Conflict Transformation: Harnessing the Energy of Conflict to Work towards Justice
“Conflict resolution” is familiar language that is clearly understood. Conflict resolution tactics help people come to an agreement that resolves their conflict. That’s all rather obvious, although putting it into practice can be challenging. Outside of peacebuilding circles, “conflict transformation” is unfamiliar language, yet it is an approach to conflict that deserves to be better known. In this post, I’ll explore some of the differences between conflict resolution and conflict transformation and discuss how the latter is central to the work of Hartford International University.
History of Conflict Transformation
The term conflict transformation emerged in the 1990s. Communications specialist Melody Martin notes that it weaves together threads from much older ideas such as liberation theology, Gandhian nonviolence (Satyagraha), Kingian nonviolence, and peace church traditions. Bob and Alice Evans, former HIU instructors who were twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for their work in South Africa’s transition to democracy, summed up conflict transformation as “harnessing the energy of conflict to work towards justice.”
Conflict resolution practices imply that conflict is inherently bad and therefore must be solved through an agreement. Conflict transformation views conflict as a normal and necessary part of the human condition. It is normal because, as reconciliation expert Rev. Dr. David Anderson Hooker defines it, conflict is two or more ideas sharing space. In order for a range of human needs to be met, conflict is necessary because sometimes a new idea, or a challenging idea, needs to share space with an established idea. It is important to note that we are talking about conflict NOT violence. Violence is neither normal nor necessary. It is often the result of a failure to manage conflict effectively.
While conflict is normal, it is often uncomfortable. Conflict transformation focuses on process and relationships more than agreement. How can we let the discomfort of conflict motivate us to understand each other better? How can our different ideas about justice share the space so that multiple human needs can be met? As peacebuilder and professor John Paul Lederach notes, “the key to transformation is a proactive bias toward seeing conflict as a potential catalyst for growth.”
Conflict Transformation in Peacebuilding Practice
Conflict transformation’s emphasis on relationships and justice informs peacebuilding work at all levels. In a session of my Constructive Conflict Intervention course, a student posed a problem. He described a situation in which two friends, we’ll call them Ed and Leo, were arguing over who was responsible for paying for the repairs to Ed’s laptop. Ed said Leo’s young son had broken the laptop and repairing it would cost $100. Ed wanted Leo to pay. Leo saw things differently, but ultimately exclaimed, “Fine. I’ll give you $100, and I’m certainly not bringing my son around again.” My student asked. “If I were mediating, what should I do? They have solved the presenting problem but broken their friendship.”
That important observation captures an essential difference between a conflict resolution approach and a conflict transformation approach. If resolving the conflict with an agreement is the goal, then the mediator’s work is done. Ed wants $100, and Leo has agreed to pay. However, if the mediator wants to transform the conflict, they might say, “It looks as if we have one possible path forward. Let’s explore it a little further before we finalize anything. Ed, you and Leo have known each other for quite a long time, right? Tell me about your friendship.” Perhaps with some more open-ended questions, Ed and Leo will acknowledge that their friendship is meaningful to them, that they don’t want resentment about the laptop to ruin it. They might or might not reach an agreement about the repairs. Even if they don’t, they might no longer see that as important in the context of their whole friendship. They might have a good conversation about safeguarding Ed’s breakables from Leo’s energetic child.
Now, don’t get me wrong, reaching an agreement can be both important and satisfying. But in conflict transformation processes, it is not as important as a relational approach to a just outcome.
Conflict Transformation at HIU
At HIU, we take a conflict transformation approach to religion, to peace, to education. You can hear it in our tagline, “Exploring Differences, Deepening Faith.” In a multi-religious institution, there are frequently two or more ideas sharing space. Those differences, that sharing, and all the conflicts they imply, are absolutely a catalyst for growth. We’re not trying to solve the problems of interreligious differences; we’re looking to learn from them. In our peacebuilding program, we emphasize the mindset shift from conflict resolution to conflict transformation and related shifts, such as offering understanding rather than advice, and developing a capacity to be multipartial rather than striving for neutrality. Our goal to build and sustain relationships across lines of difference, even when those relationships are difficult, even when we can’t agree, is the defining feature of HIU. This sort of relational work, here and elsewhere, isn’t trying to resolve our way out of conflict; it is allowing us to accept conflict as a way of preventing violence. This is harnessing the energy of conflict to work towards justice.
Phoebe Milliken is the Director of HIU’s MA in International Peacebuilding program. This is Part 1 of an occasional series on peacebuilding mindsets.