Fundamental Issues in Conflict Transformation.

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

Fundamental Issues in Conflict Transformation By Angélica Ruiz León Research Collaborator Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey & Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya

Introduction In the course of work carried out through the Center for Dialogue and Human Wellbeing (CDBH) personnel often encounter situations where conflict has become entrenched in the day-to-day interactions among members of the communities with which the Center works.

When communities become locked into tit-for-tat cycles of violence, conflict becomes ‗normativized,‘ to an extent, seen as ‗the way things are.‘ In spite of the apparent ‗normalcy‘ of conflict in certain situations, one of the primary goals of the CDBH is to help individuals and communities move away from normativized patterns of violence and conflict, to situations of peaceful interaction and mutual collaboration among the parts.

When a request is made for the Center for Dialogue and Human Wellbeing to work with communities in conflict, personnel approach the situation by loosely following the sequence of steps elucidated below: A historico-contextual analysis is conducted in order to understand the larger context, and the history of relations among the communities in conflict. A needs assessment is conducted in order to understand the root causes of the discord, which often have to do with unfulfilled needs and an accompanying sense of injustice, anger and frustration on one or more of the sides. Tools used for the needs assessment include questionnaires and direct interviews with the different stakeholders. Once the needs and concerns of communities are understood, workshops are specially designed to fit the situation at hand-- which may include mediation, reconciliation, healing of memories, dealing with trauma, etc.— depending on the particulars of each situation. Once the sides are able to listen to each other, participants elaborate common goals, which they will eventually put into practice in a collaborative effort to meet the shared objectives. As situations are gradually transformed from conflict to collaboration, CDBH personnel complete analytical research of the case at hand by way of a policy analysis. Policy recommendations derived from the study are given to powerholders at diverse levels who have the potential to bring about long-term 1 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

structural transformation aimed at benefitting all through legislative change. The theoretico-anaytical tool utilized throughout this process in the Ideological-Structural Analysis (I-SA) (López C., 2005a, 2005b, 2001, 1997, 1990), which will be discussed at a later point in the present article.

Some Thoughts on Intercommunal Conflict Intercommunal conflicts often emerge over competition for scarce resources, over who controls politics and power in a locality, over land, identity, notions of the sacred, etc.

Beyond these issues, at the individual level, people may experience and/or act with intolerance toward a certain person or community. The lack of understanding and respect toward different traditions has occurred in societies all over the world. Part of what underlies these conflict-generating responses has to do with the internalized norms and ‗shoulds‘ that we carry around within us about all manner of things. When people or their behaviors are different and somehow ‗rub against‘ our internalized norms of ‗correctness,‘ we become irritated or uncomfortable. These ‗different‘ people or communities may do things in ways different from our own; they may look different, sound different, act differently. Among individuals and communities, it is common to judge others based on our own internalized norms. Naturally, this can complicate relations and create tensions.

As human communities, we tend to assume that ours are the ‗correct‘ and the ‗virtuous‘ ways of doing things, of valuing, etc. Many times we implicitly ‗know‘ that our world view is the most accurate, the most pious, etc.; so other ways of doing things and of valuing are ‗simply not right;‘ ‗they are inferior,‘ or even ‗sinful‘ in the eyes of the perceiver of the other and his/her ways. Part of the work of the Ideological-Structural Analysis is to create activities where individuals and communities have the opportunity to explore and become aware of the normative filters we hold, which tend to create division and exacerbate tensions among communities. By increasing awareness of our own internalized modes of thinking, feeling and responding to the world around us, we also become more aware of the differences in the norms, expectations and behaviors of ‗others.‘ Beyond the newfound awareness, a further step is to work toward a genuine knowing of the ‗other‘ through that community‘s own eyes, working to cultivate a genuine respect for the differences, and a full awareness of the similarities from which collaboration can grow. This can be challenging when working with communities that have long been in conflict with one another. An important aim of I-SA work is for communities to move from a position of resenting difference and judging it negatively to an understanding of difference as enriching of the human community. When difference can be viewed in such a manner, and it is no longer threatening in any way, the door can be opened for peaceful collaboration. The primary tool used in this process is the Ideological-Structural Analysis, which is summarized briefly below.

2 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Applications of Transformation  

the

Ideological-Structural

Ruiz León (2014)

Analysis

(I-SA)

for

Conflict

What are the basic premises of the I-SA Macro-Theory and Micro-Theory?

What do both levels of the theory tell us about conflict transformation?

In this global era, people from diverse traditions are increasingly in contact with one another. Multicultural cities are everywhere, and they continue to grow rapidly. In them, people from distinct religious and cultural traditions are coming together in the workplace, in schools, restaurants and other social and public institutions. Part of the day-to-day commitment of the Center for Dialogue and Human Wellbeing, (CDBH—for its name in Spanish), is to work toward normalizing dialogue as a way of life among the world‘s communities. CDBH staff members wish to see the ‗normativization‘ of dialogue as a basic set of skills, as an attitude toward communication, and toward humanity in general.

People at the Center believe that every single person will benefit from learning the basic premises of dialogue, and from acquiring knowledge about people of diverse backgrounds from the perspective that each community holds about itself.

The Ideological-Structural Analysis allows for the systematic observation of what occurs within and among interlocutors engaged in the process of dialogue. While Macrotheory examines the external context, as well as the verbal and non-verbal messages occurring in the critical juncture of interaction between two or more individuals, I-SA Microtheory aims to explore that which occurs within interlocutors cognitively and psychoaffectively as they meet and interact with each other (López, 2004). The theory examines all those factors involved in the moments and the spaces of interaction among communities in conflict by exploring both the external environment and the internal processes occurring within each of the actors involved. It explores from the very deep levels within the person up to those external spaces, taking into account world views, civilizational paradigms and how the interactions between the external environment and the internal spaces impact on the processes of dialogue and interaction. The I-SA, both Macro and Micro Theory are used 1) as an analytical tool for assessing conflict situations and, 2) as a guide for setting up workshops and other activities designed to help transform problematic relationships from conflict to collaboration.

3 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

Ideological-Structural Analysis Macrotheory The I-SA Macrotheory, which looks at external events and their context, focuses on interactions among individuals and communities ‗from the skin outward,‘ while the Microtheory explores what happens within individuals as they interact and move about in conflict situations. The Microtheory explores the construct of ―civilizational paradigms,” which refers to the historical belief system to which a cultural community traces its roots.

The paradigms are often tied to particular religious or spiritual heritage, which tends to form the foundation for the collective ways of knowing, interpreting and valuing shared within the community.‖ When doing the historico-contextual analysis of the situation surrounding a conflict, the I-SA asks from what traditions the communities in conflict arise in order to better understand them.

Cultural communities are essentially common ways of thinking and doing which develop historically because of somewhat isolated in-group communication (Littlejohn, in López, 2004). These communities often trace their roots to a certain civilizational paradigm.

However, it is important to remember that cultures are dynamic, and that they continually absorb input from their external milieu, whether or not this refers back to the historical paradigm.

Ideologies—as understood by the I-SA— are not tangible structures, yet they have the power to set parameters around people´s understanding and interpretation of phenomena encountered in day to day experiences. For our purpose, the term ―ideology‖ refers to the basic thought system/s underpinning the beliefs shared by an historical collective. Often, in analyzing a conflict, CDBH staff finds that the basic systems of thought and ‗logic‘ vary on important issues between the communities in conflict. The unearthing of deeply-embedded differences in basic interpretive filters held by the communities helps the sides reframe the problems and the challenges in such a way as to better understand each other‘s position concerning the issues underlying the conflict.

Structures found in the external environment have a strong bearing on how people will interact with one other, on the norms of propriety, on delimiting power relations and, therefore, ‗appropriate‘ behaviors among people within a society. Institutions, such as marriage, schools, and places of worship are some examples of the external structuring mechanisms, both held by the collective and holding the collective together in a particular set of relationships. These structures are carried around within individuals as a reflection of external norms which have become imprinted and normativized in a person‘s memory stores, forming a set of interpretive filters through which we will ‗understand‘ and 4 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

interact with the world and the people around us. In uncovering the invisible structures delimiting how relationships can be carried out ―correctly‖ within a community, power is invariably a factor underlying how people may interact ―virtuously‖ among themselves, according to the implicit, internalized norms of the community.

Worldview refers to an overarching conception of how the things of life are understood.

