Conflict Resolution, Conflict Transformation and the work of Johan Galtung

The approach of Conflict Resolution emerged during the 1960s in response and as an alternative to the dominant Realist power political world view.⁸³ This approach contested the view that human behaviour is explained by the negative and aggressive nature of human beings but instead argue that human beings have certain inherent drives that cannot be suppressed by coercive power.⁸⁴ In order to clarify the argument the main proponent of Conflict Resolution, John Burton, draws a distinction between disputes and conflict

“’Disputes’ involve negotiable interests, while ‘conflicts’ are concerned with issues that are not negotiable, issues that relate to ontological human needs that cannot be compromised.”⁸⁵

Conflict, thus, emanates from the unfulfilled deep-rooted human needs such as autonomy, recognition, identity and security.⁸⁶ The perspectives of Conflict Resolution regard conflicts as

81 Richmond 2008, 58, 59.

82 Richmond 2008, 58, 59, 61, 70; Ramsbotham, Woodhouse & Miall 2005, 7.

83 See Burton 1969.

84 Burton 1990, 32; Tidwell 2001, 75-77.

85 Burton 1996, 55.

86 Burton 1990, 4, 32-33; Tidwell 2001, 76-78.

universal phenomenon affecting all cultures and existing on all levels from interpersonal, societal, to international. It offers a generic explanation on human behaviour, as well as, an explanatory variable when identifying the real issues underlying a conflict. Furthermore, it assumes that through scientific analysis it is possible to find means for the resolution of the conflict.⁸⁷ The theory of Conflict Resolution purports to solve deep-rooted conflicts through the process of problem-solving workshops in which a third party assists adversaries to understand and to reassess more accurately the underlying causes of the conflict and the cost of the consequences of their behaviours.⁸⁸ The highly influential Conflict Resolution theory has been under strict scrutiny because it neglects the cultural and social construction of human beings.⁸⁹ Another field of critics has been scholars who promote the Conflict Transformation approach.

Just as Conflict Resolution was a reaction to Realism, the proponents of Conflict Transformation argue that the root causes of the conflict are not static, as is expected by the Conflict Resolution, instead conflicts are always in a flux and always being transformed into something else.⁹⁰ According to Raimo Väyrynen

“A dynamic analysis of conflicts is indispensable; the study of their resolution in a static framework belies social reality. […] the issues, actors and interests change over time as a consequence of the social, economic and political dynamics of societies.”⁹¹

Hence, conflicts are highly elastic, changeable processes and therefore any approach that seeks to alter a conflict must be equally dynamic and changeable.⁹² Proponents of Conflict Transformation criticize the view that conflicts could be resolved for good instead in some cases it might be better to let the conflict to transform rather than to seek solutions for it.⁹³ The purpose is to find ways to transform the conflict into something which is socially useful and non-destructive. Furthermore, any intervention to a conflict will change its dynamics whether the end result was successful or not.⁹⁴ Peter Wallensteen argues that Conflict Resolution approach purposefully seeks commonalities between the participants whereas Conflict Transformation adheres towards changing the relationship between the opponents. The change in the relationship might happen through resolving the conflict but it also may occur if one party achieves a total victory over the other one. In either case, the conflict has been transformed.⁹⁵

87 Burton 1990, 1; Tidwell 2001, 77, 79, 80.

88 Burton 1990, 3-7.

89 See for instance Avruch 2004; Väyrynen T., 2001.

90 Väyrynen R., 1991, 1-5, 23; Tidwell, 2001, 72.

91 Väyrynen R., 1991, 4.

92 Tidwell 2001, 74.

93 Väyrynen R., 1991, 12, 23.

94 Tidwell 2001, 73.

95 Wallensteen 1991, 129.

Wallensteen describes Conflict Transformation as “[…] a generalized learning from historical experience.”⁹⁶ It stresses a long-term analysis of conflicts and its development particularly focusing on the structural aspects of conflicts such as patriarchy, racism and capitalism as causes of human behaviour. Karin Aggestam comments that Conflict Transformation stresses holism in dealing with conflicts and, therefore, has especially focused on the procedures of post-agreement phases such as peace-building and reconciliation.⁹⁷ Conflict Transformation theorists have also attempted to analyse the dynamic nature of protracted conflicts. Intractable conflicts experience temporal escalation and de-escalation phases. In the literature among the proponents of Conflict Transformation, a lot of discussion has been about the concept of ripeness, in other words, when the conflict is considered as ripe or ready for third party intervention. Another issue that has been widely debated is the notion of power asymmetry between the participants.⁹⁸ Conflict Transformation theorists have been criticised for overemphasising the structures, hence, neglecting the conscious reasoning of individuals and their interaction.⁹⁹

