Nonviolence Healing Paths from Violence and Trauma Dr. Nahla Harb

 

First Assignment, Attendance, Tutorials: Guidelines

 

First Assignment, Attendance, Tutorials October 2026

International Online Fellowship Program Nonviolence & Peace

October 2, 2026 to January 30, 2027

Assignment Attendance Tutorials 

October 16, 2025

Dear friends in peace,

Greetings.

As we progress in to the IFPNP-V, we need to intensify our learning exercises. Some of the self-study exercises are:

1.Assignment: Monthly one assignment

2. Tutorials: Fortnightly (2 hours) for those interested in exploring any subthemes for further details

3. Journal writing: Regular recording of one’s Learning and self-reflection on Nonviolence/Peace

4.Attendance: Complete attendance expected. Attendance less than 80 percent   indicates, ‘Course-not-completed’

5. Project: Periodical sharing and final report submission 

Progress of the participants will be assessed by their involvement and comprehension that are evident in their self-study exercises.

I.     Submission of the Assignment (for the first month):

a.       Assignment guidelines

 i.            Each assignment can be between 1500-2000 words

 ii.            A4, Times Roman, Font size 12

 iii.            Assignment can be hand written or typed. However, it has to be submitted in PDF Format.

 iv.            Title Page of the Assignment should have the following details in the given sequence

·               Title of the Program (IFPNP V)

·               Assignment No.  (Assignment 1 or 2 or 3)

·               Title of the Assignment

·               Name of the writer

·               Date of submission

    v.            Name of the PDF file should contain the following

·        Your name_IFPNP V_Assignment 1/2/3

       vi.   Last date for the submission of first month assignment is Nov. 5, 2026.

        vii.    Email id for submission: peace.nonviolence2022@gmail.com

b.      Assignment Topic

    i.            Assignment for the first month -October

Assignment #1 

Showing how well you understand information discussed in IFPNP course sessions, briefly discuss three main obstacles to applying Gandhi’s conceptualisation and ideas of nonviolence in the current security context in the world, and how each obstacle can be mitigated.

II. Tutorials                                     

a.   Those interested in getting further details on any of the topics of the IFPNP can ask for tutorials.  Special interactive focused sessions, with a specialist will be arranged exclusively for them.

Fortnightly ( 2 hours) for those interested in exploring  any subthemes for further details.

 III. Journal writing                                         

a.       Every individual candidate is requested to maintain a journal and do regular recording of one’s learning and self-reflection on Nonviolence and Peace.  This can be from the sessions or your own introspection / insights.

b.       Organizers would be pleased to review your journal and give their remark.

 IV.  Attendance                               

a.       Candidates of IFPNP-V are expected to attend all the sessions.  Maintaining complete attendance is desired. Attendance less than 80 per cent by any would amounts to, ‘Course-not-completed’

V.  Project                                                        

a.       By the middle of December, each one of will choose a project topic and carryout it, with the help of the guide / mentor assigned by the organizer.

                                                                   

Yours in Peace and Friendship,

Siby K. Joseph

Director, IFPNP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conflict Resolution Prof. Dorcas Ettang

 

October 16, 2026

Understanding Conflict Resolution

Prof. Dorcas Ettang

In the last session, we discussed the foundational dynamics of conflict, deconstructed several widespread misconceptions, and explored various analytical frameworks to help us make sense of it. I hope those models provided valuable insights into your own local contexts, helping you better understand the historical root causes, manifestations, and structural layers of the conflicts occurring around you.

Now I want to transition to conflict resolution—specifically, focusing on the different styles that individuals and institutions use to respond to friction. While there is a vast amount of behavioural research available on this topic, our focus will be on the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, widely known as the TKI model. Later in this program, we will dedicate an entire session to digging deeper into the practical mechanics of dialogue and structured mediation.

The TKI framework posits that human responses to conflict are driven by two basic behavioural dimensions: assertiveness—the extent to which you attempt to satisfy your own concerns—and cooperativeness—the extent to which you attempt to satisfy the other person's concerns. Based on these tracks, the model identifies five distinct conflict resolution styles: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating. As we move into our breakout groups later, I want us to reflect deeply on these categories. Which style aligns most closely with your natural response? Does your approach shift dynamically depending on exactly who you are in conflict with?

Let us begin with the Competing Style.

This approach is characterised by high assertiveness and low cooperativeness. When individuals or groups adopt this mode, they are completely intent on pushing their own agenda and opinions. They stand rigidly in their positions and display no willingness to cooperate. It becomes an uncompromising stance: "It is my way or no way at all." Consequently, the operational objective of competition is inherently zero-sum: I win, and you lose.

This raises a vital question for our cohort: if we are advocating for nonviolence as our universal standard of engagement, shouldn't our baseline objective always be I win, and you win?

The competing style is fundamentally power-oriented. A person pursues their own individual goals strictly at the other party's expense, relying on whatever power seems appropriate to dominate the situation. It is entirely about asserting authority and standing firm in the face of structural opposition. When two highly assertive, uncooperative parties are locked in a room together, finding common ground or a peaceful resolution becomes extraordinarily difficult. Competition naturally draws sharp lines, creating an "us versus them" dynamic that frequently damages relationships.

However, the TKI model notes that a competing style can occasionally be useful. It is necessary when a situation requires a split-second decision or decisive emergency action. In a crisis scenario, there is simply no time for long-term collaboration; an authoritative figure must make an immediate command decision to move everyone forward. Furthermore, competition is justified when you must act decisively to protect your family, your community, or vulnerable populations from imminent physical harm.

This presents an interesting intersection with our studies on nonviolence. Can strategic nonviolence be applied in a highly assertive manner? Absolutely. We can be intensely assertive and unyielding when we are defending fundamental human rights, upholding vital principles of tolerance, or resisting institutional oppression. There is a profound space for reflection on how assertiveness can be leveraged non-violently as a tool for justice.

Nevertheless, the long-term risks of overusing a competing approach are severe. First, it inflicts serious damage on human relationships. If a party routinely forces their way through a dispute, what happens to the social fabric once the crisis settles? Is the relationship safe? Can mutual trust ever be restored? When resolving a conflict, we must prioritise the long-term relationships among the parties involved, ensuring that mutual respect endures the decision-making process.

