Janusz ReykowskiPolish Academy of Science

Resolving societal conflicts: The case study

Small Group MeetingEuropean Association of Social Psychology

Israel

September 7-10, 2009.

Part One - Introduction

Bar-Tal’s theory of intractable conflict

The assumption

• Bar-Tal’s theory of intractable conflict (2007) can be looked upon as a general theory of intergroup conflict– He focuses primarily on its “malicious” form: long lasting,

destructive, when some fundamental issues are at stake.And describes the mechanisms of its maintenance and escalation.

• I will use this theory as a basis for my analysis of the process of conflict resolution (CR).

Basic elements of the Theory(from the CR point of view)

• Origin of a conflict– Discrepant beliefs,– Clash of interests,– Threat for basic needs, for basic values, for self (social) identity,

for positive self image.– Harm and wrongdoing.

Basic elements of the Theory(from the CR point of view) -2

• Conflict is most likely to get transformed into a vicious, destructive form if the participants believe that:– Their interests are completely opposite, in the zero-sum relationship,– Their existential needs are seriously threaten,– Their (social) identity and positive self-image are under attack,– Their basic values are questioned and things that are sacred to them

are being threaten,– The other side is responsible for the harm and wrongdoings that is

being inflicted on our side.

• Beliefs of this kind tend to engender strong affective reactions: fear, anger, hostility– These reactions foster aggressive (coercive) tactics against the enemy

and in turn its even stronger aggressive reaction.

Basic elements of the Theory(from the CR point of view) -3

• The sides of the conflict are dedicated to coercive actions because they believe that their have a superior power and the ultimate victory is somewhere in not too distant future - they assume the asymmetry of power.

• We may conclude that the key factor in escalation of a conflict is the cognitive construal of the conflict situation and its affective consequences.

Basic elements of the Theory(from the CR point of view) - 4

Conflict is very difficult to solve (it becomes intractable) when:• The beliefs about the conflict (its cognitive construal) get

organized into a coherent, stable structure – a well developed narrative about the conflict: – about its origin, its course, its present state, its future. The narrative

provides clear explanation of the conflicts and guidance for dealing with it.

(Bar-Tal uses the terms: conflict memory and conflict ethos),• Emotional reactions develop into a collective emotional

orientations.• The social and institutional support for the narrative and

emotional orientations becomes highly elaborated. According to Bar-Tal this is a socio-psychological infrastructure of

the intractable conflict.

Some implications for CR

• Potentially, we may think about strategy of CR as addressed to any of the key components of the infrastructure. It seems however that changing the cognitive construal of the conflict situation should be its major component.

• Unfortunately, the cognitive construal of the IC is a closed system and changing it is a formidable task;– It has a very high assimilative potential (new information are

assimilated to the system or rejected) - it means that it is highly resistant to change.

• Bar-Tal and his co-workers (2009) suggest that, as a remedy, one should apply procedures aimed at training the open mindedness.

Alternative strategy• I would like to argue that in developing CR strategy we might

focus on some group forces.– Under certain conditions social groups tend to engender Synergic

Tendencies (ST) that foster CR processes.• ST can be initiated when people began to appreciate that

there is some category that applies to them and their protagonists as a basis for superordinate identity (Sherif, Gaertner and Dovidio, Mummenday, Reykowski).

• ST may modify the attitudes of the key actors of the groups in conflicts and help them in the development of a new construal of the conflict situation.

• On the basis of the new construal the key actors may agree on some changes of the real situation that reduce or solve the major conflict.

I contend that there are some real life cases where processes of this kind took place.

PART TWO

Illustration: The CASE STUDY

The case

• The conflict resolution process that led to the end of so called “communism” in Poland and triggered out the snow ball changes in East Europe. Ultimately the changes affected the situation beyond this region, as well.

I will discuss the process known as Round Table Negotiations (RTN - February-April 1989 ) – from the participant-observer perspective.

• One reservation: I do not claim that the conflict resolution process in the RTN case can be used as a universal model for application in other seemingly intractable conflicts. Nevertheless, the analysis of this case can reveal some more general mechanisms that might operate in other circumstances, as well.

Protagonists• Ruling forces in Poland.

– NB. The ruling elite had a relatively broad support of people connected with the system by their socio-economic position and/or ideological and political beliefs.

