Unit 5 Meaning and Concept of Conflict

UNIT 5 MEANING AND CONCEPT OF CONFLICT
Structure
5.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
5.2 Defining Conflict
5.3 Conflict Stages
5.4 The Life Cycle of a Conflict
5.4.1 Crisis Prevention
5.4.2 Conflict Management
5.4.3 Crisis Management
5.4.4 Conflict Settlement
5.4.5 Conflict Resolution
5.4.6 Conflict Transformation
5.4.7 Peace Building
5.5 Conflict Categories

5.5.1 Non-Violent Conflicts
5.5.2 Violent Conflicts
5.6 Conflict Issues

5.6.1 Territory and Border-Conflicts
5.6.2 Minority, Ethnic and Government-Power Conflicts
5.6.3 Conflicts over Resources
5.7 Summary
5.8 Terminal Questions
Suggested Readings
5.1 INTRODUCTION
During our daily lives, we are all involved in a number of conflicts. Sometimes, the
conflicts may be small, for example, a person may ignore us while we are talking.
Sometimes, the conflict may be more serious, for example, two persons behaving violently
toward each other. Whether big or small, conflict is not confined only to a person and
the people around her/him. It can be between people one is not even associated with.
A conflict can, for example, be between people and the prevailing laws. Conflict does not
only occur at the personal level but also at the national and even international level. Apart
from external conflicts between individuals or groups, there can also be internal conflicts
within an individual.
Conflict is endemic to all social life. It is an inevitable part of living because it is related
to situations of scarce resources, division of functions, power relations and role-differentiation.
Because of its ubiquity and pervasive nature, the concept has acquired a multitude of
meanings and connotations. The normative concept of conflict, strongly influenced by a
preoccupation with stability and equilibrium in organisational/national design, links conflict
Meaning and Concept of Conflict 51
to violence, destruction, inefficiency and irrationality. Using the term in a broad sense it
may be suggested that conflict refers to all kinds of antagonistic interactions. More
specifically, it can be termed as a situation in which two or more parties have
incompatible objectives and in which their perceptions and behaviour are commensurate
with that incompatibility. In this unit we will discuss various aspects and types of conflict
and the need to contain them.
Aims and Objectives
After going through this unit, you will be able to:
 define conflict and its stages;
 understand the life cycle of a conflict;
 understand the process of developments of conflicts;
 differentiate between conflict prevention, management and settlement;
 distinguish between violent and non-violent conflicts; and
 describe various causes of conflicts and their nature.
5.2 DEFINING CONFLICT

Conflict refers to more than just overt behaviour. Concentrating only upon its behavioural
manifestation is an extremely limiting exercise. The three-dimensional conception of conflict
emphasizes the need to consider the situation in which parties (individuals, groups,
organisations or nations) come to possess incompatible goals, their structure of interaction
and the nature of their goals. We gave to consider emotional (distrust) and cognitive
(stereotyping) orientations that accompany a conflict situation as well as the range of
action undertaken by any party in a situation of conflict.
The perception of threat, or actual occurrence of conflict, is necessary for the initiation
of conflict prevention or management measures, and hence it is essential to address the
concept of conflict before exploring how to prevent and manage such occurrences.
As per the traditional definition of conflict, it is the result of opposing interests involving
scarce resources, goal divergence and frustration. Conflict is not defined simply in terms
of violence (behaviour) or hostility (attitudes), but also includes incompatibility or differences
in issue position. Such a definition is designed to include conflicts outside the traditional
military sphere and is based on behavioural dimensions.
When discussing the concept of conflict, the perception should be included as a central
concept since the conflicts and the opponent’s intentions often are defined according to
subjective perceptions. There could be an abundance of space for agreement in a conflict,
but if the parties perceive the conflict as being impossible to resolve or the opponent to
be untrustworthy this might not help in resolving the conflict. The normative disputes are
also left out of the rational definitions. These disputes involve religion, values and beliefs
and do not always have a military outcome. In brief, the conflict means: perceived
differences in issue positions between two or more parties at the same moment in time.
It assumes a violent dimension when: (i) there is no superior force or effective regulatory
mechanism to balance the struggle and thus prevent the situation from becoming more
52 Introduction to Peace and Conflict Management
intense, and (ii) the parties involved employ physical force or lethal means to inflict injury
and damage, or to eliminate the opponent in the quest to secure the value(s) at stake.
5.3 CONFLICT STAGES

There is general agreement on four basic stages of conflict. These stages are not mutually
exclusive and therefore, an individual/organisation/nation may be involved in more than one
at a time.
 Intrapersonal: conflict within the individual/organisation/nation (for example, who
cannot make decisions).
 Interpersonal: conflict among two or more individuals/organisations/nations (for
example, an argument between the two parties).
 Intragroup: conflict within the members of same group.
 Intergroup: conflict between two or more groups (for example, between two
different camps of groups or nations).
5.4 THE LIFE CYCLE OF A CONFLICT

A conflict is not a static situation, but a dynamic one – the intensity level changes over
a conflicts’ life cycle. An understanding of the conflict cycle is essential for an understanding
of how, where and when to apply different strategies and measures of conflict prevention
and management. Over time, numerous suggestions and models of conflict patterns have
been put forward. Conflicts tends to be described as cyclical in regard to their intensity
levels, i.e., escalating from relative stability and peace into crisis and war, thereafter
deescalating into relative peace. Most scholars agree that these cycles are recurring.
In principle, conflict prevention, conflict management and conflict resolution are regarded
as applicable in different phases of a conflict. In sum, conflict prevention measures are
designed for the early phases, before a conflict has become manifest. Management
measures are applied in later phases when a conflict is manifest, but before the violence
has occurred. Conflict resolution could, on the other hand, be applied in the deescalation
phase after a violent conflict has occurred.
The life cycle of conflict presented here includes both the conflict process itself and
possible prevention, management and resolution measures. There are five levels of conflict
intensity (stable peace, unstable peace, open conflict, crisis and war). Stable peace is a
situation where tension between the parties is low and there exists different forms of
connections and cooperation between them, often including economic and environmental
cooperation, as well as cooperation within other non-sensitive issue areas. During a period
of unstable peace, tension has increased. This is a situation where, albeit the existing
negative peace, the tension between the parties is so high that peace no longer seems
guaranteed. An open conflict is when the conflict is defined and the parties have taken
measures to deal with it, even if militarised options are the preferable or likely option. In
the war phase, there is widespread and intense violence. In the deescalation phase the
pattern is reversed, moving from war to crisis, through open conflict and unstable peace
to finally reach a situation of stable peace.
Just as the phases of the conflict cycle are important, the connection between conflict
prevention and conflict and crisis managing needs to be developed further.
5.4.1 Crisis Prevention

There are many conflict prevention measures. In peace times preventive measures aim to
strengthen the system structure, which is needed for peaceful dealing with conflicts. Thus,
peace is not simply equal to absence of violence, but rather a situation of so-called
“positive” peace.
Conflict prevention measures are effective at the levels of stable and unstable peace
before a conflict has become manifest. Here it is important to differentiate between
structural and direct preventive measures. The former are most applicable in the stable
peace phase and consist of structural measures that often aim at specific groups or issues
such as economic development, political participation or cultural autonomy. The benefits of
applying structural measures at an early stage is simply that the acceptance of preventive
measures tends to be higher at low levels of interparty suspicion and hence more far
reaching and institutional measures can be implemented. The more pronounced a conflict
becomes the more specific measures it requires.
In the unstable peace phase, the direct preventive measures are directed at issues with
a shorter-term goal in mind, i.e., to reduce tension and create trust between the actors.
Simultaneously, the window of opportunity for longer-term initiatives, such as the building
of institutions, fades away slowly and the conflict becomes more issue specific and more
costly in financial and political terms. Direct preventive measures can, for example, be
formal or informal workshops dealing with the possible conflict issues.
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, former Secretary-General of the UN, has defined preventive
diplomacy as “the use of diplomatic techniques to prevent disputes arising, prevent them
from escalating into armed conflict…and prevent the armed conflict from spreading.”
5.4.2 Conflict Management

Fred Tanner has defined conflict management as the limitation, mitigation and/or containment
of a conflict without necessarily solving it. Niklas Swanstrom adds to this definition and
argues that conflict management should imply a change, from destructive to constructive,
in the mode of interaction. William Zartman has argued that conflict management refers
to eliminating violent and violence-related actions and leaving the conflict to be dealt with
on the political level.
Conflict management and crisis management do involve tactics that are enforced when
violent conflict is deemed likely (conflict management) or imminent (crisis management),
but before a situation escalates into war. Conflict management can be enforced, as soon
as the conflict has been identified by the actors, as an effort to reduce tension and
prevent further escalation. Direct measures, such as reduction of military forces, third party
intervention, informal and formal communication of general confidence building measures
(CBMs), can be designed to handle the conflict and reverse destructive behaviour into
constructive. The measures are often bilateral as questions many times are sensitive and
not seen as threatening at this stage. However, multilateral forums, such as the UN are
increasingly being used.
5.4.3 Crisis Management

Crisis management is employed in the short timeframe before a war is to erupt, when the
conflict escalates rapidly and the time for management measures is limited. This period is
characterised by a scarcity of time and other resources to address the conflict, as well
as inadequate information. Crisis management entails more drastic measures than crisis
management and aims at containing the outbreak of militarised conflict with all available
means. Examples of such measures include third party intervention by actors such as
NATO or the UN. Some analysts also view preventive strikes as possible conflict and
crisis management measures.
During the stage of war, neither prevention nor management is possible. Military means
are used as a primary tool, even if political, economic and social tools are used
simultaneously to decrease the opponent’s willingness/or capability to fight. At this stage,
the actors either have to fight things out until reaching a so-called hurting stalemate where
both parties realise the need to end the conflict or peace has to be enforced by external
actors.
5.4.4 Conflict Settlement

The concept of conflict settlement covers all conflict strategies that aim a definite end of
the direct violence, without necessarily coping with the basic causes of the conflict. As
examples of this research approach we can point out that the phenomena of conflict is
mostly considered as a deficit within a certain political system. Here, the violent conflict
is seen as a pure result of the existing incompatible interests or as a consequence of a
struggle for scarce resources or power. Thus, the conflict is understood as zero-sum
game. Yet, as the neo-realistic works show, this zero-sum game can be broken depending
on the involved parties’ interests and the stage of the conflict escalation. Most strategies
incorporate a range of peaceful measures like negotiations, mediation or facilitation, as
well as coercive measures as military, political or economic sanctions including the threat
with them. While latter measures usually are of short-term character, the peaceful
measures are the basis for a long-term perspective of the conflict settlement.
5.4.5 Conflict Resolution

The conflict resolution approaches also point out strategies that could be employed to find
an exit from the conflict’s destroying dynamic and that aim toward achieving satisfying
solution for all parties involved. The process of conflict management is the foundation for
more effective conflict resolution. A distinction between conflict management and conflict
resolution is, however, needed as a starting point as the concepts often are confused or
integrated. Conflict resolution refers to the resolution of the underlying incompatibilities in
a conflict and mutual acceptance of each party’s existence, while conflict management
refers to measures that limit, mitigate and/or contain a conflict without necessarily solving
it.
It is, of course, possible to resolve differences in issue positions without going to war.
Indeed, the Cuban missile crisis, the dispute in Cyprus, the border conflicts between
China and Kyrgyzstan are all examples of conflicts and crisis that were handled or
resolved before war erupted.
5.4.6 Conflict Transformation

