Sign in or 
| Version | User | Scope of changes |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 24 2009, 10:32 AM EDT (current) | chachabooth | 972 words added, 1 photo added |
| Jun 24 2009, 10:25 AM EDT | chachabooth | 579 words added, 1 photo added |
Changes
Key: Additions Deletions
Short description of the tool:
Conflict changes over time, i.e. different stages of conflict can be identified. The stages of conflict tool uses a graphic (or other visual aids) to show the increasing or decreasing intensity of conflict.
Purpose:
When to use it?
The stages of conflict descriptions are generalizations and – as models – tend to reduce the messy complexity of reality. Actual conflicts usually do not follow such a linear path. Rather, they evolve in fits and starts, alternatively experiencing progress and setbacks toward resolution.
Below, three options shall be presented that can be useful tools for trainers, training participants and project teams to analyse conflict.
1 Working in Conflict
Pre-Conflict: This is the period when there is an incompatibility of goals between two or more parties, which could lead to open conflict. The conflict is hidden from general view, although one or more of the parties is likely to be aware of the potential for confrontation. There may be tension in relationships between the parties and/or a desire to avoid contact with each other at this stage.
Confrontation: At this stage the conflict has become more open. If only one side feels there is a problem, its supporters may begin to engage in demonstrations or other confrontational behaviour. Occassional fighting or other low levels of violence may break out between the sides. Each side may be gathering its resources and perhaps finding allies with the expectation of increasing confrontation and violence. Relationships between the sides are becoming very strained, leading to a polarization between the supporters of each side.
Crisis: This is the peak of the conflict, when the tension and/or violence is most intense. In a large-scale conflict, this is the period of war, when people on all sides are being killed. Normal communication between the sides has probably ceased. Public statements tend to be in the form of accusations made against the other side(s).
Outcome: One way or another the crisis will lead to an outcome. One side may defeat the other(s), or perhaps call a ceasefire (if it is a war). One party might surrender or give in to the demands of the other party. The parties may agree to negotiations, either with or without the help of a mediator. An authority or other more powerful other third party might impose an end to the fighting. In any case, at this stage the level of tension, confrontation and violence decrease somewhat with the possibility of settlement.
Post-Conflict: Finally, the situation is resolved in a way the leads to an ending of any violent confrontation, to a decrease in tensions and to a more normal relationship between the parties. However, if the issues and problems arising from their incompatible goals have not been adequately addressed, this stage could eventually lead back into another pre-conflict situation.
Source: Fisher, Simon et. al., Working With Conflict. Skills and Strategies for Action, Responding to Conflict, London: Zed Books 2000, p. 19f. (graphic simplified)
2 Eric Brahm on Beyond Intractability
It has become common to describe conflicts as passing through a series of phases. Different authors name and describe these stages differently, but most include, at a minimum:
These phases are frequently shown on a diagram that looks something like this, although the accompanying text will always explain that the progress from one stage to the next is not smooth and conflicts may repeat stages several times.
These stages are described briefly in this introductory essay, and then each is discussed in more depth in other essays.
The potential for conflict exists whenever people have different needs, values, or interests; this is the "latent" conflict stage. The conflict may not become apparent until a "triggering event" leads to the emergence (or beginning) of the obvious conflict. Emergence may be followed quickly by settlement or resolution, or it may be followed by escalation, which can become very destructive.
Escalation, however, cannot continue indefinitely. De-escalation can be temporary or can be part of a broader trend toward settlement or resolution. Or escalation may lead to a stalemate, a situation in which neither side can win. If the pain of continuing the conflict exceeds that of maintaining the confrontation, the parties are in what Zartman calls a "hurting stalemate,"[1] which often presents an ideal opportunity for negotiation and a potential settlement. Finally, if and when an agreement is reached, peacebuilding efforts work to repair damaged relationships with the long-term goal of reconciling former opponents.
[…]
All of these models are idealized. Actual conflicts usually do not follow a linear path. Rather, they evolve in fits and starts, alternatively experiencing progress and setbacks toward resolution. The lack of linear progress helps to give the conflict a sense of intractability. Escalation may resume after temporary stalemate or negotiation. Escalation and de-escalation may alternate. Negotiations may take place in the absence of a stalemate. However, these models are still useful, because most conflicts pass through similar stages at least once in their history.
Delineating different stages is also useful in efforts to resolve conflict. By recognizing the different dynamics occurring at each stage of a conflict, one can appreciate that the strategies and tactics for participants and interveners differ depending on the phase of the conflict.
[…]
We note that the stage of a conflict is determined subjectively by those involved. Some participants may see the conflict as escalating, while others believe it is de-escalating; one side may perceive itself to be in a hurting stalemate, while the other side believes it can prevail through continued force. Determining each party's assumptions regarding the stage of the conflict is thus important, before one can design a conflict management, transformation, or resolution strategy.
[…]
Notes:
[1] Zartman, William I., Ripe for Resolution, New York: Oxford, 1985/1989.