• It was a large group: in the free election in 1989 several candidates of the government obtained between 35 and 40% of the vote and some of them up to 48% (only part of 1989 election was free).

• “Solidarity” leadership.– “Solidarity - the very broad socio-political movement representing

Polish aspiration to democracy and sovereignty from Soviet Union, with a strong adherence to Catholic Church. It had support of majority of Polish society.

• Mediating agent: the leadership of the Catholic Church. Interested in peaceful resolution of the existing conflict,– Supporting Solidarity but in good contact with the ruling forces.

Initial conditions: Perceived balance of power The two sides were both strong and weak.

The "Government" was strong because: – It had strong security forces, – It had a support about 20-25% of the population, – The major destabilization could evoke military action of the neighbors.

The Government was weak because: It was not able to improve the social and economic situation, It was unpopular among majority of the Polish society, It had to cope with internal conservative critics who believed in the heavy hand politics.

The "Solidarity" was strong because: – It had a broad societal support, – It had relatively well developed organizational network (in underground), – It had a support of the Catholic Church.

• The "Solidarity" was weak because: – Its initiatives and appeals had a declining impact on the society, – Its leaders' authority was dwindling, – New forces were appearing on the horizont.

Perceived balance of power

The objective situation may foster the cooperative approach to the emerging problems if people realize that it is a kind of balance of power and can not realistically predict its further development.The major obstacle to the development of such approach is wishful thinking or ideologically motivated zeal that interfere with rational analysis of the situation. Wishful thinking and ideological zeal while always present in some segments of the society, tend to flourish in situations which instigate strong emotions.Some years before RTN the policy of the government was aimed at reduction of strong emotions in the society.

Intractable conflict?“Conflict begins in human mind therefore its ending also has to be initiated in the human mind” (Bar-Tal 2008)

The initial state of mind of the protagonists – major divisions:• Ideology

– One side perceived themselves as the representative of the social aspirations to democracy and national sovereignty,

– The other side believed that it must protect the security of the state and the Polish raison d'état.

• Interests– These who possessed the power wanted to protect it;– These who were powerless wanted to limit the existing power or to take

it away from power holders.• Narratives

– Discrepant views of recent history, evaluative judgments of the past and present situations, discrepant theories (ethos) of the conflict.

Intractable conflict? (cont.):• Personal experience:

– On the Solidarity side, there were people who, for several years (some of them for decades), were involved in illegal opposition movement being persecuted and incarcerated for extended period of time. They were supposed to negotiate with representatives of these responsible for their ordeal.

– On the governmental side there were people who remembered that they were attacked very viciously and, according to their view, unjustly by their opponents.

• Distrust– “S” representatives had in mind long list of historical events

indicating that the ”communists authorities” were unfaithful: they used to break they promises or to lure their partners into submission,

– The other side feared that their partners are irresponsible wranglers, inspired by the foreign forces (eg. CIA).

Intractable conflict? (cont.):• The both sides had among their supporters numerous

groups full of fear and hostility toward the other side – they did not believe in negotiations.

• While probably it is not a complete list of the divisions, the list indicates that we may find here all the characteristics of the deep sited antagonism build upon:– Divergent narratives telling completely different stories,– Conflict of interests in the zero-sum form,– Threat for the basic values,– Threat for identity, and positive self image,– Harm and wrongdoing.

• But in spite of it, the opponents (enemies) were able to start the conflict resolution process.

Approach to the negotiations: cooperative orientation

• Typical approach to negotiations in deep sited conflicts – antagonistic (competitive) orientation, negotiations as a battlefield.

• Cooperative orientation: searching for an agreement acceptable for both sides. – It was related to publicly formulated Solidarity ideology (while not

very often put into practice),– It was related to the composition of the negotiation team of the

governmental side - most of the negotiators were people who advocated, for a long time, for the idea of cooperative solution of the conflict.

Definition of the situation – goals of the negotiations• Initial definition of the goals: competitive positions

(bargaining)– “S”: to obtain legalization of the “Solidarity Union” as

independent organization and paying political price – participation in not fully democratic election,

– “G”: to include “S” into political system and obtain its support for major economic reform.

• Modification of the definition: common problem solving task (debate)– Democratic transformation of the political system – major reform

of all its institutions. Avoidance of a counteraction of internal and external enemies of the reform.

• Complexity of the definition: combination of common and competitive tasks (bargaining and debate)– Divergent views, divergent interests, divergent hierarchy of

values.

