Conflict Resolution Beyond the International Relations Paradigm

Questions I am aiming to address

At the time of my involvement with the Syrian dialogue mentioned above, I was working actively on a research project titled “How is Change Sustained?” Convinced that conflict resolution practices inherently do good, I was concerned with improving their effectiveness and longer-term influence of the change they produce. Yet I was suddenly confronted with the realization that in the Syrian case, the conventional binary frame of the conflict resolution practices that I aimed to make more effective resulted in marginalization of the majority of Syrians.

This realization prompted me to explore whether the marginalization embedded in binary frames was unique to the evolving context of Syria, and whether the contexts where the binary frame had long been established, such as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, were better suited for conventional and binary dialogue designs. Or was it possible that binary frames could marginalize affected populations there too? And were the binary frames the only trap in the conflict resolution discourse that had the potential to marginalize? I did not know the answers, but I knew that I could no longer assume that change produced by conflict resolution practice was necessarily positive and ask, “How is Change Sustained?” I now had a prior question: what were the possible variants of that change and was it possible that some of the change produced marginalization or other harm?

My main intention for this book is not solely to be critical. I continue to be devoted to the conflict resolution field and believe in its promise and potential for changing societies for the better. I also remain and plan to remain a scholar-practitioner in this field, working on its theory and practice. My research questions, therefore, have the goal of reflecting on my own practice and that of my colleagues, identifying patterns that could be marginalizing or otherwise harmful of affected populations, raising the awareness of my colleagues in regard to such practices, and, most importantly, exploring possible inclusive alternatives.

The following questions drive this inquiry:

 Are binary frames problematic in the Syrian conflict only or do they adversely affect conflict resolution practice in other conflict contexts as well?

 Are there other patterns of conflict resolution practice that (re)produce conflict or that contribute to exclusion from the peace processes of populations affected by conflict and marginalization of peace constituencies?

 Do we need to rethink not only conflict resolution but conflict itself in order to develop adequate responses to today’s challenges?

 If the answer to any of to the above questions is positive, what can be the alternative approaches that help us conceive inclusive conflict resolution practices?

The organization of the text

The book is organized into three parts and nine chapters, including the conclusions. Following this introduction, Part I contains three chapters. Chapter 1 is a critical review of the theories that traditionally informed policymaking and conflict resolution practice. It is also an exploration of alternative theories that can help us rethink conflict. I start with theories most often used by the policymaking community in understanding and addressing conflicts, namely with realist and liberal theories of international relations and criticize their rigid and binary frames that contribute to the reproduction of conflicts. I then examine conflict resolution theories that position themselves as a critique and alternative to international relations, yet in practice borrow its frames, as a result similarly contributing to the reproduction of the conflict discourses.

The contemporary conflict analysis and resolution theories, however, are much broader than its segments that take after international relations. They range from the long-known in the field positivist social-psychological needs theories of Burton and his colleagues and followers and post-positivist structural theories of Galtung to increasingly popular critical and hermeneutic paradigms and to post-structuralist and postmodernist approaches that either implicitly or explicitly reject dichotomies and the very notion of bounded groups as units of analysis. The discussion of the potential of the latter schools, as well as of various directions of critical theory, in transforming not only conflict analysis theories but also conflict resolution practice concludes the chapter, setting the stage for the discussion of methodology.

As one of the aims of this book was to redefine my practice and that of my colleagues who agreed to engage in this journey with me, I relied on participatory action research (PAR) as the primary methodological choice that has a transformative potential. The methodology of this project, therefore, was never only a tool for inquiry. It was an evolving intervention in itself that helped me rethink the concept of conflict and the practices of conflict resolution, and therefore deserves its own chapter. Chapter 2 details the development of the methodology for this book with a hope that it might be useful in future conflict resolution research.

Chapter 3 is short and auto-ethnographic. I reflect there on the events in my life that led me to conflict resolution work and to this book. I expose my biases and epistemological standing to your (my reader’s) judgment.