Second, an overuse of raw authority and competition rapidly escalates conflict. We see this play out internationally when state actors or warring factions enter peace negotiations. If either side relies exclusively on heavy-handed coercion and assertion, the dialogue fractures, frequently leading to an escalation of real-world violence.

Third, competition leaves others feeling completely steamrolled, ambushed, forced, and deeply resentful. Even if you "win" the immediate conflict and secure your specific outcome, the resentment harboured within the marginalised group will steadily grow, creating a volatile atmosphere that can trigger future catastrophes.

A simple everyday example of this is a corporate manager who rigidly enforces a strict project deadline while completely ignoring and silencing the valid constraints raised by their team. This dynamic applies directly to governance as well. When a local municipal councillor acts with high assertiveness and refuses to foster a cooperative space for public participation, it naturally sparks intense community resistance.

Our second framework is the Collaborating Style.

Collaboration is the polar opposite of competition, characterised by high assertiveness and high cooperativeness. This is the authentic I win, and you win scenario. In this mode, the parties join forces to solve a shared problem because they recognise that the issue impacts them collectively.

If we look back at the example of the community borehole dispute, a collaborating approach asks: how can we design a shared system where everyone wins? How can we balance the immediate needs of those who require water for cooking and medical purposes with those of those who must wash clothes or catch public transport to work? The hallmark of collaboration is open, highly constructive dialogue aimed at discovering a mutually beneficial solution that satisfies the core concerns of both parties.

If we apply this to our other case study—the land dispute between the municipality and the local neighbourhood—we see that by utilising the Onion Method, we can systematically peel back the outer layers of public political positioning. This allows us to discover the true underlying interests and core needs of both sides.

Collaboration is highly effective when the issue at hand is deeply complex and intensely important to both parties. Given that real-world conflicts are rarely simple, working together to untangle the structural layers jointly is the only way to achieve a lasting resolution. Crucially, collaboration is the preferred style when preserving the relationship between the parties is paramount...

 

 

You want to protect the relationship and build trust. That is absolutely important in any interaction: how do we build trust? How do we strengthen relationships and ensure successful collaboration?

Collaboration is exceptionally useful when you have the luxury of time and a genuine willingness from all sides to explore multiple options. Because many conflicts are deeply complex, you need time to weigh the different paths forward. Collaboration provides exactly that—the structural time and space to interrogate, explore, and closely evaluate different approaches and options to resolve the issue.

However, there is also an inherent risk with collaboration: it can be incredibly time-consuming. As the old saying goes, "nothing good comes easy." If we are dealing with a severe, persistent issue that has festered over time, collaborating on a solution will demand a significant investment of hours and energy. It takes time because we need to look at the problem from entirely different angles, explore various solutions, and actively include multiple parties.

Think back to our session when we did the actor relationship mapping and structural analysis. In a conflict of that nature, you are dealing with a private corporation, the government, an NGO, the local community, and the media all at once. If you want to collaborate to find a unified solution among all these actors, it will take time. Consequently, collaboration might not be practical when a situation is fast-moving, quickly evolving, and demands an immediate response. It would be wonderful to hear your thoughts on this later during our discussion. Do you agree with this assertion, or do you disagree?

To visualise this style, consider an example in which two department heads or two local ward councillors have entirely different priorities regarding a piece of public land. One wants to use the space for a community garden, while the other wants to develop it into a park. Instead of fighting over whose plan will be approved, where municipal funds will be channelled, and whose authority will prevail, they can meet to brainstorm. By collaborating, they can design a joint proposal that achieves both of their goals, using the time and space to review their different priorities and identify a common objective.

This brings us to our third style: Compromising.

Compromise is defined by moderate assertiveness and moderate cooperativeness. The basic philosophy here is simple: you give a little, and I give a little. It is not a zero-sum "I win, you lose" situation, nor is it a fully integrated "I win, you win" outcome. Instead, it is an approach where each party gives up something of value to reach a mutually acceptable, though not necessarily perfect, middle ground. It is a process of give-and-take.

If we apply compromise to our community water conflict, we might ask: could we negotiate a give-and-take arrangement? Could we perhaps interface with local transport providers and say, "Look, for the workers who need to fetch water at this specific peak time, can their morning shifts start slightly later?" This highlights how we can think creatively about conflict, exploring different ways to negotiate, compromise, and manage the options available to us.

When you look at modern media and current global events, the dominant narrative often suggests that we should be highly assertive or focus entirely on eliminating the opposing party. However, these conflict-resolution frameworks show that there are always options and alternative paths available—pathways we may not have even considered yet.

You typically employ a compromising style when you need a quick, decisive solution or a temporary fix. Once again, the specific nature of the conflict and the immediate issue at hand will define your approach. If time is severely limited and an issue must be addressed immediately, we must ask: are we willing to compromise?

Compromise works best when the stakes are moderate, and both sides are genuinely willing to settle the dispute. They want the matter resolved, so they naturally calculate what they need to let go of to achieve a functional resolution.

However, the primary risk of compromise is that both parties might leave the table feeling dissatisfied. It forces us to ask a difficult question: how much are we truly willing to give up in the name of peace? This is a vital consideration in peacebuilding.

When you look at conflict research regarding signed peace agreements between warring factions, the statistics show that the majority of peace agreements globally fail within five years. Why does this happen? Often, it is because, once the agreement is signed, the compromises made become deeply unpalatable to one of the parties over time, or the terms agreed upon were simply unrealistic given the conditions on the ground.

Furthermore, during high-level peace negotiations, it is impossible to bring every single constituent into the room. Leaders choose two or three individuals to represent the whole group, and these representatives occasionally agree to systemic compromises that their members back home completely reject. This creates a severe disconnect. For a compromise to hold, the parties must engage in a balanced give-and-take where they can realistically live with what they have agreed to share and concede.

Another major risk of compromise is that by rushing to find a middle ground, you often overlook the deeper, underlying issues and miss out on truly creative solutions. In such instances, taking the time to collaborate would be a much more effective response, as it allows you to explore deeper systemic layers. When a conflict spans years, previous generations, and historical cycles of violence, merely splitting the difference makes long-term success very difficult to achieve.

A simple everyday example of compromise is when two colleagues disagree on how to divide responsibilities or share tasks for a joint project. Rather than one dominating the project or spending weeks collaborating on a perfect structural redesign, they engage in a quick give-and-take, dividing the role down the middle so they can both move forward immediately.

