 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
 Posted - 19 Aug 2008 : 06:49:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by mansasulu
great analysis, Kay. I enjoyed reading the piece.
Thank you sir... |
 |
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 05 Sep 2008 : 13:16:34
|
September 02, 2008.
continuation.
THE NATURE OF POWER IN CONFLICT AND HOW PERCEPTIONS OF POWER AFFECT COMMUNICATION IN CONFLICTS:
Kayjatta.
Power is often categorized as (a) designated power, (b) distributive power, and (c) integrative power.
Designated power often referred to as and/or power is the power assumed as a result of the position one holds. For example the power conferred by the presidency, professorship, fatherhood, or a management position is a designated power.
Power could also be designated to a higher cause; as in John McCain’s words “a cause higher than self interest”; such as the family, the country, the marriage, democracy, or any other such cause.
Distributive power is the power achieved by exercising physical strength and dominion over the resistance of the opposing party in the conflict. Distributive power is much about dominance; it focuses more on winning at all cost. Hence it is also often referred to as either/or power. In the words of Burgoon, Johnson, and Koch (1998) it is either “I dominate you or you dominate me”. This is the power that seeks to move others against their will. It invokes images of a power struggle, either between nations or in interpersonal relationships.
In conflicts with destructive spirals, concerns about power increases rapidly and the communicative strategies shift towards more control, point scoring and dirty tricks (Sabourin and Stamp 1995). In this situation, rights and interests are ignored and are often lost and buried under concerns for power.
Integrative power is a both/and power, with emphasis on sharing power with others. Lilly (1989, 281) recognizes integrative power as ‘joining forces with someone else to achieve mutually acceptable goals”.
This approach to power is useful when people work in teams. This approach focuses on making the project successful, achieving mutual goals, and starting a new effort and seeing it through to success. In our industrialized culture, however, where independence and self promotion is common, this kind of power is often regarded as naïve (Fletcher, 1999).
Power is fundamental to the concept of conflict. It can be safely argued that conflict is driven largely by an exercise of power or a lack of it. All conflicts involve an unequal distribution of power between and among the conflict participants. In order words, there is certain imbalance of power in every conflict.
The way power is perceived by the conflicting parties is important in analyzing and understanding and ultimately finding a resolution for the conflict. In conflict analysis, the perception of the parties must be really taken into consideration. The conflicting parties well often differ greatly as to the perception of their goals, need for scarce resources, and interference (that is the way each is interfering with the other’s success and achievement of those goals and scarce resources).
The way these elements of the conflict are perceived, and the way power (both their own and the others in the conflict) is perceived by the conflicting parties is often the major determinant of the choice of communication in the conflict.
When people are engaged in conflict, their thoughts and perceptions about power makes them communicate in certain ways. A recent example is the war between Russia and Georgia. Russia, obviously the high power nation in the conflict over-ran Georgia, a low power nation, with tanks and ground troops with little regards for diplomacy and negotiation. Georgia, on the other hand, could not match Russia’s military might and therefore resorted to a media war calling the Russian invasion genocide, ethnic cleansing, and an attack on democracy and free Europe.
Power, according to the relational theory, is a dynamic product of changing relationships. The conflict participants are often either high powered or low powered, although these descriptions are not static. The balance of power can be very fluid, and shift occasionally from one party to another.
The power that is exercised by an individual in the conflict is often determined by his or her:
1. Resourcefulness (skills or possession of important resources)
2. Conversational control (who talked the most? Who interrupted the most? Who changed topics the most? And who engaged the most?)
3. Decision making
4. Potential influence (covert use of power)
5. Perceive resistance
6. Passive aggressive behavior
a. Forgetting appointments and other responsibilities
b. Saying unkind things and then apologizing
c. Slamming doors, banging objects, and other similar non-verbal acts and then denying that anything is wrong
d. Getting emotional, confused, tearful, sarcastic when uncomfortable issues are mentioned
e. Calling sick and evading responsibilities.
It appears very clear that power is indeed in the eyes of the beholder. The way power is perceived and recognized determined in a large measure the way it is exercised and reacted to.
Therefore, one of the successful ways to moderate and resolve conflicts is to modify how power is perceived in the conflict.
MODERATING BEHAVIORS IN CONFLICT:
There are several steps that can be taken to moderate conflicts. There are three generally recognized methods to do this, such as:
(a) Change each or one another,
(b) They could try to alter the conflict conditions, or
(c) They could try to alter their own communications and perceptions about the conflict. The third and last option is the most effective way to moderate conflict while the first one is the least effective. Altering one’s own communication and perception about the conflict is an approach consistent with the ‘watershed principle’, Boulding (1989).
Conflicts could also be moderated by avoiding the extremes of avoidance and escalation. The conflicting parties must strive to operate in the ‘midrange’ through self-regulation.
Any conflict could benefit from these approaches mentioned above. For example in conflict between spouses both need to change their communication and perception of each other’s life and behavior. Each party needs to restrain him or herself from constantly criticizing the other, and restrain from lashing out at the other.
