Notes on Lederach - Conflict Transformation

First, what is “conflict transformation”? It seems that, for Lederach, conflict transformation is defined against the background of existing paradigms like “conflict resolution” and “conflict management”.

What is supposed to be the problem with these other paradigms?

The basic idea is that these other approaches are more “surface” level, focusing on resolving or engaging with the immediate or “presenting” problem, possibly at the expense of focusing on the deeper underlying structural pattern or context that is causing the presenting issue.

Ultimately, the claim seems to be that focusing on the surface issue may simply not work very well at the end of the day, if the surface issue is just a surface manifestation of a deeper problem.

Moreover, there is a kind of risk of actually making things worse by “papering over” these deeper issues, making it seem that things are “getting better” because the focal conflict has been de-escalated, while in fact things are getting worse underneath.

For example, Lederach writes (pg 3):

It was not clear that resolution left room for advocacy […] quick solutions to deep social-political problems usually meant lots of good words but no real change. “Conflicts happen for a reason” … “Is this resolution idea just another way to cover up the changes that are really needed?”

Put another way, conflict transformation seems to be committed to a view of conflict that seems to be more engaged with justice, and justice as a precursor of peace.

• Conflict transformation suggests that to engage a conflict we need to simultaneously engage in three ways:
  • We need a lens to see the immediate situation.
  • Second, we need a lens to see beyond the immediate situation to the deeper patterns of relationship
  • Third, we need a conceptual framework that holds these perspectives together, and can connect the presenting problem with the deeper relational pattern.

Conflict transformation lenses suggest we “look beyond the dishes to see the context of the relationship that is involved, and then look back again at the pile”.

In this chapter, Lederach defnes conflict transformation explicitly:

Conflict transformation is to envision and respond to the ebb and flow of social conflict as life-giving opportunities for creating constructive change processes that reduce violence, increase justice in direct interaction and social structures and respond to real-life problems in human relationships.

Another key point:

Conflict is a normal and continuous dynamic within human relationships. Moreover, conflict brings with it the potential for constructive change. Positive change does not always happen of course. As we all know too well, amny times conflict results in long-standing cycles of hurt and destruction. But the key to transformation is a proactive bias toward seeing conflict as a potential catalyst for growth.

So to summarize:

• Conflict is a natural part of relationships.
• Conflict brings with it the potential for constructive change; however, it can also be destructive.
• Conflict transformation: try to steer towards conflict as catalyst for growth etc.

In relation to escalation and de-escalation.

We often see conflict primarily in terms of its rise and fall, its escalation and de-escalation, its peaks and valleys. […] A transformational perspective, rather than looking at a single peak or valley, views the entire mountain range.

So related to conflict being a natural part of relationships:

• In the context of ongoing relationships, there are ongoing patterns, ebbs and flows of escalation and de-esclation. Issues come to the fore (“escalate”) and become legible as conflict, and then recede.
• Rather than just focus on the moments of escalation in isolation, in conflict transformation, we are trying to understand the whole pattern of ebbs and flows.

A key related point here for bridging bot is that “escalation”, or a conflict coming to the fore, being engaged is not per se a bad thing.

In fact, “conflict” or “escalation” – understood as the direct engagement of an issue – is an oppportunity. Conflict presents the opportunity to respond, innovate, change. In short, it’s an window into the deeper issues / patterns at stake in the relationship/situation, and an opportunity to see how they are or are not working, and to make them better, more just etc.

So the normativity is not around “escalation” or “conflict” per se.

But there is normativity around “constructive” vs. “destructive” conflict.

While transformation understands that conflict is an opportunity for growth and constructive change, it also takes seriously that social conflict can also evolve into violent and destructive patterns.

Conflict transformation is focused on what Lederach calls “change processes”… “the foundation of how conflict can move from being destructive towards being constructive”

Another related idea to this “ebb and flow” perspective: L tries to view “peace” not as a static end state, but as something dynamic – a continuously evolving and developing quality of relationships. It is characterized by intentional efforts to address the natural ebb and flow of conflict through nonviolent approaches. This means both addressing the surface issues that arise, but also engaging the depeer patterns – addressing issues around justice etc.

How to promote constructive change?

• Dialogue is essential to justice and peace on both an interpersonal and a structural level. It is not the only mechanism but it is an essential one.
• Dialogue is understood both as person-to-person kind of thing, but also at a more structural level of the public sphere.
  • Processes and spaces must be created so that people can engage and shape the structures that order their community life, broadly defined. Dialogue is needed to provide acces to, a voice in, an dconstructive interaction with, the ways we formalize our relationships and in the ways our organizations and structures are built, respond, and behave.
  • Here there is a key resonance with, for example, the work of Danielle Allen. I think of the idea of “power sharing liberalism” and her related emphases on “positive liberties” contra Rawl.

This chapter discusses transformation both descriptively and normatively at different altitudes – personal, relational, structural and cultural.

For BB, I am most interested in the normative aspects – what does conflict transformation see as “good” in the context of conflict. What is it trying to promote at these different levels?

Personal: Prescriptively, transformation represents deliberate intervention to minimize the destructive effects of social conflict and to maximize its potential for growth in the person as an individual human being, at physical, emotional and spiritual levels.

Relational: Prescriptively, transformation represents interveneing intentionally to minimize poorly functioning communication and to maximize mutual understanding. This includes trying to bring to the surface explicitly the relational fears, hopes, and goals of the people involved.

