fundamental issues in conflict transformation

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)

1 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation

Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya

México Malaysia

Fundamental Issues in Conflict Transformation

By

Angélica Ruiz León

Research Collaborator

Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano

Tecnológico de Monterrey

&

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation

University of Malaya

Introduction

In the course of work carried out through the Center for Dialogue and Human Wellbeing

(CDBH) personnel often encounter situations where conflict has become entrenched in the

day-to-day interactions among members of the communities with which the Center works.

When communities become locked into tit-for-tat cycles of violence, conflict becomes

‗normativized,‘ to an extent, seen as ‗the way things are.‘ In spite of the apparent

‗normalcy‘ of conflict in certain situations, one of the primary goals of the CDBH is to help

individuals and communities move away from normativized patterns of violence and

conflict, to situations of peaceful interaction and mutual collaboration among the parts.

When a request is made for the Center for Dialogue and Human Wellbeing to work with

communities in conflict, personnel approach the situation by loosely following the

sequence of steps elucidated below:

A historico-contextual analysis is conducted in order to understand the larger context, and

the history of relations among the communities in conflict. A needs assessment is

conducted in order to understand the root causes of the discord, which often have to do with

unfulfilled needs and an accompanying sense of injustice, anger and frustration on one or

more of the sides. Tools used for the needs assessment include questionnaires and direct

interviews with the different stakeholders. Once the needs and concerns of communities

are understood, workshops are specially designed to fit the situation at hand-- which may

include mediation, reconciliation, healing of memories, dealing with trauma, etc.—

depending on the particulars of each situation. Once the sides are able to listen to each

other, participants elaborate common goals, which they will eventually put into practice in

a collaborative effort to meet the shared objectives. As situations are gradually transformed

from conflict to collaboration, CDBH personnel complete analytical research of the case at

hand by way of a policy analysis. Policy recommendations derived from the study are

given to powerholders at diverse levels who have the potential to bring about long-term




México Malaysia

structural transformation aimed at benefitting all through legislative change. The

theoretico-anaytical tool utilized throughout this process in the Ideological-Structural

Analysis (I-SA) (López C., 2005a, 2005b, 2001, 1997, 1990), which will be discussed at a

later point in the present article.

Some Thoughts on Intercommunal Conflict

Intercommunal conflicts often emerge over competition for scarce resources, over who

controls politics and power in a locality, over land, identity, notions of the sacred, etc.

Beyond these issues, at the individual level, people may experience and/or act with

intolerance toward a certain person or community. The lack of understanding and respect

toward different traditions has occurred in societies all over the world. Part of what

underlies these conflict-generating responses has to do with the internalized norms and

‗shoulds‘ that we carry around within us about all manner of things. When people or their

behaviors are different and somehow ‗rub against‘ our internalized norms of ‗correctness,‘

we become irritated or uncomfortable. These ‗different‘ people or communities may do

things in ways different from our own; they may look different, sound different, act

differently. Among individuals and communities, it is common to judge others based on

our own internalized norms. Naturally, this can complicate relations and create tensions.

As human communities, we tend to assume that ours are the ‗correct‘ and the ‗virtuous‘

ways of doing things, of valuing, etc. Many times we implicitly ‗know‘ that our world

view is the most accurate, the most pious, etc.; so other ways of doing things and of valuing

are ‗simply not right;‘ ‗they are inferior,‘ or even ‗sinful‘ in the eyes of the perceiver of the

other and his/her ways. Part of the work of the Ideological-Structural Analysis is to create

activities where individuals and communities have the opportunity to explore and become

aware of the normative filters we hold, which tend to create division and exacerbate

tensions among communities. By increasing awareness of our own internalized modes of

thinking, feeling and responding to the world around us, we also become more aware of the

differences in the norms, expectations and behaviors of ‗others.‘ Beyond the newfound

awareness, a further step is to work toward a genuine knowing of the ‗other‘ through that

community‘s own eyes, working to cultivate a genuine respect for the differences, and a

full awareness of the similarities from which collaboration can grow. This can be

challenging when working with communities that have long been in conflict with one

another. An important aim of I-SA work is for communities to move from a position of

resenting difference and judging it negatively to an understanding of difference as enriching

of the human community. When difference can be viewed in such a manner, and it is no

longer threatening in any way, the door can be opened for peaceful collaboration. The

primary tool used in this process is the Ideological-Structural Analysis, which is

summarized briefly below.




México Malaysia

What are the basic premises of the I-SA Macro-Theory and Micro-Theory?

What do both levels of the theory tell us about conflict transformation?

Applications of the Ideological-Structural Analysis (I-SA) for Conflict

Transformation

In this global era, people from diverse traditions are increasingly in contact with one

another. Multicultural cities are everywhere, and they continue to grow rapidly. In them,

people from distinct religious and cultural traditions are coming together in the workplace,

in schools, restaurants and other social and public institutions. Part of the day-to-day

commitment of the Center for Dialogue and Human Wellbeing, (CDBH—for its name in

Spanish), is to work toward normalizing dialogue as a way of life among the world‘s

communities. CDBH staff members wish to see the ‗normativization‘ of dialogue as a

basic set of skills, as an attitude toward communication, and toward humanity in general.

People at the Center believe that every single person will benefit from learning the basic

premises of dialogue, and from acquiring knowledge about people of diverse backgrounds

from the perspective that each community holds about itself.

The Ideological-Structural Analysis allows for the systematic observation of what occurs

within and among interlocutors engaged in the process of dialogue. While Macrotheory

examines the external context, as well as the verbal and non-verbal messages occurring in

the critical juncture of interaction between two or more individuals, I-SA Microtheory aims

to explore that which occurs within interlocutors cognitively and psychoaffectively as they

meet and interact with each other (López, 2004). The theory examines all those factors

involved in the moments and the spaces of interaction among communities in conflict by

exploring both the external environment and the internal processes occurring within each of

the actors involved. It explores from the very deep levels within the person up to those

external spaces, taking into account world views, civilizational paradigms and how the

interactions between the external environment and the internal spaces impact on the

processes of dialogue and interaction. The I-SA, both Macro and Micro Theory are used 1)

as an analytical tool for assessing conflict situations and, 2) as a guide for setting up

workshops and other activities designed to help transform problematic relationships from

conflict to collaboration.




México Malaysia

Ideological-Structural Analysis Macrotheory

The I-SA Macrotheory, which looks at external events and their context, focuses on

interactions among individuals and communities ‗from the skin outward,‘ while the

Microtheory explores what happens within individuals as they interact and move about in

conflict situations. The Microtheory explores the construct of ―civilizational paradigms,”

which refers to the historical belief system to which a cultural community traces its roots.

The paradigms are often tied to particular religious or spiritual heritage, which tends to

form the foundation for the collective ways of knowing, interpreting and valuing shared

within the community.‖ When doing the historico-contextual analysis of the situation

surrounding a conflict, the I-SA asks from what traditions the communities in conflict arise

in order to better understand them.

Cultural communities are essentially common ways of thinking and doing which develop

historically because of somewhat isolated in-group communication (Littlejohn, in López,

2004). These communities often trace their roots to a certain civilizational paradigm.

However, it is important to remember that cultures are dynamic, and that they continually

absorb input from their external milieu, whether or not this refers back to the historical

paradigm.

Ideologies—as understood by the I-SA— are not tangible structures, yet they have the

power to set parameters around people´s understanding and interpretation of phenomena

encountered in day to day experiences. For our purpose, the term ―ideology‖ refers to the

basic thought system/s underpinning the beliefs shared by an historical collective. Often, in

analyzing a conflict, CDBH staff finds that the basic systems of thought and ‗logic‘ vary on

important issues between the communities in conflict. The unearthing of deeply-embedded

differences in basic interpretive filters held by the communities helps the sides reframe the

problems and the challenges in such a way as to better understand each other‘s position

concerning the issues underlying the conflict.

Structures found in the external environment have a strong bearing on how people will

interact with one other, on the norms of propriety, on delimiting power relations and,

therefore, ‗appropriate‘ behaviors among people within a society. Institutions, such as

marriage, schools, and places of worship are some examples of the external structuring

mechanisms, both held by the collective and holding the collective together in a particular

set of relationships. These structures are carried around within individuals as a reflection of

external norms which have become imprinted and normativized in a person‘s memory

stores, forming a set of interpretive filters through which we will ‗understand‘ and




México Malaysia

interact with the world and the people around us. In uncovering the invisible structures

delimiting how relationships can be carried out ―correctly‖ within a community, power is

invariably a factor underlying how people may interact ―virtuously‖ among themselves,

according to the implicit, internalized norms of the community.

