Underlying Causes of Conflict Using the Pillar Method

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The conflict transformation entails moving relations that sustain violence, whereas conflict management approaches endeavors to control and contain conflict, and therefore, conflict resolution models are steered towards shifting resolution towards affirmative results. The implications to unveil the main causes of conflict is to envision the flow of social conflict, building affirmative change procedures and mitigating conflict to enhance justice (Lederach, 2015). In day to day interactions, human beings are exposed to various types of conflicts, for instance political violence, economic conflict as well as social conflicts which arise due to extensive human interactions. This paper will explore the triggering factors that cause conflict using the pillar model.

People clash over various issues and therefore, conflicts are said to be multifaceted and are caused by various agents, however, it is important to discern between diverse types of causes, motivating factors and outcomes, as well as distinguishing sources of strain or problems that affect people at the local, national, regional and global levels.

The structural bases of conflict are the systematic or protracted sources of violent clashes that have become norms, systems and order of the present society. The proximate causes of conflict or the immediate causative agents of violence are more current and alter the prevailing conditions (Lederach, 2014). Therefore, the immediate causes of the conflict are said to have a potential of heightening the structural sources of disagreement and further enhancing the escalation of violent conflicts.

Ultimately, the underlying causes of conflict are mostly said to emanate from political matters, that entail power struggle, contestations between the two parties in conflict and determining the institutions for the benefit of other people in the community (Lederach, 2015). The original causes of conflicts involve the similar factors that escalate hostilities, for instance fights may have both social and political motivations thus developing disincentives for peaceful coexistence between conflicting parties. It essential to adopt sequential, appropriate and dynamic models when participating in conflict analysis to determine how the conflicted developed from the initial stage.

Conflict evaluation toolboxes do exclude express classes to investigate explicit fanaticism, but where possible it will develop through examination of the antagonistic parties, causes and elements. As the improvement plan widens to incorporate radicalization, policymakers are progressively connecting the latter with the drivers of contention in explicit contexts. While analysis is constrained, delayed discussions on event of war center on push and force elements, for example, the job of individual relationships; convictions, qualities and feelings; stories of history; dismissal of a framework; among others (Austin, Fischer, & Ropers, 2013). Numerous studies expresses feeble proof for some usually expressed impacting factors that causes conflict, for instance, poverty; religious differences; inefficient peace campaigns.

The extension inquiry lingers on the present day conflict elements and patterns. Dynamics emanates from the association of the contention profile, main characters and causes, and they can be activated by occasions. Concentrating on elements offers a chance to determine whether, why and how the contention is rising, heightening, diminishing, spreading, and contracting, in stalemate.

The conflict analysis focuses on the main causes of conflict in the bid have the capacity to recognize potential episodes of clashes. The possibility of the disposition of a contention identifies with how individuals are changed by a contention or the vitality of a contention. Many fights are believed to expand focus around the main procedures by methods for which to solve issues in a remarkable way that pioneers activate around them, and recognizing progressive opportunities that may help break cycles of conflicts (Lederach, 2014), as opposed to previously, creating typologies of issues that deepen struggles. Investigation of elements of clashes guarantees war evaluation does deliver point by point records as well as rather a comprehension of the elements and the communication of the distinctive components.

Triggers are occasions, or the expectation of occasions, that can alter the power or course of violent clashes, for example; races, financial emergency and cataclysmic events. Various situations portray conceivable envisioned fates and additionally recount to the narrative of how such fates may come to be productive. Through examination of the potential future communications of the contention profile, conflicting parties, causes and elements, various unique and contending situations can be created (Lederach, 2015). These can be confined as best cases, center case, assuming the worst possible scenario, doubtful cases or business as usual situations that are normally surroundings of what is ideal, or will rely upon the object of concentrate and the point of view of the scientist, for instance, regardless of whether the goal is dependability or supportable harmony. However, they can be encircled around story accounts, for instance in an examination about planned decisions in political conflicts.

