Overcoming Social Division

Conflict Resolution in Times of Polarization and Democratic Disconnection

Anatol Valerian Itten

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351255981
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Locked in our worldview communities and polarised through increasingly radical campaigning, we are anxious of today's great uncertainty and our politicians have little incentive to reach across party lines. The problem of social division is real. The Brexit vote led to the highest spike in hate crimes in Britain ever recorded and heated situations like the far-right rally in Charlottesville, USA are increasingly boiling over.

Overcoming Social Division is not another book about dying democracies, because horror scenarios don't make you act. Instead, it is an optimistic response on what can be done, and about how we can coexist in fragmented and polarised societies. Anatol Valerian Itten explains how public conflict resolution, civic fusion and mediative decision making help us re-learn the ability to find common ground on controversial issues with our fellow citizens, whom we tend to assume believe more extreme things than they really do.

This book takes the reader through empirical key factors, obstacles and blind spots and provides helpful guidelines for everyone interested in mitigating social division and resolving conflicts. The author's insights are based on his experience in conflict management, a study of dozens of public conflict resolution cases and surprising stories of over twenty interviewed mediators. Overcoming social division can be a strenuous task. But talking to our enemies is necessary if we don't want to end up in dysfunctional democracies, and it can be a more rewarding experience than we might think.

This is a fascinating read for students and academics interested in conflict resolution and public participation from psychology, social sciences, law, and related disciplines. It is also a unique resource for professionals including officials, mediators, lawyers and other practitioners dealing with conflict and public participation.

IV

Success and failure in public conflict resolution

The very essence of mediation is at stake: is mediation a process, or a product?

(Henderson 1996, 123)

1 Contextually relevant conditions

1.1 Level of conflict escalation

The manifestation of public conflict ranges widely– from light disagreement to open war. The intensity of a conflict has in general two related origins: if the level of attachment (emotional, financial, political, etc.) to the issue at hand is high, and if the differences in perspective held by each party are substantial, the greater will be the ensuing intensity of the conflict. Whereas it is easy to predict that the pro-life and pro-choice debate can spiral into a destructive and violent escalation, you wouldn’t directly assume this for a conflict over a train station. But this exact situation happened in Stuttgart, Germany in 2010, where the demonstrations left many participants severely wounded. Hence, the attachment to an issue and the differences held are highly subjective. To understand the different levels of escalation, conflict can be best viewed as a series of dynamic processes that occur within a specified period of time or as a sequence of conflict stages (Yasmi et al. 2006, 539). In his book, Glasl (1997) describes nine stages of conflict escalation and classifies them with thresholds. The first stage of escalation occurs when an issue between parties proves to be resilient to resolution efforts, followed by a loss of faith in the possibility of resolving the problems through straight and fair discussion. Abandonment of straight argumentation in favour of tactical and manipulative argumentative tricks accelerates escalation. This is usually followed by indirect attacks on the counterpart’s social reputation, general attitude, position and relationship to others. Further escalation is characterised by active attempts to damage the other side’s potential to impose sanctions and with initial steps taken to translate threats into action. If the parties recognise that it is no longer possible to win, they engage in a lose–lose struggle. Survival and suffering less damage than one’s counterpart suffers then become central goals.

As mentioned earlier, Yasmi et al. (2006) identified eight categories of escalation, closely related to Glasl’s (1997) stages, that are more apt to describe public and natural resource conflicts: (1) feeling anxiety; (2) debate and critiques; (3) lobby and persuasion; (4) protest and campaigning; (5) access restriction; (6) court case; (7) intimidation and physical exchange; (8) nationalisation and internationalisation. Many of these dimensions involve subjective interpretations of emotions, anger, hatred, revenge and moral justifications of behaviour which influence the parties’ negotiating behaviour and level of urgency and commitment to settling their conflict. As the intensity of a conflict escalates, so does the influence of these subjective factors on disputant behaviour (Bercovitch and Houston 2000, 177).

As findings in the literature indicate, the intensity of a dispute seems to influence its potential to be settled. Some speak of the ripeness, or readiness, of a conflict to be mediated. For others, it is the amount of perceived pressure on the parties that avoids a subsequent step towards deadlock and leads to a commitment to mediation. Henderson (1996, 110) found that more recent and less severe disputes were most likely to be resolved, as the mediator may be able to help the disputants identify the issues and understand the size and scope of their conflict, as well as ensure that at least a modest degree of communication and cooperation will be present from the beginning. Wall et al. (2001, 383) similarly argue that mediations are less likely to succeed if applied too late, when a conflict is already highly escalated. In their eyes, there is a direct correlation between these two variables. As the level of conflict increases, the probability of settlement decreases. For Kressel (2006), a high level of conflict is apparently the most consistent factor associated with mediator difficulty in helping parties reach agreement. The intensity of the conflict leads to a strong perception that the other parties are untrustworthy, unreasonable or impossible to communicate with.