Worldview refers to an overarching conception of how the things of life are understood.

Worldviews vary from culture to culture, nation to nation, tradition to tradition. Naturally,

subtle or not-so-subtle differences in worldview come to bear on implicit expectations

people hold concerning the ―shoulds‖ of ―proper‖ human behavior. Among people from

diverse traditions, the ―shoulds‖ are not always the same, at times, giving rise to confusion,

misunderstanding, anger, etc. among the diverse actors.

In conflict transformation, the I-SA considers Trust and Good Faith as essential ingredients

for successful interaction among individuals and human communities (Rokeach, 1969 in

López, 2004).

Trust in the other, and the belief that both are acting out of good faith go a long way in

helping all sides, tolerate cultural and communicative differences among them which may

violate sociocultural norms and provoke a sense of discomfort on one, both, or all sides. As

such, it is of paramount importance to rebuild trust and a belief in the good faith of the

‗other‘ among the communities which have experienced conflictual relations with each

other

(López, 2004: p. 33).

Ideological-Structural Analysis Microtheory

The factors mentioned in the Macrotheory section above come from external milieu.

Through socialization and life experience, these become internalized by each individual,

having a strong bearing on the person‘s world knowledge and his/her implicit ways of

understanding, valuing, interpreting, feeling about situations and, ultimately, of behaving.

The I-SA Microtheory explores this internal world at the level of memory stores, cognition

and psychoaffect, and how these come into play in conflict situations. Some of the major

constructs of the Microtheory are reviewed briefly below:

Prototypes: Imagine you have a circle with a smaller circle inside it. Prototype Theory says

that we have at the center of our prototype, for example—of ‗woman‘—a composite of the

many women like those to whom we‘ve been exposed frequently since we were born. Our

prototype of ‗woman,‘ then, has great flexibility, in terms of what women may look like,

what they wear, how they may behave, etc. Women resembling our prototypical norm of




México Malaysia

‗woman,‘ are placed at the center of our prototype. They are ‗unmarked,‘ meaning that

they are quite similar to the women who we commonly encounter in our external

environment. The outer circle of our prototype, also accepts ‗women‘ as human females.

But the women who fit toward the outer limits of our prototypes are ‗marked,‘ to the

perceiver—meaning that they are different from the person‘s composite prototypical norm.

For example, a Malay Muslim woman wearing a baju kurung and a tudong in Kuala

Lumpur fits well into the unmarked prototypical norm of most of the locals in the

Malaysian capital. Her physical appearance will likely not cause undue attention, since she

is part of the prototypical norm for ‗woman‘ in that particular locality. This very same

woman walking in Mérida, Yucatán in México, however, while still being understood by

the locals as a woman, would fit into the outer parameters of the prototype of ‗woman‘ for

that particular locality. The difference between her and the local prototype would likely

catch the attention of the locals, which is a function of her ‗markedness‘ vis-à-vis the local

prototype.

Stereotypes are caricatures of a sort, which often cast negative aspects of humanity on the

person or the cultural community being stereotyped. We obtain stereotypical information

about ‗others‘ from sources such as the media, institutions, our elders and peers passing

their prejudices onto us, etc. Stereotypes are second-hand information received, not from

the person or the community with whom we are interacting, but from sources which purport

to ‗tell us how these people are.‘ When we unconsciously respond to stereotypical

information activated within us by our interlocutor´s outward physical self, we often

awaken negative expectations and judgments about the person and the outcome of our

interaction with him/her, thereby increasing the probability for misjudgment and

misunderstanding among the interlocutors. Since stereotypes cast, at best, inaccurate

information on the interlocutor, and often, negative notions of who the person is, they get in

the way of us knowing each other.

What happens when an ‘other,’ someone having a degree of markedness, comes into the

perceptual field of a community? Since we tend to have had less first-hand experience

with people who are ‗marked,‘ and fit within the outer parameters of our prototype, we

often fill the gaps in world knowledge concerning ‗someone like her‘ with second hand

information—from sources such as the media, stories adults have told us about ‗people like

her,‘ etc. This gives rise to stereotypical judgments, assumptions and expectations

concerning the individual in front of us—who we do not know. When our stereotypes are

activated, we often interact—not with the person—but with the stereotypes activated within

us by her presence. Naturally, this can cause deep offense and misunderstanding as we cast

our stereotypical judgments on the person, failing to see and come to know the person in

front of us. Part of the work of the I-SA is to provide people with the spaces to explore and




México Malaysia

become aware of the stereotypes we hold about ‗others‘ and how these stereotypes affect

our judgments, expectations and, ultimately, our actions toward individuals and

communities.1 The aim of the exercises provided in our workshop activities is to help

participants go beyond stereotypes and come to ‗see the human face of the other,‘ allowing

her (or him) to tell us who she is, and truly coming to know her through interaction as a

genuine relationship develops between us.

Schema as Normative Expectations

Like with prototypes, schema activated in our long-term memory create normative

expectations concerning places, or the contexts in which our interaction with the ‗other‘

occurs. Take, for example, our notion of a doctor‘s office. In different countries and places

where CDBH staff have offered workshops and activities, people hold in common a general

agreement about the context and the ‗ingredients‘ to be found in a doctor‘s office. We

have, for example, a nurse, a receptionist, stethoscopes, white hospital scrubs,

thermometers, etc. We also have a waiting area, where people may be sitting; they may be

reading a magazine of chatting while waiting for their turn to see the doctor. Concerning

the aforementioned aspects of a doctor‘s office, people around the world seem to share

common contextual schema, although they have never been in the same doctor‘s office as

others from different places. However, if we were to see, for example, a cow, sitting in the

waiting area, calmly leafing through a magazine, this abrupt break with the normative

expectation for doctor‘s offices would immediately catch our attention, as it jumps the outer

boundaries of our schema for doctors‘ offices. In our memory stores, we hold schema

concerning all manner of things. Upon seeing the cow, our schema for veterinary clinic, or

for farm might be awakened—moving away from the doctor‘s office schema into some

context where the cow ‗fits‘ more comfortably within our memory stores. How does this

relate to people and conflicts? Just as we wouldn‘t expect to see a person in a bikini in a

church or a temple, we have schematic expectations about the places in which our

interactions with others take place. When schema violations have taken place--such as

seeing someone in a scared place dressed inappropriately, people experience an alarm

response, which calls conscious attention to the schema violation, often giving rise to

feelings of anger, shock, etc. In unearthing the roots causes of conflicts, we often find that

schema violations have occurred between or among the parties in conflict.

1 Although our prototype of ‗women‘ is highly flexible—accommodating human females within itself with

greater or lesser degrees of markedness, there are boundaries beyond which we can no longer accept ‗x‘

within the prototype—such as a ‗bearded woman,‘ who we might place in our prototype of man, or we might

not. We probably wouldn‘t be sure where to place her, awakening within us a degree of uncertainty about

how we should interact with this person who doesn‘t fit easily within our internal structuring mechanisms.




México Malaysia

Scripts and their Power to Create Normative Behavioral Expectations

If the schema concerns the context and sets up normative expectations, the scripts are those

actions and behaviors expected to occur and deemed appropriate for a particular schematic

context. For example, in our doctor‘s office schema, we would find it appropriate for the

nurse to take someone‘s temperature—not calling undue attention to the action. However,

if that same nurse stood on the receptionist‘s desk and started dancing, this action would be

a violation of our script for appropriate behaviors within the schema of doctors‘ offices.

We would notice the behavior which is beyond the normative expectation for that particular

context; we would probably experience an alarm response and likely, we would feel anger,

confusion, and possibly indignation as well. Once again, in conflict analysis, we often

unearth script, or behavior, violations perceived by one side toward the other. Just as with

schema violations, scripts violations awaken the alarm response, calling attention to the

‗inappropriate‘ action and often giving rise to great consternation, anger and even violence

toward the perceived violator of the schema.

Values are one of the foundational structures around which human societies are built. The

existence of values within social groupings takes as its point of departure a dichotomized

notion of the existence of good and bad or `virtuous´ and `evil,´ serving as an evaluative

mechanism often held below the level of consciousness. When people‘s values—held

within themselves—are violated by an ‗other‘s‘ actions, words, etc. alarm response, anger

and—at times—violence are awakened toward the violator of the values.

Taboo constitutes a category of behaviors which are considered out of bounds, not to be

done, nor discussed. Violation of taboo provokes powerful negative affective reactions

toward actors believed to have caused the violation, leading to deep anger and—at times—

to violence directed at the person or the community perceived to have violated the taboo.

Sociolinguistic competence refers simply to the implicit norms of propriety in

communication, concerning what is and can be said and how it may, or may not be said.

