IMPLICATIONS FOR UNDERSTANDING AND PRACTICE

The complexity and intractability of destructive, escalated intergroup conflict boggle the mind and depress the spirit of those who would deign to do anything about it, whether members of the conflicting groups or outsiders.

A number of implications are in the form of broad orientations to approach­ing the resolution of intergroup conflict, which need to be further operationalized as more specific strategies and tactics. First among these is the premise that intense intergroup conflict is both an objective and subjective phenomenon and that attempts to address only one set of factors or the other are doomed to failure, either immediate or long term. Thus, methods are required that settle substan­tive interests and that address psychological, social, and cultural aspects—the stuff of identity conflicts. Given this complexity and its attendant intransigence, it is typically the case that members of the parties themselves are unable to engage in the analysis and interaction required. Thus, it is implied that the involvement of third parties outside the conflict, who are perceived as impar­tial, competent, and trustworthy, is usually required to de-escalate and resolve the situation.

A further implication of the objective/subjective mix is that different meth­ods of intervention may be required at different stages of escalation in order to de-escalate the conflict to a level where subsequent interventions will now work. For example, interventions that focus on perceptual, attitudinal, and rela­tionship issues may be required before third-party efforts at mediating agree­ments on substantive matters can be successful. This form of contingency modelling has been put forward by myself and Loraleigh Keashly as well as other scholar-practitioners in the field, including Dean Pruitt and Paul Olzack. (See also Chapter Twenty-One of this book).

A related implication is that intervention in intergroup conflict needs to start with a thorough analysis of the situation, including a cultural analysis where appropriate, before interventions are designed and implemented. Such analysis should involve not only the third-party, but also the members or representatives of the groups themselves, because each phase of de-escalation and resolution depends on earlier ones. For example, analysis, understanding, and dialogue are necessary for reconciliation to occur, and the development of alternative solu­tions must be based on a diagnosis of each party’s motivations, aspirations, and constraints.

Finally, the objective and subjective mix of conflict also implies that changes are required in both the process or relationship qualities and in the substantive or structural aspects for intergroup conflict to be resolved in an enduring man­ner. That is, the clearing up of misattributions and the rebuilding of trust, for example, need to go hand in hand with the development of decision-making procedures and resource allocation systems that address the basic incompati­bilities.

Elsewhere, I have delineated a set of generic principles for resolving inter­group conflict, which embody implications that flow from these ideas (Fisher, 1994). These principles will be summarized here in a manner that specifies fur­ther implications that they incorporate or are based on. The principles are orga­nized into three major phases of addressing intergroup conflict: analysis, confrontation, and resolution.

Implications for Analyzing the Conflict

As noted above, conflict analysis should be the lead activity in moving into a field of incompatibilities and destructive interactions. Unlike the analysis that parties usually engage in (which identifies political, economic, legal, and/or military strategies and resources they can use to prevail), conflict analysis car­ried out by third parties in a facilitative role focuses on the sources and dynam­ics of the conflict that have brought it to its present state of intractability. This will, of course, involve identifying the parties and factions, and the issues that they maintain the conflict is about. However, it will also go beneath the surface issues to identify the underlying interests, values, and needs that relate to the positions the parties take, that is, their demands and offers. A cultural analysis of parties who differ from each other and/or from the intervenor should also be carried out to illuminate their “culture of conflict,” that is, how they conceptu­alize conflict and believe it should be addressed in terms of accepted norms, practices, and institutions (Ross, 1993). In addition, this initial phase must entail a “process analysis” that surfaces and discusses the perceptions, thoughts, goals, fears, and needs of each party, and a “trust-building process” that allows for the parties to exchange clarifications, acknowledgments, assurances, and possible contributions to rebuilding their relationship.

It is implied in these activities and outcomes that the parties will be engag­ing in intense, face-to-face interaction that involves genuine communication and the development of realistic empathy for each other. It is further implied that this form of analysis needs to be carried out by a skilled, impartial, and trusted third party who carries knowledge of conflict processes and skills in group dynamics and intergroup relations. It is conceivable that members of the parties can form a balanced team to undertake this consulting role, but it is dou­bly difficult for them due to their group identifications. Given that the third party also requires knowledge of the system and culture in which the conflict is embedded, be it organizational, community, societal, or international, it is also implied that the intervenor will be a multiskilled team of diverse individuals.

The stage of conflict analysis may reveal that objective interests predominate and that the parties are motivated to settle their differences and either ignore subjective elements or defer their consideration to a future time. In this case, the parties may shift to a negotiation mode and move toward a mutually satis­factory agreement, or more likely they will need to engage the services of a mediator who will assist them in crafting a settlement. It is also possible that the parties will agree to engage and accept a binding third-party judgment by a superior authority—a higher manager or body in the organization, an arbitra­tor appointed for the purpose, or a legal adjudicator who is available to them. Unfortunately, in intense intergroup conflict, these options are either not engaged (because each group fears losing and believes they can still win) or are not successful in the long run (because the settlements do not deal with the underlying sources and subjective aspects that drove the conflict to high levels of escalation and intractability). In these cases, continuing involvement by a third party in a consultative role is often required, although it is not readily available in many settings.

