An overview of the conflict resolution theory Essay Example for Free

An overview of the contest resolution theory EssayConflict Resolution TheoryIn conflict resolution, preconceived notions, to a fault called the natural cognitive sorting processes, are the stimuli that unwittingly foment war. By taking a look at individual and inter meeting relations, angiotensin-converting enzyme and only(a) can bring out grasp conflict resolution as a means of mediation which may lessen the probabilities of the go forthbreak of political violence. This essay takes a close examination of the effect of individual-level models of change to inspire change at the social level. The scaling up the process from individual treatment to social has its strengths and weakness. Controlled communication, esthesia training, Freuds hydraulic model, complex reverberateing and conscious raising psychotherapy are experimented means in conflict resolution to dissolve conflict at twain individual and general levels.The natural cognitive sorting mechanism of dividing peopl e into us and them engenders prejudice and in the long run, political violence. This perspective is typical to The ego and The Other concept in which people and groups are constructed to exclude the other or any entity that is perceived as foreign and to include the self or other entities affiliated to the self. Protracted social conflicts typically involve an enduring set of antagonistic perceptions and interactions between communal groupsnegative attri justions of motivations and reciprocal negative images carry on the antagonisms and solidify the conflict (Fisher 1997). This concept breeds the antagonization of groups which turns angiotensin converting enzyme group against the other, deepening rifts and sharpening rivalry. Since this type of social cognitive process emphasizes differences between us and them, an elitism can arise which advantages unity group over the other and fosters an unhealthy intergroup competition and mutual exclusion. With mutual degradation and demoni zed motives, each group continues to not only drift apart but rub against each other in a frictional relationship to produce an aggression fire.At the national level, us and them dichotomy leads to jingoism which is a chauvinistic form of nationalism. This ideology promotes the suppression of one and the superiority of a people. Fanatical patriotism and the prejudiced belief propose that another party must suffer in the power imbalance. (Paris 2004) agrees that exclusionary forms of nationalism too make enemies of excluded groups. In other words, one nation categorizes, segregates and disadvantages another. As a consequence, the excluded party harbors resentment toward the oppose group. Resentment begets tension-filled relations, which beget mistrust. The polarizing effect of the us and them construct leads inevitably to suspicion and in a competitive environment, to perceived inequalities. Inequalities result in the categorization of an loaded and an oppressor, the victimized a nd the victimizer. At a particular point, one group arrives at a breaking point, demanding the redress of wrongs whether real or perceived and an equalizing of the playing field. (Fisher 1997) also recognizes that some conflicts arise when identity groups perceive that they are oppressed and victimized through a denial of recognition, security, equity and political participation. Imbalances of power stimulate one group to react or even retaliate hence hostilities erupt. It was a wave of nationalism which provokes WWII in which the Aryan Germans attempt to purge Germany of unwanted elements for the interest of the country. Similarly, in the case of Rwanda and other countries, ethnic cleansing or genocide take place because of inequality and a false sense of nationalism.Sorting out the Natural Cognitive ProcessesTo arrive at conflict resolution, one must broach the theme of altering intergroup perceptions. This method is an individual-to-social strategy in which with a tierce party intervention, both groups can mutually exchange opinions and feelings. John Burton pioneers and implements a casework approach, a term used in social work to explain the methods utilize to solve an in individual or group problem. Controlled communication signifies a way to forge effective communication habits. Burton asserts that the source of conflict is miscommunication and the source of miscommunication is ill-shapen worldviews or perceptions of the other. In practicing controlled communication, groups can share their prejudices and biases in a setting that diffuses anger and sets a more than amicable tone for talks would help emend relations. Also, Leonard Doob advocates sensitivity training which progresses the transition from individual-level change to collective change. He puts forward that a small representative group ventilates their perceptions, opinions, and concerns to create awareness and better grasping of group processes. The sensitivity training workshop is simi lar to a psychological therapy conducted by a third party. Ideas and feelings are shared to increase social effectiveness. (Toft 2010) declares that giving voice to former combatants is a mechanism in conflict resolution to craft negotiation settlements in which renewed violence can be averted. This rule follows the sensitivity training theory which enhances sympathy and increases chances at understanding and positive change.In Sigmund Freuds group processes theory, he posits that the groups way of thinking is spawned directly from the individuals. In Freuds hydraulic model, the principle is that just as it is dangerous to suppress feelings for fear of compounding them for a more violent eruption, so at the social level, it is risky to continually inhibit ill-feeling by conflict resolution (Strachey 1966) instead, venting would help diffuse tensions and instead of internalizing the resentment, the someone finds relief in expression. In his work Give War a Chance (Luttwak 1999) exa mines the effect of peacekeeping which only temporarily resolves the issue by solid parties. However, he advocates war as the means of reaching a more definitive and longer lasting conflict resolution.Complex MirroringComplex mirroring within the group setting is a way in which the individual change scalps up to the group level change. In remedying traumatized individuals, the victims join themselves to a group and begin to mirror one anothers feelings and experiences. A critic notices that by listening to one anothers individual presentation of personal experiences, participants gain a new perspectiveby listening to the series of such descriptions, they gained the experience of universality (Herman 1997). As a result, the individual-level change dynamic transmutes into the group-level change. As one hear the effect of trauma, the support group experiences secondary trauma as wounded members relate their experiences and seek emotional support. The incidence of secondary trauma giv es rise to mandate and awareness. Kathie Sarachild formulated the conscious-raising psychotherapy structures specifically for the individual but which could be used to effect social rather than individual change (Herman 1997). This method was implemented for rape-victims who were still by the violence and trauma inflicted by another. In the scope of social change, political violence is a grave injustice inflicted by one and visited upon the other. A remedial path is a sensitization rather than retaining the silence over the injury. As the publics consciousness heightens, a cure has to be suggested and taken. The adept result is that changes at the individual level were being linked with policy processes at the macro level (Fisher 1997).Conflict Resolution Strengths and WeaknessesIn conflict resolution, a strength of the individual to group model application is that groups comprise a conglomerate body in which individual mirroring gradually filters into the groups ethics. The arg ument is that a group is comprised of individuals and since a group is made up of individuals, then a method aimed at effecting change in an individual can also be applied to the group. However, this method does not factor in the wide diversity of the individuals belonging to a group. One rigid rule utilized for one individual cannot work for a group because this view only facilitates the one-size-fits-all theory which is not socially viable.ReferencesFisher, R.J. (1997). Interactive Conflict Resolution, Syracuse University Press, New York.Herman, J.L. (1997). Trauma and Recovery. prefatory Books Publishers, New York.Anonymous. (1996). Human Rights in Peace Negotiations, Human Rights Quarterly,18(2), 249-258.Luttwak, E. (1999). Give War a Chance, Journal of Foreign Affairs, 78 (4), 36-44http//www.jstor.org/stable/20049362. Accessed 14 December 2011.Strachey, J. (1966). The commonplace Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, The Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis, Vol. 22,Toft, M.D. (2010). Ending Civil Wars A Case for Rebel Victory, Journal of International Security, 34 (2), 7-36.Paris, R. (2004). At Wars End Building Peace after Civil Conflict. Cambridge University Press.