7/30/2019 Assignment Konflik Positif Yunizar Adiputera

1/1

Can We See Conflict Positively? How?

Yunizar Adiputera

In contrast with common view, conflict is neither absolute good nor bad. In some respect,

conflict is aimed primarily to correct unjust social norms and orders, which, if successful,would produce a desired social progress. If conflict is understood as incompatibility of goals

among involved parties, then the students demand for civil freedom and the New Order

regimes wish to maintain stability in 1998 could be seen as conflict which produced better

social progress. In other cases, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia or civil wars in Sudan and Congo

show a distinct face of conflict, producing social degradation rather than social progress. It is

a mistake, though, to determine the nature of conflict in binary choice, it being positive or

negative. Conflict should be judged in a continuum of positive and negative, so as to allow

for comprehensive valuation of the degree of costs and benefits.

To assess whether one conflict is positive or negative, it is necessary to have certain set of

criteria as a yardstick. The first criterion is whether the adversarial relationship is

transformable. This is related with the willingness of the opposing parties to reconsider their

demands once given alternative offers. Parties insisting to cling on to their initial demand

regardless of circumstances would never be able to peacefully come out of the conflict. If,

suppose, Israel and Hamas insist on annihilating each other completely and they never allow

other alternative outcome, then the conflict is obviously going to be protracted. Such endless

conflict would make social progress stagnated while costing the opposing parties in many

aspects of life. On the other hand, conflict between Indonesian government and GAM was

positive in a sense that there was reasonable confidence that both parties were willing toreconsider their demands. The outcome is not only that there has been no longer violence, but

also the establishment of more effective and acceptable local governments than before.

The second criterion is related with the means of waging conflict, whether through violence

or not. It is inevitable that human psyche is equipped with the sense of enmity, sometimes

aggressively, when confronted with other groups with the potency of domination. When this

aggressive tendency culminates, it often translates into violent acts. Conflict is positive as

long as it could minimize the violent acts. To do that not only requires sense of restraints

from the opposing parties, but also an outlet for this enmity in the form of rules and

institutions. The conflict between LGBT movement and religious conservatives in UnitedStates is a good example of how conflict could be managed in a non-violent manner. The

battle is not in the field with guns, but in legislative and judiciary bodies with words and

campaigns. In other case, the struggle of Gandhi could also be attributed to this non-violent

act. In contrast, although the push for abolishment of slavery in U.S. brought better social

progress, the civil war it caused made this conflict less positive in the continuum.

To conclude, what is positive about conflict is its corrective ability, without which there will

not be any progress for a better society. It challenges the current narrative of every aspect of

human relations so that they will not be left unchecked. To do that, though, it needs progress

rather than stagnancy, and non-violence rather than violence.