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 move­
ments, and rarely do the twain meet. Continuing an in-person dia­
logue, 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.
T
here are scholars of conflict resolution and scholars of social move­
ments, 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 prac­
tice, 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 sur­
prisingly, these differences track muddy footprints into scholarly kitchens.
CONFLlCf REsOLUTION QUARTERLY, vol. 27, no. 4, ·Summer 2010 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
and rheAssociarion for Conflicr Resolurion· DOl: 1O.lOOZ/crq.20002
347
~.
L-
348
,,"',,''1' (
min"
(*fT**'"
Between Conflict
ROY, BURDICK, KRIESBERG
Academics are generally genteel, and so the starkness of this character­
ization 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 reso­
lution. John Burdick is an anthropologist who studies grassroots move­
ments 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, look­
ing 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 domina­
tion, 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 con­
struction 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 theoriz­
ing 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 resolu­
tion 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·
./"'
c,~,",..._ , . __~.;tL.""
.."""",:-
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.
DOl: IO.lO02fcrq
* ,.
.. .':l":':::';:;:;:-i~--=.~ ....... "
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<
~ ..;,;';;:'~f~;
',i'... (.11. Z,l$ftI4A AMl4(A4jM:"c",l$JL,i/iP , t.t"",.j-Ab,.JMO!"'"
:.~
-
~tttf"~trttn"wrv
I
I
Between Conflict Resolution and Social Movement Scholars 349
brought about by the social movements of the 1950s through 1970s.
Training and experience in negotiating and mediating began to be institu­
tionalized and diffused in society. Then the field expanded by giving atten­
tion to transforming conflicts and getting adversaries to the table, to
achieving equitable and enduring agreements, and to building systems of
conflict management. The practice of peacebuilding following terrible vio­
lence became particularly important after the Cold War ended. The. con­
flict resolution field is now highly diverse in the kind of work done in an
array of conflicts. In our discussion here, we give particular attention to
conflict resolution scholarship that is still focused narrowly on the practices
related to negotiation and mediation, but we do not ignore the much
broader aspects of the field.
The field of social movements (SM) has also evolved greatly. Research
and theorizing in the 1930s and 1940s drew on earlier work pertaining to
crowds and riots. Social movements were a form of collective behavior
marked by emotions and irrationality. Such behavior was often viewed as dis-:
ruptive and destructive. The field changed greatly in the 1950s and 1960s as
social movements came to be seen as· the great drivers of needed social
change. In the United States this was first manifested in the civil tights strug­
gle and, in the colonial world, in struggles for national liberation. Many
other movements arose in the United States and around the world, among
them the student, antiwar, and women's movements. The nobility of the
cause and heavy, repressive responses have sometimes been used to justifY
resorting to violence as a necessary method of struggle (Fanon, 1961). In
recent decades, however, the effectiveness of nonviolent action has been ana­
lyzed and demonstrated and more frequently used (Sharp, 2005).
LCter­
)rs of
~st in
:s for
reso­
iove­
hflict
volv­
1 and
:ublic
fook­
;0 say
~pine
i·
[una-
I
its to
iocial
I
,ding
ent
ferny.
rg
I
i
I
I
!and
~h to
Icon­
land
ion
.
r
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
demic institution or training new practitioners within their program.
Social movement scholars, however strong their sympathies for particular
movements, and whatever activism individual scholars may take on, more
often approach their subject as analysts, the relations between theory/
research and practice/experience being more tenuous. Where it exists, train­
ing for activism is usually done outside academic institutions, conducted by
nongovernmental organizations associated with specific camps of partisans.
These differing orientations toward action are reflected in approaches to
the construction of knowledge. SM activists generally do not read academic
!~e it
rs.os
lorlZ-
vely
rlabor
~~~~
Ij this
r!
ges
CONFLICT REsOLUTION QUARTERLY"
!
I
"
r
n'~;j
1'Iff
;;.
£
@iUa..
To, ,.,"
-.,.i"......+.,,',.,...,
001: lO.l002/crq
t-
n _ _ , , " , s t e n f e t r t rh
350
$wr7Sr
RDY, BURDICK, KRIESBERG
Between Conflict
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 Move­
ments 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 of analysis 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 under­
standing 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 neu­
tral, impartially attentive to the concerns and interests of all participants.
