Revised: 01:12 PM 03/30/2023:

Alternate title for this book:

Conflicted: Navigating Global Identity, when Peer Conformity Clashes with Respect for Diversity

What this book is about:

These days, as I walk down a busy street outside of my university (or quickly scan my computer inbox) I encounter a wide variety of people. Aside from a few familiar students and coworkers, I must make quick decisions about strangers: Do they seem friendly, irrelevant, or threatening? Women and people with disabilities, as well as those who do not present as straight Caucasians, generally face more security threats than I, a white, straight, generally-able-bodied elderly man. 

As the world has become increasingly populated, and technologically interconnected, apathy, and conflict appear to have dramatically escalated and generated deeper polarizations. This is the divided world that we now inhabit. And it worries me because it can so easily lead to further alienation and harm.

Our differences of identity and culture have become more obvious, and these differences often split us apart from each other. People can easily be divided by constructed categories, such as: interesting or boring, good or bad, smart or dumb, cooperative or rebellious, friendly or hostile, safe or threatening. Every day, as we interact with strangers, we must quickly determine who is safe and who is unsafe–by mere appearances. There is no time to know their identities, backgrounds, their privileges, their challenges, and their traumas.

In a Conflict Resolution graduate seminar, several years ago, I asked each of a dozen students if they felt safe growing up. Only two said that they felt safe; those two were the only Black students in the class; one grew up in a village in Africa, and the other grew up in the Black community of Portland, Oregon. Both students felt safe because they knew everyone in their stable neighborhoods.

Every other student was white, and they all felt unsafe because their frequent demographic shifts (moves in and out) meant that neighbors were generally unfamiliar with each other.

This tiny, unscientific poll does not reflect the fact that people-other-than-white are generally more vulnerable to crime and poverty–as there is able evidence to support the overwhelming instances where people-other-than-white continue to suffer in America. However, people-other-than-white have often been committed to preserving their communities against the hostilities and exploitation of white businesses and institutions.

This book confronts the challenge of living in a greater culture, where we are generally unaware of the dramatic differences between people, nor are we aware of the full context of their lives.

Most people insulate themselves from people with different identities by doing their best to surround themselves with people of similar identities.

Peer pressure, and social conformity, also enforce the insulation of groups from each other. However, throughout history, some individuals have chosen a different path by committing themselves to befriend diverse others. These people form the base for intercultural awareness, and form the basis for effective conflict resolution.

This book is dedicated to the following project: If we were fully aware of the differences between people and their radically divergent contexts, we would probably be more compassionate and less judgmental towards them. Furthermore, we need to ask ourselves how we can become more caring, while maintaining safe boundaries for ourselves and others.

We need to constantly question ourselves about how we manage conflicts, as every conflict is unique and uniquely challenging. We need to avoid the cultural tendency to polarize the differences between people, as we navigate the varying contexts of our world. And, of course, we need to do this when we are a disputant or are facilitating a conflict resolution process.

Who am I:

I am Robert Gould PhD, founding director of Conflict Resolution at Portland State University. I am a white male of Northern European ancestry. My socialization has been diversified by my friendships with a reasonably wide group of individuals of different races, orientations, cultures, income, abilities, and interests. Conflict Resolution is a new field of inquiry and practice, so what we know must be challenged and expanded. It must be challenged and expanded by diverse voices–not by the usual academic echo chamber. I’m excited to continue to learn, research, and teach in this field.

Over the last fifty-three years, I have had three careers (all dedicated to peace and justice), and am working on developing a fourth. I am semi-retired from PSU, and continue to teach courses there, as an adjunct emeritus professor. During, and since the Vietnam War, I have been (and continue to be) a member of several peace and justice organizations.

My professional practice and activism are fueled by the usefulness of collaborative dispute-solving for community-building, and by how it helps create unity within justice-advocacy organizations, as well as giving those organizations the ability to negotiate the best settlements within adversarial and non-adversarial processes.

My inspiration for my work, in both conflict resolution and community justice, comes from a wide array of activists. One prominent example is Ron Herndon (see his Wikipedia site) At a public rally and protest march, he had the ability to (bullhorn in hand) fire up a crowd in loud chants. However, in negotiations, he was soft-spoken, polite, and compassionate to friends and adversaries alike.

As you read this book, please keep in mind the following six aspects of becoming better conflict resolvers: And remember that–because each conflict has different dynamics–no one is a perfect conflict resolver; we are all just trying to improve our skills.

• First, everyone on this planet has a different identity, a different set of experiences, a different enculturation, and these differences of context are often in the process of changing and evolving. We are all a collection of many moving parts.
• Second, strategies to manage change and evolve because each conflict is often filled with emotions and differences of values and ethics. These conflicts have both external and internal dimensions, making even simple conflicts more complex. To start this process, find a space and time, where disputants can calmly discuss differences and dilemmas.
• Third, navigating seemingly intractable conflicts, differences, and dilemmas in the most productive way possible. Progress on the intractable side of the difficulty continuum requires patience and acceptance that progress will be, at times, only incremental. Furthermore, working with heated conflicts, that involve us personally, and trying to help other people with their heated conflicts, is a messy and difficult task.
• Fourth, this book is dedicated to helping us navigate the messiness, and build on basic human decency to begin the resolution process, nurture its growth, and find satisfaction in building a stronger relationship between disputants, even though the conflict itself may remain unresolved for a long time.
• Fifth, there are limits to the practices of conflict resolution and nonviolent activism. As a last resort, physical threats must be defended in any way necessary to protect lives. Furthermore, dishonesty undermines any negotiation, and disinformation can create widespread public confusion about social and environmental justice campaigns
• Sixth, conflict resolution processes are neutral to the value and integrity of each disputant, and are designed to be a safe, and culturally warm, place to discuss their differences. On the other hand, conflict resolution processes are also an advocacy for peace and justice, which takes a variety of forms.

No one is so talented, or so smart, to easily calm the fires, avoid the uncertainties, ambiguities, and misinterpretations that emerge in difficult conflicts and disputes. Therefore, those of us who work with conflict must resist our own perfectionism. Rather, we need to be comfortable with our mistakes and disconnections, and confident that progress is occurring—even when it appears gloomy.

Furthermore, we need to be comfortable with the mistakes and disconnections of the disputants. Foremost, conflict facilitators need to manage their emotions, and not be triggered by the emotions of the disputants. Managing emotions means managing our stress level. Managing our stress level means having some kind of meditative, or prayerful, practice that keeps us calm.

That said, we can continually improve our ways of working with conflicts, differences, and dilemmas. This book is intended to help us get on-track to improve our conflict skills and strategies. This book is intended to help you, as well as remind me, about what we need to do in a world of conflict that needs our assistance.

In more specific terms, this book attempts to open up a space between the positions, interests, differences, and dilemmas that separate us from each other, or that split up our psyches. Within that negotiating space, I suggest fifteen strategies that will help us navigate it, with the goal of understanding, compassion, empathy, and, at least, incremental progress.

My belief, and the belief of others, who work with seemingly intractable conflicts, is that there are always reasons for optimism because of moving parts that show up. The strategies that I suggest, below, are aimed at finding those moving parts, and using their mobility to get back on-track toward understanding, connection, and perhaps, finding some degree of mutual progress and resolution. In this process, we will find a way to strengthen our wider human community, while strengthening our sense of integrated self.

What are seemingly intractable conflicts?

In the simplest terms, intractable conflict is a difference or dilemma that generates powerful emotions and seems impossible to resolve. These conflicts are intractable because they do not seem to have a track toward resolution. What makes a conflict intractable are the walls of emotion that separate individuals, identity groups, and competing geopolitical forces. Walls of emotion are driven by sociological identity, psychological patterns, individual and group values and ethics.

For example, the Israel/Palestine Conflict has been intractable for years and years because of the walls of emotion and traumatic experiences on both sides. On a smaller scale, family members can become estranged from each other, and in some cases, never communicate—even reaching the end of their lives without reconciliation.

Sometimes, individuals have inner conflicts that are intractable because inner conflicts can be difficult to identify, understand, and because individuals can be unwilling to get help from professionals. Childhood, family, gender, race, orientation, and cultural abuse and trauma can also create and maintain seemingly intractable conflicts.

If disputants find a way to calmly discuss how to productively address a conflict, then conflicts can begin to be transformed from a heated barrier into a somewhat more manageable and negotiable difference or dilemma. On the optimistic side, intractable conflicts have aspects that are constantly evolving—the challenge is to patiently discover their hidden places. Often, this requires help from others, especially when the conflict is within oneself. It is important to remember that external conflicts generate internal conflicts. Mental health professionals are often trained to work with the internal dimensions of conflicts.