They will both need to use more constructive communication practices to in order to overcome a recurring conflict and reach a lasting resolution. Some of the constructive communication practices that can be utilized are:
1. Dialogue-this approach involves a constructive confrontation so that the resolution of the conflict is discovered by the conflicting parties. The dialogue approach has the benefit of positively valuing and honoring each party as a person by giving them a chance to be heard and listened to. It is based on the recognition that none of the parties has a monopoly of truth; truth emerges only as a result of a joint exploration (Buber 1972; Stewart 1978). Since this is a family matter, dialogue is a very fitting approach because by dialogue the parties express their commitment to their relationship.
2. Fractionation-conflicts could also be moderated if the parties try to reduce or break down the conflict into smaller more manageable components that can be addressed directly and effectively It involves making smaller conflicts out of larger ones; to bring then to size without trivializing them.
3. Reframing-this involves changing the categories one uses for him or herself, the other party and the conflict issues that keep the conflict from resolving. It also help move the resolution process forward by giving a truthful, more positive view of the issues. Some of the specific methods suggested by Steven P. Cohen (Focusing on Interests rather Than Positions, 2004) that can be used to reframe conflict issues in order to reach a resolution are as follows:
• Separate the conflict issues from the conflicting parties. This will help address the conflict instead of personality attack.
• Listen and acknowledge the other party. This enables you to get the full grasp of the other’s perspectives and help you be more rational and respectful of the other party so that a compromise is reachable.
• Differentiate between positions and interests. One must try to avoid rigid positions, and focus on interest, both his and those of other parties, instead.
• Seek fairness. Cheating, lying, manipulation and deception should be avoided, because they will result in an escalation of the conflict.
• Stay calm. Anger and stupid actions have the potential of escalating conflict instead of help find
Altering one’s own communication and perception of conflict is the most successful way to resolve conflicts. This, however, requires discipline, self-regulation and a commitment to “a cause higher than self interest” such as love of country, the sanctity of marriage and family, believe in democracy and freedom, and so on and so forth. Imagine if Russia alters its perception of Georgia as a sovereign nation or even look at the missile defense system in Poland in a different perspective or if Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe suddenly changes his views about the role of the opposition and called for a national unity government with major duties offered to the opposition. These moves in communicative and perceptive behavior could end these conflicts over night without a shot being fired. In deed these small unilateral changes in conflict reverberate throughout the entire conflict system.
In order to turn around a destructive spiraling conflict from within one self, one must be willing or able to give up the benefits one gains in the conflict. This may sound absurd, but some of the things people gain in conflict is that (a) the conflict at least keeps the relationship going, albeit destructively, (b) the feeling of pleasure by proving to friends and family how wrong or foolish the other one is and how innocent or right they are, and (c) the conflict enables a covert exercise of power.
The secret of resolving conflicts, especially interpersonal conflicts, is not to wait for the other person to change first. If you can step up to the plate that is what you need to do here and now.
Conflicts tend to become a vicious cycle that feeds on itself gaining strength and expanding, consuming everything in its way until someone steps in to break the cycle. Conflicts then operate within a system.
SYSTEMS THEORY:
Conflicts generally operate as systems. The system in which the conflict operates could be a business organization, a family, a church, a political/economic regional group, and so on. Systems theory is concerned with finding out how the entire system operates. It makes it possible to understand conflicts by providing information about patterns, interlocking sequences, functions of the parties, and methods of processing information. The aim of this theory is not by finding causality or someone to blame, but rather by understanding the mechanism of the conflict.
Systems theory focuses attention on:
1. Wholeness; that is the entire system of actors instead of a collection of individual behaviors. The whole is indeed greater than the sum of the parts.
2. Organization; that is how the parts of the system interconnect and operate together.
3. Patterning; that is what patterns are connected, predictable, and what functions those patterns have.
In conflict situations, individual parties interact in a chain reaction where each member’s action generates a reaction from others in a cyclic and snowballing manner of escalatory conflict. This is the concept of circular causality; the beginning of the conflict is not all that important, the sequences are what really matters. After all conflict participants always see the other as the cause while portraying themselves as innocent.
Labeling and blaming often prevent people from changing, thereby solidifying them into a rigid role in the conflict. For example the labeling of U.S. troops in Iraq as occupiers generates a spontaneous reaction from insurgents and others in that conflict thereby complicating any chance of a troop withdrawal. This arguably perpetrates actual occupation.
Conflicts are not only sustained by disagreement. At least those in conflict agree on one thing. They agree on the continuation of the conflict by developing a state of mind that entraps them in a morphostatic system. I think it was Albert Einstein who once said that in order to solve a problem; you have to change your mental state that got you into the problem in the first place. Dr. Wayne Dyer said the same thing in a slightly different way; “if you change the way you look at the world, the world around you begins to change”. It takes only one person to change a conflict. Changing your own behavior, even if you cannot get others change theirs, is the ultimate way to end a conflict. The so-called “Sunni awakening” in the Iraq conflict is a stark illustration of this. The moment the Iraqi Sunnis elders decided to work with U.S. soldiers (instead of resisting and fighting them) to combat largely foreign insurgents, violence begin to sharply drop in Iraq making it possible for negotiations of a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops to begin.
