Importance of Conflict Resolution in Ensuring Community Development - Essay Example

Section 1 How conflict became a central part of the world is subject to several great myths. Three of the myths are enshrined in the traditions of the West. According to one of the myths, human society started out with everything working out perfectly. After a while, human beings started making judgments of their own about what they should do or should not do. The most prominent part of this myth states that this happened in the Garden of Eden after Adam and Eve consumed the forbidden fruit. The result was a world of constant conflict (Schellenberg, 3). Afterwards, man sought God’s guidance in dealing with conflict, but they were mostly on their own. Man had to develop a way of organizing society and keeping rule breakers in line as a way of minimizing conflict. A second story, which is quite different with the first but similar with the third myth indicates that human society was originally one of constant conflict turmoil. There were no standards of right and wrong and physical might always prevailed (Schellenberg, 3). However, not even the strongest man could provide for his own security, for others could always temporarily band together and kill him. This initial status, “state of nature” was one described as a war of all against all. However, humans did have the sense to see that this constant state of conflict could be overcome if they would but yield to some higher authority (Schellenberg, 4). This higher authority would be responsible for setting standards of right and wrong and enforce obedience. This is how governments came into existence to provide a means of building resolutions and in turn ensure community development (Parada 61). Irrespective of the myths’ position it is clear that a situation of lawlessness could not be tolerated. There had to be order for development to be fostered. It is the ability and importance of conflict resolution in ensuring community development that informs this study. In this case, the main concern is conflict resolution, relevant theorists in the field and lastly its link to community development. Conflict resolution Referring to conflict resolution this study alludes to “cooperation based” or “interest-based” conflict resolution which is a discipline whose development is linked to the WWII. As a discipline, conflict resolution diverged from power-based conflict theory, which was a major part and still remains a large part of political science and international relations (Wallis). Needs-based conflict resolution, which is looked at in this study was developed by theorists who came up with a conflict resolution approach which encouraged cooperation (Flint 263). This approach focused on basic human needs and encouraged a win-win situation for all parties. Under this principle, nonviolence, cooperation and belief in goodness of humanity are the guiding beliefs. Conflict resolution is not about avoiding a conflict, and it is also not about using superior force to conquer your adversary (Wallis). These activities do take part in conflict, but they have little to do with its resolution. The contemporary view considers conflict resolution as the range of formal or informal activities undertaken by parties to a conflict, or outsiders, designed to limit and reduce the level of violence in conflict, and to achieve some understanding on the key issues in conflict, political agreements, or a jointly acceptable decision on future interaction and distribution of resources (Bercovitch and Jackson, 1). In this regard, conflict resolution is about accepting a conflict, recognizing that there are ways out of it, and engaging in some tacit or explicit coordination, without which none of these goals can be achieved. In developing “interest-based” conflict resolution, major theorists have been involved. These have been responsible for developing various aspects of the theory such that it now looks out for interests of all the involved parties. One of these individuals was Georg Simmel (1858-1914) Simmel’s contributions are traced to his book, Conflict which was written after his death in English (1955). In the book, Simmel identified conflict resolution as a mechanism aimed at resolving “divergent dualism” which represented an approach used to resolve dissimilar principles. To Simmel, conflict was a means of attaining some form of unity (Wallis). The only reservation arising from his contributions was the fact that he perceived that peace had to be attained even if this meant annihilating one of the conflicting parties. Kurt Lewin was the other major theorist credited with the development of contemporary conflict resolution. His contributions emanated from his emphasis on the position of social context in an individual’s development of perception, values and beliefs. This deviated from the views represented by the normative theory of psychology which was in favor of biological determinism (Deutsch, Coleman and Marcus, 895). Another individual who carried similar views was Morton Deutsch who highlighted the role of perception and the existence of conflict. The other theorist is Johan Galtung Galtung was a sociologist who developed steps to peace and came up with a broader view of violence which encompassed “avoidable insults to basic human needs” (Deutsch, Coleman and Marcus 896). According to Galtung, there are two forms of violence, direct violence and structural violence. Direct violence represents the common form of violence that an individual conjures in their mind on thinking about violence. Structural violence represents violence actuated by institutions and structure of society and which translates to inequality among people (O'Brien 140). In the same way, he came up with two forms of peace, positive peace and negative peace. Positive peace not only refers to the absence of war but the absence of structural violence. Negative peace refers to peace existent after the end of the war. In overall, Galtung merged his definition of violence with his view on the concept of peace (Wallis). However, he has been criticized for excessive application of this taxonomical approach and his frequent use of dichotomies. Another major theorist is John Burton an Australian who developed the human needs theory. The human needs theory is founded on the notion that a pre-condition for the resolution of conflict is that basic human needs must be attained. Burton