|
|
Challenge 10
We must continue to search for better ways to
LIMIT THE ESCALATION SPIRAL
|
Minor disputes are inevitable. They can solve problems and bring about positive social change. But they must be prevented from escalating into destructive, counterproductive, and, all too often, brutal confrontations. Escalation, it can be argued, is the most serious conflict problem. It starts easily, progresses quickly, does intense damage, and is very hard to stop. Guy Burgess often argues that the enemy in a conflict — rather than being the "other" — is in fact the escalation process that pushes both sides to act in ways that are destructive to themselves as well as to each other, and prevents them from seeing a constructive or even plausible "way out." Thus, the challenge to dispute resolvers is to learn how to become more effective at 1) intervening early enough so that escalation can be stopped before it starts, and, failing that, 2) learning how to encourage parties to try to de-escalate conflicts sooner, before they reach what William Zartman calls a "hurting stalemate" — a situation in which neither side can win, but both are losing (that is, being badly hurt) by the continuation of the conflict. Often, however, regardless of how bad the hurt is, or how long it has gone on, parties insist on continuing the confrontation because they see "no way out" that is likely to be better.
|
Meeting the Challenge: What We Now Know
|
A lot is known about preventing escalation in the first place (though it is often not followed). Less is known about how to successfully reverse it once it has started (at least, until the parties have reached a "hurting stalemate," and they decide to try to de-escalate the conflict as a way out).
The following articles discuss escalation, de-escalation, and related processes.
Knowledge |
Availability |
|
|
Utilization |
|
- Escalation and Related Processes
This introductory essay explains the various types of escalation and related processes with details following in individual essays.
- Destructive Escalation
Escalation is an increase in the intensity of a conflict. The number of parties and issues tends to increase, tactics become heavier, malevolence increases, and overall destructiveness generally increases as well.
- Constructive Escalation
Despite the dangers of escalation, disputants often intentionally escalate conflicts. Parties generally do this when they feel their needs are being ignored. This essay examines the risks and benefits of tactical escalation and offers suggestions on how the risks can be minimized.
- Polarization
Polarization of a conflict occurs as a conflict rises in intensity (that is, escalates). Often as escalation occurs, more and more people get involved, and take strong positions either on one side or the other. "Polarization" refers to the process in which people move toward extreme positions ("poles"), leaving fewer and fewer people "in the middle."
- Entrapment
In intense, intractable conflicts, leaders commonly ask their supporters to make great sacrifices. In the most extreme cases, supporters are asked to sacrifice their lives. Once these sacrifices have been made, it becomes very difficult for leaders to publicly admit that it was all for nothing.
- Limiting Escalation / De-escalation
De-escalation tends to proceed slowly and requires a lot of effort. This essay describes some key strategies available for slowing escalation and then de-escalating a conflict.
Book Summaries
- Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution
Louis Kriesberg
This book covers a lot of ground and relates to many of these frontier topics, but it especially relates to the topic of escalation and how to reverse it.
- Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate and Settlement
Dean G. Pruitt and Jeffrey Z. Rubin
This is a classic book that still has a lot of relevance. It explores how to make conflict a beneficial social phenomenon by describing the sources of conflict, identifying five basic conflict strategies, and exploring the processes of conflict escalation and resolution.
- Entrapment in Escalating Conflicts
Joel Brockner and Jeffrey Rubin
"Entrapment" is a social psychological process that leads individuals to escalate their commitment to a previously chosen — though failing — course of action in order to justify their prior investments. Entrapment can result from both external influences and internal processes. This book explains the problem and suggests ways in which it can be avoided.
- The Social Psychology of Intergroup and International Conflict
Ronald Fisher
This book explores the causation, escalation, de-escalation, and resolution of intergroup conflicts from the social-psychological perspective.
- Timing the De-Escalation of International Conflicts
Louis Kreisberg and Stuart Thorson, eds.
Far more than merely an abstract theoretical concept, timing is key to the experience of disputants. This makes timing an important aspect of intervention. In this book, the conditions conducive to de-escalation are discussed in relation to the timing of successful intervention.
