Week Twelve: How does understanding conflict as a progression allow for a use of a wide variety of approaches in addressing conflict?

            Though I had not been formally introduced to the concept, throughout this semester I think I have naturally been thinking about the concept of conflict as a progression. Lederach explores this concept in depth in his chapter “An Integrated Framework for Peacebuilding” (73). Central to this integrated framework is the ability to “[view] conflict as a progression,” which in turn “provides a set of lenses for rethinking time” (Lederach 78). Essentially, what Lederach means by “rethinking time” is that in peacebuilding, the concept of time is not neatly separated into categories such as past, present, and future; rather, peacebuilding requires an understanding of time that transcends these categories. Lederach argues that understanding conflict as a progression enables us to see that “quick fixes in protracted conflict rarely lead to sustainable processes or solutions” (78). As a result, these short-term solutions must be done in a larger context that includes “the painstaking tasks of relationship and confidence building, and…the design of and preparation for social change, which ultimately provide a basis for sustaining conflict transformation” (78). Lederach’s concept of conflict as a progression is best understood in relation to the concept of peacebuilding as a process; just as conflict goes through many stages and takes many years to progress and develop, peacebuilding must also be understood in a parallel sense. Lederach describes the design of a successful peacebuilding process as “the unfolding of an ‘architecture’ that moves through stages,” recognizing that peace must develop in stages just as conflict did.

            Within this framework, and within these stages of progression, Lederach lays out a vision of appropriate and timely tasks for peacebuilding. For example, in the early stages of peacebuilding, it is important to manage crisis on the personal and relational level and address the root causes of the conflict on the systemic level (Lederach 80). However, addressing the long-term stages of peacebuilding (20+ years down the road) requires attention to the vision for social change as well as prevention of further crises (Lederach 77, 80). Thus, understanding conflict and peacebuilding in terms of progression provides a framework for identifying “the strategic what” as well as “the strategic when” of peacebuilding (Schirch 64, 75). Overall, this concept of conflict and peacebuilding as a progression has helped me think more strategically about what types of peacebuilding initiatives are appropriate in each stage of conflict or peacebuilding. While we have been learning all semester that conflict transformation demands long-term commitment, this chapter was a helpful resource for mapping out what that long-term commitment will look like in each stage of conflict and peace. As peace evolves, so must peacebuilders and peacebuilding initiatives, “[maintaining] form over time yet [having] no rigidity of structure” (Lederach 84). Commitment+flexibility=sustainability.

Week Eleven: Choose one of the four areas Schirch diagrams in her map of peacebuilding on pg. 26. Describe it thoroughly and explain why it is important for overall peacebuilding.

            As I was reading, I highlighted the areas on Schirch’s chart where I feel called to get involved. The two strongest areas for me are transforming relationships and building capacity, with some interest in waging conflict nonviolently as well (Schirch 26). For this journal, I would like to focus on the area of transforming relationships. I am drawn to this area of peacebuilding because it includes conflict transformation and restorative justice, two aspects of peacebuilding that have shaped my understanding of peace and my call as a peacemaker. In Schirch’s chapter on transforming relationships, she explains that “a core task of peacebuilding is to transform relationships so that those who harm and destroy move toward meeting human needs and ensuring rights” (45). She also goes on to say this area of peacebuilding is illustrated by the biblical concept of shalom, which is another reason why I am likely drawn to working in the area of relational transformation (45). Just as the biblical vision of shalom is a vision of wholeness and well-being, this area of peacebuilding has a vision of transforming relationships of conflict into positive, life-giving relationships.

Using a diagram, Schirch explains that these types of right relationships are made possible by healing trauma that has occurred, transforming the conflict that exists, and doing justice (46). These needs must be met in order for right relationships to take root, so this area of peacebuilding encompasses the practices that meet these specific needs. First, trauma healing programs create space for victims to name their trauma, work through its effects, regain control over their lives, and address causes of the trauma (Schirch 48). Next, conflict transformation encompasses various processes which allow for parties to identify issues, build new relationships, and come up with solutions together that hopefully include a shared future (Schirch 48-49). Finally, programs such as restorative justice, transitional justice, and policymaking address the need for justice so that right relationships can take root (Schirch 51-53). Restorative justice is especially appropriate for the peacebuilding area of transforming relationships as it views justice as a relational matter and seeks to meet the needs of the victims as well as the offenders so that healing and well-being is possible for all parties (Schirch 52). Transitional justice is a process that takes place “in post-war contexts where governmental authority is weak or non-existent, particularly societies emerging from war of dictatorship” (Schirch 52-53). Thus, transitional justice fits under the category of transforming relationships because it seeks to transform and reshape the relationships within post-conflict societies (Schirch 53). Finally, policymaking is part of transforming relationships because transforming policy means transforming the relationship between people and the government (Schirch 53-54).

Together, these peacebuilding practices provide a framework to work toward transformed, life-giving relationships in places of conflict. Personally, I am drawn to this work and feel called to this particular area of peacebuilding. I am especially drawn to restorative justice, which is the most promising and holistic vision of justice I have encountered so far as I have studied peace & justice issues in a variety of contexts. Overall, I appreciate this area of peacebuilding because more than just processes or programs, these are invitations for parties in conflict to imagine and create a future together, and that is the work of shalom.

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 Five: How might conflict be a positive force in changing structures? A negative force?

            Since conflict itself is neutral, it can have either positive or negative results. This is true especially in relation to structures; conflict can lead to the transformation of oppressive and violent structures, or it can lead to the maintenance of the status quo. Because “oppressive social structures” cause “dissatisfaction of basic needs,” which can lead to conflict, the very presence of conflict is often a symptom of a deeper structural problem (155). Already, we are faced with a decision: will conflict be framed positively, as an opportunity to address the underlying structural issue, or will conflict be framed negatively as an inconvenience and interruption to the status quo? Conflict, just like our perceptions of its existence, has the potential to work either positively or negatively. In the work of changing structures, conflict has the potential to “[increase] the adaptation of particular social relationships to new situations,” thus transforming and strengthening the relationships that comprise the structure (157). Of course, conflict also has the potential to cause further alienation and division of social groups within the social structure. In order for conflict to act as a positive force in social structures and relationships, it is important that we name and claim this possibility. Awareness of broken and oppressive social structures is important, but even more critical is awareness of and real belief in the possibility of transformation (161). For if it is true that “people can be free only when they believe in the possibilities for change” (161), then proclaiming and believing that conflict has positive potential is critical if conflict is to transform oppressive social structures into more just ones.

            With all this in mind, it is also “important to note that structural changes may not be easily or immediately achieved” (164). This is because structural change is the work of conflict transformation, which requires long-term commitment (Lederach 33). Conflict resolution, on the other hand, is more concerned with resolving the manifest conflict; as a result, “structural issues are less important” since “the goal is…to maintain or restore harmony” (164). Overall, I am convinced that even though conflict transformation is a more difficult and long-term process, it is also a more holistic and complete one. By using manifest conflict to identify and address structural violence, conflict transformation uses conflict as a positive force for social change.