Structural: Prescriptively, transformation represents deliberately intervening in order to gain insight into the underlying causes and social conditions which create and foster violent expressions of conflict. In addition, it openly promotes nonviolent means to reduce adversarial interaction and seeks to minimize – and ultimately eliminate – violence.

Cultural: Prescriptively, transformation seeks to help those in conflict understand the cultural patterns that contribute to conflict in their setting, and then to identify, promote, and build on the resources and mechanisms within that culture for constructively responding to and handling conflict.

One key through-line here seems to be about non-violence. Violence as a potential end of conflict that is to be avoided.

Here is the summary table:

Differences between conflict resolution and transformation:

• Resolution implies finding a solution to a problem. Guiding question: how do we end something that is not desired?
• Transformation directs us towards change, to how to move things from one shape to a different one. Guiding question: how do we end sometihng not desired and build something we do desire?

Presenting problem as an oportunity to engage a broader context of the relationship, to explore the systems and patterns that gave rise to the local issue. This requires a longer term vision that goes beyond the anxieties of immediate needs

Differences in how resolution and transformation view conflict:

• Resolution has tended to focus primarily on methods for de-escalation. Escalation as something that is per-se bad or undesirable.
• Transformation involves both de-escalating and engaging conflict, even escalating in pursuit of constructive change. Constructive change requires a variety of roles, functions and processes, some of which may push conflict outinto the open.

So transformation is more agnostic about whether “escalation” is good or bad per se. In some cases it could be good if it helps reveal core issues that need to be addressed.

General goal in transformation to reach the epicenter of a conflict. Here is the key table of contrasts:

Transformation framework comprises three inquiries:

• The presenting situation – emerges out of the existing history and patterns of relationship.
• The “horizon” of preferred future – future presents the possibility for constructive change.
• The development of change processes linking the two

Goal again is to:

1. End someting that is not desired
2. Build something that is desired.

Implication that a goal is to reduce violence and the continued esclation of conflict. Going beyond negotiating solutions towards building something new.

this chapter is not so relevant to me. It’s about developing a platofrm and strategic plan that has a capacity to adapt and generate ongoing desired c hange, while at the same time responding creatively to immediate needs.

Some key ideas is that there is both circularity and linearity in these processes. Sometimes we have to go backwards to go forward.

We have to be dynamic, adaptive etc.

Esclation of conflict as an opportunity to establish and sustain a base of constructive resolution.

A transformation platform must be “short-term responsive and long-term strategic”.

1. See preventing issues as a window. How to look through the issue to bring into focus the scene that lies beyond the immediate situation. Differentiate between content and context of a conflict.
2. Integrate multiple time frames. Short-term vs. long-term responses.
3. Pose energies of conflict as dilemmas. Either/or => both/and framings. Posing conflicts as dilemmas. Accepting the elgitimacy of different, but not incompatible goals and energies within the setting. How can we address each at once rather than focus on incompatibilities?

Here is an interesting bit:

When we embrace dilemmas and paradoxes, there is the possibility that in conflict we are not dealing with outright incompatibilities. Rather, wea re faced with recognizing and responding to different but interdependent aspects of a complex situation. We are not able to handle complexity well if we understand our choices in rigid either/or and contradictory terms. Complexity requires that we develop the capacity to identify the key energies in a situation and hold them up together as interdependent goals.

“The ability to position situations as dilemmas, the capacity to live with apparent contradictions and paradoxes, lies at the heart of transformation”.

“Dilemmas imply complexity. This suggests the ability to live with and to see the value of complexity. Further, it requires us to resist the push to resolve everything rationally into neat, logically consistent pacakges.”

1. Make complexity a friend, not a foe.

“Complexity describes a situation in which we feel forced to live with multiple and competing frames of reference about what things mean.”

“Complexity suggests multiplicity and simultaneity.”

“By its very nature, complexity in conflict creates an atmosphere of rising ambiguity and uncertainty. Things are not clear. We feel insecure about the meaning of all that is happening.”

Transformation approach:

While complexity can create a sense that there is too much to consider, it also provides untold possiblities for building desired and constructive change.

Complexity often brings a multiplicity of options to the surface. If we pay careful attention to those options, we can often create new ways to look at old paterns.

1. Hear and engage the voices of identity

Identity and how people see themselves. Not a rigid, static phenomenon. Constantly being re-negotiated.

Need to pay attention when threats to identity are being raise in conflict. Cannot understand epicenter without understanding these things.

Should move toward not away from appeals to identity. Create a goal of exchange and dialogue.

Sometimes internal, self, or intra-group spaces are as important to transformation as are between or cross-group solidarities. Create spaces where safe and deep reflection – responsibility, hope, fear – can be explored.

I’m quite interested in the resonances here with power-sharing liberalism type ideas. Talk about for example the importance of establishing mechanisms for citizens to have an ongoing platform to raise concerns about an issue etc.

Example here is about policing concerns – much direction relates to creating new patways and mechanisms for engaging ongoing concerns constructively. Settings to continue discussing.

Related clearly to these ideas of positive liberties in Allen etc.

Transformative apporach is more appropriate in some situations than others.

When does resolution approach makes mores sense?

Disputes that involve the need for a quick and final solution to a probulem, where the disputants have little or no relationship before, during or after, are clearly situations in which the exploration of relational and structural patterns are of limited value. For example, a one-time business dispute over a payment between two people who hardly know each other and will never have contact again is not a setting for exploring a transformational application.