Each conflict settlement is nothing else but a conflict transformation, or in other words
each conflict “solution” is more or less only temporary. The same way as a reached
solution could prove itself as a stable and lasting, so old interest incompatibilities could
once again become virulent or completely new appear. The central thesis of this
transformation model is based on the fact that certain transformation’s capacity must be
present among the conflicting parties involved. By this the man recognizes the ability for
mutual respect and reciprocal understanding in respect of the interests in conflict that will
lead both parties toward sustainable and acceptable solution. The notion of conflict
transformation points out three conceptual deficits of the traditional conflict dealing: the
interdependence gap, the justice gap and the process-structure gap. The interdependence
deficit builds the distinction between an upper, middle and lower society levels – so called
“pyramid model”. The respective civilian and military elite form thereby the highest social
level in a given country. The second level is composed of middle leader groups – business
elite, administration and media. Influential persons from the so-called grassroots domain
represent the actors of the lower society level. Justice gap is generally not in favour of
concentrating efforts to decrease or to eliminate the forms of direct violence. Still, each
conflict settlement process must also take the forms of structural violence into consideration.
Direct violence is possible only then when structural and/or cultural violence forms exist.
Therefore, every peace process that aims to stop forms of direct violence without, in
doing so, dealing with social, economic and cultural structures, will be short-sighted. This
point is further developed by the process-structure gap. Since peace is to be understood
neither as process nor as structure alone, though both its structural and process dimension
must always be considered. So, the understanding of peace only as a process often
prevails during the practical conflict dealings. In this context, the “peace alliance” concept
takes a central place in the transformation research.
5.4.7 Peace Building

Initially, the focus is on separating the actors and preventing further mistake or deliberate
escalation (peace keeping). This stage is comparable to the crisis stage in the escalation
phase and often involves third party actors that assist with peacekeeping or monitoring.
There is still a risk for escalation, but no imminent threat of war. When the conflict has
deescalated further, a phase of peace building follows, which gives room for more long-
term measures. Finally, if the peace building efforts meet with success, the conflict moves
to the peace consolidation phase where the aim is to make across more cooperative and
create an inclusive peace for all involved parties.
The measures used in the deescalation phase are often much more financially and
politically demanding than pro-active measures in the escalation phase. Furthermore,
measures taken after a war often have to involve third parties, like the UN or stronger
military actors that can guarantee security for all the actors involved, which is not indeed
to the same extent in the escalation phase.
5.5 CONFLICT CATEGORIES

Research into the sources and categories of conflict has usually centred around two
conflict approaches: the subjectivist and the objectivist approach. The objectivist approach
looks for the origin of conflict in the social and political make-up and structure of society,
and considers that the goals at stake can be thoroughly compatible. On the contrary, the
subjectivist point of view focuses primarily on the perceived incompatibility. The level of
incompatibility is the most important variable that impacts the intensity of the dispute and
dynamic of conflict phases. Once conflict has emerged, it develops further with certain
dynamic and intensity changing its courses and stages. In that sense understanding
developing stages of conflict and their categorization is crucial because it may provide
indications of what might happen next and what can facilitate the conflict management.
Consequently, the conflicts can be divided into two main categories: non-violent and
violent conflicts. The major shortcoming in the conflict literature is that that most of the
studies and available data are concentrated on violent conflicts, particularly on wars. Thus,
there is lack of information or lack or wide research on non-violent conflicts. For sake
of clarity, we will attempt to classify the two as follows:
5.5.1 Non-Violent Conflicts

Absence of violence does not automatically mean absence of conflict. Conflicting interests
can be pursued without violence or coercion. When the conflict already exists this means
only an absence of violent methods employed by parties in their struggle to resolve their
incompatible differences over issues that are of national relevance for them. Parties do not
use force against each other. Yet, the existence of non-violent conflict must be noticed and
recognized by the outside world, as well as at least by one of the involved parties. In
addition, it should be stressed that violent escalation in every conflict evolves from a non-
violent phase of the conflict. Non-violent conflict has been termed as manifest conflict
process and defined as a situation in which at least two parties, or their representatives,
try to pursue their perceptions of mutually incompatible goals by undermining, directly or
indirectly, each other’s goal seeking capability.
A conflict cannot be detected without existence of some visible signs that show certain
position difference or interest opposition between two states over certain commodity.
Sometimes conditions for conflict exist, but the parties are not pursuing an overt strategy
to achieve their goals. However, at least one party has to have positional differences
articulated in some form of demands, and the other party shall be aware of such
demands. Following this logic a latent conflict is defined as a stage in the development
of a conflict where one or more groups, parties or states question existing values, issues
or objectives that have a national relevance. Latent conflicts must carry some identifiable
and observable signs in order to be recognized and noticed as such. The positional
differences and the clashing interests in a latent conflict must be articulated as demands
or claims. The manifest conflict is a stage when tensions are present but are expressed
by means below the threshold of violence. Tense relations between the parties can reach
a turning point from where the use of force may become more likely. Economic sanctions,
for example, are a means by which a latent conflict can be turned into a manifest.
5.5.2 Violent Conflicts

Conflicts enter a violent phase when parties go beyond seeking to attain their goals
peacefully, and try to dominate damage or destroy the opposing parties’ ability to pursue
their own interests. The existence of frustration of substantive or implemental needs is
essential condition for one non-violent conflict to escalate into violent: “Violence as a
response is produced when certain innate needs or demands are deeply frustrated.” In
political conflict analysis the use of force, physical damages and human casualties are the
characteristics of a violent conflict. Battle-related human casualties’ thresholds are commonly
used to define violent conflict, particularly in respect of war.
Still, war cannot be completely explained by looking only at its material destruction and
human casualties. The causes of wars and the commodities at stake should also be taken
into account, e.g., territorial conflict, ethno-political conflict or power conflict. The war,
and especially the variables influencing the war dynamic and its consequences are very
complex and changeable that makes creation of a common theoretical concept a difficult
task.
Sometime before and especially after the end of the Cold War the structure of extreme
violent conflicts around the world changed considerably, and wars’ intensity dramatically
increased. This also influenced the adaptation of theoretical concept of conflict researches.
It is in this context that the proposition of structural transformation of war was put
forward by several authors. In an attempt to give more specified definitions about the
post-Cold War armed conflicts these authors employed the terms like “low-intensity
conflicts”, “wars of the third kind” and “new wars”. The war has been defined as a form
of violent mass-conflict that is characterised by: the fighting of at least two opponents with
organised, regular military forces where the fighting is not sporadic, but organised and
systematic. The war lasts for a considerable period of time and the fighting is intense, that
is, it leads to victims and destruction.
5.6 CONFLICT ISSUES

Clearly, there are number of things over which two parties in conflict can have
incompatible goals. For examples, humans can fight about a bewildering variety of things,
about money, about properties, about politics, about ideas. Yet, it is possible to reduce
this perplexing variety by classifying these issues into three main sociological categories:
wealth, power and prestige. Understanding political conflict cannot be accomplished
without knowing what are the object, and the issue of the conflict. Moreover, achieving
conflict resolution is not possible without understanding the issue and the cause of the
conflict.
5.6.1 Territory and Border-Conflicts

Conquering of territories and secession of territories have continuously been subjects of
political conflicts and central conflict issues of countless disputes, confrontations and wars.
The goals could include not only territorial expansion, but also incorporation of ethnic
frontiers within the state’s, as well as secession. Secession is here understood as the
detachment of territory and the people living on that territory from the sovereignty of an
existing state and the establishment of a newly independent state with sovereignty over
that territory and its people. Territorial goals, however, are either implicitly or explicitly
tied to resources or to ethnic minorities.
Today’s territory related conflicts are dominantly conflicts over disputed state delineation,
rather than about threats of annexation and conquest. Traditionally, borders have been
seen as physical lines and border conflicts were, therefore, conflicts of subordination
where rules were to be extended beyond the existing geographical borderline. Geographically
represented border conflicts are a particularly “stable form of conflict because they
provide a clear physical distinction between two easily identifiable sides.” In such conflicts,
borders have a ‘double function’ in that they provide a means of both territorial inclusion
and exclusion, but in parallel also for ‘functional’ inclusion or exclusion.
5.6.2 Minority, Ethnic and Government-Power Conflicts

Minority conflicts are not necessarily related to ethnic conflicts. In the case of such a
conflict minority could also be a social minority. Yet, ethnicity-related minority conflicts are
the dominant one. That kind of conflict can have domestic dimensions (minority –
government) as well as interstate dispute (one state – minority – another state). These
conflicts arise because the majority or dominant national government wants to establish the
same conditions in regions of that state. Minority’s ability for political articulations and
formulation of its specific cultural, educational, and self-governance demands is assumed.
Minority conflict is defined as a form of active antagonism between the government of a

state and representatives of a minority over the extent of opportunities of minorities to
influence the use and organisation of the sub-state territories they inhabit. For ethnic
conflicts there are many different definitions, particularly about what drives these types of
conflicts. Some theorists claim that ethnic conflicts appear, mostly in a form of separatist
warfare, as a consequence of the minority’s lack of trust in the state system governed by
the majority to disadvantage of the rights of minorities. Other theorists argue that the very
competition of the political class and the actions of ethnic entrepreneurs drive ethnic
conflicts and that the political elites create ethnic conflicts manipulating with ethnic identities
in their quest for power.
5.6.3 Conflicts over Resources

Here, the struggle about access to and control over important resources is the defining
factor of the conflict. Perhaps it is intuitive that natural resources could become conflict
issues, but less obvious is the role that resources may have in specific instances of a given
conflict. Inequities in the distribution, use, needs, desires and consequences of resources
management have been sources of tension and international and interstate disputes. There
are four important conditions that influence the likelihood that resources will be the objects
of military or political action: 1) the degree of scarcity; 2) the extent to which the supply
is shared by two or more groups/states; 3) the relative power of those groups; and 4)
the ease of access to alternative sources. The most recent approach in the resource
conflict literature is “resource scarcity” as a main conflict contributor. This approach links
resources and considers resource scarcity (supply induced, demand induced or absolute
scarcity), as well as environmental degradation as a key conflict issues.
5.7 SUMMARY
The conflict is one of the central terms of politics, just as power, interests, war or peace.
It is not the very existence of conflicts that is problematic or even peace endangering, but
rather their forms, which are oriented to power or one-sided interests implementation.
Conflicts can also be different, namely carried out in a regulated way, and consequently
contributing quite positively within a certain society. As conflicts are understood as an
omnipresent part of human interaction, it is less about the question of their elimination, but
rather about their regulation or peaceful settlement. As already known the possibilities for
peaceful settlement of one conflict crucially depends on its actual development stage and
escalation dynamic. So, in the face of an acute crisis or war outburst the peaceful conflict
dealing means prove to be relatively unsuccessful instruments. At the same time it
becomes clear that fixation on such measures falls short in the case of direct forms of
violence. Conflict dealing is never completed, since old disputes prove to be a permanent
process, with conflict prevention as its surely most effective measure.
5.8 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1) Explain the meaning of conflict.
2) What are the life cycles of conflict? How is crisis prevention different from crisis
management?
3) Explain the difference between violent and non-violent conflicts.
4) How does conflict transformation leads to peace building?
SUGGESTED READINGS
Ahmed Azem Hamad, (2005) “The Reconceptualisation of Conflict Management”, Peace,
Conflict and Development: An Interdisciplinary Journal, July 7.
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, (1996) “Challenges of Preventive Diplomacy: The Role of the UN
and its Secretary General”, in Preventive Diplomacy. Stopping Wars Before they Start,
(ed.), Kevin M Cahill, Basic Books and the Centre for International Health and
Cooperation, New York.
Fred Tanner, (2000) “Conflict Prevention and Conflict Resolution: Limits of Multilateralism”
International Review of the Red Cross, September.
Johan Galtung, (1958) Theories of Conflict – Definitions, Dimensions, Negations,
Formations, Columbia University.
Niklas L P Swanstrom, (2002) Regional Cooperation and Conflict Management:
Lessons from the Pacific Rim, Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala.
William I Zartman, (1997) “Towards the Resolution of International Conflicts”, in William
I Zartman and J Lewis Rasmussen, (eds.), Peacemaking in International Conflict:
Methods and Techniques, United States Institute of Peace Press, Washington.
Peter Wallensteen and Margareta Sollenberg, (2005) “Armed Conflict and its International
Dimensions, 1946-2004” in Journal of Peace Research, 42/5, pp.623-635.
UNIT 6 SOURCES OF CONFLICT
Structure
6.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
6.2 Sources of Conflict-I
6.2.1 Economic Conflict
6.2.2 Value Conflict
6.2.3 Power Conflict
6.2.4 Ineffective Communication
6.2.5 Escalation of Conflict
6.3 Sources of Conflict-II

