l ARTICLES

A Conversation Between Conflict Resolution and Social Movement Scholars

BETH ROY

JOHN BURDICK

LOUIS KRIESBERG

There are scholars ofconflict resolution and scholars ofsocial move­ments, and rarely do the twain meet. Continuing an in-person dia­logue, three scholars whose work touches both fields consider the lessons each has to contribute to the other. The paper explores power dynamics, activism solidarity, negotiation strategies, and more.

There are scholars of conflict resolution and scholars of social move­ments, and rarely do the twain meet. In this bifurcation, we are no):

unusual. Victims to academic apartheid, the specialties tend to their own kitchen, meeting politely, perhaps, in a corridor here or there but rarely engaging in more than superficial cross-dialogue.

And why should we? Do these two lenses on the world have anything to

show each other? What they have in common is that they examine a mode of action intended to make the world a better place-"better," of course, as beheld in the eye of the analyst. But each has territory to defend, regarding itselfas the center of the universe, the primary remedy to social ills. In prac­tice, conflict resolvers preach respect and kindness; social movement activists pride themselves on courageous confrontation. Thus, at least at first glance, a disconnect between these two approaches to world improvement seems inevitable, their strategies noncontiguous and irreconcilable. Not sur­prisingly, these differences track muddy footprints into scholarly kitchens.

CONFLlCf REsOLUTION QUARTERLY, vol. 27, no. 4, ·Summer 2010 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 347 and rheAssociarion for Conflicr Resolurion· DOl: 1O.lOOZ/crq.20002

L- ~. ,,"',,''1' ( min" (*fT**'" 348 ROY, BURDICK, KRIESBERG

Academics are generally genteel, and so the starkness of this character­ization may be disputed (politely, of course). Each of the three authors of this paper works in one of the two fields while having a strong interest in the other. Louis Kriesberg is a sociologist with roots in movements for social justice who theorizes conflict dynamics and their constructive reso­lution. John Burdick is an anthropologist who studies grassroots move­ments and has for many years been associated with an academic conflict resolution program. Beth Roy is a sociologist who studies conflicts involv- . ing issues of identity (race and religion) and mediates conflicts within and among activist organizations. We started a dialogue in person, in a public forum at Syracuse University, and determined to continue it in text, look­ing at what the two fields of action and inquiry that concern us have to say to one another. Our purpose is twofold: on the one hand to steel the spine of conflict resolution scholars to engage issues of asymmetry and domina­tion, and on the other to open the minds of social movement analysts to the potential for discovering conflict resolution as a powerful tool for social change. Meanwhile but not incidentally, we forthrightly join long-standing claims to the value of multidisciplinary scholarship, bolstered by urgent needs for social justice activism in the domains of both world and academy.

The Two Fields

The fields are not parallel, offering little overlap among participants and scholars. We start, therefore, by taking a look at three contexts in which to ground our dialogue: the history ofeach field; their orientation toward con­struction of knowledge, particularly the relationship between theory and practice; and the relationship between scholarship and subjects ofattention.

History

The field of conflict resolution (CR) has evolved considerably since it began to emerge in the late 1950s and expanded greatly in the 1980s (Kriesberg, 2008). Its early emergence was based on research and theoriz­ing about how conflicts were waged and alternatives that are relatively peaceful and constructive. Lessons from practice were drawn from labor relations and international diplomacy. The great surge in conflict resolu­tion practice began in the late 1970s. It took the form ofalternative dispute resolution (ADR), in which mediators helped solve local disputes; this alternative to judicial proceedings was in keeping with the societal changes

CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY· DOl: IO.lO02fcrq

Between Conflict

brought about by the social J

Training and experience in neg tionalized and diffused in sociel tion to transforming conflicts achieving equitable and enduri conflict management. The prac len,ce became particularly imp< flict resolution field is now hig array of conflicts. In our discu conflict resolution scholarship t related to negotiation and me broader aspects of the field.

The field of social moveme and theorizing in the 1930s an, crowds and riots. Social move marked by emotions and irratiOi ruptive and destructive. The fiel social movements came to be change. In the United States thi~

gle and, in the colonial world, other movements arose in the 1 them the student, antiwar, and cause and heavy, repressive resI resorting to violence as a neces recent decades, however, the effi lyzed and demonstrated and m<

Theory, Practice, and Knowledge

Conflict resolution researchers scholarship, whether in the fo: demic institution or training Social movement scholars, hov movements, and whatever acti, often approach their subject research and practice/experienc ing for activism is usually done nongovernmental organization:

These differing orientations the construction ofknowledge.

* ,. ',i'... (.11. Z,l$ftI4A AMl4(A4jM:"c",l$JL,i/iP , t.t"",.j-Ab,.JMO!"'"

./"'

...':l":':::';:;:;:-i~--=.~ ....... " c,~,",..._, ..__~.;tL."" .."""",:- ~..;,;';;:'~f~;

:.~

~tttf"~trttn"wrv - I

I

Between Conflict Resolution and Social Movement Scholars 349

LCter­ brought about by the social movements of the 1950s through 1970s. )rs of Training and experience in negotiating and mediating began to be institu­~st in tionalized and diffused in society. Then the field expanded by giving atten­:s for tion to transforming conflicts and getting adversaries to the table, to reso­ achieving equitable and enduring agreements, and to building systems of iove­ conflict management. The practice ofpeacebuilding following terrible vio­hflict lence became particularly important after the Cold War ended. The. con­volv­ flict resolution field is now highly diverse in the kind of work done in an 1 and array of conflicts. In our discussion here, we give particular attention to

:ublic conflict resolution scholarship that is still focused narrowly on the practices fook­ related to negotiation and mediation, but we do not ignore the much ;0 say broader aspects of the field. ~pine The field of social movements (SM) has also evolved greatly. Research i·[una- and theorizing in the 1930s and 1940s drew on earlier work pertaining to Iits to crowds and riots. Social movements were a form of collective behavior iocial marked by emotions and irrationality. Such behavior was often viewed as dis-: I

,ding ruptive and destructive. The field changed greatly in the 1950s and 1960s as rgent social movements came to be seen as· the great drivers of needed social ferny. change. In the United States this was first manifested in the civil tights strug­I

Ii gle and, in the colonial world, in struggles for national liberation. Many

other movements arose in the United States and around the world, amongI them the student, antiwar, and women's movements. The nobility of the cause and heavy, repressive responses have sometimes been used to justifY!and resorting to violence as a necessary method of struggle (Fanon, 1961). In

~h to recent decades, however, the effectiveness ofnonviolent action has been ana­

Icon­ lyzed and demonstrated and more frequently used (Sharp, 2005). land

rion Theory, Practice, and Knowledge .

! Conflict resolution researchers often combine practice of some sort with scholarship, whether in the form of intervention work outside their aca­!

~e it demic institution or training new practitioners within their program. Social movement scholars, however strong their sympathies for particular rs.os

lorlZ- movements, and whatever activism individual scholars may take on, more vely often approach their subject as analysts, the relations between theory/ r

