Escalation
Cate Malek
Research Assistant, Conflict Research Consortium
University of Colorado
Based on a longer essay on Escalation, written by Michelle Maiese for
the Intractable Conflict Knowledge Base Project
Definition:
An increase in the intensity of a conflict and in the severity of tactics
used in pursuing it.
Users:
Anyone involved in an intense, emotional or violent conflict (or one that
might become so) or interveners in such a conflict.
Description:
When conflict escalates, more people become involved and disputants
make stronger threats. Violence starts or becomes more severe.
Causes of Escalation
One cause of escalation is incompatible goals. If two parties can't find a
solution, and one believes it is more powerful, it may try to bully the other
side. Escalation can also be caused by a sense of injustice. One party feels it
has been wronged by its opponent, which leads to a desire to punish them.
Escalation can also happen unintentionally. If one party feels aggrieved
and lashes out at the other side, that side may respond even more hostilely,
setting off an escalation "spiral" without either side intending to do
so.
Psychological Changes
Escalation results in significant psychological changes in the parties
involved. In addition to anger and fear, it can be driven by negative
stereotypes of the opponent. Discussions about substantive issues give way to
personal attacks. The opponent is seen as inferior, stupid, unworthy, or even
evil. This eliminates the felt need to treat the other side with respect or
"fairness," and can lead to disrespect, unfair treatment, violence, human rights violations, even genocide.
Such patterns are self-sustaining. Once parties expect certain behavior from the other side, they can only see
that behavior. Thus, ambiguous actions of distrusted parties are seen as
threatening. This leads to hostility toward the opponent, evoking a hostile
response, and prodding the opponent to fulfill the party's
initial, distrustful, expectations. Psychological or physical barriers are put up to reduce
interaction. Once communication stops, parties can't resolve the substantive
issues that caused the conflict in the first place. This absence of communication may lead to the
distortion of facts, which provides more fuel for anger, fear, and escalation. Another
psychological process that drives escalation is entrapment or "the sacrifice trap." A party may
expend seemingly unjustified amounts of time, energy, and resources because they
cannot admit they were wrong and all their previous sacrifices were thus
"in vain."
Group Dynamics
Once group members realize others share their views, their own perceptions
are reinforced. Group discussion can cause individuals to become more extreme.
As conflict escalates, militant leadership develops. Leaders don't want to be
seen as weak and won't admit mistakes. Often, these leaders ritualize the
conflict and exhibit no interest in resolution. Norms of contentious interaction
develop, and individuals who challenge these norms are ostracized. Those who
question aggressive tactics stay quiet because they fear being labeled traitors,
or dissident murmurs will simply be drowned out by the majority. Leaders foster
such homogeneity by portraying the enemy as a grave threat. Group membership and
participation in the struggle can give individuals status, wealth and a sense
that life is meaningful. Members may not wish to surrender these benefits.
Examples:
After WWII, the USSR attempted to gain control of nearby nations to increase
its security. This made East-West cooperation difficult and increased the
parties' mutual suspicion. In response to expanding Soviet influence, the United
States attempted to strengthen Western European states and rebuild West Germany.
Worried that Germany would return to power, the Soviets brought stronger tactics
to bear. Already the conflict was escalating into what is now known as the Cold
War. On a much smaller scale, everyone has witnessed conflicts between children
that escalate to the point of violence on the playground or elsewhere. A refusal
to take turns, a perceived snub, or disagreement over whose friend (or
girlfriend) is whose can lead to anger, threats, and even blows. The ultimate
example of such was the Columbine High School tragedy, where two students shot
and killed 13 students and a teacher and wounded 23 others after repeated
perceived harassment and rejection.
Applications:
Sometimes escalation is the rational thing to do. If a party has power over
its opponent, it makes sense to use this power to overcome the opponent's
resistance. Parties might also intentionally escalate the conflict in order to
pressure the other side, involve third parties, or rally people to their cause.
Often, tactical escalation can have positive effects and help move parties
toward a mutually beneficial relationship. However, more often, escalation
damages relationships and makes conflicts more difficult to resolve. Sometimes
the situation needs to reach an extremely damaging and costly level before
efforts are made to de-escalate the conflict and seek resolution.
Links to Related Articles:
De-Escalation
|