Interview Transcript. John Burton 'pioneered' peace and conflict studies through three major conceptual innovations: his challenge to 'realist' power political thought, the creation of 'problem-solving workshops,' and developing a theory of 'human needs' as a major source of social and intractable conflicts. Generic theory in conflict and conflict resolution has been a contentious issue (e.g., see Burton and Sandole, 1986; Avruch and Black, 1987), with no clear resolution in sight. On the one hand, Kenneth Boulding (1962) thought such a theory possible, differences between levels notwithstanding, and went some way toward developing one. Faw circle 2 v2.0.2 for mac.
Burton: Conflict Resolution CONFLICT RESOLUTION: TOWARDS PROBLEM SOLVING John W. BurtonFrom earliest times human societies, like those which proceeded them,have been subject to rule by the relatively strong. In contemporary legalterms there have been 'those who have a right to rule, and others who havean obligation to obey.' Feudal societies, then industrial societies, hadstructures that reflected these we-they relationships based on relativepower.Out of these structures there have evolved our adversarial systems:party politics, prosecution and defense in the legal system, employer-employeeconfrontations, class-based social conflicts.These are the systems associated with our conception of democracy.
Theyappear to be democratic because they include legally recognized oppositionsto those who previously claimed the exclusive right to rule. This, of course,does not make societies democratic in its true sense.
They remain majorityor power dominated societies, leaving large proportions alienated.It seems to be clear now that people generally are fed up with adversarialparty politics, and are beginning to have doubts about the confrontationallegal system. Industrial relations are undergoing change.
Change is required,but its rational directions are not yet clear.The same power approach has dominated thinking and practice in relationsbetween separate sovereign states. After World War I, the League of Nationswas established on the assumption that there could be international lawand order based on the observation of agreed legal norms. World War IIproved that to be a false assumption. Hans Morgenthau and Georg Schwarzenberger,both international lawyers, whose books were the main texts of the time,came to the conclusion that peace could be ensured only by adopting thecoercive approach which characterized domestic politics.
To give legitimacyto this approach the United Nations was established. It was to have peace-keepingand peace-making military power at its disposa now these power controlor deterrent approaches are failing both domestically and internationally.Police cannot control crime. Great powers and the United Nations are defeatedin wars by very small nations. Coercion is no longer an effective instrumentin a global system in which weapons are generally available, in which communicationshave further promoted sympathy for those who are subject to elite controlby coercive means, in which 'democracy' is being revealed as being littlemore than a right of majorities to exercise power, in which former colonialexpansions have left communities divided by inappropriate state boundaries,and in which many ethnic minorities are excluded from political processes.Despite the evidence, it is not yet accepted that deterrent strategiesdo not work.
The implications are too far-reaching. The absence of anyalternative which protects the interests of power elites, be they the representativesof the relatively wealthy or the less wealthy working class, is currentlyleading to the advocacy of even more of the same medicine. The rationalizationis that more deterrence is required-more prisons, tougher sentences, moreweapons of greater destructive capacity. It presently looks as though civilizationsmust face yet another major crisis before the shift from power to somethingelse takes place.What this something else might be can be found only by recognizing thereality of the failure of coercive strategies and, having done that, byasking why they have failed.
If deterrence does not always deter, why not,and in what circumstances? When there is a clear answer to these questionsthe problem of violence can be tackled in a rational way.In all human relationships there are inevitably constant disagreementsover resource allocations, roles and rights. In some cases there can beacceptable compromises and adjustments made. This is usually so when materialresources are the source of differences.
A little more or a little lessof material betable in the preservation of social relationships. In thesecases the traditional means of settlement-power bargaining, negotiation,mediation and arbitration - may be appropriate.But there are other cases in which it seems that there can be no compromise.These are cases in which there are values and goals, such an group identityand personal recognition, which cannot be divided up as can material resources.Juvenile street gangs become violent in the promotion of their separateidentities and the protection of their territories, and in their strugglesfor recognition as persons. Members of ethnic communities will slaughterothers and sacrifice themselves in the preservation of ethnic identityand of the personal recognition and security it provides.This is empirical evidence.
We need to know why it is that compromisesand agreements are not possible in some circumstances, and precisely whatthese circumstances are, before we can discover how this problem is tobe treated.In 1979 a group of scholars from a number of countries met in Berlinto address this problem. When political philosophy was broken down intoseparate disciplines during the last Century and the early part of thisone, the traditional proposition that there are those who have a rightto govern and others who have an obligation to obey was, understandably,inherited by the separate disciplines. Law, politics and sociology werebased on this proposition, implying that the individual must conform withlegal norms. This in turn assumes that the individual is wholly malleableand has the capacity to conform and to adjust to institutional requirements.Even psychology has seemed to assume a capacity for the individual to adjustto the requirements of social institutions. A behavioral component hasbeen missing from behavioral sciences. No social discipline or politicalphilosophy has considered that the individual may have inherent needs requiringinstitutions to adjust to the person.These scholars practice was forcing a re-think.