At the same time, though, others have concluded that more intense disputes are more likely to result in a mediated agreement. As Kriesberg (1991) showed, mediation is less effective early in the dispute, when parties have not experienced high costs from the conflict. Conlon and Fasolo (1990, 843) have also underlined the fact that speed of entry into mediation determines its success. Their results suggest that it may be valuable to let disputants wrangle with each other for a while before intervening. Having had adequate uninterrupted time to express their opinions, disputants might be more amenable to third-party interventions and suggestions. Based on an analysis of labour mediations in Britain, Henderson (1996, 119) reported that mediation worked best when operating under a real and immediate strike threat, particularly in the final stages of a critical negotiation process or at the point where one or more of the parties are implementing serious strike action.

Key take-aways

Although there is usually no perfect time to start a conflict resolution procedure, it makes sense to study the level of hostility between the disputants since it can impact on the work of a mediator (Wall and Dunne 2012). Logically, interventions that are effective in low-intensity conflicts may be ineffectual or even counterproductive in high-intensity situations (Bercovitch and Houston 2000, 177). When conflict intensity is low, the work of a mediator may simply involve facilitating negotiations, whereas in high-intensity conflicts, mediators are keen to prevent further escalation and do so by adopting more active forms of intervention. Moreover, mediators are seen to be more likely to focus on relationship improvement when trust is low. Similarly, Glasl (1997) suggests that conflict management strategies should be based on conflict intensity. Having a better understanding of escalation and the situational pressures disputants feel, as well as insight into the difficulties of handling contradictory interests in a non-threatening way, should help to manage conflicts more constructively.

1.2 Inclusion, or engaging the appropriate participants

Figuring out who should be at the table is a more complex question than it may at first appear. In public disputes, representation can be problematic since most cases involve many conflicted parties and it is often logistically impossible to engage all interested members of every affected group in a mediation process. As Susskind and Ozawa (1985, 148) maintain, many groups cannot agree on who should represent them at the table and some interests are diffuse, inarticulate or hard to organise. This is especially true when the interests of future generations compete with the short-term interests of politics and business. As Emerson et al. (2009, 37) note, the problem of participant selection reflects the inevitable tension between the principle of inclusive representation of a broad range of affected and interested parties, and the principle of informed commitment that binds people to rules and spaces that may become exclusive. Hence, the simplest measurement of the inclusiveness of a public conflict resolution process would be if all affected parties were included in the process. In its most generic form, the ‘all affected interests’ principle simply states that everyone who is affected by the issues and the outcome of a decision should have the right to participate in that process (Goodin 2007, 51). Similarly, in the eyes of Young (1990, 91), justice even requires that all persons have the right and opportunity to participate in the deliberation and decision making to which their actions contribute or which directly affect their actions. As Warren and Mansbridge (2013, 90) note, this principle is highly contested and it remains highly intuitive that all parties affected by a negotiation should have a rightful claim to have their interests represented. Furthermore, it is not an easy task to draw the line of inclusion between those who are members of the polities, those who will be legally bound and those who are merely affected by the ensuing laws. Warren and Mansbridge (2013, 91) give the example of citizens of the USA who may have a greater claim to be parties to a negotiation over US laws on carbon emission than citizens in China, even beyond their claims on the grounds of being more directly affected. Especially, issues regarding global climate change involve a near-infinite number of actors in different roles, e.g. as contributors to climate change, its mitigation or adaptation, or parties affected by the impacts of climate change or its mitigation and adaptation (Pohjola and Tuomisto 2011, 8). In the case of the Frankfurt Airport conflict resolution process, to use another example, an expansive application of inclusion would have had to include stakeholders from all over Germany due to the nationwide relevance of the airport. Pohjola and Tuomisto (2011, 8) suggest that to ensure substantive inclusion one should follow an inverse interpretation of the dimensions of inclusiveness, i.e. who should not be allowed to participate, what information should not be made available to participants, etc. As the authors claim, through such a perspective it often becomes difficult to argue for the exclusion of any specific groups or individuals from participating, or withholding important information, especially if the arguments are exposed to public critique. Thus, as Goodin (2007, 51) adds, there are many possible fine-tunings of that basic ‘all affected interests’ principle. For example, not every interest ought to confer automatic entitlement to a say in the matter. Goodin makes the distinction between ‘all possibly’, ‘all probably’ and ‘all and only’ affected interests, and notes that neither the principle of direct involvement nor the principle of affected interests provides determinate boundaries.

