IGNOU BPSE 146 Guess Paper-I

IGNOU BPSE 146 Guess Paper-I Conflict Resolution and Peace Building

Q. Highlight the Concept of conflict. IGNOU BPSE 146 Guess Paper-I

Ans. According to Robbins, Conflict is a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affects, something that the 1st party cares about. Similarly, Greenberg and Baron define conflict as a process in which one party perceives that another party has taken or will take actions that are incompatible with one’s own interests.

Conflict is, in general, perceived as something negative and detrimental to any organization. This is true to a large extent but is not the absolute truth. To understand conflict in organizational behavior, first of all we need to understand various approaches or point of views towards conflict.

There are three different point of view, or we can say approaches, as far as conflict is concerned. They are as follows:

1. The traditional view: It suggests that any type of conflict is bad and so must be avoided. This term had a negative connotation in the traditional view. It was largely seen as an outcome of lack of good communication and trust between people as well as inability of the managers to comprehend and respond to the need of the employees under them.
2. The human relations view: As per this approach, conflict is a natural inevitable phenomenon and, so can’t be eliminated completely from any organization. Here, conflict was seen in a positive light as it was suggested that conflict may lead to an improvement in a group’s performance.
3. Interactionist view: The most recent approach i.e. the interactionist view says that some level of conflict is very much necessary for a group to perform effectively. A harmonious and cooperative group can be rendered static, indifferent and nonresponsive to the needs for change and innovation. As per this view, conflicts can be divided into two categories:
   1. Functional form of conflict: This is also called constructive form of conflict as it supports the goals and objectives of the group.
   2. Dysfunctional form of conflict: It is also called destructive form of conflict as this kind of conflict negatively affects a group’s performance, which in turn impacts the organization in a direct or indirect way.

Functional form of conflict can be differentiated from dysfunctional form of conflict on the basis of following three:

(1) Task conflict: It is related to the content and goals of the work.

(2) Relationship conflict: It is related to interpersonal relations.

(3) Process conflict: It is related to how the work gets done The various studies have revealed that:

2 Guess Paper

(a) Low-to-moderate levels of task conflict are healthy for the group and organization as it stimulates discussion of ideas which leads to better participation and outcome.

(b) Low level of process conflict is also beneficial in getting the things done effectively.

(c) In general, relationship conflicts have been found to be destructive. The ego clashes and rivalries between employees often do a lot of harm to the group as well as organization.

Q. Explain different levels of conflict.

Ans. The level of conflict in organizational behavior varies between micro and macro level. At the micro level lies the intra individual conflict i.e. conflict occurring within an individual due to various reasons. This is the most basic kind of conflict where an individual confronts no one but himself/herself.

Intra individual conflict can arise due to following factors:

(a) Due to frustration: Any sort of physical or mental obstruction in the path of a person’s goals leads to frustration inside him/her. That frustration, if arising out of the job, may lead to aggression and violence at the workplace. The reasons may vary from an abusive supervisor to dead-end job with no growth opportunities. The frustration may lead to positive results as well sometimes as the person may put in more efforts to reach his goals or bring changes to his goals as per the situation. But in most of the cases, frustration is not good and so organization should try to eliminate it.

(b) Goal conflict: It results due to two or motives of an individual blocking one another. It happens when a person has:

• A goal with both positive and negative aspects

• Two or more positive, but mutually exclusive goals

• Two or more negative, but mutually exclusive goals that one tends to avoid As per psychology, the positive features of an organizational goal are more dominant than the negative ones in the very beginning. But as the goal comes nearer, negative aspects begin to become more prominent for the person. The point, where approach equal avoidance, is where stress, indecision, depression or unwillingness and other such mixed feelings develop in the person which is damaging for him/her as well as organization.

(c) Role conflict and ambiguity: Role is defined as a position that has expectations evolving from established norms. Different roles have different expectations and demands associated with them which sometimes lead to role conflict. There are three types of role conflict–

• Between person and the role: It refers to the differences between a person’s personality attributes and expectations attached with the role.

• Intrarole: Due to contradictory expectations about how a given role should be played, an ambiguous situation arises for the person.

• Interrole: Due to differing requirements of 2 or more roles that must be played at the same time, inter role conflicts arise. This mostly happens in the

3

case of work and non-work roles. For example, a working mother has to play two separate roles at home and office.

Interactive conflict (macro level) – It includes conflict between individuals as well as groups.

(1) Interpersonal conflict: The most common form of conflict in any organization is the one between two persons. There are four major reasons of interpersonal conflict:

(a) The differences between persons arising out of different cultural and family background, education, and values.

(b) The communication breakdown in the organization.

(c) The incompatible roles of the managers, in contrast to their functions and task which are interdependent.

(d) An environment marred by work stress, downsizing, market competition, uncertainties also leads to conflict.

(2) Intergroup behavior and conflict: It refers to the conflict between members of one group with those of the other groups. The reasons leading to these can be-

(a) Competition for organization’s scarce resources like funds, space, work force etc.

(b) Difference in their objectives and priorities.

(c) Ambiguity on the part of the responsibility and authority of a group.

(d) Envy between groups or unfair treatment of one group in terms of rewards, job assignments, working conditions, privileges etc.

Q. Identify different methods of conflict.

Ans. The full range of methods and instruments that constitute conflict management is quite wide. It varies from coercive measures, through legal processes to third party intervention and multilateral conferences. For analytical purposes, it is important to divide these methods to (a) unilateral methods (e.g. one-party threats), (b) bilateral methods (e.g. bargaining and negotiation, deterrence), and (c) multilateral methods (e.g. third-party intervention). We can identify five strategies of conflict management: conflict prevention, peacemaking, peacekeeping, peace-building and state-building.

Each conflict management strategy addresses specific problems that occur during the conflict process:

 Conflict Prevention: politicisation, militarisation, escalation;

 Peacemaking: perceived incompatibility of interests;

 Peacekeeping: violent behaviour/military activity;

 Peace building: negative attitudes/socio-economic structure; and

 State building: collapsed states and weak or non-existing civil and political institutions.

