Constructive Conflict Guide - Part 4

Part 4: Helping "Good-Faith" Actors More Wisely and Equitably Address Our Common Problems
Topics addressed: De-Escalation Strategies | Promoting Understanding | Visioning | Empowerment | Collaboration (Visioning, Empowerment, and Collaboration are not yet written, but you can find these topics covered in the Guide: Visioning | Empowerment | Collaboration )

Introduction

In Section 1 of this Guide to Constructive Conflict, we talked about how the destructive-conflict-as-usual way in which the U.S.¹ and so many other societies now commonly address complex, large-scale, intractable conflict. This kind of conflict, we believe, represents the single greatest threat to humanity and the planet. Conflict problems are undermining democracy, increasing injustice and inequality, strengthening authoritarians and plutocrats, and, in general, making it nearly impossible for societies to wisely and equitably respond to a wide range of social problems. What's more, there is an increasing risk of state failure, large-scale violence, and, potentially, catastrophic war.

In order to overcome such destructive behaviors, it is essential that those committed to making democracy work become much more active in their efforts not only to call out and block the efforts of "bad faith actors," but also to work together in positive and collaborative ways to transform our conflicts and address our many mutual problems wisely and equitably—while also offering a viable (and superior) alternative to raw contests of political power.

We acknowledge that making democracy work well in complex, large-scale societies is extraordinarily difficult. There are always many different groups with competing interests, values, and needs that are working at cross purposes. Often good-faith actors make the mistake of thinking that their vision for solving society's problems is shared by anyone willing to take a fair and reasonable look at the issues. They can't imagine a justifiable reason why people might disagree with their views. This is why the success of democracy depends upon extending the principles of tolerance and mutual respect across partisan divides.

Certainly, empowerment of marginalized groups on the left and right is one necessary step towards a health democracy and society. But if empowerment comes by disempowering other groups, it is only going to lead to continuing struggle and lack of progress on the problems both groups are trying to solve. Empowerment programs must be combined with other conflict transformation actions, for instance, programs promoting inter-group understanding and respect, de-escalation, joint fact-finding, collaborative future visioning, and eventually, collaborative problem solving among all identity groups. And all of these things need to be done "at scale," meaning reaching not only individuals, groups, and communities, but entire societies.

Doing this requires what we call "massively parallel peacebuilding," a metaphor built on the notion of "massively-parallel computing." In massively-parallel computing, many computers work loosely together to solve a very complex problem that can't be solved by one computer alone. Similarly, with massively-parallel peacebuilding, thousands of actors each take responsibility for working within their areas of influence on some aspect of the destructive conflict problem. By working in loose concert with others, these independent efforts can, collectively, do much to transform our crippling conflicts and solve our mutual problems. We consider everyone who is doing that to be a "good faith actor," as we describe further below.

Who are good-faith actors?

Everyone can and should be a good-faith actor! Destructive, hyper-polarized political conflict threatens the vital interests of everyone in the United States and a great many other countries. These conflicts are far too widespread to be dealt with by top-level leaders alone, no matter how skilled and well-intentioned they might be. It is going to take the sustained efforts of a great many people at all levels of the society to transform these very destructive conflicts into constructive processes and systems that can pave the way toward effective problem-solving and well being for all citizens. We all need to commit to making a sustained, good-faith effort to help limit societal polarization and problem-solving dysfunction so that we as individuals, our families, communities, and nations can thrive.

However, government and civil society leaders, journalists, and professional conflict resolution practitioners can play particularly important "good-faith" roles, as they can use their good names and reputations, as well as their skills and knowledge, to encourage their clients and followers to act in good-faith ways themselves. The goal should be to reverse the destructive escalation spiral and produce a peace spiral in which an ever-larger share of the population abandons destructive confrontations in favor of the pursuit of mutually-beneficial alternatives. In this context, it is important to remember that a great many people engage in destructive conflict behavior because they lack an understanding of how to make good-faith alternatives work. If we can demonstrate how to do this, and show that it leads to better outcomes than do raw power contests, many people likely can be persuaded to join the ranks of "good faith actors."² In this section, we will be looking at what good faith actors can (and have already been) doing to reduce polarization and to purse collaborative problem solving.

What do "good-faith" actors need to do?