labor research and practice/experience being more tenuous. Where it exists, train­ing for activism is usually done outside academic institutions, conducted by

~~~~ nongovernmental organizations associated with specific camps ofpartisans.Ithis These differing orientations toward action are reflected in approaches to j

rges the construction ofknowledge. SM activists generally do not read academic

! !

CONFLICT REsOLUTION QUARTERLY" 001: lO.l002/crq

I " £ @iUa.. To, ,.," -.,.i"......+.,,',., ...,r ~ n';j1'Iff ;;.

I

t- n__,,",stenfetrtr h $wr7Sr

350 RDY, BURDICK, KRIESBERG

analyses of social movements (Bevington and Dixon, 2005). Self-defined CR practitioners may read some of the literature in that field, but many people engaged in conflict resolution privilege experiential knowledge, gained on the ground or through practical training, some materials for which may draw on academic research and theory (Polkinghorn et al., 2008).

A key contrast between the scholarly fields of CR and Social Move­ments is that the latter has a more varied, complex relation to practice.One may detect three main traditions. First, many analysts ofsocial movements from the fields of history, sociology, political science, and anthropology address primarily academic audiences and are not interested in trying to generate practical recommendations for activists. Although these writers do not publish with activist audiences in mind, and most activists do not read their works" they say many things that could be useful to activists. (For example, the three main categories ofanalysis in the classic political process model-'-political opportunity, social resources, and frames--map key elements of effective strategy.)

Second, an important group of authors on community, labor, and social justice organizing write with organizers as an intended audience, by focusing on improving practical techniques for undertaking effective power analyses and pressure tactics (for example, Alinsky (1971), Sharp (1973), Juravich and Bronfenbrenner (2007), Ganz (2000); see Reitzes and Reitzes, 1987).

Third, writers on participatory action, action-oriented, and activist research explicitly embrace the goal ofoffering activists methods for under­standing their contexts and constituencies that allow them to tap more effectively into popular power for social change (Freire, 2000; Greenwood and Levin, 2006; Hale, 2006; Speed, 2006).

Scholar and Subjects ofAttention

Scholarly orientation toward the subjects of study also differs. In the CR field, scholars strive to devote equal analytical attention to all parties to a conflict, while those in the SM field tend to pay special attention to the actors who are dedicated to escalating the conflict. The social movement organizations chosen for study often reflect the values of the researchers, most generally leaning in the direction of peace and justice.

Conflict resolution practitioners often conceptualize their role as neu­tral, impartially attentive to the concerns and interests of all participants.

CONFLICT REsOLUTION QUARTERLY· 001: IO.I002/crq

Between Conflict

Social movement activists, of ( ously for a position and a part tion scholars and practitioner: contribute to building a more, introducing just processes rath, (To be sure, many social move their constituents also does go conflict resolution seek to accor in a dispute, striving to read through respectful processes, wi ment activists may question t adversaries.

Nonetheless, members of tl have some fundamental comme their activities as being for the social relationships. Whether a, never only about settlement oj about articulation ofconflict. 11 the feelings and functionalities

What SM Scholars Can Lear

We wish to begin by considerin ments can learn from the field c first, how dynamics within s strengthened by conflict resolw strategies ofsocial movements fo effective by conflict resolution sl social movement organizations, 1

adversaries. Both speak directly tl deserve more scholarly attention course ofsocial movement orgar

Organizational Dynamics

Social movement organizations about social change but often an with their own colleagues, and v

;;-;;>., ___ ._.w..__ ,. '. "ii. \A JiJt.Q4iQk&

...",if!

If-defined Jut many lOwledge, terials for )rn et al.,

ial Move­ctice.One :ovements ~ropology itrying to I . se wnters, hs do not rists. (For !a1 process lmap key

lbor, and lienee, byIeffective

f)'rReitzesSharp

~ activist rr under­fap more renwood

~ ~ ~

~ the CR wtles to a mni to the Ilovement rarchers,

Pe as neu­t . ~IClpants.

I l. fi

I ~

Between Conflict Resolution and Social Movement Scholars 351

Social movement activists, of course, pursue a cause, advocating strenu­ously for a position and a particular outcome. Although conflict resolu­tion scholars and practitioners may harbor hope that their work will contribute to building a more just society, they see that end achieved by introducing just processes rather than fighting for specific constituencies. (To be sure, many social movement activists believe that doing good for their constituents also does good for the society as a whole.) People in conflict resolution seek to accord moral and political legitimacy to all sides in a dispute, striving to reach a mutually acceptable accommodation through respectful processes, while in the heat of battle some social move­ment activists may question the moral or political legitimacy of their adversaries.

Nonetheless, members of the two fields of scholarship and endeavor have some fundamental commonalities. Members of both fields construct their activities as being for the social good and regard them as based in social relationships. Whether acknowledged or not, conflict resolution is never only about settlement of conflict; nor are social movements only about articulation of conflict. In both cases, power relations are the key to

the feelings and functionalities ofthe processes.

What SM Scholars Can Learn from CR Scholars and Practitioners

We wish to begin by considering what workers in the field of social move­ments can learn from the field of conflict resolution from two perspectives: first, how dynamics within social movement organizations might be strengthened by conflict resolution ideas and practices; and second, how strategies ofsocial movements for negotiating demands might be made more effective by conflict resolution skills. The first looks at internal dynamics of social movement organizations, the second at their external transactionswith adversaries. Both speak directly to the actions ofparticipants; we suggest they deserve more scholarly attention because both are phenomena affecting the course ofsocial movement organizations in their sttuggles.

Organizational Dynamics

Social movement organizations are composed of people who wish to bring about social change but often aren't sure how to change the way they interact with their own colleagues, and who may not even recognize the importance

CONFLICf REsOLUTION QUARTERLY· DOl: 1O.lO02/crq

.4.~'W¥t!!4¥¥}f#\#J\W't".,,,,,,,""..

~

:

_.._.£,~ ,._:-:-~ .'~"._. _"_. ,,-,_. ".. -,~=-

t

352 ROY, BURDICK. KRIESBERG

of increasing that awareness. Under the pressure of urgent dedication, and in a culture slim on training in effective social interaction, activists frequently weaken their own organization and hamper pursuit of their own goals by perpetuating organizational and social hierarchies.

These problems show up vividly in the case ofhuman diversity dynam­ics. How common it is for well-intentioned, predominantly white organi­zations, for instance, to bemoan the lack of social diversity in their ranks, without understanding the relationship between their homogeneity and their innocence ofconflict dynamics. Alliances and coalitions are similarly stillborn when people in' dominant cultural groups find themselves stymied by dynamics of dominance unrecognized by them. but all too familiar to those ofsubordinated social identities (Rose, 2000). People who belong to socially dominant groups often assume that their way of doing

. things is normal and right. People from marginalized social locations are often more "bicultural." Accustomed to the necessity of accommodating their preferred styles of working to more mainstream versions, they fre­quently grow weary of the extra work, and resentful of the invisibility of their ways and means. Unaddressed, these problems can lead to angry out­bursts or other conduct that remains mysterious to socially dominant actors (Roy, 2002; Williams, 1991).

Consider a comparison with organizations whose members are predom­inantly people of color. They are more likely to have chosen an identity­based constituency, for the sake of intensifYing power to negotiate change (West, 1993; Tatum, 2003). Or, if unwillingly too homogeneous, they may have a good deal more insight into the reasons why (Trujillo and others, 2008). Ceding leadership to people whose interactional assump­tions and styles differ from one's own is a familiar experience for most peo­ple of color, but an uncomfortably new one for members of a dominant social group. This kind of discomfort has been known to undercut dedica­tion to a cause, such that "mainstream" participants drift away or never join, thereby perpetuating homogeneity. Awareness of these dynamics is likely to be well developed among those who experience versions of them daily, while they remain obscure to those whose everyday experience is one ofsocial privilege (Trujillo and others, 2008).