6.3.1 Inter-personal Conflict
6.3.2 Role Conflict
6.3.3 Intergroup Conflict
6.3.4 Multiparty Conflict
6.3.5 International Conflict
6.4 Variants of Threat in International Conflict

6.4.1 Threat of Punishment
6.4.2 Threat of Conquest
6.4.3 Threat of Annihilation
6.4.4 Threat of Offensive/Defensive Weapons
6.4.5 Boundary Disputes
6.5 Conflict in South Asia (Sources of Conflict)

6.6 Summary
Suggested Readings
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Conflict occurs between people in all kinds of human relationships and in all social settings
because of the wide range of potential differences among people. Absence of conflict
usually signals the absence of meaningful interaction. Conflict by itself is neither good nor
bad. However, the manner in which conflict is handled determines whether it is
constructive or destructive.
You have already read in earlier Units that conflict is defined as an incompatibility of goals
or values between two or more parties in a relationship, combined with attempts to
control each other and antagonistic feelings toward each other. The incompatibility or
difference may exist in reality or may only be perceived by the parties involved.
Nonetheless, the opposing actions and the hostile emotions are very genuine hallmarks of
human conflict.
Sources of Conflict 61
Conflict has the potential for either a great deal of destruction or much creativity and
positive social change. Therefore, it is essential to understand the basic processes of
conflict so that one can work to maximize productive outcomes and minimize destructive
ones. This unit will discuss some common types and sources of conflict, the levels of
social interaction at which conflict occurs per-se.
Aims and Objectives
After going through this Unit, you should be able to:
 know different types of sources of conflict;
 understand the levels of social interaction at which conflict occurs;
 know the variations of threat in international conflicts; and
 understand the reasons behind and nature of conflicts in South Asia.
6.2 SOURCES OF CONFLICT-I

Conflicts may arise because of various causes and reasons. These can be divided into
two major groups. One based on issues and resources and second on interpersonal, inter-
group or differences. Economic, value or power interests may cause resource based
conflicts. These may escalate because of ineffective communication and other reasons. Let
us have a look on these reasons.
6.2.1 Economic Conflict

Economic Conflict involves competing motives to attain scarce resources. Each party
wants to get the most that it can and the behaviour and emotions of each party are
directed toward maximizing its gain. Union and management conflict often has one of its
sources the incompatible goals of how it can share the “economic pie”
6.2.2 Value Conflict

Value Conflict, involves the incompatibility in the ways of life, Ideologies – the preferences,
principles and practices that people believe in. International conflict e.g. the Cold War
often has a strong value component, wherein each side asserts the rightness and
superiority of its way of life and its socio-political economic system.
6.2.3 Power Conflict

Power conflict occurs when each party wishes to maintain or maximize the amount of
influence that it exerts in the relationship and the social setting. It is impossible for one
party to be stronger without the other being weaker, at least in terms of direct influence
over each other. Thus a power struggle ensues which usually ends in a victory and defeat
or a “stand off” with a continuing state of tension. Power conflicts can occur between
individuals, groups or between nations, whenever one or both parties choose to take a
power approach to the relationship. Power also enters into all conflict since the parties
are attempting to control each other. It must be noted that most conflicts are not of a
pure type, but involve a mixture of sources, for example, union-management conflict
involves economic competition but may also take the form of a power struggle and often
involves different ideologies or political values. This is valid for the struggle for power
between nations/state. The more sources involved the more intense and intractable the
conflict usually is.
6.2.4 Ineffective Communication

Ineffective communication is another important source of conflict. Miscommunication and
misunderstanding can create conflict even where there are no basic incompatibilities. In
addition, parties may have different perceptions as to what are the facts in a particular
situation, and until they share information and clarify their perceptions, resolutions are not
possible. Self centeredness, selective perception, emotional bias, prejudices etc., are all
forces that lead us to perceive situations very differently from the other party. Lack of
skill in communicating what we really mean in a clear and respectful fashion often results
in confusion, hurt and anger, all of which further feed the conflict process. Whether the
conflict has objective sources or is due only to perceptual or communication problems,
it is experienced as very real, by the parties involved.
6.2.5 Escalation of Conflict

Escalation of conflict is another major source of conflict. It is more additional than basic
that is it comes in after the conflict has started. Conflicts have a definite tendency to
escalate, i.e., to become more intense and hostile, and to develop more issues i.e., what
the parties say the conflict is about. Therefore, escalating conflicts become more difficult
to manage. The process of escalation feeds on fear and defensiveness. Threat leads to
counter threat, usually with higher stakes at each go /round. Selective and distorted
perception justifies a competitive and cautious approach as opposed to a trusting and
competitive one. It is contended that competition breeds competition. The Self –
fulfilling prophecy comes into play. Each party believes in the evil intensions of the other
and the inevitability of disagreement; and therefore takes precautionary actions which
signal mistrust and competitiveness. When the other party responds with a counteraction,
it is perceived as justifying the initial precautionary measure, and a new spiral of action
and counter action begins. Through the norm of reciprocity, stronger attempts to control
are met not only with stronger resistance, but more contentious attempts to gain the upper
hand.
With each succeeding spiral of conflict, polarisation grows and the parties become more
adamant and intransigent in their approach to the situation. Even though the intensity of
the conflict triggering event induces conflictual behaviour with negative consequences, and
the conflict has moved one more step up the escalation staircase. When parties become
“locked in” to a conflict they are usually unable to get out by themselves, and the
intervention of a third party in the role of an arbitrator, mediator or consultant may be
needed.
6.3 SOURCES OF CONFLICT-II

As already mentioned the second sources of conflicts are human based. These may be
individuals, groups, parties, states or nations.
6.3.1 Inter-personal Conflict

Inter-personal conflict occurs when two people have compatible needs, goals or approaches
in their relationship. Communication break down is often an important source of inter-
personal conflict and learning communication skills is valuable in preventing and resolving
such difficulties. At the same time, very real differences occur between people that
cannot be resolved by any amount of improved communication. “Personality Conflict”
refers to very strong differences in motives, values or styles in dealing with people that
are not amenable to compromise and resolution of disputes. For example, if both parties
in a relationship have a high need for power and both want to be dominant in the
relationship, there is no way for both to be satisfied, therefore, a power struggle ensues.
Common tactics used in inter-personal power struggle include the exaggerated use of
rewards and punishments, deception and evasion, threats and emotional blackmail, and
flattery or ingratiation. Unresolved power conflict usually recycles and escalates to the
point of the break down of relationship and its termination.
6.3.2 Role Conflict

Role conflict involves very real differences in role definitions expectations or responsibilities
between individuals who are interdependent in a social system. If there are ambiguities
in the role definitions in an organisation or unclear boundaries of responsibilities persist,
then the stage is set for the inter-personal friction between persons involved. Unfortunately,
the conflict is often misdiagnosed as inter-personal conflict rather than role conflict and
resolution are then complicated and misdirected. The emotional intensity is often quite
high in role conflict since, people are directly involved as individuals and there is a strong
tendency to personalize the conflict. This is tenable for leadership of States/Nations also.
6.3.3 Intergroup Conflict

Inter-group conflict occurs between collections of people such as ethnic or racial groups,
departments or levels of decision making in the same organisation, and union and
management. Competition of/for scare resources is a common source of intergroup
conflict and societies have developed numerous regulatory mechanisms viz. collective
bargaining and mediation, for dealing with such conflict in less disruptive ways. Social
and Psychological processes are very important in intergroup conflict. Group members
tend to develop stereotypes (oversimplified, negative, beliefs) and practice discrimination
against them. These classic symptoms of intergroup conflict can be just as evident in
organisations as in race relations, in community settings. Intergroup conflict is especially
tense and prone to escalation. Intractability persists when group identities are threatened.
The cost of destructive intergroup conflict can be extremely high for a society in both
economic and social terms.
6.3.4 Multiparty Conflict

Multi party conflict occurs in societies when different interest groups and organisations
have varying priorities over resource management and policy development. These
complex conflicts typically involve a combination of economic, value and power sources.
This complexity is often (intertwined and sometimes predominate) beyond the reach of
traditional authoritative or adversarial procedures. More collaborative approaches to
building consensus are needed for resolution of such conflicts.
6.3.5 International Conflict

International conflict occurs between states at the global level. Competition for resources
certainly plays a part, but value and power conflicts are often inter-twined and sometimes
predominate. The differences are articulated through the channels of diplomacy in a
consistent and constant game of give and take, or threat and counter threat, sometimes
for the highest stakes. Mechanisms of propaganda can lead to many of the same social
psychological distortions that characterise interpersonal and intergroup conflict.
One of the most striking differences between the conflict of firms and of states is that the
competition of states is marked by a dramatic alternation of peace and war. This
alternation of two contrasted forms of conflict – covert conflict of threats, promises and
pressures during peace and overt conflict in war- is seen in all other relations as well.
Nevertheless, the overt-covert pattern as a standard and almost regular cycle is found in
its most developed form in international relations. Clausewitz’s famous remark that “war
is an extension of diplomacy” is recognition both of the unity of the system of diplomacy
and war and of its two sharply contrasted patterns. What we have really is two systems
– one, diplomacy, and the other, war- each of which moves to a point where it gives
rise to the other, so that we have a constant, though not necessarily regular alternation
between them. Herein the term diplomacy rather than peace has been used to describe
the covert –conflict system of international relations, partly because peace is a much
overworked and ambiguous word but also because one must distinguish clearly between
that system of covert conflict between states which has a strong probability of ultimately
passing the system boundary into war and that condition of genuine peace, or political
integration, in which the agencies for the nonviolent resolution of conflict are adequate to
maintain the system without either the threat or the actuality of war.
This brings us to the second peculiarity of international conflict. The importance of war
as a social phenomenon is not merely that it represents a system boundary of worsening
diplomatic relations a lashing out when the tension of diplomatic relations becomes
intolerable for one party or the other; it also represents an ever present threat in
diplomatic relations themselves. One could, indeed, classify the nature of diplomatic
relations as peaceful or warlike by the extent to which the threat of war was used as an
instrument in the conduct of diplomatic relations, e.g. United States-Canada relations
almost non-existent threat of war. United States-Russia relations threat of war is never
unlikely.
6.4 VARIANTS OF THREAT IN INTERNATIONAL

CONFLICT
In international conflict, there are three kinds of threats: the threat of punishment, the
threat of conquest and the threat of annihilation.
6.4.1 Threat of Punishment

Between two un-conditionally viable states/nations, the threat of punishment is the only
significant threat, as neither can conquer nor annihilate the other. One nation can,
however, make things uncomfortable for another by military action and so may be able
to sway the policies of other nations in its favour. The problem with punishment,
especially between relative equals, is that the traditional plaint of the angry parent, “it hurts
me more than it hurts you” though rarely believed by the victim, has truth in it. The
infliction of punishment is costly for the punisher as well as for the punished, quite apart
from any retaliatory action, and the threat of punishment is correspondingly less effective
as its costs increases. The Crimean War is a good example of a threat that turned into
a war of punishment; the British and the French had no thought or hopes of conquering
Russia. However by making matters unpleasant they hoped to dissuade Russia from
extending its power to Constantinople. In the course of this exercise, however, they also
made matters very unpleasant for themselves-in fact for their armed forces.
6.4.2 Threat of Conquest