This give-and-take dynamic could play out in a community setting, or even in a domestic setting between partners or between parents and their children. For instance, when deciding how to divide household or team responsibilities, a group might split the tasks 50/50 and try to compromise. While it might not be the most innovative arrangement or the most structurally efficient system, you accept it by saying, "You know what? That is perfectly fine; you can take that half," and you move forward.

The fourth style in the TKI framework is Avoiding.

Avoidance is defined by low assertiveness and low cooperativeness. The basic formula for this stance is I lose, and you lose—but at least we are not actively fighting. The relationship remains pleasant on the surface: "Hi, hello, how are you?" You deliberately choose to set the issue aside. You live together peacefully as neighbours, but you choose to structurally withdraw from or sidestep the conflict rather than addressing it directly.

Across various organisational and community contexts, we frequently encounter natural avoiders—individuals who immediately step back and state, "I do not want to get involved in this friction."

It is fascinating to note that within the Thomas-Kilmann model, each of these five responses has its own utility. Each style brings specific structural benefits, just as each carries distinct disadvantages.

An avoiding style is highly useful when the issue at hand is completely trivial and simply not worth your limited time, emotional energy, or institutional resources. Of course, some peace practitioners might strongly disagree with this approach. They would argue, "Yes, the issue appears small right now, but if you leave it unaddressed for a few weeks, it will inevitably fester and escalate from one minor grievance into a massive, multi-layered crisis." Therefore, the utility of avoidance depends entirely on the nature of the issue.

Avoidance is also incredibly useful as a temporary measure when collective emotions are running high, and the situation demands an immediate pause. When raw tension, aggression, and anger dominate the room, a temporary withdrawal is highly strategic.

Remember our discussion about applying nonviolence when facing an intensely oppressive adversary. If you are called into a highly volatile space to help mediate a conflict, and you observe that one or both groups are experiencing intense emotional spikes, how do you manage that space? If you allow the parties to keep debating the issues while their tempers are flaring, it will directly escalate hostility. In that exact moment, the correct tactical move is to enforce a pause. You separate the parties, let everyone step back temporarily, and then—as mediators—you go into their respective spaces to speak with Party A and Party B privately to calm the emotional temperature.

In this sense, avoidance functions as a calculated, temporary pause to gather your thoughts or collect more reliable data. However, some unique conflicts might genuinely need to be avoided permanently.

The primary risk of this approach is that important, substantive issues may fester and dramatically escalate over time. Simply because Party B avoided a structural grievance this month does not mean they will be able or willing to avoid it next month. Furthermore, persistent avoidance signals a deep institutional disinterest or passivity. It communicates the message, "I do not care about this issue, and I am not invested in maintaining this relationship." It looks laid-back, detached, and completely unbothered.

This passive stance severely impacts long-term relationships due to a total lack of meaningful communication. When we avoid, avoid, and avoid, we are merely pushing toxic issues under the rug. This is precisely why continuous dialogue and regular institutional check-ins are so necessary.

A standard everyday example of this style is an employee who strongly disagrees with a co-worker’s counterproductive behaviour but says absolutely nothing, silently hoping the issue will magically resolve itself over time. We see this happen in broader civic spaces as well: citizens might deeply disagree with a newly enacted government policy, yet they choose to go about their daily business without launching a protest, writing a formal letter to their representatives, or demanding a public engagement forum. They accept the status quo, hoping that the structural defect will resolve itself over time. Sometimes it does, but frequently, it does not, leading to severe long-term civic implications.

Finally, our fifth framework is the Accommodating Style.

Accommodating is the absolute inverse of competition, operating on the formula "you win, I lose." In this mode, an individual or a group is completely willing to concede their position. You deliberately place the other person's interests, needs, and preferences ahead of your own to preserve structural harmony or to avoid a confrontation altogether. In the name of peace, you say, "You win." To ensure that the human relationship remains strong, positive, and intact, you choose to yield.

This style works exceptionally well when the issue matters significantly more to the other person than it does to you. Returning to our community borehole conflict, suppose a person who needs water urgently for critical health and medical purposes encounters someone who needs water to wash their clothes. The person washing clothes might choose to accommodate them, saying, "You know what? Go ahead and jump the line. Your health is a priority, and it matters much more than my immediate interest in doing laundry." In this instance, honouring the relationship and the shared humanity of the other party is far more important than winning the argument. You willingly choose to give them this victory.

Accommodation is also the most appropriate response when you realise that your position was factually or morally wrong. It signals an authentic acceptance of your mistake, an acknowledgement of the error, and a genuine willingness to grant the other party what they rightfully desire or need.

However, the severe risk of constant accommodation is that if an individual or a group is perpetually giving up their ground to satisfy another's demands, it directly leads to deep internal resentment and burnout. Eventually, that unvoiced resentment will destroy the very relationship you were trying to protect.

When you overuse accommodation, the fundamental needs and boundaries of one party are completely neglected and erased from the equation. A simple everyday example is a team member who agrees to completely rewrite and redesign their presentation slides at the absolute last minute to match a dominant colleague’s aesthetic preferences, even though they fundamentally disagree with the changes.

This brings us directly to our core discussion question for today’s session: Which of these five conflict resolution styles do you relate to the most, and why?

Are you naturally an avoidant person? Are you a fierce competitor? I see some of you laughing right now because you recognise exactly which category you fall into! Are you naturally accommodating, or does your style depend entirely on the specific issue and the person you are dealing with? Are you someone who defaults to a quick compromise, or are you a dedicated collaborator?

Let us establish, from the outset, that within this framework there is absolutely no right or wrong answer. Every single style serves a purpose. The profound question we must answer is: What does your chosen style mean within the broader context of nonviolence? Because you are committed to the path of nonviolence, do you automatically default to avoidance because you want to keep the peace at all costs? Or can you engage in a highly competitive, unyielding struggle while remaining completely nonviolent?

We'll go into our groups, and then everyone should have a chance to share their views, thoughts, and choices.