Other Resources of Interest:
- Yamashita, Hikaru. Humanitarian Space and International Politics: The Creation of Safe Areas. United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing, 2004.
Publisher's Description
- Arnett, Ronald and Pat Arneson, Dialogic Civility in a Cynical Age. Albany: SUNY Press, 1999.
Author's Description
- Bohm, James. "Public Reason and Cultural Pluralism: Political Liberalism and the Problem of Moral Conflict." pp. 253-279 In Political Theory. 23:2, 1995.
Author's Description
- Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson. Democracy and Disagreement: Why Moral Conflict Cannot be Avoided in Politics, and What Should be Done About It, Reprint Edition. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1998.
Consortium Abstract
- Herzig, Margaret. "Moving from Polarized Polemic to Constructive Conversation: A Report from the Public Conversations Project." In Interact: The Journal of Public Participation. July, 2001.
Consortium Article Abstract
- Hurst, Samia and Alex Mauron. "The Ethics of Palliative Care and Euthanasia: Exploring Common Values." In Palliative Medicine, 20:107-112, 2006.
Consortium Article Abstract
- Pearce, W. Barnett and Stephen W. Littlejohn. Moral Conflict: When Social Worlds Collide. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 1997.
Consortium Abstract
- Littlejohn, S.W. and K. Domenici. Engaging Communication in Conflict: Systemic Practice. CA: Sage, 2001.
Vendor's Description
- Nelson, Lawrence J. and Michael J. Meyer. "Confronting Deep Moral Disagreement: The President's Council on Bioethics, Moral Status, and Human Embryos." In The American Journal of Bioethics, (5: 6, 2005), pp. 33-42.
Consortium Article Abstract
- Simpson, Barbara, Bob Large, and Matthew O'Brien. "Bridging Difference Through Dialogue: A Constructivist Perspective." In Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 17:45-59, 2004.
Publisher's Description
- Singh, Basil R. "Dialogue Across Cultural and Ethnic Differences," In Educational Studies, 27:3, 2001.
Consortium Article Abstract
- Streich, Gregory. "Constructing Multiracial Democracy: To Deliberate or Not to Deliberate." In Constellations, (9:1, 2002).
Consortium Article Abstract
- Wade, Susan Omalley. "Using Intentional, Values-Based Dialogue to Engage Complex Public Policy Conflicts." In Conflict Resolution Quarterly. 21:3, 2005.
Author's Description
- Winslade, John and Gerald Monk. Narrative Mediation: A New Approach to Conflict Resolution. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
Consortium Abstract
- Elizabeth A. Gassin, Robert D.Enright, and Jeanette A.Knutson. 2005. "Bringing Peace to the Central City: Forgiveness Education in Milwaukee." In Theory Into Practice, Vol. 44, No. 4: pages 319-328.
Consortium Article Abstract
- Littlejohn, Stephen. "The Transcendent Communication Project: Searching for a Praxis of Dialogue." In Conflict Resolution Quarterly, (21:3, 2004).
Consortium Article Abstract
- Gephart, R.P., Steier, L. & Lawrence, T. (1990)." Cultural rationalities in crisis sensemaking: A study of a public inquiry into a major industrial accident." In Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 4, 27-48.
Author's Description
- O'Hanlon, Michael and Stephen Solarz. "Deciding When To Go." The Washington Post, Outlook, 7 Feb 1999. Available from: The Brookings Institution, http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/OHanlon/19990207.htm.
Consortium Abstract
- Daalder, Ivo H. "Decision to Intervene: How the War in Bosnia Ended." Foreign Service Journal, Dec 1998. Available from: The Brookings Institution, http://www.brook.edu/.
Author's Description
- Rice, Susan. "Collective Response to Crisis: Strengthening UN Peace Operations Capacity." United Nations and Global Security. http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/
Consortium Abstract
- Conflict escalation entrapment
Conflict Publishers | Conflict News | Google Scholar
- Hurting stalemate
Conflict Publishers | Conflict News | Google Scholar
- Conflict Polarization
Conflict Publishers | Conflict News | Google Scholar
 |
Something missing?
Send us your suggestions. |
|
- Constructive conflict escalation resolution
Conflict Publishers | Conflict News | Google Scholar
|
