Sign in or 
| Version | User | Scope of changes |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 24 2009, 3:52 AM EDT (current) | chachabooth | 1 word deleted |
| Aug 24 2009, 3:51 AM EDT | chachabooth | 2 words added, 4 words deleted |
Changes
Key: Additions Deletions
Introduction
Most conflict analysis frameworks include questions about the so called "structural causes of conflict". Alexander and Smith (2004) define stuctural causes of conflict as:
They distinguish the following categories of structural causes: Economic causes (e.g. poverty, debt burden, economic imbalances); geographical causes (e.g. the size of a country); environmental causes (e.g. land, water and demographic pressures); historical causes (e.g. colonial legacy); political/governance causes (in particular negative experiences in state/governance building). (See Alexander/Smith, 2004, pp. 5-7)
Analysing the structural dimension of conflict and change as described below enables to analyse such structural causes in a systematic manner.
The structural dimensions: social structures, decision-making structures and quality of governance
The structural dimension refers to systems and structures – how relationships are organised and who has access to power and resources – from the level of family and organisations to communities and whole societies. It moves beyond actual relationships and looks at relational patterns that affect whole groups. Structural patterns describe the way things happen over and over again. The time horizon includes both present and historical dynamics. The structural dimension also includes existing structures, such as formal institutions (ideally) established to meet shared goals and serve the “common good”.
Structural change is encompassing and complex. It can be approached by looking at the following elements:
Definitions of key terms
You might want to explore and explain some key terms with participants (see here activities). Here are some definitions that can be useful:
a) Structure
In the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, we can find the following definitions of structure:
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin structura, from structus, past participle of struere to heap up, build — more at strew
Date: 15th century
In particular definitions 4 and 5 highlight that structures are made of parts and their relationships to each other. Defined generally, structures can be found almost everywhere. When looking at the structural dimension of conflict we are of course not interested in all types of structures. We want to look at social structures. Below is a definition from sociology:
Governance refers to all modes of coordinating action in human society. It can for the purposes of this research, however, be limited to the realm of politics. Renate Mayntz defines governance as “the entirety of all co-existing modes of collectively regulating social matters." (Renate Mayntz: Governance im modernen Staat, in: Arthur Benz (Ed.): Governance. Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen, Wiesbaden 2004, p. 66.) There is governance by government, i.e. sovereign action on the part of the state, governance with government, i.e. governance via networks of public and private actors as well as governance without government, i.e. regulation by non-state actors or self-regulation by civil society.
Adapted from: Thomas Risse and Ursula Lehmkuhl: Governance in Areas of Limited Statehood – New Modes of Governance, SFB-Governance Working Paper Series, No. 1, December 2006. <http://www.sfb-governance.de/publikationen/sfbgov_wp/wp1_en/sfbgov_wp1_en.pdf> (accessed 8 March 2009)
c) Power
Power is a term we often use. We say e.g. "This person in the government is very powerful" or "The United States are a super-power" or "I do not think that this is in my power." Surprisingly - or just the opposite - social science has difficulties in agreeing of what power is. Many different definitions exist. One is for example from Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye:
Positional Power
Positional power is based upon the role, or position, an individual occupies in society. The power rests in the position and is transferred from one individual to another as individuals move in and out of the role. For example, the president of a country, the principal of a school, or the head of an organisation all have power because of their position, not because of their personal characteristics or social class. When a new person takes over the position as head of an organisation, the power of the position is transferred to the new person.
Relational Power
Power is an integral part of social relationships. It does not reside in a particular individual, but is the property of social relationships. Power then can be used for both destructive and productive purposes. This view of power assumes that:
Power of Force
Physical strength and coercive mechanisms are sources of power. Individuals may use their own strength, as well as weapons,
armaments, armies, police, and prisons to impose their will upon others.
Power of Resources and Status
Wealth and status within a society are both sources of power. Individuals can use their money or their social ties to maintain a situation that is to their advantage or to get what they want.
Power of Knowledge and Expertise
Those in a society with special knowledge and expertise, such as doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, or mechanics, have a source of power that comes from what they know. These sources of power can be used for the community good, but people also tend to have “blind faith” in the expertise or knowledge of one individual, often ignoring their own knowledge and experience.
Power of a Group
The phrase “people power” is often quoted and refers to the power of individuals when part of a group. For example, unions and mass protest movements have power because of their numbers.
Taken from Neufeldt, R., Fast, L., et al., Peacebuilding: A Caritas Training Manual, Vatican City, Caritas Internationalis, 2nd edition, p. 69. The manual is available as free pdf file at <http://www.caritas.org/upload/pea/peacebil-ing_1.pdf> (accessed 14 June 2009).