Source: Slightly adapted from Brahm, Eric, Conflict Stages, in: Burgess, Guy/Burgess, Heidi, Beyond Intractability, Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: September 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/conflict_stages/>.
3 Conflict as fire
Conflict, like fire, goes through a number of stages that have particular elements that make it unique. These stages are:
1) Gathering materials = Potential conflict
In the early stage, materials for the fire are collected. Some of these materials are drier than others, but there is no fire yet. However, there is movement towards fire and the materials are readily available. During this stage of conflict, which is sometimes referred to as latent conflict (Curle, 1971), people usually experience structural violence (Galtung, 1969). Structural violence refers to situations of injustice where people are not allowed to experience their rights and responsibilities equally. People are treated unequally within social structures, systems and institutions, and the disparities are unbearable.
2) Fire begins burning = Confrontation
In the second stage, a match is lit and the fire begins to burn. Usually a confrontation between parties, like a large public demonstration, serves as the match and quickly ignites the dry, waiting materials. Confrontation usually means that the covert or structural forms of violence are being rejected publicly.
3) Bonfire = Crisis
During the third stage, the fire burns as far and fast as it can, burning wildly out of control. In this stage, the conflict reaches a crisis and, just like the fire, conflict consumes the materials fuelling it. When conflicts get “hot,” those involved in them often resort to overt violence in order to win – although usually, both sides end up losing something. Overt violence refers to actions that people purposefully do to harm, maim or kill others.
4) Coals = Potential conflict
At some point, the fire abates, the flames largely vanish and just the coals continue to glow as most of the fuel is burnt up. At this stage, conflicts can either continue to burn themselves out or, if new fuel is added, can re-ignite. Overt violence usually cycles through periods of increased fighting and relative calm. If peace accords are signed, then the violence usually decreases, at least temporarily. However, if the causes of structural violence and injustices are not addressed then overt violence often increases again.
5) Fire out = Regeneration
In the fifth stage, the fire is finally out and even the embers are cool. At this stage, it is time to focus on other things besides the fire, and to rebuild and help regenerate what was lost. If the injustices of structures and systems are adequately addressed, there will be space for reconciliation, regeneration and renewal.
Source: Adapted (shortened) from Neufeldt, R., Fast, L., et al., Peacebuilding: A Caritas Training Manual, Vatican City, Caritas Internationalis, 2nd edition, pp. 60f. <http://www.caritas.org/upload/pea/peacebil-ing_1.pdf> (accessed 14 June 2009).
Conflict changes over time, i.e. different stages of conflict can be identified. The stages of conflict tool uses a graphic (or other visual aids) to show the increasing or decreasing intensity of conflict.
Purpose:
- To identify escalation and de-escalation of conflict
- To provide a graphic tool that helps to see where the conflict is now
- To try to predict future stages of escalation and facilitate the development of preventive measures
- To identify a period of time to be analysed and later use another method
- To facilitate developing strategies adapted to the characteristics of the different stages of conflict
When to use it?
- Early in the process of analysis to identify conflict patterns over time.
- Later to help the process of strategy development
The stages of conflict descriptions are generalizations and – as models – tend to reduce the messy complexity of reality. Actual conflicts usually do not follow such a linear path. Rather, they evolve in fits and starts, alternatively experiencing progress and setbacks toward resolution.
Below, three options shall be presented that can be useful tools for trainers, training participants and project teams to analyse conflict.
1 Working in Conflict
Pre-Conflict: This is the period when there is an incompatibility of goals between two or more parties, which could lead to open conflict. The conflict is hidden from general view, although one or more of the parties is likely to be aware of the potential for confrontation. There may be tension in relationships between the parties and/or a desire to avoid contact with each other at this stage.
Confrontation: At this stage the conflict has become more open. If only one side feels there is a problem, its supporters may begin to engage in demonstrations or other confrontational behaviour. Occassional fighting or other low levels of violence may break out between the sides. Each side may be gathering its resources and perhaps finding allies with the expectation of increasing confrontation and violence. Relationships between the sides are becoming very strained, leading to a polarization between the supporters of each side.
Crisis: This is the peak of the conflict, when the tension and/or violence is most intense. In a large-scale conflict, this is the period of war, when people on all sides are being killed. Normal communication between the sides has probably ceased. Public statements tend to be in the form of accusations made against the other side(s).
Outcome: One way or another the crisis will lead to an outcome. One side may defeat the other(s), or perhaps call a ceasefire (if it is a war). One party might surrender or give in to the demands of the other party. The parties may agree to negotiations, either with or without the help of a mediator. An authority or other more powerful other third party might impose an end to the fighting. In any case, at this stage the level of tension, confrontation and violence decrease somewhat with the possibility of settlement.
Post-Conflict: Finally, the situation is resolved in a way the leads to an ending of any violent confrontation, to a decrease in tensions and to a more normal relationship between the parties. However, if the issues and problems arising from their incompatible goals have not been adequately addressed, this stage could eventually lead back into another pre-conflict situation.
