'An overview of the conflict resolution theory Essay\r'

'Conflict Resolution Theory\r\nIn contravene resolution, preconceived notions, also called the natural cognitive sorting processes, are the stimuli that unwittingly foment war. By taking a look at soul and inter throng relations, mavin stand better grasp fight resolution as a way of in shapeediation which may lessen the probabilities of the outbreak of political effect. This essay takes a close examination of the make of individual- train puzzles of multifariousness to inspire change at the kindly level. The scaling up the process from individual treatment to complaisant has its strengths and weakness. Controlled communication, sensitivity educate, Freud’s hydraulic model, complex mirroring and conscious(p) raising psychotherapy are experimented room in affair resolution to dissolve conflict at both individual and general levels.\r\nThe natural cognitive sorting mechanism of dividing mickle into ‘us’ and ‘them’ engenders blemish an d in the long run, political violence. This perspective is classifiable to The Self and The Other concept in which people and groupings are constructed to exclude the other or all(prenominal) entity that is graspd as foreign and to include the ego or other entities affiliated to the self. â€Å"Protracted amicable conflicts typically involve an enduring set of antagonistic perceptions and interactions between communal groups… nix attributions of motivations and reciprocal negative images perpetuate the antagonisms and solidify the conflict” (Fisher 1997). This concept breeds the antagonization of groups which turns 1ness group a discoverst the other, deepening rifts and sharpening rivalry. Since this type of societal cognitive process emphasizes differences between ‘us’ and ‘them,’ an elitism hind end situation upright which advantages angiotensin-converting enzyme group over the other and fosters an diseased intergroup competit ion and mutual exclusion. With mutual degradation and demonized motives, each group continues to not only drift obscure but rub against each other in a frictional relationship to produce an aggressiveness fire.\r\nAt the national level, us and them dichotomy leads to jingoism which is a chauvinistic form of patriotism. This ideology promotes the quelling of one and the superiority of a people. Fanatical patriotism and the prejudiced belief propose that some other company must suffer in the power imbalance. (Paris 2004) agrees that â€Å"exclusionary forms of nationalism also make enemies of excluded groups.” In other words, one nation categorizes, segregates and disadvantages another. As a consequence, the excluded party harbors fretfulness toward the opposing group. Resentment begets tension-filled relations, which beget mistrust. The polarizing effect of the ‘us’ and ‘them’ construct leads inevitably to suspicion and in a competitive environ ment, to perceived inequalities. Inequalities result in the miscellanea of an oppressed and an oppressor, the victimized and the victimizer. At a veritable(a)t point, one group arrives at a breach point, demanding the redress of wrongs whether real or perceived and an equalizing of the performing field. (Fisher 1997) also recognizes that some â€Å"conflicts a bear when identity groups perceive that they are oppressed and victimized through a denial of recognition, security, equity and political participation.” Imbalances of power convey one group to react or even retaliate †hence hostilities erupt. It was a wave of nationalism which provokes WWII in which the Aryan Germans attempt to purge Germany of ‘ unwanted elements’ for the sake of the country. Similarly, in the case of Rwanda and other countries, ethnic cleansing or genocide take place because of inequality and a false sense of nationalism.\r\n categorisation out the Natural Cognitive Processes\ r\nTo arrive at conflict resolution, one must broach the mind of altering intergroup perceptions. This regularity is an individual-to-social strategy in which with a third party intervention, both groups can inversely exchange opinions and feelings. John Burton pioneers and implements a â€Å"case piss approach,” a term used in social work to pardon the methods enforced to solve an in individual or group problem. Controlled communication signifies a way to wangle effective communication habits. Burton asserts that the witnesser of conflict is miscommunication and the source of miscommunication is distorted worldviews or perceptions of the other. In practicing controlled communication, groups can handle their prejudices and biases in a setting that diffuses anger and sets a more amicable tone for talks would servicing improve relations. Also, Leonard Doob