littlejohn saw these identity clashes as moral conflicts,
which Peter Coleman believed contributed to the intractability (insolubility) in
certain contexts. In these discourses, people are not just “motivated” (a word used
in Epoch One discourse to account for actors’ “behavior”), they are prone to
violence when their foundational identity is threatened or violated. In this dis-
course, psychological processes such as “trauma” become central, as well as core
emotions such as fear, anger, hatred, and humiliation.
Epoch Two approaches to conflict become practices rather than strategies. We
explore the worlds of others—their meaning-making systems. So rather than
seeing those with whom we are in conflict within a two-dimensional frame, we
now approach them and amplify our shared humanity. We see dialogue and recon-
ciliation processes developed in an effort to redress core cultural differences and
“heal” from conflict. Unlike Epoch One where Track One (formal diplomacy)
controlled practice and policies, Epoch Two practices were institutionalized in
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) which emerged on the conflict resolution
scene as central actors that contributed to policy development. The practices emer-
gent within these sets of discourses work with core emotions (Daniel Shapiro
and Roger Fisher). The meditation practices of this era also help groups find
reconciliation in the face of blinding emotions (Adam Curle). Peacebuilding (John
Paul Lederach) and Truth and Reconciliation processes (Robert Irwin Rotberg and
Dennis Thompson) also sought healthy ways to bring together groups with differ-
ing religions, cultures, and identities with the hopes of creating peaceful coexis-
tence (Antonia Handler Chayes). Gene Sharp promoted nonviolence as a means
of facing these vitriolic conflicts without perpetuating the violence that decimates
communities.
The methods anchored in anthropology (Brian Hoey; Carolyn Nordstrom),
rather than the quantitative approaches central to Epoch One, use “participant
observation” and “interpretation” to make sense of cultural processes. This is a
radical departure from the focus on causality in Epoch One. Ethnographic
approaches helped researchers embed themselves in the local contexts and appreci-
ate the complex webs of identity informed by gender roles, culture, ethnic differ-
ences, and religion. Grounded theory (Demola Akinyoade), an inductive research
methodology, orients scholars to first find data “on the ground” and then use
rigorous qualitative and/or quantitative methods of analysis rather than deductive
methods that require developing theories first. This shifts the orientation to local
contexts. Case studies (Sarah Federman), rather than sweeping global studies,
become important in this Epoch because they help scholars and practitioners
describe the topography of conflicts in local contexts. The field remained situated
PAGE 11
................. 19252$ INTR 06-18-19 07:54:02 PS
12 INTRODUCTION
in Epoch One and Epoch Two approaches until the September 11 attacks rattled
the West and much of the world.
Epoch Three (2001–today) emerged in the wake of the September 11 attacks
on the United States. No longer was the enemy of the West knowable and identi-
fiable. As such, strategies for coexistence and cultural sensitivity became unviable.
This enemy operated in the shadows; they were faceless and dispersed, without
geographical boundaries to delineate their groups. Negotiation and mediation
would not be possible with actors who, it appeared, simply wanted our annihila-
tion and would even take their own lives in the process.
While there were certainly Epoch One responses to the September 11 attacks
(“What are the strategic interests of terrorists, and how can we win?”) and Epoch
Two responses (“What are the cultural and identity roots of Wahhabism?”) in the
discourse stream associated with Epoch Three, conflict is described as function of
not just who they are but who we are in relation to them. Here we see the emer-
gence of Epoch Three discourses that emphasize reflexivity. By “reflexivity” we
mean a recognition of the circular relationship between the world “out there” and
our beliefs and/or actions. In this framework, all parties consider how they (or the
histories of their group) might contribute to the social structure holding the con-
flict in place. Conflict, in this more reflexive discourse, must also account for the
moral boundaries we have crossed, for the inequalities we have generated, and
for the marginalization we have perpetrated. Geographically, conflicts are seen as
transboundary. In the prior Epochs, conflict analysis did not include an examina-
tion of those conducting research (the “Observer”) or designing interventions.