Worldviews vary from culture to culture, nation to nation, tradition to tradition. Naturally, subtle or not-so-subtle differences in worldview come to bear on implicit expectations people hold concerning the ―shoulds‖ of ―proper‖ human behavior. Among people from diverse traditions, the ―shoulds‖ are not always the same, at times, giving rise to confusion, misunderstanding, anger, etc. among the diverse actors.

In conflict transformation, the I-SA considers Trust and Good Faith as essential ingredients for successful interaction among individuals and human communities (Rokeach, 1969 in López, 2004).

Trust in the other, and the belief that both are acting out of good faith go a long way in helping all sides, tolerate cultural and communicative differences among them which may violate sociocultural norms and provoke a sense of discomfort on one, both, or all sides. As such, it is of paramount importance to rebuild trust and a belief in the good faith of the ‗other‘ among the communities which have experienced conflictual relations with each other (López, 2004: p. 33).

Ideological-Structural Analysis Microtheory The factors mentioned in the Macrotheory section above come from external milieu.

Through socialization and life experience, these become internalized by each individual, having a strong bearing on the person‘s world knowledge and his/her implicit ways of understanding, valuing, interpreting, feeling about situations and, ultimately, of behaving.

The I-SA Microtheory explores this internal world at the level of memory stores, cognition and psychoaffect, and how these come into play in conflict situations. Some of the major constructs of the Microtheory are reviewed briefly below: Prototypes: Imagine you have a circle with a smaller circle inside it. Prototype Theory says that we have at the center of our prototype, for example—of ‗woman‘—a composite of the many women like those to whom we‘ve been exposed frequently since we were born. Our prototype of ‗woman,‘ then, has great flexibility, in terms of what women may look like, what they wear, how they may behave, etc. Women resembling our prototypical norm of 5 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

‗woman,‘ are placed at the center of our prototype. They are ‗unmarked,‘ meaning that they are quite similar to the women who we commonly encounter in our external environment. The outer circle of our prototype, also accepts ‗women‘ as human females.

But the women who fit toward the outer limits of our prototypes are ‗marked,‘ to the perceiver—meaning that they are different from the person‘s composite prototypical norm.

For example, a Malay Muslim woman wearing a baju kurung and a tudong in Kuala Lumpur fits well into the unmarked prototypical norm of most of the locals in the Malaysian capital. Her physical appearance will likely not cause undue attention, since she is part of the prototypical norm for ‗woman‘ in that particular locality. This very same woman walking in Mérida, Yucatán in México, however, while still being understood by the locals as a woman, would fit into the outer parameters of the prototype of ‗woman‘ for that particular locality. The difference between her and the local prototype would likely catch the attention of the locals, which is a function of her ‗markedness‘ vis-à-vis the local prototype.

Stereotypes are caricatures of a sort, which often cast negative aspects of humanity on the person or the cultural community being stereotyped. We obtain stereotypical information about ‗others‘ from sources such as the media, institutions, our elders and peers passing their prejudices onto us, etc. Stereotypes are second-hand information received, not from the person or the community with whom we are interacting, but from sources which purport to ‗tell us how these people are.‘ When we unconsciously respond to stereotypical information activated within us by our interlocutor´s outward physical self, we often awaken negative expectations and judgments about the person and the outcome of our interaction with him/her, thereby increasing the probability for misjudgment and misunderstanding among the interlocutors. Since stereotypes cast, at best, inaccurate information on the interlocutor, and often, negative notions of who the person is, they get in the way of us knowing each other.

What happens when an ‘other,’ someone having a degree of markedness, comes into the perceptual field of a community? Since we tend to have had less first-hand experience with people who are ‗marked,‘ and fit within the outer parameters of our prototype, we often fill the gaps in world knowledge concerning ‗someone like her‘ with second hand information—from sources such as the media, stories adults have told us about ‗people like her,‘ etc. This gives rise to stereotypical judgments, assumptions and expectations concerning the individual in front of us—who we do not know. When our stereotypes are activated, we often interact—not with the person—but with the stereotypes activated within us by her presence. Naturally, this can cause deep offense and misunderstanding as we cast our stereotypical judgments on the person, failing to see and come to know the person in front of us. Part of the work of the I-SA is to provide people with the spaces to explore and 6 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

become aware of the stereotypes we hold about ‗others‘ and how these stereotypes affect our judgments, expectations and, ultimately, our actions toward individuals and communities. 1 The aim of the exercises provided in our workshop activities is to help participants go beyond stereotypes and come to ‗see the human face of the other,‘ allowing her (or him) to tell us who she is, and truly coming to know her through interaction as a genuine relationship develops between us.

Schema as Normative Expectations Like with prototypes, schema activated in our long-term memory create normative expectations concerning places, or the contexts in which our interaction with the ‗other‘ occurs. Take, for example, our notion of a doctor‘s office. In different countries and places where CDBH staff have offered workshops and activities, people hold in common a general agreement about the context and the ‗ingredients‘ to be found in a doctor‘s office. We have, for example, a nurse, a receptionist, stethoscopes, white hospital scrubs, thermometers, etc. We also have a waiting area, where people may be sitting; they may be reading a magazine of chatting while waiting for their turn to see the doctor. Concerning the aforementioned aspects of a doctor‘s office, people around the world seem to share common contextual schema, although they have never been in the same doctor‘s office as others from different places. However, if we were to see, for example, a cow, sitting in the waiting area, calmly leafing through a magazine, this abrupt break with the normative expectation for doctor‘s offices would immediately catch our attention, as it jumps the outer boundaries of our schema for doctors‘ offices. In our memory stores, we hold schema concerning all manner of things. Upon seeing the cow, our schema for veterinary clinic, or for farm might be awakened—moving away from the doctor‘s office schema into some context where the cow ‗fits‘ more comfortably within our memory stores. How does this relate to people and conflicts? Just as we wouldn‘t expect to see a person in a bikini in a church or a temple, we have schematic expectations about the places in which our interactions with others take place. When schema violations have taken place--such as seeing someone in a scared place dressed inappropriately, people experience an alarm response, which calls conscious attention to the schema violation, often giving rise to feelings of anger, shock, etc. In unearthing the roots causes of conflicts, we often find that schema violations have occurred between or among the parties in conflict.

1

Although our prototype of ‗women‘ is highly flexible—accommodating human females within itself with greater or lesser degrees of markedness, there are boundaries beyond which we can no longer accept ‗x‘ within the prototype—such as a ‗bearded woman,‘ who we might place in our prototype of man, or we might not. We probably wouldn‘t be sure where to place her, awakening within us a degree of uncertainty about how we should interact with this person who doesn‘t fit easily within our internal structuring mechanisms.

7 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

Scripts and their Power to Create Normative Behavioral Expectations If the schema concerns the context and sets up normative expectations, the scripts are those actions and behaviors expected to occur and deemed appropriate for a particular schematic context. For example, in our doctor‘s office schema, we would find it appropriate for the nurse to take someone‘s temperature—not calling undue attention to the action. However, if that same nurse stood on the receptionist‘s desk and started dancing, this action would be a violation of our script for appropriate behaviors within the schema of doctors‘ offices.

We would notice the behavior which is beyond the normative expectation for that particular context; we would probably experience an alarm response and likely, we would feel anger, confusion, and possibly indignation as well. Once again, in conflict analysis, we often unearth script, or behavior, violations perceived by one side toward the other. Just as with schema violations, scripts violations awaken the alarm response, calling attention to the ‗inappropriate‘ action and often giving rise to great consternation, anger and even violence toward the perceived violator of the schema.

Values are one of the foundational structures around which human societies are built. The existence of values within social groupings takes as its point of departure a dichotomized notion of the existence of good and bad or `virtuous´ and `evil,´ serving as an evaluative mechanism often held below the level of consciousness. When people‘s values—held within themselves—are violated by an ‗other‘s‘ actions, words, etc. alarm response, anger and—at times—violence are awakened toward the violator of the values.

Taboo constitutes a category of behaviors which are considered out of bounds, not to be done, nor discussed. Violation of taboo provokes powerful negative affective reactions toward actors believed to have caused the violation, leading to deep anger and—at times— to violence directed at the person or the community perceived to have violated the taboo.

Sociolinguistic competence refers simply to the implicit norms of propriety in communication, concerning what is and can be said and how it may, or may not be said.