advocates sensitivity training which progresses the intonation from individual-level change to collective change. He puts forward that a small representative group ventilates their perceptions, opinions, and concerns to create consciousness and better grasping of group processes. The sensitivity training workshop is similar to a psychological therapy conducted by a third party. Ideas and feelings are shared to emergence interpersonal effectiveness. (Toft 2010) declares that giving voice to former combatants is a mechanism in conflict resolution to cheat negotiation settlements in which â€Å"renewed violence can be averted.” This rule follows the sensitivity training hypothesis which enhances sympathy and increases chances at understanding and positive change.\r\nIn Sigmund Freud’s group processes theory, he posits that the group’s way of thinking is spawned directly from the individual’s. In Freud’s hydraulic model, the principle is that just as it is dangerous to suppress feelings for fear of compounding them for a more violent eruption, so at the socia l level, it is risky to continually inhibit ill-feeling by conflict resolution (Strachey 1966); kinda, venting would help diffuse tensions and instead of internalizing the resentment, the person finds relief in expression. In his work â€Å"Give War a Chance” (Luttwak 1999) examines the effect of peacekeeping which only temporarily resolves the issue by satisfying parties. However, he advocates war as the means of reaching a more definitive and perennial lasting conflict resolution.\r\nComplex Mirroring\r\nComplex mirroring inside the group setting is a way in which the individual change scalps up to the group level change. In remedying traumatized individuals, the victims join themselves to a group and cause to mirror one another’s feelings and experiences. A critic notices that â€Å"by auditory sense to one another’s individual presentation of personal experiences, participants gain a new perspective…by listening to the series of such descriptions, they gained the experience of universality” (Herman 1997). As a result, the individual-level change dynamic transmutes into the group-level change. As one witness the effect of trauma, the support group experiences substitute trauma as wounded members relate their experiences and undertake emotional support. The incidence of secondary trauma gives rise to empowerment and awareness. Kathie Sarachild formulated the conscious-raising psychotherapy structures specifically for the individual but which could be used â€Å"to effect social rather than individual change” (Herman 1997). This method was implemented for rape-victims who were silenced by the violence and trauma inflicted by another. In the scope of social change, political violence is a grave injustice inflicted by one and visited upon the other. A remedial path is a sensitizing rather than retaining the silence over the injury. As the man’s consciousness heightens, a cure has to be suggested and taken. The beneficial result is that â€Å"changes at the individual level were being linked with policy processes at the macro level” (Fisher 1997).\r\nConflict Resolution Strengths and Weaknesses\r\nIn conflict resolution, a strength of the individual to group model application is that groups comprise a conglomerate luggage compartment in which individual mirroring gradually filters into the group’s ethics. The reasoning is that a group is comprised of individuals and since a group is made up of individuals, then a method aimed at effecting change in an individual can also be applied to the group. However, this method does not factor in the wide diversity of the individuals belong to a group. One rigid rule use for one individual cannot work for a group because this view only facilitates the one-size-fits-all theory which is not socially viable.\r\n \r\nReferences:\r\nFisher, R.J. (1997). Interactive Conflict Resolution, Syracuse University Press, New York.\r\nHerman, J. L. (1997). combat injury and Recovery. Basic Books Publishers, New York.\r\nAnonymous. (1996). Human Rights in stay Negotiations, Human Rights Quarterly,18(2), 249-\r\n258.\r\nLuttwak, E. (1999). Give War a Chance, diary of Foreign Affairs, 78 (4), 36-44\r\n<http://www.jstor.org/stable/20049362>. Accessed 14 celestial latitude 2011.\r\nStrachey, J. (1966). The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological whole kit and boodle of Sigmund \r\nFreud, The Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis, Vol. 22,\r\nToft, M.D. (2010). Ending Civil Wars: A Case for Rebel Victory, Journal of International \r\nSecurity, 34 (2), 7-36.\r\nParis, R. (2004). At War’s End: create Peace after Civil Conflict. Cambridge University Press.\r\n'