The approaches of Epoch Three turn the lens on researchers back on the observers,
the analysts, our culture, and our nations. We must account for our role, our
actions, and our politics. Epoch Three is a discourse of moral responsibility; and
to be morally responsible, one must make explicit and transparent the values used
to engage in “critical reflection.” We see the emergence of power, marginalization,
and voice as lenses for understanding and approaching this moral responsibility.
In Epoch Three, this means that even victims, including the United States, are
not automatically expunged from responsibility. Whereas victims often had a priv-
ileged seat in Epoch Two, Epoch Three explores the politics of victimhood (Diane
Enns).
Coexistence, the hallmark of Epoch Two, seems less likely and less peaceful.
Leigh Payne contemplates a more “contentious coexistence.” We now strive to live
in the tensions, rather than unravel them all. Conflict resolution practice now
becomes praxis—critical self-reflection that leads to new actions designed to trans-
form inequality. This praxis places discourse centrally (Vivienne Jabri, Sara Cobb,
Hilde Lindemann Nelson, and John Winslade). Intervention is performed at the
discursive or narrative (story) level. Nelson offers examples for how to work with
and transform “damaged identities.” Winslade helps mediators learn to transform
stories about self and other.
Related feminist research methods speak about the importance of
“standpoints”—the location from which we know (Enloe). In Epoch Three,
knowing is entirely a function of building awareness about where one stands and
PAGE 12
................. 19252$ INTR 06-18-19 07:54:02 PS
INTRODUCTION 13
how one sees. Epoch Three builds on strategies from narrative and reflective prac-
tice to decrease marginalization, as well as help uncover pragmatic “solutions.”
Reducing marginalization requires adding additional voices to the discussion and
assessing how our participation in conflict affects our understanding and interven-
tion. Chris Argyris and Donald Scho
¨n (1973) have long pointed to the gap
between “theories of action” and “theories in use.” Colloquially known as the gap
between what we say and what we do, Epoch Three works to reduce this gap. In
doing so, we unmask our role as intervener, acknowledging that we play a role in
conflicts even if we prefer to see ourselves as “resolvers.” Epoch Three considers
the politics of the role the intervenor plays in order to help address power imbal-
ances and marginalization. Future imagines and creativity are harnessed for solu-
tions as well as to help individuals re-story themselves, others, the culture, relevant
institutions, and stories about the past which all contribute to the conflict. John
Paul Lederach’s Moral Imagination talks about the vision we must inspire and
nourish to transform our world.
This Epoch’s discourse stream has become mainstream, in many NGOs, social
movements, and even in the “local” movement to engage communities in the
design of solutions to their own problems, practiced in governmental agencies, as
well as international development institutions. As part of the wave of reflexivity,
foundational assumptions are questioned in Epoch Three: victimhood (Enns),
speaking/silence (Leslie Dwyer), and trauma all get a second look. Approaches to
conflict that promote identity shifts of both the practitioner and conflict party
take hold. Transformation requires not just a system or behavior change, but also
a radical embeddedness in conflict contexts (Shawn Ginwright) and its discourses
(Cobb). Research in Epoch Three includes the participation of those being stud-
ied, and participatory action research (PAR) emerges as a means of enhancing
reflexivity and refusing the “othering” of those being studied. In this way, Epoch
Three research also reflects on Epoch Two approaches that intellectually colonized
those being studied. This book is written from an Epoch Three perspective and
reflects on some of the earlier readings from this standpoint.
Engagement with market actors (corporations) will increase in the years ahead.
Transnational corporations increasingly dwarf the countries in which they operate.
The largest entities in the world are increasingly corporations, not nations. To
ignore the roles of corporations in conflict marginalizes the field, not the powerful
role corporations will continue to play in conflict (Federman 2017). These entities
frame much of our new world order. Conflict scholars and practitioners will need
to find ways to engage with and hold accountable these growing entities. As read-
ers can see, the field continues to unfold. We hope that readers will become key
players in the field’s development.