Disputants usually have different emotional stories about the conflict at hand. In taking sides in a conflict, disputants build the best case for their side, and express the severity of the conflict through their emotions, like anger, grief, sorrow, disgust, revenge, outrage, hate, disbelief, etc. These different stories must be retold with some common theme, so that a larger narrative can emerge.

Successful mediations, between the Greeks and Turks on Cyprus, have occurred when the disputants have agreed that the civil war has visited tragedy on both sides—this becomes the common theme, where the different narratives transform into a common narrative of suffering on both sides. Peace processes have found solid roots in these common-narrative-discovery mediations.

The dilemma about the role of emotions in conflict is that it is so hard for disputants to release the grip of their emotions. Loosening this grip is necessary so that disputants can begin to calmly discuss the difference or dilemma at hand. Disputants often feel that their emotions are part of the problem, part of their principles, and part of their identity. From their perspective, releasing their emotions diminishes the problem, diminishes their principles, and weakens their group identification. Mediators need to emphasize that managing emotions does not undermine the strength of disputants’ sense of injustice. Rather, deescalated negotiations will create a renewed sense of justice for both sides.

Emotional flooding is the root of intractability. Disputants need to be encouraged to find a way to think about their stories, principles, and identities that find strength (not lose strength) in accommodating the stories, principles, and identities of their adversaries.

What conflicts are easy to get on track toward resolution?

Intractable conflict sits at one end of a continuum. At the other end of the continuum, we find tractable conflict. These are the conflicts where all of the disputants are highly motivated to resolve the conflict—keep the process on-tract to resolution. Examples of tractable conflict can be found at neighborhood mediation centers, where neighbors have easily resolvable conflicts, like how to paint a fence that borders two properties. (hint: paint each side to the preference of each neighbor. I had such a conflict, and it was resolved in a single phone call.)

Where tractable conflicts may seem relatively easy to resolve, they are not always fully resolved because of human unpredictability, the volatility of emotions, and the random disjunctions that spring up in even the most placid circumstances. On the other hand, seemingly intractable conflicts may, quite surprisingly, resolve themselves by the same human unpredictability, sudden brightening of emotions, and the random connections that can instantly occur in the most distressing circumstances. But, as a betting person, one’s best bet is that tractable conflicts are much more commonly resolved than intractable conflicts. My point is that conflict workers should not be too confident, nor cynical, about the conflicts at hand.

How can we address seemingly intractable dilemmas?

What is the dilemma in the case? Given the amount of science-denial across the globe, it will be difficult to adequately address these problems in a relatively short amount of time. Predictions vary on how climate change and runaway greenhouse gases will become irreversible. However, at the least, climate change is already intensifying horrific weather and wildfire events, rapidly escalating extinctions, and creating ever-increasing climate refugees. Can these effects be reversed without authoritarian dictates and military force? People who advocate for climate change remedies are likely people who would find authoritarian and militaristic solutions to be abhorrent. So, how would people who champion democracy and freedom support the sacrifice of these same values to adequately address climate change?

The following navigation strategies will be revisited in the chapters of the textbook that follows.

List of Navigation Strategies for Seemingly Intractable Conflicts, Differences, and Dilemmas

(1) Researching the History of the Conflict: Look for diverse accounts and perspectives. After answering all of these questions, conflict workers will be in a better position to productively navigate the conflict. One’s work here will be the beginning of a case study, that can be referenced later, when confronted with a similar conflict.

• When did the conflict begin?
• What is its history?
• What narratives/experiences conflict with each other?
• Who cares about this conflict?
• Why do they care?
• What is each disputant’s stake in the conflict?
• Why is the conflict seen as intractable?
• Has it always been seen as intractable?

(2) Develop Navigation Strategies:

• What is the goal in navigating the conflict better?
• What are the moving parts?
• In theory, every seemingly intractable conflict has moving parts, therefore, the moving parts need to be inventoried.
• Are there multiple conflicts, differences, and dilemmas?
• The goal of working with the dilemma needs to be clearly established.
• A broad base of expertise needs to be created to hammer out strategies.
• The widest possible dialogue, involving diverse political views, cultures, and traditions needs to occur, so that the strategies can find traction globally, if necessary.
• Implementation of the strategies may need to be sufficiently funded and linked to powerful institutions.

(3) Ongoing Intractable Conflict: Some people have deeply embedded beliefs and values that fuel ongoing intractable conflicts. Sometimes, these people may be unaware of these beliefs and values, as they may have been inherited from relatives, or internalized as an aspect of peer group identification. In these cases, being confronted with conflicting beliefs and values may generate hostility and no new thinking. However, conflicting beliefs, communicated with tact and kindness, may give dogmatic people something to think about, which may eventually provide an opening for softening differences, and even—at some point—gaining allies. This is why it is important to befriend people who have different beliefs and values. Being friends humanizes and contextualizes both sets of beliefs and values—probably more than anything else.

(4) Continuum Thinking—Not Polarized Thinking: We think in binary terms way too much. If we construct a continuum between polarities, we’ll find that people are rarely at the extremes, but rather they wander around the continuum, depending on the circumstance. Ongoing conflicts, differences, and dilemmas tend to be polarized to such a degree that there is little room to think in-between the polarities. One way to address this tendency towards polarization is to construct a continuum between extremes and map the actual positions, interests, differences, and dilemmas within the space created for navigation.

(5) Emotional Flooding How do we calm the emotional flooding that arises in heated disputes? How can we transform a seemingly intractable conflict from a heated preoccupation with the past into planning for a more peaceful and just future?

(6) Identity Conflict: “Who am I?” is a question that vexes almost everyone at some time or another. We may start out our lives, thinking of ourselves in one way, then later, begin to think of ourselves in another way. Sometimes, these changes will occur several times during one’s life. Careers can change, friendship groups can change, sexual orientations can change; political philosophies can change; cultural identifications can change—amongst other affinities. Identifications can be at the root of conflicts within families, workplaces, and in the broader community.

(7) Spiritual Panic: “Is my existence eternal or limited?” is a question about mortality that troubles us, one time or another. “Will my death be the end of me? Or will I somehow survive in some form?” Identity conflicts overlap with spiritual panic: “What is my identity, and will it survive past my death?” Worries about one’s fundamental spiritual identity can create stress, anxiety, and even panic attacks. The way that people manage this fundamental question can determine their affiliations with religions, or a commitment to atheism or agnosticism. It can even lead to deathbed conversions to a religion. Because of the strong feelings (panic!), a person’s spiritual commitment can also be at the root of conflicts within families, workplaces, and in the broader community.

(8) Cognitive Dissonance: Given that we have trouble navigating two opposing views that we have internalized, cognitive dissonance is a common conflict that is difficult to resolve because it can be so deeply embedded in our minds. Finding a way of validating two conflicting experiences is difficult. As a first step, I suggest that we try to be curious and comfortable with internalized differences. The next step is to map out these conflicts in a way that will help us navigate it.

(9) The Relationship between Psychological Conflicts and External Conflicts:

The relationship between inner and outer conflicts can be quite complex because:

• internal conflicts can trigger external conflict;
• external conflicts can trigger internal conflicts;
• internal conflicts can generate more internal conflicts;
• and external conflicts can generate more external conflicts.

Mapping out the terrain of these conflicts requires that disputants are aware of both their external conflicts and their internal conflicts. This requires a high degree of sensitivity, transparency, and self-knowledge—which may take time and patience to develop, and unfortunately, may trigger fears of vulnerability.

(10) Fostering Honesty and Transparency; Minimizing Dishonesty and Confabulation:

In American society (and perhaps elsewhere), we are socialized to be the best at what we do and what we think. We want to impress others about our knowledge, our good works, our competency, our friends and associates. When we get in an argument, we are socialized to win, so we might easily invent some supportive evidence or fictional authority. When we tell a story about some adventure, we often confabulate—or fill-in some fictional details to make the story more interesting. Because of this socialization, we mislead others—sometimes unintentionally.

Ultimately, we want to make the best case for ourselves, putting our self in the best possible light. We market ourselves. It is hard not to do this to some extent, but when it gets misleading and fully dishonest, we are creating a conflict. As smart as we might be about making our stories sound true, our friends, family, and coworkers will figure out that we are exaggerating, or worse, misleading them.