The threat of conquest becomes possible, when a nation is no longer unconditionally
viable. In the expansion of empires, this threat has been used with powerful effect. The
British Empire at its height was a masterly example of the use of the threat of conquest
to organise a vast heterogeneous domain. In India a mosaic of Princely states in the
matrix of British India (directly governed by the representative of the crown) testified to
the effective use of a combination of actual and threatened conquest. Indirect rule in
Africa was an example of the same basic pattern. The threat is not always one of
conquest by the dominant power; at times it is of allowing the threatened country to be
conquered by a rival dominant power. This seems to be so vis-a-vis the Western
European Nations. These nations have little or no fear of conquest by the United States,
because even though they may not be unconditionally viable with regard to the United
States, they do enjoy secure conditional viability; the United States has no desire to
absorb them into its political vortex/structure. Nevertheless, because these countries have
a real fear of conquest /domination by Russia, even today, the threat of withdrawal of
defense by the United States is a very effective one. It is interesting to note that this
threat is not very effective against traditional neutrals, Sweden and Switzerland, whose
reliance on a combination of historical habit and physical geography has so far been
effective. In the case of East European States viz. Poland and Hungary, the fear of
Russia is much more.
6.4.3 Threat of Annihilation

Threat of annihilation, the third threat is that of annihilation and it is not altogether new.
One remembers Carthage and Jerusalem, but it has reached a new intensity with the
development of nuclear weapons capable even of destroying all life on earth. Today the
world may destroy itself in a few hours, perhaps as a result only of an accident or a
misinterpretation of information received at some obscure station. A threat system of this
kind, especially when the powers of annihilation are mutual, is intolerable and introduces
a condition of desperate instability in international relations. We are all sitting under the
sword of Damocles; it is not surprising that some desperate attempts are being made to
fore-close this eventuality.
6.4.4 Threat of Offensive/Defensive Weapons

The distinction between offensive and defensive weapons is not always easy to draw, but
it clearly represents an important difference. Thus a shield, a city wall, or a bomb shelter
is purely defensive armaments; they lessen the capacity of the enemy to harm but can in
no way harm him. A fighter plane has a somewhat intermediate status. Its main objective
is to destroy agents of the enemy that are engaged in injurious activities, so that it has
a defensive aspect; on the other hand, its defence is not passive like that of a bomb
shelter, as it is aimed at injuring the aggressive agents of the enemy. A bomber or a
missile is a clearly offensive weapon designed mainly to injure the enemy, even though this
may have indirect effects in weakening the enemy power to injure. This distinction is
important in distinguishing a possible pattern of action which simply diminishes the power
of the threatener to injure or it may be followed by offensive action, which increases the
power of the threatened party to injure the threatener. This latter is the retaliatory
response to threat. Between these two extremes, as before, we may notice an
intermediate reaction-the offensive defense, which aims to injure the threatening agent of
the threatener but not the threatener himself. Throughout history, there has been a race
between offensive and defensive weapons technology improvement. The increased
technical efficiency of offense generally seems to precede that of defense, perhaps
because the payoffs to the innovator are greater in the case of offensive weapons. This
is because offensive weapons always have a defensive aspect, through their power to
destroy the offensive weapons of the enemy, whereas the defensive weapons seldom have
an offensive aspect. It is not surprising, therefore, that the dynamics of weapon
development has always favoured a constant increase both in the power and the range
of offensive weapons, and that the improvement in defensive weapons where it has taken
place, has been a catching up rather than a leading change.
6.4.5 Boundary Disputes

In international relations the boundaries of states tend to be very sharply defined and any
violation of a boundary is regarded as a matter of gravest concern, and the efforts for
survival or expansion of states are highly concentrated on the boundaries between them.
During peace, that is mere existence of conflict by diplomacy, it is impossible to make
any but the most minor and insignificant adjustments in international boundaries, because
of the gradual change in the relative power of nations, however, the existing structure of
boundaries gets even more and more obsolete and is subject to great strain. Eventually
when this becomes beyond the pale of mere diplomacy, war breaks out. War creates,
a fluidity in national boundaries that did not exist under diplomacy and the war ends when
the parties think that the adjustments in boundaries that will emerge from it are not
damaging enough to the weaker parties to make it worth their while continuing the war.
In the treaty that follows the war, a new set of boundaries is drawn presumably more
akin to the structure of the relative national power that the war has revealed vis-a-vis the
two contending powers.
6.5 CONFLICT IN SOUTH ASIA

To understand better the sources of conflict, we may take a look at the conflicts in South
Asia, with particular reference to India, Pakistan and the role of China in the sub-
continent: For several millennia, the South Asian region existed more or less in splendid
isolation. Separated from the rest of Asia by the Hindukush, the Karakorum and the
Great Himalayan ranges in the North and the Indian Ocean in the South, the Indian sub-
continent developed a distinctive civilization identity and structured relations between the
various local political entities as the critical component of “high politics” for much of the
region’s history. To be sure, the sub-continent was periodically invaded by outside
powers, usually land invasions from West and Central Asia. Only in the latter half of the
modern period did the sub-continent confront seaborne invasions mounted by the
European colonial powers, one of which, Great Britain, triumphed and ruled over South
Asian region for about two hundred years.
However, irrespective of the source of these land and seaborne invasions, the dominant
patters of strategic interaction remained similar. The local South Asian States interacted
mostly with each other. The invaders either left the sub-continent after ransacking its
wealth or they stayed on and were gradually absorbed into the local civilization, and
proceeded to join the other regional entities in jostling with one another as had been the
case for centuries. This pattern of behaviour continued even after the end of the British
Raj that left behind, two new and independent states, India and Pakistan. The conflictual
interaction between these two countries has dominated the strategic environment on the
Indian sub-continent since 1947. There was no doubt; external interactions too, mostly
with the United States and Russia, and to an extent also China, with its courting Pakistan
after the fallout with India in 1962. All these nevertheless fed into the primary security
competition between India, Pakistan and China.
Clearly the dyadic competition between the first two states often receives most public
attention, in part because of their low intensity conflicts highly visible, have occasionally
threatened to lead to high risk escalation and take place under the shadow of relatively
weak nuclear capabilities. Despite these factors, it is significant to note that low-intensity
conflicts have occurred in the Sino-Indian case as well. China has supported insurgencies
in India’s North-East, of and on for more than about four to five decades, and India
historically has upheld the cause of the Tibetans of Tibet.
As regards India and Pakistan, regarding the issue of low intensity conflict persisting
between them, two issues are primary. The first one relates to the choice Pakistan makes
with regard to the present ferment in Kashmir. The rebellion of the Kashmiris has in a
way reached the limits of its success. Whether Pakistan will up the ante by altering either
by enhancing its quantity and quality of support given, will surely impact future Indo-Pak
security competition in the near future. The second set of choices relates to the decisions
made by the governments in power respectively. Both the Indian and Pakistani decisions
are in a way interdependent and therefore, immediate Pakistani choices with respect to
Kashmir will determine the prospects of Indian conventional retaliation and the concomitant
escalation of conflict in the region.
6.6 SUMMARY
In this Unit, you have read about the sources that cause conflicts in various types. First
type of sources is material, ideological or motivational. These cause economic conflicts,
value conflicts, power conflicts, conflicts caused due to ineffective communication and
escalation of conflicts. Second category of conflicts can be classified on the basis of
parties involved. These include inter-personal conflict, role conflict, inter-group conflict,
multi-party conflict and international conflicts. There also are variants of threats,
particularly in international area that cause conflicts. These threats may be of punishment,
conquest, annihilation, possession of offensive and defensive weapons, boundary disputes
etc. You also read the nature of conflicts in South Asia as an example of sources of
conflicts. Here India and Pakistan, in particular, and China have been involved in conflicts
due to differences over borders, competition for power, and interference in each other
due to historical and ideological reasons. For a meaningful effort for management and
resolution of conflicts, it is important that sources and causes for the same are well
understood and appreciated.

1) Discuss the major sources of conflict in terms of material, ideological and motive
aspects.
2) What do you understand by inter-personal conflict and role conflict?
3) Write a brief essay on variants of threat in international conflicts.
4) Describe the nature of conflicts in South Asian Region.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Boulding Kenneth, (1962) Conflict and Defense: A General Theory, New York, Harper
and Bros.
Gilpin Robert, (1986) The Political Economy of International Relations, New Jersey,
Princeton University Press.
Gordon Sandy (1995) “South Asia After the Cold War”, Asian Survey, Berkeley,
California, Vol. 35, No 10, October.
Khalizad Zalmay, Lesser Ian O, (1998) Sources of Conflict in the Twentieth Century,
Washington, RAND.
Reports and Articles, (1994) World development Report.
Tellis Ashley J, (1997) Stability in South Asia, Santa Monica, RAND, DB-185-A.
UNIT 7 TYPES AND LEVELS OF CONFLICT
Structure
7.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
7.2 Defining Conflict: Conceptual Clarifications
7.3 Functions/Objectives of Conflict
7.3.1 Constructive Aspects
7.4 Types and Levels of Conflicts

7.4.1 Quincy Wright’s Classification
7.4.2 Anatol Rapoport’s Classification
7.4.3 Singer’s Classification
7.4.4 Holsti’s Classifications
7.4.5 Stuart Chare’s Classification
7.4.6 Kenneth Boulding’s Classification
7.4.7 John Galtung’s Classification
7.4.8 Dennis Sandole’s Classification
7.5 Summary
Suggested Readings
7.1 INTRODUCTION
We all are familiar with conflicts. They are part of our daily life. They are inherent in
human relations. But this does not mean that every social relationship is entirely or even
partly conflicting all the time. Nor does it mean that every underlying conflicting
relationship will be expressed with the same degree and kind of hostility or violence.
Conflicts belong to the full complexity of social existence; their domain is as vast and
varied as life itself. To understand the full complexities of different types and levels of
conflicts we have to draw perspectives from various disciplines such as Anthropology,
Sociology, History, Political Science, International Relations and Psychoanalysis.
This will give us an interdisciplinary view of conflicts. What do we understand by conflict?
Are all conflicts bad or have negative impact? What purposes do they serve? How many
types of conflicts can be identified? Are there any unidentified conflicts? This Unit tries to
explore answers to some of these questions.
Aims and Objectives
After going through this Unit, you will be enable you to understand:
 the conceptual problems of identifying the meaning and definition of conflict;
 functions and objectives of conflict; and
 various kinds, types, levels and manifestations of conflict.
7.2 DEFINING CONFLICT: CONCEPTUAL