Feedback from Group Discussions

• Group 1: I was in Group One. Most participants relied solely on the collaborating mode. When it comes to solving the problem, they were in collaborative or compromising mode. I would say that, thinking globally from an economic point of view, capitalism is in the tree of compromise: "I give less than you, and I make money." And I think this is across the globe.
• Group 2: I was in Group Two, and their views on their experiences were very diverse; most focused on collaboration and its benefits, not just at a theoretical level. Everyone was speaking from their experiences. It was very wonderful to hear from all of them. Collaboration—and even in the time of conflict, even in the time of competition, we can still collaborate. It doesn't have to be one or the other; we can start with competition and still end up in collaboration. So, it was great listening to the group members.
• Group 3: I was in Group Three. My group mates' discussion was prioritised more toward collaboration, of course. They chose collaboration because it's a win-win approach, meaning "I win, you win." This means it's a deep problem-solving approach. Unlike compromising and unlike competing, the parties or the actors actively engage in safeguarding something equally. That's why we selected collaborating. It has the highest assertiveness because, as said before, it's a win-win and it's deeper problem-solving. Further, it builds and preserves trust because it’s, by nature, about togetherness. Unfortunately, you may collaborate with others in a win-win situation for equal benefits, or you may also actively engage in difficult situations where you lose. Unlike competing and compromising—when you compromise, you may lose something.
• Group 4: Actually, we discussed all the methods of conflict resolution, such as avoiding, competing, accommodating, compromising, and collaborating. We discussed a few thoughts on each topic. We also came up with a strategy: our response to this situation depends on how conditioned we are and on our personality. People will take action as per their personality and conditioning. Our response also depends on the resources—how many we have—and on our actions in the situation. In response to competing, one fellow cited an Indian mythological reference: how Krishna encouraged Arjuna to take part in the war. We had an example from Sudan showing how difficult the situation is there and how they will pursue cooperation. These are some of the discussions that happened in our group.
• Group 5: In our group, there was a wide range, and it was very effective, I think, for us to learn from one another—from three people saying, "We are primarily avoidant," to others saying, "We prefer collaboration, but we will go to compromise," and several people saying, "It depends on the circumstances." I thought I was the only one who could focus on collaboration while also being very assertive. I see this in Gandhi also: holding firm to the truth as you see it can have disadvantages.
• Group 6: We believe that a bit of each option is necessary to consider, depending on the situation and the type of conflict we face. We really don't like competition. We don't want that competition. We prefer all of the other choices. For the moment, we have a situation in Nigeria where gas is expensive, and there's inflation—so what we chose to do, what we started to do in Nigeria, was to accommodate the price. We did it, all of us; there was no protest, nothing of the sort, so we just went by it. I think, at times, the situation determines which options to choose.

Further Individual Reflections from Fellows

1. When we talk about conflict resolution, it is a reactive process, because a conflict is already in place. And across all the tools given to us now—under conflict styles, be it avoiding, competing, collaborating, accommodating, compromising, and the rest—what matters most is that we understand the type of conflict on the ground. Then we'll be able to determine the style applicable to addressing that conflict.
2. I think—this is my personal opinion—that competition and nonviolence can never go together. Competition is the source of all violence because, mainly, first of all, competition has the assumption that there are scarce resources that we need to fight for or that we need to compete for, which is a myth. And this idea of scarce resources leads us to become very covetous, to try to keep things for ourselves, and to feel insecure.
   The second thing is what Gandhi taught about greed: he said that if I have even more than one coat, I'm stealing it from someone who could use it. So, if we all had spiritual education—which, unfortunately, there's a huge lack of today—and we worked on ourselves to address our own greed, then I don't think there would be any need for competition. So, I feel like competition has no place in nonviolence. Of course, the reality is very far from the truth of what I'm speaking; it is a very high ideal. This is what I believe.
   I was talking about avoidance as a strategy when, for example, I don't have the mental resources, or when someone has more power than me, and I don't have the mental, physical, or material resources to compete with them. Then avoidance is better as a strategy for my mental health and for my own safety. For example, if I feel like someone doesn't have integrity and that, if I compete with them, I won’t get a fair chance, then avoidance is better.
3. I want to emphasise that avoidance invites more problems in the long run. Yes, it's violence. You do it to yourself because it's never going to go away; it's going to keep coming back. It's not going to lead to any resolution, whether it's in the issue we are discussing or in a personal relationship. Even if progress is little, it is better to address it and make peace with ourselves and others. Just putting it off or avoiding it won’t solve any problem. That's my opinion.
4. Avoiding is a kind of lifestyle in India as well, not just religious, but also due to conflict conditions, because here people belong to different backgrounds, different religions, and different cultures. So, when there is any conversation or even the beginning of the conflict itself, you have two options: first, to avoid or to cooperate. I don't think there is a middle ground here in India. Honestly, I prefer to avoid and be uncooperative from the first 10 seconds of the conversation or situation.
5. I want to say I think the relationship is a bridge, and to communicate effectively, both sides need to build this—this half of it. Thus, I go up to a person and try to have a conversation, but the doors—I'm not avoiding; I'm just trying—but the other person doesn't want to.
6. I agree with everybody about avoidance, but I personally do not think it should be a final solution. Maybe, in the meantime, to avoid violence or escalation, you could use avoidance and accommodation, but mind you, it could send a message of weakness. Trying to avoid or accommodate someone to make them win could give the impression that you are weak or something. I think, in the meantime, for peace to reign and to avoid violence, you apply avoidance and accommodation there. We can revisit that in the future and apply a collaborative method to reach a lasting solution.
7. We need to look back and recall what we learned about conflict prevention—specifically, the part of the theory that addresses physiological, safety, and emotional needs. And if you see anyone who perceives a conflict and chooses to avoid it, I don't think there is anything wrong with that, because you cannot do something that will come back to hurt you. Personal safety is paramount. You need to protect yourself before others. That's what I'm talking about regarding avoidance as one of the tools to apply.
8. We have an issue. One of the issues was this tribal sentiment from our political leaders. One can say it started with the former regime, when the head of state—the former head of state—always pointed out one tribe and insulted them, even though this tribe is the majority in the Gambia. So, in that aspect, people were very afraid of him, and they started avoiding it; they didn't talk about it. What is happening now in the Gambia is that people—religious leaders, youth leaders, among others—have started advocating openly, talking about it to address the issue instead of avoiding it. They are telling the different tribes that, absolutely, what is important is being a Gambian, not the language that you speak at your own house.
9.  I want to clarify that I meant avoiding will always create more problems. I was specifically referring to personal problems when you do not address a certain conflict and you avoid it; with family members and friends, those things will come back. It will spoil your relationship. However, we are in different countries. I live in a peaceful country. If you are in a foreign country and dealing with political unrest and all that, we need to discern whether avoiding it is a good idea. Maybe it's a good idea for your own personal safety or emotional well-being. If that's the option, we should choose it.
10.  I want to add something. You're completely right, because avoiding is harmful in our personal lives. If we use avoidance in our personal lives, we will regret it later. The condition, the society, the people—everything is shaping us, shaping our response to everything around us. You are completely right. And yes, as you mentioned about politics and the condition of the country, yes, avoiding is compulsory for a person to even be at peace. But in personal life, no; it harms the person, harms the people we care about, and harms us as well after some time.