In the post-Cold War period, Lederach notices that most armed clashes are prevalent in poverty stricken areas, creating portions of the world. Many of the contentions are inside and mostly internationalized, meaning that they are battled between communities situated inside the boundaries of one state, however different states are influenced by resistance developments located inside their states, causing refugee problem, or weapons and different assets spilling out of their states to the state where the war is found (Bercovitch, Kremenyuk, & Zartman, 2008). The contentions are portrayed by profound establishments and long-standing hostilities that are strengthened by large amounts of viciousness and direct encounters of atrocities. The peacemakers test is to devise methodologies to end wars and continuing compromise in these partitioned social orders.

Conflicts are essentially characterized by differences between individuals based on divergent views and ideas. To develop communication breakdown between conflicting parties who have contrary objectives, insufficient resources, and obstruction from others in endeavor to accomplish their goals (Austin, Fischer, & Ropers, 2013). As it normally happens because of our association with others and because of our human subjectivity, what is vital is the manner by which we manage the contention that emerges.

There have been various ways to deal with discords, three of which are Conflict Management, Conflict Resolution and Conflict Transformation. Peace promotion is by large extend is concerned with long-standing clashes, and has to do with the manner in which individuals handle, or oversee wrongs done to them. Peace making alludes to a procedure that will be attempted for an inconclusive timeframe and may not result in goals attainment, and is fundamentally containing and constraining the contention (Lederach, 2014). Negotiations, however, alludes to settling a contention so that the two groups are satisfied, urging them to move from pessimistic attitude towards a constructive circumstance. Further, it incorporates various techniques for improving a circumstance of contention, or expelling strife. Under the umbrella of Conflict Resolution, we discover communication, intervention and strategy as Conflict Resolution is frequently reliant on outside parties coming in to help in the goals procedure. Finally, conflict transformation endeavors to change the positions and impression of the differing parties while improving their correspondence, managing the purposes behind the contention, and at last, changing clash smoothly.

Contemporary clashes require more than the reframing of positions and the distinguishing proof of win-win results. The structure of communities and connections might be implanted in an example of conflictual connections that reach out past the specific site of contention (Lederach, 2014). Conflict transformation is in this way a procedure of connecting with and changing the connections, interests, talks and, if fundamental, the constitution of the society that underpins the continuation of savage clash.

In our ordinary settings we experience social clashes when an interruption happens in the normal engagements of our connections. As struggle develops, we stop and pay heed that something is not right. The relationship in which the trouble is emerging ends up convoluted, challenges and easy as it once seemed to be. We rather again fully trust things, yet we invest more noteworthy time and vitality to translate what they signify. As our correspondence turns out to be increasingly troublesome, we believe that it is increasingly hard to express our observations and sentiments. We additionally assume that it is increasingly hard to comprehend what others are doing and saying and it may create situations of uneasiness and tension (Austin, Fischer, & Ropers, 2013). This is frequently joined by a developing feeling of practicality and dissatisfaction as the contention advances, particularly if no solution seems forthcoming.

Far from introducing a serene period with the end of the Cold War, the 1990s were set apart by the new wonders of postmodern wars, most of which have appeared as ethnic clashes, internal feuds in light of the politicization along the blame lines of nationality. The reactions to these fierce clashes depended on the formation of supportive interventions. Since September eleventh and the beginning of the worldwide war on psychological warfare, politicization along religious and civilization blame lines has risen into the frontal area. The new postmodern war, in which the killing of regular citizens is the primary methodology for all parties, outperforms the established present day war in multifaceted nature and has demonstrated impervious to customary methodologies of settling armed clashes.

How to de-escalate conflict

The concept of conflict resolution using transformative methods was initially introduced by Paul Lederach, and it thus lays down structures of resolving a conflict a transformative way. Over the years, the field of peacebuilding study and policy practice has greatly shifted focus to local practice. To de-escalate conflict; refers to the approaches of conflict resolution where local actors must be in the fore-front towards the peace building initiative. The theoretical frameworks have essentially influenced the liberal peace concept (Lederach, 2015). Additionally, the conflict transformation focused on the peace resolution theories has provided direction for local backing. Lederach’s theory of conflict transformation presents inclusive methodologies for peacebuilding that is conflict transformation. Transformation entails long-term peace-building contribution to inspire social change, helping to build a just and sustainable reconciliation beyond and post the conflict.