CLARIFICATIONS
The word conflict is derived from the Latin word confligere meaning to strike together.
Originally, it had a physical rather than moral connotation, though the English word has
both. In the physical sense, it denotes two or more different things moving to occupy the
same space at the same time, the logical inconsistency and the process of solution being
identical. For example, the logical inconsistency of two billiard balls being in the same
place at the same time is resolved by the conflict which results in their rolling to two
different positions.
There is no agreement among scholars on the precise meaning of the term conflict. There
are many definitions of the term. Some of the definitions given below will help you to
understand the concept of conflict:
1) George Simmel, whom we owe a classical analysis of various forms of conflict,
insisted that “conflict is a certain amount of discord, inner divergence and outer
controversy, is organically tied up with the very elements that ultimately hold the
group together”.
2) Kenneth Boulding defines conflict as a form of competition in which the competing
parties recognize that they have mutually incompatible goals. (Kriesberg: 1973, p.4)
3) Lewis Coser, who offered one of the most influential definitions of conflict, regards
it as ‘a struggle over values and claims to scarce status, power and resources in
which the aims of the opponents are to neutralize, injure or eliminate the rivals’
(Jayaram and Saberwal: 1996, p.5).
Defined thus, conflict is a comprehensive category, encompassing a variety of
phenomena, from brawls in the bazaar to wars between nations.
4) Park and Burgess write that ‘Conflict is always conscious. Indeed it evokes the
deepest emotions and strongest passions and enlists the greatest concentration of
attention and of effort. Both competition and conflict are forms of struggle. Competition,
however, is continuous and impersonal. Conflict is intermittent and personal’. (Kriesberg:
1973, p.4)
5) According to Robert C. North ‘A conflict emerges whenever two or more persons
(or groups) seek to possess the same object, occupy the same space or the same
exclusive position, play incompatible goals, or undertake mutually incompatible means
for achieving their purposes’ (North: 1968, p.226).
6) The conception identifying conflict with violent interactions in which behaviour and
perceptions are in opposition has remained a basic conception in conflict studies.
Mack and Snyder, without offering a specific definition, identify the distinguishing
characteristics of the range of conflict phenomena as: (i) the existence of two or
more parties; (ii) their interaction arises from a condition of resource scarcity or
position scarcity; (iii) they engage in mutually opposing actions; (iv) their behaviour is
intended to damage, injure or eliminate the other party; (v) their interactions are overt
and can be measured or evaluated by outside observers (Bercovitch: 1984, p. 4).
7) Mahatma Gandhi’s view of conflict and the importance of expressing it is one of his
most significant insights, and he found it confirmed in the teachings of the Bhagavad
Types and Levels of Conflict 71
Gita, a Hindu religious scripture. According to his interpretation, the Gita regards
each person as possessing truth and untruth together. “The field of battle is in our
own body”, Gandhi said in summarizing its teachings.
One finds altogether a different understanding of the meaning of international conflicts
/ civil wars or wars in the literature on conflict. Disagreement over the exact notion
of the conflict as a term in the domain of international relations dominates until today.
Different understandings of international conflict can be discerned from browsing of
the literature. Singer and Small define conflicts as violent disputes in which at least
one of the combatant parties is a state, and there are at least 100 battle-deaths. This
definition covers exclusively soldiers and other military staff. Civilian victims are
however not considered.
Thus, there are divergent definitions of the concept of conflict in different social sciences,
including international politics and peace and conflict studies. Each one of the definitions
included in this section adds a new insight and perspective to our understanding of the
complex phenomenon called “conflict”.
7.3 FUNCTIONS/OBJECTIVES OF CONFLICT

Scholars of conflict studies do not believe (like an average person) that all conflicts are
bad, as they serve positive social functions. Conflict prevents the ossification of the social
system by exercising pressure for innovation and creativity. George Sorel felt that a social
system was in need of conflict if only to renew its energies and revitalize its creative
forces. Coser states that: ‘Conflict within and between groups in a society can prevent
accommodations and habitual relations from progressively impoverishing creativity. The
clash of values and interests, the tension between what is and what some groups feel
ought to be, the conflict between vested interests and new strata and groups demanding
their share of power, wealth, and status, have been productive of vitality; note for
example the contrast between the “frozen world” of the Middle Ages and the burst of
creativity that accompanied the thaw that set in with Renaissance civilization’ (Coser:
1967, p.20). According to John Dewey, ‘Conflict is the gadfly of thought. It stirs us to
observation and memory. It instigates to invention. It shocks us out of sheep-like passivity,
and sets us at noting and contriving.... Conflict is a sine qua non of reflection and
ingenuity’. Conflict not only generates new norms and new institutions, it may also be
stimulating directly in the economic and technological realm. Economic historians often
have pointed out that much technological improvement has resulted from the conflict
activity of trade unions through the raising of wage levels. It may be noted that the
extreme mechanization of coal-mining in the United States has been partly explained by
the existence of militant unionism in the American coalfields (Coser, 1967, p.20). Coser
writes that a natural scientist (Waldemar Kaemfert), describing the function of earthquakes,
stated in 1952 admirably what could be considered the function of conflict. The scientist
wrote: ‘There is nothing abnormal about an earthquake. An unshakable earth would be
a dead earth. A quake is the earth’s way of maintaining its equilibrium, a form of
adjustment that enables the crust to yield to stresses that tend to reorganise and
redistribute the material of which it is composed... The larger the shift, the more violent
the quake, and the more frequent the shifts, the more frequent are the shocks’ (Coser:
1967, p.26).
7.3.1 Constructive Aspects

According to Marx, conflict leads not only to ever-changing relations within the existing
social structure, but also the total social system undergoes transformation through conflict.
A central thesis of Arnold Toynbee’s monumental book, A Study of History, reveals that
a group or a system that no longer is challenged is no longer capable of creative
response. It may subsist, wedded to the eternal yesterday of precedent and tradition, but
it is no longer capable of renewal.
Most contemporary social scientists lay stress on the constructive consequences of conflict
relations. Dubin’s five central propositions constitute a broader thesis: intergroup conflict
is a fundamental institutionalised social process which determines the direction of social
change and, in effect, defines social welfare. Mack and Snyder consider that though most
of his analysis is drawn from experience of industrial relations, the propositions have wider
applicability. They also summarise the views of five other scholars: (i) conflict sets group
boundaries by strengthening group cohesiveness and separateness; (ii) conflict reduces
tension and permits maintenance of social interaction under stress; (iii) conflict clarifies
objectives; (iv) conflict results in the establishment of group norms; and (v) without
conflict, accommodative relations would result in subordination rather than agreement
(Mack and Snyder: 2006, p.22).
To Mahatma Gandhi, conflict has its benefits. An appreciation of the other point of view
enhances one’s own perspective. We are all limited to our own angle of vision, Gandhi
said. Through conflict, one gains a broader view of truth.
7.4 TYPES AND LEVELS OF CONFLICTS

There is no agreement among scholars on types and levels of conflict. Different scholars
have identified different kinds or types of conflict. There can be social conflicts, inter-
community conflicts, caste conflicts, group conflict, interpersonal conflict, intellectual conflict,
economic conflicts, cultural conflicts, religious conflicts, racial or ethnic conflicts, ideological
conflicts, hot and cold conflict, north and south conflict, regional conflicts, international or
intra-national conflicts and so on. According to Dennis Sandole, a typology facilitates
analysis and a typology of conflicts could facilitate resolving as well as analysing conflicts.
Moreover, a study of different typologies of conflicts may provide interrelated insights into
a given conflict situation. Such insights could enable an analyst and potential third-party
intervener to see a conflict from various angles, thereby enhancing the likelihood of a
more effective response. This section provides an overview of typologies of conflicts that
we find in the literature of conflict studies.
7.4.1 Quincy Wright’s Classification

Quincy Wright was one of the earliest political scientists to make a systematic study of
conflicts and war. According to him, conflict can take place among different sorts of
entities. He identifies four types of conflicts – physical conflict, political conflict, ideological
conflicts and legal conflicts. He distinguishes physical conflict in which two or more
entities try to occupy the same space at the same time from political conflict in which
a group tries to impose its policy on others. He further distinguishes these two types of
conflict from ideological conflicts in which systems of thought or of values struggle with
each other, and from legal conflicts in which controversies over claims or demands are
adjusted by mutually recognized procedures (Wright: 1990, pp. 22-23). He also identifies
fifth category of conflict – war. For him, war in the legal sense has been characterised
by the union of all four types of conflict, as noted above. War is manifested by the
physical struggle of armies to occupy the same space, each seeking to annihilate, disarm,
or capture the other; by the political struggle of nations to achieve policies against the
resistance of others; by the ideological struggle of people to preserve or extend ways of
life and value systems; and by the legal struggle of states to acquire titles, to vindicate
claims, to prevent violence, or to punish offenses by recognized procedures of regulated
violence.
7.4.2 Anatol Rapoport’s Classification

Anatol Rapoport has proposed a threefold classification of conflicts: fights, games, and
debates. Their distinguishing criteria are: how the opponent is viewed, the intent of the
parties, and the rational content of the situation. In a fight, the opponent is viewed as a
nuisance, the intent is to harm him, and the situation is devoid of rationality. In a game,
the opponent is viewed like oneself, the intent is to outwit him, and the situation is
completely rational. And in a debate, the opponent is viewed as essential but of a
different sort, the intent is to convince him, and the situation is presumably rational.
Rapoport’s three models of conflict dynamics can be elaborated further. He distinguishes
the three kinds of conflicts on the basis of following four criteria. First, the basis or
starting point of the struggle in all three models of conflict differs from each other. In the
fights, there is a mutual fear or hostility between the parties; in the games, there is
agreement between the parties to strive for mutually incompatible goals within constraint
of certain rules, but not where outcome can be predicted in advance; and in the debates,
there is disagreement between the parties about “what is” (facts) or “what ought to be”
(values); i.e., clashes of convictions or “outlooks”. Second, the image of the opponent
(held by each party) is also different: in fights, the image held by each party is mainly
a nuisance; preferably, the opponent should disappear, or at least be reduced in size or
importance. In games, the image of the opponent held by each party is that of an
essential partner, seen as a mirror image of the self; preferably, a strong opponent who
will do his best to win; a rational being whose inner thought processes must be taken into
account. In debates, the image of the opponent (held by each party) is mistaken or
misguided; preferably, the opponent should become a convert to one’s own outlook.
Third, the objective of each party is also different in three types of conflicts. In fights,
the objective of each party is to harm, destroy, subdue, or drive away the opponent, in
games, it is to outwit the opponent and in the debates it is to convince the opponent.
Fourth, the mode of interaction in all three types also differs. In fights, the mode of
interaction is non-rational series of actions and reactions to the other’s and one’s own
actions; use of thrusts, threats, violence, etc.; and the course of interaction does not
depend on goals of the opponent. In games, the parties cooperate by following the rules
and by doing their best to provide maximum challenge to the opponent; actions
(stratagems) chosen on the basis of probable outcomes; and interaction terminates when
outcome is obvious to both sides. In debates, the parties engage in verbal interaction of
arguments using various techniques of persuasion such as brain washing, explaining away
the opponent’s beliefs, and removing threats associated in the opponent’s mind with
adopting one’s own outlook.
7.4.3 Singer’s Classification

Singer’s conflict typology is based on the political status of conflict parties. He retains his
original distinction between (a) interstate wars and (b) extra-systemic (mainly colonial)
wars, but here adds two further classes of non-interstate conflict: (c) ‘civil’ conflicts, in
which, unlike (b), one protagonist may be ‘an insurgent or revolutionary group within the
recognized territorial boundaries of the state’, and (d) the ‘increasingly complex intrastate
wars’ in former colonial states, where the challenge may come from ‘culturally defined
groups whose members identify with one another and with the group on the basis of
shared racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, or kinship characteristics’ (Cited in Ramsbotham,
et al: 2005, p.65).
7.4.4 Holsti’s Classification

K. J. Holsti, in his 1996 book, The State, War, and the State of War, has also adapted
this typology. He earlier categorized international (interstate) conflict up to 1989 in terms
of twenty-four issues, grouped into five composite sets: conflict over territory, economics,
nation-state creation, ideology, and ‘human sympathy’ (i.e. ethnicity/religion). He concluded
that the incidence of the first two had been declining, but that of the last three was
increasing. He later focuses on non-interstate war and bases his typology on ‘types of
actors and / or objectives’, ending up with four categories of conflict: (a) ‘standard state
versus wars (e.g. China and India in 1962) and armed interventions involving significant
loss of life (the United States in Vietnam, the Soviet Union in Afghanistan)’; (b)
‘decolonizing wars of “national liberation”’; (c) ‘internal wars based on ideological goals’
(e.g. the Sendero Luminoso in Peru, the Montenegro in Uruguay); and (d) ‘state-nation
wars including armed resistance by ethnic, language and / or religious groups, often with
the purpose of secession or separation from the state’ (e.g., the Tamils in Sri Lanka, the
Ibos in Nigeria).
7.4.5 Stuart Chare’s Classification