Examples of this dynamic occur in struggles of process versus product. Women, people of color, and working-class people frequently have more highly attuned antennae for relationship themes and a stronger desire to address them, while people enjoying more of the benefits of social dominance often assume the right to drive the agenda. Absent a means to

CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY· DOl: IO.IO02/crq

Between Conflict

articulate these differences, ane archy and coercion they emboc work done that are equally a~

working on issues of social j1 acknowledge that they have d dissonance is simply t~o great racism raise spleen and cause quently marginalized people a place where social justice is SUI

great to be tolerated. In a truly to the work clash with those instance, it helps in building ju bit unequally, with a little mor, side (Chene, in Truj illo and od

One more familiar dynamic culprit in this case is dedication. wrongs, and believing that the often frustrating effort, general guise of internal condemnation ceive you as doing less, or doin! ment and a breach in the relatio

In all these cases-and m delivered can deal with dynami cadres for making needed socia cussion of an organization's tro mediation for particular disputl

Similar dynamics operate all side ofa barricade (Woerhle, 19 torically led to weakening chcu differences of approach and do( programs and greater ~ffectiven(

Conflict resolution procedures means for working through diJ achieve clearer, more powerful r ative options may be discovered

Beyond Confrontation to Negotic.

The CR field has ideas and pr entrenched conflict, negotiating 1

":.-"-"~,-"", r!"+ilOIt\:'4 .. :;·;::%;:'4. ."",.:"",,~!J~WM@Ai\l"'"'iW'" :-y

'.'-',_', ·'-"'J'_"·'''~'.'o'!·Z:''b'_'''''"·'''''''''...-r ?:i5'" "'''<.. 'S.ti'''"''--·fr'g" ,_".r.!f'''....: ,~_;:.'''''",;: ,.,,;,~...,.::.i·~.,;- --;,..·.""-r~.'-"'''_o.r_,.,;~u.-£,.~,«~£_"''

Between Conflict Resolution and Social Movement Scholars 353

articulate these differences, analyze them for the power dynamics of hier­III

archy and coercion they embody, and create new processes for getting the tiy work done that are equally agreeable to all, things fall apart. In groups by working on issues of social justice, participants are often unwilling to acknowledge that they have their own problems of inequality; cognitive

nl­ dissonance is simply t~o great (Snyder, 2003). Accusations of sexism or

ks, racism raise spleen and cause splits. By contrast, when the needs of fre­

nd quently marginalized people are discounted once again--especially in a

ely place where social justice is supposed to be the objective-the hurt is too

\Tes great to be tolerated. In a truly just organization, where white approaches

:00 to the work clash with those more comfortable to people of color, for

ho instance, it helps in building just relationships ifcompromises are shared a bit unequally, with a little more accommodation on the part of the white

m­

Ing are side (Chene, in Trujillo and others, 2008). ilng One more familiar dynamic ofconflict in progressive organizations: the ~ culprit in this case is dedication. Feeling in a minority, fighting against great Ire-

wrongs, and believing that the cause can only be won by long, sustained, 6~~ often frustrating effort, generates burnout. Burnout very often takes the

nt guise of internal condemnation (if! feel overwhelmed with work, and I per­ceive you as doing less, or doing things differently, it's a small step to judg­

~ .,_ ment and a breach in the relationship; Steiner, 1974; Aldarondo, 2007). In all these cases-and many more-conflict resolution ideas well ltY-

Rge delivered can deal with dynamics of culture and power, building stronger cadres for making needed social changes. this may include facilitated dis­

r~ cussion of an organization's troubl~some issues in general and systems of

lp- mediation for particular disputes. Similar dynamics operate among different people working on the same

F~ side of a barricade (Woerhle, 1992). Fragmentation ofmovements has his­torically led to weakening change potential. An ability to work through

F~ differences of approach and doctrine, in a manner that makes for stronger programs and greater effectiveness, is sorely needed in progressive domains. lIS

fConflict resolution procedures can .aid in constructing a mind-set and means for working through differences, not to homogenize them but to achieve clearer, more powerful movement agendas and strategies. New cre­ative options may be discovered through such procedures.

lire Beyond Confrontation to Negotiationre

I•.a1 The CR field has ideas and practices that are applicable to transforming to entrenched conflict, negotiating mutually acceptable agreement, and building

CONFLler REsOLUTION QUARTERLY· DOl: IO.I002/crq

...­. . .'.

. .' '.; ,

. . !"".**.\... . . ?&at §5 ;q,~,.. '..,~'''''''''''' ...':.~._~~==t ~'_t_. . ~__ _> .,~._,_"_. ,.'.. :/:r::.: ,', .. ..

.

_

"1:;:-'~:""~~;'

354 ROY, BURDICK, KRIESBERG

constructive relationships after a destructive encounter. Activists and social movement scholars alike develop skills and are trained, as it were, in the first two-thirds of the constructive conflict process: development of strategy and escalation and articulation of conflict. They are less skilled and analytically attuned to the steps of deescalation, negotiation, and crafting sustainable agreement. Any assumption that these things will take care of themselves once pressure has been exerted can lead to ineffective­ness and disappointment. Large-scale struggles consist of numerous cam­paigns that wax and wane, and each campaign may include many confrontations that are settled often by explicit agreement. Reaching agreements that endure and that can be built on in the future requires not only good strategy and tactics but also good conflict resolution skills. Social movements and SM analysis would be strengthened, we suggest, by increased attention to how to "get to yes," how to translate pressure into durable agreement. Look at course syllabi on social movements and you will see that the "negotiating agreements" section is usually missing. Teachers need to assign not just Saul Alinsky (1971) and Gene Sharp (2005) but Fisher, Dry, and Patton (1991); Lederach (1997); and Galtung, Jacobsen, and Brand-Jacobsen (2002). A good deal can be learned from integrating this step into social movement analyses, about how different kinds of pressure might favor different. types of outcome. For example, note an absence in Peter Ackerman and Chris Kreugler's theory of nonvi­olent strategic action (Ackerman and Kruegler, 1994). They offer a bril­liant list of twelve strategies, but only in the final one is there mention that the opponent might convert, accommodate, be coerced, or disintegrate. The idea of accommodation is presented-from Sharp-but there is no discussion of what to do to move accommodation along, what steps to take. Once one has exerted the pressure necessary to get an interlocutor ready to accommodate, one must know how to turn that readiness into actual accommodation in a new relationship.

If the presumed weaker side will not enter negotiations until it is in a stronger position, it may find that its position continues to weaken. There are many instances when a challenging party refuses to settle for much less ofwhat it seeks and then discovers that it has lost much more than it might have achieved by a negotiated accommodation. For example, this seems to have been the case of the Tamils in Sri Lanka, as represented by the leaders of the Liberation Tigers ofTamil Ealam (Orjuela, 2009).

A common failing among partisans who seem to be doing well in a struggle is to overreach, adopting more extreme methods as they expand

CONFLICT REsOLUTION QUARTERLY· 001: IO.I002/crq

Between Conflict R

II ~ their goals. As a consequence the ij

sary, alienate their allies, and din

! fight. Settling earlier for more lit

,iII ficial. A conflict resolution app

I ~ increasing awareness of the respo ~

U ~

awareness can be enhanced by 1 I; tion with members on the advc 11I, r, about goals being sought and u

l" ~

destructive consequences resultil rejection, can often be accompl i ,II The mediation can take many

1 transmission to active mutual p ~

making. Of course, every situat move or a heightened confrontat effective needs to be decided cas adversaries' relations, their valU! stressing the value of reflective; alternative strategies. We also wi: set of tools so that an appropriat

Additional general policies destructive overreaching. For ( already being used, avoidance reduces the likelihood of a spiral one side proclaim and act so as t, tial needs are not threatened, the settlement is enhanced (Dayton

What CR Scholars Can Lee

The field of conflict resolution. 1987). Certainly, many of the pe seeking the optimism of small-g anticipated the difficulty ofmaki 2007a). Like most actors seekin may, however, see their tool as IT

have is a hammer, everything lo( In the discussion that follow~

can teach mnflict resolution peo the politics ofvoice; and the issu

--._----- -,_..-. . ..­

ld III

Df :d ld <.e

e­[l­

ly 19 Dt

[s.

~y ito I m ~. fP F' ~ ~, 11­

11­~t Iel" 10

10 I (i)r

10

a

f!~It

,0 rs

a !d

•

Between Conflict Resolution and Social Movement Scholars 355