Overview of Conflict Prof. Dorcas Ettang

 

Understanding Conflict or Key Concepts of Conflict

Prof. Dorcas Ettang

 

Thank you very much for this opportunity. I will be speaking on conflict. I think the word 'conflict' is very broad, and there is a lot to say, but I will try in the next few minutes to offer some key perspectives to consider and some ideas about conflict. I always like to start with the definition. Conflict is a perceived or actual incompatibility of needs, values, or goals between two or more parties. It emerges because there is a disagreement about what our values or goals are as a family or as a community—and, of course, our needs as well. We all have different needs, and when those needs clash, we see conflict. Conflict occurs when some individuals feel that their needs, their interests, or their beliefs clash with those of another person or group.

For example, if we have a water source in a community, different members of the community look to it to meet their needs. Some need water for food, some for washing their clothes, and some for health, and so on. Even with something like that, clashes can emerge. In a community where there is a central water hole, you might have somebody who says, "Look, I need to go to work. I need to jump the line to get access to water so I can get to work, get on transport, and make it on time."

Meanwhile, somebody else says, "Well, I need water to cook and to feed my children before they go to school." And somebody else says, "Well, I need the water because I need to wash some things urgently before I go to work." Whatever the case may be, everyone's needs and interests are a priority. So, how do we balance those diversities?

Sometimes in conflict, the incompatibility is real. We can see it. There is one water hole or borehole, and everyone in the community has to get water from there. You have to join a line to access it, and the earlier you arrive, the better your chances of getting water quickly. The incompatibility is real on one hand, where opposing interests and opposing goals create that conflict.

At other times, some of this conflict is perceived; it is not truly a structural source of conflict. It becomes a conflict because there is a misunderstanding, people hold assumptions that are not true and not based on evidence, or there is miscommunication. To resolve those kinds of conflicts, communication is key. This is where parties share their views and the facts, rather than letting assumptions lead to tensions and then full-scale conflict.

Conflict is not a bad thing. It is only what it can result in if it is not addressed, or if people in conflict are not willing to resolve it. Now, I have another question for you. Please go to menti.com and enter the code shown on the screen, or you can scan the QR code with your phone." What are some of the misconceptions people have about conflict? I think one of the things I have already said is that conflict is not a bad thing, and sometimes we tend to create the idea that it is, but in reality, it is not. That is a misconception that we need to debunk.

 Let's see if we can get any results. We can see it now. "Avoiding conflict will make it go away." That is one of the responses, and that is true, right? We avoid, and we avoid, and we avoid without addressing the conflict, thinking it will go away. But then what happens is we have escalation, tensions, and assumptions; we create ideas that become our reality, even though they are not the reality of those in the conflict.

Then there is the idea that it is always negative, which is not true. Sometimes conflict leads to change. It leads to a transformed society. It leads to new ideas of thinking, new values, and so on. "Conflict is bad"—of course, that is a misconception. As we have said, it is not all bad. It leads to new ways of thinking and doing things.

"Conflict can be addressed through silence" is an absolute misconception. You know, some people say, "Let me be quiet." It is very possible that it is not an issue for some. And so that is an important point. Engagement, communication, and dialogue are key. I say this: dialogue has to become the culture of a society. We must have dialogue constantly—not just when there is conflict, and not just during elections. We must have those spaces to avoid silence and the worsening of situations.

"We should avoid conflict at any cost" is another absolute misconception. We should not just ignore it. The claim that "Conflict is unrest and violence in the mind" is also a misconception. We can have conflict that does not lead to violence.

"Aggressive people create conflict, and it is negative" is another misconception. These are very interesting points, because I think there is the idea that it is always the loud, aggressive people who are in conflict. However, it can happen to anyone and involve any group.

"One party sometimes escalates the conflict because he or she wants the problem to be visible to the other party." Escalation, too, could be a problem, and it is very worrying to let something escalate to such a point.

Then we have "conflict is negative and cannot be positive." We have already talked about that.

Regarding the misconceptions about "ego" and "jealousy"—I am not sure what the context is here, but conflict is not always about ego or jealousy. It is just unmet needs that need to be addressed, and so on.

Thank you very much for those comments.

When we think of conflict, several theories have emerged to offer ideas or context about its causes. I have pulled a few of these theories. The first is the Human Needs Theory, which argues that conflict arises when people's basic human needs go unmet.

So, the basic needs are safety, identity, respect, autonomy, and belonging. When people do not feel safe, when their identity is threatened, when there is a lack of respect for them, or when they lack autonomy, independence, and a sense of belonging, this can escalate into conflict. Conflict can emerge when these basic human needs are unmet over time, right? We have seen this in many instances, you know, where there are protests over services, protests over government response, and so on. All of these are different unmet needs.

The second is Social Identity Theory, which argues that people's desire to protect and promote their group identity can lead to conflict. If I feel my identity is being threatened—we see this a lot in ethnic conflicts between ethnic groups—and people feel that specific policies, programs, and interventions are causing a disadvantage to their groups. They would want to engage in conflict to try and protect this identity. If the laws of a country are being changed to disadvantage a group identity, then this is where we apply the Social Identity Theory.

The third is the Structural Systems Theory. This looks at the structure of our political systems; it looks at the structure of our social systems. Are there groups facing inequalities and inequities? Are there hierarchies where those of a specific class, race, or identity have access and political connections? In contrast, others of a lesser race, class, or identity lack space in that system. This could lead to conflict. Poor communication channels as well, where only some people have access to key political players, and others cannot communicate their needs effectively.

Moving forward, we have the Conflict Theory, a sociological perspective in which power struggles and competition over scarce resources drive conflict. We talked about the water hole, or water source, and how it is the only one in the community, so there is competition as others try to access it. Power struggles are often linked to resources as well. We see this during elections and political activity, where parties struggle against each other for control, or even within political parties.