Normative structure of the negotiations: their implicit and explicit rules

• Principle of strict equality of two sides– Even in small details (eg. Size of teams, chairmanship, order of

discussion, buses, access to media etc.)

• Principle of respect for the other side– Strict ban on aggressive and derogatory utterances,– No attempts at manipulation of the partner, misleading him/her etc.

• Perspective taking,– The efforts to perceive the conflict situation also from the other side.

Attempts at presenting own position in terms that could be understood by the other side and attentive listening to its concerns.

• Rational analysis– Elimination of affectively charged topics (past wrongdoings),

Normative structure of the negotiations: their implicit and explicit rules (cont.)

• Principle of public accountability– Dilemma: The right of the public to the full knowledge about the

content of agreements vs. The need to protect the negotiators from public pressure

(the dangers of radicalization).–Solution: Organization of the negotiations.

• NB. It could be noticed that political theorists advocating the deliberative approach in democracy describe principles of deliberation in similar terms (Gutman and Thompson 1996, Rosenberg 2002)

The outcomes• Signed agreement that initiated the process of the system’s

change. – legalization of Solidarity as a independent organization,

elimination of censorship, formation of free media, change in the justice system etc.

– election that introduced Solidarity representatives as legitimate participants of the power system that eventually led to formation of the “non communist” government.

Formation of the Third Republic of Poland• The end of the lasting for several decades vicious,

sometimes violent political conflict. Transformation it into democratic competition.

Part three

Theoretical comments

The role of group processes

• Two basic mechanisms in group relations: Synergic Tendencies (for in-group) and Antagonistic Tendencies (for out-group) - some exceptions.– In intergroup conflicts the AT prevail facilitating conflict escalation.

• Group conflict can be reduced by means of development of common goals (Sherif 1958, Mummenday and Wenzel 1999, Geartner and Dovidio 2000) and mutually accepted normative structure (Reykowski 2007). – The common goals and common norms are likely to activate a kind

of common identity facilitating the Synergic Tendencies.

• In intergroup conflicts, especially between large groups, the key role is played by groups’ leadership– Leaders as prototypical members of the groups.

• Common goal as the basis and consequence of cooperative orientation - definition of the situation in terms of the common task. Preconditions:– belief that in spite of large differences there are some values

shared by both sides (Pyszczynski et al. 2008),– “humanization” of the opponent.

• Consequences of cooperative orientation for mutual relations:– Deutsch crude law of social relations: “…processes and effects

elicited by the given type of social relationship also tend to elicit that type of social relationship” (1973).

(NB. It is not the same as premature concessions that are likely to produce reactive devaluation - Ross 198 ).

Consequences of cooperative orientation • Focus on searching for solutions to the main existing problems

on the basis of perspective taking and dual concern (Pruitt):– Interests: Rational analysis of the existing differences and possible

agreements. Cooperative approach reduces a tendency for zero-sum thinking,

– Values: Respect for the values of the other side. Searching for practical measures that take into consideration values of both sides (Reykowski 2007),

– Identities and positive self image: Respect and equality as protection against arousal of identity and self-esteem threat.

• Orientation toward future– No attempts at getting agreements between the discrepant narratives,– No attempts at dealing with the past wrongdoings.

Those are very difficult tasks that might interfere with getting agreement.

What was lacking in RT approach to the conflict• Past wrongdoings (injustice) do not disappear from

people’s memory – they influence social relations in a very negative way.– The danger of reigniting of the conflict or politics of vengeance

• Importance of the reconciliation process.– Reconciliation between societies is not a necessary

precondition of reduction of the conflict but is important for prevention.

– Reduction of the conflict may facilitate the reconciliation.The problem solving and reconciliation are the separate

CR tasks. I assume that they do not have to be dealt with simultaneously – the problem solving, even partial, should have a priority as it paves the way to reconciliation.

CONCLUSIONS

Key conditions of CR process

• Perceived balance of power (Imbalance instigates coercive approach),

• Cooperative approach: readiness for searching solutions acceptable for both sides,

• Definition of the situation (at list partially) as the common problem solving task:– Recognition that there exist some shared values,– Recognition of legitimacy of the other side,

• Acceptance of the rules of rationality, equality, mutual respect, perspective taking, public accountability.

• Problem solving approach supplemented with reconciliation