How to reduce conflict by mediation;conflict Triangle

The conflict triangle

One of the simplest ways to look at conflict is to imagine it as a triangle, with three points:

It thus has three elements, any one of which can generate conflict:

Situation. The situation refers to the objective positions that can cause conflict. For instance, if political power resides in the hands of one section of a population, to the exclusion of the other; or if one group has exclusive access to all the natural resources in an area; or if a country is partitioned in such a way as to privilege one group over another. Eventually, the groups involved find that the situation has brought them into conflict.

Behaviour. Behaviour relates to the actions of people. One group acts in an aggressive manner towards another: killing their members, or oppressing them, or discriminating against them. Perhaps the second group retaliates. Eventually the behaviours of both spiral into war. Thus the behaviour of those involved, action and reaction alike, generates a context of conflict.

Attitudes. Here, we speak of the attitudes and perceptions of groups, particularly their images of, and attitudes towards, each other. A belief that another group is less valuable than our group, or that they are plotting our destruction, or that their own beliefs offend our moral code, or that they generally are a danger to us, will generate conflict between them and us.

These three elements, then, can each be the root of conflict: the situation people find themselves in, the behaviour they demonstrate, or the beliefs and perceptions they hold about each other. Conflict can begin at any of these points on the triangle. Once conflict begins from one point, however, it quickly spreads to the others. Indeed the three points become mutually reinforcing elements in the conflict. We can then more accurately portray them as interconnected, and reinforcing in both directions:

Wherever the conflict originates in the triangle, it begins to circulate in both directions. Aggressive behaviour will reinforce negative attitudes; negative attitudes will make the situation worse; a worsened situation will stimulate more defensive or agg-ressive behaviour. And likewise, aggressive behaviour will make the situation worse, a worsened situation will reinforce negative attitudes, and negative attitudes will be expressed in more agg-ressive behaviour. (Despite the danger of overloading such a basic concept as our triangle, this model can then be reversed to show that a reduction in aggressive behaviour, or an easing of negative attitudes, or an improvement in the material situation will logically lead to a reduction in tension and conflict.)

This is a very simple tool. Its purpose is less to do with tracing the origins of a conflict - in prolonged conflict, the cyclical interaction around the triangle in both directions may very quickly muddy any possibility of pinning down a single source. More pertinent is the simple lesson that these three elements add together to form conflict, and that their interaction and interdependence fuel the dynamic of its growth and intensity. Using the triangle as a basic framework may help to separate the complex elements of conflict and to see a little more clearly where the pieces fit.

2.8.2 Stages of escalation

Conflicts tend to escalate and de-escalate over time, bursting out into violence, retreating into latent periods, and so on. It is a vital piece of information, in analysing a conflict, to know where in the escalatory spiral the conflict currently stands, and in which direction it may be heading. Another tool offers a way of doing this. This model says that there are four basic stages that a conflict moves between, listed in rising order of escalation: Discussion, Polarization, Segregation and Destruction.

Discussion stage. Parties are disagreeing, but still close enough to work together. Communication hopefully consists of direct debate and discussion between parties. Mutual perceptions are both accurate and reasonably benign. The relationship is one with a modicum of trust and respect. The issues being emphasized in the dispute are substantive, objective ones. The possible outcome is assumed to be one that can please both sides: a win-win solution. The preferred method for managing the conflict is through co-operation to reach a joint solution. For inst-ance, Canadian-Quebecois tensions over linguistic and cultural rights are deep, abiding and complex. But, by and large, the argument is waged within the parameters of low-escalation discussion.

Polarization stage. The parties have started to put distance between them, to withdraw and turn away from each other. Because of that distance, communication is now more indirect and reliant on interpretation (or, increasingly, misinterpretation). Mutual perceptions of each other are hardening into rigid stereotypes, especially since these are no longer challenged by the evidence of direct interaction with each other. The relationship has deteriorated from one of respect to a cooler one where each sees the other as still important but increasingly unreliable. The emphasized issues have moved away from the objective elements to the more psychological concerns about the relationship. The possible outcome is no longer one where everyone wins, but one where each must compromise to win some things and lose others. The preferred method of managing the conflict has moved from co-operative decision-making to competitive negotiation. The Soviet-US relationship during periods of Cold War detente fits the polarization stage fairly closely.

Segregation stage. The parties have moved away completely from each other. Communication is now restricted to the issuing of threats. Mutual perceptions have hardened into a picture of us-as-good and them-as-evil. The relationship is now one of mistrust and disrespect. The issues now being emphasized in the dispute are the core needs and values of each group: thus the stakes have been rapidly raised in this stage. The outcome is now perceived as a zero-sum calculation: a simple win-or-lose situation. And the preferred means of managing the situation has become one of defensive competition, where each protects its own interests above all, while trying to outwit or outsmart the other side. To a degree, the tense stand-off in early 1998 between Iraq and the US over UN weapons inspections reflected an instance of escalation up to the polarization stage, but one which then de-escalated without tipping over into the outright violence of destruction.

Destruction stage. This is one of all-out antagonism. Communication now merely consists of direct violence or complete silence. In order to justify violence, perceptions of the other side have become abusive descriptions of them as non-human, psychopaths, and so on. The relationship is seen as being in a completely hopeless state. The only issue being emphasized now is the ultimate survival of one's own side in the face of the other's aggression. Perceived possible outcomes now are all lose-lose: the situation is so bad that both sides will bear a heavy cost. The chosen method of managing the conflict at this stage is simply that of trying to destroy the opposition: we are in a state of war. the world sadly abounds with examples of conflicts manifestly in the destruction phase.

Print Page