As noted earlier, while each of these discourses emerged in a given time frame,
they all remain as resources for both analysts and practitioners—the diagram
below demonstrates the overlapping and ongoing nature of this discourse. There-
fore, students will see articles written later than the Epoch in which they are
classified. This demonstrates how discourses continue long after the events that
gave rise to them have fallen out of the forefront of contemporary discourses. The
more that students understand the contexts that bore the approach, the better they
PAGE 13
................. 19252$ INTR 06-18-19 07:54:02 PS
14 INTRODUCTION
can apply them to the proper contexts. In doing so, students will also observe
phenomena from each of the Epochs in their exploration of historical conflict
contexts.
COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE WITHIN THE
EPOCHS
There are “communities of practice” (Wenger 1998) for each of these discourses.
A “community of practice” (CoP) is the name for the group of people that use a
given practice. For example, much of the diplomatic community operates in
Epoch One discourse; they assess the interests of other states, design policy
choices/options, and engage in negotiation. Formal diplomacy is an Epoch One
CoP. Many peacebuilding organizations use Epoch Two discourse, as they describe
their peacebuilding efforts to bring two different identity groups together, and to
bridge their differences. For example, the Middle East Peace Initiative (MEPI)
6
seeks to promote peace through “people to people” and “citizen diplomacy” pro-
grams that intend to engage the population in a conflict rather than convince the
leaders to change their policies. The CoP for Epoch Two discourses are often
NGOs and a growing number of formal governmental institutions, such as the
Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations with the U.S. State Department
increasingly recognizes the importance of fostering “civilian power.”
7
This shift in
focus to locals is emblematic of Epoch Two. Increasing numbers of activist groups
work as allies in Epoch Three discourses to reduce the marginalization of certain
groups, while being mindful of their own politics in the process. These prac-
titioners work on changing conflict dynamics, including their own role in that
conflict system. For example, Black Lives Matter is a CoP that seeks to foster
dialogues between the Black community and its allies, fostering discussion of how
race, gender, and class intersect.
8
Allies are explicitly encouraged to reflect on
Figure Int.2. Overlapping Epoch Discourse
PAGE 14
................. 19252$ INTR 06-18-19 07:54:08 PS
INTRODUCTION 15
racism and how it is perpetuated and, more specifically, how they, even as allies,
may have participated in racial prejudice, all with the goal of generating reflective
awareness such that they, as allies, do not fall into traps and perpetuate their own
racial privilege. The group, Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ), encourages just
that. SURJ organizes “white people to act as part of a multiracial majority for
justice with passion and accountability.” The group partners with African Ameri-
can groups, but members do their own self-reflective work.
In this book, tracing the development of these discourses is a form of genea-
logical analysis that exposes the lineage of language and its role in the development
of theory, practice, and research. Exploring the genealogy of conflict resolution
disrupts entrenched patterns of power, revealing the way that language shapes and
governs our understanding of those patterns.
Exposing Power
Following Foucault’s study of discourse, we adopt his method of a “genealogical
approach” to the study of the relationship between discourse and history.
9
In his
method, Foucault posited that events unfold and institutions develop in direct
relation to the nature of the language and discourse. So instead of understanding
history as a sequence of events, he described history as the development of given
discourse, tracing the way it structured our understanding, our practices, and our
institutions. For example, in Discipline and Punish, Foucault describes the birth of
the prison system as a function of what he calls “disciplinary power,” which, in
turn, is a way of talking about the microstrategies and institutionalized technolo-
gies for forcing people to conform to the social rules and norms. This disciplinary
power is manifest in schools, where children’s bodies are regulated and their natu-
ral impulses are curbed; they are manifest in hospitals, via the centralized nursing
stations, where the biological processes of patients are monitored and visiting
hours regulated. They are manifest in our streets—there are a growing number of
CCTV cameras in the streets of Washington, DC, for example, and which are
predominantly located in African American communities.
10
This discourse of the
need for surveillance and the regulation of people pervades our airports, where
security instructs us to remove portions of our clothing so that our bodies are
more clearly seen; they inspect all of our bags. While the government, of course,
does this to protect innocent people from terrorist acts, these airport practices
discipline all people. Moreover, we have all grown accustomed to it—it is the new
normal.
