1
Midterm CONF 501
Maria J. Pallotta
Part I.
Explain asymmetric conflict in the context of an oppressive structure.
1a) please characterize asymmetric conflict by shedding light on identity,
power, and structure that help perpetuate dominant/subordinate relationships
1b) what are conditions required for transforming asymmetric conflict?
1c) what kind of strategies do we need to manage, settle or resolve
asymmetrical conflict?
Asymmetric conflict is any conflict where there is a significant imbalance between
adversaries, with one possessing large advantages over the other, often characterized
by oppression. Two good examples are the Chinese oppression of Tibet since the era
of Mao Tse Tung, and apartheid in South Africa. Such oppression is maintained
successfully when those in power believe, and convince others to believe in a
widespread manner, that their opponents are lesser in some way, usually by their ethnic
identity (i.e., Tibetans, blacks), class, gender, tribe, etc. Psychological aspects play an
important role in these portrayals, as humans can more easily justify oppression of an
out-group if they believe that their adversaries are somehow lesser or even inhuman
(e.g., the Dalai Lama categorized as a “wolf in monk’s robes”).
Power imbalances only exacerbate this effect. By often dehumanizing
opponents or otherwise portraying them as morally inferior, those in power maintain the
status quo by justifying discrimination of out-groups. Those in power can harm others
physically, mentally, and economically; because they possess this ability, it is more
effortless for them to discriminate against those who differ from them. If those in power
also control the access to information, they can easily spread their poison to the
populace while denying their opponents free voice to counter their arguments. The
more the powerful demonize the oppressed and negatively stereotype them, the less
they will appear as fellow humans and the easier it will be to continue to justify their
poor treatment. Power and identity are inextricably linked in this process and depend
upon each other.
Structure often plays a role, although not enough research and attention have
focused on this area. Structure refers to the economic foundation of a society and how
class composition creates economic inequality. Too often, structure is regarded as a
constant and not a variable. In other words, the class system is seen as constant with
little inherent mobility. If those in power accept this as fact, then they can more easily
further justify oppression of the lower classes—if they are lesser economically, then in
this construct it follows that the lower classes are actually seen as lesser people who
are worth less and are incapable of ever becoming important. Therefore, social
injustice is tacitly approved and even justified. Those in power remain in power
because to them it is the natural order of things. Because human nature is resistant to
2
change, those with power and wealth tend to cocoon their belongings and guard them
jealously.
The conditions for transforming asymmetric conflict are nothing short of social
and economic justice for the oppressed; they need to be made equals with a
proportional voice in the society’s decisions, with political legitimacy and their
grievances acknowledged. This implies that they be permitted to speak their own
language (i.e., Tibetans) and to move freely about their country with associated cultural
freedoms (i.e., religion, speech, etc.). Before any of this can occur, of course, all
violence, torture, killing, and any other form of suffering or oppression must cease.
Since identity is a fluid concept, those in power must re-structure their own identity in
relation to their former opponents’ identity so that they may regard them as fellow equal
humans worthy of survival, dignity, and happiness equal to theirs.
The types of strategies to manage, settle, and resolve asymmetric conflicts
involve not only the acknowledgement of grievances but legitimate, earnest, and
successful attempts to eradicate the underlying inequality structure. Until the deepseated resentments are wiped away, true conflict transformation cannot occur. Lip
service and other short-term band-aid types of quick fixes may be effective at ceasing
violence and the proximate causes of a conflict; however, without complete
transformation of the skewed identity relationships, power dynamics, and economic
structure, these attempts will fail in the long term. Because this is an immensely difficult
task, oftentimes outside forces, nations, etc. need to participate in order to negotiate
and broker a lasting and permanent peace. Long-standing ethnic or other resentments
that are passed on from generation to generation require significant efforts by
governments and all parties involved to begin to heal and adjust to the new identity,
power, and social/economic structures.
