Handbook of Conflict Analysis and Resolution

Dennis J.D. Sandole, Sean Byrne, Ingrid Sandole-Staroste, Jessica Senehi

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2008
• Print ISBN: 9780415433952
• eBook ISBN: 9781134079629
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Military & Maritime History
• Index: History

This major Handbook comprises cutting-edge essays from leading scholars in the field of Conflict Analysis and Resolution (CAR). The volume provides a comprehensive overview of the core concepts, theories, approaches, processes, and intervention designs in the field. The central theme is the value of multidisciplinary approaches to the analysis and

Part I
Core concepts and theories

1 The role of identity in conflict

Celia Cook-Huffman

Introduction

Identity plays a vital role in social conflict, as it is fundamental to how individuals and collectivities see and understand themselves in conflict. Identities delineate who is “us” and who is “them,” mobilizing individuals and collectives, and providing legitimacy and justification for individual and group aspirations. Identities are themselves created and transformed in processes of social struggle. Understanding how identities impact conflict and conflict processes, and the ways they are constructed within conflicts, informs us about the emergence, escalation, and potential transformation of social conflicts.

For conflict theorists there are enduring questions about identity. Does it exist? If it does, what role does it play in conflicts? When and how is it a factor in the emergence, escalation, and de-escalation of conflicts? Is identity, alone, sufficient to cause conflict, or is it an exacerbating factor contributing to ingroup/outgroup bias? We can document ingroup/outgroup behaviors in conflict. Are they caused by identity or other factors? It is easy to name conflicts—Israel–Palestine, Rwanda, and Northern Ireland—where oppositional identities play a critical role in the intractability of the conflict. The challenge for conflict theorists is to theorize identity without assuming what it is.

It is essential, both for conflict analysis and for intervention and resolution efforts, that theorists adopt an analytical frame that separates the processes of identity making from identity itself. In adopting a focus on identity as process and project interactions, relationships, and patterns of meaning making are revealed, allowing for a more complex analysis of the roles identities play in conflict.

This chapter begins with a brief review of general approaches to the study of identity and then shifts to a review of the literature on identity and conflict. The final section extracts from this review several approaches that may guide future research.

Defining identity

Identities are complex, historically bound, socially constructed, and thus ever moving. They may be transitory in some cases, and rigid and inflexible in others as they are constituted in specific lived realities, bound and shared through story, myth, history, and legend (Black 2003; Wetherell 1996).

Theorists use identity to name a varied set of phenomena. It is used both to classify and to explain a wide range of social experiences and processes and thus functions as an analytical tool and a theoretical concept (Ashmore et al. 2001; Gecas 1982; Stryker and Burke 2000; Widdicombe 1998). In its most general usage, identity refers to a sense of a self, a way individuals know and understand themselves. Identities acquire significance, meaning, and value within specific contexts and cultures and help people understand who they are as individuals, as occupants of particular roles, and as members of specific groups (Brubaker and Cooper 2000; Deutsch 1973; Josselson 1987; Northrup 1988; Tajfel 1978; Turner and Oakes 1986; Turner et al. 1987; Weigert et al. 1986).

Theorists often make a distinction between personal identity, or self-identity, and collective or social identity. Personal identity focuses on an individual’s sense of him- or herself as an autonomous, unique person. Social identity refers to the facets of one’s self-image that derive from salient group memberships (Stets and Burke 2000).

As a theoretical concept, identity is used to understand various aspects of identification processes and to explain their impact on social relationships and social conflict (Goodwin and Goodwin 1990; Howard 2000; Widdicombe 1998). Within the literature on identity, three key perspectives shape theorizing about the relationship between self and society. The first argues that people use the raw materials of their lives to “make” themselves, thus social identities are projects whereby individuals come to a narrative sense of self by creating an integrated whole of their past, present, and future. Identities are symbols of meanings created from social interactions (Connell 1987).