(11) Positively Engage the Culture War: At the two ends of the continuum, there are two general temperaments: The first group are people who want to hang onto comfortable, traditional, narratives by conforming to peer group viewpoints. The second group are people who have diverse friends, and welcome having their views challenged by those with different viewpoints. Between these polarized groups are people who populate the space along the continuum. These people have a blend some of the views from both sides.

Our work as conflict facilitators is to soften this cultural divide through CR skills and values. It is key to see the decency in others, finding what we have in common, and what interests we share. It is crucial to listen to their experiences and beliefs, as the first step toward gaining allies for a world, not so violently divided by the culture war.

(12) Balancing the Map and the Territory with Contextual Thinking: Abstraction, without context, is the enemy of conflict and collaborative processes. In my opinion, the most problematic strategy for navigating intractable conflicts is an over-reliance on generalization and abstraction (the map), and not enough reliance on situation and context (the territory). The term, “low context,” refers to an abundance of generalizations and abstractions, and the term, “high context,” refers to specific situations, emotions, experiences, and stories. In other words, we (in the modern, low context, world) have a tendency to rely more on the map than on the territory. Context, and the unique stories that arise from direct experience, give us important information (and human connection) that is not present in abstraction and generalization. A thoughtful integration of abstractions and the specific experiences of the particular people involved in a seemingly intractable conflict are crucial for a positive outcome for the process. We must navigate the space between the map and the territory.

(13) Critical Thinking: What do I think about a certain difference and dilemma? This is difficult to do because our thinking is heavily influenced by other people, our social group, how we grew up, and the influencers in our lives—role models, teachers, mentors, people we follow on social media. Asking oneself what one really thinks about something, regardless of the views of others, is challenging. The field of critical thinking has developed useful strategies to achieve this.

(14) Curiosity and Comfort with Difference: Some people are satisfied with how they think about things, and are not eager to think differently. Clearly, their posture is to disagree with other views, and either try to convince other people that they are wrong, or ignore the differences. Other people may be curious and comfortable learning about views, different from their own. Still other people may, at times be resistant to other views, or open to other views, depending on their mood.

If we are going to navigate the space between our differences (or the horns of the dilemma at hand) we will need to develop some curiosity and comfort with the issue, even when we have been uncomfortable and not curious in the past. The goal is to keep the conversation on an even keel, being respectful and genuinely interested in the other person’s viewpoint, reasoning, and experience. A key element is to discuss the issue in a comfortable location without distractions, without an audience or eavesdroppers.

(15) Engaged Thinking and Experiencing: What do other people think about, and experience, differences and dilemmas? How can we talk with people who disagree with us on any issue? Thinking together across differences can be a useful way to navigate this dilemma.

Getting people, with different viewpoints, think together on controversial issues is not easy, as it can easily spiral into an emotional argument. Conflict processes that focus on “I-statements,” avoiding “You-statements,” being mindful, patient, validating, curious, and kind, can be helpful in avoiding arguments and defensiveness. One way to get other people to think across their differences, together, is to have a pool of friends and family who are open to this process. Admittedly, getting a group of people together, outside of a classroom, is a rare occurrence. It might be all one can do to find another person, who takes a different position on this dilemma, and have an emotionally regulated conversation.

How does listening to, and validating other’s experiences, help us navigate the differences and dilemmas? Experiences are often quite interesting, and they can explain a lot about people. Connecting with others, across our different experiences, can be difficult, but our imagination and compassion can help bridge the divide.

(16) The View from Judgment and the View from Compassion: How do we navigate between these two views by establishing the contrasting views of judgment and compassion? Some of us are driven by our judgmental views; some of us are driven by our compassionate views; others of us try to use these two views to construct a space to navigate the differences, conflicts, and dilemmas. The field of conflict processes encourages us to adopt the latter strategy.

(17) Forgiveness and Unforgiveness: Controversial issues can trigger memories of forgiveness and unforgiveness. How does becoming more forgiving or more unforgiving help us navigate these differences and this dilemma?

(18) Cultural Dogmatism and Cultural Relativism: Strong social, cultural, and experiential pressures can make us dogmatic, resistant to change. Different cultures can have views that are relative to their history that is different from the histories of other cultures. How can we overcome dogmatism and the way that cultural relativism resists efforts to embrace broader moral frameworks?

(19) Fixed Identity and Fluid Identity (Hybridization): As conflict and collaboration facilitators, we might wonder how to have our own judgments, and be open to other judgments, without this flexibility undermining our identity.

(20) Balancing Neutrality with Advocacy: We can be neutral to the process, while being an advocate for power sharing and ethical responsibility. However, this is a delicate balance! Conflict resolution is fundamentally about human decency. We are committed to creating a space where people can resolve their conflicts, as equals, and members of an egalitarian community.

However, we are not oblivious to the inequality woven into the fabric of our society. In any conflict, there are layers of power differences, cultural biases, and the potential for condescension and manipulation. Therefore, conflict workers need to maintain their commitment to ethical outcomes of CR processes. The central CR strategy is to soften differences between disputants, and create allies for the project of human kindness and decency.

(21) The Material Success and Morality Continua: Some people have a deep commitment to material success, and only a shallow commitment to morality. On the other hand, some people have a deep commitment to morality, and only a shallow commitment to material success.

What is the Academic and Practitioner Field of Conflict Resolution?

The academic field’s name is debatable and unsettled. Different academic programs vary on how they title the field. We, at Portland State University, have chosen “Conflict Resolution” because our original name “Conflict Resolution and Peace Studies” was perceived as too controversial in the early 1990s because the word, “peace” was stereotyped as “not supporting our troops” in the Gulf War, after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.

Ironically and sadly, there is considerable evidence that the Gulf War was not precipitated by the invasion, but by Kuwait’s over-extracting oil from the Ramaila Oil Fields underneath the border of Iraq and Kuwait. The dispute, which led to the Gulf War, could have been resolved peacefully; if the Kuwaitis had admitted that they were violating the sovereignty of Iraq by their over-extracting oil that was rightfully Iraq’s. With further irony, the larger field of peace studies could have, potentially, provided international negotiating techniques to avert the Gulf War. As the following report from the New York Times in 1990 explains, there was a window for negotiating a settlement of the dispute that would have avoided the war.

Henry M. Schuler, director of the energy security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said that, from the Iraqi viewpoint, the Kuwait Government was ”acting aggressively—it was economic warfare.”

”Whether he’s Hitler or not, he has some reason on his side,” Mr. Schuler said of President Hussein. He added that American officials needed to appreciate the economic and psychological significance the Rumaila field holds for the Iraqis and why Kuwait’s exploitation of Rumaila, in addition to its high oil output in the 1980’s, was an affront to the Iraqis.

Thomas C. Hayes, New York Times, Sept. 3, 1990

How Shall We Conceptualize and Define Our Field?

Good question!

The following names offer good examples of the labeling dilemmas associated with our field:

Conflict Resolution is how our field is often described, generated from the advocacy of resolving conflicts outside of the courtroom.

Conflict Studies is another common way of describing our field, joining other “studies” programs in higher education (Women Studies, Black Studies, Native American Studies, Latina/o Studies, Environmental Studies, Queer Studies)

Conflict Transformation is a newer way of describing our field, emphasizing the changed ways that disputants can understand a conflict and each other.

Conflict Analysis is a name that focuses on the research and theorizing in our field.

Conflict Facilitation is a name that I like because it focuses on the process of working with conflict.

Collaborative Processes is another name that I like because it opens up our field to a wide array of collaborative work.

Certainly, there are other names and conceptualizations that lead to variations of definition. This diversity is probably healthy, and there is no particular need to agree on only one name or definition.

It would be easy if we simply agreed to define conflict resolution by saying that it is the field where people resolve conflicts. Of course, this is true, but not too helpful. Those of us whose profession involves resolving conflicts have no problem recognizing that our field is often called conflict resolution. However, for those people who are not familiar with the field, we have not helped them with our tautological definition. We need to say more.

One simple—no doubt too simple—definition of conflict resolution is to contrast it with conflict polarization. In conflict polarization, the conflict is determined to be of the kind that one side is right and the other side is wrong. When a conflict is polarized, it needs to be divided into positions that can be judged as either right or wrong—or more right against more wrong. On the other hand, conflict resolution does not seek this division. Rather, conflict resolution is a process intended to facilitate the reframing of the conflict, so that the differing positions’ polarization diminishes, in favor of mutual understanding and harmonized interests.

