Article Summary of "Interactive Problem-Solving: A
Social-Psychological Approach to Conflict Resolution." by Herbert Kelman
Citation: Herbert Kelman. "Interactive Problem-Solving: A Social-Psychological Approach to Conflict Resolution." In Conflict: Reading in Management and Resolution. Ed. John Burton and Frank Duke. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990. Pp. 199-215.
This Article Summary written by: Mariya Yevsyukova, Conflict Research Consortium
The type of international mediation that the author works in
is characterized by an emphasis on interaction between the
parties. The goal is not to offer solutions, but to facilitate
communication between the opponents and for them to come up with
their own ways of resolving their problems. Even if direct
communication between them is not possible, the author as a third
party tries to communicate the views and concerns of the other
party and to encourage direct negotiation.
This model differs from the traditional "strategic or
'realist' approaches" in three ways (p. 200): (1) it
condemns the use of threats in influencing the conflict
development and considers positive incentives to be a better way
of moving the conflict toward resolution; (2) it views conflict
resolution in much broader terms than just achieving an
agreement: it is a process that changes parties perceptions about
each other in a way that reconciles them and transform their
relationships; (3) it examines the history of conflict escalation
and suggests ways of interaction that can reverse this dynamic.
The primary goal is not just establishing interaction, but
creating the conditions for mutual conflict analysis and
recognition, as well as joint problem-solving. The model has the
purpose of transforming social systems by influencing the
attitudes of respected opinion makers. Its two major aspects
(learning and transferring new ideas to the arena of political
decision-making) require different conditions. This creates
tension between them and makes the model a dialectical process.
Another important feature of the process that the author
engaged in is combining of action and research. Kelman sums up
the key ideas of this action research program on conflict
resolution in the following way: "it assigns a central role
to an interactional, problem-solving process in its model of
intervention; it is designed to produce changes in attitudes and
perceptions and to generate creative new ideas among influential
individuals on the two sides of the conflict, in ways that would
maximize direct impact on official policy; and it utilizes social
scientists in a special third-party role, based on an integral
relationship between action and research" (p. 202). The
emphasis of the model on social-psychological factors of
conflicts does not undermine the political aspects of them.
Conflict involves both realistic issues of incompatible interests
and psychological issues of distrust and stereotyping. The latter
ones play the major role in conflict escalation. Overcoming
psychological barriers creates necessary conditions for
negotiations at the political level.
Next the author proceeds to a description of problem-solving
workshops. These workshops are based on the theoretical approach
described above. They have two interrelated purposes: to create
change in the parties themselves, and through this change
influence the conflict development toward de-escalation. The
parties are brought together in an environment free from
political pressure, usually an academic setting, where they can
directly talk to each other with the help of social scientists
who are skilled in group facilitation and conflict management.
The participants can be divided into three categories:
"pre-influentials" or young scholars (their
participation makes the educational aspect of the workshops more
important); "political influentials" or well-known
intellectuals (they can influence political decision making and
bring new knowledge in conflict analysis); and political actors
(at this level the political or transferring aspect of the
process prevails). The author believes that the best participants
are those who are influential figures but not themselves policy
makers. This represents the best combination for the dialectical
model of the workshops. During the workshop the parties are free
from the pressure of sustaining their political positions and are
able to get involved in the process of mutual sharing and
learning. The process starts with an analysis of the conflict and
each others' perceptions and attitudes. Parties communicate their
needs and fears. Then it proceeds to problem-solving and the
discussion of the barriers in the way of conflict resolution and
ways of overcoming them.
The functions of the third party can be described as follows.
The third party conducts individual meetings with the parties
prior to a joint meeting. The facilitators establish ground rules
of communication that reduce possible accusatory interactions.
The academic context of the meeting supports the analytical
atmosphere. Trust in the third party ensures the opponents that
their interests and feelings will be respected and protected. The
facilitators encourage constructive interactions between the
parties and sometimes share their theoretical knowledge, content
and process observations with the participants. The author
provides examples of incidents that took place during the
workshops that illustrate the possible ways that third party
intervention can promote a discussion of each side's values and
beliefs and other issues that play a major role in conflict
dynamics. The author notices that facilitators who actually have
some interest in the conflict (a team of Arab and Jewish
Americans) make a better intervention team than those who are
indifferent to the issues discussed. Facilitators are also
committed to peaceful solutions that would satisfy the basic
needs of the parties and promote their reconciliation. Thus,
their actions are based on a political position.
Workshops provide an opportunity for learning. The author
describes several types of learning: (1) the participants learn
that they can talk to each other; (2) they learn about each
others' needs, beliefs and values; (3) they learn about
transformations that have occurred within their opponents, and
possible ways for further transformations; (4) they learn about
importance of symbolic acts in de-escalating the conflict.
Problem-solving workshops do not replace diplomatic efforts,
rather they develop supporting conditions for political
negotiations. They offer the parties a forum for negotiations if
they want to talk but are not ready to go ahead with it in a
political arena; they give the parties a chance to work out some
solutions that can later be incorporated into the official
negotiation process. Workshops have something to offer to the
political negotiation process on all its levels. In the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the workshops currently help the
people working toward peaceful conflict resolution to cooperate
and find ways to assist each other in their struggles with
internal opponents.
|