Conflict Psychology: The Theories That Explain Wars And Violence
After the last few days, we feel devastated. The attacks in Paris have been of such brutality that we are all in shock and injured. Feeling the dozens of deaths, today there are millions of us victims of the pain that the events have caused us. Our greatest solidarity to France, Paris, victims, families and all those wounded in their souls.
Right now, we surf channel after channel for someone to explain to us why do these things happen As a tribute to all of us who are victims, we will try to present some theories that from psychology explain the nature of conflicts; trying to put aside prejudices to offer the most objective information.
Muzafer Sheriff (1967, 1967) analyzes conflict from social psychology with an intergroup relations perspective. He states that The conflict arises from the relationship established by two groups to obtain resources Depending on the type of resources, they develop different strategies.
Likewise, depending on the type of resources that the groups want to access, different relationship strategies are developed between the two to obtain them:
From this perspective, the conflict translates into “how to get the resources I need.” Therefore, the strategy to follow depends on what the resources are like. If they are unlimited, there is no relationship between the groups, since they can get them regardless of what the other does without having to contact each other. Now, if resources are scarce, groups enter into competition. The fact that one of them reaches their objectives means that the others cannot, so out of inertia they try to be the only ones who access it.
A theory that takes into account the concept of competition
We could understand it as two people facing a job interview. If there are several places on offer, the suitors do not have to interact with each other: they focus on their individual development. However, if only one place is offered, both people tend to take each other into account They have become competitors and it is important to know the rival to develop the appropriate strategy and be selected
Now, there is also a third option: cooperation. In this case, the type of resources is not specified, because their quantity is indifferent. The importance lies in the nature of the resource, if the joint participation of both groups is necessary to obtain it. This is how the superordinate goal is defined, a final objective that is subject to the individual interests of each person and that requires the contribution of both to achieve it.
The Galtung Peace Conflict
A complementary perspective to Sherif is that of Johan Galtung from the social evolutionism. In this case, to understand the conflict it is necessary to understand its existence since the beginning of humanity. With this sense, Conflict is inherent to society, there will always be conflicts, so the focus falls on their resolution and how they will bring about changes in society. This is how conflict is not an end, but a necessary means for peace.
Following the direction set by Galtung (cited in Calderón, 2009), in every conflict there are several participants. Each of them has their own thoughts and emotions, behaves in a specific way and has their own interpretation of the nature of the conflict. The logic of the conflict for the author is structured around these three vertices.
These points allow us to explain the conflict as something normal. It is normal that, as we are different people, we develop different emotions and thoughts – attitudes -, different interpretations of events – contradiction – and different actions – behavior -.
Now, if everything is so natural, why do conflicts occur? It seems that understanding that we are all different is simple, but the problem arises when we do not let it be seen that we are different. For Galtung, the above factors can exist in two different plans: they can be manifest, expressing themselves to the other; or latent, remaining hidden in each person involved.
The key is in the interpretation of the other’s actions.
Therefore, when we keep quiet about what we think, feel and interpret about reality and begin to relate to others without letting them know our position, we will most likely enter into conflict. A simple event like canceling an appointment can awaken different ways of understanding it; And if we do not allow ourselves to be understood, that is when misunderstanding can appear.
It is at this point where the processes for its resolution come into play: the transcendence and the transformation. Transcendence refers to a change in the perception of conflict as an individual event, to seeing it as a process that encompasses different participants; The conflict does not only affect us. Once with this perspective, transformation develops, a change in the resolution strategy, including other people’s perspectives. That is to say, understand that the conflict is everyone’s business and integrate them into its resolution
Conflict resolution processes according to Galtung
Galtung proposes these processes that lead to conflict resolution:
Once we see that the conflict does not only affect us and we act taking others into account, we can develop strategies towards peace. After the processes of transcendence and transformation, the path to peace passes through three characteristics that overcome the barriers of the previous factors:
Empathy to understand the attitudes of others.
Non-violence to manage behaviors.
Creativity to resolve contradictions.
The Selman Negotiations
The third approach we present focuses directly on conflict resolution strategies. Roger Selman (1988) proposes that the parties involved show their resolution strategy with every action they develop. That is to say, The exchange of actions taken by those involved becomes a conflict negotiation process In this sense, not only does it lead to peace, but negotiation can also be the cause or aggravation of the conflict.