Power, as Foucault has described it, is a function of the capacity of a given
discourse for organizing, structuring, and shaping the set of practices that flow
from it and the norms and standards that people use to evaluate those practices.
Together, the three domains examined in this book expose the knowledge/power
that is present in the discourses used within the field of conflict resolution, for it
is through these discourses that the analytic frameworks emerge and through these
discourses that the resolution practices are developed and implemented. Our story
PAGE 15
................. 19252$ INTR 06-18-19 07:54:09 PS
16 INTRODUCTION
of the development of the field of conflict resolution is anchored in the story of
recent wars, for it is here that we can see the roots of the emergence of different
discourse and the Epochs within which they developed—a three-act drama where
the nature of violence itself evolves. In our discursive analysis of this evolution,
the drama that unfolds diverges from how the field has traditionally been orga-
nized. In our telling of the story of the evolution of these discourses, relationships
of power become critical. We must understand the dynamics of the field including
legitimized and central discourses as well marginalized approaches still working to
gain traction. Epoch One discourses predominate our social and political land-
scapes as people gravitate toward rigid narratives that create certainty in today’s
chaotic world. Models of control and deterrence make possible border walls and
harsh punishments. In the face of these hardliner tactics, Epoch Three discourse
works to contest, resist, and reimagine social relations of power. The goal is to
decrease polarization and increase complexity in our descriptions of “Self,”
“Other,” and the conflict. However, these discourses struggle to gain traction.
Epoch Three approaches often must fend for themselves in a hostile environment
still dominated by Epoch One frameworks. One advocating complexity in a polar-
ized environment can be labeled an apologist. Challenging victim discourses that
do damage can be labeled racist or sexist. The integration of new discourses is not
always easy or comfortable. This book helps prepare readers for the discursive
environments they encounter in their professional lives as well as their lives as
global citizens.
COLLAPSING TRADITIONAL DIVISIONS
Traditionally, conflict resolution has been taught as a field divided into three sec-
tions: international conflict, organizational conflict, and interpersonal conflict.
These divisions reflect a “levels of analysis” approach that distinguished the macro
level from the mezzo level from the micro level. This division was useful as indeed
each one has its own domains of practice and methods of intervention. The prolif-
eration of globalization challenged these divisions. The “local” no longer exists
separately from the global, but rather is itself an instance of the global. A family
conflict over religion may replicate a religious conflict between two large groups
at a global level, just as the dissatisfaction and alienation of youth in a given high
school sets up a dynamic that replicates the same conflict between youth and
established government forces across a set of nations. Likewise, how a family or
small group talks about conflict is never isolated from the larger global landscape
or the norms circulating in mass and social media. The stories (at times in the
form of analogies) that people draw upon to understand and resolve their conflict
come from the broader culture. The fight between a Hispanic youth and his
parents, for example, is often penetrated by the same dilemmas, moral values, and
tensions that circulate in the city as a whole, as well as the state and the nation.
Additionally, the pressure to join gangs is compounded and affected by drug car-
tels, government sanctions, and so on. Little is separate. The local is now global,
and the global is now local. Because “micro” conflicts are framed and understood
PAGE 16
................. 19252$ INTR 06-18-19 07:54:10 PS
INTRODUCTION 17
using the stories and memes that circulate at the global level, the distinction
between micro and macro breaks down. Furthermore, we argue that all conflict is
“inter-personal” in that it is between (inter) people. Even diplomatic efforts
involve personality struggles as well as state interests (e.g., North Korean leader
Kim Jong-un and U.S. president Donald Trump over North Korea’s nuclear
threats). For these reasons, we eschew the levels approach to conflict analysis and
have instead used “discourse” as a tool for developing a description of the field,
one that operates as a story about how the field evolved over time.