CONFLICT REsOLUTION QUARTERLY·
001: IO.I002/crq
___ . _ . w..__ ,.
;;-;;>.,
'.
"ii. \A
JiJt.Q4iQk&
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 of conflict. 11
the feelings and functionalities I
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 of social movement orgar
Organizational Dynamics
Social movement organizations
about social change but often an
with their own colleagues, and v
...",if!
Between Conflict Resolution and Social Movement Scholars 351
If-defined
Jut many
lOwledge,
terials for
)rn et al.,
ial Move­
ctice.One
:ovements
~ropology
iI trying. to
,se wnters
hs do not
rists. (For
!a1 process
lmap key
lbor, and
lienee, by
effective
Sharp
Reitzes
I
f)'
r
~
activist
rr under­
fap more
renwood
~~
~
~wtlesthe toCR
a
i to the
mn
I
lovement
rarchers,
Pe as neu­
t .
~IClpants.
I
Social movement activists, of course, pursue a cause, advocating strenu­
ously for a position and a particular outcome. Although conflict resolu­
tion 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 move­
ment 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 of the processes.
What SM Scholars Can Learn from CR Scholars and Practitioners
We wish to begin by considering what workers in the field of social move­
ments 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 of participants; we suggest they
deserve more scholarly attention because both are phenomena affecting the
course of social 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
l.
fi
~
I
~
CONFLICf REsOLUTION QUARTERLY·
""..
.4.~'W¥t!!4¥¥}f#\#J\W't".,,,,,,,
DOl:
1O.lO02/crq
t
352
Between Conflict
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 of human diversity dynam­
ics. How common it is for well-intentioned, predominantly white organi­
zations, for instance, to bemoan the lack of social diversity in their ranks,
without understanding the relationship between their homogeneity and
their innocence of conflict 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 fre­
quently grow weary of the extra work, and resentful of the invisibility of
their ways and means. Unaddressed, these problems can lead to angry out­
bursts or other conduct that remains mysterious to socially dominant
actors (Roy, 2002; Williams, 1991).
Consider a comparison with organizations whose members are predom­
inantly people of color. They are more likely to have chosen an identity­
based 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 assump­
tions and styles differ from one's own is a familiar experience for most peo­
ple of color, but an uncomfortably new one for members of a dominant
social group. This kind of discomfort has been known to undercut dedica­
tion 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
of social 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·
r!"+ilOIt\:'4 ..
?:i5'"
The CR field has ideas and pr
entrenched conflict, negotiating 1
:
;·;::%;:'4
. . "",.:"",,~!J~WM@Ai\l"'"'iW'"
:-y
·'-"'J'_"·'''~'.'o'!·Z:''b'_'''''"·'''''''''...-r
Beyond Confrontation to Negotic.
DOl: IO.IO02/crq
":.-"-"~,-"",
'.'-',_',
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 Trujillo 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
"'''<.. 'S.ti'''"''--·fr'g" ,_".r.!f'''....:
,~_;:.'''''",;:
,.,,;,~...,.::.i·~.,;- --;,..·.""-r~.'-"'''_o.r_,.,;~u.-£,.~,«~£_"''
.._.£,~
,._:-:-~
.'~"._.
_"_. ,,-,_.
".. _
-,~=-
Between Conflict Resolution and Social Movement Scholars 353
III
tiy
by
m­
nl­
ks,
nd
ely
\Tes
:00
ho
Ing
are
i
lng
~
Ire-
6~~
nt
~
.,_
ltYRge
r~
lpF~
F~
lIS
f
lire
re
I•.
a1
to
articulate these differences, analyze them for the power dynamics of hier­
archy and coercion they embody, and create new processes for getting the
work done that are equally agreeable to all, things fall apart. In groups
working on issues of social justice, participants are often unwilling to
acknowledge that they have their own problems of inequality; cognitive
dissonance is simply t~o great (Snyder, 2003). Accusations of sexism or
racism raise spleen and cause splits. By contrast, when the needs of fre­
quently marginalized people are discounted once again--especially in a
place where social justice is supposed to be the objective-the hurt is too
great to be tolerated. In a truly just organization, where white approaches
to the work clash with those more comfortable to people of color, for
instance, it helps in building just relationships if compromises are shared a
bit unequally, with a little more accommodation on the part of the white
side (Chene, in Trujillo and others, 2008).