Sociolinguistic norms vary among communities and, to a degree, within them as well. The sociolinguistics of one community may allow discussion of certain issues which another community finds taboo, or out-of-bounds. In one community, direct critique, and loud and angry locutions may be expressed, while another community may find such expressions completely inappropriate and unacceptable. Once again, violations of sociolinguistic norms are often found underlying conflict situations—exacerbating the anger and misunderstanding existing between or among the groups in conflict.

8 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014) (López, 2004: p.13-32)

The aforementioned theoretical constructs of the I-SA allow us to analyze inner and external situations, in the attempt to understand and transcend the conflict at hand, as well as providing a basis for workshops and other sessions aimed at working directly with the groups in conflict. The ensuing section looks at the different ‗levels of being‘ comprising the human person, as we attempt to work with growing consciousness of both self and ‗other‘ as we work to move from conflicting to cooperative interactions among the communities.

Levels of the Being In our mediation work, CDBH facilitators discuss the I-SA‘s levels of being with the parties in conflict. Coming to an understanding of the deeper levels of ourselves and others, we are more able to go beyond that which separates us, learning to listen respectfully, and to genuinely transform our angry behaviors into acceptance and empathy.

Now please imagine a circle with another circle drawn inside it and, inside that middle circle, there is a still smaller circle drawn at the center of the diagram—something like a target with an outer circle, a middle circle, and a bullseye in the center.

The first level—represented by the outer circle-- is the Outward Physical Self. It is the part of the person with which we first come into contact upon meeting in the critical juncture of dialogue. It has to do with his/her physical characteristics, mode of dress, the accent we hear when the person speaks, etc. This is the level of ourselves which other people see and to which they initially respond upon coming into contact with us. Input—usually visual and auditory—coming from this outward level, activates mis/information stored in long term memory, creating expectations and setting a tone for how we will interpret and interact with the person in front of us. It is here where we make instantaneous judgments, often even before interaction has begun. The more marked the person is for us, the more second-hand stereotyped mis/information and mis/expectations about the ‗other‘ will tend to awaken, leading us to interact in response—not to the person, but to the mis/information awakened within us by the person‘s outward physical self.

The middle circle represents the Cognitive and the Psycho-affective Self, meaning our mind and our emotions. This is the level where long-term memory resides; it is the locus of our thought processes, our interpretations, and the feelings arising from them concerning our interlocutor. Ideological-Structural Analysis Micro-theory focuses precisely on this level of the human person, exploring how cognition and psychoaffect—our thoughts and our 9 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

emotions—come into play in conflict situations and how these levels of the self can be consciously transformed in favor of peaceful and collaborative interactions among the groups formerly in conflict with one another (López, 2004).

The third level of being addressed by the I-SA-- represented by the inner circle of our diagram-- is called the Life Essence. ―This level, sometimes called the ground of being, is the very existence and sustenance of life within us. All human and other living beings share this life essence, of which we are often not even aware. This is the level from which our life source emanates‖ (López, 2004: 9).

Regardless of which religious, linguistic or cultural tradition from which a person hails, all humans share this life essence, friends and foes alike. An exercise used by CDBH staff to invite people to an awareness of their own life essence goes something like this: ―Please place your finger beneath your nose. Do you feel your breath going in and out? What is its source?‖ People will say that the breath comes from the lungs, which are controlled by the central nervous system, which is controlled by the brain, etc. When the group arrives at the end of their physiological explanations, the staff then asks how this breathing—a symbol of the life within us—was called into action? How did you come to be? How did life come to be embodied in you? It does not matter if a person answers ―Allah,‖ ―God,‖ ―Cosmos,‖ ―Energy,‖ or whatever. Regardless of differences in ideology, worldview and belief systems, all living human share this essence, which sustains them over the course of their lifetimes. When a person discovers his/her own life essence, s/he is able to see the very same essence residing at the deepest level of all people, both of one‘s own community and of the ‗enemy.‘ The moment of being introduced to our life essence and that of all others, is very often transformative for participants in CDBH workshops. A further exercise is offered where we each salute or greet the (scared) life essence within each other. This means that I—who have just discovered my own sacred essence—will receive a greeting from others—friends and enemies—which salutes and honors the life within me. People are often stunned and humbled at the discovery of the sacred life within themselves.

Participants are then asked to observe and to salute the life within all other participants; which is often the beginning of their discovery that, not only are they themselves sacred beings, but that those around them share this essence as well, whether they happen to be part of our community, or of those we have viewed until now as ‗others.‘ This activity, of course, must only be conducted once participants have worked through the hurt, the misunderstanding and the rage felt toward the ‗other.‘ For this, the mediator must have great discernment as to when the group is ready to explore this level of being. This exercise has a profound impact on people as individuals and on their perception of others 10 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

around them. When this particular Levels of Being exercise has taken root in the cognition and the psychoaffect of workshop participants, this is where the new beginning is born. It is from here onward that groups can sit together in the critical juncture and gently sort through the traumas, the painful memories, and the historical injury which has arisen among the communities over the course of the conflict.

From the healing of memories stage, CDBH staff begin to facilitate discussions about the interests, concerns and fears of the groups involved. Negotiation goes on; groups give and take, and vie throughout the process in order to construct a common set of goals, toward which they will create a concrete plan of action, delegate tasks, and establish loose timetables for moving together toward common goals.

CDBH staff must also prepare the group for dealing with relapse, which often occurs when something triggers old antagonisms and misunderstandings. Local leaders are trained in conflict transformation and mediation so that the community no longer needs to rely on outside sources for settling grievances which may continue to arise among them.

Along with the community leaders, CDBH staff help create a set of Policy Recommendations, to be offered to persons of authority in hopes that they will work toward the structural changes which may be necessary to ensure lasting peace among the parties.

Our staff may return to the communities from time to time; they also remain ‗on call‘ and try to be easily reachable in case intervention would be required by the communities in cases of particularly virulent relapse into old patterns of violent, conflictual interaction.

Although we are willing to be there if needed, the aim of CDBH staff is to ‗not be necessary‘ for the communities. It is to help sort through the conflicts, to arrive at an honoring of each other, to collaborate toward common goals, to become easy with differences which inevitably remain, and to help communities be self-empowered as they progress through the denormativizing of violence toward an ever-deepening culture of sustained peace in the locality. Work in transforming the normal state of affairs from conflict to collaboration moves forward ‗in fits and starts,‘ often advancing three steps, only to regress by nine. In spite of the difficulties and the tremendous challenges presented, CDBH staff members remain committed to the work of conflict transformation.

Fundamental Issues in Conflict Transformation The following questions are set forth as a guide in hopes of mining available literature for insights concerning issues which often arise in the course of conflict transformation work.

11 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

Groups in conflict: Choosing peace * * * *

What are some of the diverse understandings about what peace is?

How is the concept of peace understood by different actors within the community?

Can we come to a shared understanding of peace among all actors involved?

If so, how does the community choose to define peace?

Different authors conceptualize peace in different ways. In his book Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and conflict, development and civilization, Johan Galtung offers two definitions for peace.

I) II)

Peace as the absence or reduction of violence of all kinds Peace as nonviolent and creative conflict transformation (Galtung, 1996).

The first definition is violence-oriented; peace being the negation of violence. To know about peace we have to know about violence, The second definition is conflict-oriented; peace is the context within which conflicts can unfold nonviolently and creatively. Galtung writes that in order to know about peace, we must know about conflicts, and how conflicts can be transformed nonviolently and creatively (Galtung, 1996).

For Galtung, the solution to a conflict can be defined as ―a new formation that is acceptable to all actors and sustainable by the actors‖ (Galtung, 1996, p.89).

1. Galtung believes that a conflict is not truly solved if only elites, and signatory actors agree to establish a resolution for the parties of a conflict. He further suggests that deep-seated conflicts cannot be solved solely through civil society involvement. In order for conflict transformation

to be successful, it is necessary to involve all levels of society in the process. If behaviors are to be transformed from conflict to collaboration, civil society and elite involvement is paramount. When only the elites sign a peace treaty, relapse back into violence and conflict is practically inevitable. When people throughout society are involved in and committed to the transformation, the probability of reaching and sustaining peace increases greatly.

Underlining the necessity for civil society and elite participation, Galtung suggests what he calls ‗double-track diplomacy‘ as a more lasting means of conflict transformation. This involves both ‗elite-track and people-track‘ interactions (Galtung, 1996, p. 89).

12 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

The strategies provided by Galtung include offering tools to people in order to solve conflicts.