based his human needs on the work of a sociologist, Paul Sites and came up with a single need on his own (Burton 39). These needs were collectively referred to as ontological needs and Burton considered them a result of human nature. Further, he considered them universal and would be pursued irrespective of the consequence. According to Burton, ontological needs are separate from values and interests as the former are non-negotiable (Burton 40). To him, conflict is an action over the non-negotiable human needs (ontological needs) this is separate from dispute which represents action over the negotiable needs. Burton’s criticism comes from cultural anthropologists who are against universal values. Irrespective of this opposition, Burton’s principle has been applied globally in resolving conflicts. The most notable individuals in favor of this approach are Hebert Kelman in Palestine-Israel, Vamik Volkan in Cyprus and Edward Azar in Lebanon (Wallis). The last theorist to be examined here is Roger Fisher who developed the Harvard Negotiation Project (HNP) and was a prominent figure in the constitution of Programme on Negotiation (PON) a development of Harvard Law School. Fisher’s approach to conflict resolution became more apparent on release of his book, Getting to Yes which brought to the fore “principled-negotiation”. According to this approach, conflict is resolved by deferring judgment to a moral principle. This draws focus to interests-based negotiations as opposed to positional negotiations. A focus on interests would mean looking at issues such as security, pleasures, esteem etc positional focus would mean looking at how these interests were or would be achieved (Ramsbotham, Hugh and Tom 289). To ensure conflict resolution, Fisher encourages the use of empathy as this gives the concerned parties a chance to understand underlying interests, which would help in developing agreeable solutions. Just as was the case with Burton’s assertions, fisher considers human needs as the most powerful interests, these needs include security, economic wellness, recognition, a sense of belonging and control over one’s life (Ramsbotham, Hugh and Tom 290). Link with Community development Looking at these theorists we can be able to identify the fact that conflict resolution is driven by a need to facilitate achievement of human needs. In other contexts, conflict resolution is the main approach in guaranteeing peace following a period of dishevel. In this regard, conflict resolution is considered a prerequisite to achieving human needs, which in the actual sense means a chance to develop (Frazer 49). This way we are able to define a mutual relationship between conflict resolution and community development. Section 2 Facilitation is defined as a way of working with people. It enables and empowers people to carry out a task or perform an action. In other definitions facilitation which comes from the word facilitate means to make ease (Prendiville 13). If one of charged with the responsibility of being a facilitator they are simply being asked to make the meeting easier for the participants. In this regard, the facilitator ought to help the team achieve efficiency by developing their processes (Schwarz 16). Lastly, the facilitator is not expected to determine what decisions are made, but their main concern should be on how these decisions are arrived at. For a facilitator to achieve the roles described earlier he must possess a set of skills considered vital for proper facilitation. The first of these skills is following good meeting practice which highlights the facilitator’s ability to proficiently facilitate a meeting. The other skill is time keeping, a facilitator must be able to observe time and identify that this should be properly managed. Following an agreed agenda is another critical skill this highlights the facilitator’s capacity to follow issues until it is satisfactorily concluded by all the participants (Power Point Source). Lastly, the facilitator must be able to assist a group to brainstorm and problem solve the meaning that he must bear requisite skills to motivate and get people to cooperate in order to achieve the necessary results. In class facilitation, four principles will inform my approach. These principles are equality, inclusion, participation and affirmation. These principles are important in recognizing the importance of every contribution by each of the group member (Prendiville 14). Further, these principles serve to encourage active participation of every group member by getting them to employ their skills, experience, creativity and analysis. For maximum participation and to ensure that the facilitators strengths are completed two main approaches will be employed. The first approach will be directive this is where the facilitator issues participants with information and informs them of how to achieve something (Prendiville 105). The second approach to be employed will be participative which entails taking an active role in the group’s discussion by sharing personal experiences and getting other group members to do the same. The main objective is to elicit cooperation from all the members. At the start of the group process, it is clear that every group member will have an idea on how the group process should proceed and the path we would take. Upsetting some of these expectations by introducing that best approach as considered by the facilitator may attract criticisms and inform some of displeasure (Prendiville 105). This way, it might be difficult to get the support and cooperation of all the members yet this is critical for the group process. The second objective will be active participation it is anticipated that with the achievement of the first goal/objective active participation might not be difficult to achieve. The anticipated or intended outcomes will be thorough results, which represent all the views and opinions of the group members. It is only in such a case that the facilitator will be convinced he did a good job and results in that case will be quality as they are fully representative of the best ideas. The activity will be introduced to the group in a consultative manner. This is where the facilitator fronts the issue and then requires participants to raise ideas on how these issues can be worked on or developed (Schwarz 15). This approach will ensure participation and will provide group members with a feeling that their