One problem that emerges from this definition is how do we know when it is appropriate to resolve or polarize a conflict? Martin Luther King used conflict polarization when he helped dramatize a conflict as right against wrong. This polarization led to sympathy for the cause of civil rights, and skepticism toward segregation and separate development. In this case, conflict polarization helped African Americans gain rights, respect, and inclusion into the American Dream.

We also use conflict polarization within conflict resolution processes when a ground rule is enforced. Interruptions are wrong and careful listening is right.

Additionally, conflict resolution seems to depend on all parties agreeing to the reframing process. If one party is using the conflict resolution process for adversarial ends—always on the lookout for the BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement), then it seems that all parties have to keep adversarial ends and processes in sight. In cases of power difference, the weaker side might also benefit from an adversarial solution—which depends on conflict polarization.

Labor-management conflicts seem to fall into the zone of alternately polarizing and resolving. Does this mean that the ultimate end of both conflict resolution and conflict polarization is to defend one’s interests? Doesn’t this goal play into the problem of special interests competing with each other? Where does the collective or greater good come in? What mechanism do we have to determine the greater good?

At Portland State University, the union that represents core faculty members (AAUP—American Association of University Professors) took the position that PSU should invest in faculty salaries and benefits by decreasing or eliminating other investments because the faculty represent the core interest of the university. The administration (also professors) took the position that a serious urban university should maintain all of its investments and that the union was not taking all of the interests of an urban university into account. End of discussion—it became a fight. Conflict polarization was embraced by both sides—in style and content. Contract negotiations went into a second year. And an Oregon University System budget cut wiped out all talk of increased investments in anything.

One consequence of this conflict is that the notion of investments is now on people’s lips. Is this notion helpful as a way of reframing the conflict? Investment talk leads to productivity talk, and higher education is often about intellectual enrichment, rather than productivity. And teaching is often a calling, rather than a lucrative career path.

From this example, it seems that conflict polarization alone does not resolve conflict—there needs to be some kind of negotiation, some kind of reframing, so that a new basis of understanding the different interests and perspectives is created. However, this example also shows that conflict polarization is not the opposite of conflict resolution. Rather, conflict resolution may require varying degrees of polarization.

So, where does this meditation take us? We started out trying to define conflict resolution by opposing it with conflict polarization. Then, using examples, we find that, at least in some cases, conflict polarization is part of conflict resolution. What might be a better way to define conflict resolution?

A second try at a definition might be to suggest that conflict resolution addresses conflict nonviolently, using reframing as a key part of the process; whereas conflict obliteration addresses conflict violently by trying to destroy or silence the perceived source of the conflict. What worries do we have about this second definition?

One problem with this definition is that not all of the people in conflict resolution are pacifists. Some conflict resolvers believe that those committing genocide must be stopped, violently, if necessary. On their view, genocide is a conflict where the perpetrators must be silenced in their hate speech and hateful killing, and the perpetrators must be killed if they cannot otherwise be stopped from their genocidal operations.

Let’s return to the original question about the definition of conflict resolution, and ask about our purpose in defining the field. We supposed that those people, who don’t know about the field, need to have a definition in order to be clear on what we do. However, if we have a singular, though limited, definition, we may confuse people more than clear up the confusion. If people have the misconception that conflict resolution is a field where touchy-feely hippies try to wish away the ills of the world, then we need to address this concern by describing the actual practices of the field. If they think that conflict facilitation is a field where white people are trying to mediate conflicts amongst other white people, then we need to explain how almost all cultures and peoples throughout the world have conflict practices. From this, we might suppose that a singular definition is not helpful to people trying to get past misconceptions of the field.

However, there may be professional reasons to define the field so that it is distinguished from other fields that are not conflict resolution. The problem with this is that there are a number of practices that are subsumed under the heading of conflict resolution. One such practice is mediation, and it is becoming increasingly professionalized, so that there is a need to distinguish it from therapy and the adversarial practice of law. From a professional legitimacy point of view, conflict resolution may eventually be the overarching term for a set of carefully defined professions, like mediation, restorative justice, international negotiation, peace-building, and so on.

Over time, that set of practices will probably continue to grow—and the term, “conflict resolution,” might stick, or another term like “conflict transformation” or conflict management might come to be used. In any case, the term that is chosen will need to address the need for an overarching term. This need is likely to arise from the need to distinguish professional practices for the consumer public, the legal status of the profession, and the way that fees are collected—including the role of insurance companies and public agencies.

Those of us, who believe that Western notions of professionalism, consumerism, individualism, economic and environmental scarcity may be creating some of the underlying conflicts in the world, may worry about how professionalization might, itself, be ill equipped to address these underlying conflicts. In this scenario, there may emerge a new field of conflict processes—with a new mandate—that does not fall victim to these Western notions and problems.

Academic Context of this Text:

Broadly speaking, this text offers a unique approach to the field of Conflict Analysis. This approach focuses on difficult dilemmas that are embedded in a wide diversity of conflicts, whether international or local, big or small. The current field of Conflict Analysis seeks to describe, diagnose, and prescribe solutions and resolutions to specific conflicts, often international violence or civil strife. Conventional analysis is done with supposed, unbiased, empirical, methods. This text suggests that any conflict analysis is done by analysts, whom have a location within the context of the conflict being analyzed. This means that all analysts have biases due to their cultural location of their analysis. When an analyst develops a capacity to understand their cultural location from the perspective of another cultural location, a dilemma emerges that is not easy to navigate.

Analyst Neutrality is Impossible

Given this situatedness, any denial of it, or any attempt to get outside of it, into some form of “neutrality,” only diminishes the potential connection and community amongst disputants and conflict interveners. It can be shown that such connection and community create trust in the conflict analysis, and deviations from such connection and community can easily reduce trust. This conclusion follows the insight that the perceived status or wisdom of the conflict intervener does little to create genuine trust and community. In addition, the science of the intervener comes with cultural assumptions and power dynamics that can generate mistrust in disputants who might not have the same cultural assumptions and who resent the power that research culture has over cultures with diminished power.

The Dilemma of Conflict Intervention

In large scale conflicts and warfare, disputants are enemies and each community, represented, has loyal partisans that create community power and strength. A conflict intervener lacks this sense of partisan affiliation, which diminishes understanding and trust. Furthermore, a conflict intervener may represent a cultural, political, or economic interest that may have a history of taking advantage of the conflict at hand. At the very least, conflict interveners are perceived by disputants as just another interested disputant. Consequently, the conflict becomes more complex with the additional “disputant,” playing the role of a neutral agent. Obviously, this creates a dilemma that must be effectively navigated, if collaborative progress is the genuine goal with the intervention, not victory.

Progress on Seemingly Intractable Dilemmas

This text gives insights on how to create helpful connections between disputants and interveners by finding the seemingly intractable dilemmas between them. Navigating these dilemmas can help stakeholders enter a negotiation space where differences are placed on a gridded continuum, always grounded by specific contextual information, narratives, and conversations.

Generating Positive Motion for Intractability

By attending to the specific context of the conflict, and helping provide a multi-perspectival understanding of the conflict, interventionists can help disputants avoid the easy polarities or moral judgments built into the conflict. The intervention process is led by compassionately working through relevant continua within the space of difference. Movement along these stratifications widens the negotiating space, improving the potential for connection and meaningful communication. I suggest that this is the most helpful strategy for addressing one of the most difficult dilemmas of all—creating peace without sacrificing justice—and creating justice, without sacrificing peace.

Destructive and Constructive Approaches to Conflict

Conflict can be addressed in a number of ways, some are authoritarian and destructive, and while others can be addressed with collaborative and constructive approaches. Each of the existing constructive approaches is valuable and appropriate in certain contexts, so I am not suggesting that the approach I offer is a replacement for any of those current approaches. I am only suggesting an additional approach which might be valuable in some contexts.

The approaches, that we have now, are listed from destructive (first four) to constructive (second four), as follows. The eighth approach, on the constructive list, is the approach which I am offering as a new conflict resolution method.

Destructive approaches to conflict:

1. Ignore the conflict and hope that it goes away, giving way to the status quo.
2. Forcefully suppress the conflict, and hope that such suppression will intimidate the opposing disputant(s).
3. Undermine or destroy the integrity of the opposing disputant(s) to diminish their experience, viewpoint, and history.
4. Defeat the opposing disputant(s) by employing a powerful hierarchy, court of law or popular opinion.

Constructive approaches to conflict:

• Frame the conflict as a problem that is best resolved through finding an answer to the problem.
• Frame the conflict as a fractured relationship that is best mended by working on relationship issues.
• Frame the conflict as a narrative difference that is best integrated through finding common aspects of each other’s narratives.
• Frame the conflict as a difference in the space-between us to be navigated on the spectrum of various continua.

