Classical Approaches to Conflict and Peace

Session 2

Much better classroom. We are in a horseshoe formation facing Irene and the whiteboard. Quite a change in personnel for this session; three or four faces have disappeared from the first session to be replaced by three or four more. I think we are down to three men amongst about fifteen women. The subject of War Studies comes up again: Irene had wanted to study it herself – it’s more 'exciting'. I guess that is where all the guys have gone. We've seen how different disciplines approach the same topic: Conflict Resolution (that’s us) vs Anthropology; Peace Studies (that’s also us) vs War Studies / Strategic Studies. In this session we discover that the Human Rights guys are not us either.

Human needs: three theoretical contributions

1. Social-psychological theory (Kelman)
2. Protracted social conflict (Azar)
3. Human needs theory (Burton)

We kick off with Ronald J Fisher’s definition of conflict (as close as I could get)

“A social situation that contains perceived incompatibilities in goals or values between two or more parties each attempting to control the other; accompanied by antagonistic feelings.”

Irene expands: Objective and subjective components. Conflict driven by collective needs and fears not rational calculation. Kelman telling us to focus on ‘collective motivation’ in both societal conflict and conflict between states. Conflict is dynamic: circumstances, interests and feelings all change over time. Collective human needs acted out in conflict between states. Nothing controversial, perhaps. We seem to be in sociology land.

What are ‘human needs’: bodily needs (food, shelter etc) but also (according to this theory) identity, security, self-esteem, sense of justice (add your own…) I’m wondering where you draw the line between needs and desires. They say you can’t be too rich or too thin. Perhaps you can’t be too secure either. As you will see later in this post, we have a Chinese person concerned about being invaded.

Abraham Maslow conceptualised a ‘hierarchy of human needs’, but his work is much disputed. Check it out.

Identity conflicts are especially potent. Think of Israel/Palestine. Recognition of the other group undermines existence of own group. Existential conflict. I understand in theory, but don’t wholly relate to this. I guess I have never had the identity of my ‘group’ threatened or felt my country was vulnerable to attack (except, maybe, during some of the cold war missile crises); never felt likely to be subject to invasion, anyhow.

This 'human needs' theory leads to the conclusion that we should help parties in a conflict understand that both they and their opponents are each trying to satisfy basic human needs. Their enemy's actions are just the execution of a strategy to satisfy these needs. They shouldn’t expect their enemy's HUMAN NEEDS to be negotiable; they never are. How these needs are to be met may be.

Azar says it is a mistake, then, to take the state as the appropriate level of analysis for conflict: we need to look within the state at a societal level. He points out out deeply animosity can run. The ‘Enemy Image’ is very hard to eliminate: even if you meet a likeable member of the enemy group, this doesn’t change your image of the group as a whole.

So we reach John Burton. He the man. Human needs are universal. Healthy people => healthy society. The Burtonian school believes in the workshop approach to conflict resolution: panel of academics; no traditional bargaining; non-judgemental; focus on the needs of the parties; each party understanding the needs of the other; no judgement on right or wrong as to how the conflict should be resolved.

Human needs theory is bang in opposition to Power Theory where the ‘will-to-power’ is considered a fundamental human trait. Interesting there is also a conflict, do you see, with the Human Rights approach. In ‘Human Needs’ nobody is judged – they have just being trying to fulfil their needs in a misguided way. But in Human Rights one side may be adjudged to have broken International Law and deserve punishment. Judged? Absolutely, and punished too, if possible. (Irene gave example of where a Conflict Resolution team somewhere was prepared to talk to one party to the conflict even though they had been mutilating their opponents; they want to find a resolution to the conflict. They were much criticized by the Human Rights guys, who said they were dealing with criminals who should be punished, not rewarded. Get it?

So we have an interesting exercise at the end of the class. In my group there is a German, a Somali, and an Ethiopian (all women). We discuss the civil war in Somalia. Our Somali friend has a lot of difficulty (not surprisingly) getting her head around what legitimate human needs the two largest clans have. They incessantly struggle to dominate each other and abuse all the smaller clans meanwhile. Everyone else wants peace, they don’t, she says. They want to rule. Irene say this is just a ‘strategy’. Our friend ain’t buying it. Who can blame her. Theory meets practice. 'Human Needs Theory' meets 'Power Theory'. More on this later, I’m sure.

Saturday school tomorrow. Need a good night. But here is your homework. What are we to say to this fellow who wants China to build 20 aircraft carriers to protect China from the US? Any suggestions? Would starting to build 20 carriers bring the results he wants? Here is his posting.