Sociolinguistic norms vary among communities and, to a degree, within them as well. The

sociolinguistics of one community may allow discussion of certain issues which another

community finds taboo, or out-of-bounds. In one community, direct critique, and loud and

angry locutions may be expressed, while another community may find such expressions

completely inappropriate and unacceptable. Once again, violations of sociolinguistic norms

are often found underlying conflict situations—exacerbating the anger and

misunderstanding existing between or among the groups in conflict.




México Malaysia

(López, 2004: p.13-32)

The aforementioned theoretical constructs of the I-SA allow us to analyze inner and

external situations, in the attempt to understand and transcend the conflict at hand, as well

as providing a basis for workshops and other sessions aimed at working directly with the

groups in conflict. The ensuing section looks at the different ‗levels of being‘ comprising

the human person, as we attempt to work with growing consciousness of both self and

‗other‘ as we work to move from conflicting to cooperative interactions among the

communities.

Levels of the Being

In our mediation work, CDBH facilitators discuss the I-SA‘s levels of being with the

parties in conflict. Coming to an understanding of the deeper levels of ourselves and

others, we are more able to go beyond that which separates us, learning to listen

respectfully, and to genuinely transform our angry behaviors into acceptance and empathy.

Now please imagine a circle with another circle drawn inside it and, inside that middle

circle, there is a still smaller circle drawn at the center of the diagram—something like a

target with an outer circle, a middle circle, and a bullseye in the center.

The first level—represented by the outer circle-- is the Outward Physical Self. It is the part

of the person with which we first come into contact upon meeting in the critical juncture of

dialogue. It has to do with his/her physical characteristics, mode of dress, the accent we

hear when the person speaks, etc. This is the level of ourselves which other people see and

to which they initially respond upon coming into contact with us. Input—usually visual

and auditory—coming from this outward level, activates mis/information stored in long

term memory, creating expectations and setting a tone for how we will interpret and

interact with the person in front of us. It is here where we make instantaneous judgments,

often even before interaction has begun. The more marked the person is for us, the more

second-hand stereotyped mis/information and mis/expectations about the ‗other‘ will tend

to awaken, leading us to interact in response—not to the person, but to the mis/information

awakened within us by the person‘s outward physical self.

The middle circle represents the Cognitive and the Psycho-affective Self, meaning our mind

and our emotions. This is the level where long-term memory resides; it is the locus of our

thought processes, our interpretations, and the feelings arising from them concerning our

interlocutor. Ideological-Structural Analysis Micro-theory focuses precisely on this level

of the human person, exploring how cognition and psychoaffect—our thoughts and our




México Malaysia

emotions—come into play in conflict situations and how these levels of the self can be

consciously transformed in favor of peaceful and collaborative interactions among the

groups formerly in conflict with one another (López, 2004).

The third level of being addressed by the I-SA-- represented by the inner circle of our

diagram-- is called the Life Essence.

―This level, sometimes called the ground of being, is the very existence and sustenance of life within us. All

human and other living beings share this life essence, of which we are often not even aware. This is the level

from which our life source emanates‖

(López, 2004: 9).

Regardless of which religious, linguistic or cultural tradition from which a person hails, all

humans share this life essence, friends and foes alike. An exercise used by CDBH staff to

invite people to an awareness of their own life essence goes something like this: ―Please

place your finger beneath your nose. Do you feel your breath going in and out? What is its

source?‖ People will say that the breath comes from the lungs, which are controlled by the

central nervous system, which is controlled by the brain, etc. When the group arrives at the

end of their physiological explanations, the staff then asks how this breathing—a symbol of

the life within us—was called into action? How did you come to be? How did life come to

be embodied in you? It does not matter if a person answers ―Allah,‖ ―God,‖ ―Cosmos,‖

―Energy,‖ or whatever. Regardless of differences in ideology, worldview and belief

systems, all living human share this essence, which sustains them over the course of their

lifetimes. When a person discovers his/her own life essence, s/he is able to see the very

same essence residing at the deepest level of all people, both of one‘s own community and

of the ‗enemy.‘ The moment of being introduced to our life essence and that of all others,

is very often transformative for participants in CDBH workshops. A further exercise is

offered where we each salute or greet the (scared) life essence within each other. This

means that I—who have just discovered my own sacred essence—will receive a greeting

from others—friends and enemies—which salutes and honors the life within me. People

are often stunned and humbled at the discovery of the sacred life within themselves.

Participants are then asked to observe and to salute the life within all other participants;

which is often the beginning of their discovery that, not only are they themselves sacred

beings, but that those around them share this essence as well, whether they happen to be

part of our community, or of those we have viewed until now as ‗others.‘

This activity, of course, must only be conducted once participants have worked through the

hurt, the misunderstanding and the rage felt toward the ‗other.‘ For this, the mediator must

have great discernment as to when the group is ready to explore this level of being. This

exercise has a profound impact on people as individuals and on their perception of others




México Malaysia

around them. When this particular Levels of Being exercise has taken root in the cognition

and the psychoaffect of workshop participants, this is where the new beginning is born. It

is from here onward that groups can sit together in the critical juncture and gently sort

through the traumas, the painful memories, and the historical injury which has arisen

among the communities over the course of the conflict.

From the healing of memories stage, CDBH staff begin to facilitate discussions about the

interests, concerns and fears of the groups involved. Negotiation goes on; groups give and

take, and vie throughout the process in order to construct a common set of goals, toward

which they will create a concrete plan of action, delegate tasks, and establish loose

timetables for moving together toward common goals.

CDBH staff must also prepare the group for dealing with relapse, which often occurs when

something triggers old antagonisms and misunderstandings. Local leaders are trained in

conflict transformation and mediation so that the community no longer needs to rely on

outside sources for settling grievances which may continue to arise among them.

Along with the community leaders, CDBH staff help create a set of Policy

Recommendations, to be offered to persons of authority in hopes that they will work toward

the structural changes which may be necessary to ensure lasting peace among the parties.

Our staff may return to the communities from time to time; they also remain ‗on call‘ and

try to be easily reachable in case intervention would be required by the communities in

cases of particularly virulent relapse into old patterns of violent, conflictual interaction.

Although we are willing to be there if needed, the aim of CDBH staff is to ‗not be

necessary‘ for the communities. It is to help sort through the conflicts, to arrive at an

honoring of each other, to collaborate toward common goals, to become easy with

differences which inevitably remain, and to help communities be self-empowered as they

progress through the denormativizing of violence toward an ever-deepening culture of

sustained peace in the locality. Work in transforming the normal state of affairs from

conflict to collaboration moves forward ‗in fits and starts,‘ often advancing three steps,

only to regress by nine. In spite of the difficulties and the tremendous challenges

presented, CDBH staff members remain committed to the work of conflict transformation.

Fundamental Issues in Conflict Transformation

The following questions are set forth as a guide in hopes of mining available literature for

insights concerning issues which often arise in the course of conflict transformation work.




México Malaysia

Groups in conflict: Choosing peace

Different authors conceptualize peace in different ways. In his book Peace by Peaceful Means:

Peace and conflict, development and civilization, Johan Galtung offers two definitions for peace.

I) Peace as the absence or reduction of violence of all kinds

II) Peace as nonviolent and creative conflict transformation

(Galtung, 1996).

The first definition is violence-oriented; peace being the negation of violence. To know about peace

we have to know about violence, The second definition is conflict-oriented; peace is the context

within which conflicts can unfold nonviolently and creatively. Galtung writes that in order to know

about peace, we must know about conflicts, and how conflicts can be transformed nonviolently and

creatively (Galtung, 1996).

For Galtung, the solution to a conflict can be defined as ―a new formation that is acceptable to all

actors and sustainable by the actors‖ (Galtung, 1996, p.89).

1. Galtung believes that a conflict is not truly solved if only elites, and signatory actors agree to

establish a resolution for the parties of a conflict. He further suggests that deep-seated conflicts

cannot be solved solely through civil society involvement. In order for conflict transformation

to be successful, it is necessary to involve all levels of society in the process. If behaviors

are to be transformed from conflict to collaboration, civil society and elite involvement is

paramount. When only the elites sign a peace treaty, relapse back into violence and

conflict is practically inevitable. When people throughout society are involved in and

committed to the transformation, the probability of reaching and sustaining peace increases

greatly.

Underlining the necessity for civil society and elite participation, Galtung suggests what he calls

‗double-track diplomacy‘ as a more lasting means of conflict transformation. This involves both

‗elite-track and people-track‘ interactions (Galtung, 1996, p. 89).

* What are some of the diverse understandings about what peace is?

* How is the concept of peace understood by different actors within the community?

* Can we come to a shared understanding of peace among all actors involved?