In suggesting what I take to be a new approach to conflict, I am recommending that people who wish to work more effectively with conflict might learn how to navigate the space between conflicting viewpoints or perceptions, whether those are external or internal to the individual. Navigating conflicts between oneself and others, and within oneself, is not defaulting to one of the following:

Convincing oneself that a certain position, perspective, principle, argument, or value is correct and an opposing view is incorrect;

Believing that the perspective, principle, argument, or value of a person in authority (or a highly regarded writing) is correct—and that one’s own is incorrect.

Giving in to a habit, or a familiar idea or thought, rather than trying out a new idea or thought.

I am suggesting that the current practices of collaborative processes may not be sufficient for all cases of conflict. Finding solutions to problems, working on relationship issues, and integrating narratives certainly work in some kinds of conflicts. However, there are conflicts that have complex and changing dynamics, much as the confluence of two rivers. In these conflicts, a space needs to be created to negotiate different points on several continua, resisting the polarities that are so common in Western languages, where right/wrong, good/bad, strong/weak, kind/mean, sensitive/insensitive, aggravate the conflict with further polarization, obstructing understanding or resolution.

Working with conflict as a liquid engagement (not the collision of two solid, seemingly irreconcilable forces), but like swimming in changing currents of the dynamics of difference, can be more appropriate for complex conflicts that occupy different levels of sensibility and consciousness.

To navigate constantly changing dynamics of conflict, one needs to focus in on the complex sensibility of the people involved, as one must focus in on the complex sensibility of oneself. Of course, some of one’s and others’ sensibility may be hidden, so finding the sensibility of oneself and others is an ongoing process of discovery.

In addition, conflict workers must watch the ongoing drama of their own (and others’) cognitive dissonance that disrupts the easy flow of our lives. Awareness of the dynamics of cognitive dissonance opens up the possibility for navigating between the horns of emerging dilemmas. After locating this dissonance, one must resist one’s impulse to take one side against the other, just as one must resist the impulse to project the dissonance onto another person, and create an external conflict that is easily transformed into a competition, a contest to win the argument, rather than use the argument to explore all of dimensions that might be present.

To more easily navigating the space between disputants (or one’s inner narrative), one must construct numerous continua between polarities, rather than default to one polarity or the other. Translating polarities into continua helps create a space between differences that can be navigated without the claustrophobia of working within deeply contrasted polarities of difference. In this way, conflict workers must be aware of the challenge of cognitive dissonance, where everyone (including conflict workers) have a tendency to shut down differences, where there might be validity on both sides

I find that a useful continuum that helps me address a conflict, or a difficult situation, is to regularly embrace two radically different viewpoints: the view from judgment and the view from compassion. We are all seemingly conditioned to rather easily form a view from judgment and defend it against other judgments. However, to fully actualize our capacity for empathy, we must learn to construct a view from compassion—which may take much more work. After construction this particular continuum in a conflict, one cannot simply take a neutral stand and sit on the fence. Navigating the space between means that sometimes we must push ourselves more towards the compassionate view, and sometimes we must push ourselves more toward the judgmental view. Sometimes, we also need to reach out and learn other people’s judgmental and compassionate views. This practice of finding both the views from judgment and compassion helps us resist our cognitive dissonance-driven tendency to default to the view from judgment.

In summary, I am recommending a process for navigating differences and dilemmas by incorporating the following elements that can change, creating the movement needed to overcome intractability:

1. The unique and changeability of context of the difference, dilemma, or conflict;
2. The unique and changeability experiences of the disputants;
3. The unique and changeability physical space of where the collaborative process is taking place;
4. The individual and changeable perceptions of power and comfort amongst disputants;
5. The unique and changeable narratives and backgrounds of disputants;
6. Opening up a dialogic space to explore, expand, and enlarge the possibilities for navigating differences and dilemmas.
7. Resisting polar, abstract categorizations of differences, dilemmas, perceptions, experiences, narratives, conflicts. Substituting context and conceptual continua for abstractions and polarizations.

What are conflict processes?

Whereas conflict processes are often defined as a general term for many methods of addressing conflict, including legal processes, it is more the case, currently, to understand conflict processes as an alternative to legal processes. Formally, these alternatives are mediation, negotiation, or facilitation, usually assisted by a professional, who is independent from the dispute. Arbitration is sometimes considered to be an alternative to a legal process, however, arbitrators are often lawyers or judges, who make decisions in administrative processes that are not technically legal, but are decided by the arbitrator, rather than decided by the disputants, as in mediation, negotiation, or facilitation.

It seems that conflict processes, understood as alternatives to adversarial processes, should be clearly defined to show how they are an alternative. If adversarial processes are necessarily win-lose, then the alternative processes should be win-win, in the long run, if not the short run. Win-win processes seem to require collaboration between disputants that is either self-facilitated/mediated or other-facilitated/mediated. “Collaboration” means that the disputants are working together to make progress successfully addressing a conflict between them. Of course, win-win and win-lose are opposite ends of a continuum that needs to be navigated. Normally, there is no perfect win-win, nor perfect win-lose. Most processes, that address conflicts and differences, conclude with some combination of win-win and win-lose. For me, the goal is to maximize collaboration, understanding, and empathy, regardless of how much winning or losing takes place. The metaphors of winning and losing actually promote the framework of competition, which is diametrically opposed to collaboration.

Collaboration is important here because if empowers, and provides skills to, disputants, so that they can better manage their conflicts in the future. This empowerment helps the wider culture navigate differences and conflict better, so that our greater society can better connect across the divisions that emphasize our lack of community. Our justice system is expensive for both taxpayers and business entities. Decreasing our use of the justice system, by using collaborative processes, lightens the weight of government, creates stronger communities, and empowers individuals to productively address difference and conflict.

The term, “processes,” in “conflict processes” suggests a process that tidily delivers a happy ending to a conflict. In my opinion, this understanding is misleading—and if that is the common understanding of the term, then the term is not a good one for our field. In practice, even properly managed conflicts might not end happily, nor end at all, as some conflicts need to continue full force, and perhaps even escalate, in order for positive change to occur, where all parties understand the depth of the conflict, and for change to be more than cosmetic. Martin Luther King, though a pacifist, needed to escalate the conflicts concerning civil rights for African Americans. Any effort to prematurely resolve that conflict would have amounted to pacification and marginalization.

Real change often requires the identity transformation of disputants, to such a degree, that turning-point processes would seriously undermine that change. Some practitioners and authors have suggested other terms to help address the problems with the word, “processes,” such as, conflict “transformation,” conflict “management,” or conflict “studies.” The term, “transformation,” suggests that the goal of conflict processes is always fundamental change within each disputant. However, this is not always the goal of disputants, who often just want problems solved. The term, “management,” suggests a process akin to labor/management negotiations, where mediators see themselves as acting as surrogate “managers.” This would present an unfortunate spin toward control from above, when conflict processes should necessarily be collaborative.

Respecting the “conflict” is conflict processes:

Generally, those of us who advocate collaborative processes take the position that conflict can be a good thing. Certainly, in many contexts, conflict is bad because it is violent, oppressive, and silencing. However, certain conflicts are good because they promote a respect for diversity and the elimination of violence, injustice, and war, as well as increasing social, economic, environmental justice. By taking a position on the goodness of these kinds of conflicts—and the badness of other kinds of conflicts—those who advocate collaborative processes are not neutral.

Some people might object to this position, saying that if those who advocate for collaborative process are perceived as working for justice, peace, and diversity—and condemning injustice, war, and the lack of diversity, then they will not be trusted to be neutral mediators or facilitators of conflict processes. I am respectful of this perception, but I reject isolated neutrality because it masks the privileges, entitlements, and structural violence of oppressive and colonizing cultures, of which the U.S. continues to be. The disadvantaged within colonized cultures often recognize the privilege behind “neutrality.”

The conundrum, and dilemma, is this: CR’s advocacy can threaten the privileged, and CR’s neutrality can threaten those who see privilege behind that neutrality. I think there is a way to navigate this dilemma. The cultures of Western Civilization, along with most other cultures, value justice, peace, and diversity. However, different cultures understand these terms differently, just like different individuals understand these terms differently. Some understand justice and peace through military and economic strength—some understand justice and peace through nonviolence and dialogue. Some understand diversity more narrowly than others. Collaborative processes can embrace these differences of understanding through dialogue. Sometimes this dialogue will lead to constructive resolutions; sometimes it will just be a listening session, and sometimes the dialogue will illuminate the need to escalate the conflict into the wider culture.