Part II
1. There are different groups of theories (e.g., psychological, structural) that
explain sources of conflict.
1a) in what ways are various psychological theories similar and different in
explaining human motives behind conflict?
1b) what types of structural characteristics generate conflict?
1c) how do we understand conflict situations from a decision making
context and inter-group relations (including but not being limited to ‘prisoner’s
dilemma’, ‘attribution error’, ‘misperception’, ‘cognitive consistency’,
‘dehumanization’, ‘institutional inertia’, etc.)?
Various psychological theories attempt to explain the nature of conflict. It is
generally agreed that conflict in modern social structures is inevitable due to man’s
essentially aggressive nature and competition for increasingly limited resources. At its
most basic, Maslowe’s hierarchy of needs explains the root causes of many conflicts,
especially the ones where opponents lack essential needs among dwindling resources,
such as hunger, thirst, shelter, safety, and security. When essential needs are not met
(as is the case with most Somalian pirates), deprived groups will resort to conflict
3
scenarios for basic survival needs. This is completed in the spirit of having nothing to
lose. Oftentimes for these groups, not participating in conflict results in certain death,
so it appears as the lesser of two evils. Other psychological theories involve a Marxist
outlook, where all social interaction and dynamics are characterized by economic class
stratification. Still other theories involve Freudian psychology, where the id and
superego are in conflict and an inherent death instinct leads humans toward conflict.
These theories differ in that some critique external forces, while others focus more on
the internal aspects within human nature.
Structural characteristics that generate conflict include economic and social
structures. Some societies are structured such that they may more easily
accommodate ethnic demands for autonomy. In these cases, it is easier to enact
conflict transformation with permanent beneficial results. In other societies, the
economic and social structures are more rigid and less malleable; therefore, conflicts
may last much longer without significant chances of transformation. These aspects are
exacerbated by any increased demand for dwindling resources (i.e., water in Africa).
Where ethnic groups possess drastically different identities typified by a different
appearance, language, religion, etc., it remains easier for those with structural
superiority to justify the inherent nature of the structure as absolute, static, and
immutable. They view these structures as parameters and not variables. As in most
conflicts, identity and power dynamics are closely tied to social and economic
structures.
Identity differences encourage many negative inter-group relations. Attribution
error works closely with misperceptions of an out-group: by altering the reality of an
adversary, it is easier to justify conflict against them. Misperceptions are often
established through emotion and not logic, inspiring hatred of a group and
misappropriation of their qualities and behaviors. Attribution error tends to blame an
adversary for things he is not guilty of. For example, if an adversary commits an
atrocity, it is attributed to his essential nature. If he does something good, it is regarded
as a rare exception. Conversely, if a friendly force commits the same type of atrocity, it
is regarded as the exception, with all good qualities a part of their essential nature. By
dehumanizing an opponent, attribution error is made even more effortless. Cognitive
consistency and groupthink occur when belief systems are strongly entrenched, events
are interpreted to fit into their cognitive schema, and pressure to conform exists.
Cognitive dissonance occurs when only those facts that back up a biased belief system
are accepted—anything that counters these inherent beliefs is automatically rejected.
In these biased environments, challenges and loyal opposition are not encouraged.
Institutional inertia further creates a resistance to change and encouragement to
maintain the status quo and other dehumanizing belief systems.
Arms races are characterized by “playing chicken” and the prisoner’s dilemma.
In these scenarios, a delicate balance or equilibrium is sought out by both sides. If one
side chooses to double-cross the other, the rewards are great, but the consequences of
failure are normally outright destruction. By mutually agreeing to a middle ground,
neither side “wins,” yet both are able to survive. Much like playing chicken with two cars
rapidly approaching each other in a collision course, each side attempts to intimidate
the other into submission initially; without capitulation, both cars careen toward each
4
other in mutually-assured destruction. One side might gamble and maintain course in
hopes of the other backing down; however, any miscalculation results in destruction for
both. Therefore, the only safe bet in these scenarios is a tit-for-tat equilibrium where
each maintains its power in balance with the other, and both are able to survive with a
tentative peace.