* If so, how does the community choose to define peace?




México Malaysia

* How and why does conflict become normative in societies?

* How does the normativizing of violence/conflict impact on societies?

* How might alternatives to conflict emerge from among members of the groups

themselves?

* How can conflictual-violent behaviors be denormativized?

* What types of behaviors/relations can replace normativized violence and

conflicts? (These decisions must be made by the stakeholders themselves and

facilitated, not imposed, by CDBH facilitators).

* How can CDBH staff facilitate the aforementioned processes?

The strategies provided by Galtung include offering tools to people in order to solve conflicts.

Specifically, ‗people-track solutions‘ aim to complement and enhance resolutions and decisions

made by powerholders in search of conflict transformation.

For Galtung, conflict has to do with incompatibility on the one hand, and with actors and their

‗conflict formation‘ on the other (1996). From an I-SA perspective, ‗conflict formation‘ would

refer to the conceptions of conflict, the levels of acceptability, etc. stored in the memories of

individuals, which have been acquired through life experience. To an extent, this internalized set of

norms is tied to cultural identity, religious tradition, and other factors that make up both the

thought-interpretive processes and the feelings of a person. Those elements together constitute the

formation of an individual, a community and—to a large extent-- a civilizational paradigm and its

world view (López, 2004). In addition to struggles for power and resources, deeply-embedded

differences in the world views, in valuing and interpretation have been sources of conflict

throughout human history.

Conflict transformation aims not to eliminate differences within and among cultures-- which

represent the wealth of human diversity, but to help channel communities toward a progressive

understanding of, and respect for each other‘s way of life. Going beyond mere tolerance, CDBH

staff hope that empathy and genuine respect will emerge from listening to and truly aiming to

understand each other.

Galtung reminds us that conflict transformation is an ongoing process (1996) since new

contradictions tend to emerge even after the formulation of solutions. In conflict transformation,

variables are in constant flux from the parties involved, meaning that ‗solutions‘ are often only

temporary. Due to the dynamic nature of human relationships, it is advisable to prepare

communities for dealing with change and relapse, as situations shift and flux unendingly long after

formal solutions have been reached and mediation teams have left the locality.

Concerning conflict

When manifestations of violence occur in an ongoing, habitual manner, they may become

normativized within a particular milieu. When something is ‗normative,‘ it is seen as ‗the way




México Malaysia

things are‘ although the community does not like the situation. Normativized violence, or conflict

ceases to have the same shock value as it would in environments where peace is the norm. For

example, if a child has grown up seeing his father hit his mother and the woman bearing it, he may

perceive intra-familial violence as somehow acceptable, even if he doesn‘t like to see his father hit

his mother. Since this habitual behavior models violence as a form of power and control, it

constitutes part of the formation of an individual, becoming internalized as a normative example for

him. Whether or not the child views such actions as pleasant or unpleasant, they are stored in

memory as a set of scripts of behavior occurring within the family setting. The same may happen

in whole communities which have been mired in a historical conflict. Since entrenched

conflicts have their roots in the past, generations have somehow ‗gotten used‘ to living

within the conflict situation; eventually, this conflict becomes part of the society and, over

time, it becomes normativized.

As the person matures, the information acquired through immersion in a particular cultural community comes

to shape his/her values, world view, norms of conduct and so on

(López, 2004, p.14).

Peace is to be built by each member of the communities and, according to Galtung, the first

step in denormativizing conflict is to recognize that it exists. Normativized aggression

affects societies since it somehow dulls the collective alarm response to violence and

conflict, which stymies efforts to work toward a peaceful transformation of difficult

situations.

In Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation across cultures, John Paul Lederach,

(1995) suggests four key steps to follow in the process of building peace: Education,

Confrontation, Negotiation and Sustainable Peace, where ‗education‘ is seen as awareness

and recognition of the conflict. Throughout history, philosophers have said that reasoning is

the way to achieve peace, and that education is the way to engage people‘s reasoning

capabilities. Confrontation is seen by Lederach as the way to increase interdependence

among parties; therefore, through negotiation, parties have the opportunity to dialogue

about their views, interests and concerns as they seek a common understanding of the

issues at hand. Parties involved must recognize that they cannot impose their own

decisions or eliminate the other side‘s suggestions, but that they must instead work toward

achieving mutual goals (Lederach, 1995).

Lederach defines Conflict Transformation as follows:

Transformation suggests a prescriptive direction based on the core elements in early developments in the

field. Specifically, there is the idea that conflict unabated can take destructive patterns that should be

channeled toward constructive expression. (…) a transformation is assumed in terms of the relationship,

which shifts from mutually destructive, unstable and harmful expressions toward a mutually beneficial and




México Malaysia

cooperative basis. (…) In other words, conflict is seen as a transforming agent for systemic change (…)

Transformation suggests a dynamic understanding that conflict can move in destructive or constructive

directions, but proposes an effort to maximize the achievement of constructive, mutually beneficial processes

and outcomes

(Lederach, 1995: pp. 18-19).

For Lederach, peacebuilding involves changes at both the personal and the systemic level,

which are necessary in order for a social conflict to be transformed. This is why the CDBH

works with individuals and groups, as well as providing policy recommendations aimed at

ushering in systemic transformations which work on favor of peace

While Galtung suggests that peace can be fully achieved when both the elite and the people

of the sides in conflict agree, Lederach suggests that a framework for conflict

transformation and peace building must be provided, based on justice and mercy, as well as

personal and systemic change.

At the level of personal change, Lederach suggests that we work with trauma, fear, anger,

and bitterness; which are challenges that any mediator will face from all sides when

involved in a conflict transformation process. At the systemic level, engaging elites and

decision makers can aid in the process of transforming and creating structural change

toward sustaining peaceful.

Collaborative relations within a community

Lederach reminds us of the importance of providing a safe environment for parties involved

in dispute and conflict. Among other tools for moving people into more peaceful frames of

mind, Lederach suggests the use of poetry as a formula for conflict resolution, stating,

Poetry remains a revered art form and can move people toward war or toward reconciliation. As a formula of

conflict resolution it helps locate and situate grievances and meaning and justifies views and demands of

different groups (…) This traditional mechanism has an effect on public opinion and conflict analysis by

arguing for causes, rights, and responsibilities

(Lederach, 1995: pp. 97-98).

Michelle LeBaron (2002) reminds us that communities engaged in conflict transformation

must first have the motivation and the desire to work toward peace. When violence and

conflict are normativized within a society, it is often difficult for actors to envision other

alternatives. Part of the role of a facilitator, then, is to help communities explore and bring

to conscious awareness the fact that other norms of societal interaction are possible, and

that they have the power to collectively choose desired norms in order to strive together

toward them. While the facilitator can help parties envision peaceful options, it is




México Malaysia

* What is the role of a mediator in a conflict transformation process?

* How is the mediator perceived by all sides in the conflict?

* How must the mediator be perceived in order to be effective in conflict

transformation?

* How can the mediator work toward gaining the acceptance of all actors

involved?

* What strategies can the mediator apply to help communities move from

conflict to collaboration?

* How can the mediator facilitate a sense of agency and incentives for

stakeholders in conflict situations?

ultimately up to the parties themselves to articulate their shared vision and to elaborate a

plan of action on the path toward reaching their goals.

Concerning the Mediator

Incentives

In their work, Schmidt and Tannenbaum (2000) focus on the tools available for conflict

resolution within organizational structures. The context of organizational conflicts is taken

to exemplify what could function as an incentive for collaborating with people having

diverse viewpoints and, possibly, diverse work cultures. The organizational context can be

contrasted with the intercultural one; for example, in a given conflict in which two

communities live in constant clash, the mediator might analyze the diverse segments of

society in order to identify the source of the main problems. This type of analysis helps to

identify the root sources of anger and discontent. By doing a cross-sectorial analysis, the

mediator may find that some members of either or both communities are not directly

involved in the discord; yet, they may suffer the consequences of the conflict, regardless of

their level of direct involvement or the lack thereof.

Interculturally, as in organizations, people from similar backgrounds may have less

tendency to dispute, as they may approach and interpret problems in a similar way. In the

case of intercommunal conflict, the mediator may wish to focus on those people who are

not directly involved in the conflict who, at times, may comprise the majority of the

population. Since these two parts of the opposing communities live under similar

conditions, they can be encouraged to come together and examine the problem, often

discovering that they, in fact, view the issues quite similarly. This discovery provides a

strong incentive for working together toward a common solution.




