Suggested citation:

Kelly, T. L. (2000). "Reflections on Approaching Conflict Resolution Through the Lenses of Theory and Experience." (Unpublished graduate paper, Portland State University, November 2000). Portland, OR: Author.

Conflict resolution as a relatively new academic field is informed by several long-established social science fields, including communication studies, women's studies, philosophy, sociology, psychology, anthropology, and criminology. Because there are so many informants, particular care must be taken when putting on one pair of theoretical glasses through which to view and deconstruct the nature of conflict. It is clear that there's no possible way to discount theory as a variable in what makes up our approach to resolving conflict. It is true there is the danger of over-generalizing behavior by applying one theory to complex sets of variables, but there is also the value of theory in its ability to lead to synthesis and clarity of a conflict, and as a catalyst for transformation. The theory may be constructed as a result of reflection on series of actions or experiences, or it may be proposed as a matter of pure speculation, but in either case, it is still theory that is driving the action. No matter what may be said about a purely action-driven approach, an "action-driven approach" is based on someone's theory about the utility of action-driven approaches. In the final analysis, it's turtles all the way down.

The danger in proposing actions based on theory, and what leads to overgeneralization of behavior, is that theory relies on correct assumptions. Assumptions about human behavior provide a foundation upon which to build a basis for reality. However, assumptions about human behavior can lead to dire consequences when applied to conflict resolution, as we have learned from examples of intercultural mediations that have assumed one cultural value works for all. While a theory can help move us beyond acculturation, the assumptions on which the theory is based may be just the same old acculturation dressed up in new clothes.

This gloomy outlook on the problems of theory-making is contrasted by the bright, courageous ideas that have been presented now and again in the cumulative disciplines as they inform conflict theory. Hannah Arendt gave us a fresh way to look at how violence may be the opposite of power, and Mary Parker Follett suggested that our external conflicts are reflections of our internal conflicts, so that when we are fighting with others we are also fighting ourselves. Feminist theoreticians challenge us to step completely out of all that we take for granted, and notice who and what creatd the assumptions in the first place. All of these examples are empowering for me as I agonize over my own ideas about conflict -- ideas that often leave me too afraid of their "otherness" to commit them even just to paper. Developing a theory is hard work but it can help to shed light on the complexities in which we find ourselves in. We just need to keep in touch with our assumptions, because along the way we may need to discard a few here and pick up a few there. A theory should at least be dynamic.

Follett had a bold new look on our assumptions about conflict. She said that when we are in conflict with "The Other" we are also in conflict with ourselves. That makes all conflict shared and potentially transformative. Arendt saw violence as an indicator of a spiraling into powerlessness, not as a show of power. Violence is used to subdue people because those who have "power" perceive that their power is getting scarce. They are, in effect, declaring their powerlessness by using violence. The subjugated at this point have the upper hand, even if at first it is only intellectually, morally, and ethically. What else it is is a marked opportunity for revolutionary transformation. This is what Gandhi realized in his meditations, and why he was able to remind people of the power they already had.

Through the lens of feminist theory it is revealed that many of our conflicts in the world have their basis in the assumption that everyone wants power, and there's not enough of it to go around. Within that assumption is one that assumes power is something that can be possessed, like property. Patriarchy, and perhaps more specifically, capitalism, as it manifests through these assumptions, is a dysfunctional system because it gives rise to behaviors that nearly always require violence as an option due to unceasing competition (as impossible as that may be), domination, environmental degradation, etc. Now, the trick is to allow feminist theory to be a lens in order to see this, but not to replace one set of assumptions (from capitalism) with another set (from feminism) that will one day oppress the people for whom the assumptions don't fit. This is the challenge when we make theories.

What if the ideal "goal" to strive for in conflict resolution is not justice, but gnosis? Gnosis is a state of enlightened authentic experience. You don't just know something, but you actually experience it - even if the "it" is real only as a concept. (The original Gnostics were declared heretics because they believed one could "know" God in an enlightened experiential way that transcended simple belief.) The experience of gnosis is an "aha!" sort of thing, that not only changes outcomes, but that which predicated the necessity for the outcome. Achieving gnosis seems to me to be a more realistic goal of theory in conflict resolution. Transformative mediation is one product of this call for an experiential model. Another way to view gnosis is as transformation to the degree that it changes the participants' views on what the conflict is (or isn't), and thus the conflict may become moot in light of other more important mutual goals (i.e. the warring factions of the world stop fighting each other in light of a new mutual threat, such as an alien attack from outer space). Achieving gnosis can also mean that all participants in a conflict are elevated above the conflict enough to realize the inherent positive value in the conflict itself.

Perhaps we have too narrow a view on what justice is. That narrow view may be due to faulty assumptions upon which our theory of justice rests. In a theory of conflict resolution that does not rest on an assumption of justice as the all-powerful goal, the notion of conflict itself loses some of its sting, perhaps enough for us to take a fresh look on the nature of conflict and its value in our lives. I would like to explore the possibility that conflict as a valuable human drive is complimentary with the idea of "power with" instead of "power over."

Toward that end, I have been reading Jungian theory, because in my view Carl Jung dedicated his life to facing the most basic human conflicts within himself for the purpose of helping other understand their own internal battles (and by extension, borrowing from Follett, those internal battles are reflected in the culture in which we interact.) I read about when a patient of Jung's had a dream in which she was told to descend into a pit filled with hot material and submerge herself in it. She obeyed, with merely one shoulder left sticking out of the pit. Then, in the dream, Jung came along and pushed her all the way into the hot material saying, "Not out, but through." This is a very simple parable describing what I mean about conflict having value in our lives, and why we need to explore going through it instead of always striving to get out of it or "fix" it.

Conflict is a predicament but not a pathology. Inasmuch as conflict is a basic instinct, the goal is fruitless if we try to get out of it, or even to correct it. (That is what I like so much about a description of conflict "resolution" as having more to do with clarifying the conflict, not solving it.) Jung speculated that "the soul's longing is for consciousness to enter ever deeper into conflict, to the very heart of the matter, not because of a morbid masochism, but to keep with the alchemical insight that the mess we find ourselves in to begin with is the Prima Materia to whom the conflict is dedicated. In this sense, one might even say that it is not the world nor we who need to be rescued from conflict; on the contrary, it is the conflict itself that needs to be rescued." (Wolfgang Geigerich, "The Opposition of 'Individual' and 'Collective'- Psychology's Basic Fault." Harvest: Journal for Jungian Studies, 1996. V. 42, No. 2, pp. 7-27.) This rings as truth, in my view, but I am still learning and I can't say for sure if I have examined all the assumptions underlying this theory. What I do know is that there is something about conflict (and struggle, suffering, etc.) that is implicated in our perceptions of art. Some art can be described as "violent" but somehow we can still perceive its beauty. Many artists who we now consider geniuses led lives of constant inner violence. Perhaps our artistic perception is an alchemy of the "soul's yearning," and the deeper we go through our conflicts, the closer we are to our purest nature.

These are simply the thoughts I have had while reading material on theory-making and the theories that are made. So, what can theory provide? A pair of glasses through which to see clearly and to synthesize what we know. What are the limitations of theory? Just like a pair of glasses, you can only look through one at a time.