Conflict Prevention is an approach that seeks to resolve disputes before violence breaks out; Peacemaking transforms the conflict from violent to spoken, and further, toward the definition of a common peaceful solution; Peacekeeping missions are often required to halt violence and preserve peace once it is obtained. Peacemaking spans activities from the

4 Guess Paper

inception of conflict management to the process of agreement and its subsequent implementation. It includes Mediation, Facilitation and Agreement Support. Mediation and Facilitation refer to direct support to a conflict management process (both high-level political negotiation and community-based processes) through the provision of mediators and/or facilitation (e.g., venues, back-up). Agreement Support is designed to capture a range of activities that may arise in the context of supporting the implementation of peace agreements. It is widely recognised that this part of the spectrum of peace-making is critical, particularly in light of the fact that over 40% of all peace agreements relapse into conflict within five years. If successful, those missions can strengthen the opportunity for post- conflict peace-building, which should function to prevent the recurrence of violence by addressing the root causes of conflict and creating a stable and durable peace.

Peace building reflects the evolution of policy thinking within the international community from the concept of peacekeeping to a more comprehensive approach. It encompasses a range of activities concerned with building a sustainable and lasting peace, particularly focusing on gaps in post-conflict governance. These include security sector reform; institutionalising the rule of law; supporting disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration; promoting reconciliation; managing transitional justice; and building institutional capacity. Finally, state-building is the process of reconstructing weak or collapsed infrastructure and institutions of a society – political, economic and civil – in order for civil society and politics to begin to function normally.

Q. Discuss Inherency theories of sources of conflict.

Ans. Hobbes made the observation that humanity is characterised by ceaseless, and indeed relentless, thirst for power. For Hobbes, humans carry within them the inherent drive to fight, which demands that societies be led by power. Only by imposing will upon the ruled can society be organised to run efficiently and peacefully. Hobbes was followed some years later by Edmund Burke who argued that the only way to curtail humanity’s urge to conflict and violence is through law and custom. The writings of these British political philosophers influenced greatly the development of the democratic liberal state in the West.

One of the most influential forces in the inherency school was Sigmund Freud and his school of psychoanalysis. Fundamental to Freud’s view of humanity are the contending life and death instincts. The life instinct has within it the desire for pleasure. The libido refers to the life energy within humans, thought it was originally viewed by Freud as being reflected in terms of sexual energy. Opposed to the life instinct is the death instinct, or ‘thanatos’. Freud believed that thanatos ‘turns into the destructive instinct when it is directed outwards on to objects’. The death instinct, however, can be transformed within the person to serve the purposes of life. Making the matter even more complex, the externalisation of the death instinct, in the form of aggression, may be beneficial for the person, though harmful for those around. Aggression, then, can be viewed as intrinsic to human behaviour, and serves as a fundamental and essential means by which humans protect and enhance their existence. Aggression, from this Freudian perspective, is carried out in the name of self-preservation, and is inherent to humans.

5

By extension, then, it may be said that a Freudian perspective on conflict is based upon the interplay between the life and death instincts. As aggression may be the externalisation of the death instinct, conflict more generally may be from a similar source. Whereas Freud focused on the psychology of human action, others have focused more explicitly on the evolutionary and biologically competitive nature of human aggression and conflict. A notable proponent of ‘aggression as a tool of survival’ is Konrad Lorenz, author of On Aggression. The book, first published in 1963, expounds a theory outlining the purpose of aggression, not only in humans, but throughout the animal world. Like Freud, Lorenz argues that aggression serves a purpose in that it in some way assists the organism in its quest for survival. Rapoport (1986, p.3) holds that at its most elemental ‘aggressive behavior does confer a survival advantage on the species in which it is genetically imbedded’. Lorenz sees aggression in its most basic form as serving three primary functions:

‘balanced distribution of animals of the same species over the available environment, selection of the strongest by rival fights, and defense of the young’.

He argues for a special emphasis on the value of intra-species aggression, stating;

I return to the theme of the survival value of the rival fight, with the statement that this only leads to useful selection where it breeds fighters fitted for combat with extra-specific enemies as well as for intra-specific duels. The most important function of rival fighting is the selection of an aggressive family defender, and this presupposes a further function of intra-specific aggression: brood defense. He makes his argument using a host of examples from throughout the animal world, including Homo Sapiens. The process of aggression is stimulated by instinct, which Lorenz notes as a much misunderstood mechanism. For Lorenz, instinct does not respond easily to manipulation, if at all. Like Freud, Lorenz sees instinct as something over which people have no control; it simply happens. Aggression, then, is quite dangerous, in that nothing hinders its expression. Furthermore, instinct need not be expressed through external stimulus; the body itself can produce the stimulus needed to create the reaction. Thus aggression becomes a dangerous instinct because its expression appears beyond any simple predictive device.

Using a Lorenzian model, then, all human social action is targeted towards distribution of the population, selection of the strongest, and defence of the young. The human aggressive impulse also gets translated into social activities, such as warfare. As Lorenz notes, ‘we must face the fact that militant enthusiasm has evolved from the hackle-raising and chin- protruding communal defense instinct of our prehuman ancestors’. For Lorenz, then, warfare is as natural as any other form of human aggression. Perhaps the only difference between the aggression of, for example, the rat and humans is that humans have developed an extensive and elaborate mechanism for pursuing that aggression.

Following the path of Lorenz, Robert Ardrey, in the Territorial Imperative, examined the role of territory in the onset of aggression. His objective was to examine the role of territory in humans. He wrote: The concept of territory as a genetically determined form of behavior in many species is today accepted beyond question in the biological sciences. But so recently

6 Guess Paper

have our observations been made and our conditions formed that we have yet to explore the implications of territory in our estimate of man.

For Ardrey, territory represents a tremendous influence over human action, and even influences the ways in which humans form social groups. Ardrey asks, ‘How could it be that such a number of peoples in such varying environments so remote from each other should all form similar social groups based on what would seem to be a human invention, the ownership of land? Of course, Ardrey’s observation of the ubiquitous nature of land ownership would be compelling if it were true, but evidence shows that there is no universal concept of land ownership. It would be truer to say that groups have a notion of physical place, without the connotation of ownership.