México Malaysia

Despite the numerous conflicts that human beings may face as a result of cultural

differences, I-SA Theory suggests that communities and individuals with very different

cultural origins can, not only to coexist peacefully; they can also enrich each other‘s lives

with the different perspectives brought to the local milieu by the different sides. Using the

notion that ‗two heads are better than one,‘ Schmidt and Tannenbaum (2000: p. 16)

describe the differences among people as an opportunity to enrich the perspectives of all

sides involved in conflict resolution, since they -‗the two heads‘- represent a richer set of

experiences and, therefore, a variety of possible solutions. However, in order for parties to

see each other‘s value as enriching or enhancing the realm of possibilities, it is important

for communities to move beyond the sense of threat often felt by human groupings in the

face of perceived ‗others.‘ CDBH staff consciously work with communities‘ sense of

security and collective self-esteem to help groups move from the perception of ‗other as

threat‘ toward an understanding of ‗other as gift.‘ This takes time; yet this attitudinal

shift—once achieved—provides a solid foundation for healthy interactions among groups

which were once in conflict.

Mediation

A primary issue in mediation concerns the acceptance of the mediator by all parties to the

conflict. Given that one of the objectives of conflict resolution is to seek agreement among

parties, if one or more of the parties does not accept the person who functions as mediator,

the success of both the process and the strategies for transformation can be greatly

diminished.

Individuals working as mediators must strive to be absolutely neutral, leaving their own

views aside in the mediation process, and listening to the different opinions from as

objective a point of view as is humanly possible. The mediator must try to avoid his/her

own inclinations toward a specific idea or side. The perception of the mediator‘s neutrality

by all sides is so important that s/he should even attempt to avoid looking more toward one

of the sides than toward the other, since even the person‘s gaze can be interpreted as

favoring one side over the other. It‘s important to remember that a mediator‘s job consists,

not in giving solutions, but in allowing parties to hear each other‘s points of view, and to

seek common ground from which to build toward solutions.

For Schmidt and Tannenbaum (2000) the mediator must be able to diagnose and understand

differences. Prior to intervening, the mediator should conduct an historical which allows

him/her to uncover the roots of the conflict, in order to understand the differences and the

potential points of agreement. Schmidt and Tannenbaum recommend the following

questions which can help the mediator to find such roots:




México Malaysia

I) What is the nature of the difference among the persons?

II) What factors may underlie this difference?

III) To what stage has the interpersonal difference evolved?

(Schmidt and Tannenbaum, 2000).

Without taking sides, the mediator should analyze and recognize the world/conflict view of

each party, as well as the understanding the views and feelings that each side holds toward

the ‗other.‘ During the process of conflict transformation, the mediator‘s subjective feelings

and criticism of the parties must be avoided. Such criticism will block the parties‘

acceptance of the mediator, as well as their interest in seeking to transform the conflict.

Finally, the mediator must be able to select appropriately from a variety of behaviors,

postures, attitudes, levels and types of interactions with the parties. Furthermore, one of the

most important abilities a mediator must have concerns being able to deal with his/her own

feelings so they don‘t impede the neutrality of the mediation process.

Jacob Bercovitch (2007) proposes the following techniques for mediation:

Clarify the situation

Develop rapport with parties

Make parties aware of relevant information

Rehearse appropriate behaviors with each party

Clarify what the parties intend to communicate

Avoid taking sides

Bercovitch argues strongly for the importance of mediation in conflict transformation

saying,

Even if a conflict remains unresolved, mediation –in any guise- can do much to change the way the disputants

feel about each other and lead, however indirectly, to both a long-term improvement in the parties´

relationship and a resolution of the conflict

(Bercovitch, 2007: p, 187).

The mediator can help parties see the advantages of working toward conflict resolution;

however, this must be done without seeming intrusive, which can often be achieved in a

Socratic manner, through asking questions designed to guide the groups to envisioning

possible solutions to the conflict at hand. Bercovitch suggests that one way of working

toward the denormativizing conflict is by helping sides see the ongoing costs of non-

agreement (2007). If the mediator is successful in helping people see the negative




México Malaysia

consequences of living in conflict, and if actors are disposed to changing the situation, then

the process of conflict transformation can take place.

This ties in with Lederach‘s (1995) description of potential steps in Conflict

Transformation, which are as follows:

Disputants are expected to reveal their concerns and feelings

The mediator provides an atmosphere for hearing and identifying the issues and working

on the relationship

Through open-ended questions, a common agenda or list of issues to negotiate is created

The mediator asks disputants to focus on one issue at a time; to separate their proposed

solutions2 from their underlying interests, and to brainstorm a variety of opinions before

they evaluate and move toward a solution

Solutions can come together or in pieces. It is important to strive for the formulation of a

final agreement between or among the disputants

(Lederach, 1995).

Lederach highlights the importance of creating a final agreement which, ideally, all parties

would sign and keep for their community to see and read. However this is not possible in

all cases of conflict. In order for there to be a sense of ownership and acceptance, parties

must perceive themselves as the transformers of the situation through changes in their own

perceptions and, ultimately, their behaviors. At times, mediation and conflict

transformation activities focus more on training for changing perceptions, feelings and

behaviors than on the search for definitive solutions. Long term solutions are best achieved

when parties are able to agree on what behaviors will be changed and what actions will be

taken in order to transform the conflict into a healthy relationship.

At the beginning of the mediation process, it is normal for parties express anger as result of

the antagonism existing among them. A wide variety of techniques exist for healing injured

feelings and painful historical memories. These range from the use of art in its different

forms to the process of deep dialogue where actors attempt to view, feel and think about the

situation through the eyes of the ‗other.‘ These techniques, and the creation of a safe

atmosphere for listening and establishing common issues are discussed below.

2 A person mediating a conflict will inevitably have opinions and potential ‗solutions‘ in mind. However, s/he

must be fully aware of the parties‘ positions-- from where a great variety of opinions will emerge. The

mediator must definitively separate his/her proposed solutions from those solutions sought by the parties. S/he

must work as a facilitator of communication and, at most, a provider of suggestions, never as dictums giver.

Through respectful non-intrusive mediation, parties are more willing to participate in the transformation

process.




México Malaysia

* How can parties in conflict come to listen to each other – to see and feel the

situation through the eyes of the ´other´?

* What instruments and techniques are currently available in the literature for

facilitating conflict transformation?

* How can parties in conflict be brought into collaborative relations with one

another?

* How can empathy be generated?

* How can common goals be established in order to bring parties into

collaborative win-win relationships with one another?

* How can a win-win situation be negotiated so that all sides are satisfied with

the outcomes?

Concerning Conflict Transformation

Listen to Each Other

The Ideological-Structural Analysis perceives the construction of ‗ingroups‘ and

‗outgroups,‘ and the formation of stereotypical notions about each other as major obstacles

to healthy intercommunal relationships. In order for misunderstandings among the parties

to be clarified, all sides must be able to genuinely listen to each other. During this process,

the mediator must provide a key ingredient: respect.3

Schmidt and Tannenbaum say that misunderstandings in communication limit the

management of differences. They remind mediators to conduct encounters among the

parties in such a way that parties can safely exchange ideas and feelings, maintaining the

basic rule of respect for both self and the other.

One of the ways to bring differences into a problem-solving context is to ensure that the disputants can come

together easily. If they can discuss their differences before their positions become crystallized, the chances of

their learning from each other and arriving at mutually agreeable positions are increased. Having easy access

to one another is also a way of reducing the likelihood that each will develop unreal stereotypes of the other

(Schmidt and Tannenbaum, 2000: p. 21).

3 In the stage of listening-to-each-other, the mediator will suggest ‗respect‘ as a key rule. S/he can justify this

rule on the Levels of Being explained by I-SA Theory making emphasis on the deeper level –Life Essence-

since the others two levels make differences among individuals.




México Malaysia

Dialogue sessions provide a venue for bringing parties together in a safe way, so that they

may learn from the voice of the ‗other‘ the real differences, and the similarities between

them. Here parties are able to reflect about each other and themselves before judging. Staff

members at the Center for Dialogue and Human Wellbeing perceive dialogue as a very

helpful and necessary instrument for soothing anger and for moving beyond fixed,

stereotypical views and judgments about each other. Furthermore, it is important to unearth

differences in interpretation that parties may hold about similar phenomena.

Schmidt and Tannenbaum note that:

Perceptual factors exert their influence when the persons have different images of the same stimulus. Each

will attend to, and select from the information available, those items which he deems important. Each will

interpret the information in a somewhat different manner. Each brings to the data a different set of life

experiences which cause him to view the information through a highly personal kind of filter. The picture

which he gets therefore is unique to him. Thus it is not surprising that the same basic facts may produce

distinctive perceptual pictures in the minds of different individuals

(Schmidt and Tannenbaum, 2000: p. 6).