Specifically, ‗people-track solutions‘ aim to complement and enhance resolutions and decisions made by powerholders in search of conflict transformation.

For Galtung, conflict has to do with incompatibility on the one hand, and with actors and their ‗conflict formation‘ on the other (1996). From an I-SA perspective, ‗conflict formation‘ would refer to the conceptions of conflict, the levels of acceptability, etc. stored in the memories of individuals, which have been acquired through life experience. To an extent, this internalized set of norms is tied to cultural identity, religious tradition, and other factors that make up both the thought-interpretive processes and the feelings of a person. Those elements together constitute the formation of an individual, a community and—to a large extent-- a civilizational paradigm and its world view (López, 2004). In addition to struggles for power and resources, deeply-embedded differences in the world views, in valuing and interpretation have been sources of conflict throughout human history.

Conflict transformation aims not to eliminate differences within and among cultures-- which represent the wealth of human diversity, but to help channel communities toward a progressive understanding of, and respect for each other‘s way of life. Going beyond mere tolerance, CDBH staff hope that empathy and genuine respect will emerge from listening to and truly aiming to understand each other.

Galtung reminds us that conflict transformation is an ongoing process (1996) since new contradictions tend to emerge even after the formulation of solutions. In conflict transformation, variables are in constant flux from the parties involved, meaning that ‗solutions‘ are often only temporary. Due to the dynamic nature of human relationships, it is advisable to prepare communities for dealing with change and relapse, as situations shift and flux unendingly long after formal solutions have been reached and mediation teams have left the locality.

Concerning conflict

* How and why does conflict become normative in societies? * How does the normativizing of violence/conflict impact on societies? * How might alternatives to conflict emerge from among members of the groups themselves? * How can conflictual-violent behaviors be denormativized? * What types of behaviors/relations can replace normativized violence and conflicts? (These decisions must be made by the stakeholders themselves and facilitated, not imposed, by CDBH facilitators). * How can CDBH staff facilitate the aforementioned processes?

When manifestations of violence occur in an ongoing, habitual manner, they may become normativized within a particular milieu. When something is ‗normative,‘ it is seen as ‗the way 13 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

things are‘ although the community does not like the situation. Normativized violence, or conflict ceases to have the same shock value as it would in environments where peace is the norm. For example, if a child has grown up seeing his father hit his mother and the woman bearing it, he may perceive intra-familial violence as somehow acceptable, even if he doesn‘t like to see his father hit his mother. Since this habitual behavior models violence as a form of power and control, it constitutes part of the formation of an individual, becoming internalized as a normative example for him. Whether or not the child views such actions as pleasant or unpleasant, they are stored in memory as a set of scripts of behavior occurring within the family setting. The same may happen

in whole communities which have been mired in a historical conflict. Since entrenched conflicts have their roots in the past, generations have somehow ‗gotten used‘ to living within the conflict situation; eventually, this conflict becomes part of the society and, over time, it becomes normativized.

As the person matures, the information acquired through immersion in a particular cultural community comes to shape his/her values, world view, norms of conduct and so on (López, 2004, p.14).

Peace is to be built by each member of the communities and, according to Galtung, the first step in denormativizing conflict is to recognize that it exists. Normativized aggression affects societies since it somehow dulls the collective alarm response to violence and conflict, which stymies efforts to work toward a peaceful transformation of difficult situations.

In Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation across cultures, John Paul Lederach, (1995) suggests four key steps to follow in the process of building peace: Education, Confrontation, Negotiation and Sustainable Peace, where ‗education‘ is seen as awareness and recognition of the conflict. Throughout history, philosophers have said that reasoning is the way to achieve peace, and that education is the way to engage people‘s reasoning capabilities. Confrontation is seen by Lederach as the way to increase interdependence among parties; therefore, through negotiation, parties have the opportunity to dialogue about their views, interests and concerns as they seek a common understanding of the issues at hand. Parties involved must recognize that they cannot impose their own decisions or eliminate the other side‘s suggestions, but that they must instead work toward achieving mutual goals (Lederach, 1995).

Lederach defines Conflict Transformation as follows: Transformation suggests a prescriptive direction based on the core elements in early developments in the field. Specifically, there is the idea that conflict unabated can take destructive patterns that should be channeled toward constructive expression. (…) a transformation is assumed in terms of the relationship, which shifts from mutually destructive, unstable and harmful expressions toward a mutually beneficial and

14 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

cooperative basis. (…) In other words, conflict is seen as a transforming agent for systemic change (…)

Transformation suggests a dynamic understanding that conflict can move in destructive or constructive directions, but proposes an effort to maximize the achievement of constructive, mutually beneficial processes and outcomes (Lederach, 1995: pp. 18-19).

For Lederach, peacebuilding involves changes at both the personal and the systemic level, which are necessary in order for a social conflict to be transformed. This is why the CDBH works with individuals and groups, as well as providing policy recommendations aimed at ushering in systemic transformations which work on favor of peace While Galtung suggests that peace can be fully achieved when both the elite and the people of the sides in conflict agree, Lederach suggests that a framework for conflict transformation and peace building must be provided, based on justice and mercy, as well as personal and systemic change.

At the level of personal change, Lederach suggests that we work with trauma, fear, anger, and bitterness; which are challenges that any mediator will face from all sides when involved in a conflict transformation process. At the systemic level, engaging elites and decision makers can aid in the process of transforming and creating structural change toward sustaining peaceful.

Collaborative relations within a community Lederach reminds us of the importance of providing a safe environment for parties involved in dispute and conflict. Among other tools for moving people into more peaceful frames of mind, Lederach suggests the use of poetry as a formula for conflict resolution, stating, Poetry remains a revered art form and can move people toward war or toward reconciliation. As a formula of conflict resolution it helps locate and situate grievances and meaning and justifies views and demands of different groups (…) This traditional mechanism has an effect on public opinion and conflict analysis by arguing for causes, rights, and responsibilities (Lederach, 1995: pp. 97-98).

Michelle LeBaron (2002) reminds us that communities engaged in conflict transformation must first have the motivation and the desire to work toward peace. When violence and conflict are normativized within a society, it is often difficult for actors to envision other alternatives. Part of the role of a facilitator, then, is to help communities explore and bring to conscious awareness the fact that other norms of societal interaction are possible, and that they have the power to collectively choose desired norms in order to strive together toward them. While the facilitator can help parties envision peaceful options, it is 15 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz Le贸n (2014)

ultimately up to the parties themselves to articulate their shared vision and to elaborate a plan of action on the path toward reaching their goals.

Concerning the Mediator * What is the role of a mediator in a conflict transformation process? * How is the mediator perceived by all sides in the conflict? * How must the mediator be perceived in order to be effective in conflict transformation? * How can the mediator work toward gaining the acceptance of all actors involved? * What strategies can the mediator apply to help communities move from conflict to collaboration? * How can the mediator facilitate a sense of agency and incentives for stakeholders in conflict situations?

Incentives In their work, Schmidt and Tannenbaum (2000) focus on the tools available for conflict resolution within organizational structures. The context of organizational conflicts is taken to exemplify what could function as an incentive for collaborating with people having diverse viewpoints and, possibly, diverse work cultures. The organizational context can be contrasted with the intercultural one; for example, in a given conflict in which two communities live in constant clash, the mediator might analyze the diverse segments of society in order to identify the source of the main problems. This type of analysis helps to identify the root sources of anger and discontent. By doing a cross-sectorial analysis, the mediator may find that some members of either or both communities are not directly involved in the discord; yet, they may suffer the consequences of the conflict, regardless of their level of direct involvement or the lack thereof.

Interculturally, as in organizations, people from similar backgrounds may have less tendency to dispute, as they may approach and interpret problems in a similar way. In the case of intercommunal conflict, the mediator may wish to focus on those people who are not directly involved in the conflict who, at times, may comprise the majority of the population. Since these two parts of the opposing communities live under similar conditions, they can be encouraged to come together and examine the problem, often discovering that they, in fact, view the issues quite similarly. This discovery provides a strong incentive for working together toward a common solution.