The customary way approach of driving negotiation depends on a successful comprehension of the conflict, where there is a positive and fixed measure of assets that must in some way or another be designated. Conflicting parties have objectives, and must give in on certain focuses for the objectives to favor all parties. The language of this approach is basically favorable to both parties (Bercovitch, Kremenyuk, & Zartman, 2008); unintentional clashes, based on legal strategies including control coercion, dangers, feigns, camouflage, and bargain towards the center.

The need for an alternative, and more sophisticated methodology, for a progressively conflict analysis and resolution is yet in addition for an increasingly intricate practice, made clear by the perseverance of violent clashes over the previous decades, and has prompted the advancement of options, common, ideological methodologies of peace promotion, compromise or strife change, which have gained noticeable worth since the end of the Cold War.

There are various reactions one can have in Conflict Management. A number people respond to conflict viciously, with war, psychological oppression, decimation, and so on. There are likewise peaceful strategies for managing contentions, which are progressively basic in our daily lives. The five fundamental methodologies that we will discuss are; Competing, Avoiding, Accommodating, Compromising, and Collaborating. We can utilize any of the five methodologies, as a whole or an assortment of approaches to manage struggle (Lederach, 2014). Nonetheless, individuals will in general utilize a portion of the methodologies substantially more than they use others.

Competing

The contending approach can be summed up by the individual’s people’s resolution to do things their own way. Some methodologies received in this model are to contend, control, outmaneuver pressure and combat the other individual to accomplish your objectives. They are eager with discourse and information gathering. The characteristics of contenders are tyrant, and compromised by contradiction; they endeavor to maintain business as usual, and respond in the midst of emergency. Each contender anxious for his or her objectives and rarely care for the association with the other individual.

Maintaining a strategic distance

Setting a tactical distance from methodology utilizes the techniques of dodging, denying, disregarding, pulling back, postponing, and wishing just to trust and enquire. Dodgers want to be with other individuals who will sustain a strategic distance from issues of conflict too. They decline to share or give information that can help to manage discords. A few qualities of avoiders incorporate lack of involvement, bashfulness, the tendency to lecture, and a plan to face the hardship; they discover discourses and gathering life meddling, and they are somewhat disorganized and unfocused (Lederach, 2014). Individuals who keep away from struggle and Conflict Management have a predicament, as the avoider has both a less concern for his or her association with the other parties, and low association to local objectives as well. Individuals who take part in this conduct do not have the foggiest idea how to determine struggle or proceed in important connections after conflicted has escalated.

Accommodating

The accommodating methodology can be summed up in the phrase; “whatever you state”. The accommodator utilizes techniques to concur, pacify, or compliment the other individual, and wants to be in struggle with other people who drive their sentiments so the accommodator just needs to yield so as to deal with the contention. Like the dodger, the accommodator declines to discourse or share information. The qualities of an accommodator can be summed up by their inefficient interactions, and their uncertain conduct or frame of mind; they are effectively influenced, the need to satisfy everybody, and enable dialogs to float. Accommodators will in general have less association to objectives and a high care for their relationships with the individual that they are in conflict with.

Compromising or settling conflict

The trading off methodology can be condensed with the expression; “I will abandon my stand if you do the same”. The compromiser utilizes methodologies, for example, dealing, diminishing desires, isolating wanted accomplishments so that each party gets even, and finding some equitable ground. Compromisers like to work with individuals who bargain or suit. The compromiser endures the trading of perspectives, despite the fact that he or she discovers the awkwardness of the situation. A few attributes of the compromiser are mindful however liberal and he or she asks others not to be excessively open or frank (Lederach, 2014). The compromiser has discovered a mid-route balance between care for the relationship and meeting individual objectives. The compromiser hopes to win a few contentions and lose others.