Cultural background and information acquired through personal experience stored in the

memory of each party makes it logical that each will look at a situation in a different

manner. Through experience, media, inherited prejudices, etc. individuals and communities

form stereotypes about people, as well as particularistic interpretive schema concerning

events. By the sides listening to each other during the dialogue process, parties attempt to

go beyond stereotypes they hold about each ‗other.‘ They also attempt to understand how

the other side is viewing and interpreting the issues found at the roots of the conflict at

hand. In CDBH workshops and sessions, individuals entering into the critical juncture of

dialogue learn how to listen respectfully in the attempt to understand the ‗other‘ and his/her

interests and concerns through his/her own eyes, while consciously suspending judgment

and evaluation of the interlocutor through one‘s own interpretive filters and values system.

(López, 2004).

Techniques for Conflict Transformation

Our particularistic ways of communicating arise partially from our personal traits and

characteristics; our cultures, however, also plays a role in shaping our strategies for

problem solving, which arise in part from our personality, the context, and a whole system

of knowing called our worldview. Coming to know our particularistic and our culturally-

influenced communicative styles, and those of the interlocutor, helps us bridge the

inevitable differences respectfully. According to LeBaron strategies for conflict




México Malaysia

transformation should be developed in ways which complement the different ways in which

humans learn.

As human beings we have emotional, imaginative, physical, and spiritual gifts that assist us in the central

human task of getting along. Using them, we welcome diversity; we build a range of cultural ways of being

and navigating conflict into our processes (LeBaron, 2002: p. 10).

When working in conflict transformation, it is important to remember that visual,

kinesthetic and auditory-style learners will be present. As such, different approaches may

be used which aim to embrace the different learning styles, as well as emotional

intelligence, spiritual meaning making, physical movement, and creative imagination

(LeBaron, 2002).

For dealing specifically with anger, Lederach (1995) suggests that art be utilized in order to

express mind-set in a reconciliation process. Since art is an abstract way to express feelings,

and its application is virtually limitless; almost anything and any situation can be used to do

art, which helps bring feelings to the level of conscious awareness. Art can also give

release to traumatic memories, to anger, and to many sorts of difficult psychoaffect, which

otherwise may impede the dialogue process. Poetry and other types of artistic expression,

such as painting, can be applied in the peacemaking processes. For example, if a mediation

team has decided to use painting, participants should be told that the artistic activity

requires no previous training, since its only objective is to express those barriers that cannot

be explained by talking. This technique is sometimes used before bringing parties face-to-

face in order to help the diverse actors visualize their ideas, allowing them to have clarity at

the time of talking to each other. Painting, poetry, music and other forms of art are very

valuable strategies when the facilitator is able to apply them in conflict transformation

situations.

Le Baron (2002) proposes a wide range of creative methods for bridging differences among

participants. She believes that analysis, reason and logical problem solving are not the only

skills needed for solving conflicts. Since conflicts are situated in particular cultural

understandings, creative expressions of cultural and personal idiosyncrasies are highly

valuable to the conflict transformation process. Creative tools range from the dramatic--

like psychodrama (acting out situations for therapeutic reasons)-- to the ordinary—like the

universal act of telling a story. Methods such as employing metaphors and rituals are

suggested as well.

Through sharing stories, dreams, and other facets of ourselves, we clear our minds and hearts for effectively

solving the problems that divide us (…) Bringing emotional, spiritual, physical, and imaginative resources to




México Malaysia

conflict gives us many more routes to resolution or transformation. (…) These processes help us bridge

cultural and personality differences; they help equalize power, they broaden the wisdom available for

changing the form and dynamics of conflict

(LeBaron, 2002: pp. 10-15).

LeBaron offers what she calls a creative relational approach to conflict transformation. The

approach is holistic, and it is flexible enough to welcome surprises instead of eschewing

them. The author warns that actors must suspend judgment if the wish to reach creative

win-win solutions to conflicts, warning that ―judging will shut down creativity every time.

Engaging creative processes requires suspending judgment, at least temporarily,

substituting a spirit of inquiry and openness to outcomes‖ (2002: 22).

For this author, conflict transformation must involve our whole selves – the physical self,

the emotional self, the imaginative self and the spiritual self. In engaging the whole self,

the author suggests the use of music or deep breaths as self-calming techniques. By using

creative tools, distinct learning styles will be involved as well (Le Baron, 2000).

In their 2006 piece, Deutsche and Coleman suggest the use of analogy as a starting point

for drawing possible solutions, stating that

…analogy is the process of mapping the solution for one problem into a solution for another problem. This

involves noticing that a solution to a problem from the past is relevant and then mapping the elements from

that solution to the target problem. For example, a student learning about the structure of the atom enhances

her understanding by drawing on her prior knowledge of the structure of the solar system

(p. 261).

While there is definitely value in recognizing that people can learn from previous events

and previous models of conflict transformation, CDBH staff would like to offer a word of

caution concerning the temptation to apply solutions from one situation or context to

another. It‘s important to remember that every situation is unique, and that historico-

contextual, as well as needs analyses should be conducted for every conflict situation with

which one might become involved, which is a point made very clearly by Stella Ting-

Toomey below.

Collaborative Relations

Ting-Toomey (2001) speaks of three dimensions which are imperative for the successful

management of intercultural differences and, at times, of conflict. The first requirement is

having in-depth knowledge of the situation at hand. In working with the groups in conflict,

the mediator must possess a heightened mindfulness concerning all manner of things,

including the psycho-affective state of the actors involved. Furthermore, a major objective




México Malaysia

of the facilitation process is to invite actors involved in the conflict to a heightened stage of

mindfulness concerning themselves, their community, and the ‗others‘ with whom they are

experiencing conflict. Greater self-awareness and heightened empathy with the other party

go a long way toward transforming conflictual situations into peaceful ones.

In line with the Ideological-Structural Analysis‘ emphasis on listening deeply to each other

in the critical juncture of communication, Ting-Toomey highlights the importance of

cultivating and acquiring knowledge related to one‘s own culture and that of the

interlocutor; she writes:

Without culture-sensitive knowledge, disputants cannot learn to uncover the implicit ethnocentric lenses they

use to evaluate behaviors in an intercultural conflict situation. Without knowledge, people cannot have an

accurate perspective or reframe their interpretation of a conflict situation from the other´s culture standpoint

(Ting-Toomey: 2001, pp. 174).

The knowledge acquired from the other parties in the conflict, as well as the behaviors and

skills which emerge from this knowledge-- if well channeled-- will directly improve the

probability for successful outcomes in the conflict transformation process. Ting-Toomey

talks about a ―mindfulness dimension,‖ meaning that the mediator and the parties must

practice mindful thinking in order to translate concrete knowledge into competent conflict

practice. This means being mindful and double-checking the assumptions and the reactive

emotions that we bring into a conflict situation. The author writes that in order…

…to be a mindful interpreter of intercultural conflict, one must develop a holistic view of the critical factors

that frame the antecedent, process, and outcome components of a conflict episode. Mindfulness means

attending to one´s internal assumptions, cognition, and emotions and, at the same time, becoming attuned to

the other´s conflict assumptions, cognition, and emotions (Ting-Toomey: 2001 p.177).

This suggestion deserves attention, since it focuses on the need for becoming aware and

fully conscious of intercultural differences and, as the author suggests, in order to get to

this point of consciousness, people can be trained to see the unfamiliar behavior from a

nonjudgmental perspective (Ting-Toomey, 2001). This suggestion can help parties to not

only to listen and to know each other, but to learn from each other as well, as all sides

involved seek to draw out common solutions to the conflict at hand.

In addition to ‗mindful thinking,‘ Ting-Toomey suggests the technique of ‗mindful

observation,‘ which involves a formula referred to as ‗O-D-I-S,‘ or ‗observe, describe,

interpret, and suspend evaluation.‘ ‗Mindful listening‘ means learning to apply culturally-

sensitive concepts, such as ‗intergroup‘ or ‗out-group interaction styles,‘ in order to make




México Malaysia

sense of conflict variation behaviors. Mindful listening can also be practiced by engaging in

paraphrasing and making perception checking statements to be sure that one is

understanding the interlocutor‘s communicative intention. Paraphrasing skills include two

techniques: (a) verbally summarizing the content meaning of the speaker´s message in your

own words and, (b) nonverbally echoing your interpretation of the emotional meaning of

the speaker´s message

(Ting-Toomey, 2001).

A further technique suggested by the author involves what she calls ‗mindful reframing.‘

This technique suggests that interlocutors aim to understand the context within which the

conflict unfolds from an alternative perspective in order to better understand the conflictual

behaviors present. She writes:

Just as the frame may change your appreciation of a painting, creating a new context to understand the

conflict behavior may redefine your interpretation and reaction to the behavior or conflict event

(Ting-Toomey: 2001, p.181).