References:
Alexander, Lindsay/Smith, Dan (International Alert), Evidence and Analysis: Tackling the Structural Causes of Conflict in Africa & Strengthening Preventive Responses
Paper prepared for the Commission for Africa, London 2004. <http://www.commissionforafrica.org/english/report/background/alexander_and_smith_background.pdf> (accessed 8 August 2009)
Questions adapted and extended from Lederach, J. P./Neufeldt, Reina/Culbertson, H., Reflective Peacebuilding. A Planning, Monitoring, and Learning Toolkit, Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies and Catholic Relief Service, 2007, p. 21. <http://crs.org/publications/showpdf.cfm?pdf_id=80> (accessed 6 August 2009)
Most conflict analysis frameworks include questions about the so called "structural causes of conflict". Alexander and Smith (2004) define stuctural causes of conflict as:
"pervasive factors that have become built into the policies, structures and fabric of a society and which may create the pre-conditions for violent conflict, e.g. bad or illegitimate governance, lack of political participation, lack of equal economic and social opportunities, inequitable access to resource wealth, ethno-politics" (Alexander/Smith, 2004, p. 4)
They distinguish the following categories of structural causes: Economic causes (e.g. poverty, debt burden, economic imbalances); geographical causes (e.g. the size of a country); environmental causes (e.g. land, water and demographic pressures); historical causes (e.g. colonial legacy); political/governance causes (in particular negative experiences in state/governance building). (See Alexander/Smith, 2004, pp. 5-7)
Analysing the structural dimension of conflict and change as described below enables to analyse such structural causes in a systematic manner.
The structural dimensions: social structures, decision-making structures and quality of governance
The structural dimension refers to systems and structures – how relationships are organised and who has access to power and resources – from the level of family and organisations to communities and whole societies. It moves beyond actual relationships and looks at relational patterns that affect whole groups. Structural patterns describe the way things happen over and over again. The time horizon includes both present and historical dynamics. The structural dimension also includes existing structures, such as formal institutions (ideally) established to meet shared goals and serve the “common good”.
Structural change is encompassing and complex. It can be approached by looking at the following elements:
- social conditions/structures
- patterns of decision-making, including conflict handling mechanisms
- the quality of governance and institutional structures.
- What social conditions and changes in social conditions have worked as preconditions for conflict or have given rise to conflict?
- Are there for instance consistent patterns of marginalisation and exclusion in access to power and resources? Are there historic patterns of racism, sectarianism, or ethnic marginalisation?
- What social cleavages exist (long-standing ethnic/religious/clan/economical or other divisions)?
- How have the relations been between majority and minorities changed?
- In what way has conflict effected change in existing social conditions: changes in the structure of power, in the distribution/allocation of economic resources?
- How are decisions taken and by whom? Has this changed due to conflict?
- Do people have equal access to information and understanding of decision-making?
- Are there groups who are (or perceive they are) consistently left out of political and economic decisions and processes that effect their communities?
- Do all societal groups have an equal say in processes that affect the wider community?
- What patterns of dealing with conflict/conflict handling mechanisms can be identified?
- What is the quality of governance from local, to regional and national level?
- How is power distributed in the system? What conception of power is predominant among the elites? How can the elite behaviour be described: patrimonialism/clientelism, political exploitation of identity,
- Are the wider procedural patterns identified reflected in the function and maintenance of key social, political and economic institutions, particularly in the ones established to serve the wider public?
- What are the capacities and performance of existing institutions on local and national level? Is there trust in primary service institutions on part of the groups that they are meant to serve? If not, why?
Definitions of key terms
You might want to explore and explain some key terms with participants (see here activities). Here are some definitions that can be useful:
a) Structure
In the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, we can find the following definitions of structure:
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin structura, from structus, past participle of struere to heap up, build — more at strew
Date: 15th century
1 : the action of building : construction
2 a : something (as a building) that is constructed b : something arranged in a definite pattern of organization <a rigid totalitarian structure — J. L. Hess> <leaves and other plant structures>
3 : manner of construction : makeup <Gothic in structure>
4 a : the arrangement of particles or parts in a substance or body <soil structure> <molecular structure> b : organization of parts as dominated by the general character of the whole <economic structure> <personality structure> c : coherent form or organization <tried to give some structure to the children's lives>
5 : the aggregate of elements of an entity in their relationships to each other <the structure of a language>
— struc·ture·less \-ləs\ adjective
— struc·ture·less·ness \-nəs\ noun
http://mw1.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/structure2 a : something (as a building) that is constructed b : something arranged in a definite pattern of organization <a rigid totalitarian structure — J. L. Hess> <leaves and other plant structures>
3 : manner of construction : makeup <Gothic in structure>
4 a : the arrangement of particles or parts in a substance or body <soil structure> <molecular structure> b : organization of parts as dominated by the general character of the whole <economic structure> <personality structure> c : coherent form or organization <tried to give some structure to the children's lives>
5 : the aggregate of elements of an entity in their relationships to each other <the structure of a language>
— struc·ture·less \-ləs\ adjective
— struc·ture·less·ness \-nəs\ noun
In particular definitions 4 and 5 highlight that structures are made of parts and their relationships to each other. Defined generally, structures can be found almost everywhere. When looking at the structural dimension of conflict we are of course not interested in all types of structures. We want to look at social structures. Below is a definition from sociology:
"In general, social structure refers to the relations (especially more stable, permanent relationships), among people, between groupings or institutions, and backwards and forwards between people and groupings. Social structure is a descriptive and explanatory concept which is used to show how the social behaviour, attitudes, attributes, and trajectories of individualy (and the social groupings they are involved in) are shaped, and why there are various patterns of allocation of resources and rewards." (Crothers, Charles, Social Structure, London: Routledge, 1996, p. 4)b) Governance
Governance refers to all modes of coordinating action in human society. It can for the purposes of this research, however, be limited to the realm of politics. Renate Mayntz defines governance as “the entirety of all co-existing modes of collectively regulating social matters." (Renate Mayntz: Governance im modernen Staat, in: Arthur Benz (Ed.): Governance. Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen, Wiesbaden 2004, p. 66.) There is governance by government, i.e. sovereign action on the part of the state, governance with government, i.e. governance via networks of public and private actors as well as governance without government, i.e. regulation by non-state actors or self-regulation by civil society.