input is being appreciated and thus become more involved in the group activity. The group members will be expected to take on some roles, these are that of a leader, nurturing figure and independence promoting figure. As a leader, the individual must be in a position to accept positives or negatives of being a group leader and be able to determine the group’s direction (Hunter 31). The nurturing figure is expected to assume the task of encouraging others. Lastly, the independence promoting figure will develop the group’s links with outside parties, and will also be expected to encourage group independence (Prendiville 32). The nurturing role and the independence promoting role are expected to be shared across several members of the group. Lastly, there are not many anticipated barriers or challenges to the group activities however, it is expected that there might be some hidden barriers. These include unchallenged assumptions, which hinder group progress. These barriers may include but not limited to; unsuitable meeting times, hidden costs and other unforeseen factors which obstruct free participation of group members. Section 3 What communication skills did you use and how effective were they? Generally, the most beneficial communication skill employed during the group activity was listening. This was considered as it allowed a chance to understand and assimilate ideas advanced by group members. Further, by assimilating these ideas and thoughts it was possible to come up with points that increased participation through deeper inquiries, which encouraged more thought and development of better ideas (Webne-Behrman 4). This spelled the efficiency of listening as a communication skill. Did the session achieve the intended / expected outcomes? The session definitely achieved its intended purpose and delivered the expected outcomes. Though there were challenges the group was phenomenal and the individuals charged with different responsibilities and roles played them well. This laid ground for active participation and ensured that the group bled ideas that helped in achieving group objectives. Did the process work? The facilitation process worked quite commendably. The facilitator was well versed with his roles and bore the requisite skills which enabled him to coordinate the group activities in a proficient way. What worked well? The most commendable thing and what I consider having worked quite well was the member’s participation. They were phenomenal and accorded the facilitator the necessary support making his work quite easy and informing the group’s delivery of the set goals. What didn’t work well? At the start, mainly due to the facilitator’s inexperience there seemed to be a communications breakdown. This dragged the group’s participation and derailed it for a while. This is the only thing that did not work well in the group, but thankfully it was sorted out and the process continued as envisioned. What was learned (by you in terms of your experience as a facilitator)? The facilitation role allowed valuable lessons on handling people and most importantly precise communication. As anticipated, the role was not easy especially at the beginning, but as time went by I grew into the role and the response and participation was much more forthcoming. I can now consider myself well versed in the role and I have the capacity to carry the group through if presented with a chance in future. What could be improved? If you were doing this again what would you change? The hiccups at the beginning had more valuable lessons in regard to the development of better communication skills. Going forward, there will be a need to develop varied communication skills’; listening was by any means valuable but will need to be complimented in future. This will be essential in ensuring that I become an all rounded facilitator which will also help in ensuring better group results (Webne-Behrman 4). If I was to do this again I would change my emotional involvement, at times when the group members were not cooperative I would get quite emotional. I would prefer to change the approach and be much more contained and sober in a future role. Works Cited Bercovitch, Jacob, and Richard Jackson. Conflict Resolution in the Twenty-First Century: Principles, Methods, and Approaches. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2009. Print. Burton, John W. Violence Explained: The Sources of Conflict, Violence and Crime and Their Prevention. Manchester : Manchester Univ. Press, 1997. Print. Conflict and Development: Peacebuilding and Post-Conflict Reconstruction / House of Commons International Development Committee. London: The Stationery Office, 2006. Print. Deutsch, Morton, Coleman, Peter T., and Marcus, Eric, C. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2011. Print. Frazer, Elizabeth. The Problems of Communitarian Politics: Unity and Conflict. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print. Flint, R W. Practice of Sustainable Community Development: A Participatory Framework for Change. New York: Springer, 2013. Print. Hunter, Dale, Anne Bailey, and Bill Taylor. The Facilitation of Groups. Aldershot: Gower, 1998. Print. O'Brien, Constance. New Directions in Community Development and Conflict Resolution: Towards Peace-Building in Northern Ireland and South Africa. Kö̈ln, Germany: Lambert Academic Pub, 2009. Print. Parada, Henry, and Mark S. Homan. Promoting Community Change: Making It Happen in the Real World. Toronto: Nelson Education, 2011. Print. Prendiville, Patricia. Developing Facilitation Skills: a handbook for group facilitators (3rd ed). New York: Combat Poverty Agency, 1994. Print. Ramsbotham, Oliver, Hugh Miall, and Tom Woodhouse. Contemporary Conflict Resolution: The Prevention, Management and Transformation of Deadly Conflicts. Cambridge [u.a.: Polity Press, 2007. Print. Schellenberg, James A. Conflict Resolution: Theory, Research, and Practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996. Print. Schwarz, Roger. The Skilled Facilitator: A Comprehensive Resource for Consultants, Facilitators, Managers, Trainers, and Coaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002. Print. Wallis, Jim. The Soul of Politics: A Practical and Prophetic Vision for Change. New York, NY: New Press, 1994. Print. Webne-Behrman, Harry. The Practice of Facilitation: Managing Group Process and Solving Prob. Greenwich: Information Age Pub, 2006. Print. Read More