The author suggests that interlocutors seek to reframe, not only cultural dimensions –which

can be understood as the acceptance of distinct world views, but also reframing personal

and introspective dimensions as well. In summary, Ting-Toomey suggests the following

steps for intercultural conflict management through what she calls the ‗dialogue approach:

Apply an ‗ethno-relative lens‘ in order to better understand the conflict from the diverse

points of view. Engage in ‗mindful observation‘ and ‗mindful reframing‘ of the problem

and the context within which it unfolds. Invite parties to engage in an ‗invitational

inquiry.‘ Seek power sharing solutions where all sides feel they have won or gained from

the proposed outcomes. Seek to engage in ‗mutual-face giving.‘ Emphasize common

interests. Seek creative options, and win -win outcomes (Ting-Toomey, 2001).

Seek to Elaborate Common Goals

Ting-Toomey suggests emphasizing common interests as one of the primary strategies in

conflict transformation. While this idea may seem straightforward, due to the nature of

differences between the distinct parties‘ traditions, common goals are not always self-

evident. Said commonalities can be identified by the parties through the dialogue process

with the help of the mediator. When parties are unable to see the common ground between

them, the mediator can sometimes begin by identifying common complaints, which may

aid in the process of uncovering shared concerns and the underlying common goals. This

can provide the basis for a solution to the common problems faced by the diverse actors.




México Malaysia

When no common solution is possible, an alternative involves the establishment of a

negotiated compromise, which may involve all actors committing to transforming the

behaviors that maintain the conflict alive.

According to Deutsche and Coleman (2006) once trust has been established among the

parties, the search for common goals can be promoted. The authors write that…

…relationships can be further strengthened if the parties are able to build Identification-Based Trust [IBT].

Strong calculus-based trust is critical to any stable relationship, but IBT (based on perceived common goals

and purposes, common values, and common identity) is likely to strengthen the overall trust between the

parties and enhance the ability of the relationship to withstand conflict that may be relationship fracturing. If

the parties perceive themselves as having strong common goals, values, and identities, they are motivated to

sustain the relationship and find productive ways to resolve the conflict so that it does not damage the

relationship

(Deutsche & Coleman: 2006, p. 111).

However, when the situation is very tense, and sides are unable to come to an agreement

easily, the mediator can present as objective an analysis as possible in the attempt to find

converging zones of interest or values shared by the parties. These spaces of convergence

can be used as a basis for proposing a solution, although the mediator must never give

dictums.

Schmidt & Tannenbaum (2000) suggest that:

If the disagreement is over goals or goal priorities, he –the mediator- may suggest that the parties take time to

describe as clearly as possible the conflicting goals which are being sought. Sometimes arguments persist

simply because the parties have not taken the trouble to clarify for themselves and for each other exactly what

they do desire. Once these goals are clearly stated, the issues can be dealt more realistically

(p.20).

When the conflict is over values, Schmidt & Tannenbuam suggest that the mediator ask the

following question in order to help individuals become more fully aware of the limitations

to which their actions are subject: ―What do you think you can do about this situation?‖

(Schmidt and Tannenbaum, 2000). This question is suggested instead of something to the

effect of asking ―What do you value?‖ which may provide less concrete information. The

objective of asking very specific questions is to avoid ambiguous resolutions; the challenge

for mediation is to know which strategies to use in order to help parties propose a solution

in which both conflicting parties feel engaged and satisfied after the dialogue process.

As previously mentioned, definitive solutions may not emerge from the conflict

transformation process; positive changes take place over time, with fits, starts and relapses.




México Malaysia

From early on in the process, facilitators aim to promote a shift in the way that the parties

view and feel about the situation and about each other. This shift in perspective should

open the way for a range of behaviors that will progress toward transforming the conflict

into a healthier relationship.

Again, the types of behaviors to be acquired are chosen by the stakeholders themselves, and

not imposed by the facilitators. Thomas Schelling (1980) suggests that the uncovering of

mutual needs and interests provides a solid basis for building collaboratively toward a

solution by the parties in conflict. The author mentions Game Theory as a potential tool for

conflict transformation, where sides can move from a ‗zero-sum‘ mentality to the search for

a win-win solution to the underlying causes of the conflict. His writing suggests that Game

Theory as a technique offers a sort of dramatic interest while, at the same time, pointing out

how the discovery by the sides of their mutual dependence can lead to collaboration and

mutual accommodation (Schelling, 1980).

Schelling discusses two stages of his approach, which are:

1) To identify the perceptual and suggestive element in the formation of mutually consistent expectations.

2) To identify some of the basic ―moves‖ that may occur in actual games of strategy, and the structural

elements that may occur in actual games of ―strategy‖, and the structural elements that the moves depend on;

it involves such concepts as ―threat‖, ―enforcement‖, and the capacity to communicate or destroy

communication

(Schelling, 1980, p. 84).

At the moment of drawing common conclusions and attempting to propose solutions, the

facilitator can suggest procedures which facilitate problem solving. Here, Schmidt and

Tannenbaum (2000) suggest separating the idea from the person who proposes it, when

referring to the different options given by the parties in conflict. ―This increases the chance

of examining the idea critically and objectively without implying criticism of the person‖

(Schmidt and Tannenbaum, 2000: p.22).

Seeking a Win-win Solution

In order to achieve long term solutions, parties must be able to discuss their differences as

well as their commonalities. While sharing points of divergence, the conflicting parties can

be trained to listen with understanding rather than reacting with judgmental evaluation.

Differences can sometimes be enriching in the sense that they can bring a greater variety of

solutions to problems and allow for a deep testing of the proposed solutions. According to

Schmidt and Tannenbaum (2000) the mediator plays a vital role in encouraging the




México Malaysia

perceptual shift from the idea of an ultimate ―winner‖ and a ―loser,‖ which can be viewed

as the search for win-win outcomes with which all sides are essentially satisfied.

Ting-Toomey (2001) provides the core characteristics for a win-win conflict orientation,

which are as follows:

* Respect toward cultural differences

* Identity validation

* A collaborative attitude

* Sensitivity to the context and history of the conflict

* Discovery of mutual-interests and goals

* Uncovering of deeper conflict needs and assumptions

* Collaboration, giving and taking

* A willingness to seek compromise

* Practicing mindful conflict transformation skills

* Willingness to change

If the aforementioned steps have been carried out successfully; if the parties have listened

to each other, understood, and learned from each other; if they have found common goals in

their converging zones of values and feelings, the next question asks how peace among the

parties is going to be maintained on into the future.

Breakstone et al believe that empathy is an essential ingredient for long term

transformation, stating that:

Empathy is the ability to feel what the others are feeling. Empathy is the identification with, and the

understanding of another‘s situation, emotions, and motives. In other words, it is the ability to see the world

through that person´s eyes. Empathy influences us to treat others with respect and kindness; in turn it reduces

violence and cruelty to others.‖

Breakstone et al, 2008 p. 31).

The authors offer some activities to be applied in helping groups reach a point of empathy

with the ‗other.‘ The first activity is inward-looking, suggesting that as people gain greater

awareness of their own emotions, they will be more able to be empathetic with their

counterparts (Breakstone et al, 2008). This first activity includes the use of ‗emotion

words‘ as vocabulary, reinforcing the value placed on emotional awareness in the process

of generating empathy. An additional strategy for increasing empathy invites people to

recognize the physical cues of their own emotional states and the emotional state of others.

The authors write that ―the Emotional States Activity helps [people] to recognize how their

emotional states affect their bodies. It also helps them to recognize the physical cues their




México Malaysia

bodies are giving them to indicate their overall emotional state or how they are feeling

about a specific issue‖ (Breakstone et al, 2008, p. 38). The activity can complement the

skills proposed by LeBaron (2002) above, since they include distinct scenarios and games

that incorporate the use of the distinct ways of learning. Breakstone et al suggest that these

creative strategies can be applied in schools and/or in social groups formed after the

processes of resolution in order to maintain peace among societies.

In areas where conflict among the diverse groups has been the historical norm, empathy is

definitively needed in order to live peacefully. A key to generating empathy between

societies involves focusing on the new generations, since generating empathy among the

young people can help promote a generational change in the direction of peace. Where

deep and painful conflict has been entrenched, education for empathy can be very valuable.

For example, Johnson and Smith (1993) talk about a project called ―Creating Empathy and

Equity,‖ which involves a program to educate children about prejudice and stereotyping.