their goals. fu a consequence they may strengthen the resolve of the adver­sary, alienate their allies, and diminish internal support for continuing the fight. Settling earlier for more limited achievements would be more bene­ficial. A conflict resolution approach would help avoid overreaching by increasing awareness of the responses of adversaries and constituents. Such awareness can be enhanced by maintaining or undertaking communica­tion with members on the adversary's side and exchanging information about goals being sought and underlying interests. In addition, avoiding destructive consequences resulting from overreaching, as from frustrating rejection, can often be accomplished by recoutse to outsider mediation. The mediation can take many forms, from quiet go-between message transmission to active mutual probing of options or highly engaged deal making. Of course, every situation is unique. When an accommodative move or a heightened confrontational move will be more constructive and effective needs to be decided case by case. It depends on the nature of the adversaries' relations, their values, and likely future capabilities. We are stressing the value of reflective analysis and·consideration of a variety of alternative strategies. We also wish to stress the value of developing a large set of tools so that an appropriate one can be selected readily.

Additional general policies can be noted that help partisans avoid destructive overreaching. For example, in contexts where violence is already being used, avoidance of indiscriminate, dehumanizing attacks reduces the likelihood of a spiral of violence. Furthermore, if members of one side proclaim and act so as to reassure the antagonists that their essen­tial needs are not threatened, then the possibility of a constructive conflict settlement is enhanced (Dayton and Kriesberg 2009).

What CR Scholars Can Learn from SM Scholars and Activists

The field of conflict resolution is itself a sort of social movement (Adler, 1987). Certainly, many of the people drawn to conflict resolution work are seeking the optimism of small-group effectiveness, having experienced or anticipated the difficulty ofmaking change on a systemic plane (Kriesberg, 2007a). Like most actors seeking to make a difference, CR practitioners may, however, see their tool as more universally useful than it is. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

In the discussion that follows, we look at what social movement theory can teach <::onflict resolution people, in three arenas: the analysis of power; the politics ofvoice; and the issue ofviolence.

CONFLlGf REsOLUTION QUARTERLY· DOl: lO.lO02/crq

·¥R.AjJ.J$4tJk;;#Wf.Ai!'klk~\J',7#:f,!?i'.;'WA_-:,.y<:~;·. n).'

4"/"

.

j

l-' .; '-y, 'triter'±'6 'v't" Jr' '?ltv

356 ROY, BURDICK, KRIESBERG

The Analysis ofPower

Analysis of social movements can help conflict resolvers make better judg­ment of where their interventions may be most effective. Many SM effects (though not all) unfold as historical forces that change social and cultural relations and values, without a straightforward "negotiation" phase. In many social movements, in fact, change occurs through an exchange of pressure and response, taking place not in face-to-face negotiations but at a distance.

A helpful example is the Montgomery Bus Boycott. The impact of the boycott did not unfold within a neat process of negotiation or agreement to which the boycotters were a party. In fact, the effort to negotiate with the mayor of Montgomery broke down in the first weeks of the boycott. The effective action of the boycott unfolded not inside the walls ofa nego­tiating room but through the wider shift in standard operating procedures, norms, social rules, roles, and expectations. Here is a brief list of changes brought about by the boycott that went "unnegotiated," yet would shape any future negotiation: growth in the number of businesses in downtown Montgomery that called for an end to segregation laws; growth in new consciousness and identity on the part of the boycotters, who were discov­ering themselves as human beings no longer willing to sit in the back ofthe bus; the discovery that blacks were not the subordinate people whites thought they were; the decision by some whites to begin supporting and voting for leaders who would change the laws; and emergence of the pres­sure felt by the Supreme Court to make the bus laws of the South uncon­stitutional. It is partly because of the proliferation of these effects that deliberate, guided processes of deescalation may sometimes seem to social movement activists and scholars to have overstated centrality. What all of these processes accomplished was to build the movement's power.

There is a good deal of discussion within the conflict resolution field about asymmetry and "negotiating across an uneven table" (Kriesberg, 2009; Mitchell, 1995; Rouhana and Kelman, 1994); the point for many activists is how to go about creating a genuinely even table in the first place. The main premise ofsocial activism is that some actors enjoy greater social power and privilege than others, and that a table appearing to be even is in reality quite uneven. In this view, when actors of differing social power arrive at a negoti­ating table, the table is uneven. Actors with less social power cannot negoti­ate eVenness into the table; to even things out they must do something to correct for their lesser social power. The reality or prospect of the less socially powerful actor exerting pressure through mobilization is, in the view ofsocial

CONFLICT REsOLUTION QUARTERLY' DOl: lO.l002/crq

,,__ _.0;­ ~

Between Conflict I

movement theory, an essential p. tions. "Respect" is not an attitud real distribution of power. Nego tion or modifY it depending on h by the qualities, resources, and sk can be affected by the presence c mediator and the presence of gr enhance its bargaining position negotiations. Power relations ar, rural, and political factors in dyn. 2008). But ultimately, how mu( limited by who "comes in the qo

Asymmetry in relations bem degrees, forming obstacles to eq conflict settlement (Kriesberg, analyses teach us that what CR sc the conflict. If our aim is to adv to bring about fundamental d within a social movement fram practitioners of conflict resoluti, able trust among participants. ( trust may be at odds with one a.

We therefore don't assume tl be too trusting and end up j

an opposing side. Recognizing ~

in achieving well-grounded mu extended experience in depend It may result from negotiating ~

set rules for conduct in particul~

enforce compliance. The point i timental niceness or as inhere dependent on conditions that a

Because conflict resolution j ment and works in the intimac' deeply integrated analysis ofpo' Conflict resolution may help address interpersonal conflict movement analysis may help IT

nal power dynamics that tend

'·1"

Between Conflict Resolution and Social Movement Scholars 357

movement theory, an essential precondition for realistic, respectful negotia­tions. "Respect" is not an attitude, in this view; it is recognition of a certain

udg­real distribution of power. Negotiations can simply ratifY an existing situa­

fects tion or modifY it depending on how they are structured. They can be affected

rural by the qualities, resources, and skills a mediator brings to the table. They also

~. In can be affected by the presence or absence of various interested parties. The

;e of mediator and the presence of groups associated with the weaker party can

ut at enhance its bargaining position and thereby increase the symmetry of the negotiations. Power relations are complex, determined by structural, cul­[the tural, and political factors in dynamic interaction (Roy in Trujillo and others,

nent 2008). But ultimately, how much power can be equalized "at the table" is

with limited by who "comes in the c\.oor."

tott. Asymmetry in relations between adversaries occurs in varying ways andlego­

degrees, forming obstacles to equitable and enduring mutually acceptable ~res, conflict settlement (Kriesberg, 2009; Mitchell, 1995). Social movement

loges ~ape analyses teach us that what CR scholars call asymmetry is actually the heart of

the conflict. If our aim is to advance justice as well as peace, we must seek bwnto bring about fundamental change. Toward that end, people working I: ew within a social movement frame think in terms of gaining power, while practitioners of conflict resolution cannot work unless there exists reason­f~~~ able trust among participants. Goals of gaining power and of establishing trust may be at odds with one another at a particular time. f~~e~

We therefore don't assume that trust is always desirable. One party can lres­be too trusting and end up misled, exploited, and disadvantaged by10n­an opposing side. Recognizing such developments can be a necessary step ~hat in achieving well-grounded mutual trust. Such trust may be the result of,cial extended experience in dependable equitable exchanges (Axelrod, 1984). Ii of It may result from negotiating agreements or establishing institutions that set rules for conduct in particular domains, and procedures to monitor and Lid enforce compliance. The point is that trust is viewed not as a matter ofsen­~09; timental niceness or as inherent in good actors but as situational and ~s IS dependent on conditions that are socially constructed (Hoffman, 2006). lam

Because conflict resolution is both focused on the pragmatics of settle­

F~ ment and works in the intimacy of face-to-face dialogue, it tends to lack a deeply integrated analysis ofpower on the institutional and systemic levels.

r~- Conflict resolution may help social movement analysts and activistsotI­address interpersonal conflict based in social identity dynamics; social 1to

" movement analysis may help make conflict resolvers aware of those exter­~ly nal power dynamics that tend to be unrecognized inside the room where .cial

