The implication of latent attractors for both conflict or peace is that our actions in a conflict can have very different effects on three distinct aspects of the peace and conflict landscape: the current situation (the levels of hostility and harmony in relations right now), the longer-term potential for positive relations (positive attractors), and the longer-term potential for negative relations (negative attractors). This suggests that we need to develop separate but complementary strategies for (1) addressing the current state of a conflict, (2) increasing the probabilities for constructive relations between the parties in the future, and (3) decreasing the probabilities for destructive future encounters. Most attempts at addressing destructive conflict target numbers 1 and 3 but often neglect to increase the probability for future positive relations. But without sufficient attention to the bolstering of attractors for positive relations between parties, progress in addressing the conflict and eliminating future conflict will be only temporary.
For example, if there is a long history of interaction between disputants, there may be other potential patterns of mental, affective, and behavioral engagement, some of which foster positive intergroup relations. Accordingly, identifying and reinforcing latent (positive) attractors, not simply disassembling the manifest (negative) attractors, should be the aim of both conflict prevention and intervention. A classic approach to this is the identification or development of joint goals and identities in an attempt to establish a foundation of cooperation and eventually trust between parties (Sherif et al., 1961; Deutsch, 1973; Worchel, 1987). Thus, even if dialogue, reconciliation processes, trust-building activities, and conflict resolution initiatives appear to be largely ineffective in situations of protracted struggles, they may very well be acting to establish a sufficiently strong attractor for moral, humane forms of interactions that may provide the foundation for a stable, peaceful future. The gradual and long-term construction of a positive attractor may be imperceptible, but it prepares the ground for a positive state that would be impossible without these actions.
Of course, establishing latent attractors for peace is only part of the story. The most obvious need is to quell the current state of violence and contain actively destructive processes. This is often done by introducing peacekeeping troops or other forms of regional or international military or police support. However, even when systems de-escalate and appear to move into a state of peace, it is critical that we recognize that the potential for destructive interactions (destructive attractors) is still functioning. Here, it is important that we work actively to begin to deconstruct and dismantle the negative attractors. This entails decoupling some of the reinforcing feedback loops that perpetuate the conflict, thereby lowering the level of supercoherence in the system.
There are a variety of strategies for delinking reinforcing feedback loops that contribute to complexity collapse and escalation (see Coleman, 2011). For instance, if the structure of conflict binds together perceptions of all the out-group members, showing positive examples of specific out-group members can increase complexity since a single judgment cannot accommodate all the out-group members. Another tack is to find an important (e.g., high-status, charismatic) in-group member who does not share the in-group’s view of the conflict. If this person is sufficiently central that he or she cannot be marginalized within the group, the homogeneity of the in-group’s perspective will be destabilized. These are best determined through the initial mapping of the escalatory system.
Another strategy for dismantling destructive attractors is to reinstate the salience of individual elements, devoid of their higher-level integration with other elements. Psychological research provides clues regarding this “disassembly process” (Vallacher, Nowak, Markus, and Strauss, 1998; Vallacher and Wegner, 2012). For example, disruptions to ongoing action tend to make people sensitive to the overlearned details of the action, as do instructions to focus on the details of a narrative rather than focusing on the narrative’s larger meaning. When habitual actions and generalized judgments and beliefs are deconstructed in this way, people become vulnerable to new interpretations that provide an avenue of emergence to a coherent perspective. In effect, the tack is to recapture the complexity of a conflict attractor and reconfigure the elements to promote a more benign form of coherence.
Guideline 10: Restabilize through Dynamic Adaptivity
Research by Dörner (1996) has taught us a lot about decision making, change, and leadership in complex systems that raises important considerations for fostering sustainable solutions in intractable conflict. His research has shown that participants were able to improve the well-being of the communities they worked with when they (1) made more decisions: they assessed the situation and set a course but then continually adapted, staying open to feedback and reconsidering their decisions and altering their course. They were found to make more, not fewer, decisions as their plans unfolded; finding more possibilities for developing their community’s well-being as the situation evolved. Effective decision makers also (2) acted more complexly: they understood that the problems they were addressing were closely linked with other problems, and so their actions would have multiple effects. Therefore, they introduced many more actions when attempting to achieve one goal. In addition, effective decision makers (3) identified the central issues early on and stayed focused on addressing them, but (4) did not develop a single-minded preoccupation with one solution. If the feedback data informed them that a solution was too costly or ineffective, they altered their approach.
In the end, it is important to remember that intractable conflicts are different. They follow a unique set of rules and dynamics that make them particularly damaging and unresponsive to standard forms of diplomacy and intervention. The dynamic perspective conceptualizes this difference in terms of basic generic processes that underlie their immense complexity. However, human experience is clearly unique in many respects, and one should never lose sight of the idiosyncratic factors relevant to any particular conflict. Furthermore, much work needs to be done to continue to translate dynamical concepts and principles into hypotheses and develop rigorous and reliable empirical methods to test these hypotheses in order to ultimately increase the efficacy of these strategies for increasing probabilities of peace.
