Understanding Conflict Escalation, Dynamics and Procesesses

Sometimes we learn from unexpected sources of knowledge and insights. TV sitcoms and experiences of latent conflicts are examples of these unconventional feeders of information and learnings.

With the help of the popular American TV-sitcom, Friends, and the Cold War, the three escalation models – contender – defender model, conflict spiral model and structural change model - are elaborated. Escalation of conflict can transform from light to heavy, small to large, specific to general, doing well to wining till hurting Other, and from few to many.

The contender-defender model distinguishes the Party (contender) and the Other (defender). Although the example given (school shootings) is too obvious, it still provides an idea of the model which starts from the Party initiating some action of change. If the action does not result to the desired goal, a heavier tactic is implemented until the Other submits to the desire of the Party.

The conflict spiral model refers to the vicious cycle of actions and reactions between the Party and Other. The Palestine-Israel conflict comes to mind for this model. One side does something as a retaliatory act of the other side. The other side responds with a heavier tactic, then comes the full circle of action and reaction marked with increased intensity.

The structural change model describes the escalation as persistent and recurring. This is due to psychological changes, changes in groups, and changes in communities. Under psychological changes, there are emotional changes and hostile attitudes, perceptions, and goals towards each side. Changes in groups also contribute to the persistence of escalation of conflict. One example of this is group polarization. Continuous escalation of conflict creates distinct and extreme groups that have hostile attitudes and perceptions of each side. Changes in communities also play role in this model. If there is a group polarization, there is also a community polarization wherein community members tend to support either of the side. In community polarization, becoming neutral is out of the question since the conflict is reduced to “you’re with us or against us” position.

These models do not propose solution to the conflict. What they do is to analyze and shed light on the conflict, which is a critical step towards conflict resolution.

Conflict Analysis Model and Concepts

As a conflict analysis and assessment model, Dr. Amr Abdalla's C.R. SIPABIO highlights the importance of certain factors in understanding and formulating suitable interventions on conflict. These factors which include context, relationship, sources, issues, parties, attitudes/feelings, behaviors, intervention, and outcomes operate generally in conflict situations.

The contextual factors could be class, geography, history, ethnicity, media, gender, religion, and culture. The relationship factor is the level of conflict; for example, inter-personal, inter-group, and international. The sources of conflict could be relationship, value, structural, interest, and data conflicts. The issues pertain to the incompatibilities of goals. The parties are the participants of a conflict. The attitudes are the feelings, emotions, and perceptions of the participants. The behavior is the action of the parties to further their goals. The intervention is also an action of the parties or even a third party to find and reach resolution to the conflict. The outcome is the effect of the behavior or intervention.

Click here for an example of application of CR SIPABIO as a conflict analysis and assessment model.

The significance of these factors in conflict resolution is of utmost consideration. How noble and good the intentions and efforts might be of the parties attempting to resolve the conflict, they would not hold ground and water without taking into account these factors mentioned above. It clearly shows how crucial conflict analysis and assessment is to the desired conflict resolution.

There are some models presented in the other reading like the Galtung’s model which defines negative peace (absence of direct violence) and positive peace (addressing structural and cultural violence), and the hourglass model which uses Galtung’s ideas and the escalation and de-escalation phases of conflict . The different yet parallel stages of conflict (management, resolution and transformations) and peace (peacekeeping, peacemaking and peacebuilding) are mentioned in these two models.

These models as in other models of various disciplines are useful and helpful in the approach and making sense of a phenomenon. In this case, it is conflict. However, the models should not be treated as “be-all, end-all” tools. There is no blueprint for conflict resolution. This is shown in the vicious cycle of conflicts that seems to have ended through a peace agreement, but then with a trigger of provocation and unfortunate circumstances, the conflict goes on and on.

Needless to say, each conflict is as unique as fingerprints of a person. Caution, research and reflection are necessary as there are other necessary things to work towards conflict resolution. It takes more than models, skills, timing, resources, charisma, positive attitudes towards peace, but these are significant elements for conflict resolution.