Police were not ableto enforce law and order. Great powers were being defeated by small nations,and power politics theory could, therefore, no longer be the basis of strategicstudies. They published a book in 198O called Human Needs: A Contributionto the Current Debate, putting forward the view that there were limitsto the human capacity to conform, implying that institutions and socialnorms had to adjust to human needs.Subsequently these people met with other scholars who had been concernedwith the theory and practice of conflict resolution, and who had made adistinction between 'disputes' and 'conflicts.' Disputes were those confrontationsthat could be settled by traditional means of negotiation or arbitration,while conflicts had to be resolved by analytical processes. These requireda facilitator who could help the parties to reveal the hidden behavioralrealities of a complex conflict situation. They were still searching foran explanation of the empirical evidence that had led them to make thisdistinction between conflicts and disputes.This joint meeting between those concerned with the direction of socialsciences and those concerned more specifically with the handling of conflictsled to the publication in 199O of a book called Conflict: Human NeedsTheory. The implications were clear and far-reaching.
Theory was explainingempirical evidence. If there were limited human capacities to adjust andto conform, then in some circumstances deterrence would not deter. Threatand coercion would not be effective instruments.The task then was to deduce an alternative, and to test and spell outrelevant processes. In practice it was soon found that in a facilitatedconflict analysis the more 'powerful' party was helped to perceive behavioralrealities, in respect of which there cannot be compromise, and was ableto reassess the costs of the employment of power and its likely failure.Other options could then be explored. 'Conflict Analysis and Resolution.' 'Conflict Resolution' sounds like some well-meaning, but probably impractical,approach to the national and international problems which are now a majorconcern in most countries, including developed countries. Quakerism, Networking,religious and voluntary support endeavors all have a place in communities,especially in helping to offset damage done to people by system failings,such as unemployment or poverty.
'Conflict Resolution' is not of this order.' Conflict Analysis and Resolution' has emerged over the last several decadesto describe a major shift in decision making theory and practice from powertheory to problem solving. To repeat, 'Conflict Analysis and Resolution'is a decision-making process which avoids the necessity to rest on poweror enforcement by getting to the source of problems and resolving themto the satisfaction of all parties. The empirical evidence is that thisis realistic and practical for once parties to a conflict have been ableto define it in basic terms of shared human needs, there can be a realisticcosting of options and a practical exploration of means by which all concernedcan ensure their satisfaction.The general interest in Conflict Resolution is in relation to particularcases. It is an effective means of resolving the particular case. But resolvingone conflict makes little contribution in the longer term unless insightsgained as to the roots of a problem are used to anticipate and to preventfurther conflicts.
Conflict Analysis and Resolution has become, therefore,an approach to policy, a basis for decision-making in all social scienceareas. For this reason a new term has been introduced, ' provention'to distinguish this decision-making role from 'prevention' by which isusually meant merely more police in the streets without a concern for causesor for policies that remove the sources of problems. With crime and violenceincreasing nationally and globally, policies of provention have becomethe study of conflicts, as distinct from disputes, is a beginning to haveconsequences in all behavioral disciplines.
International Relations canno longer be based on Margenthau's 'Power Politics.' Sociology can no longerbe the study of conforming behaviors. The Westminster system of adversarialparty government and authority over unrepresented minorities is no longeran example of democracy and no longer an effective instrument.
ConflictResolution has a special contribution to Management studies and decisionmaking in all fields. Conflict Resolution provides the opportunity to returnto a more holistic approach: Economics can take into account the socialconsequences of using unemployment as a means of inflation control, Lawcan focus more on sources of problems, Politics can redefine democracy,Psychology can examine the consequences for the individual of structuralviolence.Centers or Institutes of Conflict Resolution have begun to emerge inmany countries and are becoming a meeting place for those in differentdisciplines concerned with the same social problems. Teaching in the areahas spread to many disciplines.
In many universities an a-disciplinaryapproach has began to re-emerge as a political philosophy. It is stillinhibited by the traditional administrative separation of disciplines.But student responses are such that more and more universities are expandingin this area.
Governments are beginning to see the need for their own Centersto deal with local problems and to train facilitators. The United StatesInstitute of Peace is an example. The ACT has a Center for Conflict Resolutionwhich deals with local problems and trains mediators.Australia has a special problem which requires this approach.
Australiahas embarked on an irreversible experiment in its multi-culturalism. Ithas not as yet perceived or defined its problems, let alone adopted policiesnecessary for success.
Ethnicity is not understood and ethnic conflictmust emerge unless steps are taken to promote a pralism. Already thereare examples of identity-seeking youth joining gangs. The political approachseems to be one that ignores the problem rather than defining it and treatingit in advance of overt conflict. Universities have their part to play.Conflict Analysis and Resolution is a study that should be available toall students.Societies remain power-elite dominated. The diversion of resources toprovide education and other services on an equitable basis is being increasinglyresisted. Funds are being cut.
There is a retreat to specialization, anda holistic approach to problems is politically unpopular. But if civilizationsare to survive the contemporary trend towards increased crime and violenceat all social levels has to be dealt with by means which eliminate it,rather than merely contain it within less privileged regions. Civilizationsmust, if they are to survive, move from power-elite politics to problem-solving.It is the responsibilities of universities in particular to bring theseissues to attention, and to give students in all disciplines the opportunityto question, to explore and to innovate. This new a-disciplinary study,Conflict Resolution, provides an opportunity.ReferencesBurton, J. Conflict: Resolution and Provention. St Martin'sPress.Lederer, K.
Human Needs: A Contribution to the Current Debate.Cambridge, Mass: Oelgeschiager, Gunn and Hain.Morgenthau, H. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Powerand Peace. Knopf.Schwarzenberger, G. Power Politics: A Study of World Society.Stevens.