IMPLICATIONS FOR TRAINING
Space does not allow detailed discussion of the needs for training in this area. However, the ten guidelines outline many of the objectives to address in a comprehensive training program for practitioners working with intractable conflict. In summary, such training should address
Understanding nonlinear networks of causation. Developing a basic understanding of how complex, nonlinear systems function, stabilize, and change, including becoming familiar with ideas of emergence, self-organization, attractors, repellers, feedback loops, networks, and unintended consequences.
Enhancing complex thinking, feeling, acting, and identification. Learning the difference between divergent and convergent thinking and developing the skills for employing both in an iterative fashion when addressing complex, long-term problems. Also, enhancing our capacity for (1) emotional complexity, that is, increasing the degree to which we experience a broad range of emotional events and are able to make subtle distinctions within emotion categories; (2) behavioral complexity, defined as the array of differentiated and even competing behaviors people display; and (3) social identity complexity, or the capacity to identify with contradictory group memberships.
Thinking globally and locally, and understanding how they are connected. The theory of action identification holds that identities of action vary from low-level identities that tell how an action is done (such as chewing and swallowing) to higher-level identities that indicate the action’s consequences (such as getting nutrition or gaining weight). Understanding these differences is important for learning how to “work down below”—that is, how to identify and address the component parts of problems without their getting snarled in general principles. This is critical to
altering attractor landscapes.
Understanding latent processes. Understanding how implicit (latent) processes (such as implicit intergroup attitudes and beliefs) operating psychologically and socially can provide important insight into how latent attractors develop and change over time.
Managing the tensions between short-term and long-term thinking and action. Seeing how crisis intervention and long-term planning often work at cross-purposes and learning how to strike an effective balance are critical for managing the long-term dynamics of intractable conflicts.
Learning to see both the opportunities and the dangers ahead. The dynamical systems approach suggests that conflict and peace often coexist. It is important to understand how our chronic prevention orientations (concerns with safety) versus promotion orientations (thinking about our hopes and dreams) affect our perceptions of social conflicts, and the importance of both for visualizing and attaining sustainable solutions. This can help us to appreciate the challenges and opportunities for working on constructive and destructive attractors simultaneously.
Leveraging multilevel strategies. Increasing probabilities for peace often requires thinking and working at different levels (psychological, social, structural, institutional, cultural) simultaneously. This necessitates an understanding of the activities and interventions possible at different levels, the differences in the time they take to unfold in a system, and a sense of the mechanisms that link these initiatives across levels (Coleman et al., forthcoming).
Together these skills constitute a set of building blocks for developing the capacity to employ the dynamical systems practices effectively. These are all learnable skills—skills that many of us already possess but that most of us would benefit from developing further.
CONCLUSION
There are no simple solutions to intractability. Once conflict reaches this level of destructiveness, we can only hope to contain the violence and bloodshed and begin the considerable work of repairing the damage to people, places, and relationships. This is a daunting task, but there is hope—hope in prevention. Intractable conflicts usually have a long history of escalation prior to reaching crisis and entrenchment. We must find ways to intervene earlier, when disputants can still see the humanity and the validity of the other’s needs. Unfortunately, it is typically the squeaky wheel of crisis that grabs the attention of the media, the international community, and our systems of governance. Therefore, we must be proactive in establishing early-warning systems at the community, regional, national, and international levels. Their charge would be to monitor emerging disputes and focus our attention on situations before they become impossible to address. Our greatest hope in working intractable conflicts is to find the means to avert them.
References
Alinsky, S. D. (1971). Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals. New York: Random House.
Alvesson, M., and Willmott, H. (1992a). Critical Management Studies. London: Sage.
Alvesson, M., and Willmott, H. (1992b). Management and Organization Studies as Science. Organization 4:309–344.
Azar, E. E. (1986). Protracted International Conflict: Ten Propositions. In E. Azar and J. W. Burton (eds.), International Conflict Resolution (27–39). London: Wheatsheaf Books.
Azar, E. E. (1990). The Management of Protracted Social Conflict: Theory and Cases. Hampshire, England: Dartmouth.
Bar-Tal, D. (2000). From Intractable Conflict through Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation: Psychological Analysis. Political Psychology 21:351–366.
Bechara, A. (2004). Disturbances of emotion regulation after focal brain lesions. International Review of Neurobiology 62:159–193.
Blum, G. (2007). Islands of Agreement: Managing Enduring Armed Rivalries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Boulding, E. (1986). Enlivening Our Social Imagination. In D. Carlson and C. Comstock (eds.), Citizen Summitry: Keeping the Peace When It Matters Too Much to Be Left to Politicians. Los Angeles: Tarcher.