16 Centro de Di谩logo y Bienestar Humano Tecnol贸gico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua M茅xico

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

Despite the numerous conflicts that human beings may face as a result of cultural differences, I-SA Theory suggests that communities and individuals with very different cultural origins can, not only to coexist peacefully; they can also enrich each other‘s lives with the different perspectives brought to the local milieu by the different sides. Using the notion that ‗two heads are better than one,‘ Schmidt and Tannenbaum (2000: p. 16) describe the differences among people as an opportunity to enrich the perspectives of all sides involved in conflict resolution, since they -‗the two heads‘- represent a richer set of experiences and, therefore, a variety of possible solutions. However, in order for parties to see each other‘s value as enriching or enhancing the realm of possibilities, it is important for communities to move beyond the sense of threat often felt by human groupings in the face of perceived ‗others.‘ CDBH staff consciously work with communities‘ sense of security and collective self-esteem to help groups move from the perception of ‗other as threat‘ toward an understanding of ‗other as gift.‘ This takes time; yet this attitudinal shift—once achieved—provides a solid foundation for healthy interactions among groups which were once in conflict.

Mediation A primary issue in mediation concerns the acceptance of the mediator by all parties to the conflict. Given that one of the objectives of conflict resolution is to seek agreement among parties, if one or more of the parties does not accept the person who functions as mediator, the success of both the process and the strategies for transformation can be greatly diminished.

Individuals working as mediators must strive to be absolutely neutral, leaving their own views aside in the mediation process, and listening to the different opinions from as objective a point of view as is humanly possible. The mediator must try to avoid his/her own inclinations toward a specific idea or side. The perception of the mediator‘s neutrality by all sides is so important that s/he should even attempt to avoid looking more toward one of the sides than toward the other, since even the person‘s gaze can be interpreted as favoring one side over the other. It‘s important to remember that a mediator‘s job consists, not in giving solutions, but in allowing parties to hear each other‘s points of view, and to seek common ground from which to build toward solutions.

For Schmidt and Tannenbaum (2000) the mediator must be able to diagnose and understand differences. Prior to intervening, the mediator should conduct an historical which allows him/her to uncover the roots of the conflict, in order to understand the differences and the potential points of agreement. Schmidt and Tannenbaum recommend the following questions which can help the mediator to find such roots: 17 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

I) II) III)

Ruiz León (2014)

What is the nature of the difference among the persons?

What factors may underlie this difference?

To what stage has the interpersonal difference evolved?

(Schmidt and Tannenbaum, 2000).

Without taking sides, the mediator should analyze and recognize the world/conflict view of each party, as well as the understanding the views and feelings that each side holds toward the ‗other.‘ During the process of conflict transformation, the mediator‘s subjective feelings and criticism of the parties must be avoided. Such criticism will block the parties‘ acceptance of the mediator, as well as their interest in seeking to transform the conflict.

Finally, the mediator must be able to select appropriately from a variety of behaviors, postures, attitudes, levels and types of interactions with the parties. Furthermore, one of the most important abilities a mediator must have concerns being able to deal with his/her own feelings so they don‘t impede the neutrality of the mediation process.

Jacob Bercovitch (2007) proposes the following techniques for mediation:      

Clarify the situation Develop rapport with parties Make parties aware of relevant information Rehearse appropriate behaviors with each party Clarify what the parties intend to communicate Avoid taking sides Bercovitch argues strongly for the importance of mediation in conflict transformation saying, Even if a conflict remains unresolved, mediation –in any guise- can do much to change the way the disputants feel about each other and lead, however indirectly, to both a long-term improvement in the parties´ relationship and a resolution of the conflict (Bercovitch, 2007: p, 187).

The mediator can help parties see the advantages of working toward conflict resolution; however, this must be done without seeming intrusive, which can often be achieved in a Socratic manner, through asking questions designed to guide the groups to envisioning possible solutions to the conflict at hand. Bercovitch suggests that one way of working toward the denormativizing conflict is by helping sides see the ongoing costs of nonagreement (2007). If the mediator is successful in helping people see the negative 18 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

consequences of living in conflict, and if actors are disposed to changing the situation, then the process of conflict transformation can take place.

This ties in with Lederach‘s (1995) description of potential steps in Conflict Transformation, which are as follows:    



Disputants are expected to reveal their concerns and feelings The mediator provides an atmosphere for hearing and identifying the issues and working on the relationship Through open-ended questions, a common agenda or list of issues to negotiate is created The mediator asks disputants to focus on one issue at a time; to separate their proposed solutions2 from their underlying interests, and to brainstorm a variety of opinions before they evaluate and move toward a solution Solutions can come together or in pieces. It is important to strive for the formulation of a final agreement between or among the disputants (Lederach, 1995).

Lederach highlights the importance of creating a final agreement which, ideally, all parties would sign and keep for their community to see and read. However this is not possible in all cases of conflict. In order for there to be a sense of ownership and acceptance, parties must perceive themselves as the transformers of the situation through changes in their own perceptions and, ultimately, their behaviors. At times, mediation and conflict transformation activities focus more on training for changing perceptions, feelings and behaviors than on the search for definitive solutions. Long term solutions are best achieved when parties are able to agree on what behaviors will be changed and what actions will be taken in order to transform the conflict into a healthy relationship.

At the beginning of the mediation process, it is normal for parties express anger as result of the antagonism existing among them. A wide variety of techniques exist for healing injured feelings and painful historical memories. These range from the use of art in its different forms to the process of deep dialogue where actors attempt to view, feel and think about the situation through the eyes of the ‗other.‘ These techniques, and the creation of a safe atmosphere for listening and establishing common issues are discussed below.

2

A person mediating a conflict will inevitably have opinions and potential ‗solutions‘ in mind. However, s/he must be fully aware of the parties‘ positions-- from where a great variety of opinions will emerge. The mediator must definitively separate his/her proposed solutions from those solutions sought by the parties. S/he must work as a facilitator of communication and, at most, a provider of suggestions, never as dictums giver.

Through respectful non-intrusive mediation, parties are more willing to participate in the transformation process.

19 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

Concerning Conflict Transformation * How can parties in conflict come to listen to each other – to see and feel the situation through the eyes of the ´other´? * What instruments and techniques are currently available in the literature for facilitating conflict transformation? * How can parties in conflict be brought into collaborative relations with one another? * How can empathy be generated? * How can common goals be established in order to bring parties into collaborative win-win relationships with one another? * How can a win-win situation be negotiated so that all sides are satisfied with the outcomes?

Listen to Each Other The Ideological-Structural Analysis perceives the construction of ‗ingroups‘ and ‗outgroups,‘ and the formation of stereotypical notions about each other as major obstacles to healthy intercommunal relationships. In order for misunderstandings among the parties to be clarified, all sides must be able to genuinely listen to each other. During this process, the mediator must provide a key ingredient: respect.3 Schmidt and Tannenbaum say that misunderstandings in communication limit the management of differences. They remind mediators to conduct encounters among the parties in such a way that parties can safely exchange ideas and feelings, maintaining the basic rule of respect for both self and the other.

One of the ways to bring differences into a problem-solving context is to ensure that the disputants can come together easily. If they can discuss their differences before their positions become crystallized, the chances of their learning from each other and arriving at mutually agreeable positions are increased. Having easy access to one another is also a way of reducing the likelihood that each will develop unreal stereotypes of the other (Schmidt and Tannenbaum, 2000: p. 21).

3

In the stage of listening-to-each-other, the mediator will suggest ‗respect‘ as a key rule. S/he can justify this rule on the Levels of Being explained by I-SA Theory making emphasis on the deeper level –Life Essencesince the others two levels make differences among individuals.

20 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

Dialogue sessions provide a venue for bringing parties together in a safe way, so that they may learn from the voice of the ‗other‘ the real differences, and the similarities between them. Here parties are able to reflect about each other and themselves before judging. Staff members at the Center for Dialogue and Human Wellbeing perceive dialogue as a very helpful and necessary instrument for soothing anger and for moving beyond fixed, stereotypical views and judgments about each other. Furthermore, it is important to unearth differences in interpretation that parties may hold about similar phenomena.

Schmidt and Tannenbaum note that: Perceptual factors exert their influence when the persons have different images of the same stimulus. Each will attend to, and select from the information available, those items which he deems important. Each will interpret the information in a somewhat different manner. Each brings to the data a different set of life experiences which cause him to view the information through a highly personal kind of filter. The picture which he gets therefore is unique to him. Thus it is not surprising that the same basic facts may produce distinctive perceptual pictures in the minds of different individuals (Schmidt and Tannenbaum, 2000: p. 6).

