Article Summary of "De-escalating Conflicts" by Louis Kriesberg
Citation:
"De-escalating Conflicts," Chapter 7 in Constructive Conflicts, by Louis Kriesberg, (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1998), pp. 181-222
This Article Summary written by: Conflict Research Consortium Staff
All conflict eventually de-escalate, and de-escalation
always precedes resolution. Kriesberg examines the processes and conditions
that produce de-escalation. He also describes policies for fostering de-escalation
De-escalation Processes
De-escalation processes occur within the parties, in
the character of their interactions, and in external parties or the broader
community. In individuals, the social-psychological theory of cognitive
dissonance suggests that "if people can be brought to make conciliatory
moves toward an adversary, they will tend to justify their actions and
value what they have done."(p. 182) Older conflict goals come to be seen
as dissonant with current actions, and may be devalued in favor of more
conciliatory aims. Psychological processes of entrapment often foster conflict
escalation. Parties may also become entrapped in de-escalation processes.
People can avoid being caught up escalating entrapment processes by being
aware of the dynamic, and by setting strong limits at the outset of the
conflict. Sympathy and empathy also contribute to de-escalation. Processes
within a group or organization can also contribute to de-escalation. The
unequally distributed costs of conflict can prompt the formation of constituencies
for de-escalation. Extremist factions can also alienate members, leading
them to favor moderation and de-escalation. Competition for leadership
can consolidate and intensify de-escalation pressures.
Interaction processes occurring between the parties
also contribute to de-escalation. Such processes include reciprocity, issue
containment, and party bonding. Parties avoid escalation by not overreacting
to each other, but instead by reacting equivalently. Under-reacting can
sometimes promote de-escalation. Through interaction, parties may develop
shared norms that constrain conflict behavior. Parties can prevent escalation
be staying focused on their specific goals. Kriesberg notes that such focus
was key in keeping the Birmingham, Alabama civil rights protesters from
becoming violent (in response to police violence), and contributed significantly
to the success of their movement. When adversaries interact over time,
they may develop social bonds that encourage de-escalation.
Other parties in the broader social context can also
contribute to de-escalation. They may model de-escalation processes, or
simply show that de-escalation is indeed possible. They may set and enforce
limits on conflict escalation, prohibiting violence, for instance. Third
parties may serve as conflict intermediaries, mediators, and conflict resolution
facilitators.
Conditions Contributing to De-escalation
Changes in the underlying conditions affect the emergence
and escalation of conflicts, and also affect the de-escalation of conflicts.
Generally, de-escalation is a gradual, cumulative process. Relevant changes
may be internal to the parties, may occur in the parties' relationship,
or may occur in the broader social context. Parties may lose confidence
in the rightness of their cause or their basic ideology. They may become
dissatisfied with militant strategies, after experiencing their failure.
Such changes hastened the fall of apartheid in South Africa. Crises within
a party may divert resources attention away from the conflict. Changes
in the composition of a group may also change their attitude toward pursuing
the conflict.
De-escalation often occurs after the parties' relationship
reaches a stalemate. De-escalation is particularly likely when remaining
in the stalemate is costly for both sides, and when a better alternative
is available. One important component of a better alternative is that in
it the parties do not threaten each other's significant interests. In South
Africa, for instance, anti-apartheid forces called for majority rule, but
still acknowledged the equal rights of whites as natives of South Africa.
De-escalating changes in the broader social context
include shifts in the importance of a particular conflict, relative to
other problem or conflicts. Economic changes may also exert de-escalation
pressure. Kriesberg observes that "economic expansion, which is a goal
shared by all the adversaries, encourages cooperation and facilitates finding
win-win outcomes."(p. 198)
Policies Favoring De-escalation
Changing conditions create opportunities for de-escalation,
but do not guarantee that it will occur. Policies to promote de-escalation
must take advantage of favorable conditions, and must be carefully tailored
to the prevailing conditions, the stage of the conflict, and the nature
of de-escalation that is desired.
It is usually easiest to prevent escalation in the
early stages of a conflict. Unfortunately, early stage conflicts are usually
low profile, and people have little motivation to invest time or resources
in escalation prevention. In the short term, involved parties can limit
themselves to relatively nonprovocative conflict tactics, keep issues narrowly
focused, and respond proportionally to the other side. Intermediary parties
may limit the antagonists conflict resources, and may provide mediation,
consultation, facilitation, or research services to the involved parties.
Long-term policies should promote crosscutting social ties, shared identities,
improved conditions for disadvantaged groups, and institutionalized procedures
for conflict resolution.
Short-term de-escalation policies for sharply escalating
conflicts include finding ways to lessen the parties' sense of urgency--to
"buy them time" for more careful consideration of their actions. This approach
is often used to handle hostage situations. In the long term, policies
should aim at preventing crises are. Developing crosscutting groups helps
avoid sparking crises, and gives parties alternative channels for resolution
when conflicts do arise. Confidence building measures help avoid misunderstandings
and reassure each side of the other's intentions.
In cases of protracted or seemingly intractable conflict,
general de-escalation take long time and starts from small steps. Parties
to the conflict may begin by seeking to counter feeling fearful and threatened.
Leaders may publicly commit to pursuing peaceful negotiations. Conciliatory
gestures, such as an apology, can enhance a party's credibility with the
other side. Leaders and officials must cultivate a constituency for de-escalation,
and must manage the militant factions within their respective groups. When
the parties are frozen in hostile relations, intermediaries may play a
role by facilitating communication, opening negotiations, mediating, or
opening back channels for negotiation.
Long term de-escalation policies for protracted conflicts
may employ a graduated reciprocation in tension reduction (GRIT) strategy,
or the tit-for-tat (TFT) strategy. Both seek to build cooperative relations
between adversarial parties. Strengthening shared identities also de-escalates
conflict over time. Nongovernmental policies may also facilitate de-escalation.
In South Africa, economic policies that stressed free markets and efficiency
undermined emphasis on maintaining white purity. Blacks who adopted this
economic philosophy were increasing incorporated into the business establishment.
Outside parties can further de-escalation by maintaining pressure on the
adversaries and by offering assistance and development aid. Intermediaries
may foster better understanding between the parties, sponsor problem-solving
workshops and dialog groups, and help the parties identify mutual interests.
Conclusion
No person, group, or set of conditions can guarantee
that a conflict will proceed constructively. In order to manage conflict
effectively, parties must develop policies that are responsive to the stage
and nature of the conflict, the conflict context, the parties' relationship,
and the direction of change in external conditions. Minimizing violence
and using nonviolent tactics is generally an effective policy for making
conflicts constructive. Conflict de-escalation policies must rest on a
vision of the desired new relationship with the other side. Kriesberg says,
"a basic finding of this analysis is that transforming transitions come
about when a new way of thinking about their conflict becomes dominant
in each of the primary adversaries."(p. 217) They realize that they cannot
go on as they have been, and that negotiation and cooperation promise a
better future.
|