These actions that those involved develop are based on three components very similar to those proposed by Galtung: own perspective, objectives and conflict control. Based on these three components, two positions can be given when resolving a conflict.
Negotiation strategies, according to Selman
Roger Selman proposes the different negotiation strategies:
Self-transforming: try to change your own attitudes.
heterotransformant: try to change the attitudes of others.
That is, we can be self-transforming, deciding change our way of thinking or acting to resolve the conflict On the other hand, with heterotransforming we focus on making the other change and imposing our perspective on them. Now, the conflict will remain latent if neither of the two strategies takes the other into account; Obeying without question or imposing yourself authoritatively does not address the problem and sooner or later it will resurface in some other form.
Therefore, to reach a satisfactory solution it is necessary to take both participants into account. Precisely this is the factor that mediates the degree of its effectiveness; the ability to empathize and take the other’s perspective to jointly find the solution. Based on this, Selman establishes four levels of coordination of the points of view of those involved.
Level 0 – Egocentric Indifference: each member has impulsive and thoughtless reactions foreign to the other. While the heterotransformer uses force to impose himself, the autotransformer submits impulsively out of fear or protection.
Level 1 – Subjective Difference: the actions are not impulsive, but they still do not involve the other. Both continue with the strategies of imposition/submission, but without being actions of force and reactions of fear.
Level 2 – Self-critical Reflection: there is a tendency to the nature of each party’s strategy, but there is awareness of its use. In this case, the heterotransformant consciously tries to influence and persuade the other. In turn, the self-transformer is aware of his own submission and of letting other people’s desires pass first.
Level 3 – Mutual Decentration: it is a shared reflection of oneself, the other and the conflict, which extinguishes the different positions. There is no longer an attempt to change oneself, nor to influence, but rather to jointly obtain a solution for shared objectives.
Therefore, the heterotransforming nature leads to imposing and the autotransforming one to submit. At lower levels, these behaviors are impulsive and at higher levels they become increasingly reflected upon. Finally, the solution ends up being sharing and coordinating; for putting aside the self-hetero tendency to include the other and jointly develop the appropriate strategy to resolve the conflict.
The above theories are only a few of the many that explain conflict processes. But in the same way that they explain the problems, they also do so with their solutions. Furthermore, the study of conflict does not arise from the question “How is conflict generated?” but rather “How do you resolve a conflict?”
To do this, Sherif proposes shared objectives between the parties, Galtung a process of empathy to see that the conflict is not only ours, and Selman dialogue to develop a joint negotiation. In all cases, a key issue is that of “sharing”, co-creating the solution since, if the conflict does not arise from only one of the parties, its solution will not come from only one.
For that same reason It is important what to do when conflict occurs; its management From this perspective and because of the events in Paris, we do not want to urge dialogue with terrorists. But it is important to take into account the actions that are carried out and the prejudices that may arise. Because the existence of a conflict with a terrorist section may be true, but it does not exist with a religion or a people. Although some people have taken out weapons in the name of a god, the conflict is not against that god, because no god gives weapons to those who believe in him.
Conflict is natural to humanity, it has always existed and always will exist. With this we do not intend to trivialize the events, at all. But emphasize the importance of consequences, that every conflict changes the course of humanity and that the current one does not lead us towards inhumanity. As a great professional and friend says, “There is no change without conflict.”1”. Today it’s time to think about what change we want.
1María Palacín Lois, Group Area Professor of the Social Psychology Department (UB) Dr. Master Group Conducting. President of the SEPTG.
Calderón, P. (2009). Johan Galtung’s conflict theory. Peace and conflict magazine2, 60-81.
Selman, R. (1988). Use of interpersonal negotiation strategies and communication skills: A longitudinal clinical examination of two disturbed adolescents. In R. Hinde, Relations interpersonnelles et developmentpment desauciva.
Sherif, M. (1966). Group Conflict and Co-operation. Their Social PsychologyLondon: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Sherif, M. (1967). Conflict and cooperation, in JR Torregrosa and E. Crespo (comps.): Basic studies of Social Psychology, Barcelona: Time, 1984.