Education for Empathy or Education for Peace should include learning how to listen and

understand each other. It needs to also help build a culture of awareness about the creation

of stereotyped perspectives in order to try to avoid them. Johnson and Smith suggest that

children and young people in conflict zones can, over time, potentially transform a

historical conflict into a progressive understanding and tolerance.

Final reflections

In light of the brief review of current conflict transformation literature provided above, the

present segment offers some final reflections on the central questions posed earlier on in the

article.

CDBH staff view peace, not only as the absence of war, but as a goal constructed by the

distinct members of the society which will provide them wellbeing and the ability to live

peacefully and respectfully among others. Peace is not achieved if only the elites create

formal agreements. For deep and lasting peace, members of the community come to live

and interact with respect and empathy.

A brief summary of important points is provided below:




México Malaysia

In situations of normativized violence, work beyond the idea that conflict is a

normal state of human affairs.

Respect is a key rule. All people, no matter their religion, cultural identity or

ethnicity share the same levels of the being. The Absolute Life Essence exists

within everyone and respecting it is paramount in order to sustain peace.

Dialogue sessions create safe spaces for expressing ideas, concerns, fears, etc.

Every participant is able to share their views and to be heard. Parties can find

common beliefs and needs so than they can formulate common goals.

Art and other creative tools. Each person learns differently. Distinct methods

have to be used when dealing with feelings since there are visual, auditory and

kinesthetic persons.

Knowledge: Before judging another, coming to self-knowledge, concerning our

thoughts, feelings and actions, allows us to become more aware of these similar

attributes and processes occurring within the ‗other.‘

Similar conditions: Mediators can help conflicting parties uncover similar

conditions as an incentive for working together toward the achievement of conflict

transformation.

Nonjudgmental perspective. The mediator must assume a nonjudgmental

Many view conflict as a normal process among human beings. This idea exists because

conflict appears all too often at the distinct levels of the world society–individually, locally,

nationally and internationally. In a community, normativized conflict doesn´t allow

formulations for wellbeing to emerge, since it may dull the alarm response among people.

When conflict has become normativized, people may become passive, possibly for fear of

going against the norms of violence or, more simply, for fear for their own survival.

In the context of normativized violence, fear, anger, trauma and resentment are going to be

obstacles for letting people uncover the way out of the cycle of conflict and violence. The

role for mediation is to help people be fully aware of the needed changes, to allow for a

sense of empowerment, and to facilitate the envisioning of something more desirable than

the current state of affairs. The new behaviors must be based on mutual respect and a

commitment to sustained peace—even when old injuries and angers flare again. The way

forward should be delineated by the parties themselves, involving people from all levels of

society. The Center for Dialogue and Human Wellbeing offers the Ideological-Structural

Analysis as tool for analyzing both the context and the behaviors that are blocking the way

for a healthy relation among communities.




México Malaysia

Conclusion

In a world where everybody is coming ever more together, every single person has the

capacity to generate peace wherever she/he interacts. The construction for peace can begin

from offering our generosity, listen respectfully the others, accepting different world views

and working within our societies toward creating and sustaining healthy relations. Each

person in the communities should know that her/his beliefs are important, as well as

understanding that other persons and other traditions also have very valuable insights from

where we can learn and grow. Inside every person, within every community, the shared

Life Essence is present in and among all. Communities would do well to genuinely

understand the human diversity found among their members as both wealth and gift.




México Malaysia

REFERENCES

Bercovitch, Jacob. (2007). ―International Conflicts. Theory, Practice and Developments‖

Peacemaking in international conflict: methods and techniques US Institute of Peace Press:

Washington DC, pp. 163 -194.

Breakstone, Steve; Dreiblatt Michael; Dreiblatt Karen, (2008) ―How to Stop Bulling and

Social Aggression: Elementary Grade Lessons and Activities That Teach Empathy,

Friendship and Respect‖, Corwin Press

Deutsch, Morton & Peter T Coleman. (2006) ―The handbook of conflict resolution: theory

and practice‖ John Willey and Sons.

Galtung, Johan (1996) ―Peace by peaceful means: peace and conflict, development and

civilization‖ International Peace Research Institute, Oslo

Johnson, Lauri and Smith, Sally. (1993) ―Dealing with diversity through multicultural

fiction: library-classroom partnerships‖, American Library Association, Michigan

University

LeBaron, Michelle (2002) ―Bridging troubled waters: conflict resolution from the heart‖

Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

Lederach, John Paul (1995). ―Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across

Cultures‖ Syracuse University Press.

López C., Carolina. Civilisational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace. Book project.

Centre for Civilisational Dialogue, University of Malaya and Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar

Humano, Tec de Monterrey. Tentative Publisher: Routledge-Curzon. Expected Date of

Publication: 2010 or 2011.

López C., Carolina. Ideological-Structural Analysis of Global Ideological Reproduction:

The case of Mexican educational policy. Tentative Publisher: Zed Books. Expected Date

of Publication: 2010 or 2011.

López C., Carolina; ―México: Political, Socioeconomic and Cultural Dimensions, An

essay…‖ in Latin American Panorama: International Colloquium on Latin American

Studies in Asia. 29-31, December 2008. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. In Press at Penerbit

UKM Press. Expected date of Publication: 2010.




México Malaysia

López, Carolina, ―G/local Challenges and Changes: Human Rights in post-Merdeka

Malaysia,‖ in Malaysian Politics and Civil Society. Terence Gomez (Ed), United Nations‘

Research Institute for Social development. Routledge-Curzon. (2007). López, Carolina. (2005a). Ideological-Structural Analysis Micro and Macro Theory:

Antología de Escritos Teóricos. Librerías Tecnológico de Monterrey: México. López, Carolina. (2005b). "Ideological-Structural Analysis Micro and Macro-theory of Intercivilizational Dialogue" Mohd. Hazim Shah (ed). The Malaysian Journal of Science and Technology Studies. Vol. 2. No. 1.

López, Carolina, (2004) ―Ideological-Structural Analysis Micro and Macro - Theory of

Intercivilizational Dialogue‖ Malaysian Journal of Science and Technology Studies Vol.2,

2004, pp. 2-44.

López, Carolina. " Security, Human Rights and Wellbeing: Malaysia as a mirror of g/local

dynamics and contestation" en Investigación Multidisciplinaria.Volumen 3, Número 1,

Primavera 2005. López, Carolina. (2004). "The Meeting of the British and Malay Civilizational Traditions: A brief history." in Investigación Multidisciplinaria. Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring 2004. López C., Carolina." Human Rights Discourses and Practices at the Global, State and Local Levels: Rights Narratives and Contestation in Malaysia and the Global Milieu." Working Paper Series of the Institute of Malaysian and International Studies No. 8. March 2004. National University of Malaysia Press. López C., Carolina. "The British Presence in the Malay World: A meeting of civilizational traditions," Sari Journal of the Malay World and Civilization. Vol. 19. pp. 3-33. July 2001.

López C. Carolina. " Ideological-Structural Analysis of External Influences on Current

Human Rights Discourses in Malaysia," Akademika: Journal of the Social Sciences and

Humanities. No. 59, pp. 53-73. July 2001.

López, Carolina. (1997). Integrated Ideological-Structural Analysis of Global Ideological

Reproduction: The case of Mexican educational policy. (Doctoral Dissertation. Northern

Arizona University).

López, Carolina. "An Overview of Psycholinguistic and Second Language Acquisition Research: Implications and Applications for the Target Language Classroom," Miyagi Gakuin Journal, Vol. 71, July 1990.

Saliha Hassan & López C., Carolina Ideological-Structural Analysis of Human Rights

Discourses and Practices in Malaysia: Through the Mahathir Era. Tentative Publisher:




México Malaysia

ISEAS Press: University of Singapore or Routledge-Curzon. Tentative Date of

Publication: 2010 or 2011.

Saliha Hassan & Carolina López C. (2005). "Human Rights in Malaysia: Globalisation,

National Governance and Local Responses," in Capturing Globalisation: Global, State and

Local Responses. Ojendal, Joakim & Loh, Kok Wah,(eds.) GESEAS: Swedish Institute

of Southeast Asian Studies.

Schelling, Thomas C, (1980) ―The strategy of conflict‖, Harvard University Press, United

States of America.

Schmidt, Warren H. and Robert Tannenbaum. (2000). ―Management of Differences.‖

Harvard Business Review on Negotiation and Conflict Resolution. Harvard Business

School Press: Boston, pp. 1-26.

Ting-Toomey, Stella (2001) ―Managing intercultural conflict effectively‖ Sage

Publications, California.

fundamental issues in conflict transformation

Documents

conflict transformation

apparent normalcy of

concerns of communities

monterrey centre

needs assessment

instrument of peace

human wellbeing cdbh

certain situations