Relating territoriality to human behaviour, Ardrey argues that: The principal cause of modern warfare arises from the failure of an intruding power correctly to estimate the defensive resources of a territorial defender. The enhancement of energy invariably engendered in the defending proprietor, the union of partners welded by the first sound of gunfire, the biological morality demanding individual sacrifice, even of life; all of the innate commands of the territorial imperative act to multiply the apparent resources of a defending nation.

Territory becomes the single most influential force in driving human action. Aggression, unlike in Lorenz’s model, does not directly serve the species as such, but rather the group, as defined by territory. The drive to defend territory leads humans to increase their resources, multiply their activities and place themselves in mortal danger. Yet like Lorenz, Ardrey creates a picture of aggression in which humans have no control; they are enslaved by their own evolutionary history. In fact, Ardrey paints a grim picture for the future of humanity’s ability to handle conflict.

Keith Webb (1986) has outlined the common characteristics and sources of conflictshared by inherency theories. These are:

 The fundamental disposition of individuals is towards power and dominance, violence is only an extreme but normal expression of this tendency.

 There are alternative channels for seeking power, of which collective political violence is merely one.

 The major problem is explaining why violence odes not occur more often.

 The choice of violence is a question of tactical consideration.

 Tactical choices are influenced by cost-benefit calculations.

 Cultural factors play a relatively minor role, and will both inhibit and promote the use of violence.

Q. Highlight general sources of conflict.

Ans. There are certain general sources which cause conflicts. Let us discuss them here. Aggressive Human Nature: Many social psychologists and social scientists believe that human nature is basically responsible for the origin of conflicts. They assert that human beings have certain innate/inherent features, such as, aggressiveness, love / lust for

7

power, position, and authority, love for war and so on. Sigmund Freud suggested that opposite instincts exist side by side in the unconscious mind of every human being, with no disharmony. Conflict occurs only when the overt, verbal, symbolic, or emotional responses required to fulfill one motive are incompatible with those required to fulfill another. When a person is motivated to engage in two or more mutually exclusive activities, a conflict situation arises. For example, in a monogamous society a man cannot marry two women at the same time, no matter how attractive they are to him. Thus it is clear that psychological concepts like, hostility, aggressive impulses, or antagonistic sentiments do bear on conflict. Rubenstein cites the biblical story of Cain and Abel to illustrate the psychological aspects of human nature. This biblical tale (narrated in Bible) is common in all three major religions of the Middle East – Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

The story goes that Adam and Eve had two sons – Cain and Abel. One day God asks both of them to offer sacrifices to Him. Abel (who was a nomad and shepherd) sacrifices the firstborn of his flock of sheep, and God accepts it. Cain (who was involved in agriculture), the elder son, offers a sacrifice of farm produce, God spurns his offering. In consequence, Cain hates Abel. He had feelings of anger and jealousy against Abel and develops a personal animosity against him and one day he kills his brother. God punishes the killer by driving him from the soil (exiling him) and condemning him to wander the earth as a fugitive, but he protects him against vengeful men by marking him with a sign. Cain settles in the ‘land of Nod, east of Eden’, where he becomes a founder of cities.

This story tells about the many sources of conflict: non-recognition of Cain’s sacrifice, sibling rivalry, vulnerable target (Abel was young and weak), frustration-aggression factor, and inequality.

Some scholars consider that conflict has the unconscious and the biological bases. They wonder if there are some innate, endemic qualities in societies – and human beings – which predispose them, more or less unconsciously, to engage in conflict. Presuming that according to Reynolds, Falger and Vine, ‘nothing can move us to act in particular ways more strongly than those elements in our psyche that we are completely unaware of’, socio-biologists have been investigating whether some aspects of the proclivity for conflict may be ingrained in ‘the genetic code’.

Socio-economic and Political Inequalities: The links between economic inequality and conflicts have been confirmed since Aristotle’s time. Aristotle wrote in Politics that ‘inferiors [slaves] revolt in order that they may be equal, and equals that they may be superior’. He added further that ‘Inequality is the mother of all revolutions’. James Madison in the Federalist characterized inequality in the distribution of property as the ‘most common and durable’ source of conflict. Frederick Engels had argued that political violence results when political structures are not synchronised with socio-economic conditions. ‘Poverty anywhere is a threat to prosperity everywhere’, declared the constitution of ILO in 1919. All these statements candidly explain the intrinsic relationship between socioeconomic inequalities

8 Guess Paper

and conflict. Also, they establish that there is relationship between poverty and human rights. Poverty can be both a cause and a result of human rights denials. In other words, while the non-fulfillment of human rights often causes poverty, poverty in many cases is a cause of human rights violations. The realisation of all human rights and efforts to eliminate extreme poverty are mutually reinforcing. The protection of human rights is instrumental to the reduction of extreme poverty. All efforts to eliminate poverty must be based on human rights.

In the present age of globalisation, poor people as well as the poor / underdeveloped nations are getting marginalised. It is true that global economic integration is creating opportunities for people around the world, but it is also leading to widening the gaps between the poorest and richest countries. Many of the poorest countries are marginalised from the growing opportunities of expanding international trade, investment and in the use of new technologies. Thus, in the contemporary times, globalisation is emerging as a major cause of conflict at various levelsintrastate and interstate. Due to globalisation, the gap between the rich and poor is widening and some people are reaping the harvest and becoming billionaires, whereas billions are not able to earn $2 dollars a day. In 1998, the UNDP said the assets of the world’s 358 billionaires exceeded the combined annual incomes of countries with 45% of the world’s population. In 1999, the sales of the world’s top six firms, at $ 716 billion, exceeded the combined GDP of South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The report of the UNDP for 2000 disclosed that the superrich get richer. The combined wealth of the top 200 billionaires was $ 1,135 billion in 1999. Compare that with the combined incomes of $ 146 billion for the 582 million people in all the least developed countries.

The horizontal inequality (i.e. inequality among groups, in contrast to vertical inequality which measures inequality among individuals) is the fundamental source of organised conflict. When certain minority groups are denied of political and economic empowerment, they tend to engage in conflict with dominant or majority group which controls political power. If political and economic space is provided to marginalised groups in the political system, such intergroup conflicts can be resolved. For example, political participation can occur at the level of the cabinet, the bureaucracy, the army and so on; economic empowerment comprises employment, land, livestock etc.