One more familiar dynamic ofconflict in progressive organizations: the
culprit in this case is dedication. Feeling in a minority, fighting against great
wrongs, and believing that the cause can only be won by long, sustained,
often frustrating effort, generates burnout. Burnout very often takes the
guise of internal condemnation (if! feel overwhelmed with work, and I per­
ceive 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
delivered can deal with dynamics of culture and power, building stronger
cadres for making needed social changes. this may include facilitated dis­
cussion of an organization's troubl~some issues in general and systems of
mediation for particular disputes.
Similar dynamics operate among different people working on the same
side of a barricade (Woerhle, 1992). Fragmentation ofmovements has his­
torically led to weakening change potential. An ability to work through
differences of approach and doctrine, in a manner that makes for stronger
programs and greater effectiveness, is sorely needed in progressive domains.
Conflict 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 cre­
ative options may be discovered through such procedures.
Beyond Confrontation to Negotiation
The CR field has ideas and practices that are applicable to transforming
entrenched conflict, negotiating mutually acceptable agreement, and building
CONFLler REsOLUTION QUARTERLY·
DOl: IO.I002/crq
/:r::.:
~
,', .,. '. ,~'''''''''''' ...':.~._~~==t ~'_t_. . ~__. .,~._, "_.
.
..
!"".**.\...
.'
.
' . .
.
.
.'.
' .
;
.
...­
,
?&at
_>
§5
;q,
:
,.
"1:;:-'~:""~~;'
354
Between Conflict R
ROY, BURDICK, KRIESBERG
II
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 ineffective­
ness and disappointment. Large-scale struggles consist of numerous cam­
paigns 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 nonvi­
olent strategic action (Ackerman and Kruegler, 1994). They offer a bril­
liant 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·
~
ij
!i
,II
~
I
~
U
~
I;
I,11
r,
"~
l
i,
II
1
~
their goals. As a consequence the
sary, alienate their allies, and din
fight. Settling earlier for more lit
ficial. A conflict resolution app
increasing awareness of the respo
awareness can be enhanced by 1
tion with members on the advc
about goals being sought and u
destructive consequences resultil
rejection, can often be accompl
The mediation can take many
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 of maki
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 of voice; and the issu
001: IO.I002/crq
--._-----
-,_ ..-.
. _.. ­
Between Conflict Resolution and Social Movement Scholars 355
their goals. fu a consequence they may strengthen the resolve of the adver­
sary, alienate their allies, and diminish internal support for continuing the
fight. Settling earlier for more limited achievements would be more bene­
ficial. 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 communica­
tion 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 essen­
tial needs are not threatened, then the possibility of a constructive conflict
settlement is enhanced (Dayton and Kriesberg 2009).
ld
III
Df
:d
ld
<.e
e­
[l­
ly
19
Dt
[s.
~y
i
to
m
I
~.
fP
F'
~
~,
11­
11­
~t
Ie
l"
10
10
I
What CR Scholars Can Learn from SM Scholars and Activists
(i)r
10
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.
a
f!~
It
,0
rs
a
!d
CONFLlGf REsOLUTION QUARTERLY·
•
·¥R.AjJ.J$4tJk;;#Wf.Ai!'klk~\J',7#:f,!?i'.;'WA_-:,.y<:~;·.
4"/"
n).'
