An overview of the conflict resolution theory Essay

Conflict resolvent TheoryIn encounter resolution, preconceived notions, to a fault called the natural cognitive sorting processes, are the stimuli that unwittingly foment war. By taking a look at psyche and inter conclave relations, peerless can better stretch contravene resolution as a port of mediation which whitethorn lessen the probabilities of the outbreak of political violence. This essay takes a close trial of the effect of individualist- train models of change to inspire change at the social level. The leveling up the process from individual treatment to social has its strengths and weakness. Controlled conference, esthesia training, Freuds hydraulic model, complex mirroring and conscious raising psych separateapy are experimented direction in conflict resolution to dissolve conflict at both(prenominal) individual and general levels.The natural cognitive sorting mechanism of dividing tribe into us and them engenders prejudice and in the long run, political viole nce. This perspective is true to The Self and The Other concept in which people and groups are constructed to bear the other or any entity that is savvyd as foreign and to accept the self or other entities affiliated to the self. Protracted social conflicts typically involve an enduring set of antagonistic perceptions and interactions in the midst of communal groups detrimental attributions of motivations and reciprocal negative images perpetuate the antagonisms and solidify the conflict (Fisher 1997). This concept breeds the antagonization of groups which turns wizard group against the other, deepening rifts and sharpening rivalry. Since this type of social cognitive process emphasizes differences between us and them, an elitism can a go up which advantages one group over the other and fosters an unhealthy intergroup competition and mutual exclusion. With mutual degradation and demonized motives, separately group continues to not barely drift apart but rub against each othe r in a frictional relationship to produce an intrusion fire.At the national level, us and them dichotomy leads to jingoism which is a chauvinistic form of nationalism. This ideology promotes the suppression of one and the superiority of a people. passionate patriotism and the prejudiced belief propose that some other party moldiness suffer in the power imbalance. (Paris 2004) agrees that exclusionary forms of nationalism also make enemies of excluded groups. In other words, one nation categorizes, segregates and disadvantages some other. As a consequence, the excluded party harbors saddle sore toward the opposing group. Resentment begets tension-filled relations, which beget mistrust. The polarizing effect of the us and them construct leads unavoidably to suspicion and in a competitive environment, to perceived inequalities. Inequalities result in the categorization of an oppressed and an oppressor, the victimized and the victimizer. At a particular point, one group arrives a t a breaking point, demanding the redress of wrongs whether real or perceived and an equalizing of the playing field. (Fisher 1997) also recognizes that some conflicts arise when identity groups perceive that they are oppressed and victimized through a denial of recognition, security, rectitude and political participation. Imbalances of power stimulate one group to react or even retaliate hence hostilities erupt. It was a wave of nationalism which provokes WWII in which the Aryan Germans attempt to purge Germany of unwanted elements for the sake of the country. Similarly, in the exercise of Rwanda and other countries, ethnic cleansing or genocide take manoeuvre because of inequality and a false sense of nationalism.Sorting out the natural Cognitive ProcessesTo arrive at conflict resolution, one must talk over the theme of altering intergroup perceptions. This order is an individual-to-social strategy in which with a ternion party intervention, both groups can mutually exchan ge opinions and feelings. John Burton pioneers and implements a casework approach, a term used in social work to excuse the methods implemented to solve an in individual or group problem. Controlled communication signifies a substance to forge effective communication habits. Burton asserts that the source of conflict is miscommunication and the source of miscommunication is distorted worldviews or perceptions of the other. In practicing controlled communication, groups can share their prejudices and biases in a setting that cushys anger and sets a more amicable sound for talks would help improve relations. Also, Leonard Doob advocates sensitivity training which progresses the variety from individual-level change to collective change. He puts forward that a small exemplar group ventilates their perceptions, opinions, and concerns to create awareness and better grasping of group processes. The sensitivity training workshop is similar to a psychological therapy conducted by a thir d party. Ideas and feelings are shared to increase interpersonal effectiveness. (Toft 2010) declares that giving constituent to former combatants is a mechanism in conflict resolution to craft negotiation settlements in which re newlyed violence can be averted. This pattern follows the sensitivity training theory which enhances sympathy and increases chances at understanding and autocratic change.In Sigmund Freuds group processes theory, he posits that the groups way of thinking is spawned directly from the individuals. In Freuds hydraulic model, the precept is that just as it is dangerous to suppress feelings for fear of compounding them for a more violent eruption, so at the social level, it is risky to continually inhibit ill-feeling by conflict resolution (Strachey 1966) instead, venting would help diffuse tensions and instead of internalizing the resentment, the person finds relief in expression. In his work give in War a Chance (Luttwak 1999) examines the effect of peacek eeping which only temporarily resolves the issue by satisfying parties. However, he advocates war as the instrument of reaching a more definitive and longer lasting conflict resolution.Complex MirroringComplex mirroring within the group setting is a way in which the individual change scalps up to the group level change. In remedying traumatized individuals, the victims join themselves to a group and begin to mirror one anothers feelings and experiences. A critic notices that by listening to one anothers individual presentation of personal experiences, participants gain a new perspectiveby listening to the series of such descriptions, they gained the experience of universality (Herman 1997). As a result, the individual-level change dynamic transmutes into the group-level change. As one stunner the effect of trauma, the support group experiences secondary trauma as hurt members relate their experiences and seek emotional support. The incidence of secondary trauma gives rise to emp owerment and awareness. Kathie Sarachild formulated the conscious-raising psychotherapy structures specifically for the individual but which could be used to effect social rather than individual change (Herman 1997). This method was implemented for rape-victims who were silenced by the violence and trauma inflicted by another. In the scope of social change, political violence is a grave immorality inflicted by one and visited upon the other. A remedial path is a sensitization rather than retaining the silence over the injury. As the publics cognizance heightens, a cure has to be suggested and taken. The beneficial result is that changes at the individual level were being linked with policy processes at the macro level (Fisher 1997).Conflict Resolution Strengths and WeaknessesIn conflict resolution, a strength of the individual to group model application is that groups comprise a conglomerate organic structure in which individual mirroring gradually filters into the groups ethics . The reasoning is that a group is comprised of individuals and since a group is made up of individuals, then a method aimed at effecting change in an individual can also be applied to the group. However, this method does not factor in the vast diversity of the individuals belonging to a group. One rigid rule utilise for one individual cannot work for a group because this view only facilitates the one-size-fits-all theory which is not socially viable.ReferencesFisher, R.J. (1997). Interactive Conflict Resolution, Syracuse University shrink, tonic York.Herman, J.L. (1997). Trauma and Recovery. Basic Books Publishers, New York.Anonymous. (1996). valet de chambre Rights in Peace Negotiations, Human Rights Quarterly,18(2), 249-258.Luttwak, E. (1999). Give War a Chance, journal of Foreign Affairs, 78 (4), 36-44. Accessed 14 December 2011.Strachey, J. (1966). The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, The Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analy sis, Vol. 22,Toft, M.D. (2010). Ending Civil Wars A Case for Rebel Victory, Journal of International Security, 34 (2), 7-36.Paris, R. (2004). At Wars End mental synthesis Peace after Civil Conflict. Cambridge University Press.