CONFLICT REsOLUTION QUARTERLY· DOl: 10.1002/crq

358 ROY. BURDICK, KRIESBERG

processes take place. At best, there is some recognition of how social iden­I, tity inequities influence conflict processes and outcomes, mostly dealing with gender (Rifkin and Cobb, 1991; Nader, 2002; Gwartney-Gibbs, 1994), but few analysts go beyond superficialities when issues of race and class are in play, and even fewer offering effective means to integrate such analyses into practice. In a telling example of what James Scott calls "hid­den transcripts"-those stories that members of oppressed social identity groups tell each other but not members ofthe dominant center-"minority" mediators relish opportunities to share shop talk about what they really do when the door closes and the work commences with others of their iden­tity (Scott, 1990; Coronel in Trujillo and others, 2008). Within the con­flict resolution field (as elsewhere, among police officers of color, for instance), verbal critiques abound of the superficiality of training in multi­culturalism, with claims made that what is taught may compound stereo­types but not get at fundamental cultural differences at the level of worldviews (Myers in Trujillo and others, 2008).

These issues of culture become urgent in the context of the growing interest in conflict transformation in the CR field, which compels atten­tion to large-scale structures, norms, and societal processes. Such factors affect the context of specific conflicts and the relations among adversaries. Knowledge about the workings ofsocial movements contributes to under­standing changes in social structures, norms, and world views. This is evi­dent in global changes in the status ofwomen, the salience ofhuman rights norms, the legitimacy of popular participation in governance, and valua­tion of cultural diversity.

Beyond social identity and structural imbalances, power works through dynamics of culture, self-concepts, language, organizational roles, and so on. Both fields, conflict resolution and social movements, could benefit from more sophisticated understanding of how those various domains work in dynamic processes to construct moments of conflict and change. In particular, conflict resolvers might become familiar with the literature on how interpretations of actors, power, and justice are shaped by cultural schemata that are themselves power-laden and the outcome ofprior strug­gles (Snow and Benford, 1988, 1992; Polletta, 2006).

The Politics of Voice

The prime tool of the conflict resolution trade is most commonly talk. Those who most often end up sitting at the table, therefore, are people who know how to talk, in the terms and languages that prevail for interveners

CONFLICT REsOLUTION QUARTERLY' 001: !O.IDD2/ceq

--.

Between Cantlie

and for the field (Trujillo and 01

in such talk-fighters, charism excluded from, or disadvantal attention and power without a, the bias is likely to privilege ree and define social power (Moor

This dynamic is very evide for instance, where young chi kids, who might well be able tc late their own interests in verb listen, verbal communication' invaluable. Moreover, family i people until agencies of the sta text of child-protection action: education, and other "services" cive. Rather than benefiting fa disadvantage to hardships alrea tionally marginalized is the es~

the contribution of conflict re~

for finding forms and languag' those least heard to become (Trujillo and others, 2008).

On the community level, when the language of "the ta~

work, an agency working in t1­facilitate dialogue among fede local communities who had be tices in the forest (collecting p cially fecund streams). Previou when villagers fell away from tl legal terminology. This time, 1

"talks" by inviting officials and of utility and forest knowledge things about their domain tI process concluded with changl

On a macro level, as conf national domains, facilitators t

have the best opportunity to in ognizable organizational positi<

:ial iden­r dealing y-Gibbs, race and rate such ~ls "hid­i identity !. ."nmontyIieally do eir iden­the con­lrlor, for in multi­~ stereo-level of

growmg Is atten­" factors ersanes.

r. u.nde~-tis IS evl-

Frights d valua­

throughII' and so I benefit liomains change. terature cultural r strug­

ly talk. bple who

tN,n,~

Between Conflict Resolution and Social Movement Scholars 359

and for the field (Trujillo and others, 2008). Key leaders who are unschooled in such talk-fighters, charismatic orators, tough politicians-may end up excluded from, or disadvantaged in, a process that comes to command attention and power without adequately representing all voices. In the end, the bias is likely to privilege recognized elites, because forms ofspeech map and define social power (Moore, 1996).

This dynamic is very evident on a microterrain-in family mediation, for instance, where young children are rarely included. Adults speak for kids, who might well be able to contribute crucial perspectives and articu­late their own interests in verbal language. Indeed, if adults know how to listen, verbal communication with participants as young as fout can prove invaluable. Moreover, family interventions are rarely available to poorer people until agencies of the state become involved. They occur in the con­text of child-protection actions, disputes with school districts over special education, and other "services" that often show up in people's lives as coer­cive. Rather than benefiting family members, too often they add layers of disadvantage to hardships already taking place. Giving voice to those tradi­tionally marginalized is the essential process of a social movement; to see the contribution of conflict resolution as comparable holds us responsible for finding forms and languages that effectively provide opportunities for those least heard to become central to collaborative decision making (Trujillo and others, 2008).

On the community level, voices from the grass roots may be missed when the language of "the table" is legal and professional. Western Net­work, an agency working in the Southwest some years back, was hired to facilitate dialogue among federal Forest Service officials and residents in local communities who had been banned from putsuing traditional prac­tices in the forest (collecting pinion nuts, for instance, or fishing in espe­cially fecund streams). Previous attempts at policy negotiations had failed when villagers fell away from the process in the face of research p~pers and legal terminology. This time, the Western Network facilitators began the "talks" by inviting officials and villagers to map the forest. In the language of utility and forest knowledge, the villagers excelled. The officials learned things about their domain they hadn't known they didn't know. The process concluded with changes to policy satisfYing to everyone involved.

On a macro level, as conflict resolution shades into peacemaking in national domains, facilitators tend to rely on the people with whom they have the best opportunity to interact: academics, community leaders in rec­ognizable organizational positions, and so on. John Paul Lederach promotes

CONFLICT REsOLUTION QUARTERLY' 001: 10.1002/crq

I'j

-",..;;S.;~_""':"';';'~""

360 ROY, BURDICK KRIESBERG

an elicitive approach to the work, meaning that the process itself needs to

arise from the experience and wishes of the participants (Lederach, 1995). Nonetheless, the participants he identifies are who we mighrcall the "polite" grass roots. He speaks ofmiddle-level leadership, with no particular screen­ing for how representative those people are of the interests of others not present for dialogue.

In Sri Lanka, for instance, a European peace group initiated a series of CR workshops in the midst of a brutal civil war. Participants promptly split, between those who wanted training for leadership in the discord broiling all around them with no prejudgment of what that meant, and those who agreed with the peace group's emphasis on nonviolence.

There is a need to move down the hierarchy to the grass roots, coun­teracting any presumption that those who inhabit it lack the resources to

participate. As social science analyses of indigenous peoples help us under­stand, they often have the most relevant resources-their own leaders, col­lective memory, processes of dispute resolution-as well as the greatest stake in outcomes (Atashi, 2009; Pouligny, Chesterman, and Schnabel, 2007). Some workers in the conflict resolution field as well as in the social movement field are sensitive to this reality. More generally, since the 1990s a number of SM analysts have sought a more genuinely collaborative rela­tionship with popular grassroots theory production, through which new theory is produced that is directly pertinent to the priorities of nonstate grassroots social change actors (Casas-Cortes, Osterweil, and Powell, 2008; Conway, 2006; Tang, 2008).

A fundamental problem in CR work among large-scale entities is the tension that leaders experience in their relations between their constituen­cies and their negotiating opposite numbers (Docherty, 2005). Internal rivals and mobilized constituents can greatly affect the readiness ofleaders to escalate or deescalate a conflict and accept or reject possible settlements (Colaresi, 2005; Kriesberg, 2007b). Indeed, conflict resolvers would do well to become more aware that negotiation is an activity of leadership cadres that have specific social qualities and relations to constituencies (Bob, 2005; Gramsci, 1971; Ganz, 2000). This knowledge would help conflict resolvers become more aware of their own social status and of the possible structural limits on their own action. Equally important is the need for conflict resolvers to become more aware of the specific class char­acter of their identity, profession, agenda, and trajectory, permitting them to see both the limits of their action (will they do anything that might risk their professional role?) as well as its hidden potentiality.