Next, we look at the Psychodynamic Theory, in which conflict arises from internal psychological processes. So, when people have unmet emotional needs, past trauma, and defence mechanisms, all of these different psychological processes contribute to conflict. The issue of trauma and psychological and mental violence is something that really needs priority, because this can trigger conflict on a larger scale than ever experienced.

Another perspective is the Interest-Based Theory, where conflict emerges when people or groups have competing goals, priorities, or interests, right? So, these can be negotiated. In the case of a water issue where everyone needs water at the same time, can there be a negotiated arrangement, program, or system to manage these interests? For those who need water for food and those who need it for other purposes, is there a way to reconcile these interests?

Finally, of course, the Communication Theory argues that conflict can arise from miscommunication. A breakdown in communication, no communication, or poor communication patterns can all lead to conflict.

This is to give us some ideas of how conflicts emerge in different environments. I am also presenting the conflict wheel. When we talk about conflict, there are many theories, many approaches, and many people who have come up with ways to try and understand it—why it is happening—what are the causes?

Christopher Moore presents, I believe, five types of conflicts. He has relationship, information, interest, structural, and value conflicts. He presents these as key types of conflict that could emerge so that we can look at some of them.

We can see relationship conflict when strong emotions, misconceptions, or stereotypes are present. Poor communication or miscommunication can worsen relationships.

Then, with information, the lack of information, misinformation, different views on what is relevant, different interpretations of data, and different assessment procedures can cause conflict, according to Christopher Moore. Is the information available in a specific context? Are some people getting information because of their class or because of who they know? Misinformation features as well. We have seen in some conflicts that the misinformation online is false.

I remember reading a story about images that were spread online during a conflict, but they showed a completely different country. I think it was about a conflict in Sudan, but the images were from a completely different conflict. Now, this can lead to escalation because people who see it can share it, causing complete chaos. Social media and digital technologies play a significant role in this situation. It is very interesting because, for example, even in Somalia, the Somali diaspora living overseas is involved in the conflict due to their access to social media. They can receive and share information. It has really changed the dynamics of conflict.

We have conflicts of interest and competing substantive issues. It could be issues ranging from access to opportunity to disagreements over choice, legitimacy, and fairness. What is fair? Is the judicial system fair in a specific context? It is possible that there can be disagreement over those systems and procedures, access to education, employment, resources, and so on. Then you have psychological distress over poor human relations. This has to do with poor social support—the absence of social support for those who are going through emotional and mental trauma.

Finally, we have structural conflicts, which deal with how a situation is set up. Is the system of governance set up to prevent conflict, or is the system of governance a cause or a trigger for conflict? It also includes time constraints, unequal power, and unequal authority. Who holds more power in the system, in the society, or in the community? Unequal access to resources fits here as well.

So, there is a clash in positions and roles, as well as geographical constraints of distance and physical terrain.

Then we have value conflict, where we have competing values. These include competing values over family, society, and human rights, as well as intolerance of other values that differ—you know, judging other values as superior or inferior. All of this, I think, speaks to the fact that, as human beings, we are very complex, and at different times and stages, we experience these conflicts. It could be between us and someone else, or between our group and other groups. It speaks to the diversity of our interests and views, and how we humans feel.

So now, how do we coexist in such a state where we have different values, we have different ways of communication, and so on?

There is a method called the onion and doughnut method. This is basically based on an onion. Imagine when you peel an onion, there are different layers. If the conflict is an onion, there are three layers that one must be aware of.

The first layer is positions—the outer layer of the onion. What do parties want publicly? In a conflict between party A and party B, what do the parties want? They make this known publicly on social media, at protests, and through those channels. Those are their positions.

When you peel the next layer, it is the interests. What do they really want? Even if I protest publicly about education, is that really the interest? What do I really hope to achieve, or what do I hope for?

Then you go deeper, and that is where the needs are. What do they fundamentally need? Yes, we might protest and say we want this; when you meet with us, we might say these are our interests, but truly at the crux of it, what do parties need?

For example, consider a community land dispute. A local government wants to build a park on an empty piece of land. It wants to use the land for a park, but the neighbourhood and the communities are protesting. They are trying to block this park. The government says, "You know what? We are going to bulldoze the land. We are going to clear it, and next month we are going to work on this park." The community group says, "No, you have to cancel the project and leave it untouched. We don't want anything on this land." That is the position.

When we go deeper into the interests, what are they? On the one hand, the government wants to increase green-space metrics. It wants to improve its standing on green spaces and look like an active government—providing a park where people can come to get fit, let children run around, and all of that. They also want a park because they have money—there is unspent money, so maybe they need to spend it quickly. They think, "Let's just create a park."

On the other hand, the community group says, "No, we want to preserve this for local parking spaces. We don't want construction noise, and we want to have a section of it for a community garden."Those are the interests, and then we go to the needs.

 

What does the government truly want, or what do they want to have in this case? This could be citizen approval. They want safety and to seem as though they are contributing to the public good, and so on. Meanwhile, the neighbourhood group sees it as an issue of access to green space, of keeping the neighbourhood and the community as they are, and of wanting a voice. So maybe that is the true need: you cannot just come and impose—did you engage with us? Did you find out what we need?

The solution, then, will be to look at what both sides want. Through this, we can draw out the common areas. Both of them have overlapping interests—the government wants to increase its green space, and communities also want to have a space for a community garden, and so on. Perhaps they can reach an agreement in that regard.

Moving on is the conflict tree. This is also used to analyse conflict. Usually, with a tree, the roots are underground, and we cannot see them. We have the leaves at the top, which we can see. Then we have the tree itself —the trunk in between—the core problem. In this case, the core problem is land alienation. Some people feel alienated from the land; they lack access, even though it is supposed to be for everyone. That could be the problem, and we could end there, but the question is: what are the root causes? It is not just about the land. Yes, that is what we can see, but the causes are bigger.

Some groups do not feel equal. Some societies are experiencing high levels of corruption. Colonial boundaries have disadvantaged some. Development is unequal, constituencies are not united, and the law has, perhaps for many years, disadvantaged a group. When you have a group that has been disadvantaged for so long, these causes do not happen overnight; we are talking about years and years. Year in and year out, they have had to deal with corruption, exclusion, colonial boundaries, and unequal development. Now, there is an issue of land, and the same thing is about to happen. Because the root causes have not been dealt with, this land alienation has become a major problem.