There are five major things good-faith actors need to do to make currently destructive conflicts more constructive:

De-escalate destructive us-versus-them confrontations. People caught in intractable conflicts tend to vastly oversimplify their description of the conflict, saying the conflict is all about "them"--the bad "other guys"--who need to be defeated or sent away. When both sides define the problem in this way, it tends to lead to unbridled conflict-escalation, mutual hate and often violence. This makes conflict transformation and problem solving very difficult, if not impossible. So people need to dismantle these over-simplified views by breaking down stereotypes and "complexifying" their conflict narratives. By learning about the drivers of escalation, good-faith actors can recognize their own inadvertent contributions to the problem, and can reverse those actions by replacing them with intentional de-escalatory language and behaviors (such as active listening and I-messages, conciliatory gestures, and other positive overtures). In addition, by replacing "power-over," (coercive) approaches to the conflict with "power with" (integrative) approaches, escalation can be reduced, and problem-solving will be improved.
Promote Understanding by Improving Fact-Finding and Communication. When conflicts get highly escalated, they also tend to get extremely polarized. Communication is cut off, and each side gets its information about the situation and "the other" from news sources that tell them what they want to hear (we are "good," the other side is "evil,") leading to the proliferation of "fake facts" and highly divergent views of "reality." People in all roles can take steps to open up effective channels of communication, begin to really listen to and read about the legitimate concerns, fears, interests, and needs of the other side, and engage in inter-group dialogues to come to understand each other—and the surrounding world—more accurately. The media also has an important role to play here, working to limit escalatory coverage, verifying "facts" and "stories," and featuring, whenever possible, stories about people working effectively to diminish conflicts and solving problems.
Develop a unifying vision for society going forward. People in conflict often lack a vision of a better future, or, if they have one, it is a future in which all their desires are met, and their "enemy" is completely vanquished. But when the power of both (or all) sides is remotely even, that future won't ever happen. Rather, they will just be locked in a continuous struggle over whose future will be pursued. A better approach for everyone is to develop a unifying vision for a future that everyone would want to live in, and hence, work for. Ideally, this vision would be developed collaboratively. But even before that can happen, by trying to develop one's own vision in a way that "leaves room for" and respects the interests, values, and needs of "the other," destructive conflict is likely to be reduced.
Take advantage of opportunities for mutually-beneficial joint actions. Kenneth Boulding asserted that there are three kinds of power: threats (coercion), exchange (negotiation), and integrative power through which people are persuaded to do the "right thing" out of a sense of love or, at least, belief in our common humanity. Our over-reliance upon coercive, power-over strategies for protecting our interests has, ironically, undermined our security by fueling our increasingly destructive and dysfunctional politics. One key to developing a workable power-with alternative is Boulding's exchange power in which collaborative skills are used to identify and pursue ways in which we can work together to advance each other's interests.
Level the "playing field." The system of exchange, however, breaks down with respect to marginalized groups that, by definition, have little to trade. The key, in these situations, is to mobilize Boulding's integrative power through persuasive arguments that empower these groups, based on fundamental principles of justice, and the understanding that since they are humans too, it is "the right thing to do." (And, of course, such empowerment produces a stronger and more productive society, which benefits everyone.) So the goal here is to give everyone the ability to effectively defend their vital interests while, at the same time, denying anyone the ability to dominate and oppress others.

-----------------------------------

1. This Guide is being written by Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess, co-directors of the US-based project, Beyond Intractability. While Beyond Intractability has long looked at the way in which intractable conflicts play out internationally, our primary area of expertise has always been the United States. Recognizing that the U.S. has a long and arrogant history of telling other societies how to do things, we want to be very careful not to speak for others. For this reason, the documents that we have prepared thus far focus more on how the conflict problem manifests itself in the United States. We simply don't feel that we should speak for other societies. Still, we recognize that the conflict problems we are talking about are truly global and that the ideas we share here are likely to be relevant and useful in many other places as well.

2. We say this because polls show that a substantial number of Americans say, at least in principle, that they support the notion of compromising with the other side, although, if the compromises don't come out with their side "winning," then many of those people become less enthusiastic about compromise. However, if they can see how collaboration can be used to create agreements that benefit all sides, then the chances of persuading them to become "good-faith" actors increases substantially.