One concern frequently expressed in the literature is the need for participants to be representative of the broader public (or the affected subgroups within the population), rather than simply representing some self-selected subset. Caution needs to be exercised against disenfranchising poorer groups or segments of society, or employing an intelligent, motivated, self-interested and unrepresentative elite that might intensify existing tendencies to place high-risk or undesirable projects in the communities of those least able to handle or mobilise against disruption (Rowe and Frewer 2000, 13). Representation also should consider the relative distribution of views: in a small sample, the use of participants who represent each and every viewpoint may lead to a relative diminution of influence of those whose views are held by the majority (Rahl 1996).

Closely related to this matter is the question of participants’ skills. Orr et al. (2008) regard it as crucial that participants have the capacity to engage effectively in the process, meaning they have the requisite time, skills, resources and access to necessary information to participate. Mediation and other forms of alternative conflict resolution are unlikely to result in settlement when the disputants have limited resources.

There are reports (Susskind 1999; Beierle and Cayford 2001), which have concluded that in some cases it easier to resolve conflicts when the list of participants is more exclusive. Busch (2000, 2) suggests that if it is not possible to apply the essentials of the ‘all affected interests’ principle, at least those should be included who have sufficient potential to delay or prevent the implementation of the conflict resolution outcome. Meuer and Troja (2004) dealt with this challenge differently. In their survey, they asked mediators if parties were not present at the mediation, despite having publicly communicated that they were affected by the conflict. Therefore, conflict parties had to partake in an active act of communication in order to draw attention to their demand for inclusion. These practices, however, clearly benefit more powerful and ‘visible’ disputants, and it is very likely that public conflict resolutions that exclude the interests of those affected will fall short of legitimation and justice (Warren and Mansbridge 2013).

The level of inclusion can also have an impact on how changing opinions in a deliberative setting is taking form. In an interesting experiment regarding foreigners’ political rights, Baccaro et al. (2016) show that the inclusion of all affected interests may not necessarily lead to a more favourable opinion of those most affected, even though the affected participants have incentives to make their claims persuasive in the deliberative process. In this setting the average participant without a previously expressed opinion reduced their favourability to granting political rights to foreigners.

In addition, each of the diverse stakeholder representatives at the table is almost always accountable to a larger organisational constituency. That means that groups need to be able to delegate, mandate and trust their representatives, in order to give them the authority they need to speak for the whole group and make decisions. As Holzinger (2001b) and Orr et al. (2008) note, it is also crucial that the representatives at the table have sufficient authority to make commitments on behalf of their organisation and retain credibility throughout the process. This is what Marcil and Thornton (2008) refer to as sufficient settlement authority. As the authors suggest, determining who has the ultimate settlement authority may be difficult in certain situations, especially in situations involving a business or political entity. For instance, the negotiating representative may have to consult with a board of directors or a head of department before obtaining the authority to settle. However, every effort should be made to identify every person who should be physically present at the mediation. Marcil and Thornton (2008, 870) believe that the physical presence of the ultimate decision maker is of vital importance to the likelihood of success, because the ultimate decision maker has access to all of the relevant facts and circumstances presented during the course of a conflict resolution. To avoid any potential pitfalls, the mediator should always discuss the ultimate authority issue with the disputants to identify the persons who should be present before the mediation gets under way. Otherwise, negotiations can be influenced negatively if a participant’s room for negotiation is restricted by the organisation or constituency he or she represents. If one of the bargaining partners represents a regional sub-division of a larger association, authority or political party, it is likely that they will be bound by the directives of their overarching organisation (Holzinger 2001b, 90).

Key take-aways

How are conflicted parties judged to be legitimate participants, and by whom? According to Susskind and Ozawa (1985, 148), decisions about such sensitive matters must be made collectively. Usually, the most obvious stakeholders come together first. Then, as other groups come forward, they decide whether to admit others still. Most of the time, the initial participants agree to err on the side of inclusiveness, since credibility in the public eye is essential for implementing any agreements that may emerge. As Warren and Mansbridge (2013, 90) stress, in practice it is particularly important to attend to the interests of less powerful and marginalised groups. Mediators should then inquire into who has the ultimate settlement authority within the represented conflicting groups, and clarify their presence during the process.