CONFLlCf REsOLUTION QUARTERLY· 001: 1D.1 DD2/crq

Between Conflict

The Issue ofViolence

In the modern world, it is a sirr majority of violence is wielde( command the headlines, the r social change actually use nom potentially or acrually present i nately, in conflict resolution wo sophisticated way. People work for instance, eschew narrow COl

framework within which pow action. Seeing that disputes ben through talk when one person arena refuse mediation and w harmed. Usually, the only resoUl victim from the home, an act th iar resources and, in the conte: poverty. Paradoxically, domestic nizing that the very things they c the existing institutional frame' tion of greater weakness.

But if we can escape a cor nuclear family, there are alterna immigrant families from Asia s those harmed in the home by rounding them. Training friend intervene, they construct safety and separation. Having begun t fliet resolution skills not for the domestic partners but in orde Interveners.

Social movements by necess while conflict resolution by prac "parties," weighted down with a1 To be sure, people acting to m immune from such limitations 0

a common culture. But the natu ward into greater community, v

lates people behind a wall of cor

~.,,_., ·~ms".~: ....... ~:~.";,,,;;.. '>-".r~ ... ~, .... ·~,..-",_",,,.. "j""~&. "a".i'i't':!:,.,fffii{.""""J...,.... '. "';', ~,,;,;=. '''''''''.~ ',,"~=;::';"'-"", ..~ ,·,.<·.~c ,,,_::-.."'~."" .. .r-2""v .. ~ -

Between Conflict Resolution and Social Movement Scholars 361

f needs to The Issue ofViolence

~h, 1995). In the modern world, it is a simple and noncontroversial fact that the vast ~e "polite" majority of violence is wielded by state actors. Despite exceptions that iar screen­ command the headlines, the majority of nonstate actors struggling for bthers not social change actually use nonviolent tactics. Still, violence is sometimes I potentially or actually present in the tactics of nonstate actors. Unfortu­ia series of ~ nately, in conflict resolution work violence is often not dealt with in a very !promptly sophisticated way. People working on intervention in domestic violence, ~e discord § for instance, eschew narrow conflict resolution. Here is a place where the kant, and :1' framework within which power is understood works against effective teo I action. Seeing that disputes between domestic partners cannot be resolved ~ts, coun­ through talk when one person is being brutalized, change agents in this !sources to

arena refuse mediation and work instead to protect the person being ~us under­ harmed. Usually, the only resource recognized for doing so is removing the ~aders, col­ victim from the home, an act that often results in her isolation from famil­~e greatest iar resources and, in the context of a gender-biased economy, increased !Schnabel, poverty. Paradoxically, domestic violence activists are increasingly recog­I the social

nizing that the very things they do to "empower" victimized women, givenIthe 1990s the existing institutional framework, actually land their clients in a posi­r,ative rela­

tion of greater weakness. t-hich new

But if we can escape a conceptual frame of individualism and the~f nonstate nuclear family, there are alternatives. One agency working primarily with tell, 2008; immigrant families from Asia seeks to leave both those doing harm and

those harmed in the home· by activating the extended community sur­~ties is thei . rounding them. Training friends, relatives, neighbors, and co-workers to EOnStltuen­f, intervene, they construct safety without the severe dislocation of a shelter ID. Internal

and separation. Having begun this program, they began also to seek con­~ of leaders

flict resolution skills not for the purpose ofnegotiating between embattled 'ettlements

domestic partners but in order to create cohesion among communityWOUld do

interveners. leadership

Social movements by necessity frame things in terms of collectivities,Ilstituencies while conflict resolution by practice sometimes tends to narrow frames to

rould help "parties," weighted down with assumptions of individualism and class bias. Jtus and of

To be sure, people acting to make change on the societal plane are not~ . hnanr is t e immune from such limitations ofconsciousness, for they too are citizens of

ic~ass char- a common culture. But the nature of the actions they take leads them out­~Iit. tIng them ward into greater community, while conflict resolution often further iso­might risk

lates people behind a wall of confidentiality. ,I

CONFLICT REsOLUTION QUARTERLY' 001: IO.tO02/ceq

- _.- _. .'-'-' .. - .....-.~-~. -,"""'''''''''''''''''''

",--~... ,,' ..'

362 ROY, BURDICK, KRIESBERG

In more political domains, the world of conflict resolution has shied away from dealing with real-world issues of violence. For all the diverse efforts among conflict interveners to contribute to work in the Middle East, for example, rarely are Hamas and Hezbollah included as parties to actual dialogue processes, or even to thoughtful discussion within the field. Because the work of conflict resolution assumes nonviolent, collaborative behavior, scholars and practitioners in the field need sufficiently nuanced understanding of violent actors to be able to address their role effectively. Social movements can make a major contribution in this regard.

As conflict resolution organizations have become increasingly involved in peacebuilding work after violent conflict ceases, issues of physical secu­rity and demobilization become more salient. Indeed, in many ways and areas the fields of conflict resolution and security studies have converged (Kriesberg, 2002). One increasingly sophisticated literature has emerged that conflict resolvers would do well to become acquainted with: a literature that analyzes various struggles for social change in ways that treat violence not as a homogeneous phenomenon but as a nuanced set of communica­tive actions that must be understood with sensitivity to context (Aretxaga, 1995; Roy, 1994). One step is to analyze the various culturally and socially differentiated meanings of violence (Parkins, 2000). A second step is to recognize that, historically, nonstate actors have engaged in physical vio­lence far less often than have state actors (Mayer, 2000), A third step is to understand violence of larger structures including state terror and institu­tional violence (Varzi, 2006). A fourth step is to place patterns of mobi­lization into nonstate violent action, including armed struggle and guerilla warfare (Goodwin, 2001, 2006; Viterna, 2006), in the context of various ~ultural, social, and psychological forces, among them how violence fits into processes of collective and individual identity formation (Andriolo, 2006; Fanon, 1961; Roy, 1999). It is likely that conflict resolvers who develop a more historical, culturally sophisticated grasp ofviolence will be more effective in understanding the motives and forces that generate it in

.its many forms and thus will be better equipped to strategize about how and when to try to reduce it.

Conclusion

The fields of conflict resolution and of social movement studies are distinc­tive, but they do overlap and have complementary possibilities (Schmelzle and Fisher, 2009). Indeed, work on some topics demonstrates a degree of

CONFLICT REsoLUTION QUARTERLY· 001: IO,l002/crq

~ ~??;:?L.....·_·,,_,..,q~:g:-,4 . ....;:;:~...,._~~iL.~_·.-_~.,,- ,~, ... ,-,;,_,-< .".";;ffl",.-. .--,;.. ..'____•. :_,,,--,"'''_'''~''':';'::~'''''' '''_''';..-~'L'~ .....,-:..;;-:.~ ~,!£:;>";,,, .'_.~ ,_."':- ..

Between ContHct I

synthesis, for example, in the ca tion and on coalition formation

Much more mutual borrow workers in both fields. Since 1 Movements, Conflicts, and Chan" now by Pat Coy, has attempted 1

advance this synergy is for work the other. It might also be usefi particular topics to which some Finally, one or two persons fror writing or in other practices in joint projects ofresearch and act horizon, in which it becomes pc a long-term process of change. } lation (2007b) is a valuable poir

But for the projects to bear other strategies. First, a sponsore and social movement analysts in in which the goal is to identifY ; tantly strengthen cross-disciplin ers, clients, and activists from ea symposium devoted to the topi conferences in each field. It is Ii been identified-one in which t sity and analytical challenge-VI

Second, it is crucial that the academic participants in this Nonacademic stakeholders nee knowledge and theory produCi active participants. Many of 1

we face today-what counts as a achieve peace and justice toget finally be opened wide only aft resolution are at the table.

References

Ackerman, P., and Kruegler, C. 5 London: Praeger, 1994.

Adler, P. S. "Is ADR a Social Move

Between Conflict Resolution and Social Movement Scholars 363

