Written by Rebecca Cataldi, Conflict Resolution Specialist
 |
| Rebecca Cataldi leading the first I Want to be an Ambassador! camp conflict resolution session (summer 2010). |
In the past few decades, graduate, undergraduate, and Ph.D.
programs in the relatively new field of conflict resolution have begun to
proliferate in the United States and around the world. Such programs often
focus on teaching students to analyze theories and causes of conflict and to
design strategies to constructively address conflicts at the individual, group,
communal, national, and international levels.
Yet what role, if any, does the study of conflict resolution
play in a student’s primary and secondary education? Some schools have
Citizenship or Ethics classes which aim to prepare students to interact
positively with others in their community and society, and religious schools
teach moral values with regard to peace and conflict from a religious perspective.
Some schools have even begun to implement peer mediation programs which train
students to mediate conflicts among their fellow students, usually as part of a
specialized or extracurricular program. However, in my experience, study of the
science and basic principles of conflict resolution as a regular part of a
student’s primary school or secondary school curriculum is rare in most
schools.
Yet a child’s early formative and teenage years, when he or
she begins to learn to interact with a larger and more diverse group of
people—for the first time as a young child in a classroom and later at the
beginning of his or her transition to adulthood—may be when development of
awareness and skills in conflict resolution is most critical. If children learn
such skills early on, they will be more likely to put them into practice
throughout their lives, benefitting not only themselves and their peers, but
society as a whole.
Recently I attended a conflict resolution conference in
Jordan. Although it was designed to teach various conflict resolution skills
from a theoretical perspective, participants ended up experiencing conflict in
a much more hands-on way than originally anticipated. At times there was great
tension between participants from Israel and participants from Palestine and
Jordan because of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some people made
accusations against others without listening to the other points of view. With
emotions very tense, some people shouted at others, and accused those who
wanted to reach out in peace to the “other side” of being traitors. Some
Palestinians walked out of the conference completely when they realized that
Israelis were present. Many of them later returned, and many good discussions
ended up taking place during the course of the conference. But I wondered what
the impact might have been if all of the participants had received more
training in basic conflict resolution principles before entering into
interactions with each other?
All of us can benefit from studying conflict and developing
skills to constructively address conflict, whether within our own lives or in
the lives of those around us. While there are many important elements of
conflict resolution, there are several in particular that I have learned both
through various conflict resolution training and education programs and through
life experiences which I focus on when conducting conflict resolution
trainings. The following are some basic conflict resolution principles that can
be useful for both children and adults, and could perhaps form a starting point
for developing conflict resolution education programs for children at an
earlier age.
Principle 1: Reframe the Conflict
To reframe the conflict means to change the way we view it. Often we view a
conflict as a competition with someone who opposes us, where we must “win” in
order to defend or protect ourselves or fulfill our goals. The other person is
seen as an obstacle to fulfilling our own needs; he or she must “lose” in order
for us to be able to win. However, if we can shift our thinking to begin to
view the conflict not as a competition where we want to defeat the other side,
but as a problem to be solved together for the benefit of both—an opportunity
to improve the situation and create a better future—we will be much more likely
to find a solution that everyone can be happy with and is willing to sustain.
It’s easy, especially in a tense conflict situation, to
focus only on our own needs or the needs of the group with which we identify.
We may see our nation, ethnic group, or religious group as separate from the
“foreign” group, and pursue the needs of our group at the expense or disregard
of the needs of the “other.” But when we reframe the conflict as a problem to
be solved together, the other becomes our “partner” rather than our “opponent”
or our “enemy”. The goal in dealing with the conflict thus becomes
broader—instead of simply asking, “How can I achieve my goal?”, we ask, “How
can my needs be fulfilled so that the other side’s needs are also fulfilled, in
a solution that both of us can be happy with and sustain?” This is called a
“win-win” solution, where both sides win, rather than a “win-lose” solution
where one side wins and the other loses, or a “lose-lose” situation where
everyone is worse off. Win-win solutions are more sustainable, reducing the likelihood
that conflict will break out again in the future. Win-win solutions can also
help each side gain more than they could have if only one side had won.
In any conflict situation, we can make a conscious effort to
reframe how we think about the conflict and to encourage the other to reframe
his or her view of the conflict as well. To do this, we may make efforts to
build greater trust and to demonstrate our sincerity in wanting to work
together to find a solution that is mutually acceptable.
Principle 2: Move Beyond Positions to Understanding
Interests
In order to find a mutually-acceptable “win-win” solution, it is necessary to
understand what each side really needs and wants. This involves going beyond
the positions of the parties to a conflict—i.e. the parties’ stated
demands—to understand the interests that are the underlying reasons for
these positions—i.e. the root causes or concerns. In other words, positions are
what we say we want. Interests are why we want what we say we
want.
If I’m arguing with my husband, for example, about where to
go on vacation, and my position is that I want to go to Florida and his is that
he wants to go to Colorado, we are likely to remain in an argument without
reaching a mutually agreeable solution. Since it’s not possible to be in two
places at once, one of us will have to lose for the other to win. But if we
begin to discuss why we have taken these positions—i.e. our interests in
picking these locations—we may begin to see options that would fulfill both our
needs. If my underlying interest, for example, is that I want to swim at the
beach and his is that he wants to hike in the mountains, we may decide after
discussing this to go somewhere like Hawaii that has both beautiful beaches and
mountains.
