Non-Violence and Conflict Resolution Paradigms - Report Example

Peace and Conflict Studies Non Violence and Conflict Resolution Paradigms Definitions Violence can be described in the simplest words as anything that brings hurt to anybody. When an individual is intimidating, sarcastic, condescending, withdrawing or threatening; the individual is committing violence (Rice 2). Conflict on the hand can be described as a perceived or a real difference which is set to affect the outcome or the actions that an individual believes to be very important. Conflicts has six elements; (a) it is inevitable, (b) it is neither bad or good, (Rice 2) (c) it is a process, (d) it consumes energy, (e) it has the elements of both feeling and content, and lastly (f) an individual can be reactive or proactive (Rice 3). Conflict resolution can be defined as a situation in which the conflicting parties go into an agreement that provides solution to their core incompatibilities, acknowledge the other individual’s continued subsistence as parties and stop all violent actions directed towards the other individual. Conflict resolution usually comes after a conflict (Wallensteen 8). Conflict Resolution Paradigm: Peace through the Power of Communication The paradigm provides a more practical approach to peace through the creation and refinement of the skills necessary for the analysis of conflict and responds to the conflict with effective communication and negotiation strategies (Funk 1). According to this paradigm, conflict is found at all the levels of organization and human interaction and it ranges from interpersonal to international. Although conflict causes great human suffering and separation, it does not lead to violence; the conflict is necessary for the main changes in the social systems and relationships (Funk 1). Peace is a continuous process that skillfully deals with the prevention or the transformation of conflict. Effective management and resolution of conflict requires the awareness of an individual’s attitudes towards conflict and regular conflict management styles such as collaborative, competitive, submissive and avoidant and other styles. This is done in order to achieve freedom that defines an individual’s response in a coordinated and proactive manner. The awareness enhances the chances of a win-win rather than lose-lose or win-lose solution. The paradigm helps the individual (a) to understand and operate his or her emotions, (b) to create openness to a more reliable communication, and (c) to manage the processes that can lead to escalation of a conflict (Funk 1). Conflict resolution paradigm proponents approach peace through straight interactions with the others. If peace is required, the suggestion provided is the development of skills for coexistence and communication (Funk 1). Nonviolence Paradigm: Peace through Willpower The paradigm proposes that the government power is derived primarily from the people’s consent and secondarily from intimidation. By consenting to the affairs of the state and working within the norms’ framework, the individuals authorize that order. If the norms are dehumanizing, the individuals dehumanize and disempower themselves (Funk 1). The peace that coexists between human communities cannot be attained through violence nor can the democracy be achieved through armed rebellion within the society. Therefore, peace cannot be disentangled from justice and justice encompasses the lack of oppression; this is regardless of whether it was perpetrated directly through the use of weapons or indirectly thorough the inequitable institutions and structures (Funk 1). In a nutshell, peace only coexists in the absence of violence. According to this paradigm, the legitimate power is derived from the human solidarity and willpower rather from the violence; the violence undermines the community and bears seeds of destruction. The nonviolence paradigm provides a move towards peacemaking. Peacemaking has been utilized to counter any forms of political repression and social discrimination and resist foreign occupation and imperialism (Funk 1). My Opinion The two paradigms are among five paradigms that seek to achieve peace in the society. Peaceful coexistence is very important for the individual and the society. When peace lacks, violence escalates and it cannot be escaped. The paradigms give a detailed explanation of these conflicts and how they can be dealt with. The approach towards achieving peace in these paradigms is of the non-violent type. This makes the paradigms suitable methods for the attainment of peace that is not achieved through violence. Despite their efficiency, these paradigms may take a lot of time before their fruits can be seen and thus not popular with many people. I would recommend the use of these paradigms because of their efficiency and long lasting effect in the achievement of international peacemaking. The Extent to Which the Two Paradigms Provide Valid Insights into the Nature and Dynamics of Major Conflicts in the Contemporary World The two paradigms (nonviolence and conflict resolution) actually provide insight into the nature and dynamics of major conflicts in the contemporary world. A look into each of the paradigm will help us understand these insights. The Conflict Resolution Paradigm The nature of the conflict; the conflict is present at all levels of the organization and human interaction (Funk 1). This means that conflict is inevitable and inevitability is one of the elements of conflict. Almost every organization in the contemporary world is faced by conflicts. In most of the cases the conflict does not escalate into violence but provides a mechanism into which changes are done in the relationship and the social systems. The dynamics of major conflicts in the contemporary world are well explained by this paradigm. As mentioned earlier, almost every organization is faced with conflict and strategic approaches are adopted to counter the effects of the conflict. In most cases, the conflict does not lead to violence. A good example is the American civil rights movement (Funk 1). The Nonviolence Paradigm The nature of conflict; the conflict usually stems from the government power. The government power is derived first from the people’s consent and later from intimidation (Funk 1). Intimidation will result to conflict and peace is achieved by consenting to the affairs of the state and operating within the norms framework. The dynamics of the conflicts are well explained by the paradigm; consenting to the affairs of the government and operating within the norms framework will result into peace, when the norms become dehumanizing conflict occurs and the individuals lose their power. For example, the conflict that affected Egypt was largely attributed to the dictatorial form of ruling that has persisted in the country for many years (Saunders 1). Can Prescriptions Derived From Either Or Both of These Paradigms Contribute To International Peacemaking Both paradigms provide prescriptions that can be utilized to achieve international peacemaking. The paradigm of conflict resolution achieves peace through the power of communication. Through communication, the individual is able to achieve the following; (a) to understand and operate his or her emotions, (b) to create openness to a more reliable communication, and (c) to manage the processes that can lead to escalation of a conflict (Funk 1). With these achievements, peace can be achieved. Approach towards peace is done through direct interactions with the other and the development of skills for coexistence and communication; international peacemaking is thus achieved. The paradigm of nonviolence achieves peace through the willpower. Peace and justice are interconnected and cannot be separated. Justice should therefore lack oppression whether it was perpetrated directly or indirectly. In other words, peace exists where there is absence of violence. The paradigm further proposes that legitimate power stems from willpower and human solidarity. As such power does not come from violence. The paradigm can be used successfully to achieve international peacemaking. The peacemaking can be used to counter political repression, social discrimination and reject foreign occupation and imperialism. Works Cited “Egypt – Religious Uprising, or Spiritual Motivation?” Saunders, Jeffery., 16 Feb. 2011. Web. 25 March 2011. “Peace Paradigms: Five Approaches to Peace.” Funk, Nathan, C., 2011. Web. 25 March 2011. Rice, Susan. Non-Violent Conflict Management: Conflict Resolution, Dealing With Anger, and Negotiation and Meditation. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley, 2000. Print. Wallensteen, Peter. Understanding conflict resolution: war, peace and the global system. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2007. Print. Read More