In high intensity conflicts characterized by close relationships and power imbalance, third parties may be drawn into the conflict in an attempt to form coalitions, usually by the low-power participant. Just like being caught up in a “love triangle”, this creates a “conflict triangle” (in fact interlocking conflict triangles) which if become destructive could further escalate the conflict (Satir 1972; Hoffman 1981; Minuchin 1974). I think the U.S. involvement in the Russia/Georgia conflict following Georgia’s appeal for U.S. help is a classic example of this. Several toxic triangles began to emerge superimposed on each other, such as U.S./Russia/Georgia triangle, NATO/Russia/U.S. triangle, U.S./Russia/Poland triangle, and U.S./Russia/NATO triangle.
A complete analysis of the Georgia/Russia conflict will have to take consideration of the following:
1. The dynamics of the overall system involving the relationship between and among Russia, Georgia, U.S., Europe, and the other former soviet republics
2. The recurring actions and behaviors inside this system that is associated with this conflict
3. The individual contribution of each and all of these countries to the overall system that generate the conflict
This approach to analyzing, understanding, and intervening in conflict is rooted in systems theory. We have to examine the whole system, not just the relation between Russia and Georgia. The recurring issues of NATO membership, arms and oil trade, and East/West power politics are what continue to define Russia/Georgia relationship.
Many of the former Soviet republics adopted a western style market economy after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Russia was hit by an economic crisis in 1998.
Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova created a group (GUAM, a subsidiary of the Commonwealth of Independent States) to counter Russian dominance and influence.
In 2005 Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova were joined by Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania to form the Community of democratic Choice, which is another group intended to stifle Russian Interest in the region.
Since 2003, several revolutions in the former soviet republics have witnessed the rule of the mainly anti-Russian opposition. The Orange revolution in Ukraine brought in Viktor Yushchenko, the Tulip revolution in Kyrgyzstan led to the resignation of Asker Akayev, and the Rose revolution in Georgia led to the fall of Eduard Shevardnadze, a pro-Russian and former USSR secretary of State under Mikhail Gorberchev.
Many of the military conflicts in the post-soviet era are related to the separatist activities of Chechnya, Transnistra (in Moldova), Nagorno-Karabakh (in Azerbaijan, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia (in Georgia). These so-called “Frozen conflicts” with a significant population of Russian-speaking people makes this region a political and security hot bed.
On august 7th, 2008 Georgia launched a surprise attack on south Ossetia to get control of the break-away enclave. Then within hours Russia launched an all out invasion of Georgia on the pretext of protecting its citizens in South Ossetia even though South Ossetia is within the internationally recognized borders of Georgia.
What is Russia’s approach to this conflict? How is Russia utilizing its power
There are usually rules at play in conflict systems. These rules for conflict can often be an impediment to conflict management and resolution. For example the concept of “non-engagement” (not talking to your enemies) in international relations especially in the case of U.S. and Iran and formerly U.S. and North Korea destroys any chance of collaborative conflict management.
Conflicts, as problematic as they are, serve a purpose. People and nations who have conflicts generally cannot ignore each other. Conflicts arguably are an affirmation that the conflicting parties in deed matter to each or one another. Conflicts are often an expression of dissatisfaction, but they can also be a launching pad for solving mutual problems, or substituting for other forms of intimacy between spouses for example.
The ongoing conflict keeps the conflicting parties engaged, and therefore connected although in a toxic way.
Systems theory, as espoused by Bateson, G (1972, 1980) and others is an important tool in analyzing and understanding conflicts. But it is not without limitations. Two important limitations of this theory are:
1. When the conflicting parties are in disagreement over the definition or the kind of system they want to be part of. This puts the whole system in a flux, thereby making individual actions more important than system wide dynamics.
2. Depending on the needs of the circumstances, not all systems are functional because relationships go through cycles of change on various aspects.
References:
1. Bateson, G. 1972. Steps on ecology of mind. New York Ballantine Books
1980. Mind and nature: a necessary unity. New York bantam Books.
2. Boulding , K. 1962. Conflict and defense: a general theory. New York: Harper
Torchbooks.
3. Buber, M. 1972. Between man and man. New York : Macmillan.
4. Burgoon, J.K., M.L. Johnson, and P.T. Koch. 1998. The nature and measurement of interpersonal dominance. Communication monograph 65, no. 4: 308-310.
5. Fletcher, J. 1999. Disappearing acts: Gender, power, and relational practice at work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Hoffman, L. 1981. Foundations of family therapy: a Conceptual framework for systems change. New York: basic Books.
7. Lilly, E.R. 1989. The determinants of organizational power styles. Educational Review
41: 281-293.
8. Minuchin, S. 1974. Families and family therapy. Cambridge MA: Harvard University
Press.
9. Sabourin, T.C. and G.H. Stamp. 1995. Communication and the experience of dialectical tensions in family life: an examination of abusive and non-abusive families. Communication monographs 62: 213-242.
10. Satir, V. 1972. Peoplemaking, palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.
11. Stewart, J. 1978. Foundations of dialogic communication. Quarterly journal of speech
64: 183-201.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