In dialogue, those whose voices have been silenced by oppression and marginalization can have a voice. Those who have been victims of injustice, war, and a lack of diversity can have a voice—and be heard by those whose understanding of justice, peace, and diversity might be challenged by previously silenced voices. The movie, “Up in the Air,” used people who had actually lost their jobs as actors in the drama of a man who had the job of firing people. When the audience watches this fictional film, they see real people who have lost their jobs—and hear them voice their real feelings.

This encounter can be transformative in that it facilitates a process where people dive deeper into the realities of others. It is the faith of collaborative processes that within this listening process, the most radical changes can occur. Changes that can end wars, bring about social, economic, and environmental justice, and create a commitment to the more inclusive forms of diversity.

Conflict workers not conflict resolvers:

Because of my concerns, listed above, I prefer to call people who help facilitate conflict processes be called, “conflict workers,” not conflict resolvers. Furthermore, I prefer the term, “collaborative processes,” as the overarching term for this field of work and study.

What are collaborative processes?

Some practitioners and authors call this professional and academic field “collaborative processes.” I am one of those academics. In my opinion, collaborative processes are larger than mediation and negotiation, the normal focus of conflict processes programs. Additionally, collaborative processes do not necessarily lead to processes of transformation, or even any kind of immediate positive change. Collaborative processes might even reject processes, transformation, or any significant positive change, in favor of simply giving disputants a chance to work together, to listen to each other, to gain perspective on the conflict, and to demonstrate a commitment (even if small) to working together over an extended period of time. Commitments to ongoing collaboration keeps disputants from immediately seeking adversarial or contractual power to determine how an endpoint might be forced onto the conflict. Forcing an endpoint to disputes, before collaboration has been has had a chance to be successful, may escalate the conflict or transform it into a new territory or sphere.

What is not conflict processes?

As mentioned above, adversarial processes are win-lose processes that are decided by empowered authorities in non-collaborative ways. In other words, disputants do not get any opportunities to help create a win-win solution to a conflict. In purely adversarial processes, disputants are at the mercy of (not necessarily merciful) decisions by authorities. Adversarial processes do not seek to empower disputants to navigate their difference, but rather, these processes seek to determine who wins their case, and who loses their case, on legal or other merits. That said, adversarial processes may be hybridized with collaborative processes. Small claims courts often send disputants to professional mediators, hired by the court, to settle their dispute collaboratively. Lawyers for opposing disputants may facilitate settlement processes, where disputants settle their dispute (usually in monetary terms) outside of judicial decision-making.

What are not collaborative processes?

Non-collaborative processes are those that prevent disputants from working together, as equals, to address their conflicts and differences. Managerial processes may reject collaborative processes, as might union processes, preferring to let contracts, policies, or authorities drive decisions. A boss might want to dominate, as might a spouse, family member, or friend with strong or assertive personalities.

Even when a process is designed to be collaborative, many factors may interfere with everyone, in the process, being treated as equals. Cultures, that are rigidly hierarchical, may undermine collaboration by virtue of religious or traditional ways that power is vested in a structure, person, or role. Some participants may be more or less knowledgeable about details of the dispute. Some participants may be friends or family members, while other participants may be relative strangers.

What is the relationship between the terms “conflict processes” and “collaborative processes”?

As I have written, above, there are some distinctions, and overlaps, in the way that these two terms have been used in practice and in academic programs. For the purposes of this book, I will often use the terms interchangeably, except in the cases where I am focusing on the distinctions between them.

How shall we define” conflict resolution”?

It would be easy if we simply defined conflict resolution by saying that it is the field where people resolve conflicts. Of course, this is true, but not too helpful, given the diverse kinds of conflict processes. Those of us whose profession involves working with conflicts have no problem recognizing that our field is often called “conflict resolution.” However, for those people who are not familiar with the field, we have not helped them with our tautological definition. We need to say more.

One simple—no doubt too simple—definition of conflict resolution is to contrast it with conflict polarization. In conflict polarization, the conflict is determined to be of the kind where one side is right and the other side is wrong. When a conflict is polarized, it needs to be divided into positions that can be judged as either right or wrong—or more-right against more-wrong. On the other hand, conflict resolution does not seek this division. Rather, conflict resolution is a process intended to facilitate the reframing of the conflict, so that the differing positions’ polarization diminishes, in favor of mutual understanding and harmonized interests.

One problem that emerges from this definition is how do we know when it is appropriate to resolve or polarize a conflict? Martin Luther King used conflict polarization when he helped dramatize a conflict as right against wrong. This polarization led to sympathy for the cause of civil rights, and skepticism toward segregation and separate development. In this case, conflict polarization helped African Americans gain rights, respect, and inclusion into the American Dream.

We also use conflict polarization within conflict resolution processes when a ground rule is enforced. Interruptions are wrong and careful listening is right. Mediators and facilitators must enforce ground rules or the process may fall apart.

Additionally, conflict resolution seems to depend on all parties being made aware that the conflict, at hand, may best be reframed as an adversarial, polarized conflict, not a resolvable conflict. In other words, a conflict resolution process that is underway may need to be interrupted and changed into an adversarial process. It may also be the case that one party is using the conflict resolution process for adversarial ends—always on the lookout for the BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement); therefore, it seems that all parties have to keep adversarial ends and processes in sight. There are many types of conflicts that might be more productively addressed by adversarial means. For example, in cases of power difference, the weaker side might also benefit from an adversarial solution—which depends on conflict polarization. Also, labor-management conflicts seem to fall into the zone of alternately adversarial and resolvable.

Does this mean that the ultimate end of both conflict resolution and conflict polarization is to defend one’s interests? Doesn’t this goal play into the problem of selfish interests competing with each other? Where does the common good come in? What mechanism do we have to determine the common good?

At PSU, the union that represents core faculty members (AAUP—American Association of University Professors) took the position that PSU should invest in faculty salaries and benefits by decreasing or eliminating other investments because the faculty represent the core interest of the university. The administration (also professors) took the position that a serious urban university should maintain all of its investments and that the union was not taking all of the interests of an urban university into account. End of discussion—it became a fight. Conflict polarization was embraced by both sides—in style and content. Contract negotiations went into a second year. Then an Oregon University System budget cut wiped out all talk of increased investments in anything.

One consequence of this conflict is that the notion of investments is now on people’s lips. Is this notion helpful as a way of reframing the conflict? Investment talk leads to productivity talk, whereas higher education is traditionally about intellectual enrichment, rather than productivity. And teaching is often a calling, rather than a lucrative career path.

From this example, it seems that conflict polarization alone does not resolve conflict—there needs to be some kind of negotiation, some kind of reframing, so that a new basis of understanding the different interests and perspectives is created. However, this example also shows that conflict polarization is not the opposite of conflict resolution. Rather, conflict resolution may require varying degrees of polarization, and conflict polarization may require varying degrees of conflict resolution.

So, where does this meditation take us? We started out trying to define conflict resolution by opposing it with conflict polarization. Then, using an example, we find that, at least in some cases, conflict polarization is part of conflict resolution.

What might be a better way to define “conflict resolution”?

A second try at a definition might be to suggest that conflict resolution addresses conflict nonviolently, using reframing as a key part of the process; whereas conflict obliteration addresses conflict violently by trying to destroy or silence the perceived source of the conflict. What worries do we have about this second definition?

One problem with this definition is that not all of the people in conflict resolution are pacifists. Some conflict resolvers believe that those committing genocide must be stopped, violently, if necessary. On their view, genocide is a conflict where the perpetrators must be silenced in their hate speech, and killed if they cannot otherwise be stopped from their genocidal operations.

Let’s return to the original question about the definition of conflict resolution, and ask about our purpose in defining the field. We supposed that those people, who don’t know about the field, need to have a definition in order to be clear on what we do. However, if we have a singular definition, we may not be able to address their lack of clarity. If they think that conflict resolution is a field of touchy-feely hippies trying to wish away the ills of the world, then we need to address this concern by describing the successful practices of the field. If they think that conflict resolution is a field where white people are trying to mediate conflicts amongst other white people, then we need to explain how almost all cultures and peoples have conflict resolution practices. From this, we might suppose that a singular definition is not helpful to people trying to get past misconceptions of the field.