2. Explain a conflict system and process by focusing on
2a) relationships between parties
2b) intra-party characteristics
2c) the impact of external environment or circumstances
2d) linkages to other conflicts.
Relationships between parties are the root of conflict—normally one party has
grievances against another based on some deficiency, maltreatment, or imbalance of
power; many times, identity dynamics play a role in asymmetry. If the wronged party
airs its grievances to no peaceful avail, then the conflict is said to be intransigent and
often leads to violence. Only with successful negotiations and a re-drawing of identity
structures might conflict transformation become successful and all parties regain their
dignity and equality.
Even though factions within parties may agree on the nature of the conflict and
the need for violence, intra-party fissures can exist, since not all members of a group
will automatically agree on all issues. In the aggregate, disagreements within a group
will often rot out the effort at its core, expending energy on internal squabbles. This
may create psychological fatigue and inertia, resulting in earlier termination of the
conflict as internal pressures increase. Sometimes a moderate faction will break off
from more violent or terrorist factions, attempting to speak for the movement as a whole,
as Sinn Fein did in contrast to the terrorist tactics of the militant wing of the IRA. These
attempts sometimes work and lead to conflict transformation. However, at other times,
the militant faction will resort to violence to root out the moderates, thus avoiding
compromise and an end to conflict. In any case, intra-party disagreements expend
energy—energy that would be far better spent toward the adversary. Yet it may be a
good thing if it leads to conflict termination and transformation.
The external environment can have a large impact on the progression of a
conflict. External actors might support one side of a conflict, and if they support the
weaker side in an asymmetric conflict the conflict may terminate more quickly. On the
other hand, external actors may merely level the playing field with the effect of only
prolonging the conflict, resulting in more deaths and expenses. Many recent conflicts in
Africa would have ended more quickly if not for overflowing conflicts mixing in from
neighboring countries; for example, the refugee crisis of displaced Hutus after the
5
Rwandan genocide of 1994 led to spillover into eastern Congo, which prolonged the
Second Congo War, helping lead to 3.8 million deaths. Other examples of external
involvement include the U.S., interposing its will (i.e., removing rulers) in South America
after WWII to counter communist and Marxist threats from their leadership. The U.S.
was compelled to become involved to counter international Soviet influence during the
Cold War. Currently, U.S. involvement focuses on unstable nations, normally in the
Middle East and N. Africa, that may harbor al Qaeda radical sympathizers and other
terrorists.
Several linkages between seemingly separate conflicts can exist, oftentimes
influencing each other. In diffuse conflict, several smaller conflicts surrounding the
same cause occur simultaneously in different, often widespread, locations. Two
examples include al Qaeda terrorist cells spread throughout the world, loosely linked to
one another through radical anti-Western Islam, and anti-Israeli sentiment and efforts
spread throughout the Middle East. Embedded conflict involves a series of conflicts that
are all part of a larger umbrella conflict, occurring over distances of time and space. An
example is the Arab-Israeli conflict, characterized by smaller wars such as the Six-day
War of 1967 and the Yom Kippur War of 1973 (among others). Superimposed conflict
is characterized by proxy wars. The best example is the U.S. foreign policy of the
Domino Theory during the Cold War: The U.S. felt it imperative to involve itself in
ideological conflicts in Asia (i.e., Korea and Vietnam) in order to maintain momentum
against Soviet communism. If one nation fell to its influence, the theory held that the
rest of Asia would easily fall like dominoes under the mantle of communism. Finally,
focal conflict is characterized by conflict that is united through shared values, symbols,
and ideals. Examples include the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s in the U.S., the
worldwide anti-apartheid movement of the 80s and 90s against racist South African
policies, and providing for permanent Palestinian settlements in the Arab-Israeli conflict.