UNDERSTANDING IN CONCLUSION
As we have mentioned, this book tells a story about the development of the field
of conflict resolution by framing it as a three-act play: Epoch One, Epoch Two,
and Epoch Three. Therefore, the book is divided into these three Epochs; each
one is described regarding the world events that were critical to shaping the dis-
course, as well as the associated discourses that emerged in response to those
events. In each Epoch, we offer readings that discuss the theories used in conflict
resolution that were deployed using the dominant discourse stream associated with
that Epoch. We do the same for conflict practices, as well as research methods
associated with the Epoch’s dominant discourse. Within each Epoch, each reading
is associated with the three sections (Topics, Responses to Conflict, and Research
Methodologies). Each reading also has a headnote, to help readers make the con-
nection between the article and the Epoch. Each Epoch closes with a set of discus-
sion questions that can help readers explore the strengths and weaknesses of the
associated theories, practices, and research methodologies from within the dis-
course that is in use in that Epoch.
As authors, we have chosen articles for each Epoch’s readings that exemplify
the discourse in use within that Epoch. We also chose articles on the basis of the
contribution it has made to the field, so that this book is also a tour of the seminal
scholars and practitioners in the field. We have also chosen some works by emerg-
ing scholars and others whose work properly reflects certain discourses.
The Value for Students and
the Field
Looking at conflict and its resolution as a history of changing discourses enables
readers to understand the relationship between world events, meaning systems,
and the analytic tools we have for both conflict analysis and resolution. Until
students can identify the conflict out of which a solution or approach was born,
they will be limited in their ability to see if such an approach makes sense for a
given context. Clearly, a tit-for-tat Cold War strategy will not work in response to
airport terrorism, nor will diversity discussion groups make sense in ISIS domi-
nated regions. Each solution responded to certain problems, and while elements
PAGE 17
................. 19252$ INTR 06-18-19 07:54:10 PS
18 INTRODUCTION
may apply in given contexts, many do not. Misapplying a solution can worsen
conflicts and delay more meaningful and lasting responses. As MIT’s Peter Senge
often warns, “today’s problems come from yesterday’s ‘solutions’ ” (1990, 57). By
this, he means that many problems we face are borne from solutions employed in
the past. Cars help us move, but they pollute, for example. Residential schools in
Canada aimed to “assimilate” indigenous children into Canadian culture, but this
resulted in a traumatized generation that suffered much abuse. Today, the schools
are considered a tool of genocide designed to kill indigenous culture. A simpler
example could be drug use by an individual in response to emotional pain; the
drug addiction becomes a new problem that was employed to solve the problem
of depression.
We began by introducing Foucault’s definition of power as those discourses
that have the ability to inspire actions and create norms in a given context. By
showing the readers the origins of conflict-related discourse, you will better under-
stand whether a framework is applied because of relevance or simply because it has
power. Interrupting dominant discourses that further entrench conflict requires an
appreciation of the contexts out of which they emerged. Introducing complemen-
tary discourse will be more successful if it can be presented as an extension to,
rather than a replacement of, contemporary normative approaches.
Beyond the classroom, this approach provides the field of conflict resolution
with an innovative opportunity to draw on paradigms within the field without
being dominated by them. Approaches applied ought to be chosen for their
salience rather than power. Otherwise, the field risks applying solutions that
amplify and create problems rather than speak to emerging conundrums. We have
many cautionary tales that demonstrate this point. For example, strategic force,
such as drones, aims to limit the power of extremists. However, extremists can use
video footage of the civilian death caused by these attacks to recruit new members
to their cause. This mismatch of problem/solution sets limits on how our own
actions will be understood by others. Understanding what impact our actions may
have on others enables us to design interventions that resolve, rather than repro-
duce, the conflicts they intended to impact.
In closing, this book seeks not the truth but rather what Argyris (1996) has
called “actionable knowledge,” which is knowledge that would help us be effective
in practice. We are less concerned with whether something is true than whether it
has power. Since the days of Aristotle and through to the Enlightenment, knowl-
edge has been tied to “truth.” This truth emerged as a function of accurate, empiri-
cal observations. The rational deductions derived from these observations
presumably lead to accurate knowledge, making possible both prediction about
the world and control of the world. Indeed, much of the research in conflict
studies has aimed at generating “accurate” accounts of the causes of violent conflict
precisely so that we could either predict it or control it. However, as Argyris and
others have argued, we rarely can control for all the variables necessary to identify
the causes of conflicts. Worse, if we try, our efforts to control these variables have
unintended consequences. For example, if we assume that conflicts arise from
identity differences, then we must, logically, try to reduce those differences to
PAGE 18
................. 19252$ INTR 06-18-19 07:54:10 PS
INTRODUCTION 19
resolve the conflict. However, this would likely threaten people who already expe-
rience their identity as being under siege. Looking for “common ground” could
backfire if it generates a framework that erases or sidelines core differences. Like-
wise, deterrence strategies characteristic of Epoch One that treat others as “rational
actors” may disable us from understanding the role of emotions in violent conflict
and examining the role of storytelling in conflict resolution.