However, there may be professional reasons to define the field so that it is distinguished from other fields that are not conflict resolution. There are already a number of practices that are subsumed under the heading of conflict resolution. One such practice is mediation, and it is becoming increasingly professionalized, so that there is a need to distinguish it from therapy and the adversarial practice of law. From a professional legitimacy point of view, conflict resolution may eventually be the overarching term for a set of carefully defined professions, like mediation, restorative justice, international negotiation, peace-building, and so on.

Over time, that set of practices will probably continue to grow—and the term, “conflict resolution,” might stick, or another term, like “conflict transformation” or “conflict processes,” might come to be used. In any case, the term that is chosen will address the need for an overarching term. This need is likely to arise from the need to distinguish professional practices for the consumer public, the legal status of the profession, and the way that fees are collected—including the role of insurance companies and public agencies.

Some people, including me, believe that Western notions of professionalism, consumerism, individualism, and economic scarcity may be creating some of the underlying conflicts in the world. Consequently, we wonder how professionalization might, itself, be ill-equipped to address these underlying conflicts. In this scenario, there may emerge a new field of conflict resolution—with a new mandate—that does not fall victim to these Western professional notions and problems.

What range of conflict does Conflict Resolution address?

If our field was named “Conflict Studies,” which I currently recommend, it would be clear that we address all conflicts, though that it a tall order! There is often a perception that Conflict Resolution is about specific skills for resolving conflict to be used in specific circumstances. For instance, we teach skills for negotiation, mediation, atonement/forgiveness, nonviolence, and peacemaking. These skills can be used in some circumstances in everyday life, and there are career tracks, where they can be used professionally.

However, we encounter conflicts in myriad ways in our lives, and we witness conflict throughout the news, and in our studies of history, as well as it being a factor in everything we study or talk about. How does Conflict Resolution address all of this? Obviously, it cannot span the full breadth of our lives. However, it can offer insights and techniques that can be applied to a wide variety of circumstances.

This textbook, and its related D2L course materials, focuses on the important values and ethics of conflict resolution. Implementing these values and ethics in our lives is transformative because we become positive conflict facilitators, who resist handling conflict destructively. Our heightened empathy and understanding for others also help us be a force for positivity, progress, and peace.

However, our empathy and understanding for others also presents us with vexing dilemmas, where the horns of the dilemma seem to make the conflict intractable.

In this book, I am suggesting that we can effectively navigate dilemmas, such as climate change and the specter of military dictatorship, by opening up the space for a variety of possible scenarios. The following are ideas on how to create conditions for change that do not depend on a military dictatorship:

Inspire youth with “I have a dream.” Just as Martin Luther King Jr. inspired a generation to step up the campaign for equality and respect across racial lines, climate change advocates need to inspire a new generation for a sustainable world. This has already begun with lawsuits from young people asserting that climate change is denying their future.

Support the rights of Native American tribes are baked into the United States Constitution. Land reserved for tribes, and the ecosystems that are part of their land, are being violated by current inadequate climate change policies. This violates the Constitutional protections for tribes, and is therefore unconstitutional. Legal advocacy for tribes can force improvements to climate change policies.

Elect government representatives and leaders who have ideas for averting ecological collapse.

Advocate for schools and colleges to focus on sustainability and ecological health.

Challenge agribusiness to become fully organic.

Only buy or grow organic food.

Challenge polluters and all industries who contribute to greenhouse gases

Eliminate or minimize fossil-fuel-propelled vehicles from your daily life.

Encourage your friends and family to adopt more sustainable practices and join you in a broader advocacy.

Consider Half Earth. Edward O. Wilson argues, in his book, Half Earth, that it is conceivable to commit half of the Earth to wilderness as nature preserves. He states that most of the oceans are relatively healthy ecosystems, and that there are many large nature-preserves already in place. Building on the recommendations of his book, expanding our commitment to sustainability by building on past commitments will be easier than starting from scratch.

Brainstorm with others at every opportunity on how to broaden our efforts to save the Earth’s ecosystems.

This ongoing dialogue with others is the key to navigating the space within the dilemma of averting ecological catastrophe without a global military dictatorship. This book/course is dedicated to exploring the dilemmas created by our differing values and ethics. In this exploration, I hope to stimulate dialogues within the dilemmas, and across the differences, with the goal of creating new possibilities to positively navigate our shared future more positively, productively, and peacefully.

Let’s summarize how I suggest we productively engage the sustainability/violent dictatorship dilemma

How do we calm the emotional flooding that arises in heated disputes?

Inventory what is driving disputants into emotional flooding, and develop a strategy for calming down this flooding. Importantly, emotional flooding can lead to authoritarian and militaristic solutions.

What is the history of this difference or dilemma?

Climate change policies and reactions have a long and interesting history. Throughout most of the 1980’s, there was widespread institutional and global agreement that runaway greenhouse gases needed to be controlled. “Nearly everything we understand about global warming was understood in 1979.” (Rich, Nathaniel. Losing Earth: A Resent History, 2019, p. 3) “For the decade that ran between 1979 and 1989, we had an excellent change (of solving the problem of global warming).” (ibid, p. 5)

Knowing this history creates opportunities to reverse climate change denial and resistance, as well as avoiding authoritarian and violent solutions. We need to carefully document how emergency scenarios, like the 9/11 attack, turn into dictatorial military interventions, as in the Afghanistan/Iraq wars.

Therefore, climate change emergencies can easily turn into dictatorial military interventions that force changes that are likely to escalate violence. The intractability is that it may seem inevitable that averting climate disaster will take dictatorial military force that will likely involve violence.

Was it always seen as intractable?

No, see the book, Losing Earth: A Resent History, referenced above.

The goal of working with the dilemma needs to be clearly established.

The goal would be to have a nonviolent and democratic strategy that effectively incentivizes sustainability and averts climate disaster.

In theory, every seemingly intractable conflict has moving parts, therefore, the moving parts need to be inventoried.

Public opinion, supportive of strong climate change policies, is rapidly expanding. This is a crucial moving part of this seemingly intractable conflict.

A broad base of expertise needs to be created to hammer out strategies.

An alliance of policy-makers, scientists, climate change activists, media, and religious leaders need to work with pro-democracy and nonviolence practitioners to strategize about this particular aspect of our climate change crisis.

The widest possible dialogue, involving diverse political views, cultures, and traditions needs to occur, so that the strategies can find traction globally, if necessary.

The alliance of experts, listed above, needs to be expanded globally.

Where conflicts, differences, and dilemmas tend to be polarized to such a degree that there is little room to think in-between the polarities. One way to address this tendency towards polarization is to construct a continuum between extremes and map the actual positions, interests, differences, and dilemmas within the space created for navigation.

This analysis needs to occur around this particular aspect of our climate change crisis.

How can we transform heated conflict from a heated preoccupation with the past into planning for a more peaceful and just future?

Both climate change deniers, as well as those resistant to effective climate change policies, need to vent about the past mistakes by both sides, and more towards strategizing about future measures that both protect our environment and populations, while averting authoritarian and militaristic solutions.

Implementation of the strategies may need to be sufficiently funded and linked to powerful institutions.

It will take money, power, and status to implement the strategies, above. We must be realistic about our need for the support of the wealthy, powerful, and well-situated to maximize our effectiveness. In the case at hand, we must engage every strata of society in these strategies because all of our fates are linked.

Textbook in support of the online courses: Conflict Resolution Values and Ethics and Advanced Conflict Resolution Values and Ethics

This textbook, Navigating Seemingly Intractable Conflicts, is intended to correspond with the online D2L site for Conflict Resolution Values and Ethics in and Advanced Conflict Resolution Values and Ethics in courses at Portland State University. However, it is also designed to fit other conflict processes courses, at other colleges and universities, at either the graduate or undergraduate level, and in the quarter term or semester format.

Part One of the first ten chapters is recommended for undergraduate courses in the quarter term format;

Part One of the full fifteen chapters is recommended for undergraduates in the semester format;

Parts One and Two of the first ten chapters are recommended for graduate courses in the quarter term format;

Parts One and Two of the full fifteen chapters are recommended for undergraduates in the semester format;

Questions and comments about this text can be directed to me at my email: gouldr@pdx.edu

Organization of this Book:

This book is intended to serve students in either a quarter term or semester system. For quarter term students, the first ten chapters would normally be assigned, and the second five chapters would be optional. For semester students, fourteen or fifteen chapters will be assigned, with any skipped chapters or sections serving as optional lessons. Depending on the ability and interest levels of students, the chapters or sections can be cherry-picked to form an appropriate course load, or combined with other resources. Later in this introduction, each chapter’s topics will be briefly summarized.