In 1951, Stuart Chase (See Fink, p. 418) presented a classification of following 18 levels
of conflict:
1) Personal Quarrels – husband vs. wife, employer vs. servant, etc.;
2) Family vs. family;
3) Feuds – clan vs. clan;
4) Community quarrels – town vs. town, state vs. state;
5) Sectional quarrels – South vs. North, Southern Ireland vs. Ulster, etc.;
6) Workers against managers – foremen’s unions vs. the rest of management, jurisdictional
disputes between trade unions, etc.;
7) Political parties – two or more competing in elections;
8) Conflicts between the races – white vs. black, white vs. yellow, white vs. red, etc.;
9) Religious conflict – Protestant vs. Catholics, Hindus vs. Muslims, Jews vs. Muslims;
10) Anti-semitism – worldwide compound of racial, religious, and cultural antagonisms;
11) Ideological quarrels – communism vs. capitalism, business vs. government, labour vs.
capital, communism vs. socialism, etc.;
12) Occupational conflicts – farmer vs. industrial worker, blue-collar vs. white-collar, etc.;
13) Competition within a given industry – denunciation of price-cutters and chisellers;

14) Competition between industries – trucks vs. freight cars, oil vs. coal, silk vs. rayon,
etc.;
15) National rivalries – nation vs. nation;
16) Conflicts between cultures – in group vs. out group;
17) Cold War – Russia and her satellites vs. the democracies;
18) East vs. West.
Thus, Chase provides a better typology and levels of conflict than his predecessors. His
list of 18 levels represents a fairly large number of domains for special theories of conflict.
But, since Chase does not consider this an exhaustive list, the number implied is even
greater, and remains indeterminate.
7.4.6 Kenneth Boulding’s Classification

Kenneth Boulding (1962) identifies eight kinds of social conflicts: 1) Conflicts between or
among persons; 2) Boundary conflicts between groups (spatially segregated groups); 3)
Ecological conflict between groups; 4) Homogenous organisation conflict (i.e., between
organisations of like character and purpose, such as state vs. state, sect vs. sect, union
vs. union, etc.); 5) Heterogeneous organisation conflict (i.e., between unlike organisations,
such as state vs. church, union vs. corporation, university vs. church/state, etc.); 6)
Conflicts between a person and a group (mainly socialisation conflicts, as in child vs.
family, person vs. peer group, person vs. hierarchical superiors or inferiors, etc.); 7)
Conflict between a person and an organisation (mainly role conflicts); 8) Conflicts
between a group and an organisation.
7.4.7 Johan Galtung’s Classification

Johan Galtung provides a simple classification containing four types of conflict, as
illustrated in the following table:
Intrasystem conflict Intersystem conflict
Individual level Intrapersonal interpersonal
Collective level e.g., intranational international
To understand Galtung’s classification, we should also keep in mind the meaning that he
attaches to the terms “intrasystem” and “intersystem”. He writes: “By an intra-system
conflict ... we mean a conflict that can be found in the smallest subunits of the system,
down to the individual actor, whereas an inter-system conflict splits the system in parts,
each subsystem standing for its own goal state” (Cited in Fink, p. 422).
7.4.8 Dennis Sandole’s Classification

Dennis Sandole presented a three pillar framework of conflict analysis, which locates
any particular conflict including its distinguishing characteristics under pillar 1, the causes
and conditions of the conflict under pillar 2, and conflict intervention and implementation
under pillar 3. According to him conflict is a process characterised by stages of initiation,
escalation, controlled maintenance, de-escalation and some kind of termination (e.g.,
settlement, resolution). He not only defines but also distinguishes between three kinds of
conflicts: latent conflicts (pre-MCPs) manifest conflict processes (MCPs), and aggressive
manifest conflict processes (AMCPs). According to him, latent conflicts are conflicts that
are developing, but have not yet expressed themselves in an observable manner, even for
the parties themselves. MCPs are conflicts that have developed to the extent that they are
observable, but have not been expressed so far in a violent manner. AMCPs are conflicts
that have escalated from MCPs to a level of expression: they are not merely capable of
being noticed and experienced, but are also destructive to parties, resources, and others
as well.
Latent conflicts also are known sometimes as non-violent conflicts. According to
some studies, there are two types of non-violent conflicts: latent conflicts and manifested
conflicts. A latent conflict is defined as a stage in the development of a conflict where
parties question existing values, issues or objectives that have a national relevance. Latent
conflicts must carry some identifiable or observable signs in order to be recognized and
noticed as such. In a latent conflict the positional differences and the clashing interests
must be articulated as demands or claims. The manifest conflict is a stage when tensions
are present but are expressed by means below the threshold of violence. Tense relations
between the conflicting parties can reach a turning point enabling them to use force.
Economic sanctions are a means by which a latent conflict can be turned into a manifest.
Manifest conflicts, like latent conflicts, at all stages carried out by non-violent means and
without use of armed force.
On the other hand, violent conflicts, like war, civil war, armed conflict, etc. are more
destructive in which each party pursues the goal of injuring, destroying or otherwise
forcibly eliminating the other. Thousands of deaths occur in violent conflicts. They leave
permanent scars on the parties to the conflict. Wars or violent conflicts are high intensity
conflicts, which leads to widespread destruction. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was argued
that the international conflict was of such nature that it might eventually lead to an all-
destructive war, as the two super powers were pursuing goals of nuclear superiority. The
scholars have coined the term “MAD” (Mutually Assured Destruction) to describe the
nature of such an eventuality.
Thus it is now clear that conflict typology is as diverse as there are issues and
incompatibilities among various individuals, groups, nations, states, nationalities, and
organisations.
7.5 SUMMARY
Conflicts are universal. They are present in every family, community, society, state or
organisation. They are inherent part of our social existence.
There is no agreement among scholars on the precise definition of the term conflict. There
is an ‘academic conflict’ among scholars on the question of defining the term ‘conflict’.
Nearly a dozen definitions available in different social science disciplines have been
discussed in the Unit. Each one has its own merit. All of them collectively add different
perspectives and insights to our understanding of the nature, types, levels and manifestations
of conflicts. If we understand each conflict properly, a proper and agreeable solution of
it can be worked out.
Conflicts serve many purposes. All conflicts are not bad and destructive. Philosophers like
Hegel and Marx have defended conflict as a necessary instrument of change and
progress. Similarly, Simmel and Coser have defended it as a necessary tool of social
integration. According to Coser, conflict prevents the social system from becoming rigid
/ inflexible by exercising pressure for innovation and creativity.
Current conflict typology is in a state of confusion. There are as many typologies as
analysts, and the criteria employed not only vary, but are often mutually incompatible. A
compilation of some of the different labels used in well-known analyses from the 1990s
soon runs to well over a hundred. Some differentiate in terms of conflict parties, others
in terms of conflict issues, but most in terms of hybrid lists that seem to muddle diverse
categories. Some have two types, others run to more than twenty. This unit provides an
overview of diverse types and levels of conflict.

1) What do you understand by conflict? Describe Mahatma Gandhi’s view on conflict.
2) Discuss the objectives and purposes of the conflicts.
3) Can all conflicts be described as bad or having negative impacts?
4) Describe the types of conflicts classified by Quincy Wright.
5) What types of conflicts are identified by Stuart Chase and Amatol Rapport?
SUGGESTED READINGS
Angell, Robert C. (1965). “The Sociology of Human Conflict”, in E. McNeil (ed.), The
Nature of Human Conflict. Eaglewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Bercovitch, Jacob. (1984). Social Conflicts and Third Parties – Strategies of Conflict
Resolution. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Boulding, Kenneth. (1962). Conflict and Defense: A General Theory New York:
Harper.
Coser, Lewis A. (1967). Continuities in the Study of Social Conflict New York: Free
Press.
Fink, Clinton F. (1968). ‘Some Conceptual Difficulties in the Theory of Social Conflict’,
Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 12, pp. 412-60.
Jayaram N., Satish Saberwal. (1996) (ed.), Social Conflict New Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Kriesberg, Louis. (1973). The Sociology of Social Conflicts Eaglewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Mack, Raymond W and Snyder, Richard C. (1957). ‘The Analysis of Social Conflict “
Towards an Overview and Synthesis’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 1 (2), pp.
212-48, Reprinted in Daniel Druckman and Paul F. Diehl (ed.) (2006), Conflict
Resolution, Vol. I, London: Sage Publications, pp. 3-47.
North, Robert C. (1968). ‘Conflict; Political Aspects’, International Encyclopaedia of
the Social Sciences, Vols. 3-4, New York: Macmillan Co., pp. 226-32.
Rapoport, Anatol. (1960). Fights, Games, and Debates. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Ramsbotham, Oliver, Woodhouse, Tom and Miall, Hugh, (2005). Contemporary Conflict
Resolution, Second Edition. Cambridge: Polity.
Sandole, Dennis J. D. (2003). ‘Typology’, in Sandra Chelden, Daniel Druckman, and
Larissa Fast (eds.), Conflict: From Analysis to Intervention. London: Continuum.
Wright, Quincy. (1942). A Study of War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
....................... (1951). ‘The Nature of Conflict’, The Western Political Quarterly, Vol.
2, reprinted in John Burton and Frank Dukes (eds.), Conflict: Readings in Management
and Resolution , London: Macmillan, 1990, pp.15-34.
UNIT 8 THEORIES OF CONFLICTS
Structure
8.1 Introduction
Aims and Objectives
8.2 Theories of Conflict
8.3 Human Nature and Conflict
8.3.1 Biological and Socio-Biological Theories
8.3.2 Instinct Theory
8.3.3 Darwinism and Social Darwinism
8.3.4 Ethology
8.3.5 Socio-biology
8.3.6 Criticisms of Biological and Socio-Biological Theories
8.4 Psychological and Social Psychological Theories

8.4.1 Freudian Interpretation and Psychoanalysis
8.4.2 Social Identity Theory
8.4.3 The Seville Statement on Violence
8.5 Society and Conflict

8.5.1 Social Process Theories
8.6 Social Structural Theories

8.6.1 Structural Violence Theory
8.6.2 Human Needs Theory
8.6.3 Resource Theory
8.6.4 Relative Deprivation Theory
8.6.5 Socio-Economic Theories
8.7 Formal Theories
8.8 Summary
Suggested Readings
8.1 INTRODUCTION
In the earlier Units, you have read that there are different explanations about the causes
of conflict in the field of peace and conflict studies. These are further explained by
different theories. One set of theories locate the underlying causes and sources of conflict
in human beings or in human nature. These can be conceptualised as Biological and
Psychological Theories. Other theories place the sources of conflict in the way human
beings interact with each other in the society or in socio-structural/institutional conditions.
These can be referred to as Social Process Theories and Social Structural Theories. As
such the two major sets of theories either focus on the human agency or on the patterns
of social interaction and socio-structural conditions. A third set of theories of conflict are
known as formal theories. These theories use mathematical language to express their core
ideas. This Unit focuses on these theories.
Aims and Objectives

After going through this unit you will:
 become familiar with the various theories about the causes and sources of conflict;
and
 know about the debates within the theories of conflict.
8.2 THEORIES OF CONFLICT