How does it manifest? It manifests in different ways, and that is what we see: fear. There is fear among one group or another about what will happen with this land issue. It can lead to looting because of tensions and protests, and it can escalate. You can have raids by security personnel and the military, as well as killing, hatred, suspicion, and unfair representation.

This tree essentially is saying that once we face a conflict, we cannot take it at face value. We need to ask ourselves: what are the root causes? Why is this an issue today? Is there anything from the past that we need to be aware of and address? Also, when we see looting, fear, raiding, killing, and unfair representation, we should look at it in the context of its historical and current causes. Somebody is not looting and raiding just because; there are often underlying issues. So, it is not about focusing solely on land alienation as the core problem, but about going deeper.

The last tool is a conflict mapping tool for understanding who the actors involved in the conflict are. This is an example of a conflict involving multiple parties: the government, NGOs, the community, companies, and the media. All of these tools, I should say, can be used to analyse a conflict. You can pick any conflict and say, "Okay, let me do a mapping exercise. Who are the people involved in this conflict? Is it the government?"

 

Is there a community? Is there the military? Or whatever the case may be. Even with this mapping, you can pick a conflict and say, "Okay, what are the causes really about?" And then, "What are the manifestations that we are seeing currently?"

You can also do this: if you pick any conflict and ask, "What are their positions? What are their interests? What are their needs?" This is very good if you have to mediate between two groups. You can ask, "What are your positions, Party A? What are your positions, Party B, and what are your interests?" You do this until you get to the true needs. This also gives you an idea of how to track the kind of conflict you are dealing with in a community. Is it an information conflict? Is it a relationship conflict? Is it both? Is it all of them? Perhaps one conflict can have all of these elements as well.

If we look at the bottom of the map, it just gives us some ideas of how to establish relationships between these different groups. We have the thick arrows between the government and the company. This means there is significant influence and activity between the government and the company. When you have solid arrows, they indicate a direct influence or activity between the two parties.

Then you have the broken lines, which mean weak, informal, or intermittent links. It is not a solid relationship, but there is a link between them. In this case, the company may influence the media. The company, with its funds and resources, can influence the media on what it reports and similar matters.

Next, we have a relationship here between the government and the community. We can see two parallel lines crossing the connection. Two lines indicate a broken connection. This means that between the government and the community, there is no relationship; it has been broken. This could apply to the scenario I just gave about the vacant land, where there is a broken relationship between the government and the community. We need to resolve this even as we work to resolve the conflict. Maybe this relationship has been broken for months. So, we are not just going into a room to say, "Oh, resolve the conflict. Let's come up with a plan." Instead, you might need to rebuild the relationship so they can continue to coexist.

Between the company and the community, we see a zigzag line. This means discord; it means conflict. If there were lightning bolts, that would mean it is a very hot conflict. Here, the company is not getting along with the community. This appears to be an issue involving minerals or resources, where a company may be trying to enter to take those resources. So, we can see discord between those communities and the company.

With the NGO and the media, we see a relationship indicating they are in the same sector, showing a predominant direction of influence or activity. We also see a line between the community and the media.

This gives you a sense of how to map a conflict. If you want to focus on the players and actors involved in the conflict, of course, you would have to map out the issues. What are the issues that are causing this dispute? And then we have the half circle. The half-circle says this group is a third party to the conflict. They are external to the conflict, right? But when you see a full circle, it means these are parties involved in the conflict. The size of the circle represents the conflict party's power. In this case, we see that the company is even more powerful than the government, the NGO, and the community in this conflict.

 II

Moderator: Now let’s take comments and questions.

Comment 1: I have one comment. Lovely presentation, and what I could deduce from what you have lectured us on, in summary, is that conflict comes up as a result of resistance, right?

I have an example from here in Nigeria. I can remember a few years back when the government enacted a policy to tap resources from a sectional part of the country. This group already saw themselves as a minority and had to resist. They resisted the government policy, and before you knew it, conflict arose. The major role the media played back then was to improve the communication between the government and the people. They came to the table to discuss and later agreed.

The people said they owned the resources, that the resources were in their care, and that the government was enacting a policy that did not favour them. This resistance led to conflict, and eventually, they told the government, "Okay, now if you want to tap these resources, give us what we call derivation." That is how the onshore-offshore dichotomy came about, because the group agitating for one-third of the revenue generated from the area was a minority.

In summary, for that group, the conflict was favourable because the government eventually came back and said, "Okay, we will dance to your tune; we will give you what you want." Suppose they had not shown that resistance, I think things would have just gone smoothly like that without them benefiting from it. Thank you.

Response: Thank you. I see the comment in the chat asking for more explanations and examples, noting that the allotted time for discussion is not enough. Absolutely. I think each tool we have looked at can be applied in multiple instances, and the goal is for you to be able to do that. Presenting the tools to you lets us see how they apply, just like the example we had from our fellow participant who showed us how it would fit. We will talk more about conflict, and we can explore more examples then.

If there is anything specific you would like to know, I or someone else can clarify, or we can open it up. Or does anyone even have an example from their country of how this tool or these tools would apply?

Comment 2: These tools may appear academic, but they are very useful. I was thinking just briefly here—and many of you may also give examples in the small groups—of the current demonstrations in France, where over 4,000, mostly high school students, have been arrested, beginning with one high school protesting. It has gone nationwide, and with allies in the streets from unions and others, hundreds of thousands of people are now protesting in France.

In using these tools, one can see that the manifestation, of course, is extreme displeasure with the current French government's budget priorities. The core problem, superficially at least, is that classrooms are too large, people are being neglected, and water is coming in through the ceilings—literally, the schools themselves are falling apart. But the root issue, boy, the cause, is people really feeling that, with justification, their concerns are not being heard or responded to by a government that claims to be democratic. And now, over the past 10 days, this has been an amazing case study in France to share with small groups. We may also have other examples.

Response: Yes. For the small groups, we should take these tools into that conversation. I have put some questions, but we could reflect on the different tools instead of answering the group questions. Thank you.

Moderator: There is a question in the chat box: "How to handle it if one of the parties resorts to violence?" A double question mark.