Part II of the book that contains Chapters 4 and 5, I wrote from the position of collective auto-ethnography, and in a form of a thick description of two initiatives led by teams that I was part of. These cases present a close-up view of patterns of exclusion and marginalization perpetrated by conflict resolution practice in the contexts of Nagorno-Karabakh and Syria. The Syrian initiative discussed in Chapter 4 is a dialogue project with an initial exclusionary frame where the workshop design created a binary that deprived of voice the majority of participants who did not see themselves as part of the conflict sides, yet where the facilitators and the participants worked together to find new and inclusive frames. An initiative from the Nagorno-Karabakh context presented in Chapter 5 followed the reversed trajectory: started with an aim to include all possible conflict voices, it demonstrated an unlimited potential in producing exclusion and marginalization as it progressed.

In Part II, I look deep into two particular cases. In Part III that contains Chapters 6–8, to the contrary, I zoom out and focus on patterns of exclusion and marginalization as learned from the analysis of over 30 conflict resolution initiatives conducted in Syria, Nagorno-Karabakh, and other contexts. The critique is followed by a discussion of alternative and inclusive models of conflict resolution practices.

Chapter 6 explores how the macro-frames external to conflict resolution practice influence that practice in ways that contribute to the marginalization and exclusion of key groups affected by conflict and to the perpetuation of conflict discourses. The specific macro-frames discussed in the chapter are the binary frames of international relations and their influence on conflict resolution initiatives, as well as possible alternative frames and approaches to conflict. A number of other binaries, particularly the gender binary, are also discussed although in less detail. I conclude that these frames advance narrow definitions of conflict and identity and that they privilege the violent or nationalist extremes while marginalizing many of those affected by conflict yet not fitting neatly into predefined ethnic or gender roles.

Chapter 7 looks into exclusion and marginalization specific to conflict resolution initiatives. It looks into hierarchical relations between conflict resolution professionals and participants, and into the emergence of dominant factions within conflict resolution initiatives that coalesce around a common discourse pushing forward a particular exclusivist agenda and marginalizing others. Such factions can get formed around a macro-frame located outside the initiative, such as the international human rights regime, or around an affiliation with a source of power external to the initiative, such as belonging to a government, or through a greater cultural intelligibility of some of the participants to the organizers. The patterns of marginalization covered by this chapter are highly context-specific and are, therefore, amenable to change more easily than the ones discussed in Chapter 6.

Finally, Chapter 8 discusses patterns of exclusion and marginalization within the community of conflict resolution practitioners facilitated by such common to capitalist organization of the society practices as competition over resources, gate-keeping, or strict hierarchies within teams that suppress creativity and participation. After exposing the contradiction between these common practices and the values of cooperation and inclusivity advanced by that same practice in conflict zones, I explore alternative approaches to interorganizational and team relations.

1 I do not use the words “marginalization” and “exclusion” from conflict resolution processes interchangeably. By “marginalization” I refer to a context when the voice of an individual or a group affected by the conflict is silenced or continually dismissed. By “exclusion” I refer to a relationship where an individual or a group is actively precluded from physically taking part in the conflict resolution process. One can be excluded from a process but not marginalized as her voice finds a way to break through, often thanks to access to external to the context academic or media resources influencing the process. At the same time, one can be included and physically present in the conflict resolution process and yet dismissed or silenced and therefore marginalized. As it is not practically possible to always involve everyone in conflict resolution initiatives, exclusion in itself can be neutral. It becomes problematic, however, when its intention or impact is the marginalization of communities or individuals affected by the conflict.

Part I

Part I of this book lays the ground for the main arguments presented in Parts II and III. I start Part I with the critical review of the mainstream conflict resolution theories, which as I argue serve to reproduce rather than solve conflicts, followed by discussion of their conceptual alternatives. These alternatives point toward participatory research methods positioned at the intersection of research, theory, and practice and are discussed in Chapter 2. I end Part I with a short auto-ethnographic sketch intended to explain why and how I came to this work, and what are the values and personal and methodological bias that guide my writing.