DOl: lO.lO02/crq
j
l-'
'±'6
356
'v't"
Jr'
.; '-y, 'triter
'?ltv
Between Conflict I
ROY, BURDICK, KRIESBERG
The Analysis ofPower
Analysis of social movements can help conflict resolvers make better judg­
ment 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 of a nego­
tiating 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 discov­
ering 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 pres­
sure felt by the Supreme Court to make the bus laws of the South uncon­
stitutional. 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 of social 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 negoti­
ating table, the table is uneven. Actors with less social power cannot negoti­
ate 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;­
~
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 of po'
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
udg­
fects
rural
~. In
;e of
ut at
[the
nent
with
tott.
lego­
~res,
loges
~ape
bwn
I: ew
f~~~
f~~e~
lres­
10n­
~hat
,cial
Ii of
Lid
~09;
~s IS
lam
F~
r~otI­
1to
"
~ly
.cial
movement theory, an essential precondition for realistic, respectful negotia­
tions. "Respect" is not an attitude, in this view; it is recognition of a certain
real distribution of power. Negotiations can simply ratifY an existing situa­
tion or modifY it depending on how they are structured. They can be affected
by the qualities, resources, and skills a mediator brings to the table. They also
can be affected by the presence or absence of various interested parties. The
mediator and the presence of groups associated with the weaker party can
enhance its bargaining position and thereby increase the symmetry of the
negotiations. Power relations are complex, determined by structural, cul­
tural, and political factors in dynamic interaction (Roy in Trujillo and others,
2008). But ultimately, how much power can be equalized "at the table" is
limited by who "comes in the c\.oor."
Asymmetry in relations between adversaries occurs in varying ways and
degrees, forming obstacles to equitable and enduring mutually acceptable
conflict settlement (Kriesberg, 2009; Mitchell, 1995). Social movement
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
to bring about fundamental change. Toward that end, people working
within a social movement frame think in terms of gaining power, while
practitioners of conflict resolution cannot work unless there exists reason­
able trust among participants. Goals of gaining power and of establishing
trust may be at odds with one another at a particular time.
We therefore don't assume that trust is always desirable. One party can
be too trusting and end up misled, exploited, and disadvantaged by
an opposing side. Recognizing such developments can be a necessary step
in achieving well-grounded mutual trust. Such trust may be the result of
extended experience in dependable equitable exchanges (Axelrod, 1984).
It may result from negotiating agreements or establishing institutions that
set rules for conduct in particular domains, and procedures to monitor and
enforce compliance. The point is that trust is viewed not as a matter ofsen­
timental niceness or as inherent in good actors but as situational and
dependent on conditions that are socially constructed (Hoffman, 2006).
Because conflict resolution is both focused on the pragmatics of settle­
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.
Conflict resolution may help social movement analysts and activists
address interpersonal conflict based in social identity dynamics; social
movement analysis may help make conflict resolvers aware of those exter­
nal power dynamics that tend to be unrecognized inside the room where
CONFLICT REsOLUTION QUARTERLY·
DOl:
10.1002/crq
358
I,
ROY. BURDICK, KRIESBERG
Between Cantlie
processes take place. At best, there is some recognition of how social iden­
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 "hid­
den 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 iden­
tity (Scott, 1990; Coronel in Trujillo and others, 2008). Within the con­
flict resolution field (as elsewhere, among police officers of color, for
instance), verbal critiques abound of the superficiality of training in multi­
culturalism, with claims made that what is taught may compound stereo­
types 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 atten­
tion 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 of social movements contributes to under­
standing changes in social structures, norms, and world views. This is evi­
dent in global changes in the status ofwomen, the salience of human rights
norms, the legitimacy of popular participation in governance, and valua­
tion 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 of prior strug­
gles (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
--.
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 t1­
facilitate 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<
Between Conflict Resolution and Social Movement Scholars 359
:ial iden­
r dealing
y-Gibbs,
race and
rate such
~ls "hid­
i identity
!.
."
nmonty
I
ieally do
eir iden­
the con­
rlor, for
in multi­
~ stereolevel of
l
growmg
Is atten­
" factors
ersanes.
r. u.nde~-
tis IS evlFrights
d valua­
I
through
and so
I benefit
liomains
change.
terature
cultural
r strug­
I'
ly talk.