Implications for Confronting the Conflict

When third-party-assisted interaction is possible, the stage of productive con­frontation follows analysis, in which the parties directly engage each other on the issues that divide them and work toward mutually acceptable solutions through joint problem solving. It is essential that this process be carried out under norms of mutual respect, shared exploration, and commitment to the problem-solving process rather than a fixation on positions. It is implied that the “facilitative conditions of intergroup contact” (articulated by social scien­tists starting with Gordon Allport) are in place for these interactions, including equal status participants from each group, positive institutional supports for the process, a cooperative reward and task structure, a good potential for partici­pants to get to know each other as persons, and the involvement of respected, competent, and well-adjusted individuals. Thus, it is further implied that inter­group engagements need to be well designed, with appropriate selection of individual participants, and identification of both formal and informal activities and goals. This again is a role best left to knowledgeable, skilled, and trusted third-party consultants.

Equally challenging is the facilitation of the engagement sessions themselves, which need to incorporate qualities such as open and accurate representation of group perceptions, recognition of intergroup diversity including gender and cul­tural differences, and the persistence to attain mutually acceptable outcomes. A strong implication is that the parties must be encouraged to follow a strategy of collaboration rather than competition. That is, they need to engage in a combi­nation of assertive behavior (stressing one’s own needs) and cooperation (show­ing concern for the other party’s needs). This “two-dimensional approach” or “dual concern model” is well represented in the conflict resolution field, building on the early work of Robert Blake and Jane Mouton with elaborations by Kenneth Thomas, Afzalur Rahim, and others.

Implications for Resolving the Conflict

Conflict resolution refers to both the collaborative process by which differences are handled and the outcomes that are jointly agreed to by the parties. As dis­tinct from conflict management, mitigation, or amelioration, conflict resolution involves a transformation of the relationship and situation such that solutions developed by the parties are sustainable and self-correcting in the long term. It also requires that an adequate degree of reconciliation occurs between the par­ties, in that harmony has been restored through processes such as acknowl­edgment of transgressions, forgiveness by the victims, and assurances of future peace. Future incompatibilities will of course occur and further problem solv­ing toward social change will be required, but the manner of approaching dif­ferences and the quality of the outcomes will be different. Thus, one implication of this approach is that conflicts and the relationships in which they are embed­ded need to be transformed in an enduring fashion as opposed to simply set­tling disputes or, worse yet, suppressing differences. In order to accomplish this, the resolution process and outcomes must address the basic human needs for development and satisfaction to some acceptable degree. Needs for security, identity, recognition, participation, distributive justice, and so on, must be iden­tified in the analysis, and mechanisms to address them (“satisfiers”) must be built into the outcomes. Relations between identity groups can then be built around each group having a satisfactory degree of recognition and autonomy (power), so that they can freely enter into an interdependent relationship that is mutually beneficial.

A further implication related to outcomes necessary for resolution is that mechanisms and procedures for dealing with differences assertively and coop­eratively must be built into decision making and policy making. If all parties concerned with a situation of conflict are involved in a meaningful fashion, and if procedures that work to achieve consensus (not unanimity) are implemented, the chances of incompatibilities escalating into destructive conflict are markedly reduced. This assertion is built on humanistic and democratic values, which of course are not in play in many institutions, cultures, and societies, and that is why conflict resolution must be seen as part of the slow march of civilization toward a participative and egalitarian world. Each social unit (organization, institution, community, society) has choices to make regarding the benefits and costs of social control (oppression in the extreme), versus the benefits and ulti­mately reduced costs of moving in democratic directions.

Thus, at the far end of conflict resolution, it is implied that institutions and societies must create political and economic structures that support equality and equity among different groups as well as individuals. (Refer to the discus­sion of the values and norms underlying constructive conflict resolution in Chap­ter One.) At the societal level, democratic pluralism and multiculturalism are policies that will reduce destructive intergroup conflict. Depending on the geo­graphical distribution of groups, political arrangements involving power sharing or federalism are congruent with a conflict resolution approach. Recognition of and respect among distinct identity groups in cultural and political terms needs to go hand in hand with equality of opportunities in economic terms. Conflict resolution thus does not imply assimilation or homogenization, although mem­bers of distinct identity groups may share a political or national identity as well, but it does imply a mosaic of integrated social groups, cooperating in an inter­dependent fashion for mutual benefit.