Somalia: Creating Space for Fresh Approaches to Peacebuilding

john paul lederach
8 This literature has long been
established in sociology and
social-pyschology. It initiated
primarily on the work of Lewis
Coser (1955) who identified the
functions, including direct and
latent, of social conflict. James
Coleman’s (1956) seminal work
on escalation in community
conflict identified a range of
similar patterns. More recently
Louis Kriesberg has tracked
many of these same patterns in
international conflict processes
(see Dayton and Kriesburg, 2009,
Kriesberg 1982, 1991, 2006).
What this literature suggests
is that as conflict escalates and
polarization increases, it has
specific kinds of consequences in
social relationships and produces
changes in wider social structures.
William Ury (2000) discusses
these dynamics in reference to
responding to the dynamic of
conflict creating two sides and the
need to create a container, a third
side in his description that holds
the patterns of escalation at bay.
9 See Curle, 1987, Moore, 2003,
Mayer, 2009, Lederach, 1995,
2005. Much of the literature on
the function and approach of
conciliation and mediation relies
on directly impacting two flawed
components of a conflict system.
First, the basic communication
system is unreliable when few
mechanisms of direct exchange
of information exist. A key to
de-escalation requires improving
the accuracy of communication.
Second, perceptions are key. As
was stated by W.I. Thomas (1923)
“It is not important whether or not
the interpretation is correct – if
men define situations as real, they
are real in their consequences.”
In a highly polarized and violent
setting survival requires assuming
the worst-case scenario, a system
based on distrust, suspicion and
fear. To impact these perceptions
and interpretations that reinforce
violence as the only response,
trustworthy relationships must be
created that create sufficient space
to explore alternative explanations
to the existing perceptions and
interpretations.
14
Theory and evidence
These competing ideas have considerable theoretical development and empirical
evidence from numerous disciplinary lenses.
The sociological literature on the dynamics of conflict escalation into violence
provides some key observations and questions. 8 What are the key dynamics and
effects of escalating conflict and polarization? Several merit brief exploration.
As conflict escalates and polarization sharpens, social pressure increases
significantly for people to define and join one side or the other, thereby reducing
a middle ground. Increased outside threat to goals or survival creates a much
stronger internal social cohesion. In highly polarized contexts people within a
group have more contact and interaction with those who share their views and
concerns and correspondingly much less direct interaction with those of differing
perspectives.
This combination of dynamics, very common in polarized conflict, has a twofold
impact. At times of polarization, in-group perspectives are viewed as accurately
accounting for a complex reality with little room for alternative views of the
complexity. This is coupled with a decrease in the available direct mechanisms
for receiving and sharing information across differing views and results in people
relying ever more on secondary and often inaccurate sources of information, in
particular about the “other”, often perceived as the enemy. This creates less accurate
and less objective information on which decisions are made.
The decrease of internal debate and the interaction of differing ideas, perspectives
and interpretation of a complex reality carry significant effects. Among the
most significant we find that escalated conflict creates greater opportunity for
more extreme views to rise in prominence and solidify positions of leadership.
Whereas prior to sharp escalation, these views may have been assessed as unrealistic,
distant from reality and incongruent, they gain in status as perceived and
actual threat increases and violence emerges. Tolerance for and exploration of
ambiguity reduces sharply in terms of group views. Little or no room exists for
questions or the expression of alternative views. For the leadership, sustaining a
clear and reinforced perception of outside threat sustains their status and position,
and reduces the need to deal with potential competing perspectives. Sustaining
one interpretation and keeping “followers” far from contact with competing
views and differing interpretations, creates a monolithic, unquestioned, and
highly cohesive internal constituency.
Here we find some of the most intriguing questions about the grey area and our
two approaches. Engagement approaches would argue that the theory of change
needed to transform the justification for violence and the support it may receive
from geographically affected constituencies requires regular contact, consultation
and dialogue that both seeks the other’s views and provides potential alternative
views. 9 In other words, contact and conversation create the mechanisms necessary
to increase a level of ambiguity (people have the opportunity to interact with
competing views of meaning rather than having one and only one correct narrative
and interpretation).