Burgess, H., and Burgess, G. (1996). Constructive Confrontation: A Transformative Approach to Intractable Conflicts. Mediation Quarterly 13:305–322.
Burns, D. (2007). Systemic Action Research: A Strategy for Whole System Change. Bristol: Policy Press.
Burton, J. (1987). Resolving Deep-Rooted Conflict: A Handbook. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Coleman, P. T. (2003). Characteristics of protracted, intractable conflict: Towards the development of a meta-framework—I. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 9:1–37.
Coleman, P. T. (2004). Paradigmatic Framing of Protracted, Intractable Conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 10:197–235.
Coleman, P. T. (2011). The Five Percent: Finding Solutions to Seemingly Impossible Conflicts. New York, NY: Public Affairs.
Coleman, P. T., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., Vallacher, R. R., and Nowak, A. (2006). Approaching Protracted Conflicts as Dynamical Systems: Guidelines and Methods for Intervention, In A. K. Schneider and C. Honeyman (eds.), The Negotiator’s Fieldbook. Chicago: American Bar Association Books.
Coleman, P. T., Vallacher, R. R., Nowak, A., and Bui-Wrzosinska, L. (2007). Intractable Conflict as an Attractor: A Dynamical Systems Approach to Conflict Escalation and Intractability. American Behavioral Scientist 50:1454–1475.
Coleman, P. T., Vallacher, R., Nowak, A., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., and Bartoli, A. (2011). Navigating the landscape of conflict: Applications of dynamical systems theory to protracted social conflict. In N. Ropers (Ed.), Systemic thinking and conflict transformation. Berlin: Berghof Foundation for Peace Support.
Coleman, P. T., Redding, N., and Ng, L. Playing the Odds: A Multi-Level Framework for Addressing Probabilities for Intractable Conflict at Work. (forthcoming).
Conway, L. G., III, Suedfeld, P., and Tetlock, P. (2001). Integrative Complexity and Political Decisions That Lead to War or Peace. In D. J. Christie, R. V. Wagner, and D. Winter (eds.), Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Century. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
DeRouen, K. R., and Bercovitch, J. (2008). Enduring Internal Rivalries: A New Framework for the Study of Civil War. Journal of Peace Research 45:55–74.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive Justice: A Social Psychological Perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Deutsch, M. (2000). Cooperation and Competition. In M. Deutsch and P. T. Coleman (eds.), The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Diehl, P., and Goertz, G. (2000). War and Peace in International Rivalry. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Diesing, P. (1962). Reason in Society: Five Types of Decisions and Their Social Conditions. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Dörner, D. (1996). The Logic of Failure: Why Things Go Wrong and What We Can Do to Make Them Right. New York: Holt.
Fisher, R. J. (1994). Third-Party Confrontation: A Method for the Resolution and Study of Conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution 16:67–94.
Fisher, R. J. (1997). Interactive Conflict Resolution. In I. W. Zartman and L. Rasmussen (eds.), Peacemaking in International Conflict. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.
Fisher, R. E., Ury, W., and Patton, B. (1992). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In (2nd ed.). New York: Penguin Books.
Fry, D. P. (2006). The Human Potential for Peace: An Anthropological Challenge to Assumptions about War and Violence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fry, D. P. (2007). Beyond War. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gersick, C.J.G. (1991). Revolutionary Change Theories: A Multilevel Exploration of the Punctuated Equilibrium Paradigm. Academy of Management Review 16:10–36.
Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. New York: Back Bay Books.
Goertz, G., and Diehl, P. F. (1993). Enduring Ri
valries: Theoretical Constructs and Empirical Patterns. International Studies Quarterly 37:147–171.
Gottman, J. M., (2002). A Multidemensional Approach to Couples. In F. Kaslow and T. Patterson (eds.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychotherapy, Cognitive-behavioral approaches. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Gottman, J., Swanson, C., and Swanson, K. A. (2002). General Systems Theory of Marriages: Nonlinear Difference Equation Modeling of Marital Interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Review 6:326–340.
Gurr, T. R. (1970). Why Men Rebel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gurr, T. R. (2000). Ethnic Warfare on the Wane. Foreign Affairs 79:52–64.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond Pleasure and Pain. American Psychologist 52:1280–1300.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kelman, H. (1999). The Role of Social Identity in Conflict Resolution: Experiences from Israeli-Palestinian Problem-Solving Workshops. Third Biennial Rutgers Symposium on Self and Social Identity: Social Identity, Intergroup Conflict and Conflict Reduction.
Klein, J., Goertz, G. and Diehl, P. (2006). The New Rivalry Data Set: Procedures and Patterns. Journal of Peace Research 43:331–348.
Körppen, D., Ropers, N., and Giessmann, H. J. (2011). The Non-Linearity of Peace Processes: Theory and Practice of Systemic Conflict Transformation. Farmington Hills, MI: Barbara Budrich Publisher.
The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed) Page 108