s shied synthesis, for example, in the case of work on constructive conflict escala­diverse tion and on coalition formation in mobilizing support in a struggle. Middle Much more mutual borrowing and synthesizing would be useful for Tties to workers in both fields. Since 1987, the annual series Research in Social ~e field. Movements, Conflicts, and Change, initially edited by Louis Kriesberg and I . loratlve now by Pat Coy, has attempted to foster such efforts. A more direct way to iuanced advance this synergy is for workers in each field to examine the writing inl .,ctlveIy. the other. It might also be useful to arrange meetings and workshops on

particular topics to which some people from both fields are contributing. lvolved Finally, one or two persons from the two fields can join together in their

~l secu­ writing or in other practices in their fields. The challenge is to articulate IlYs and joint projects of research and action. It is important to develop a long time hverged horizon, in which it becomes possible to focus on a variety of moments in I a long-term process of change. Kriesberg's model of escalation and deesca­~::;:;; lation (2007b) is a valuable point of departure. ,iole~ce But for the projects to bear theoretical fruit, we suggest at least two

ulllca­ other str~tegies. First, a sponsored discussion of activists, conflict resolvers, ~ retxaga, and social movement analysts in which all are focused on a single conflict, Isocially in which the goal is to identifY a common practical puzzle, would impor­p IS to tantly strengthen cross-disciplinary dialogue. Perhaps scholars, practition­al vio­ ers, clients, and activists from each field could be invited to participate in a

ep is to symposium devoted to the topic, followed by a series of forums at major institu- conferences in each field. It is likely that only when a common stake has mobi­ been identified-one in which there is an equal measure ofpractical neces­

:gue.rilla sity and analytical challenge-will deeper useful insight be achieved. varIOUS Second, it is crucial that the very process of discovery involve not just nce fits academic participants in this process but nonacademic ones as well. driolo, Nonacademic stakeholders need to become involved in the process of

_rs who knowledge and theory production not just as bystanders but as direct,1will be active participants. Many of the intellectual and political bottlenecks kte it in we face today-what counts as an effective, durable settlement? how can we lit how achieve peace and justice together? what counts as useful theory?-may

finally be opened wide only after all those with the greatest stake in their resolution are at the table.

References

distinc­ Ackerman, P, and Kruegler, C. Strategic Nonviolent Conflict. Westport, Conn.! -~melzle London: Praeger, 1994. kgree of Adler, P S. "Is ADR a Social Movement?" Negotiation Journal, 1987,3(1), 59-66.

CONFLIGf REsOLUTION QUARTERLY· DOl: IO.lO02/crq

- ~~ - -- - - - - -. - -- ~-- - - - - ­

364 ROY, BURDICK, KRIESBERG

Aldarondo, E. Advancing Social Justice Through Clinical Practice. Mahwah, N.].: Erlbaum,2007.

Alinsky, S. Rules fOr RAdicals: A PrimerfOr Realistic Radicals. New York: Random House, 1971.

Andriolo, K. 'The Twice Killed: Imaging Protest Suicide." American Anthropolo­gist, 2006, 108(1),66-76.

Aretxaga, B. "Dirty Protest: Symbolic Overdetermination and Gender in North­ern Ireland Ethnic Violence." In J. Zulaika, (ed.), States of 1error: Begona Aretxagas Essays. University of Nevada Press, 1995.

Atashi, E. "Challenges to Conflict Transformation from the Street." In B. W Dayton and L. Kriesberg (eds.), Conflict TransfOrmation and Peacebuilding. London and New York: Routledge, 2009.

Axelrod, R. The Evolution ofCooperation. New York: Basic Books, 1984. Bevington, D., and Dixon, C. "Movement-Relevant Theory: Rethinking Social

Movement Scholarship and Activism." Social Movement Studies, 2005, 4(3), 185-208.

Bob, C. The Marketing ofRebellion: Insurgents, Media, and International Activism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Casas-Cortes, M. 1., Osterweil, M., and Powell, D. E. "Blurring Boundaries: Rec­ognizing Knowledge-Practices in the Study of Social Movements." Anthropo­logical Quarterly, 2008, 81(1), 17-58.

Colaresi, M. P. Scare Tactics: The Politics ofInternational Rivalry. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005.

Conway, ]. Praxis and Politics: Knowledge Production and Social Movements. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Dayton, B. W, and Kriesberg, L. (eds.). Conflict TransfOrmation and Peacebuild­ing: Movingfrom Violence to Sustainable Peace. Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2009.

Docherty, ]. S. "The Little Book of Strategic Negotiation." In Center fOr Justice and Peacebuilding ofEastern Mennonite University. Intercourse, Penna.: Good Books, 2005.

Fanon, F. The Wretched ofthe Earth. New York: Grove Press, 1961. Fisher, R., Ury, W, and Patton, B. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without

Giving In (2nd ed.). New York: Penguin, 1991. Freire, P. Pedagogy ofthe Oppressed. New York: Continuum, 2000. Galtung, J., Jacobsen, c. G., and Brand-Jacobsen, K. F. Searching fOr Peace: The

Road to TRANSCEND (2nd ed.). London: Pluto, 2002. Ganz, M. "Resources and Resurcefulness: Strategic Capacity in the Unionization

of California Agriculture, 1959-1966." American Journal ofSociology, 2000, 105(4), 1003-1062.

Goodwin, J. No Other way Out: States and Revolutionary Movements, 1945-1991. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Goodwin, J. "A Theory of Categorical Terrorism." Social Forces, 2006, 84(4), 2027-2046.

Between Conflict I

Gramsci, A. Selections from the Pris (eds., trans.). New York: InterfJ

Greenwood, D., and Levin, M. Int Social Change. Thousand Oaks

Gwartney-Gibbs, P. "Gender Oil Tasks, Interpersonal Treatmer 47(6),611-639.

Hale, C. ''Activist Research v. CUltl Contradictions of Politically E 2006,21(1),96-120.

Hoffman, A. M. Building Trust: ( Albany: State University ofNe'

Juravich, T., and Bronfenbrenner, Transnational Capital Througl

Kriesberg, L. "Convergences Bern Studies." In M. Brecher and F. ] national Studies. Ann Arbor: U

Kriesberg, L. "The Conflict Resoh tion." In I. W Zartman (ed.), . and 1echniques. Washington, 2007a.

Kriesberg, L. Constructive Confli, Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Lit

Kriesberg, L. "The Evolution of Cc Zartman, and J. Bercovitch (ec don: Sage, 2008.

Kriesberg, L. "Changing Conflic Asymmetric Conflict, 2( 1), Mar

Lederach, J. P. Preparing fOr Peace. cuse, N.Y.: Syracuse Universit)

Lederach, J. P. Building Peace: 5 Washington, D.C.: United Sta

Mayer, A. The Furies: Violence an, Princeton, N.].: Princeton Un

Mitchell, C. R. ''Asymmetry and: I. W Zartman and V. A. Kre Third World wars. Syracuse, N

Moore, L. "Creating Dialogue I Resource Mapping in Northc Digest, 1996,39,8-10.

Nader, 1. The Lift ofthe Law. Berl Orjuela, C. "Domesticating Tiger

In B. W Dayton and L. Krie~

building: From Violence to Sust

CONFLlCf REsOLUTION QUARTERLY· 001: IO.lO02/crq .. i···L.. '~L_:'" ,,;C>....:,.:.,..'-j;?:.:.:.:~: ...=T...- -~ -. <..\f"...~ii*,s:;;;£:<:--",,:. -·,.c•. ~::,--.:.~>-;,; • .,;!'~.:.;;,.;;=.::.:.,~,,,,,.",,,,;~~.;.~.;.,,~

!I

!

!'I

IIhh, N.T.:-Random I ~~hropolo-!,hNorth­!. BegofiaI I [[00. DaytonLondon

i

g Social I 105, 4~3),

~:'~:~ (thropo­

re, N.Y.:

,nts. New

Lebuild­~e, 2009. tor Justice a.: Good

[IWithout

~eace: The

~n;",,;on r,2000,

f5-1991.

I 16, 84(4),

I

Between Conflict Resolution and Social Movement Scholars 365

Gramsci, A. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Q. Hoare and G. Nowell-Smith (eds., trans.). New York: International Publishers, 1971.

Greenwood, D., and Levin, M. Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2006.

Gwartney-Gibbs, P. "Gender Differences in Clerical Workers' Disputes over Tasks, Interpersonal Treatment, and Emotion." Human Reldtions, 1994, 47(6),611-639.

Hale, C. "Activist Research v. Cultural Critique: Indigenous Land Rights and the Contradictions of Politically Engaged Anthropology." Cultural Anthropology, 2006,21(1),96-120.

Hoffman, A. M. Building Trust: Overcoming Suspicion in International Conflict. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006.

]uravich, T., and Bronfenbrenner, K. eds. (2007) Global Unions: Challenging Transnational Capital Through Cross-Border Campaigns. Ithaca: ILR Press.

Kriesberg, L. "Convergences Between International Security Studies and Peace Studies." In M. Brecher and F. P. Harvey (eds.), MillennialReflections on Inter­national Studies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002.

Kriesberg, L. "The Conflict Resolution Field: Origins, Growth and Differentia­tion." In 1. W Zartman (ed.), Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2007a.

Kriesberg, L. Constructive Conflicts: From Escaldtion to Resolution Ord ed.). Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007b.

Kriesberg, L. "The Evolution ofConflict Resolution." In V. A. Kremenyuk, 1. W Zartman, and]. Bercovitch (eds.), Sage Handbook ofConflict Resolution. Lon­don: Sage, 2008.

Kriesberg, L. "Changing Conflict Asymmetries Constructively." Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, 2(1), March 2009,4-22.

Lederach, ]. P. Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures. Syra­cuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1995.

Lederach, ]. P. Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997.

Mayer, A. The Furies: Violence and Terror in the French and Russian Revolutions. Princeton, N.].: Princeton University Press, 2000.

Mitchell, C. R. "Asymmetry and Strategies of Regional Conflict Reduction." In 1. W Zartman and V. A. Kremenyuk (eds.), Cooperative Security: Reducing Third World mtrs. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1995.