bple who
tN,n,~
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 of speech 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 articu­
late 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 con­
text of child-protection actions, disputes with school districts over special
education, and other "services" that often show up in people's lives as coer­
cive. Rather than benefiting family members, too often they add layers of
disadvantage to hardships already taking place. Giving voice to those tradi­
tionally 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 Net­
work, 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 prac­
tices in the forest (collecting pinion nuts, for instance, or fishing in espe­
cially 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 rec­
ognizable organizational positions, and so on. John Paul Lederach promotes
CONFLICT REsOLUTION QUARTERLY'
'j
I
001:
10.1002/crq
-",..;;S.;~_""':"';';'~""
360
ROY, BURDICK KRIESBERG
Between Conflict
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 of middle-level leadership, with no particular screen­
ing 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, coun­
teracting any presumption that those who inhabit it lack the resources to
participate. As social science analyses of indigenous peoples help us under­
stand, they often have the most relevant resources-their own leaders, col­
lective 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 rela­
tionship 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 constituen­
cies 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 char­
acter 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·
~.,,_., ·~ms".~:
001:
The Issue of Violence
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
1D.1 DD2/crq
. . . . ~:~.";,,,;;.. '>-".r~ ... ~,.... ·~,..-",_",,,.. "j""~&."a".i'i't':!:,.,fffii{.""""J...,.... '. "';', ~,,;,;=. '''''''''.~ ',,"~=;::';"'-"", ~ ,·,.<·.~c ,,,_::-.."'~.""
..
...r-2""v ..
~
Between Conflict Resolution and Social Movement Scholars 361
The Issue of Violence
f needs to
~h, 1995).
~e "polite"
iar screen­
bthers not
In the modern world, it is a simple and noncontroversial fact that the vast
majority of violence is wielded by state actors. Despite exceptions that
command the headlines, the majority of nonstate actors struggling for
social change actually use nonviolent tactics. Still, violence is sometimes
potentially or actually present in the tactics of nonstate actors. Unfortu­
nately, in conflict resolution work violence is often not dealt with in a very
sophisticated way. People working on intervention in domestic violence,
for instance, eschew narrow conflict resolution. Here is a place where the
framework within which power is understood works against effective
action. Seeing that disputes between domestic partners cannot be resolved
through talk when one person is being brutalized, change agents in this
arena refuse mediation and work instead to protect the person being
harmed. Usually, the only resource recognized for doing so is removing the
victim from the home, an act that often results in her isolation from famil­
iar resources and, in the context of a gender-biased economy, increased
poverty. Paradoxically, domestic violence activists are increasingly recog­
nizing that the very things they do to "empower" victimized women, given
the existing institutional framework, actually land their clients in a posi­
tion of greater weakness.
But if we can escape a conceptual frame of individualism and the
nuclear family, there are alternatives. One agency working primarily with
immigrant families from Asia seeks to leave both those doing harm and
those harmed in the home· by activating the extended community sur­
rounding them. Training friends, relatives, neighbors, and co-workers to
intervene, they construct safety without the severe dislocation of a shelter
and separation. Having begun this program, they began also to seek con­
flict resolution skills not for the purpose of negotiating between embattled
domestic partners but in order to create cohesion among community
interveners.
Social movements by necessity frame things in terms of collectivities,
while conflict resolution by practice sometimes tends to narrow frames to
"parties," weighted down with assumptions of individualism and class bias.
To be sure, people acting to make change on the societal plane are not
immune from such limitations ofconsciousness, for they too are citizens of
a common culture. But the nature of the actions they take leads them out­
ward into greater community, while conflict resolution often further iso­
lates people behind a wall of confidentiality.
I
ia series of
!promptly
~e discord
§
kant, and
~
:1'
teo
I
~ts, coun­
!sources to
~us under­
~aders, col­
~e greatest
!Schnabel,
I the social
Ithe 1990s
r,ative rela­
t-hich new
~f nonstate
tell, 2008;
~ties is the
i
.
EOnStltuen­
f,
ID. Internal
~ of leaders
'ettlements
WOUld do
leadership
lstituencies
rould help
Jtus and of
~
.is t h e
nanr
I
ic~ass char-
~Iit.tIng them
might risk
,I
CONFLICT REsOLUTION QUARTERLY'
-
_.-
_.
.'-'-'
001: IO.tO02/ceq
. - .....-.~-~.
-,"""'''''''''''''''''''
~
... ,,' ..
",--~
362
'
ROY, BURDICK, KRIESBERG
Between ContHct I
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 secu­
rity 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 communica­
tive 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 vio­
lence far less often than have state actors (Mayer, 2000), A third step is to
understand violence of larger structures including state terror and institu­
tional violence (Varzi, 2006). A fourth step is to place patterns of mobi­
lization 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.
