26-08-2016, 09:41 AM
crc_approach.htm (Size: 19.2 KB / Downloads: 4)
Destructive Confrontation
Abortion, race, sexual orientation, endangered species, gender, welfare, school reform, land use--in socially, religiously, and politically diverse societies, continuing conflicts over such complex and deep-rooted issues are inevitable. Such "intractable" conflicts tend to arise from four overlapping sources: 1) fundamental moral conflicts in which one group views the actions of another as intolerably evil, 2) high-stakes distributional questions over "who gets what," 3) social status conflicts which arise as people compete for preferred positions in the social hierarchy, and 4) identity conflicts in which individuals or a group of people are denied respect and recognition on the basis of their individual and/or group identity.
While these conflicts play a crucial role in determining the course of social progress, they can also be extremely destructive. They breed distrust, hostility, and too often, violence. Even at lower levels of intensity, such intractable conflicts are time consuming and expensive. They can quickly escalate to the point where thoughtful debate is lost amid rampant misunderstanding, fear, and threat. These dynamics not only undermine advocates' pursuit of justice and wise decisions, they also prevent the parties from taking advantage of the many collaborative, "win-win" opportunities that do exist.
Often people involved in these conflicts recognize their destructiveness, yet they view their cause as so important, or compromise as so unconscionable, that they continue to pursue destructive strategies in the face of enormous costs and limited prospects for success. Stalemates, in which critical issues remain unresolved for protracted periods, are common. Often the result is continuation of status quo policies which nobody supports.
Even when decisions are made, destructive conflict dynamics can cause them to be poorly conceived and ineffective. Decisions may fail to balance competing interests fairly, or they may be so technically, economically, socially, or politically flawed that they cannot achieve desired results or even be implemented as intended. The hostility generated by these conflicts frequently spawns a continuing series of a destructive confrontations in which the core issues are never really resolved. In order to better deal with these important issues we, as individuals, as communities, and as societies, must learn how to handle our conflicts in more constructive ways.
Limits of Current Agreement-Based Approaches
Given the destructiveness of these confrontations, it is easy to conclude that conflict itself is the problem. Many think that, if the parties could simply be shown win-win solutions, then the conflicts could be permanently resolved and the heavy costs of confrontation could be avoided. This belief that win-win solutions can be found to almost any conflict has helped spur the enormous growth and institutionalization of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes. While ADR has proven remarkably successful in dealing with tractable conflicts--those in which "win-win" opportunities really do exist--it has not been nearly as effective in handling conflicts, such as those described above, that have significant and irreducible "win-lose" components.
Parties to intractable conflict often view efforts to negotiate a compromise "resolution" with considerable skepticism or even outright hostility. Given the importance that the parties attach to these high-stakes conflicts, it is unrealistic to expect them to voluntarily accept an agreement if they believe that their interests can be better advanced through some force-based strategy (e.g. litigation, lobbying, elections, strikes, boycotts, non-violent protests, or military campaigns). In these situations, even the best conflict resolution strategies are usually unsuccessful. Given these failures and the apparent lack of an alternative approach, many people conclude that there are no viable alternatives to destructive, all-out confrontation. The result is that the field seems to have reached a plateau in which there is considerable opposition to the expanded use of alternative approaches.
Moving Beyond the Limits
The limitations of resolution-based approaches have led the Consortium to pursue an alternative strategy. We begin with the assumption that intense, long-term conflicts over difficult moral and distributional issues are inevitable and appropriate. After all, these conflicts play a crucial role in determining how society addresses fundamental issues of morality, justice, and progress. What is not inevitable, we believe, is the destructiveness commonly associated with these confrontations. Thus, the primary goal of our work is the identification and dissemination of information about realistic measures that disputants and intermediaries can take to increase the constructiveness of intractable conflicts.
We believe that this reframing of the basic conflict problem can substantially increase the ability of the field to limit the destructive aspects of intractable conflicts, while supporting the positive functions of conflict for the parties and for society as a whole. Our ultimate goal is to help disputing parties improve decisions, while reducing transactions costs (as measured in terms of time, money, and, all too often, blood).
The Incremental Approach
We believe that an incremental approach offers the best way to reduce the destructiveness of confrontations over intractable issues. This approach begins by helping parties (both adversaries and intermediaries) identify conflict problems which increase the conflict's overall destructiveness or threaten the parties' ability to make wise decisions or advance their interests. We then provide parties with information about options for dealing with each problem and their advantages and disadvantages. While it is usually impossible to correct all such problems, our goal is to help people fix as many of the problems as possible, and reduce the magnitude of problems that cannot be eliminated .
Although many of our "treatments" require the cooperative efforts of contending parties (often with the assistance of intermediaries), others can be implemented unilaterally. Similarly, some treatments are relatively easy to implement, while others require that the parties develop new dispute-handling skills or secure the assistance of outside professionals. Unlike other forms of dispute resolution, this incremental approach can work in situations where resolution-based approaches are unworkable. It also makes sense in cases where it is unrealistic to expect major changes in dispute-handling process or decision-making institutions.