1.3 Case assessment and preparation

Case assessment in conflict resolution is defined as an unprejudiced analysis that helps pave the way for a successful process (Bean et al. 2007). Such an analysis can also include a determination, for example, that mediation is not suitable or appropriate. As Bean et al. (2007, 454) state, assessments can describe aspects of an issue or dispute that can help illuminate multiple solutions at an early stage. Likewise, the assessment phase can identify aspects of the issue or dispute that are highly constraining, perhaps because of legal or technical requirements and limitations. It can further seize early opportunities, detect hurdles and perceive prospects for reaching agreement. Mediators can then propose specific steps and methods for approaching each of these elements. Assessments can be crucial in helping parties make informed determinations about whether they are realistically prepared to invest the necessary time, energy and resources. Evaluating the level of parties’ motivation to move forward with the conflict resolution effort and clarifying their expectations can also be part of the assessment process. This can sometimes be a time-consuming task. For example, in the mediation of the Vienna Airport case, an extraordinarily large procedure, the preparation phase lasted almost a year. Many mediation processes start with little prior preparation, which impacts negatively on the process and its outcomes. According to the study’s authors (ÖGUT 2006), lack of prior preparation causes missteps, which affect the motivation of all relevant parties and stakeholders to participate, which in turn lowers the participants’ commitment to conflict resolution.

Key take-aways

Experience has shown that the preparation of a mediation procedure and the broad involvement of stakeholders in the groundwork are crucial for its success. In contrast, the lack of profound preparation often proves to contribute to failure. Mediators are advised to hold preliminary consultations with all relevant stakeholders, to gather information about the conflict and its history and gain insights on the rules of the procedure that could be agreed upon as well as presumed limitations. If all the interests of the different stakeholders are recorded, it is not only easier to represent them in the processes, but it frees stakeholders from having to keep pushing their interests to compete for awareness. Rather, it opens up the possibility of engaging in active listening and solution-seeking.

1.4 Types and complexity of issues in the conflict

During assessment, the number of conflicted parties, the scope of the pressing issues (e.g. ecological, technological, social, etc.) and the number of administrative levels that hold regulative responsibility might be steadily rising, and you might think ‘How on earth is this conflict going to be resolved?’

First of all, let me clarify that the relationship between the issue and complexity of a dispute and a conflict resolution outcome remains unclear in the literature. Drawing on international studies, Kleiboer (1996) argues that disputes involving territorial or security issues are more responsive to successful mediation than are issues of ideology. Henderson (1996, 110), on the other hand thinks it is doubtful whether the complexity or the type of a dispute substantially influences the outcome of a mediation. Only if the stakes are too big, he adds, might the disputants then be unwilling to entrust the mediator with the competence to settle the dispute. He refers to contradictory results and concludes that no consensus and little evidence can be found on what types of dispute are best able or least able to be resolved. As the findings of Emerson et al. (2009) indicate, the more challenging a case looks at the outset, the tougher it seems to solve. However, their analysis revealed that with case difficulty held constant, the other factors make significant contributions to positive case outcomes. Thus, progress can be made in even the most complex cases. Nevertheless, there are indications that case complexity can hinder the effectiveness of mediation. Renn and Langer (2000), for example, report on a case concerned with intercommunal cooperation. They found that case complexity, especially the involvement of different levels of competing authorities due to shared responsibilities, combined with complex technical, spatial and environmental questions, plus time pressure, overstrained the procedure and proved to be an obstacle to reaching a common agreement.

Key take-aways

Complexity can make a case to look challenging at the outset, and the different responsibilities of involved authorities should be clarified at the beginning. However, rather than the technical complexity, the typology of a conflict determines how it is going to be resolved. As discussed previously, most real-world conflicts will exhibit a mixture of facts, values and interests. The resolution of one par...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• I. Disrupted societies
• II. Overcoming social division
• III. The purposes of public conflict resolution
• IV. Success and failure in public conflict resolution
• VI. Analysing conflict resolution cases
• VII. Brakes and accelerators in public conflict resolution
• VIII. Blind spots and guidelines
• IX. Keep on talking to your enemy
• About the Disrupted Societies Institute
• Annex
• References
• Index