Transfiguring Conflict: Project Abstract

The ‘Conflict Transfiguration’ project is based on research from my undergraduate dissertation which aimed to investigate the gaps within Conflict Transformation Theory when applied to asymmetric community conflict. I wanted to unpick why conflict transformation – though having good intentions – rarely leads to the outcome it intends in contexts where power is unbalanced. There is a wealth of modern examples of these types of conflicts stretching from the extremely violent clashes in Israel/Palestine, to subtle violence and conflict within small communities or families. As a result, any peace theory that is to be applicable today must be able to cope well in asymmetric settings at all social/political levels.

In recent decades, it can be argued that issues of identity, relationship and personhood have become far more important to the way we talk about and enter into conflict. Conflict Transformation – conceptualised most famously by Johanne Galtung and John Paul Lederach – is a peace theory which aims to deal explicitly with these aforementioned ‘new’ issues, rooting itself in interactions between peoples and a desire to rebuild conflictual relationships.

However, recent case studies relating to the use of Conflict Transformation type processes calls the theory into question. For this project I have looked specifically at the conflict within the Church of England concerning the inclusion of LGBTI+ Christians in the church. This conflict is characteristic of the conflicts which Conflict Transformation was built to deal with, with the conflict highlighting the tension between identity and diversity against traditional values and claims of ‘truth’. With Conflict Transformation theory being re-formed into the Christian peace theories ‘Good Disagreement’ and ‘Indaba’. As such, I have used this case study to investigate why Conflict Transformation – in it’s praxis – fails to offer sufficient reconciliation in this conflict, and what this means for the theory theoretically. To do this, I used Judith Butler’s ‘Performative Theory’ to identify the gaps within the praxis of Good Disagreement, and resultingly Conflict Transformation Theory.

From this investigation I was able to make 3 specific observations.

1)      It is the use of Power within institutions and social interactions that is creating the distance between conflict transformation theory and its praxis; this problem is endemic within asymmetric conflicts where one power is able to dominate the peace process.

2)      This use of power has become problematic in this context, primarily in response to the perceived threats created by disagreements rooted in issues of recognisability, prompting certain parties to use their power to limit the peace process.

3)      Conflict Transformation Theory does not have the tools currently to call this distance out or prevent it. This must be altered, perhaps through the incitement of theological ideas like ‘Kenarchy’.

In this ‘Project’, I will be posting a series of blog posts setting out this work in more detail, digging into some of the theoretical questions, and as a platform for discussion about the issues in relating to the Church, LGBTI+ issues and Peace Theory more generally. 

---------

A. Atherton & A. Goddard. Good Disagreement: Grace and Truth in a Divided Church. (Oxford: Lion Hudson). 2015. 

P. Groves & A. Parry Jones. Living Reconciliation. (London: SPCK). 2014. 

J. P. Lederach. Building Peace: Sustaining Reconciliation in Divided Societies. (Washington: United Studies Institute of Peace Press). 1997. 

J. Butler. Excitable Speech: The Politics of the Performative. (New York: Routledge). 1997.

J. Butler. Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. (London: Verso). 2004. 

K. Rupesinghe. Conflict Transformation [Reader]. (New York: St. Martin’s Press). 1995.