Cultural background and information acquired through personal experience stored in the memory of each party makes it logical that each will look at a situation in a different manner. Through experience, media, inherited prejudices, etc. individuals and communities form stereotypes about people, as well as particularistic interpretive schema concerning events. By the sides listening to each other during the dialogue process, parties attempt to go beyond stereotypes they hold about each ‗other.‘ They also attempt to understand how the other side is viewing and interpreting the issues found at the roots of the conflict at hand. In CDBH workshops and sessions, individuals entering into the critical juncture of dialogue learn how to listen respectfully in the attempt to understand the ‗other‘ and his/her interests and concerns through his/her own eyes, while consciously suspending judgment and evaluation of the interlocutor through one‘s own interpretive filters and values system.

(López, 2004).

Techniques for Conflict Transformation Our particularistic ways of communicating arise partially from our personal traits and characteristics; our cultures, however, also plays a role in shaping our strategies for problem solving, which arise in part from our personality, the context, and a whole system of knowing called our worldview. Coming to know our particularistic and our culturallyinfluenced communicative styles, and those of the interlocutor, helps us bridge the inevitable differences respectfully. According to LeBaron strategies for conflict 21 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

transformation should be developed in ways which complement the different ways in which humans learn.

As human beings we have emotional, imaginative, physical, and spiritual gifts that assist us in the central human task of getting along. Using them, we welcome diversity; we build a range of cultural ways of being and navigating conflict into our processes (LeBaron, 2002: p. 10).

When working in conflict transformation, it is important to remember that visual, kinesthetic and auditory-style learners will be present. As such, different approaches may be used which aim to embrace the different learning styles, as well as emotional intelligence, spiritual meaning making, physical movement, and creative imagination (LeBaron, 2002).

For dealing specifically with anger, Lederach (1995) suggests that art be utilized in order to express mind-set in a reconciliation process. Since art is an abstract way to express feelings, and its application is virtually limitless; almost anything and any situation can be used to do art, which helps bring feelings to the level of conscious awareness. Art can also give release to traumatic memories, to anger, and to many sorts of difficult psychoaffect, which otherwise may impede the dialogue process. Poetry and other types of artistic expression, such as painting, can be applied in the peacemaking processes. For example, if a mediation team has decided to use painting, participants should be told that the artistic activity requires no previous training, since its only objective is to express those barriers that cannot be explained by talking. This technique is sometimes used before bringing parties face-toface in order to help the diverse actors visualize their ideas, allowing them to have clarity at the time of talking to each other. Painting, poetry, music and other forms of art are very valuable strategies when the facilitator is able to apply them in conflict transformation situations.

Le Baron (2002) proposes a wide range of creative methods for bridging differences among participants. She believes that analysis, reason and logical problem solving are not the only skills needed for solving conflicts. Since conflicts are situated in particular cultural understandings, creative expressions of cultural and personal idiosyncrasies are highly valuable to the conflict transformation process. Creative tools range from the dramatic-like psychodrama (acting out situations for therapeutic reasons)-- to the ordinary—like the universal act of telling a story. Methods such as employing metaphors and rituals are suggested as well.

Through sharing stories, dreams, and other facets of ourselves, we clear our minds and hearts for effectively solving the problems that divide us (…) Bringing emotional, spiritual, physical, and imaginative resources to

22 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

conflict gives us many more routes to resolution or transformation. (…) These processes help us bridge cultural and personality differences; they help equalize power, they broaden the wisdom available for changing the form and dynamics of conflict (LeBaron, 2002: pp. 10-15).

LeBaron offers what she calls a creative relational approach to conflict transformation. The approach is holistic, and it is flexible enough to welcome surprises instead of eschewing them. The author warns that actors must suspend judgment if the wish to reach creative win-win solutions to conflicts, warning that ―judging will shut down creativity every time.

Engaging creative processes requires suspending judgment, at least temporarily, substituting a spirit of inquiry and openness to outcomes‖ (2002: 22).

For this author, conflict transformation must involve our whole selves – the physical self, the emotional self, the imaginative self and the spiritual self. In engaging the whole self, the author suggests the use of music or deep breaths as self-calming techniques. By using creative tools, distinct learning styles will be involved as well (Le Baron, 2000).

In their 2006 piece, Deutsche and Coleman suggest the use of analogy as a starting point for drawing possible solutions, stating that …analogy is the process of mapping the solution for one problem into a solution for another problem. This involves noticing that a solution to a problem from the past is relevant and then mapping the elements from that solution to the target problem. For example, a student learning about the structure of the atom enhances her understanding by drawing on her prior knowledge of the structure of the solar system (p. 261).

While there is definitely value in recognizing that people can learn from previous events and previous models of conflict transformation, CDBH staff would like to offer a word of caution concerning the temptation to apply solutions from one situation or context to another. It‘s important to remember that every situation is unique, and that historicocontextual, as well as needs analyses should be conducted for every conflict situation with which one might become involved, which is a point made very clearly by Stella TingToomey below.

Collaborative Relations Ting-Toomey (2001) speaks of three dimensions which are imperative for the successful management of intercultural differences and, at times, of conflict. The first requirement is having in-depth knowledge of the situation at hand. In working with the groups in conflict, the mediator must possess a heightened mindfulness concerning all manner of things, including the psycho-affective state of the actors involved. Furthermore, a major objective 23 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

of the facilitation process is to invite actors involved in the conflict to a heightened stage of mindfulness concerning themselves, their community, and the ‗others‘ with whom they are experiencing conflict. Greater self-awareness and heightened empathy with the other party go a long way toward transforming conflictual situations into peaceful ones.

In line with the Ideological-Structural Analysis‘ emphasis on listening deeply to each other in the critical juncture of communication, Ting-Toomey highlights the importance of cultivating and acquiring knowledge related to one‘s own culture and that of the interlocutor; she writes: Without culture-sensitive knowledge, disputants cannot learn to uncover the implicit ethnocentric lenses they use to evaluate behaviors in an intercultural conflict situation. Without knowledge, people cannot have an accurate perspective or reframe their interpretation of a conflict situation from the other´s culture standpoint (Ting-Toomey: 2001, pp. 174).

The knowledge acquired from the other parties in the conflict, as well as the behaviors and skills which emerge from this knowledge-- if well channeled-- will directly improve the probability for successful outcomes in the conflict transformation process. Ting-Toomey talks about a ―mindfulness dimension,‖ meaning that the mediator and the parties must practice mindful thinking in order to translate concrete knowledge into competent conflict practice. This means being mindful and double-checking the assumptions and the reactive emotions that we bring into a conflict situation. The author writes that in order… …to be a mindful interpreter of intercultural conflict, one must develop a holistic view of the critical factors that frame the antecedent, process, and outcome components of a conflict episode. Mindfulness means attending to one´s internal assumptions, cognition, and emotions and, at the same time, becoming attuned to the other´s conflict assumptions, cognition, and emotions (Ting-Toomey: 2001 p.177).

This suggestion deserves attention, since it focuses on the need for becoming aware and fully conscious of intercultural differences and, as the author suggests, in order to get to this point of consciousness, people can be trained to see the unfamiliar behavior from a nonjudgmental perspective (Ting-Toomey, 2001). This suggestion can help parties to not only to listen and to know each other, but to learn from each other as well, as all sides involved seek to draw out common solutions to the conflict at hand.

In addition to ‗mindful thinking,‘ Ting-Toomey suggests the technique of ‗mindful observation,‘ which involves a formula referred to as ‗O-D-I-S,‘ or ‗observe, describe, interpret, and suspend evaluation.‘ ‗Mindful listening‘ means learning to apply culturallysensitive concepts, such as ‗intergroup‘ or ‗out-group interaction styles,‘ in order to make 24 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

sense of conflict variation behaviors. Mindful listening can also be practiced by engaging in paraphrasing and making perception checking statements to be sure that one is understanding the interlocutor‘s communicative intention. Paraphrasing skills include two techniques: (a) verbally summarizing the content meaning of the speaker´s message in your own words and, (b) nonverbally echoing your interpretation of the emotional meaning of the speaker´s message (Ting-Toomey, 2001).

A further technique suggested by the author involves what she calls ‗mindful reframing.‘ This technique suggests that interlocutors aim to understand the context within which the conflict unfolds from an alternative perspective in order to better understand the conflictual behaviors present. She writes: Just as the frame may change your appreciation of a painting, creating a new context to understand the conflict behavior may redefine your interpretation and reaction to the behavior or conflict event (Ting-Toomey: 2001, p.181).