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 of research 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.
Conclusion
References
The fields of conflict resolution and of social movement studies are distinc­
tive, 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'~ .....,-:..;;-:.~ ~,!£:;>";,,, .'_.~ ,_."':- .
'''_''';..
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
diverse
Middle
Tties to
~e field.
I
.
loratlve
iuanced
l,ctlve
. Iy.
synthesis, for example, in the case of work on constructive conflict escala­
tion and on coalition formation in mobilizing support in a struggle.
Much more mutual borrowing and synthesizing would be useful for
workers in both fields. Since 1987, the annual series Research in Social
Movements, Conflicts, and Change, initially edited by Louis Kriesberg and
now by Pat Coy, has attempted to foster such efforts. A more direct way to
advance this synergy is for workers in each field to examine the writing in
the other. It might also be useful to arrange meetings and workshops on
particular topics to which some people from both fields are contributing.
Finally, one or two persons from the two fields can join together in their
writing or in other practices in their fields. The challenge is to articulate
joint projects of research and action. It is important to develop a long time
horizon, in which it becomes possible to focus on a variety of moments in
a long-term process of change. Kriesberg's model of escalation and deesca­
lation (2007b) is a valuable point of departure.
But for the projects to bear theoretical fruit, we suggest at least two
other str~tegies. First, a sponsored discussion of activists, conflict resolvers,
and social movement analysts in which all are focused on a single conflict,
in which the goal is to identifY a common practical puzzle, would impor­
tantly strengthen cross-disciplinary dialogue. Perhaps scholars, practition­
ers, clients, and activists from each field could be invited to participate in a
symposium devoted to the topic, followed by a series of forums at major
conferences in each field. It is likely that only when a common stake has
been identified-one in which there is an equal measure of practical neces­
sity and analytical challenge-will deeper useful insight be achieved.
Second, it is crucial that the very process of discovery involve not just
academic participants in this process but nonacademic ones as well.
Nonacademic stakeholders need to become involved in the process of
knowledge and theory production not just as bystanders but as direct,
active participants. Many of the intellectual and political bottlenecks
we face today-what counts as an effective, durable settlement? how can we
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.
lvolved
~l secu­
IlYs and
hverged
I
~
~::;:;;
,iole~ce
ulllca­
retxaga,
Isocially
p IS to
al vio­
ep is to
institumobi­
:gue.rilla
varIOUS
nce fits
driolo,
_rs who
will be
kte it in
lit how
1
References
distinc­
Ackerman, P, and Kruegler, C. Strategic Nonviolent Conflict. Westport, Conn.!
London: Praeger, 1994.
Adler, P S. "Is ADR a Social Movement?" Negotiation Journal, 1987,3(1), 59-66.
-~melzle
kgree of
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 Anthropolo­
gist, 2006, 108(1),66-76.
Aretxaga, B. "Dirty Protest: Symbolic Overdetermination and Gender in North­
ern 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: Rec­
ognizing Knowledge-Practices in the Study of Social Movements." Anthropo­
logical 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 Peacebuild­
ing: 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.
CONFLlCf REsOLUTION QUARTERLY· 001:
i···L..
'~L_:'" ,,;C>....:,.:.,..'-j;?:.:.:.:~: ...=T...- -~ -. <..\f"...~ii*,s:;;;£:<:--",,:.
-·,.c•.
IO.lO02/crq
~::,--.:.~>-;,; • .,;!'~.:.;;,.;;=.::.:.,~,,,,,.",,,,;~~.;.~.;.,,~
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
I
!
!
Between Conflict Resolution and Social Movement Scholars 365
'I
!
I
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 Inter­
national Studies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002.
Kriesberg, L. "The Conflict Resolution Field: Origins, Growth and Differentia­
tion." 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 of Conflict Resolution." In V. A. Kremenyuk, 1. W
Zartman, and]. Bercovitch (eds.), Sage Handbook ofConflict Resolution. Lon­
don: 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. Syra­
cuse, 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 of California Press, 2002.
