Conflict Transformation in Asymmetric conflicts: A Feminist Perspective

[Part of the 'Transfiguring Conflict' Project]

In an earlier post concerning Conflict Transformation Theory, I located a key ‘problem’ within the theory’s relationship with power structures present in conflicts. The behaviour of these power structures, I suggested, had the potential to exploit gaps surrounding encounter and acknowledgement… This statement probably requires some fleshing out! 

Conflict Transformation deals specifically with those conflicts which exist outside of the traditional Realist understanding of War (that is, warfare between specific nation states over resources like land or trade routes). Instead, Conflict Transformation concentrates on intranational conflicts - those which involve groups outside of the main state structure, though the state can and often does play a role in most examples - based on issues surrounding identity, recognition and political access. John Paul Lederach pays particular attention to this communal – as opposed to State centred – form of conflicts, drawing on the specific place of ethnic, clan, religious and regional identities which drive these conflicts forward.

Lederach argues that these identity rooted motivations – or, conversely, descriptors -  for violence are not unique to modern warfare. They have, he suggests, always been present within violence for as long as these identities have been constructible. Here, distinct groups who often live in close proximity, share – or at least have parallel – histories, traditions and political structures. In this diverse setting, differences and power imbalances arise, inciting identity specifies as central to differences, hostilities and prejudices; specific identity markers are solidified and projected as superior in comparison to some known, identifiable, Other. It is here, Lederach argues, where a conflict becomes protracted or intractable (Lederach, 1997:14). These forces or situations have always been present within conflict. However, within the ‘new wars’ of the last 100 years (excluding the Cold War and two ‘World Wars’), these issues have taken on an “immediacy of the experience” (Lederach, 1997:13); it is the centrality of identity to the narratives surrounding violence which constitutes the ‘newness’ of these conflicts.

I want to suggest – not unsurprisingly – that the conflicts described above do not have to be limited to identities linked to territorial or nation-based distinctions. Rather, I think it is fair to suggest that those tensions rooted in social identifiers – like class, gender, sexuality and ideology/theology – are also able to be defined as ‘conflicts’ within Lederach’s understanding. As such, Conflict Transformation Theory can – and already does – relate to those (often) non-lethal conflicts rooted in issues of recognition, structural violence and access which are not linked exclusively to some clan-like identity.

Dubouet, in their 2006 Berghof Report investigating conflict transformation and intervention, writes:

 “When conflicts are referred to as asymmetric, vertical (Galtung 1996) or unbalanced (Curle 1971), it usually means that they are not only about ideological, religious or ethnic cleavages, but also and most importantly about the objective, structural repartition of power between the different contentious groups”. (Dubouet, Nov 2006:16).

By expanding what counts as violence to include more social tensions, I also want to broaden how we think about ‘Power’. Here, including issues like gender, sexuality or disability within what is meant by conflict brings into focus more subtle performances of power, particularly issues of privilege, normative constructions of existence and inclusion. In recent years, confrontations between these expressions of power and reforming forces have led to an interesting but usually forgotten form of conflict due to it’s non-lethal and often silenced characteristics. It is in this particular context that Conflict Transformation Theory struggles, due to the intensity of the performance of power in these contexts, and the limited voice of those outside the normative power structures.

Judith Butler, in her work relating to Performative Theory suggests that this tendency to ignore, silence or overpower is rooted in the construction of the other as essentially unrecognisable (Butler, 1997: 5). The theory is based on the claim that:

“one comes to ‘exist’ by virtue of the fundamental dependency on the addresses of others. One ‘exists’ not only by being recognised, but… by being recognisable”. (Butler, 1997:5)

It is the idea of ‘recognisability’ which is of particular concern here. Recognisability is rooted in the fact that humans are fundamentally vulnerable and dependent upon the acknowledgements of others for their very existence as people – normatively (Butler, 1997:29).

As a result, Performative Theory allows us to identify key binaries within a set community, institution or debate. The most pervasive of these being that between those whose identities are constructible, and those whose are not; those who are human and those who are non-human; recognisable and unrecognisable.

Within Conflict Transformation Theory these binaries cause a very specific problem as they ‘allow’ for certain parties to ignore or not see others. This blinkeredness is a problem because it limits the willingness for those in power to listen to the grievances of others. Within reconciliation in the ‘new’ context, this problem is heightened because – primarily – reconciliation to any significant extent becomes impossible when one side is unable – and/or unwilling – to recognise the validity of the experiences of the other, especially when the motivations behind these tensions are rooted in something as fundamental as identity and community.  

By ‘allowing’ those in power to behave in certain ways, the peace process is bound up by the construction of some as unrecognisable. In this political context the powerful are seen to be justified – according to their own politics – when they do not encounter or acknowledge their enemy and are legitimate when they continue to prioritise their own needs over others.  Those ‘enemies’ are not offered the same platform exclusively because they are not ‘real’, there are not included within the society, and as such are not automatically offered the same spaces as those who do (Butler, 1997: 29). Butler argues that demands for recognition by those currently non-human are often met with hostility, with the humans refusing to give up their previous constructions of ‘good’ and ‘real’ – their automatic social hegemony – and being unwilling to begin the mourning and transition process required for more inclusion to take place (Butler, 2004: 38-40). Conflict Transformation – thus – becomes either impossible or incomplete.

Asymmetry is paramount here, primarily because conflicts that are characterised by a significant imbalance of power are also the ones in which the other is the most systematically constructed as unrecognisable. As such it is far harder to offer these groups a voice or get those in power to listen to them; the more the other is seen as non-human, the harder it becomes to revive them.

More problematic still is when the reconciliation process is done primarily by those within the power structure(s). This is because it is too easily to go through the process whilst limiting, or even ignoring the insights and frustrations of those who are unrecognisable. Resultingly, a peace can be reached which is starkly contradictory to the aims and needs of some of the conflict partners. This is – of course – not always the case. Many peace processes take place with great success. However, the vulnerability and precariousness of Conflict Transformation ought to be noticed and dealt with, especially as asymmetric conflicts are likely to continue to exist.

Thus, by bringing into focus the binaries surrounding conflicts and the implications these have for reconciliation, feminist scholarship is able to offer interesting critiques for the peace process, and hold the practice of reconciliation to higher standards, perhaps closing the spaces which currently allow exploitation to take place. I next want to locate this within a specific context, to explain how these gaps operate in a real-life context, and the effects these might have on different actors within the conflict.

-----

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

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

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

V, Dubouet. ‘Transitions from Violence to Peace: Revisiting Analysis and Intervention in Conflict Transformation’. Berghof Report No. 15. Nov, 2006. http://conflictrecovery.org/bin/berghof_20nov2006.pdf