Collaborating

The collaborating methodology implies to the idea of working together. This can be outlined in the phrase; ‘My inclination is, what your decision is?’ The colleague utilizes techniques, for example, gathering data, looking for alternative choices, talking transparently, and furthermore inviting contradictions. Teammates like to work with individuals who team up or bargain (Bercovitch, Kremenyuk, & Zartman, 2008). They will in general spotlight on data gathering, and their qualities for the most part incorporate preparing, exchanging words, being empowered by debate, and being available to change and development. Partners have a high care for both individual objectives and for connections, and would like to result in a success – win situation.

Application conflict of de-escalation models

Contending

The contending approach is regularly fitting when a crisis looms, when you are certain that you are correct and being correct could easily compare to safeguarding connections, or the issue is paltry and others do not generally mind what happens (Lederach, 2014). This methodology is wrong when joint effort has not yet been endeavored, collaboration with others is vital, it is utilized routinely for most issues, or when the sense of pride of others is unnecessarily lessened.

Avoiding the other party

The keeping away from the conflicting partner methodology is frequently fitting when the issue is minor, the relationship is immaterial, time is short and a choice is not important, and you have little power yet wish to obstruct the other individual (Austin, Fischer, & Ropers, 2013). The staying away methodology is ineffective when you care about the relationship and the issues included, when shirking is utilized routinely for most issues, when negative sentiments may wait, and when others would profit by minding showdown.

Cooperating

The obliging methodology is ideal to utilize when you experience an issue you do not generally think about, you are feeble yet have no desire to keep the other individual from accomplishing their objectives, or you understand you are incorrect (Lederach, 2014). This methodology is improper when you are probably going to harbor disdain therefore, and you utilize this routinely so as to pick up acknowledgment, which will result in wretchedness or an absence of sense of pride.

Settling

This methodology is best utilized when participation is imperative however the time or assets are constrained, when looked with a stalemate and the best way to conquer it is to agree to a not exactly perfect arrangement, and when endeavors to work together will be misjudged as driving (Bercovitch, Kremenyuk, & Zartman, 2008). This methodology is least suitable when finding the most imaginative arrangements conceivable is basic, or when you cannot live with the results.

Teaming up

Teaming up works best when the issues and relationship are both critical, participation is vital, an inventive end is imperative, and sensible expectation exists to address every one of the worries. This methodology is frequently unseemly when time is short, the issues are imperative, you are over-burden, and the objectives of the other individual are not right (Lederach, 2014).

As recently expressed, Conflict Resolution envelops exchange, intervention, and strategy. Discretion for the most part alludes to global tact in which specialists in the field attempt and discover an answer for a contention that will be worthy to the two communities or nations on issues of financial aspects, war, harmony, and so on. Intervention is important when at least two communities, states, or people have a question about a specific theme, and utilize fair-minded, proficient go between to attempt and improve correspondence and exchange between the gatherings to go to an understanding (Austin, Fischer, & Ropers, 2013). Arrangement is a type of exchange used to determine a contention in which favorable circumstances and disservices are talked about to attempt and come to understanding, and induce the other party to concur with you on the most ideal result for your gathering, or the two gatherings. Compromise can shift crosswise over societies as the closeness of an outsider expert or outsider believed individual can be outside experts, or inward religious or network pioneers. Conflict Resolution methodologies, for example, arrangement, intercession and tact are best utilized when a snappy arrangement is required and there is no critical connection between the clashing parties.

References

Austin, A., Fischer, M., & Ropers, N. (2013). Transforming Ethnopolitical Conflict: The Berghof Handbook. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media.
Bercovitch, J., Kremenyuk, V., & Zartman, I. W. (2008). The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Resolution. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Lederach, J. (2015). Little Book of Conflict Transformation: Clear Articulation Of The Guiding Principles By A Pioneer In The Field. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Lederach, J. P. (2014). Reconcile: Conflict Transformation for Ordinary Christians. Harrisonburg, VA: Herald Press (VA).

Click Here To Order Now!