Moore, L. "Creating Dialogue Between Decision-Makers and Communities: Resource Mapping in Northern New Mexico." Common Property Resource Digest, 1996,39,8-10.

Nader, L. The Life ofthe Law. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 2002. Orjuela, C. "Domesticating Tigers: The LTTE and Peacemaking in Sri Lanka."

In B. W Dayton and L. Kriesberg (eds.), Conflict Transformation and Peace­building: From Violence to Sustainable Peace. Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2009.

. CONFLICT REsOLUTION QUARTERLY· DOl: IO.I002/ceq

~ ------~."~~_••-_..__..-..­-~- ---- ~ - - -- - "" ~ - - ~ - - -- --- ­

.

J ..~ .~

11

[

J,} ~

."1 .,.,f.

Z i~ I{

I!!III ~~:;.:

366 ROY, BURDICK. KRlESBERG

Parkins, W "Protesting Like a Girl: Embodiment, Dissent and Feminist Agency." Feminist Theory, 2000, 1(1), 59-78.

Polkinghorn, B. D., LaChance, H., and LaChance, R. "Constructing a Baseline Understanding of Developmental Trends in Graduate Conflict Resolution Programs in the United States." In C. Gerard, R. Fleishman, and R. O'Leary (eds.), Pushing the Boundaries: New Frontiers in Conflict Resolution and Col­laboration. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group, 2008.

Polletta, F. It Was Like a Fever: Storytelling in Protest and Politics. Chicago: Univer­sity of Chicago Press, 2006.

Pouligny, B., Chesterman, S., and Schnabel, A (eds.). After Mass Crime: Rebuild­ing States and Communities. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2007.

Reitzes, D. c., and Reitzes, D. C. The Alinsky Legacy: Alive and Kicking. Green­wich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1987.

Rifkin, J., and Cobb, S. "Toward a New Discourse for Mediation: A Critique of Neutrality." Mediation Quarterry, 1991,9(2),151-164.

Rose, F. Coalitions Across the Class Divide: Lessonsfrom the Labor, Peace, andEnvi­ronmental Movements. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2000.

Rouhana, N. N., and Kelman, H. C. "Non-Official Interaction Processes in the Resolution of International Conflicts: Promoting Joint Israeli-Palestinian Thinking Through a Continuing Workshop." Journal ofSocial Issues, 1994, 50,157-178.

Roy, B. Some Trouble with Cows: Making Sense ofSocial Conflict. Berkeley: Uni­versity of California Press, 1994.

Roy, B. Bitters in the Honey: Tales ofHope and Disappointment Across Divides of Race and Time. Fayetteville: Arkansas University Press, 1999.

Roy, B. "For White People, on How to Listen When Race Is the Subject." Journal ofIntergroup Relations, 2002,29(3),3-15.

Schmelzle, 8., and Fisher, M. (eds.). Peacebuilding at a Crossroads? Dilemmas and Path~ for Another Generation. Berlin: Berghof Research Center for Construc­tive Conflict Management, 2009.

Scott, J. C. Dominf-tion and the Arts ofResistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1990.

Sharp, G. The Politics ofNonviolent Action. Boston: Porter Sargent, 1973. Sharp, G. waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th Century Practice and 21st Century

Potential. Boston: Porter Sargent, 2005. Snow, D., and Benford, R. "Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobi­

lization." International Social Movement Research, 1988, 1, 197-217. Snow, D., and Benford, R. "Master frames and cycles of protest." In A D. Morris

and C. M. Mueller (eds.), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.

Snyder, A C. Setting the Agenda for Global Peace. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2003. Speed, S. "At me Crossroads of Human Rights and Anthropology: Toward a Crit­

ically Engaged Activist Research." American Anthropologist, 2006, 108(1), 66--76.

CONFLICT REsOLUTION QUARTERLY· 001: 1O.IO02/crq

~.;.;s.g.;."-.... ,",~· ....;..,.,..,",,.:s_*::;,o"bl...~~. 7~~,:-.",;,::-,,;_,",.;i;''';·.;_,c _T'~-" •• r.,.":<""h.:... ,-"",-,-~"",:,",,,--,,,,:,, __ ,,,",~_,

Between Conflict I

Steiner, C. Scripts People Live: Trt Grove Press, 1974.

Tang, E.(2008) ''Autonomous http://www.areachicago.org/p/ profit-organizations/Accessed J.

. Tatum, B. D. "Why Are All the Bfa York: Basic Books, 2003.

Trujillo, M. A, and others. (eds.). j

Resolution Practice. Syracuse, N Varzi, R. W~lrring Souls: YOuth, M

Durham, N.C.: Duke Universi Viterna, ]. "Pulled, Pushed, and]

into the Salvadoran Guerilla 112(1), 1--45.

West, C. Race Matters. Boston: Bea Williams, P. J. The Alchemy ofRace

versity Press, 1991. Woerhle, 1. M. "Social Construct

from Feminist Approaches to I and 1. R. Kurtz (eds.), Social: Domination and Rebellion. Aus

Beth Roy is a long-time medi: books on social conflict, mas Amadou Diallo Teaches Us Abol the Practitioners Research and Centering Ctflture and Knowled. the Peace and Conflict Studies ley. She is also the author of S Conflict and Bitters in the HG Divides ofRace and Time.

__ _

i ,!~ ! . Ag " l111st ency.

i 1ng a Baseline 'b Resolution ,d R. O'Leary ~tion and Col-II r. lllver­iicago: U·~

lime: Rebuild­IPress, 2007. <;·cking. Green­

•A Critique of

ce, and Envi­moo. ~ocesses in the leli-Palestiniantl Issues, 1994,

rerkeley: Uni­

rrross Divides of

!bject." journal

!Dilemmas and r for Construc-

IS. New Haven,

I1,1973. ~ 21st Century

I.. M b'1­rtlClpant 0

V-217. [n A. D. Morris y. New Haven:

Ashgate, 2003. Toward a Crit­2006, 108(1),

Between Conflict Resolution and Social Movement Scholars 367

Steiner, C. Scripts People Live:. Transactional Analysis of Life Scripts. New York: Grove Press, 1974.

Tang, E.(2008) ''Autonomous Grassroots and Non-Profit Organizations." http://www.areachicago.org/p/issues/6808/autonomous-grassroots-and-non­profit-organizations/Accessed March 30th, 2010.

. Tatum, B. D. "Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting TOgether in the Cafeteria?" New York: Basic Books, 2003.

Trujillo, M. A., and others. (eds.). Re-Centering Culture andKnowledge in Conflict Resolution Practice. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 2008.

Varzi, R. Warring Souls: Youth, Media, and Martyrdom in Post-Revolution Iran. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2006.

Viterna, J. "Pulled, Pushed, and Persuaded: Explaining Women's Mobilization into the Salvadoran Guerilla Army." American journal of Sociology, 2006, 112(1), 1~5 .

West, C. Race Matters. Boston: Beacon Press, 1993. Williams, P. J. The Alchemy ofRace and Rights. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni­

versity Press, 1991. Woerhle, L. M. "Social Constructions of Power and Empowerment: Thoughts

from Feminist Approaches to Peace Reseat~h and Peace-Making." In N. Bell and L. R. Kurtz (eds.), Social Theory and Nonviolent Revolutiom: Rethinking Domination and Rebellion. Austin: University ofTexas at Austin Press, 1992.

Beth Roy is a long-time mediator in the San Francisco Bay Area. She writes books on social conflict, most recently 41 Shots . . . and Counting: What Amadou Diallo Teaches Us About Policing, Race, andjustice. She is a founder of the Practitioners Research and Scholarship Institute (PRAS!) , co-edited Re­Centering Ctflture and Knowledge in Conflict Resolution Practice, and teaches in the Peace and Conflict Studies program at the University ofCalifornia, Berke­ley. She is also the author of Some Trouble with Cows: Making Seme ofSocial Conflict and Bitters in the Honey: Tales of Hope and Disappointment Across Divides ofRace and Time.

CONFLIcr REsOLUTION QUARTERLY· 001: IO.I002/crq

.~ ·"·_·'-'=-"";"'J.~...£.·,~"·"t«.~~i:;,;,=_....",LkS._..,i:#.t.:",-S'..."_'::.O'"",,,,,,,,,,-,,.,.,_.....;:-,'i..~,_~,.,'"'"',;."".;."'~ '""'~_.; ...",.....-,,,,~"",, •.;;.,.....£;~ .... , .......;:::.~,,~:-,r.~_~,,~.~~-,, ... ;c, ."N_,_.·~, ._ •.• •. _"n '. _,_., ", .=--=,,=~~. ,

__

368 ROY, BURDICK, KRJESBERG

John Burdick is professor of anthropology at Syracuse University. He is the author of LookingfOr God in Brazil, The Progressive Catholic Church in Urban Brazil's Religious Arena; BlessedAnastacia: WOmen, Race and Popular Christian­ity in Brazil; and Legacies ofLiberation: Brazil's Progressive Catholic Church at the Start of a New Century. He is research director for the Advocacy and Activism program of the Program for the Advancement of Research on Con­flict and Collaboration, and co-director, with Steve Parks, of the Community Research Fellowship Program, both at Syracuse University.

Louis Kriesberg is professor emeritus of sociology; Maxwell Professor Emeri­tus ofSocial Conflict Studies; and founding director, PrograJ:l} on the Analysis and Resolution of Conflicts, at Syracuse University. He most recently co­edited, with Bruce W Dayton, Conflict Transformation and Peacebuif4ing: Movingfrom Violence to Sustainable Peace.

CONFLICT REsOLUTrON QUARTERLY· DO!: IO.IO02/crq

History, Me

This qrticle is the second of research into the study ofhis conflict. Interviews with mel

munities serve as the basis j

emerged that inform conflict i entation to the past and its

beliefi inform present perce} how to integrate historical m,

Conflict resolution is a fiel have occurred in the past, '

better future. k with any effc struggle with the challenges on nas at the expense of the others constantly moving among old, tions. Ifwe err, we tend to err il of the past; we want to solve d often uncertain as to how to n it is long-standing, and often 10 for greater impact than a reflec particular, tends to be more fut iation work tends to spend (Bar-Tal and Bennink, 2004; : in a series (Tint, 2010) that adc

CONFLICT REsOLUTION QUARTERLY, vol. 27, no. 4

and the Association for Conflicc Resolution· DO

"'=-"".>.-,,oci - K,~....Q-;,c_-.•h' O' .• _""":'<.::.._~,;';;:'':c.,,;'ci"~••,~-::«,,=~~.i:.'': ..,.X~' "'_""'~"'M"""""_ .. .•;'L"'>=O","'d.:it ..'~'~'-~.~.~iii