The author suggests that interlocutors seek to reframe, not only cultural dimensions –which can be understood as the acceptance of distinct world views, but also reframing personal and introspective dimensions as well. In summary, Ting-Toomey suggests the following steps for intercultural conflict management through what she calls the ‗dialogue approach: Apply an ‗ethno-relative lens‘ in order to better understand the conflict from the diverse points of view. Engage in ‗mindful observation‘ and ‗mindful reframing‘ of the problem and the context within which it unfolds. Invite parties to engage in an ‗invitational inquiry.‘ Seek power sharing solutions where all sides feel they have won or gained from the proposed outcomes. Seek to engage in ‗mutual-face giving.‘ Emphasize common interests. Seek creative options, and win -win outcomes (Ting-Toomey, 2001).

Seek to Elaborate Common Goals Ting-Toomey suggests emphasizing common interests as one of the primary strategies in conflict transformation. While this idea may seem straightforward, due to the nature of differences between the distinct parties‘ traditions, common goals are not always selfevident. Said commonalities can be identified by the parties through the dialogue process with the help of the mediator. When parties are unable to see the common ground between them, the mediator can sometimes begin by identifying common complaints, which may aid in the process of uncovering shared concerns and the underlying common goals. This can provide the basis for a solution to the common problems faced by the diverse actors.

25 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

When no common solution is possible, an alternative involves the establishment of a negotiated compromise, which may involve all actors committing to transforming the behaviors that maintain the conflict alive.

According to Deutsche and Coleman (2006) once trust has been established among the parties, the search for common goals can be promoted. The authors write that… …relationships can be further strengthened if the parties are able to build Identification-Based Trust [IBT].

Strong calculus-based trust is critical to any stable relationship, but IBT (based on perceived common goals and purposes, common values, and common identity) is likely to strengthen the overall trust between the parties and enhance the ability of the relationship to withstand conflict that may be relationship fracturing. If the parties perceive themselves as having strong common goals, values, and identities, they are motivated to sustain the relationship and find productive ways to resolve the conflict so that it does not damage the relationship (Deutsche & Coleman: 2006, p. 111).

However, when the situation is very tense, and sides are unable to come to an agreement easily, the mediator can present as objective an analysis as possible in the attempt to find converging zones of interest or values shared by the parties. These spaces of convergence can be used as a basis for proposing a solution, although the mediator must never give dictums.

Schmidt & Tannenbaum (2000) suggest that: If the disagreement is over goals or goal priorities, he –the mediator- may suggest that the parties take time to describe as clearly as possible the conflicting goals which are being sought. Sometimes arguments persist simply because the parties have not taken the trouble to clarify for themselves and for each other exactly what they do desire. Once these goals are clearly stated, the issues can be dealt more realistically

(p.20).

When the conflict is over values, Schmidt & Tannenbuam suggest that the mediator ask the following question in order to help individuals become more fully aware of the limitations to which their actions are subject: ―What do you think you can do about this situation?‖ (Schmidt and Tannenbaum, 2000). This question is suggested instead of something to the effect of asking ―What do you value?‖ which may provide less concrete information. The objective of asking very specific questions is to avoid ambiguous resolutions; the challenge for mediation is to know which strategies to use in order to help parties propose a solution in which both conflicting parties feel engaged and satisfied after the dialogue process.

As previously mentioned, definitive solutions may not emerge from the conflict transformation process; positive changes take place over time, with fits, starts and relapses.

26 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

From early on in the process, facilitators aim to promote a shift in the way that the parties view and feel about the situation and about each other. This shift in perspective should open the way for a range of behaviors that will progress toward transforming the conflict into a healthier relationship.

Again, the types of behaviors to be acquired are chosen by the stakeholders themselves, and not imposed by the facilitators. Thomas Schelling (1980) suggests that the uncovering of mutual needs and interests provides a solid basis for building collaboratively toward a solution by the parties in conflict. The author mentions Game Theory as a potential tool for conflict transformation, where sides can move from a ‗zero-sum‘ mentality to the search for a win-win solution to the underlying causes of the conflict. His writing suggests that Game Theory as a technique offers a sort of dramatic interest while, at the same time, pointing out how the discovery by the sides of their mutual dependence can lead to collaboration and mutual accommodation (Schelling, 1980).

Schelling discusses two stages of his approach, which are: 1) To identify the perceptual and suggestive element in the formation of mutually consistent expectations.

2) To identify some of the basic ―moves‖ that may occur in actual games of strategy, and the structural elements that may occur in actual games of ―strategy‖, and the structural elements that the moves depend on; it involves such concepts as ―threat‖, ―enforcement‖, and the capacity to communicate or destroy communication (Schelling, 1980, p. 84).

At the moment of drawing common conclusions and attempting to propose solutions, the facilitator can suggest procedures which facilitate problem solving. Here, Schmidt and Tannenbaum (2000) suggest separating the idea from the person who proposes it, when referring to the different options given by the parties in conflict. ―This increases the chance of examining the idea critically and objectively without implying criticism of the person‖ (Schmidt and Tannenbaum, 2000: p.22).

Seeking a Win-win Solution In order to achieve long term solutions, parties must be able to discuss their differences as well as their commonalities. While sharing points of divergence, the conflicting parties can be trained to listen with understanding rather than reacting with judgmental evaluation.

Differences can sometimes be enriching in the sense that they can bring a greater variety of solutions to problems and allow for a deep testing of the proposed solutions. According to Schmidt and Tannenbaum (2000) the mediator plays a vital role in encouraging the 27 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

perceptual shift from the idea of an ultimate ―winner‖ and a ―loser,‖ which can be viewed as the search for win-win outcomes with which all sides are essentially satisfied.

Ting-Toomey (2001) provides the core characteristics for a win-win conflict orientation, which are as follows: * * * * * * * * * *

Respect toward cultural differences Identity validation A collaborative attitude Sensitivity to the context and history of the conflict Discovery of mutual-interests and goals Uncovering of deeper conflict needs and assumptions Collaboration, giving and taking A willingness to seek compromise Practicing mindful conflict transformation skills Willingness to change

If the aforementioned steps have been carried out successfully; if the parties have listened to each other, understood, and learned from each other; if they have found common goals in their converging zones of values and feelings, the next question asks how peace among the parties is going to be maintained on into the future.

Breakstone et al believe that empathy is an essential ingredient for long term transformation, stating that: Empathy is the ability to feel what the others are feeling. Empathy is the identification with, and the understanding of another‘s situation, emotions, and motives. In other words, it is the ability to see the world through that person´s eyes. Empathy influences us to treat others with respect and kindness; in turn it reduces violence and cruelty to others.‖ Breakstone et al, 2008 p. 31).

The authors offer some activities to be applied in helping groups reach a point of empathy with the ‗other.‘ The first activity is inward-looking, suggesting that as people gain greater awareness of their own emotions, they will be more able to be empathetic with their counterparts (Breakstone et al, 2008). This first activity includes the use of ‗emotion words‘ as vocabulary, reinforcing the value placed on emotional awareness in the process of generating empathy. An additional strategy for increasing empathy invites people to recognize the physical cues of their own emotional states and the emotional state of others.

The authors write that ―the Emotional States Activity helps [people] to recognize how their emotional states affect their bodies. It also helps them to recognize the physical cues their 28 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

bodies are giving them to indicate their overall emotional state or how they are feeling about a specific issue‖ (Breakstone et al, 2008, p. 38). The activity can complement the skills proposed by LeBaron (2002) above, since they include distinct scenarios and games that incorporate the use of the distinct ways of learning. Breakstone et al suggest that these creative strategies can be applied in schools and/or in social groups formed after the processes of resolution in order to maintain peace among societies.

In areas where conflict among the diverse groups has been the historical norm, empathy is definitively needed in order to live peacefully. A key to generating empathy between societies involves focusing on the new generations, since generating empathy among the young people can help promote a generational change in the direction of peace. Where deep and painful conflict has been entrenched, education for empathy can be very valuable.

For example, Johnson and Smith (1993) talk about a project called ―Creating Empathy and Equity,‖ which involves a program to educate children about prejudice and stereotyping.

Education for Empathy or Education for Peace should include learning how to listen and understand each other. It needs to also help build a culture of awareness about the creation of stereotyped perspectives in order to try to avoid them. Johnson and Smith suggest that children and young people in conflict zones can, over time, potentially transform a historical conflict into a progressive understanding and tolerance.