You have read above that the range of theories that explain the causes and sources of
conflict can be categorised into two: firstly, Human Nature and Conflict and secondly,
Society and Conflict. Theories under these two categories point towards the ‘nature
versus nurture’ debate. The ‘nature’ theorists emphasise that human beings are primarily
affected by genes, so conflict is basically in their nature. The ‘nurture ‘theorists insist that
conflict emerges from the way society is organised. The various types of divisions within
society lead to conflict.
Those who stress on human nature as a source of conflict are of the view that violence
is inevitable, widespread and universal—irrespective of the social structures—as it is
‘inherent’ in human beings or within the individual. Hence these theories are also referred
to as Inherency Theories. The social structural theories argue that conflict is not located
inside the human being but outside it. Conflict is thus dependent on factors external to the
human being. Such theories are also known as Contingency Theories.
There is a third set of theories called as Interactionist Theories, which combine the
features of inherency and contingency theories. This approach rejects the ‘nature versus
nurture’ debate as it believes that human behaviour is not caused by and should not be
reduced to just one factor, either nature or nurture. Human behaviour, in fact, is a
combination of both genetics and social structural conditions. John Burton’s Human Needs
Theory has features of both inherency and contingency. Burton says that human beings are
driven by their needs and they will pursue them at all costs. So, needs are, thus, inherent
in human beings. However, these needs have to be satisfied in the social context and not
outside it. The latter aspect is determined by contingency.
This unit will, largely focus on the various aspects of the inherency and contingency
theories.
8.3 HUMAN NATURE AND CONFLICT

Theories based on human agency focus on human behaviour, both at the individual as well
as at the collective level, as the source of conflict.
8.3.1 Biological and Socio-Biological Theories

Biological theoretical approaches trace the sources of conflict and violence in the human
genes. They emphasise on the biological factors or inborn traits of human beings.
Biologically determined factors are seen to be responsible for inter-personal and inter-
group violence. The biological theories mostly focus on aggression. It considers aggression
as being genetically programmed in the human nervous system. Various biological
perspectives about human aggression are reflected in the Instinct Theory, Darwinism and
Social Darwinism, Ethology, and Socio-biology. However, these perspectives have been
subjected to severe criticisms.
Theories of Conflicts 81
8.3.2 Instinct Theory

It argues that aggressive behaviour is rooted in human instinct. Instinctive impulse is the
source of human aggression and destructive behaviour. This is evident in the basic and
primitive urge to fight and dominate.
8.3.3 Darwinism and Social Darwinism

Charles Darwin in his Origin of Species gave the concepts of ‘survival of the fittest’ –
only the fittest people who successfully adapt to the specific environment in which they
live will survive. This is biological evolution but it is a slow and gradual process.
Hierarchical and graded relations between different classes have been justified by using the
principle of ‘survival of the fittest’.
Social Darwinism explains conflict in terms of ‘natural selection’ – the survival of the fittest
and the inherent aggression in human beings. It stresses that competition and conflict play
very significant roles in human society. Social Darwinists used the concept of ‘stages of
evolution’ to legitimize the imperialist policies of conquests and wars.
Darwin’s ideas have been criticised on the premise that he was unaware about the role
played by mutations or biological process of changes occuring in the genetic material.
8.3.4 Ethology
Ethology is the science of animal behaviour in their natural habitat. It studies the behaviour
patterns of different species. Ethology and evolutionary history have drawn conclusions
about the instinctive impulse by comparing and deducing similarities between humans and
natural animal behaviour. Ethologists have contended that the behaviour pattern of different
species show a strong inherited base. All organisms, humans included, are a product of
a process of ‘evolution’ in which ‘fitness’ for survival is determined by a combination of
mutational factors and natural selection. Konrad Lorenz in his book On Aggression
argues that aggression in human beings is a result of an “instinct for aggression”. This
aggression in humans is shared by most other species and has developed in an
evolutionary manner because it has helped them survive over a period of time. Freud too
said that human beings may have inherited aggressive impulses from many past generations
through the process of natural selection.
8.3.5 Socio-biology
Socio-biology is a science that focuses on the study of social organisation of animals.
Socio-biologists believe that animals including humans may have genetically inherited
aggressive tendencies of social behaviours. Though, sociobiologists see animal aggression
as being based largely in genes, they stress that it varies from one species to the other
and also between different patterns of social organisations. Aggression is of different kinds
– predatory aggression, fear-induced aggression, irritable aggression etc. – each having its
different basis biologically. In humans, aggression is less produced compared to other
animals. Also, aggression in humans is more influenced by cultural learning. Within a group
of species, there is likely to be more aggression if the population is concentrated
compared to where populations are more spread out. For example, spread out populations
like the Eskimos of North America and the Aborigines of Australia were less involved in
violence and warfare before they came in contact with the Western culture.
8.3.6 Criticisms of Biological and Socio-Biological Theories

The biological roots of human aggression have been subjected to severe criticism.
Anthropologists and sociologists opine that human behaviour or human instinct cannot be
traced to biological roots. It is more a product of human culture, which is created by
human groups and passed on through social learning.
Though Freud opined that aggression is ingrained within individuals, he too was of the
view that it developed in the individual through experience with others such as family
members, mainly parents. Hence, psychoanalytic theory emphasizes that individual experiences
during the period of early socialisation determines human personality.
Social Learning Theories also stress that aggression has nothing to do with genes but is
a product of social learning. Learning is, however, dependent on conditioning. The stimuli
available in a given situation is most likely to condition our response, for example, if there
is a gun nearby, one is likely to use it if there is threat to one’s life or property.
Moreover, if aggressive behaviour is rewarded, one is likely to repeat it. On the contrary
if it is punished, it is not likely to be repeated. Observational learning theory says that we
learn from others, by way of observation of actions. We also learn through language.
John Burton says that if inherent human aggressiveness is the source of all conflicts, then
we will just have to live with it. At the most, it can be controlled. In this case, conflict
resolution that is, understanding the roots of the conflict and trying to resolve them is
irrelevant, as the source cannot be changed or reformed at all.
Gandhi did not see violence as a part of human nature. He believed in the essential
goodness of human beings and viewed human nature positively. According to him, “Man’s
nature is not essentially evil.” Also, humans are capable of rising above selfishness and
violence. Gandhi also opined that conflict was not inbuilt into people but into social
structures. For Gandhi, human beings are not innately aggressive. When asked whether
aggression is a basic human instinct, Gandhi observed: “Fortunately for humanity,
nonviolence pervades human life and is observed by men without special effort.”
Moreover, he was of the belief that human beings “would have been self-destroyed ages
ago” if they were not nonviolent by nature.
8.4 PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL

THEORIES
Psychological theories locate conflict in the “minds of men”, in their beliefs, ideology,
motivation, perceptions, values, etc. Some psychological traditions also focus on experiences
of frustration that could lead to aggression. According to psychoanalysts, unfulfilled
psychological needs could incite humen to violence via the instinctive impulse. However,
others locate violence in intra-personal tensions and other such psychic variables.
In motivational theories, the origin of aggression is in blocked energy of frustration, which
is produced in varied social and psychological settings. Since aggression here is a reaction
to an external stimulus, hence the social environment is also partly responsible for the
activation of an internal physiological mechanism.
The socio-psychological perspective also focuses on processes of group formation and
differentiation. Groups try to differentiate themselves from the ‘others’ and in this process
(mis)perceptions, stereotyping, and dehumanization play a role, which in turn could lead
to violent conflict.
8.4.1 Freudian Interpretation and Psychoanalysis

Psychiatrist Sigmund Freud traced the roots of conflict in intractable human nature. He
stated that aggression “is carried out in the name of self-preservation, and is inherent to
humans.” Albert Einstein, in a letter written to Freud before the Second World War,
wanted to know the reasons for the easy arousal of hatred. Freud answered that the
roots of violence are in the death instinct. He wrote: “War is due to a destructive instinct
– instinct aimed at returning things to the inanimate state and which can work both inside
and outside the body.”
According to Freud, human beings have two kinds of instincts – the life instinct and the
death instinct. The life instinct desires pleasure. Compared to the life instinct is the death
instinct, which is referred to as ‘Thanet’s’ by Freud. This death instinct leads to
destructive behaviour – both towards the self as well as towards others and the world
in general. The human urge for self-destruction is directed outwards, to destroy others, so
as to preserve the self. For Freud, however, aggression is not the end; it is only a means
to release tension. Aggressive behaviour helps reduce the tension.
According to the Psychoanalytical Theory, human beings start differentiating between the
‘self’ and the ‘other’ from a very early age. This differentiation manifests itself in a deep
psychological need for enemies.
8.4.2 Social Identity Theory

Henri Farfel formulated the Social Identity Theory in which he aimed to answer the
question – why people favour their own group over others. According to Tajfel, groups
occupy different levels on the hierarchy of power and status. The process of distinguishing
between ‘us and them’ changes the way people look at each other. Tajfel believed that
the motivating principle behind this behaviour was a desire in people to have a positive
and secure self-concept – a positive social identity. It can thus be deduced that people
mainly think of their group as a good one. But groups become a psychological reality only
when defined in comparison to other groups. Hence, group members strive for a positive
social identity and make efforts to achieve it by distinguishing positively between their own
group and other groups.
Tajfel also addressed the question of what happens with those groups who have a low
status compared to others. Such a group could choose one of these options: leave the
group, either physically or psychologically; focus only on features that make one’s group
look good; compare one’s group with other groups which are placed even lower on the
status hierarchy; devalue the aspects that reflect poorly on one’s group; and try to change
the existing status hierarchy by engaging in social change. However, which one of these
options will be chosen, will depend on a range of circumstances. Social identity theory,
therefore, was basically a theory of social change.
8.4.3 The Seville Statement on Violence

The Seville Statement on Violence was written in 1986 for the United Nations sponsored
International Year of Peace. A team of international specialists who were involved with the
Seville Statement came up with the following five conclusions:
1) It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war
from our animal ancestors.
2) It is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behaviour is

genetically programmed into our human nature.
3) It is scientifically incorrect to say that in the course of human evolution there has
been a selection for aggressive behaviour more than for other kinds of behaviour.
4) It is scientifically incorrect to say that humans have a “violent brain”.
5) It is scientifically incorrect to say that war is caused by “instinct” or any single
motivation.
The Seville Statement was endorsed by a wide range of scientific and professional
organisations around the world and was based on the latest scientific evidence. It was
adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO)
in 1989.
8.5 SOCIETY AND CONFLICT

The theoretical approaches about society and conflict locate the source of conflict not
within the individual but outside it – in social interactions and social processes and in the
way society is organised. Aggression thus is not inbuilt but its expression is dependent on
factors outside the individual.
8.5.1 Social Process Theories

Social process theories see conflict and conflict resolution as processes. One of the first
ones to write about social processes was Adam Smith. Smith was an economist as well
as a philosopher. He gave importance to the fabric of social relationships. According to
him, these fabrics of relationships could lead to the emergence of principles, which could
be applied to conflict resolution. He felt that if markets were allowed to function naturally,
they could be a great resolver of conflicts between humans.
Several theorists in the 20th century have paid attention to social process theories. Park
and Burgess related conflict to competition. Conflict had a positive function for Simmel
and Coser, as they were interwoven into social institutions and contributed positively to
them. Anselm Strauss examined the resolution of conflict and the establishment of
“negotiated order”. He suggested that human institutions grow through a process of
negotiation. Negotiation thus was a fundamental process through which society was
formed and constantly reconstituted.
Field Theory sees conflict and its resolution as products of a field of forces. This is
reflected in the works of Field theorists like Kurt Lewin and Morton Deutsch. Lewin
believed that behaviour was a product of a field of forces and how they came together.
This determined the behaviour of those individuals who were involved. Deutsch analysed
the concepts of competition and cooperation and sought to find out the conditions under
which cooperation could emerge out of competition. Communication according to him was
very critical for cooperation.
Systems Theory views conflict as a system of relationships. It seeks to find out how parts
of a social system, that is social institutions, work together. Parts of social systems may
‘function’ but they may also ‘dysfunction’. When they dysfunction, they are not in
complete harmony. This is where the concept of conflict and conflict resolution comes into
the picture.
Social Exchange Theories have tried to apply the principles of economic exchange in
markets to non-economic exchange such as in informal interactions and group patterns.
George C. Homans analysed interactions in terms of rewards and costs. People try to
maintain the behaviour that proves profitable. Kenneth E. Boulding’s conflict related
perspectives mainly drew from economic models. He recognized that conflict can involve
negative exhanges – more “bads” than “goods”, compared to economics, which mainly
deals with positive exchange.
Dean Pruitt and Jeffrey Rubin paid attention to how conflicts could escalate. They
identified five strategies of dealing with conflict – contending, yielding, problem solving,
withdrawing and inaction. When both parties go for the contending strategy, conflict could
escalate. Louis Kriesberg recognized the presence of intractable conflicts – conflicts which
never seem to get resolved. He stressed that conflicts that seem easy to resolve initally
may become intractable in the future while those that seem intractable may get resolved
easily. Terell Northrup expanded on the idea of intractability. According to her, intractable
conflicts are those in which the parties are not only opposed to each other but which also
strongly incorporates a central sense of identity.
8.6 SOCIAL STRUCTURAL THEORIES