Orjuela, C. "Domesticating Tigers: The LTTE and Peacemaking in Sri Lanka."
In B. W Dayton and L. Kriesberg (eds.), Conflict Transformation and Peace­
building: From Violence to Sustainable Peace. Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2009.
Ihh, N.T.:Random
I
~~hropolo-
!,
h North­
!. Begofia
I
I
Dayton
London
[[00.
i
I
g Social
105, 4~3),
~:'~:~
(thropo­
re, N.Y.:
,nts. New
Lebuild­
~e, 2009.
tor Justice
a.: Good
[
I
Without
~eace:
The
~n;",,;on
r,2000,
f5-1991.
I
16, 84(4),
I
. CONFLICT REsOLUTION QUARTERLY·
-~-
----
DOl: IO.I002/ceq
~
~
-
-
-- -
""
~
- -
~
-_..__..-..­
••
-------~."~~_
- ---­
J
..~
.~
1
1
[
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 Col­
laboration. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group, 2008.
Polletta, F. It Was Like a Fever: Storytelling in Protest and Politics. Chicago: Univer­
sity of Chicago Press, 2006.
Pouligny, B., Chesterman, S., and Schnabel, A (eds.). After Mass Crime: Rebuild­
ing States and Communities. Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2007.
Reitzes, D. c., and Reitzes, D. C. The Alinsky Legacy: Alive and Kicking. Green­
wich, 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, and Envi­
ronmental 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: Uni­
versity 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 Construc­
tive 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!
,
Between Conflict Resolution and Social Movement Scholars 367
~
! . Agency. "
l111st
i
1ng a Baseline
'b Resolution
, d R. O'Leary
II
~tion
and Col-
r.
U·
iicago:
lllver­
~
lime: Rebuild­
IPress, 2007.
<;·cking. Green­
•A Critique of
ce, and Envi­
moo.
~ocesses
in the
leli-Palestinian
tl Issues, 1994,
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-non­
profit-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 and Knowledge 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 of Texas at Austin Press, 1992.
rerkeley: Uni­
rrross Divides of
!bject." journal
!Dilemmas and
r for Construc-
IS. New Haven,
I
1,1973.
~ 21st Century
I..
rtlClpant M 0 b'1­
V-217.
[n A. D. Morris
y. New Haven:
Ashgate, 2003.
Toward a Crit­
2006, 108(1),
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 Re­
Centering Ctflture and Knowledge in Conflict Resolution Practice, and teaches in
the Peace and Conflict Studies program at the University of California, Berke­
ley. 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·
.~ ·"·_·'-'=-"";"'J.~...£.·,~"·"t«.~~i:;,;,=_.... ",LkS._..,i:#.t.:",-S'..."_'::.O'"",,,,,,,,,,-,,.,.,_.....;:-,'i..~,_~,.,'"'"',;."".;."'~ '""'~_.; ...",.....-,,,,~"",, •.;;.,..... £;~ .... , .......;:::.~,,~:-,r.~_~,,~.~~-,, ...
;c,
."N_,_.·~, __ ._ •.• _ •.
_"n
'.
_,_.,
",
.=--=,,=~~.
,
001: IO.I002/crq
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 Christian­
ity 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
History, Me
Activism program of the Program for the Advancement of Research on Con­
flict 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 Emeri­
tus of Social Conflict Studies; and founding director, PrograJ:l} on the Analysis
and Resolution of Conflicts, at Syracuse University. He most recently co­
edited, with Bruce W Dayton, Conflict Transformation and Peacebuif4ing:
Movingfrom Violence to Sustainable Peace.
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,
onflict 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. If we 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
C
CONFLICT REsOLUTION QUARTERLY, vol. 27, no. 4
and the Association for Conflicc Resolution· DO
CONFLICT REsOLUTrON QUARTERLY· DO!: IO.IO02/crq
iii
"'=-"".>.-,,oci -
;'L"'>=O","'d.:it
K,~....Q-;,c_-.•h '
O' .•
_""":'<.::.._~,;';;:'':c.,,;'ci"~••,~-::«,,=~~.i:.'':
. ,.X~' __ "'_""'~"'M"""""_
'~'~'-~.~.~
..
..
.•