Denial of Human Rights: Conflicts can involve disagreements about rights or denial of rights. These can include human rights proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or they can be more narrowly defined in national or state constitutions or laws. In all of these cases, the problem (or conflict resulting from the denial of rights) is not easily negotiable: people do not negotiate about their religious beliefs nor do they compromise their basic rights. They fight for them. There is always a human rights angle/dimension at the core of every conflict.

Q. Explain Specific sources of conflict.

Ans. Most conflicts have specific sources. There can be as many sources as there are conflicts. However, we discuss below some of the major specific sources, which contribute towards the origin of the specific conflicts like religious, ethnic, racial or caste conflicts.

9

Religion: Religion has often acted as one of the major sources of conflict. Since religion provides a worldview of its own, it comes in clash with other religions. Sometimes, we find inter-religious and intra-religious conflicts. Regarding the former category of conflicts we can give the example of Islam, which began a career of conquest in the seventh century with the thesis that it was the only true faith and was necessarily in conflict with all other religions. The doctrine of Jihad (holy war), as understood by Arab Muslims then, brought the Muslim state in conflict with the non-Muslim state of unbelievers. Belief in Jihad induced continuous attacks by the Arabs upon the decadent Roman Empire and rising Christendom during the seventh and eighth centuries and resulted in extensive Muslim conquests in the Middle East, North Africa and Spain. Christendom, however, reacted militantly in the Crusades of the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries turning on Islam with the doctrine of papal sovereignty of the world. The Ottoman Turks then took the leadership of Islam, and during the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries were almost continuously at war with Christian Europe, conquering Constantinople, the Balkans, and Hungary, as well as most of the Arab world. Turkish power waned, and eventually the Ottoman Empire broke into national states, as did the Holy Roman Empire. Today Christian and Muslim states coexist and cooperate in the United Nations. Both the Jihad and the Crusades are things of the past.

Different interpretations of the religion by the followers of the same religion cause intra religious conflicts. Many examples can be cited in this regard. We find frequent Shia-Sunni conflicts in many parts of the world. Similarly, religious differences between Protestants and Catholics in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, ended by the Peace treaty of Westphalia which recognized the sovereignty of territorial states and the authority of the temporal monarch to determine the religion of his people if he wished. Since then Protestant and Catholic states have been peacefully coexisting.

There has been a global revival of inter-religious and intra-religious conflicts in recent decades. The frequent communal clashes in India are examples of the former. These conflicts lead to ‘simultaneously a cluster of multiple conflicts: legal court cases, mass media campaigns, rewriting of history, legislative debates, and riots in the streets. No wonder the course, and the many faces, of a conflict at times leave us bewildered’. The ferocious civil strife in Algeria between the radical Islamists and moderate Muslim or secular opponents that has claimed the lives of nearly 100, 000 people since 1992 is example of intra religious conflict.

Ethnicity: Ethnicity can be one of the sources of conflicts. Since the demise of authoritarian (communist) rule in the erstwhile Soviet bloc states of Eastern Europe, ethnic conflicts have sprung up. Also, whenever great empires disintegrate, ethnic rivalries break out. The authoritarian regimes generally suppress ethnic histories of various ethnic groups. Ethnic conflicts can also erupt in other situations. Scholars of ethnic studies have identified many reasons of ethnic conflicts. Let us discuss them.

First, in Brown’s view, systemic prerequisite for ethnic conflict is that national, regional, and international authorities must be too weak to keep groups from fighting and too weak to ensure the security of individual groups. Whenever empires collapse or become instable, different ethnic groups decide to provide for their own security. Ethnic conflict is

10 Guess Paper

most often caused by collective fears of the future and the domination of one group by another. Most ethnic conflicts stem from the failure of political, economic and social institutions to pay sufficient attention to the grievances and perceived needs and fears of significant groups in the state.

Second, ethnic conflicts focus on the false histories (not empirically tested or scholarly established by dispassionate method) that many ethnic groups have of themselves and others. These histories are usually passed from generation to generation by word of mouth. These stories become part of a group’s lore. Distorted and exaggerated with time, these histories present one’s own group as heroic, while other groups are demonised. Grievances are enshrined, and other groups are portrayed as inherently vicious and aggressive. Group members typically treat these ethnic myths as received wisdom.

Third, in some multiethnic societies, there is a tendency for political parties to be organised along ethnic lines. When this happens, party affiliations are a reflection of ethnic identity rather than political conviction. Under these circumstances, elections are mere censuses, and minority parties have no chance of winning power. If these parties become victims of a “tyranny of the majority”, their leaders may start separatist movements.

Fourth, many countries have inadequate constitutional safeguards for minority rights. Even in places where minority rights guarantees exist on paper, they are often inadequately enforced. In short, constitutional and political reforms are needed in many places to address important ethnic grievances.

Fifth, Ali Mazrui says that many conflicts in the Third World are due to great-power intervention. Mazrui has pointed out so forcefully:

There has certainly been a change from the old days of Pax Britannica. Whereas the old imperial motto was ‘Disarm the natives and facilitate control’, the new imperial cunning has translated it into ‘Arm the natives and consolidate dependency’. While the British and the French once regarded it as important to stop ‘tribal warfare’, they now regard it as profitable to modernize ‘tribal warfare’ – with lethal weapons.

Racism: White racial domination in South Africa of blacks (during the early 20th century, when Gandhi’s struggle in South Africa for the rights of people of Indian origin there), and the establishment of apartheid laws since 1950 created racial conflict in South Africa represent the good example to illustrate how racism can cause conflicts. Earlier in the 19th century the United States had to suffer a civil war for a period of four years over the question of abolishing slavery. In 1858, before the outbreak of civil war, Lincoln had stated that ‘A house divided against itself cannot stand. A government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free’. Racial discrimination can be an immediate factor of ensuing conflict.

