05-01-2016, 03:00 PM
TYPES OF CORE ISSUES
Although intractable conflicts can involve almost any issue, some kinds of issues are particularly likely to cause conflicts to become intractable. Among these are the following:
The Denial of Identity
The denial of a person's sense of self or the legitimacy of his or her group identity.
The Denial of Other Human Needs
In addition to identity (which is a fundamental need), the denial of other fundamental needs such as security, or the ability to pursue one's own goals often leads to intractable conflicts.
Domination Conflicts
Conflicts about who is on top of whom in the social, political, and economic structure tend to be intractable.
High Stakes Distributional Conflicts
High stakes win-lose conflicts over who gets what and how much can often become intractable.
FORCE PROBLEMS
Failure to Recognize Available Force-Based Options
Disputants often fail to recognize that they usually have a large number of force-based options, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. This lack of awareness of available options can cause people to pursue ineffective confrontation strategies. For example, people may pursue violent resistance strategies, when non-violent action might be more effective. Or, people might pursue hopeless election campaigns when legal action would be more likely to protect their rights.
Assuming Force is the Only Source of Power
Faced with a difficult conflict, disputants sometimes overlook the possibility of using negotiation or persuasion to improve the situation, relying instead on force. This is especially likely to occur when force has already been used by the other side. In this case, the most common reaction is to respond with equal or even greater force. However, this type of response is likely to escalate the conflict, while other options might protect one's interests just as well or better, without making matters worse.
Absence of Violence Limiting Mechanisms
Force based options differ dramatically depending upon whether or not force is being used in a situation where effective violence limiting mechanisms are in place. Failure to understand these differences can lead to the selection of inappropriate and ineffective strategies.
Failure to Anticipate Opponent Reactions and the Backlash Effect
People or groups who use forced-based strategies often assume that their opponents will quickly submit to their demands, thereby providing a quick route to victory. However, most people hate to be forced to do things against their will, so they can be expected to use any means available to resist the use of force. This can make it difficult to predict how opponents will respond to one's force-based initiatives. Even if they appear to submit, they often will try to build up their power so that they can retaliate or reverse the decision at a later time. (This is what we call the "backlash effect.")
Misunderstanding the Relationship Between Threat and Force While threatening to use force is quite inexpensive, carrying out the threats and actually using force can be costly and dangerous. Often, parties who fail to understand this use threat-based strategies too frequently and in ways which limit their ability to advance their interests.
Illegitimate or Excessive Use of Force
Resentment and retaliation is especially likely when victims of force believe that the use of force was illegitimate. In this situation, the losing party is likely to try to build up their own forcing power in hopes of challenging the victor at the earliest possible opportunity. The result is likely to be a long-term intensification of the conflict, rather than resolution.
Pursuing Force to the Bitter End.
Disputants often incorrectly assume that there is no alternative to pursuing force-based strategies to the point of ultimate victory or defeat--in spite of the enormous costs involved.