Adapted from: Thomas Risse and Ursula Lehmkuhl: Governance in Areas of Limited Statehood – New Modes of Governance, SFB-Governance Working Paper Series, No. 1, December 2006. <http://www.sfb-governance.de/publikationen/sfbgov_wp/wp1_en/sfbgov_wp1_en.pdf> (accessed 8 March 2009)
c) Power
Power is a term we often use. We say e.g. "This person in the government is very powerful" or "The United States are a super-power" or "I do not think that this is in my power." Surprisingly - or just the opposite - social science has difficulties in agreeing of what power is. Many different definitions exist. One is for example from Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye:
"Power can be thought of as the ability of an actor to get others to do something they otherwise would not do (and at an acceptable cost to the actor). Power can also be conceived in terms of control over outcomes." (Keohane, Robert O./Nye, Joseph S., Power and Interdependence. World Politics in Transition, Boston/Toronto 1977, p. 11.The Caritas Peacebuilding training manual defines power broadly and distinguishes between different types of power:
Positional Power
Positional power is based upon the role, or position, an individual occupies in society. The power rests in the position and is transferred from one individual to another as individuals move in and out of the role. For example, the president of a country, the principal of a school, or the head of an organisation all have power because of their position, not because of their personal characteristics or social class. When a new person takes over the position as head of an organisation, the power of the position is transferred to the new person.
Relational Power
Power is an integral part of social relationships. It does not reside in a particular individual, but is the property of social relationships. Power then can be used for both destructive and productive purposes. This view of power assumes that:
- We all need power for self-esteem and fulfilment. It is necessary for a sense of personal significance, not in an external opportunistic way, but in a fundamental internal manner.
- We all need to feel valued.
- Power is a necessary ingredient of communication.
- Power is not a finite resource. Power in a relationship is fluid and hard to measure. It can be expanded and limited.
- Over time, significant, static power imbalances harm and destroy individuals and relationships.
- People will seek to balance real and perceived power inequities by productive or destructive means
(The Caritas Manual refers to Lederach, Preparing for Peace. Conflict Transformation Across Cultures, 1995, p.93)
Power of Force
Physical strength and coercive mechanisms are sources of power. Individuals may use their own strength, as well as weapons,
armaments, armies, police, and prisons to impose their will upon others.
Power of Resources and Status
Wealth and status within a society are both sources of power. Individuals can use their money or their social ties to maintain a situation that is to their advantage or to get what they want.
Power of Knowledge and Expertise
Those in a society with special knowledge and expertise, such as doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, or mechanics, have a source of power that comes from what they know. These sources of power can be used for the community good, but people also tend to have “blind faith” in the expertise or knowledge of one individual, often ignoring their own knowledge and experience.
Power of a Group
The phrase “people power” is often quoted and refers to the power of individuals when part of a group. For example, unions and mass protest movements have power because of their numbers.
Taken from Neufeldt, R., Fast, L., et al., Peacebuilding: A Caritas Training Manual, Vatican City, Caritas Internationalis, 2nd edition, p. 69. The manual is available as free pdf file at <http://www.caritas.org/upload/pea/peacebil-ing_1.pdf> (accessed 14 June 2009).
References:
Alexander, Lindsay/Smith, Dan (International Alert), Evidence and Analysis: Tackling the Structural Causes of Conflict in Africa & Strengthening Preventive Responses
Paper prepared for the Commission for Africa, London 2004. <http://www.commissionforafrica.org/english/report/background/alexander_and_smith_background.pdf> (accessed 8 August 2009)
Questions adapted and extended from Lederach, J. P./Neufeldt, Reina/Culbertson, H., Reflective Peacebuilding. A Planning, Monitoring, and Learning Toolkit, Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies and Catholic Relief Service, 2007, p. 21. <http://crs.org/publications/showpdf.cfm?pdf_id=80> (accessed 6 August 2009)