Caste: Social hierarchy or stratification of society also is one of the major sources of conflict. Caste system in India assigns different social, professional and legal status to the people belonging to different castes. Lower castes and untouchables are the worst victims of caste- conflicts. Official data reveals that atrocities and crimes against ex-untouchables abound. The decade 1990-2000 indicates that a total of 285,871 cases of various crimes against them

11

were registered countrywide. This means that an average of 28,587 cases of practice of untouchability and atrocities against Scheduled Castes were registered every year during the 1990s. These include 553 cases of murder, 9990 cases of grievous hurt, 919 rapes, 184 kidnappings/ abductions, 47 dacoities, 127 robberies, 456 cases of arson, 1,403 cases of caste discrimination and 8,179 cases of atrocities. In other words, every hour more than three cases of atrocities against them are registered, and every day three cases of rape and at least one murder are reported. Scholars of peace and conflict studies describe caste-conflicts as structural violence.

Ideology: Discussion of ideology as a factor for triggering conflict has figured throughout in this Unit. We all are familiar with the fact that the ideologies of Marxism, Fascism, Nazism, totalitarianism and religious fundamentalism have caused many conflicts. Cold War or ideological war between the Super Powers was the best example to illustrate this point.

Q. What are the global sources of Contemporary conflicts?

Ans. Since the end of Second World War, most of the interstate conflicts were caused by Cold War between two Super Powers – the United States and the USSR. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Cold War came to an end. But this led to conflicts within the states. The former communist states of Soviet bloc experienced ethnic conflicts (Yugoslavia) and secession demands.

There are analyses of the systemic sources of conflicts themselves. Setting aside the ‘clash of civilizations’ hypothesis of Huntington which predicts future conflict across the fault lines b etween civilizations and, in particular, a geo-political struggle between ‘the West and the rest’, the main focus is on three interlinked trends: deep and enduring inequalities in the global distribution of wealth and economic power (as the rich developed countries, constituting 20 per cent of the world population, control and own 80 per cent of resources, whereas the 80 per cent poor from the developing world own and survive with 20 per cent of global wealth and resources); human-induced environmental constraints exacerbated by excessive energy consumption in the developed world and population growth in the underdeveloped world, making it difficult for human well-being to be improved by conventional economic growth; and continuous militarisation of security relations, including the further proliferation of lethal weaponry (it may be noted that $176 billions-worth of weaponry was exported to the Third World between 1987 and 1991). As a result, ‘the combination of wealth-poverty disparities and limits to growth is likely to lead to a crisis of unsatisfied expectations within an increasingly informed global majority of the disempowered’. The probable outcome of this, argues HomerDixon, will be three kinds of conflict: scarcity conflicts mainly at interstate level over oil, water, fish, land; group-identity conflict exacerbated by large-scale population movements; and relative deprivation conflicts mainly at domestic level as the gap between expectation and achievement widens. With the demise of the second world after the collapse of the Soviet bloc, the first and the third worlds are seen to be confronting each other all the more starkly.

12 Guess Paper

Q. Describe Interactionist theories of conflict.

Ans. A third school is the interactionst, which combines elements of the contingent and inherency schools. There really is no body of literature that rejects the premise that behaviour derives from either nature or nurture. Instead of debating this old and apparently unending debate it ought to be rejected outright. Wrangham and Peterson call the nature versus nurture debate Galton’s Error, after Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. Galton took the phrase ‘nature versus nurture’ from Shakespeare’s The Tempest. Since then scholars have been engaged in trying to ascertain the relative contributions of the two. Wrangham and Peterson (1996) rejected Galton’s Error, arguing that it is a false choice. The best course is to cast off the reductionist impulse and instead focus on how both genetics and social interactions commingle to create human behaviour. Both the inherency and the contingency school suffer from difficulties that make exclusive reliance upon their assumptions questionable. The inherency school ignores social grouping, and when it does focus on such groupings, inherency theorists simply say society is what it is, and results from genetics. The contingency theorists also suffer some significant difficulties, prime among which is the inability to deal with clear biological limitations on human behaviour. For example, if intelligence is a matter of genetics, and has an influence over conflict behaviour, then how does the contingency school cope?

The interactionist approach is best illustrated by examining height. A tall person becomes tall, relative to others, through two influences. One influence is genetics; a person is tall in part because of his or her genetic constitution. The tall person, though, is also tall because of social factors, such as the availability of high – protein foodstuffs. Citizens of Japan are now increasing in average height, owing to a change in diet. It was not that the Japanese are genetically short, but rather that their diet inhibited the full expression of their genes for height. So, the height of the Japanese (and everybody else for that matter) is governed by the interplay between genetic make-up and social environment.

Burton has argued that needs satisfaction is essential to society. In this sense, his work reflects that of many of the inherency theorists. Human beings are motivated by a series of drives, or needs, which compel them to act. As Burton explains, ‘From the perspective of conflict studies, the important observation is that these needs will be pursued by all means available. In ontological terms the individual is conditioned by biology, or by a primordial influence, to pursue them, ‘Needs, however, do not exist in the biological world alone, but rather in a social milieu. Needs satisfaction behaviour is expressed socially, and so the social setting influences the degree to which they may be satisfied. In this sense, then, Burton’s work also draws on contingency theory, in that the satisfaction of needs is dependent upon the social context.

An example of the interaction between inherency and contingency in the satisfaction of needs is found in an impoverished ethnic group. Burton would argue that this group has, among other needs, a need for security. This need will be pursued doggedly. The satisfaction of this need may come either collectively or individually. Whether it is satisfied depends upon not only the behaviour of the individual, but also what is

available in society. As Burton argues, though, basic human needs are not scarce, there is no limit to security. Yet there may be social limits, in terms of acceptability. While theoretically a person may undertake any behaviour in order to satisfy a need, they may feel constrained by what is regarded as ‘acceptable’ social behaviour. Those who seek to satisfy needs by any means necessary are often labeled deviant. Those who fail to satisfy their needs and suffer accordingly also can be deviant, but instead can be labeled maladjusted or even neurotic.