Social structural theories emphasize on the organisation of society. It believes that the way
society is organised or the divisions within society create the causes and conditions for
conflict. These would include socio-economic aspects as well as race, religion, ethnicity,
age and gender divisions. Apart from these, the world system is also a structure where
states are the main players. Hans Morgenthau, an advocate of political realism, identified
basic interests of the state as basis for its international policies. Johan Galtung, on the
other hand, strongly believed in equality among nations and states.
8.6.1 Structural Violence Theory

According to the Structural Violence Theory, conflict is inherent in social structures. Social
structures and institutions cause structural violence. Johan Galtung distinguished between
three kinds of violence: direct or overt, indirect or structural and cultural. Direct violence
intends to harm another individual or group directly and is a response to the experience
of structural violence. In structural violence, institutions, systems and structures either
discriminate between people or deny or deprive them of their rights and the ability to
satisfy their basic human needs such as survival, well-being, safety, respect, freedom,
identity, religion, etc. Cultural violence is used to justify and legitimize overt and structural
violence through ideology, religion, language, arts, education etc.
Structural violence threatens the lives and livelihoods of individuals, groups, communities,
etc. and prevents them from developing their potential and realising their goals. It can take
the form of repression, exploitation and/or alienation. Here people could be exploited
economically, repressed politically and/or alienated culturally by the structure. Slavery and
colonialism are some of the examples of structural violence.
Gandhi believed in creating new social arrangements free of structural violence. His
approach to conflict resolution thus aimed to preserve the individual while systematically
targeting the structure.
8.6.2 Human Needs Theory

The Human Needs Theory was propounded by John Burton. The theory believes that
human beings have certain basic or universal human needs. When those are not met or
remain unsatisfied, it can lead to conflict. The process of conflict resolution should thus
look to satisfy the basic human needs of the people or groups involved in the conflict.
Human needs are seen as essentials or requirements that a person needs to live or
continue and propagate life. These needs must be satisfied within the social context and
not outside it. These basic human needs are material, cultural and social in nature. The
material needs are food, shelter, health care, employment etc. The cultural needs are
religion, language and the social ones are respect, dignity, safety and security. There can
be no compromise on the basic human needs.
There is, however, no unanimity about the number and kinds of such needs. John Burton
mentioned nine needs – consistency in response, stimulation, security, recognition, and
distributive justice, appearance of rationality, meaning, control and role defence. Others
have, however, expanded on the list of needs.
Abraham Maslow came up with a needs pyramid in 1943, in which he described needs
in a hierarchical manner. The base of Maslow’s pyramid consists of physiological needs;
the security needs are placed above it; then the belonging needs; followed by the esteem
needs and on top are the self-actualisation needs.
Self-Actualisation
Needs: Achieving
one's full potential
Esteem Needs: Self-

esteem, Confidence
Love & Belonging Needs: Family

relationships, Friends
Safety and Security Needs
Physiological Needs: Food, Water, Shelter, Clothing, Air
Abraham Maslow’s Need Pyramid

Gandhi too saw conflict as the result of structural denial of human needs. The creation
of new structures is necessary for the satisfaction of human needs. This would require a
method of struggle that satisfies three conditions: destruction of need-denying structures,
creation of need-satisfying structures and respecting the needs of the conflicting parties
during the struggle. The Gandhian approach to conflict resolution – Satyagraha, was an
attempt to satisfy all three conditions. Gandhi saw self-realisation as the “highest” need but
stressed that its fulfillment was dependent on the satisfaction of other needs.
8.6.3 Resource Theory
Conflict is caused when one party wants the resource the other has or when two or more
parties want the same resource. People fight over resources because they are scarce or
limited. Resources could be tangible or intangible. They could be in different forms such
as land or territory, money, coal, oil, water, etc.
Max Weber classified resources into three categories: wealth, power and prestige. Wealth
is a tangible resource which includes money, land etc. Power is a resource, for those who
own and possess it and can make decisions about whether to allocate them or not and
how to allocate them. Prestige means respect or reputation, which is based on ranking
from the most respected to the less respected. It is a resource as all of us desire to have
it but not all of us can have it.
8.6.4 Relative Deprivation Theory

Relative deprivation theory is based on the concept of deprivation, which indicates
difference between what one expects in life and what s/he eventually gets. People feel
deprived when they get much less than what they have expected or what they have been
promised. This can lead to aggression and make people enter into conflict with others.
Absolute deprivation is associated with starvation and poverty. Ted Robert Gurr used the
concept of relative deprivation in explaining ethnic conflicts.
8.6.5 Socio-Economic Theories

Karl Marx believed that structures of economic organisation lay the foundation for class
conflict. The economic structure is thus the source of conflict. Marx in his theory of
class conflict contends that social institutions and structures reflect the material reality of
society. Economic structure has determined every other aspect of life including politics in
the development of human history. The capitalists, who control the means of production
or the economic structure also control and have power over the social structures. Such
an economic system will always be exploitative of the working class and this will give rise
to class conflict.
Neo-Marxists like Antonio Gramsci do not give too much emphasis to economic
structures. Gramsci came up with the theory of “ideological hegemony”. He was of the
opinion that capitalists not only control the means of production but also a host of other
things like values, attitudes, beliefs, ideas, opinions, cultural norms, laws and rules.
Ideology helps the ruling class in justifying its interests. When the ideological hegemony of
the ruling class is challenged by the masses, it leads to conflict.
There are several other theorists who believe that the sources of conflict are located in
the socio-economic divisions of the society. Max Weber related social conflict to social
change. Ralf Dahrendorf argued that conflict is the main element that leads to social
change. He stressed on both political as well as economic factors.Critical theorists like
Max Horkheimer emphasized on the cultural effects of contemporary class divisions.
8.7 FORMAL THEORIES

Within formal theories, social conflict is seen in terms of quantitatively expressed relationships
and conflict resolution is viewed as stability in the dynamics of these relationships. Some
of the formal theorists are Lewis Richardson, Von Neumann and Morgenstern. Richardson
studied social conflict quantitatively. He used mathematical models to analyse the arms
race. Von Neumann and Morgenstern developed the Theory of Utility, which represented
human interests on an interval scale. They measured utility in terms of relative preferences
– given a choice, what do humans prefer? Human interests, conflict and conflict resolution
could be expressed and studied quantitatively. Game Theory was based on the theory of
utility. It used mathematical analyses of conflicts of interest to evaluate the strategies of
players. It also tried to determine how the players could best come together to resolve
their conflicts. The game theory developed concepts such as zero-sum game (interests of
both parties are opposed to each other) and non-zero sum game (has both competitive
and cooperative elements).
8.8 SUMMARY
Theories of conflict view conflict as either inherent in human nature or nurtured in a social
context. The nature part concentrates on biological and psychological aspects. The
nurtured aspect focuses on social processes and social institutions and structures. However,
the nature versus nurture debate is long over. It has been firmly established that human
behaviour is a consequence of interactions between biological, psychological, social and
environmental factors. Within the broader frame work have been devised various theories.

1) Distinguish between the inherency, contingency and interactionist theories of conflict.
2) Discuss the ‘nature versus nurture’ debate.
3) Analyse the biological and socio-biological theories of conflict.
4) Illustrate the psychological and socio-psychological theories of conflict.
5) Write a critical note on whether conflict is inherent in human beings. Substantiate with
arguments.
6) What is the Seville Statement on Violence and what is its significance?
7) What are some of the social process theories?
8) Describe some of the major social structural theories of conflict. What are the main
arguments of these theories?
9) The non-fulfillment of basic needs leads to conflict. Do you agree? Give reasons in
support of your answer.
10) What is the Structural Violence Theory?
11) Write a brief note on the formal theories of conflict.
12) Discuss Gandhi’s views on the various theories of conflict.
SUGGESTED READINGS
Alan C. Tidwell (1998), Conflict Resolved: A Critical Assessment of Conflict Resolution,
London & New York: Pinter.
David P. Barash & Charles P. Webel (2002), Peace and Conflict Studies, London &
New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Ho-Won Jeong (2008), Understanding Conflict and Conflict Analysis, New Delhi:
Sage
James A. Schellenberg (1996), Conflict Resolution: Theory, Research and Practice,
New York: State University of New York Press.
Louis Kriesberg (2007), Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution, 3rd
edition, New York: Roman & Littlefield Publishers, INC.

Unit 5 Meaning and Concept of Conflict

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unit 5 Meaning and Concept of Conflict

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unit 5 Meaning and Concept of Conflict

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIT 5 MEANING AND CONCEPT OF CONFLICT

5.5 Conflict Categories

5.6 Conflict Issues

5.2 DEFINING CONFLICT

5.3 CONFLICT STAGES

5.4 THE LIFE CYCLE OF A CONFLICT

5.4.1 Crisis Prevention

5.4.2 Conflict Management

5.4.3 Crisis Management

5.4.4 Conflict Settlement

5.4.5 Conflict Resolution

5.4.6 Conflict Transformation

5.4.7 Peace Building

5.5 CONFLICT CATEGORIES

5.5.1 Non-Violent Conflicts

5.5.2 Violent Conflicts

5.6 CONFLICT ISSUES

5.6.1 Territory and Border-Conflicts

5.6.2 Minority, Ethnic and Government-Power Conflicts

Minority conflict is defined as a form of active antagonism between the government of a

5.6.3 Conflicts over Resources

5.8 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

6.3 Sources of Conflict-II

6.4 Variants of Threat in International Conflict

6.5 Conflict in South Asia (Sources of Conflict)

6.2 SOURCES OF CONFLICT-I

6.2.1 Economic Conflict

6.2.2 Value Conflict

6.2.3 Power Conflict

6.2.4 Ineffective Communication

6.2.5 Escalation of Conflict

6.3 SOURCES OF CONFLICT-II

6.3.1 Inter-personal Conflict

6.3.2 Role Conflict

6.3.3 Intergroup Conflict

6.3.4 Multiparty Conflict

6.3.5 International Conflict

6.4 VARIANTS OF THREAT IN INTERNATIONAL

6.4.1 Threat of Punishment

6.4.2 Threat of Conquest

6.4.3 Threat of Annihilation

6.4.4 Threat of Offensive/Defensive Weapons

6.4.5 Boundary Disputes

6.5 CONFLICT IN SOUTH ASIA

6.7 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

7.4 Types and Levels of Conflicts

7.2 DEFINING CONFLICT: CONCEPTUAL

7.3 FUNCTIONS/OBJECTIVES OF CONFLICT

7.3.1 Constructive Aspects

7.4 TYPES AND LEVELS OF CONFLICTS

7.4.1 Quincy Wright’s Classification

7.4.2 Anatol Rapoport’s Classification

7.4.3 Singer’s Classification

7.4.4 Holsti’s Classification

7.4.5 Stuart Chare’s Classification

13) Competition within a given industry – denunciation of price-cutters and chisellers;

7.4.6 Kenneth Boulding’s Classification

7.4.7 Johan Galtung’s Classification