The second perspective focuses on how identity is constructed within specific relationships and in a particular time and place, and the importance of social comparisons in this process. Researchers study how groups use differences and similarities among and between groups to manage the social implications and consequences of specific categories and how individuals negotiate, reconstitute, and represent identities through talk and interaction (Gecas 1982; Grimshaw 1990; Skevington and Baker 1989; Tajfel 1982; Tajfel and Turner 1979; Turner and Giles 1981; White 1984).

The third perspective focuses on issues of salience. If one assumes people can inhabit a number of identities, the concept of salience allows theorists to explore when and how particular identities become meaningful for individuals and collectives, how people manage the intersection of a number of potentially salient identities, and how individuals negotiate the borders and boundaries of identity categories (Oakes 2002; Reicher 2004; Tajfel 1978).

Theorizing identity and conflict

Identity has emerged as a dominant concept for understanding and analyzing social conflict. From the interpersonal to the international arena, and at various levels along the way, researchers use the concept of identity to understand conflict dynamics and explain behaviors (Rothman and Olson 2001).

The individual and identity

Much of the literature on conflict and identity focuses on social identities, understandings of the self based on group memberships. There is, however, a distinct literature focused on individual identity issues in conflict. Theorists explore the idea of self-identity and conflict using a variety of concepts including identity needs, face work, and saving face (Folger et al. 1993; Wilmot and Hocker 2007).

Individuals have a sense of self, an identity or public image they want others to see. It incorporates particular traits, attributes and skills along with self-descriptions and self-evaluations that together constitute a personal identity. People want to present themselves and be seen in ways that are congruent with their sense of self (Hogg and Abrams 1988). Typical identity work in conflict includes statements about the kinds of people the parties are and the kinds of relationships they should have (Grimshaw 1990).

When the emergent circumstances of a conflict call into question one’s sense of self, the conflict itself shifts. This shift may include changes in the parties’ conflict-waging strategies, the emotional response of the parties, parties’ perceptions of the issues at stake, and perceptions of self and other. Resolution of the conflict may now require the management and negotiation of identity needs.

Identity issues are at the root of conflict when there is a perception that an interaction challenges or threatens self-image or “face” (Vuchinich 1990). Beyond this, identity threats often lead to increased inflexibility, rigidity, and defensive responses, which in turn escalate or exacerbate conflict. When interactions do not address identity needs, or issues arise that violate, defy, diminish, or threaten them, a variety of responses may result (Goffman 1955). Denial is a typical response. Acknowledging or admitting a threat may feel as if one is conceding that the other’s opinion could be right (perhaps I am not as capable as I imagined). Denial of identity threats often results in a rigid focus on alternative issues as the “true” issue, or alternatively the denial that the conflict exists at all, not because issues are unimportant, but because a loss in the conflict would equal a loss of face (Folger et al. 1993).

Increases in inflexibility that contribute to stalemate in conflict result from the perception that identity needs and self-image are non-negotiables (ibid.). This perception may result when abandoning or conceding a position is perceived as a loss of face (one is weak or uncommitted). Identity may feel non-negotiable if the conflict threatens what Northrup (1988) calls “core constructs” (aspects of self-image that help to organize all other constructs). She argues that deep challenges to core constructs challenge the foundation of one’s being, and are thus not negotiable.

Defensive responses to identity challenges also result when conflict behaviors challenge one’s sense of autonomy. Brown and Levinson (1978) labeled the desire to resist the imposition of other’s will “negative face.” If one party perceives a request to be unfair or a challenge to autonomy, a defensive response often follows (“I don’t deserve to be treated this way,” or “you can’t make me”). Alternatively, identity threats may lead to an offensive strategy when individuals want retribution or restitution for a challenge to identity. In some cases, people will make great sacrifices on substantive issues in order to re-establish a positive sense of self, or save face. The desire for retribution may lead to a strategy of attacking the other party’s identity to win or re-establish one’s own face. An escalatory spiral can emerge quickly as the counterthreat leads to counterattack and identity issues move to the center of the conflict.

