CONSTRUCTIVISM AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Constructivism is limited in what it can say directly about conflict resolution for two main reasons. First, because it is an approach to social research rather than a substantive theory of politics or society, constructivism contains no direct theory of conflict or its resolu­tion.

The first broad implication of a construc­tivist understanding of conflict is that to be effective, conflict resolution efforts must be characterized by holism. In other words, constructivist approaches would emphasize the necessity for both structural and discursive transformation to bring about lasting conflict resolution. They would suggest that the two are inter-dependent, and while conflicts may initially be ended through discursive strategies in which actors reconstruct their interests and identities by employing a new political language, for example, without subsequent alteration in the precipitating structural conditions, the potential for further outbreaks of conflict will remain - particularly if economic deprivation or political injustice allows new conflict entrepreneurs to promote conflict discourses.

More specifically, a constructivist approach would confirm the long-standing assertion that conflict resolution must focus upon deal­ing with both overt violence and ‘structural’ and ‘cultural violence’ (Galtung, 1990), and must aim at achieving ‘positive peace’ not merely ‘negative peace’. A focus on holism also recognizes the importance of engaging with all levels of society, in the mode of John Paul Lederach's notion of the ‘peace pyramid' (Lederach, 1997). That is, for the purposes of building positive peace and genuine conflict transformation, the reconstruction of peaceful discourses and non-hostile identities must occur at the level of civil society, as well as local and national leadership. In turn, this confirms the important role that non­official and citizen-based diplomacy can play in conflict resolution activities (Diamond and McDonald, 1996; see also Bartoli in this volume).

A second set of implications for conflict resolution flows from constructivist concep­tions of the role of ideational and discursive factors in the social construction of conflict, namely, the importance of discursive-based forms of conflict resolution, such as dialog­ical conflict resolution, interactive conflict resolution, analytical problem-solving, peace­building, peace education, reconciliation and truth-telling and transitional justice (see D'Estree, Meerts, Saunders, Tamra, Rosoux and Albin in this volume). The emergent field of discursive conflict transformation, in particular, aims to deconstruct violent discourse and foster non-violent discourses by undermining hegemonic discourses and generating a common language through dia­logical exchange (Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Miall, 2005: 288-301; Jabri, 1996). Similarly, reconciliation, truth-telling and transitional justice approaches aim in part to re-write an authoritative shared national history and counter historical distortions, educate society, break down stereotypes and hostile identities, construct a common vision of a shared future, deconstruct and de-legitimize a culture of impunity for human rights abuses and initiate a national dialogue on reconciliation (Hayner, 1994; Popkin and Roht-Arriaza, 1995; Rosoux and Albin in this volume). More prosaically, mediators in conflict should focus a large part of their efforts on helping the par­ties to adopt new ways of speaking and thinking about each other and about the conflict.

A third implication of constructivist approaches to conflict lies in the area of early warning and preventive diplomacy. To date, early warning systems have focused largely on monitoring the structural correlates of conflict, such as economic crises, famines and food shortages, social breakdown, de­stabilizing political events, human rights abuses, corruption and the like (see Lund in this volume). The limitation of such systems is that a great many countries possess all the structural conditions normally associated with war, but do not necessarily present an imminent risk of conflict. A constructivist understanding of conflict suggests that a careful monitoring of particular kinds of agents - ethnic entrepreneurs and nationalist elites, for example - and particular kinds of discourses by these agents - identity­based, ethno-nationalist or conflict-oriented discourses - must be added to the monitoring of the relevant structural conditions if a more accurate picture is to be maintained. Specifically, attention needs to be given to the use of symbolic politics and threat narratives in national and local political discourse, as well as identity manipulation, the creation of victimhood, stereotyping, justification of violence and the like. When these discursive processes begin to manifest and gain significant social acceptance, the international community - the United Nations, NGOs and other states and organizations - needs to intervene with appropriate discursive strategies designed to counter and deconstruct such discourses. The work of the NGO, Search for Common Ground, is instructive in this regard. This organization has worked in several conflict-ridden countries, such as Burundi, Macedonia and Angola, producing television programmes, songs, radio programmes and publications aimed at countering stereotypes, encouraging cooperation and building inter-communal understanding - exactly the kind of activities called for to counter violence-generating nationalist discourses (Brown, 1996; Mearsheimer, 1990; Van Evera, 1994).

In conjunction with outside intermediaries attempting to re-mould conflict discourses and normative structures, the strengthening of the society's internal sites of opposition and non-violent discursive formation must also be supported. Peace groups, genuinely democratic and inclusive political organiza­tions, independent universities and tolerance­promoting religious groups are just some of the sites where discursive struggle against violence takes place. In Serbia in early 1991, right before the outbreak of war, there were still many sites of struggle and protest. Thousands of students and members of the political opposition took to the streets in opposition to the emerging discourses of hate, singing ‘give peace a chance'. Unfortunately, they received little outside support and were quickly crushed by the security forces. The international community, instead of taking a hands-off approach until it is too late or supporting dubious political factions for strategic reasons, needs to consider lending greater support to those groups and social movements promoting tolerance, genuine democracy and human rights values.

In the end, however, the political challenge of taking discursive approaches seriously and incorporating them into contemporary diplo­matic practices is formidable, particularly given the dominance of neo-realist thinking and practice within international relations more generally and international conflict management more specifically. However, a constructivist understanding of international politics suggests that change is always possible and through different forms of discursive struggle by ‘peace entrepreneurs' (Goodhand and Hulme, 1999), new attitudes and practices towards conflict resolution are possible.