In the above example, people behave in many ways in order to satisfy their needs. Some will follow a conservative path, strictly adhering to their interpretation of ‘civil’ behaviour. Others, though, will seek other means, some labeled eccentric and others labeled ‘anti-social’. Eccentric behaviours might be extreme forms of religiosity; others might be forms of nationalism. More ‘extreme’ behaviour, though, might be termed ‘revolutionary’ as individuals seek to secure their security needs. In many dispossessed groups there have been messianic movements, extreme forms of nationalism, and strict conservatism. All these behaviours can be understood through the need for security; that is, the need to make oneself secure.

The primary criticism to be leveled against the interactionist school is that it does not reduce behaviour to a simple cause. In this sense, it is perhaps not as satisfying as the inherency or contingency arguments. Some may see a rejection of the nature versus nurture question as surrender- a sort of intellectual throwing up of the hands. It would be unreasonable, though, to accept such criticism. The nature versus nurture argument is reminiscent of the alchemists search for a way of converting iron into gold. Try as they might, they could not do it. It is likely that behaviour can never be reduced to a single cause.

Q. Explain the objectives of conflicts.

Ans. Scholars of conflict studies do not believe (like an average person) that all conflicts are bad, as they serve positive social functions. Conflict prevents the ossification of the social system by exercising pressure for innovation and creativity. George Sorel felt that a social system was in need of conflict if only to renew its energies and revitalise its creative forces. Coser states that: ‘Conflict within and between groups in a society can prevent accommodations and habitual relations from progressively impoverishing creativity. The clash of values and interests, the tension between what is and what some groups feel ought to be, the conflict between vested interests and new strata and groups demanding their share of power, wealth, and status, have been productive of vitality; note for example the contrast between the “frozen world” of the Middle Ages and the burst of creativity that accompanied the thaw that set in with Renaissance civilization’. According to John Dewey, ‘Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to observation and memory. It instigates to invention. It shocks us out of sheep-like passivity, and sets us at noting and contriving….

Conflict is a sine qua non of reflection and ingenuity’. Conflict not only generates new norms and new institutions; it may also be stimulating directly in the economic and technological realm. Economic historians often have pointed out that much technological

improvement has resulted from the conflict activity of trade unions through the raising of wage levels. It may be noted that the extreme mechanization of coal-mining in the United States has been partly explained by the existence of militant unionism in the American coalfields. Coser writes that a natural scientist (Waldemar Kaemfert), describing the function of earthquakes, stated in 1952 admirably what could be considered the function of conflict. The scientist wrote: ‘There is nothing abnormal about an earthquake. An unshakable earth would be a dead earth. A quake is the earth’s way of maintaining its equilibrium, a form of adjustment that enables the crust to yield to stresses that tend to reorganize and redistribute the material of which it is composed. The larger the shift, the more violent the quake, and the more frequent the shifts, the more frequent are the shocks’.

According to Marx, conflict leads not only to ever-changing relations within the existing social structure, but the total social system undergoes transformation through conflict. A central thesis of Arnold Toynbee’s monumental work, A Study of History, reveals that a group or a system that no longer is challenged is no longer capable of creative response. It may subsist, wedded to the eternal yesterday of precedent and tradition, but it is no longer capable of renewal.

Most contemporary social scientists lay stress on the constructive consequences of conflict relations. Dubin’s five central propositions constitute a broader thesis: intergroup conflict is a fundamental institutionalised social process which determines the direction of social change and, in effect, defines social welfare. Mack and Snyder consider that though most of his analysis is drawn from experience of industrial relations, the propositions have wider applicability. They also summarise the views of five other scholars: (i) conflict sets group boundaries by strengthening group cohesiveness and separateness; (ii) conflict reduces tension and permits maintenance of social interaction under stress; (iii) conflict clarifies objectives; (iv) conflict results in the establishment of group norms; and (v) without conflict, accommodative relations would result in subordination rather than agreement.

To Mahatma Gandhi, conflict has its benefits. An appreciation of the other point of view enhances one’s own perspective. We are all limited to our own angle of vision, Gandhi said. Through conflict, one gains a broader view of truth.

Q. Critically analyze types and levels of conflicts.

Ans. There is no agreement among scholars on the problem of types and levels of conflict. Different scholars have identified different kinds or types of conflict. There can be social conflicts, intercommunity conflicts, caste conflicts, group conflict, interpersonal conflict, intellectual conflict, economic conflicts, cultural conflicts, religious conflicts, racial or ethnic conflicts, ideological conflicts, hot and cold conflict, north and south conflict, regional conflicts, international or intra-national conflicts and so on. According to Dennis Sandole, a typology facilitates analysis and a typology of conflicts could facilitate resolving as well as analysing conflicts. Moreover, a study of different typologies of conflicts may provide interrelated insights into a given conflict situation. Such insights could enable an analyst and potential third-party intervener to see a conflict from various angles, thereby enhancing the likelihood of a more effective response.

Quincy Wright was one of the earliest political scientists to make a systematic study of conflicts and war. According to him, conflict can take place among different sorts of entities. He identifies four types of conflicts – physical conflict, political conflict, ideological conflicts and legal conflicts. He distinguishes physical conflict in which two or more entities try to occupy the same space at the same time from political conflict in which a group tries to impose its policy on others. He further distinguishes these two types of conflict from ideological conflicts in which systems of thought or of values struggle with each other, and from legal conflicts in which controversies over claims or demands are adjusted by mutually recognized procedures. He also identifies fifth category of conflict – war. For him, war in the legal sense has been characterised by the union of all four types of conflict, as noted above. War is manifested by the physical struggle of armies to occupy the same space, each seeking to annihilate, disarm, or capture the other; by the political struggle of nations to achieve policies against the resistance of others; by the ideological struggle of people to preserve or extend ways of life and value systems; and by the legal struggle of states to acquire titles, to vindicate claims, to prevent violence, or to punish offenses by recognized procedures of regulated violence.

Anatol Rapoport has proposed a threefold classification of conflicts: fights, games, and debates. Their distinguishing criteria are: how the opponent is viewed, the intent of the parties, and the rational content of the situation. In a fight, the opponent is viewed as a nuisance, the intent is to harm him, and the situation is devoid of rationality. In a game, the opponent is viewed like oneself, the intent is to outwit him, and the situation is completely rational. And in a debate, the opponent is viewed as essential but of a different sort, the intent is to convince him, and the situation is presumably rational.