Another example is that of two shoppers arguing over who
will get to buy the last pair of designer pants (trousers) at a store. The
position of each is that she wants to buy the same pair of pants—mutually
conflicting positions. However, upon talking about why each wants to buy the
pants, it becomes apparent that one shopper wants to wear the pants themselves
while the other wants the belt attached to the pants. They end up agreeing to
split the cost of the purchase while one takes home the pants and the other the
belt—a win-win solution in which both get what they want and even end up
spending less money than they would have if they had won their initial
position.
While these are personal examples, the same principles apply
to larger, even international conflicts. Often interests are based on
underlying human needs such as security, health, self-esteem, belonging, or
identity. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often characterized as simply a
conflict over the same piece of land which both groups claim as their own. However,
there are much deeper interests at stake beyond positions of land ownership.
Human rights and dignity; economic, political, and religious freedom; security;
and psychological and spiritual ties to history are all critical reasons why
parties may claim a particular piece of land. If parties to a conflict can
understand each other’s interests and needs, there is a much better chance of
addressing the root causes of the conflict and finding a win-win solution. To
do this, we need to communicate honestly with each other about our needs and to
commit to trying to understand and respect the needs of the other.
Principle 3: Question our Assumptions
We often make assumptions about others' interests and intentions. When someone
says/does something, we tend to assume he/she meant what we would have meant if
we had said or done that, but that’s not always true, especially in cases where
we are from different cultures or backgrounds. When we assume others view a
situation the same way we view it, or when we make mistaken assumptions about
another’s interests, motivations, and intentions, it can create mutual
misunderstandings, exacerbate conflict, and prevent us from addressing the real
interests of each of us in a mutually-acceptable way.
We all make assumptions, and often need to rely on our
assumptions to get through life when perfect information is not available.
What’s important is to distinguish our assumptions from fact, to recognize when
we’re making an assumption that may or may not be correct, and to question our
assumptions. To question our assumptions means to ask the other how he/she
feels or what he/she thinks or wants instead of assuming his/her feelings/views
or attributing motivations or intentions to him/her based on our own
assumptions.
Sometimes false assumptions can arise from differences in
how individuals or groups manifest their values. For example, traditionally in
the West, allowing a woman to walk first before a man is a sign of respect. An
Egyptian friend told me that traditionally in his culture, to show respect a
man walks in front of a woman in order to be able to protect her if any trouble
should occur. While nowadays many women simply want to be treated no
differently from men, if I were to apply my own Western assumptions if an
Egyptian man asked me to walk behind him, I might mistakenly conclude that he
intended to disrespect me when in fact he intended exactly the opposite.
Conflict can happen when we assume bad intentions of the
other (without checking to understand what their intentions actually were), and
when we assume our point of view is the only valid one. The story is told of
three blind men who were trying to understand what an elephant was. The first
man walked up and touched only the elephant’s trunk, and said, “An elephant is
long and thin.” The second man walked up and touched only the elephant’s side
and concluded, “An elephant is flat and wide.” The third man touched only the
tip of the elephant’s tusk and said, “An elephant is hard and pointy.” The
three then got into an argument about who was right. Each had a valid point of
view, but was only able to see a part of the larger truth. We don’t have to
always agree with others’ points of view, but we do need to understand them in
order to understand their interests and to begin to see the full range of
possibilities for a resolution to a conflict.
Principle 4: Listen Actively and Communicate Respectfully
When someone feels truly listened to and heard, he/she is much more likely to
be open to listening to and hearing us. Thus, it is said that if you want
someone to listen to you, listen to them first. Listening carefully also helps
us to understand the other’s real interests and not to be misled by our
assumptions. To listen actively means, first, to give the speaker your
full attention/presence, without interrupting, without thinking about what
you’re going to say next, without making mental judgments about the speaker or
what he/she is saying, and without criticizing. It means listening to
understand—whether or not you agree—the facts (what happened), the feelings
(how the speaker felt about what happened), and the values (what is important
to the speaker) of the situation.
Secondly, active listening involves showing the person
you’ve heard them by: reflecting back to him/her what you’ve heard (e.g. “It
sounds like you’re feeling very underappreciated”; “It sounds like honesty is
really important to you”); asking him/her whether your understanding is
correct; asking questions not to challenge the person or insert your own view,
but to better understand and help the person tell his/her story and explore all
sides of the problem; and acknowledging the person’s feelings, fears, and
wounds.
The experience of being truly listened to and having one’s
feelings understood and validated can be extremely powerful. I visited Israel
and Palestine with a group which practiced active listening in hearing the
stories of Israelis and Palestinians who had been deeply wounded by the
conflict. The impact of this seemingly simple effort was remarkable. People who
began by speaking tensely, defensively, expecting to be criticized and
challenged, changed when they realized we were only there to listen to them
without judging or criticizing. Their posture became more relaxed, their voices
became calmer, and they began for the first time to smile. And once we had
listened to them respectfully and had built up trust, they became more open to
listening to others, and we were able to discuss more difficult issues together
that would have been impossible at the beginning. Active listening can
contribute to healing as well as problem-solving. How might the tensions at the
Jordan conference have decreased if we had all tried from the beginning to
learn and practice active listening?
Principles like these, adapted to each specific cultural or
other context as appropriate, can form a basis for beginning to educate our
students in conflict resolution from an early age. How might our societies and
our world be different if we did?
* Rebecca Cataldi is a conflict resolution
specialist and works for a conflict resolution NGO in Washington, D.C.
(Originally published http://www.childresearch.net/RESOURCE/ESSAY/2011/CATALDI.html)