Final reflections In light of the brief review of current conflict transformation literature provided above, the present segment offers some final reflections on the central questions posed earlier on in the article.

CDBH staff view peace, not only as the absence of war, but as a goal constructed by the distinct members of the society which will provide them wellbeing and the ability to live peacefully and respectfully among others. Peace is not achieved if only the elites create formal agreements. For deep and lasting peace, members of the community come to live and interact with respect and empathy.

A

brief

summary

of

important

points

is

provided

below:

29 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

 











Ruiz León (2014)

In situations of normativized violence, work beyond the idea that conflict is a normal state of human affairs.

Respect is a key rule. All people, no matter their religion, cultural identity or ethnicity share the same levels of the being. The Absolute Life Essence exists within everyone and respecting it is paramount in order to sustain peace.

Dialogue sessions create safe spaces for expressing ideas, concerns, fears, etc.

Every participant is able to share their views and to be heard. Parties can find common beliefs and needs so than they can formulate common goals.

Art and other creative tools. Each person learns differently. Distinct methods have to be used when dealing with feelings since there are visual, auditory and kinesthetic persons.

Knowledge: Before judging another, coming to self-knowledge, concerning our thoughts, feelings and actions, allows us to become more aware of these similar attributes and processes occurring within the ‗other.‘ Similar conditions: Mediators can help conflicting parties uncover similar conditions as an incentive for working together toward the achievement of conflict transformation.

Nonjudgmental perspective. The mediator must assume a nonjudgmental

Many view conflict as a normal process among human beings. This idea exists because conflict appears all too often at the distinct levels of the world society–individually, locally, nationally and internationally. In a community, normativized conflict doesn´t allow formulations for wellbeing to emerge, since it may dull the alarm response among people.

When conflict has become normativized, people may become passive, possibly for fear of going against the norms of violence or, more simply, for fear for their own survival.

In the context of normativized violence, fear, anger, trauma and resentment are going to be obstacles for letting people uncover the way out of the cycle of conflict and violence. The role for mediation is to help people be fully aware of the needed changes, to allow for a sense of empowerment, and to facilitate the envisioning of something more desirable than the current state of affairs. The new behaviors must be based on mutual respect and a commitment to sustained peace—even when old injuries and angers flare again. The way forward should be delineated by the parties themselves, involving people from all levels of society. The Center for Dialogue and Human Wellbeing offers the Ideological-Structural Analysis as tool for analyzing both the context and the behaviors that are blocking the way for a healthy relation among communities.

30 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz Le贸n (2014)

Conclusion In a world where everybody is coming ever more together, every single person has the capacity to generate peace wherever she/he interacts. The construction for peace can begin from offering our generosity, listen respectfully the others, accepting different world views and working within our societies toward creating and sustaining healthy relations. Each person in the communities should know that her/his beliefs are important, as well as understanding that other persons and other traditions also have very valuable insights from where we can learn and grow. Inside every person, within every community, the shared Life Essence is present in and among all. Communities would do well to genuinely understand the human diversity found among their members as both wealth and gift.

31 Centro de Di谩logo y Bienestar Humano Tecnol贸gico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua M茅xico

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

REFERENCES Bercovitch, Jacob. (2007). ―International Conflicts. Theory, Practice and Developments‖ Peacemaking in international conflict: methods and techniques US Institute of Peace Press: Washington DC, pp. 163 -194.

Breakstone, Steve; Dreiblatt Michael; Dreiblatt Karen, (2008) ―How to Stop Bulling and Social Aggression: Elementary Grade Lessons and Activities That Teach Empathy, Friendship and Respect‖, Corwin Press Deutsch, Morton & Peter T Coleman. (2006) ―The handbook of conflict resolution: theory and practice‖ John Willey and Sons.

Galtung, Johan (1996) ―Peace by peaceful means: peace and conflict, development and civilization‖ International Peace Research Institute, Oslo Johnson, Lauri and Smith, Sally. (1993) ―Dealing with diversity through multicultural fiction: library-classroom partnerships‖, American Library Association, Michigan University LeBaron, Michelle (2002) ―Bridging troubled waters: conflict resolution from the heart‖ Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

Lederach, John Paul (1995). ―Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures‖ Syracuse University Press.

López C., Carolina. Civilisational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace. Book project.

Centre for Civilisational Dialogue, University of Malaya and Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano, Tec de Monterrey. Tentative Publisher: Routledge-Curzon. Expected Date of Publication: 2010 or 2011.

López C., Carolina. Ideological-Structural Analysis of Global Ideological Reproduction: The case of Mexican educational policy. Tentative Publisher: Zed Books. Expected Date of Publication: 2010 or 2011.

López C., Carolina; ―México: Political, Socioeconomic and Cultural Dimensions, An essay…‖ in Latin American Panorama: International Colloquium on Latin American Studies in Asia. 29-31, December 2008. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. In Press at Penerbit UKM Press. Expected date of Publication: 2010.

32 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

López, Carolina, ―G/local Challenges and Changes: Human Rights in post-Merdeka Malaysia,‖ in Malaysian Politics and Civil Society. Terence Gomez (Ed), United Nations‘ Research Institute for Social development. Routledge-Curzon. (2007).

López, Carolina. (2005a). Ideological-Structural Analysis Micro and Macro Theory: Antología de Escritos Teóricos. Librerías Tecnológico de Monterrey: México.

López, Carolina. (2005b). "Ideological-Structural Analysis Micro and Macro-theory of Intercivilizational Dialogue" Mohd. Hazim Shah (ed). The Malaysian Journal of Science and Technology Studies. Vol. 2. No. 1.

López, Carolina, (2004) ―Ideological-Structural Analysis Micro and Macro - Theory of Intercivilizational Dialogue‖ Malaysian Journal of Science and Technology Studies Vol.2, 2004, pp. 2-44.

López, Carolina. " Security, Human Rights and Wellbeing: Malaysia as a mirror of g/local dynamics and contestation" en Investigación Multidisciplinaria.Volumen 3, Número 1, Primavera 2005.

López, Carolina. (2004). "The Meeting of the British and Malay Civilizational Traditions: A brief history." in Investigación Multidisciplinaria. Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring 2004.

López C., Carolina." Human Rights Discourses and Practices at the Global, State and Local Levels: Rights Narratives and Contestation in Malaysia and the Global Milieu." Working Paper Series of the Institute of Malaysian and International Studies No. 8. March 2004.

National University of Malaysia Press.

López C., Carolina. "The British Presence in the Malay World: A meeting of civilizational traditions," Sari Journal of the Malay World and Civilization. Vol. 19. pp. 3-33. July 2001.

López C. Carolina. " Ideological-Structural Analysis of External Influences on Current Human Rights Discourses in Malaysia," Akademika: Journal of the Social Sciences and Humanities. No. 59, pp. 53-73. July 2001.

López, Carolina. (1997). Integrated Ideological-Structural Analysis of Global Ideological Reproduction: The case of Mexican educational policy. (Doctoral Dissertation. Northern Arizona University).

López, Carolina. "An Overview of Psycholinguistic and Second Language Acquisition Research: Implications and Applications for the Target Language Classroom," Miyagi Gakuin Journal, Vol. 71, July 1990.

Saliha Hassan & López C., Carolina Ideological-Structural Analysis of Human Rights Discourses and Practices in Malaysia: Through the Mahathir Era. Tentative Publisher: 33 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia

Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace

Ruiz León (2014)

ISEAS Press: University of Singapore or Routledge-Curzon.

Publication: 2010 or 2011.

Tentative Date of

Saliha Hassan & Carolina López C. (2005). "Human Rights in Malaysia: Globalisation, National Governance and Local Responses," in Capturing Globalisation: Global, State and Local Responses. Ojendal, Joakim & Loh, Kok Wah,(eds.) GESEAS: Swedish Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Schelling, Thomas C, (1980) ―The strategy of conflict‖, Harvard University Press, United States of America.

Schmidt, Warren H. and Robert Tannenbaum. (2000). ―Management of Differences.‖ Harvard Business Review on Negotiation and Conflict Resolution. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, pp. 1-26.

Ting-Toomey, Stella (2001) ―Managing intercultural Publications, California.

conflict

effectively‖ Sage

34 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua México

Centre for Dialogue & Transformation University of Malaya Malaysia