Rapoport’s three models of conflict dynamics can be elaborated further. He distinguishes the three kinds of conflict on the basis of the following four criteria. First, the basis or starting point of the struggle in all three models of conflict differs from each other. In the fights, there is a mutual fear or hostility between the parties; in the games, there is agreement between the parties to strive for mutually incompatible goals within constraint of certain rules, but not where outcome can be predicted in advance; and in the debates, there is disagreement between the parties about “what is” (facts) or “what ought to be” (values); i.e., clashes of convictions or “outlooks”.

Second, the image of the opponent (held by each party) is also different: in fights, the image held by each party is mainly a nuisance; preferably, the opponent should disappear, or at least be reduced in size or importance. In games, the image of the opponent held by each party is that of an essential partner, seen as a mirror image of the self; preferably, a strong opponent who will do his best to win; a rational being whose inner thought processes must be taken into account. In debates, the image of the opponent (held by each party) is mistaken or misguided; preferably, the opponent should become a convert to one’s own outlook.

Third, the objective of each party is also different in three types of conflict. In fights, the objective of each party is to harm, destroy, subdue, or drive away the opponent, in games, it is to outwit the opponent and in the debates it is to convince the opponent.

Fourth, the mode of interaction in all three types also differs. In fights, the mode of interaction is non-rational series of actions and reactions to the other’s and one’s own actions; use of thrusts, threats, violence, etc.; and the course of interaction does not depend on goals of the opponent. In games, the parties cooperate by following the rules and by doing their best to provide maximum challenge to the opponent; actions (stratagems) chosen on the basis of probable outcomes; and interaction terminates when outcome is obvious to both sides. In debates, the parties engage in verbal interaction of arguments using various techniques of persuasion such as brain washing, explaining away the opponent’s beliefs, and removing threats associated in the opponent’s mind with adopting one’s own outlook.

Singer’s conflict typology is based on the political status of conflict parties. He retains his original distinction between (a) interstate wars and (b) extra-systemic (mainly colonial) wars, but here adds two further classes of non-interstate conflict: (c) ‘civil’ conflicts, in which, unlike (b), one protagonist may be ‘an insurgent or revolutionary group within the recognized territorial boundaries of the state’, and (d) the ‘increasingly complex intrastate wars’ in former colonial states, where the challenge may come from ‘culturally defined groups whose members identify with one another and with the group on the basis of shared racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, or kinship characteristics’.

K. J. Holsti, in his 1996 book The State, War, and the State of War, has also adapted his typology. He earlier categorised international (interstate) conflict up to 1989 in terms of twenty-four issues, grouped into five composite sets: conflict over territory, economics, nation-state creation, ideology, and ‘human sympathy’ (i.e. ethnicity/ religion). He concluded that the incidence of the first two had been declining, but that of the last three was increasing. He later focuses on non-interstate war and bases his typology on ‘types of actors and / or objectives’, ending up with four categories of conflict: (a) ‘standard state versus wars (e.g. China and India in 1962) and armed interventions involving significant loss of life (the United States in Vietnam, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan)’; (b) ‘decolonizing wars of “national liberation”’; (c) ‘internal wars based on ideological goals’ (e.g. the Sendero Luminoso in Peru, the Monteneros in Uruguay); and (d) ‘state-nation wars including armed resistance by ethnic, language and / or religious groups, often with the purpose of secession or separation from the state’ (e.g., the Tamils in Sri Lanka, the Ibos in Nigeria).

Many social scientists, especially sociologists, have addressed themselves to the task of developing a general classification of social conflicts throughout the 20th century. Pitirim A Sorokin suggests a useful basis for classification of conflicts, the nature of the antagonizing units. He distinguishes first between interpersonal and intergroup antagonisms, and then lists about twenty different kinds of groups which may be parties to intergroup conflicts. The types of groups he talks include: states, nations, nationalities, races, castes, classes,

orders, and families; also religious, political, sex, economic, occupational, ethnic, ideological, ethical, artistic, scientific, philosophical, and territorial groups. Ross, another sociologist, identified nine types of intergroup conflict, including four of those listed by Sorokin (races, classes, sex groups, and religious groups) and five additional types

In 1951, Stuart Chase presented a classification of the following 18 levels of conflict:

(1) Personal Quarrels – husband vs. wife, employer vs. servant, etc.;

(2) Family vs. family;

(3) Feuds – clan vs. clan;

(4) Community quarrels – town vs. town, state vs. state;

(5) Sectional quarrels – South vs. North, Southern Ireland vs. Ulster, etc.;

(6) Workers against managers – foremen’s unions vs. the rest of management, jurisdictional disputes between trade unions, etc.;

(7) Political parties – two or more competing in elections;

(8) Conflicts between the races – white vs. black, white vs. yellow, white vs. red, etc.;

(9) Religious conflict – Protestant vs. Catholics, Hindus vs. Muslims, Jews vs. Muslims;

(10) Anti-Semitism – worldwide compound of racial, religious, and cultural antagonisms;

(11) Ideological quarrels – communism vs. capitalism, business vs. government, labour vs. capital, communism vs. socialism, etc.;

(12) Occupational conflicts – farmer vs. industrial worker, blue-collar vs. white-collar, etc.;

(13) Competition within a given industry – denunciation of price-cutters and chisellers;

(14) Competition between industries – trucks vs. freight cars, oil vs. coal, silk vs. rayon, etc.;

(15) National rivalries – nation vs. nation;

(16) Conflicts between cultures – in group vs. out group;

(17) Cold war – Russia and her satellites vs, the democracies;

(18) East vs. West.

Thus, Chase provides a better typology and levels of conflict than his predecessors. His list of 18 levels represents a fairly large number of domains for special theories of conflict. But, since Chase does not consider this an exhaustive list, the number implied is even greater, and remains indeterminate.