Focus on Dilemmas:

In each of the chapters of this book, I focus on important dilemmas that are not easily navigated or resolved. Conflict workers need to avoid dogmatic perspectives or solutions to significant local and global issues. Likewise, I need to be mindful of my own dogmatisms! I will try to be transparent about them, and bring them into the text for your consideration.

There are many dilemmas that confront conflict facilitators. I will regularly point out the dilemmas in the field that need to be navigated by way of different perspectives, experiences, thinking, values, ethics, beliefs, and ways of confirming all of these. I suggest that we can do a better job, as “reflective practitioners,” by taking up these considerations.

Why should conflict facilitators think more deeply about their practice?

Many conflict resolvers are trained to hold and enforce conflict process. Conflict facilitators help disputants work through their differences. Often, the disputants are encouraged to find common ground amongst their contrasting or conflicting interests. Once this common ground is found, then a resolution or management strategy can be developed that helps them work productively together, whether in the workplace, neighborhood, interest group, or home. In all of this work, why is it necessary to examine, or worry about the deeper factors, dynamics, values, and ethics that drive the differences and disagreements involved in the conflict, and may affect its management?

On the one hand, the practice of never going beyond the customary limits of traditional conflict resolution processes is certainly reasonable because, within that structure, the conflict process facilitator can remain a dispassionate neutral functionary. On this view, a “neutral” will not intervene more deeply in the power dynamics or values of the disputants, fearing that if they do, they will be perceived as taking a side. Consequently, many conflict-process trainings focus on just those traditional techniques, with no need to go deeper.

On the other hand, I suggest that we can improve our ability to positively facilitate conflicts of many different types, if we more deeply investigate our processes to illuminate additional ways to bring positive results. In the following text, I examine these factors and dynamics that drive a deeper analysis, each of which form dilemmas that need to be productively navigated.

These include:

1. Conformity and Identity Differences (Paradoxical Identities)
2. Connection and Disconnection
3. Civility and Expressing a Full Range of Emotions
4. Different Types of Thinking and Unthinking
5. Economies of Abundance and Scarcity;
6. Class War and Multi-Class Collaboration
7. Interpersonal and Social Forgiveness and Atonement: Can Hope Build Trust?
8. Solid and Liquid Knowledge
9. Mystical Knowledge and Its Skeptics
10. Reconciling worldviews of Indigenous People and Civilized People
11. Individualism and Community
12. Violence and Nonviolence
13. Pacifism and War
14. Goodness and Evil
15. Differing Cultural Differences in Professional Ethics
16. Conflicting Global Ethics and Practices
17. Motivating and Enforcing Diverse Global Ethics
18. Positive Power and Abusive Power
19. Manipulative Games and Positive Bureaucratic Processes
20. Environmental Abundance and Scarcity
21. Cultural Differences in Environmental Negotiation Processes
22. Anarchism as Collaboration and Insurrection
23. Real and Virtual World Conflict
24. How We are Shaped by the Virtual World and Regaining our Humanity

How is this Book Different than Other Conflict Processes Textbooks?

Academic and professional conflict processes are like many academic disciplines that proceed in a cycle of researching CR practices, creating theories, and suggest new professional practices—then more research, revised theory creation, and renewed professional practice.

One of the tasks of philosophy is to investigate this research/theory/practice cycle, find aspects of it that might be problematic, and suggest new ways to address these difficulties. This textbook undertakes this philosophical investigation, though it is not meant to be exhaustive, as philosophy will ceaselessly continue to investigate all of the ways that people think about themselves and the world around them. As old problems are addressed, new problems will arise, that must be studied. Even old problems are rarely completely analyzed and disposed, as they often renew themselves, with further study, or when new eras of history take shape.

In this text, we will investigate how values and ethical assumptions are embedded in conflict processes, and how certain conflict processes are embedded in philosophical thinking. I will be making the case that the theory and practice of conflict processes need philosophical depth. More briefly, I will suggest why philosophy needs insights and practices from conflict processes.

Why navigating difference and dilemma?

I have entitled this book, Navigating Heated Differences and Dilemmas, because I believe that the essence of conflict processes is to effectively navigate differences between people and the dilemmas that they face. If we do not have a difference, we do not have a conflict. If we do have a conflict, then it is of crucial importance how we approach and engage our differences, so that they lead to better understanding and stronger collaborations.

If our differences are handled badly, they can inflame our differences into a full-blown conflict, whether the battlefield is out in the open, or resides silently inside of us, undermining the potential for an authentic connection with each other. Everyone has differences. Even identical twins develop differences, as their histories diverge from an early age, giving each one a different perspective and experience.

I use the term, “navigation,” as a metaphor for our ability to move across a wide variety of contexts, cultures, experiences, and abstractions. In a complex, global world, human beings need to be able to creatively move amongst all kinds of perspectives, viewpoints, insights, principles, and beliefs. What, at first, may seem to be contradictions, but they often contain important values to respect and understand. Getting stuck in our thinking, our behaviors, our positions, our procedures, and our ways of framing human nature, or our specific contexts, can undermine our ability to thrive in our current world. Even the academic and professional fields of conflict processes can get stuck in assumptions, theories, and practices, so my use of the term, “navigation,” is meant to urge everyone interested in working with conflict and difference to get unstuck and navigate the differences that constantly confront us.

Who am I?

I’m Robert Gould, though I prefer to be called, “Rob,” which makes me “Rob Gould,” which is similar to “rob gold,” which was the unfortunate impulse that fueled the western expansion of the former British colonies (Manifest Destiny), which become known as the United States of America. The western expansion of the U.S.A. occurred in earnest immediately after the Civil War, though it was opposed by many politicians and citizens, including Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant, who believed that any expansion should be inspired by democracy, not conquest. Nevertheless, western expansion into the land of Native Americans was a brutal war of conquest, called the “Indian Wars,” which are probably more appropriately known as the western Indian genocides, added to the eastern Indian genocides, and the southern Indian genocides. (The northern Indian genocides were conducted by Canadians.)

I am 0.2% Native American; the rest of my ancestors are European, most prominently British, Swedish, and Dutch. Bluntly, most of my ancestors were the enemy of indigenous people, even though some of them may have been refugees from hostile conditions in Europe. Doubtless, most of them believed in the stereotype of Indians as illiterate, primitive, savages; a false picture that easily led to campaigns of cultural genocide that have systematically continued to the present day.

I am committed to an ongoing atonement for the crimes of my ancestors, and the ongoing crime of living on what is rightfully Native American land. Specifically, my home has trees on it that were planted by members of the Clackamas tribe, 90% of whom died from an epidemic brought to the Willamette River by sick sailors. The 88 local survivors were forcefully removed to the Oregon Coast to become part of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde. I work to promote awareness of Native American philosophy and traditions, as well as working to promote Native American treaty rights.

I have a Bachelor’s Degree and a PhD. in Philosophy, as well as a Master’s Degree in Teaching. I was born in Portland, Oregon, went to elementary school in, what is now, Shattuck Hall on the PSU Campus, and then graduated from Wilson High School in SW Portland. All of my education has been in Oregon, so I’m a genuine local, aside from being a colonist descendant!

I have been active in a variety of peace, conflict processes, and social justice issues for fifty years. From 1971-1978, I served as a paralegal counselor and director of the Portland Military and Veterans Counseling Center at the Koinonia House, PSU’s former Campus Christian Ministry. During this time, I advised military personnel and veterans, many of whom suffered from PTSD, mostly securing legal resources for these individuals. From 1978-1987, I served as the Portland Office Coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee, a national Quaker pacifist organization, supporting an array of peace and social justice programs.

I first started teaching conflict processes and peace studies courses for the religious community and high schools during the 1970s. I co-founded the Oregon Peace Institute in 1984, served as the co-director of the Peace Studies Program at the University of Oregon, and as co-director of the Oregon Peace Studies Consortium in 1988-1989, cofounded the Conflict Processes Graduate Program at Portland State University in 1993, serving as its director until 2015, cofounded the Northwest Institute for Conflict Processes in 1999, and the Newhall Nonviolence Institute in 2002, and the Peace and Conflict Studies Consortium in 2005. I am currently the Treasurer of the Oregon Peace Institute.

My academic specialization is the philosophy of conflict processes, a sub-discipline that I founded. I publish in the areas of conflict processes, peace studies, hate studies, forgiveness and atonement studies, nonviolence, and related philosophical issues. My interdisciplinary interests and competencies include: applied psychology, history, environmental studies, political science, English literature and writing, indigenous studies, and religious studies.