Welcome to this first week in our conflict transformation course. The first thing that we need to do, is to get clear about the term, conflict transformation, and to understand its relationship to other terms that are probably more familiar to you. Primarily conflict resolution but also maybe conflict management and conflict prevention as well. There is quite a bit of overlap between management, resolution and transformation. Some in terms of conceptual understanding and purpose, and some overlap in terms of the tools that we use in each of these different schools of thought. But there's also a reason for changing the language and the reasons are more than linguistic. For conflict transformation practitioners, there is agreement that conflict cannot be prevented. That conflict needs to be more than managed. And that conflict resolution is narrower in scope. Where can you spend most of your time in this unit sorting out the relationship between resolution and transformation. In part because that's where there is the most overlap, but also because it is a criticism of resolution that sort of prompted this turn to a transformation. So let's look a little bit at that turn from resolution to transformation. Like most new concepts and approaches, conflict transformation emerged as a response to changing circumstances and as a supplement to existing practices. In the 1980s, many scholars and practitioners found the conflict resolution framework increasingly problematic. Working in context with gross power imbalances, they became frustrated by an approach that framed conflict as a problem in narrow terms and worked to resolve conflict without addressing underlying courses. The problems they were trying to address were multifaceted. Connected with gross asymmetries of power in society, and embedded in complex histories of power and relationship. Yet the resolution framework continued to treat a conflict as an isolated problem to solve, inside a room, seemingly disconnected from the larger issues underneath and around. It increasingly felt like treating a symptom without getting to the underlying causes of the disease. So these mediators and negotiators begin exploring different ways of understanding conflict itself and different processes for approaching them. Specifically, they wanted to find ways to address the underlying causes of conflict, and they wanted to think about conflict itself as, not only necessarily, or only, a problem to fix. But as a symptom of larger issues, and even a means to change. With these concerns in play, mediators and negotiators try to think differently about conflict and the work they we're doing to address it. So they began to describe conflict, not as a problem to solve in a narrow sense, but to see conflict as a symptom of deeper issues that needed attention. So their work became increasingly multifaceted. They also began to frame conflict, not as a problem to fix, but as the means to change. Conflict not only as something that's costly and dangerous but also an opportunity, right? A mechanism for change like a catalyst for a constructive change. So instead of asking how can we resolve this conflict, this practitioners asked, how can we engage this conflict constructively for purposes of change? The shift here is really significant, you might think of it this way. They're trying to approach conflict, not as a problem to solve, and not even only as something to transform. But they're thinking about how conflict itself can be engaged in a way that is transformative for people, for relationships, and for communities and society. It's a radical and exciting move. To answer this question then, about how to engage conflict constructively for purposes of change. These practitioners began to rely more and more on non-governmental experts and to draw from local wisdom, rather than bringing only experts to the table and high-level officials. Hugh Miall at the University of Kent, describes this change from resolution to transformation as a reconfiguration. His point is to say that transformation does not signal a radical departure from resolution. But it is a different frame, it's a different way to think about conflict, and when you think about conflict differently, you open up a broader umbrella of possible ways to engage it. So let's look at the way that Hugh Miall describes conflict transformation. Conflict transformation theorists argue that contemporary conflicts require more than the reframing of positions and the identification of win-win outcomes. The very structure of parties and relationships may be embedded in a pattern of conflictual relationships that extend beyond the particular sight of conflict. Conflict transformation is therefore a process of engaging with and transforming the relationships, interests, and discourses, and if necessary the very constitution of society that supports the continuation of violent conflict. Constructive conflict is seen as a vital agent or a catalyst for change. Now the following lessons will consider each of these conceptual shifts more fully. The first is that conflict is natural and necessary, and as we talk about what that means we're also going to make an important distinction between conflict and violence. Secondly, we'll explore the ways in which conflict is a catalyst for change. Examining four different dimensions of change that we experience through conflict. Third, we'll unpack this idea of conflict as a nested phenomenon. What does it mean to talk about a conflict as embedded in relationships and embedded in history? We'll explore that. The last lesson for this week, we'll name different kinds of conflict transformation work. Making clear that the umbrella includes mediation and circle facilitation, but it also includes non-violent resistance. In fact, we're going to talk about non-violent resistance and mediation type work as the twin halves of conflict transformation. Language that we get from Diana Francis. The common denominator here is that mediators and non-violent resistors share the conviction that conflict can be a catalyst for constructive change.