Facilitator: Satyagraha—we'll be getting into it. We need to resist violence with non-violence as best we can and hope to convert the opponent. But at the very least, we must use elements of coercion against the opponent to change their stance. We need to engage in conflict not because it is good to engage, but because it's necessary to reach a solution. If we respond in kind—violence with violence, or even escalating violence—we can have a situation where an eye for an eye makes everyone blind. That is not much of a constructive solution to any conflict. There is a lot of pain there.

Response: Can I come in quickly here? Maybe because I'm thinking in a real-world scenario where conflict escalates, or conflict begins. Using a conflict-analysis lens, I think it's important to identify the key players. Conflict analysis again: who are those engaged in the violence? Who are those calling for violence? Is it Party A? Is it Party B? How do we identify who these individuals are and immediately engage them, right, and communicate with them about, "Okay, what are the issues? How do we deal with the issues?" But please inform members of your party to refrain from violence.

The first goal is to prevent escalation. Secondly, who are the players and decision-makers? Who are the—you remember the conflict tool, right? You have the company; you have the government. Who in the parties do we need to speak with immediately to prevent further escalation? We can apply those principles of dialogue and non-violence. Thank you.

Facilitator: I certainly agree. However, just as a footnote, if the opponent escalates—and they likely will if they feel threatened—dialogue is important, but holding firm to the truth as you see it is critical. When the opponent represses the movement and smashes it with detentions and even greater brutality, that is not a time to give up the strategy, if you want to call it that, of non-violence. In fact, strategic non-violence, even according to Gene Sharp, will show its effectiveness when repression occurs.

When the opponent is provoked to escalate, it is exactly the time when you need to hold firm to strategic or principled non-violence, not give it up for retaliation in kind. It is very tempting. But non-violence has not failed when repression occurs; in fact, it shows its power then. It's a good thing to go to jail for a good cause in mass. We saw that in the Salt March and at many other instances in Gandhi's life. Just wanted to say that. Thank you.

Group Feedback

Group 1: What we discussed in our group regarding question one is how we see the conflict between the parties, as per the cycle or wheel suggested here. Based on that, we discussed that we first have to identify which type of conflict it is—whether it is a relationship, information, interest, structural, or value conflict. Based on the conflict's segmentation, we have to identify the cause systematically and scientifically. We have to observe and take both parties' conflicts into account in the discussion. After that, we have to decide what type of conflict it belongs to according to the Christopher Moore cycle.

Group 2: In group two, we discussed the situation in Yemen and the difficult circumstances the country is passing through. We looked at how the dialogues there are failing to resolve the conflict, and how political parties are taking advantage of the situation by deliberately avoiding a solution. Dialogue is very important in conflict resolution, so we tried to bring it to the centre of our discussion—focusing on how to develop dialogue between two opposing parties successfully. However, since ground-level reports indicate that these efforts are currently failing and dialogue is breaking down, we discussed how vital it is for neutral third parties to step in and help resolve the conflict between the groups.

Group 3: I belong to group three, and our question is: how do we address conflict when we get involved? So, first and foremost, we need to understand the true state of affairs. That is, we need to know the type of conflict that is actually happening before we wade into it. From what we were taught today, we need to understand that we have information and relationship conflicts. I think I want to add community conflict equally, because it involves a lot of people.

Having done that, we need to understand the mapping system—that is, how to map conflicts. Having identified the type of conflict, of course, conflict cannot involve only one person; it has to involve at least two people or groups. So you identify the type of conflict and map it properly to understand the root cause, because there are always underlying causes. Once you get the root cause, that will be an instrument or a tool for you to mediate. While doing that, you don't focus on the people. You focus on the problem, not the people. At times, when you are resolving conflicts, it depends equally on your own interests.

So, I think the person involved has to be neutral. At times, if you are representing the government, for instance, to resolve a conflict between the government and the community, and you are looking at interests, you may tilt toward the government's interest, whereas you are not supposed to. Someone has to be neutral. Also, you don't react quickly to issues until you can identify the types of conflicts they involve. After that, you may speak with both parties and ensure the issues are resolved amicably and that both parties agree to the resolution. Thank you very much.

Group 4: In group 4, we discussed the crisis or conflict in France. Then a colleague shared about the case of South Africa right now, followed by a sharing about Syria. We analysed these three conflicts and applied them to some of the frameworks we looked at.

For the South African case, we applied the conflict tree to the current situation—its manifestations, root causes, and so on. Then we talked about the Syrian conflict, its complexities, and the many interests involved. Some of the issues are blamed on previous governments and institutions, which also adds a completely different layer to the conflict. Then we talked about the Paris example—what are some of the manifestations of the conflict, the protests on the streets, and those things, and what are some of the persistent issues that have not been addressed which have now led to these manifestations?

Group 5: Well, I was in group five, and I think also we—and I would say these tools provided to us—can be very usefully applied to understanding most conflicts in a very in-depth way. I mentioned in our small group Champaran, which we may have a session on later, where Gandhi, without knowing these constructs, actually used them to help see what the conflict was about—its manifestations, its core, and the roots of the tree. He went further to provide a solution to help those roots become healthier. That's one small step that hasn't been adequately looked at: once we have analysed, what do we do? Providing a solution is a required step that, of course, may help resolve the conflict more than simply analysing it. That's my view.

Final Response

Thank you. I want to emphasise some points quickly.

Conflicts are complex. They are very complicated. When you want to analyse a conflict, you are not just thinking of the causes. You are thinking of the manifestations as well. You are thinking of the actors involved in the conflict. And sometimes there are external parties not in the country that are also involved in the conflict, right?

The second thing is dialogue. You know, if we had systems of dialogue in place, maybe we could prevent a lot of these issues.

One of the points discussed in our group was the need to emphasise non-violence in these frameworks. It was emphasised that non-violence should be the starting point and the baseline, the foundation. If that becomes our standard, we wouldn't find ourselves in situations where we are analysing conflict and trying to understand its manifestations, root causes, players, and all those kinds of things. I think that's a valid point, you know: if we embrace non-violence, we will still have conflict—yes, we agree—but we address those non-violently and commit to finding a solution through dialogue.

Then we don't see death, killing, or looting if we are guided by non-violence as a standard, a method of engagement, and a system of engagement. I think that's absolutely key to how these feed into conflict and non-violence: let's embrace non-violence to prevent violent conflict.