Source: Fisher, Simon et. al., Working With Conflict. Skills and Strategies for Action, Responding to Conflict, London: Zed Books 2000, p. 19f. (graphic simplified)
2 Eric Brahm on Beyond Intractability
It has become common to describe conflicts as passing through a series of phases. Different authors name and describe these stages differently, but most include, at a minimum:
- No conflict
- Latent conflict
- Emergence
- Escalation
- (Hurting) Stalemate
- De-Escalation
- Settlement/Resolution
- Post-Conflict Peacebuilding and Reconciliation
These phases are frequently shown on a diagram that looks something like this, although the accompanying text will always explain that the progress from one stage to the next is not smooth and conflicts may repeat stages several times.
These stages are described briefly in this introductory essay, and then each is discussed in more depth in other essays.
The potential for conflict exists whenever people have different needs, values, or interests; this is the "latent" conflict stage. The conflict may not become apparent until a "triggering event" leads to the emergence (or beginning) of the obvious conflict. Emergence may be followed quickly by settlement or resolution, or it may be followed by escalation, which can become very destructive.
Escalation, however, cannot continue indefinitely. De-escalation can be temporary or can be part of a broader trend toward settlement or resolution. Or escalation may lead to a stalemate, a situation in which neither side can win. If the pain of continuing the conflict exceeds that of maintaining the confrontation, the parties are in what Zartman calls a "hurting stalemate,"[1] which often presents an ideal opportunity for negotiation and a potential settlement. Finally, if and when an agreement is reached, peacebuilding efforts work to repair damaged relationships with the long-term goal of reconciling former opponents.
[…]
All of these models are idealized. Actual conflicts usually do not follow a linear path. Rather, they evolve in fits and starts, alternatively experiencing progress and setbacks toward resolution. The lack of linear progress helps to give the conflict a sense of intractability. Escalation may resume after temporary stalemate or negotiation. Escalation and de-escalation may alternate. Negotiations may take place in the absence of a stalemate. However, these models are still useful, because most conflicts pass through similar stages at least once in their history.
Delineating different stages is also useful in efforts to resolve conflict. By recognizing the different dynamics occurring at each stage of a conflict, one can appreciate that the strategies and tactics for participants and interveners differ depending on the phase of the conflict.
[…]
We note that the stage of a conflict is determined subjectively by those involved. Some participants may see the conflict as escalating, while others believe it is de-escalating; one side may perceive itself to be in a hurting stalemate, while the other side believes it can prevail through continued force. Determining each party's assumptions regarding the stage of the conflict is thus important, before one can design a conflict management, transformation, or resolution strategy.
[…]
Notes:
[1] Zartman, William I., Ripe for Resolution, New York: Oxford, 1985/1989.
Source: Slightly adapted from Brahm, Eric, Conflict Stages, in: Burgess, Guy/Burgess, Heidi, Beyond Intractability, Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: September 2003 <http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/conflict_stages/>.
3 Conflict as fire
Conflict, like fire, goes through a number of stages that have particular elements that make it unique. These stages are:
1) Gathering materials = Potential conflict
In the early stage, materials for the fire are collected. Some of these materials are drier than others, but there is no fire yet. However, there is movement towards fire and the materials are readily available. During this stage of conflict, which is sometimes referred to as latent conflict (Curle, 1971), people usually experience structural violence (Galtung, 1969). Structural violence refers to situations of injustice where people are not allowed to experience their rights and responsibilities equally. People are treated unequally within social structures, systems and institutions, and the disparities are unbearable.
2) Fire begins burning = Confrontation
In the second stage, a match is lit and the fire begins to burn. Usually a confrontation between parties, like a large public demonstration, serves as the match and quickly ignites the dry, waiting materials. Confrontation usually means that the covert or structural forms of violence are being rejected publicly.
3) Bonfire = Crisis
During the third stage, the fire burns as far and fast as it can, burning wildly out of control. In this stage, the conflict reaches a crisis and, just like the fire, conflict consumes the materials fuelling it. When conflicts get “hot,” those involved in them often resort to overt violence in order to win – although usually, both sides end up losing something. Overt violence refers to actions that people purposefully do to harm, maim or kill others.
4) Coals = Potential conflict
At some point, the fire abates, the flames largely vanish and just the coals continue to glow as most of the fuel is burnt up. At this stage, conflicts can either continue to burn themselves out or, if new fuel is added, can re-ignite. Overt violence usually cycles through periods of increased fighting and relative calm. If peace accords are signed, then the violence usually decreases, at least temporarily. However, if the causes of structural violence and injustices are not addressed then overt violence often increases again.
5) Fire out = Regeneration
In the fifth stage, the fire is finally out and even the embers are cool. At this stage, it is time to focus on other things besides the fire, and to rebuild and help regenerate what was lost. If the injustices of structures and systems are adequately addressed, there will be space for reconciliation, regeneration and renewal.
Source: Adapted (shortened) from Neufeldt, R., Fast, L., et al., Peacebuilding: A Caritas Training Manual, Vatican City, Caritas Internationalis, 2nd edition, pp. 60f. <http://www.caritas.org/upload/pea/peacebil-ing_1.pdf> (accessed 14 June 2009).
