We need to talk about Conflict Transformation Theory...

[Part of the ‘Transfiguring Conflict’ Project]

I think it’s time we talk about Conflict Transformation Theory. Conflict Transformation Theory is primarily a theory of community renewal, taking communities in deeply rooted conflicts and transforming them so that conflict can take place peacefully, rather than being destructive. However, through my engagement with this theory, and its praxis in the Church of England, one specific problem becomes apparent; Conflict Transformation Theory struggles in the context of asymmetric conflict. That is a conflict where resources, weaponry or voice is markedly disproportionate in some way.

John Paul Lederach, in his extensive text Building Peace, sets out how mediators and peacekeepers ought to think about and engage in conflict transformation. He sets out 4 specific features unique to Conflict Transformation Theory:

Relationship – focusing on forming, empowering and growing relationships within conflictual communities, to promote ones which react more peacefully to ‘contradictions’. 

Encounter – to allow space for conflicting parties and individuals to meet together and begin to engage with one another. No deep connections are made here, but foundations for deeper dialogue are built. 

Acknowledgement – takes place as a result of encounter. Here, parties begin to recognise one another and listen to each other’s stories. It is from this place that shifts in assumptions can begin to take place. 

Disruption – is not explicitly mentioned by Lederach, but is the transformative part of this theory, resulting from acknowledgement. Here, assumptions, power structures and behaviours are disrupted to make way for new peaceful ones. 

What form these factors take is designed to be fluid and mouldable to each specific conflict situation, and as such each deployment of this theory is unique and context specific. 

These features together denote a theory which aims to produce peaceful communities. In its essence, Conflict Transformation Theory is about the creation of unique spaces where encounter can take place, acknowledgement facilitated, and disruption held, in order to transform a protracted violence into something more peaceful and sustainable. 

There is a problem, however, when this framework is put into practice. This can be seen perhaps most clearly in the conflict within the Church of England surrounding LGBTI+ inclusion. Conflict Transformation Theory has – though not always explicitly – informed the formulation of ‘Good Disagreement’, an Anglican specific incarnation of this theory built to bring the current conflict to some reconciliation. However, this praxis has been seen to be at least problematic. As such, the shortfalls of Good Disagreement could indicate potential problems with Conflict Transformation more generally.

The culmination of the Good Disagreement process so far came with the release of the Synod paper affectionately known as ‘the Bishop’s Report’, which set out the next steps for the church at the end of a 3 year long ‘listening process’. This listening process was intended to encapsulate Lederach’s ideas about encounter and acknowledgement, where people from all sides of the debate would meet together to discuss and share their experiences. However, this report was not received well… at all. 

The Church Times reported that: 

“members of the General Synod have reacted with anger and frustration to the conclusions and “tone” of the report… while conservative Anglicans, and campaigners against gay marriage in the C of E, have expressed concern about its “ambiguous” recommendations.”

This feeling of frustration springs from a feeling that the report did not represent the conversations that had gone before it. Jayne Ozanne, a Synod member and campaigner for better LGBTI+ inclusion in the Church, reflected that: 

"There is no evidence in this report that the Bishops have listened to the Shared Conversations, save their own voices and that of the Anglican Communion.”

This vulnerability that Jayne talks about is required if acknowledgement is to take place, however, much of the anger surrounding the report draws on this lack of taking the vulnerability seriously; a feeling that the writers of the report did not listen to those who took part. 

I want to suggest that it is here that the distance between Conflict Transformation Theory’s theory and praxis can be seen; in a breakdown in listening. 

It might be at this point that we suggest that this is not a problem inherent with the theory, but rather that the theory has simply failed. However, this feels short-cited. At no point had the Church suggested that the listening process was a failure, nor did it actively stray from the Good Disagreement process in its actions. Instead, the gap took place within the process, in the conversations. As such, it is probably fair to say that whatever happened to knock the conflict transformation process off course here, happened within the constraints of the theory, rather than in departure of it. The question is, then, where was it that the distance between the theory and its praxis emerged? 

This is a massive question, and one which I want to unpick in more detail over the coming months. But, at this point I want to suggest that Conflict Transformation Theory is not watertight. Rather, some of its key foundations – that is the need for encounter and acknowledgement – have been weakened to the point where reconciliation is not offered equally. This is pretty condemning, perhaps, as I am suggesting that the very thing that allows this theory to be transformative are the things which prevent it from working well. However, within the Church of England this has certainly been the case. 

I want to suggest that this unwillingness to listen occurs as a result of politics surrounding recognition. It is not due to any great malice or childishness on the behalf of those doing the listening, but rather as a holding back or timidity towards a genuine acknowledgement of the other. Judith Butler talks at length about this in her work surrounding Performative theory and her analysis of the way we think about language. Here, our willingness to offer - or restrict - recognition denotes something of the construction of worth, or reality. That those who are not recognised are in some way not real, not worthy, not constructed as having a voice. This performative politics is pervasive of all of our social interactions with one another, with each of us navigating webs of recognition, reality, privilege and violence with each encounter we have. However, within asymmetric conflicts like that within the Church of England, this navigation is framed within wider narratives surrounding salvation, sin and truth, encoded with heteronormative narratives focusing on correct behaviour and correct bodies; often excluding those who identify as LGBTI+ from receiving full recognition.  

This approach to thinking about issues of encounter and acknowledgement suggest that these ‘gifts’, facilitated through the peace-keeping process, are mediated by power structures both within specific institutions and in wider society. This is problematic as it is these power structures which tend to be the places from which the peace process is enacted and defined. It is those in power who facilitate the listening processes and those in power who write the reports. This constricts those who are socially constructed as subaltern; though this does not necessarily only include those who are LGBTI+, but positions and identities across the whole spectrum of opinion surrounding inclusion. It is this, I want to suggest, that the distance between conflict transformation theory’s theory and praxis is created; in the use of power to withhold recognition, limiting the reconciliation that is on offer. 

This is a rather condemning statement to make. That it is because of the need to acknowledge that conflict transformation becomes stifled. This begs the questions; how should we understand Power in this context? How does this actually constrict conflict transformation? And how can this be fixed? 

It is indeed time to talk about Conflict Transformation…  

-------

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

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

J. P. Lederach. Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures. (New York: Syracuse University Press). 1995. 

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

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

G. Norvic. ‘GS 2055: Marriage and Same Sex Relationships after the Shared Conversations -  A Report from the House of Bishops. House of Bishops. Jan, 23.

H. Williams. ‘Critics call Bishops’ gay report ungodly’. Church Times. Feb, 03. 2017. Accessed on Feb, 06. 2017.