A more compact classification of structural levels of conflict is provided by LeVine:

(1) Intra Family: Interpersonal conflict between family members (e.g., sibling rivalry, intergenerational conflict, and husband-wife antagonism);

(2) Intra Community: Interpersonal conflict between members of different families within the small local community, and intergroup conflict (between community factions based on neighbourhood, descent, class, caste, or associational ties);

(3) Intra Community– all levels above the single local community but within a single ethnolinguistic entity, the number and identity of levels being extremely variable across cultures; examples are conflicts between local communities, between allied

clusters of local communities, between cross-community groupings (e.g., lineages, clans, and associations), between autonomous states or chiefdoms, between provinces or chiefdoms within a national organization (or between the latter and the central state);

(4) Intercultural: Conflicts between groups belonging to different ethnolinguistic entities, or between such entities acting as units (e.g., intertribal conflicts).

It must be noted that while LeVine’s classification is based on an “anthropological” conception of social structure geared to nonindustrial societies, Ralf Dahrendorf has presented a “sociological” classification geared to industrial societies. It is based not only on the social structure level of the conflict but also on the structural relations between the parties. Fink borrows from Angell (1965, p.92) who exhibited the Dahrendorf’s classification scheme in tabular form and modifies slightly and presents in his paper as Table 1. Taken at face value, this scheme defines 15 types of conflict: at Social Units Roles (family role vs. occupational role, occupational role vs. labour-union role; social personality vs. family role); at Group’s and Sector’s level (boys vs. girls in school class; father vs. children; father vs. prodigal son; air force vs. army; manufacturer’s association vs. unions; Episcopalian Church vs. “high church” group; free men vs. slaves; state vs. criminal gang); at Societies level (Protestants vs. Catholics); at the level of suprasocietal relations (Soviet bloc vs. Western bloc; Soviet Union vs. Hungary and Common Market vs. France).

Kenneth Boulding (1962) provides his classification of conflicts based on abstract mathematical conceptions rather than on levels of social structure. Fink summarizes his eight kinds of social conflicts as follows:

(1) Conflicts between or among persons;

(2) Boundary conflicts between groups (spatially segregated groups);

(3) Ecological conflict between groups;

(4) Homogenous organization conflict (i.e., between organizations of like character and purpose, such as state vs. state, sect vs. sect, union vs. union, etc.);

(5) Heterogenous organization conflict (i.e., between unlike organizations, such as state vs. church, union vs. corporation, university vs. church or state, etc.);

(6) Conflicts between a person and a group (mainly socialization conflicts, as in child vs. family, person vs. peer group, person vs. hierarchical superiors or inferiors, etc.);

(7) Conflict between a person and an organization (mainly role conflicts);

(8) Conflicts between a group and an organization.

To understand Galtung’s classification, we should also keep in mind the meaning that he attaches to the terms “intrasystem” and “intersystem”. He writes: “By an intra-system conflict … we mean a conflict that can be found in the smallest subunits of the system, down to the individual actor, whereas an inter-system conflict splits the system in parts, each subsystem standing for its own goal state”

Dennis Sandole presented a three pillar framework of conflict analysis, which locates any particular conflict including its distinguishing characteristics under pillar 1, the

causes and conditions of the conflict under pillar 2, and conflict intervention and implementation under pillar 3. According to him conflict is process characterized by stages of initiation, escalation, controlled maintenance, de-escalation and some kind of termination (e.g., settlement, resolution). He not only defines but also distinguishes between three kinds of conflicts: latent conflicts (pre-MCPs), manifest conflict processes (MCPs), and aggressive manifest conflict processes (AMCPs). According to him, latent conflicts are conflicts that are developing, but have not yet expressed themselves in an observable manner, even for the parties themselves. MCPs are conflicts that have developed to the extent that they are observable, but have not been expressed so far in a violent manner. AMCPs are conflicts that have escalated from MCPs to a level of expression: they are not merely capable of being noticed and experienced, but are also destructive to parties, resources, and others as well.

Latent conflicts are also known sometimes as non-violent conflicts. According to some studies, there are two types of non-violent conflicts: latent conflicts and manifested conflicts. A latent conflict is defined as a stage in the development of a conflict where parties question existing values, issues or objectives that have a national relevance. Latent conflicts must carry some identifiable / observable signs in order to be recognized and noticed as such. In a latent conflict the positional differences and the clashing interests must be articulated as demands or claims. The manifest conflict is a stage when tensions are present but are expressed by means below the threshold of violence. Tense relations between the conflicting parties can reach a turning point enabling them to use force. Economic sanctions, e.g. are a means by which a latent conflict can be turned into a manifest. Manifest conflicts, like latent conflicts, at all stages are carried out by non-violent means and without the use of armed force.

On the other hand, violent conflicts, like war, civil war, armed conflict, etc. are more destructive in which each party pursues the goal of injuring, destroying or otherwise forcibly eliminating the other. Thousands of deaths occur in violent conflicts. They leave permanent scars on the parties to the conflict. Wars or violent conflicts are high intensity conflicts, which lead to widespread destruction. In the 1950s and 1960s, Boulding and Rapoport argued that the international conflict was of such nature that it might eventually lead to an all-destructive war, as the two super powers were pursuing goals of nuclear superiority. The scholars of International Relations coined the term “MAD” (Mutually Assured Destruction) to describe the nature of such an eventuality.

Thus it is now clear that conflict typology is as diverse as there are issues and incompatibilities among various individuals, groups, nations, states, nationalities, and organisations.

Q. State different types of conflict.

Ans. We generally identify three types of conflict, viz.,

(i) Approach Approach Conflict: the individual is motivated to approach two or more positive but mutually exclusive goals.

20 Guess Paper

(ii) Approach Avoidance Conflict: the individual is motivated by approach a goal and at the same time is motivated to avoid it.

(iii) Avoidance Avoidance Conflict: the individual is motivated to avoid two or more negative but mutually exclusive goals.

Besidesthis, the dynamics of interactive behaviour create impact on organizational behaviour and there seems to be indication of interpersonal and inter-group conflict. Conflict at the intra-individual level involves frustration, goal conflict, role conflict and ambiguity. On the other hand, goal conflict can come from approach-approach, approach- avoidance and avoidance-avoidance conflict.

for more – HariKnowledge.com