In the previous semester, I got a chance to teach Peace & Conflict Studies to 7th-semester International Relations students at the Department of Political Science & International Relations in the University of Management & Technology (UMT), Lahore. Together with the syllabus, we explored the attainment of peace and understanding of conflicts in almost all their nuances. The whole experience was enriching for me as a resource person of the course and from the kind of engagement I got from students in class, I am confident to say that it must have contributed to students’ understanding of how to deconstruct conflicts happening all around them and how to deal with them in a way that it leads towards sustainable peace.
I just want to share some insights from some readings written by Professor Bernard Mayer, considered an icon in the world of Conflict Resolution. The reason why I want to share some insights from Mayer’s work is that they provide us with enriching insights into conflicts that we normally face in our day-to-day life, in our society, and usually among states at the international level. I think that a good grasp of Mayer’s insights regarding conflict can not only help us understand all tangents of conflict but can better equip us to deal with them head-on.
Mayer’s first insight is that conflict is an integral part of our human existence. To unpack the first insight, let me share a small concept that I came across while teaching Intelligence & National Security at some point in time in the Spring Semester of 2022.
That concept goes like this. Humans believe in schematic reasoning. In other words, all of us humans have schemas inside us. Schema, in simple words, can be termed any human’s inner software. It develops from your beliefs, likes, dislikes, socialization, books you read, discussions you engage in, movies you watch, and so on. Humans usually accept that information which is in line with their schemas and reject what is not in line.
Since all us humans have different schemas and chances are that all those things that happen around us, might not be in line with our schemas; that’s why we are exposed to conflicts all around us; day in, day out. In other words, it will not be wrong to say that we are conflictual beings having a human experience on earth. The best way to illustrate conflicts emerging from schema clashes is the reaction we see in our society from people over some slogans made in the Aurat March every year in Pakistan. People react over Aurat March slogans because they are generally not in line with their schemas.
Mayer’s second insight is that conflict, and I think that will make the first insight more clear, exists in three shapes which comprise perception, emotion, and action. So, if in general, conflict is defined as disagreement, it usually is present in the above-mentioned domains.
Just to make it easy, conflict in perception means if your action or speech directly or indirectly creates mere thinking or perception in another person’s mind that you are posing a threat in a real or abstract way to his/her interest, desires, wishes, likes & dislikes, and so on., you conflict with the other person whether you know this or not.
If we are in a position to dissect what is in front of us and embrace conflict without any negative preconceptions about it, I think we all can resolve conflicts not only in our individual lives but also in our collective lives present in the shape of society and state. After all, all you need to resolve a conflict is awareness.
Regarding conflict, Mayer says that it does not take two to tango initially which means that for a conflict to start it’s not necessary that both parties must be knowing that. It can start in any party’s mind, especially if we are talking about conflict in perception, and that will automatically pull the other party into conflict through the reaction of the first party in the shape of action or behaviour. I hope the insight that was shared earlier, that conflict is an integral part of human existence, should be crystal clear now.
Just like perception, the conflict also exists in the emotional domain, as per Mayer. If your speech or action is creating a feeling of shyness, fear, nervousness, anger, doubt, and many other feelings like these, all these are signs of disconnect or maybe disagreement and, thus, they depict conflict. Again, you don’t know which of your actions or speech can create such feelings in others, and thus you are always faced with conflicts, knowingly or unknowingly.
After highlighting the existence of conflict in the perception and emotional domains, it’s easy to make a sense of the third shape of conflicts that exist in the action domain. Usually, we see and understand conflicts in the action domain around us and, more importantly, we become concerned about conflicts if we see them in action. So, for example, if two people get into a physical fight, we might feel pushed to stop the fight because we saw it in action; however, we don’t feel that much concern if the fight exists in the perception and emotional domain. Sometimes, our disinterest in engaging with conflict when it’s in the emotional or perception domain is intentional, but a majority of the time it’s because we don’t know the science of how to engage with conflict when it’s in the perception and emotional domain. Mayer enlightens us that the action part of conflict does not come from a vacuum, but the action part of conflict feeds itself from the perception and emotional domains of conflict.
Before I share the bigger takeaways from Mayer’s insights, I just want to share two more insights from Mayer which are in line with the current discussion.
First, Mayer says that the three shapes of conflict feed each other; however, conflict does not happen in a linear shape. That means that it’s not like conflict first always starts in perception, then it moves into the emotional domain and then it reflects itself in action. It can start in any domain and can start feeding the other domains.
Mayer’s second insight is that humans have conflicts all around; however, their approach toward conflicts is reactionary. In simple words, Mayer wants to say that though conflict is part of human life yet humans, kind of, have a negative approach to conflict. Being in conflict is perceived as negative among humans, in simple words. This negative perception regarding conflict among humans right from the beginning is not allowing humans to overcome conflicts sustainably, as per Mayer.
The message Mayer wants to convey is that we need to change our perceptions regarding conflict as a phenomenon if we want to effectively deal with it. We need to treat it as any other phenomenon in our life; need to objectively analyze it, and based on sound judgement find a way to deal with it. We need to remove the stigmas attached to the meaning of conflict in our lives. We need to own conflicts and instead of running away from them, we need to stay with our conflicts, especially if we want to resolve them on a long-term basis. If we don’t deal with conflicts that way and approach them with a negative approach, then our approach towards conflict resolution will be superficial and our solutions will not be long-lasting. In Peace & Conflict Studies, we call the resolution of conflicts through temporary measures Negative Peace and resolution of conflicts through long-lasting measures Positive Peace.
Since I came across these insights regarding conflict, I find myself more conscious, especially about the presence of conflicts all around me in my day-to-day life, and I think that can happen to anyone who gets such a nuanced understanding of conflict. Seemingly, it may seem overwhelming to deal with such a wide range of real and abstract conflicts, but I think if we are in a position to dissect what is in front of us and stick to Mayer’s advice that is to embrace conflict without any negative preconceptions about it, I think we all can resolve conflicts not only in our individual lives but also in our collective lives present in the shape of society and state. After all, all you need to resolve a conflict is awareness.