As such, this textbook is not the usual anthology of critical contributors to
the field but an exploration of these discourses that enabled, as well as constrained,
our approaches to conflict resolution. Such an exploration generates what philoso-
pher and educational reformer John Dewey called “critical intelligence,” or the
capacity to critically reflect on problems, with others, toward the design of an
ethical and creative solution. It is our hope that students of conflict resolution are
thus engaged not only in a retrospective understanding of the history of the field
but are also able to hone the skills needed to design the next generation of theory,
research, and practice in the field.
Note to the Reader
This book was designed to be used in both graduate and undergraduate conflict
courses. For the newer student, the headnotes will be especially helpful in guiding
understanding of the major points of the article and connecting the framework to
the Epoch. We suggest that readers try to avoid getting too caught up in all of the
details of the articles and focus instead on understanding the frameworks being
employed. That said, should you find certain passages resonant or are particularly
problematic, we hope you will make a note for yourself. Your notes will provide
clues as to the aspects of the field that are most important to you.
References
Argyris, Chris. “Actionable Knowledge: Intent versus Actuality.” Journal of Applied Behav-
ioral Science. 32, no. 4. December 1996, pp. 441–44.
Argyris, Chris and Donald Schon. Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.
Borofsky, Rob and Bruce Albert. Yanomami: The Fierce Controversy and What We Can
Learn from It. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005.
Federman, Sarah. “Genocide Studies and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Contem-
porary Case of the French National Railways (SNCF),” Genocide Studies and Preven-
tion: An International Journal 11, no. 2 (October 2017): 13–35.
Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge: And the Discourse on Language. New York:
Vintage, 1982.
———. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publish-
ing Group, 2012.
Gutting, Gary. Foucault: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press,
2005.
PAGE 19
................. 19252$ INTR 06-18-19 07:54:11 PS
20 INTRODUCTION
Senge, Peter M. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.
New York: Doubleday/Currency, 1990, 57.
Wenger, Etienne. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Notes
1. Brian Ferguson is an anthropologist who has studied the intersection of culture
and history in his studies of warfare, particularly between tribal communities. See https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v!Nu72eMyQy_o for his discussion of the role of colonial
powers in accelerating violent conflict between indigenous groups.
2. See Borofsky (2005) for a discussion of Napoleon Chagnon’s thesis that males
fight each other for reproductive privilege. Rob Borofsky and Bruce Albert, Yanomami:
The Fierce Controversy and What We Can Learn from It (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 2005).
3. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discourse.
4. See https://www.state.gov/j/ct/programs/.
5. Restorative justice practices bring those harmed and those who harmed in conver-
sation to find ways to heal, respond to damage, and prevent future occurrences.
6. See http://www.mepnetwork.org/.
7. See https://www.state.gov/j/cso/resources/.
8. See http://blacklivesmatter.com/getinvolved/.
9. For primary readings, consider Foucault’s early description of genealogical meth-
ods in The Archaeology of Knowledge. For secondary resources on Foucault, consider Gary
Gutting’s 2005 Foucault: A Very Short Introduction.
10. See the 2012 report of CCTV cameras in DC at https://publicintelligence.net/
washington-dc-cameras/ and likely the number has grown since then. More recently, the
police in DC offered funding to encourage residents to install CCTV cameras on their
property, enlisting residents in the work of surveillance.
PAGE 20
................. 19252$ INTR 06-18-19 07:54:11 PS
