Week Eight: How do conflict transformation and conflict resolution differ?

            Conflict transformation and conflict resolution differ in many ways, but most of the differences are explained by their different goals. The goal of conflict resolution is negative peace, or the absence of manifest, physical conflict. On the other hand, conflict transformation strives for positive peace, which is characterized by the absence of structural violence and the presence of social justice (Galtung 183). While both conflict resolution and conflict transformation work toward a vision of peace, the visions are very different, which naturally leads to differences in theory and practice.

            First, conflict transformation and conflict resolution address different aspects of conflict. While conflict resolution seeks to end overt and manifest violence, conflict transformation says that “it is not only the gun that kills. Lack of access to basic means of life and dignity does the same thing” (Assefa 42- CT Handouts). Johannes Botes addresses this reality, explaining that since “violence has come to mean far more than physically violent behavior,” conflict transformation addresses the structural roots in addition to the physically violent aspect of the conflict (273). Since oppressive structures do violence and cause conflict, conflict transformation “goes beyond conflict resolution in providing a deeper and more permanent level of change” (Botes 275).

            Another notable difference between conflict resolution and conflict transformation is the time commitment of the work. While conflict resolution is often a more immediate and short-term solution, conflict transformation is a long-term commitment. Because the goal of conflict transformation is create just systems, structures, and relationships, the nature of conflict transformation “implies a long-term peace-building process” (Botes 277). John Paul Lederach contrasts the long-term time commitment of conflict transformation with the short-term expectations of conflict resolution, saying that conflict resolution “does not capture that on-going nature nor the need for a relational ebb and flow” (51- CT Handouts). Thus, for Lederach, conflict transformation provides the flexibility within a long-term commitment that is needed for successful peacebuilding and structural transformation.

            One of the things I have most appreciated about this class so far has been the opportunity to learn about the differences between conflict resolution and conflict transformation. I had a preference for conflict transformation before I could articulate why, but as I have learned about the differences I have found myself consistently drawn to the theory and practice of conflict transformation. Addressing structural violence is one of my own priorities in peacebuilding, and I also prefer the long-term commitment of conflict transformation. I, along with Lederach, firmly believe that this long-term commitment provides the best framework for flexible, creative, and transformative peacebuilding efforts.

Week Six: How may institutions affect conflict, positively and negatively?

            Institutions, like all dimensions of conflict, have both positive and negative potential in times of conflict. Rubenstein focused on the legitimacy of institutions, specifically the legal system (175). Whether or not institutions are viewed as legitimate impacts their capacity to affect conflict positively or negatively, as “every social system rests on a foundation consisting of both force and consent” (168). While institutions can use force to impact a conflict, this usually goes along with a decrease in consent and popular support (168). On the other hand, an increase in support and consent decreases the need for use of force (168). Thus, the consent of the people based on their perception of an institution’s legitimacy can dramatically change the dimensions of conflict (168).

            Rubenstein explored institutional legitimacy using the example of the legal system, stating that “the system as a whole justifies its existence by the extent to which it satisfies people’s need for security, freedom, and other social goods” (175). He also emphasized the responsibility of the legal system to “maintain social peace…[and] resolve conflicts both inside and outside their boundaries” (177). Finally, he listed “protecting the rights and interests of disadvantaged parties” as one of the five purposes of the legal system (179). All of these tasks of a legitimate legal system are examples of how institutions can and do affect conflict positively—by meeting needs, by protecting rights, and by promoting peace. On the other hand, Rubenstein was honest in admitting that the legal system can also affect conflict negatively, adding fuel to the fire. For example, at times “legal rulings can intensify social conflicts rather than resolve them” (181). When this happens, the legal system loses its legitimacy, as it fails to meet the needs of all people and resolve the conflict at hand.

            Overall, I think institutions have a critical role in conflict, but it is important to recognize the connection between institutions and individuals. If individuals do not view institutions as legitimate, any influence in the conflict will likely be through force, which I think would lead to negative influences in conflict. However, if an institution meets needs, protects rights, and promotes peace, the consent of the people will likely place that institution in a prime position to affect the conflict situation in a positive manner. While the examples in this chapter were specific to the legal system, I think it provided a helpful framework for both identifying legitimate institutions and critiquing and transforming illegitimate ones.