One scholar whose work could be categorised under the rubric of Conflict Transformation is Johan Galtung. Galtung’s work has influenced peace and conflict studies to such an extent that it could be argued that his work has greatly defined and characterised peace research. Galtung suggests that conflicts can be viewed as a triangle with behaviour (B), contradiction (C), and attitude (A) at its vertices. Behaviour refers to the objective aspects of conflicts such as material interests, structural relationship as well as physical and verbal behaviour of the conflict participants. The contradiction refers to the underlying conflict situation and it includes the actual or perceived incompatible interests or goals of the participants. Attitude refers to the subjective elements of the conflict, in other words, emotive and cognitive aspects of the opponents, such as the perceptions and misperceptions of what the opponents have of each other and themselves. These three aspects are constantly changing and influencing one another, therefore, all three aspects need to be transformed in order to resolve the conflict.¹⁰⁰

Galtung defines peace as an absence of violence. Violence, then, is “[…] the cause of the difference between the potential and the actual, between what could have been and what is.”¹⁰¹ With this notion, Galtung attempts to broaden the notion of violence beyond direct or visible violence.

Accordingly, Galtung makes a distinction between direct violence (people are murdered –B),

96 Wallensteen 1991, 129.

97 Aggestam 1999, 18-19, 22, 23.

98 Zartman 1995, 3-13; Väyrynen R. 1991, 10; Crocker, Hampson & Aall 1996, 45.

99 Aggestam 1999, 23.

100 Galtung & Tschudi 2000, 206; Ramsbotham, Woodhouse & Miall 2005, 10.

101 Galtung 1969b, 168.

structural violence (people die because of poverty –C) and cultural violence (way of legitimizing or justifying direct or structural violence –A).¹⁰² These three notions of violence overlap with the conflict triangle respectively. In order to end the direct violence, behavioural aspects of the conflict need to be transformed, structural violence necessitates changing structural contradictions, and cultural violence can be diminished by changing attitudes.¹⁰³ Galtung makes yet another distinction between positive peace and negative peace. Negative peace is the absence of direct violence whereas positive peace is the absence of structural violence.¹⁰⁴ An example of negative peace is for instance Pax Romana in imperial Rome which practiced slavery (structural violence). Positive peace, on the other hand, refers to a situation where the violence is absent and the exploitation is either minimised or eliminated altogether from the society.¹⁰⁵

Galtung’s notion of peace has been widely criticised, for instance, Georg Sørensen accuses Galtung of utopianism. According to Sørensen, Galtung stresses values, such as peace, extensively thereby disregarding the contradictions and problems presented by the empirical data.¹⁰⁶ Similarly, Kenneth Boulding criticises Galtung’s research for being too normative in a sense that the description of reality suffers. Boulding argues that while much of the peace research is by virtue normative science “There is always a danger that our norms act as a filter which leads to a perversion of our image of reality.”¹⁰⁷ Sørensen comments that there are societies in which there is a high level of violence against the large majority of the population, thus, it

“[…] becomes almost logical for the mass of the people to resort to direct violence in order to get rid of the misery and repression created by the ruling elite and the highly unequal social structure over which it precedes.”¹⁰⁸

Sørensen’s remarks point out that a conflict can have a positive social function as is presented by Lewis Coser. Coser defines conflict as “[…] the clash of values and interests, the tension what is and what some groups feel ought to be.”¹⁰⁹ For Coser, conflict can serve the function of directing the society onwards, for instance, generating new norms, new institutions and stimulating economic and technological innovations. In other words, the conflict can, also, have a positive function of facilitating a social change.¹¹⁰

102 Galtung 1990, 291.

103 Ramsbotham, Woodhouse & Miall 2005, 11.

104 Galtung 1969b, 183.

105 Barash 1991, 8.

106 Sørensen 1992, 135-138.

107 Boulding 1977, 77.

108 Sørensen 1992, 138.

109 Coser 1957, 197.

110 Coser 1957, 198, 200-201.