Ultimately, once issues of identity become a concern, there is increased likelihood that the resulting perceptions, assumptions, and communication dynamics will transform potentially negotiable issues into intractable conflicts centered on relationship issues and parties’ self-image (Northrup 1988).

Collective identities

As we move from the individual to the group the identity question shifts to social identities. There exists an immense body of work seeking to understand human behavior in collectives, both its positive potential for social change and its capacity for devastation (Coser 1956; LeVine and Campbell 1972; Sherif 1988; Simmel 1964; Sumner 1906). Topics at the core of this inquiry include ethnocentrism, selective perception, attribution error, the use of collective identities to justify discrimination and inequality, polarization, enemy imaging, and genocide. How can we understand the extermination of the Jews or the unwillingness of their fellow citizens to defend them? How do we explain genocide in Rwanda, the mass rape of women in war, trafficking of women and children, and violence against homosexuals? Conflict theorists want to enhance our understanding of intergroup conflict by understanding collective attempts to create, define, nurture, and protect key social identities and satisfy identity needs (Byrne 2001; Hewstone and Greenland 2000; Kriesberg 1998; Tajfel and Turner 1979). The following pages review four theoretical approaches to understanding the role of identities in conflict.

Basic human needs

In the late 1970s, John Burton articulated a theory of intractable conflict. He explained the complex, deep-rooted nature of protracted social conflict by linking individual and group needs to a systems approach to conflict (Burton 1985, 1986, 1987, 1997, 1998; Rubenstein 2001; Sandole 2001). His contention is that human needs fuel conflict when they are unfulfilled. People have essential needs that are universal and non-negotiable. Four of these needs—personal development, security, recognition, and identity—are key to understanding violent social conflict (Burton 1990; Sites 1990).

Rubenstein (2001) argues that over time identity needs became a central theorizing point: when the state system fails to meet identity needs, ethno-national struggles emerge. Because these basic needs are universal and immutable, people will go to great lengths to satisfy them (Burton 1990; Sandole 2001).

Basic human needs theory further argues that, when the denial of human needs is at the root of conflicts, traditional conflict settlement methods often fail. When fundamental needs are at stake, traditional interest-based negotiations focusing on the distribution of resources will be insufficient to resolve the conflict. Because identity needs are perceived to be non-negotiable, they cannot be put on the table to be divided, traded, and exchanged. They are further violated when left unaddressed because they are not acknowledged as issues. This can lead to increased polarization as identity needs become further entangled in the conflict process. Finally, because traditional methods often focus on symptoms rather than causes, they leave unexamined the relationship between structures and needs satisfaction. Because needs are perceived to be incontrovertible and non-negotiable, parties are willing to escalate the conflict, often using extreme measures to force the system to meet their needs (Burton 1990; Rothman and Olson 2001).

Protracted social conflict

Edward Azar (1986), collaborating with Burton and others, further developed a basic needs explanation of protracted social conflicts. Protracted social conflicts (PSC) result from the denial of basic needs that are fundamentally connected to issues of identity, including the ability to develop a collective identity, to have that identity recognized by others, and to have fair access to the systems and structures that support and define the conditions that allow for the achievement and building of identity (Azar 1986; Azar and Burton 1986; Miall et al. 1999; Northrup 1988).

In challenging traditional international relations theory Azar theorized four internal state variables that, when present, heighten the likelihood conflicts will become prolonged and violent (Azar 1990). First he argued that the focus for understanding conflict dynamics should be on the identity group as the unit of analysis (religious, ethnic, cultural), rather than the state. In many post-colonial societies the structures of the state are dominated by and benefit one communal group or a coalition of groups and are unresponsive to the needs of other groups. This inequality feeds frustration, fragmentation, a lack of system legitima...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Notes on contributors
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Conflict analysis and resolution as a multidiscipline: a work in progress
• PART I Core concepts and theories
• PART II Core approaches: conceptual and methodological
• PART III Core practices: processes
• PART IV Alternative voices and complex intervention designs
• Conclusions
• Epilogue: implications for theory, research, practice, and teaching
• Index