A generic theory of conflict resolution: A critique

Abstract

John W Burton has been a leading theorist in the study of conflict and conflict resolution for more than two decades. While it is possible to trace the development of Burton's theory through a number of writings (e.g., Burton, 1962; 1965; 1972; 1979; and 1984), this paper will concentrate on two statements of it: the comprehensive monograph Deviance, Terrorism and War (Burton, 1979) and Generic Theory: The Basis of Conflict Resolution, an article written with Dennis]. D. Sandole that appeared in the October 1986 issue of this journal (Burton and Sandole, 1986). In the monograph Burton proclaims a Kuhnian in the study of conflict, and indeed of society itself. This shift entails moving away from a power/coercion/zero-sum game model of social exchange to one based on mutual problem-solving, settlement, and win-win outcomes. Underlying this shift is a theory of society based upon universal, ontological, and generic/ genetic needs. This theory is sharply distinguished by him from one that emphasizes social institutions, structures, norms, laws or conventions more so than the individual. Burton views the two theories as inimically opposed, and much of Deviance, Terrorism and War is framed as a critique of the institutional theory, and as a brief for his needs-based alternative. The latest effort (Burton and Sandole, 1986) carries this work further. Because Burton's theory of conflict is postulated on a set of human needs that are held to be universal, Burton and Sandole are able to argue strongly for the generic nature of this theory, as well as for the processes of conflict resolution which are, in their view, deducible from the theory. This is one sense in which they mean generic: transcending observable differences of race, class, culture, and so on. The second sense in which they claim their theory of conflict and conflict resolution is generic has to do with its range of applicability Specifically, Burton and Sandole argue that their generic theory of conflict and conflict resolution is applicable at all of social intercourse, from interpersonal, marital and domestic, to international. If we accept this second sense of generic, then we may understand why the authors believe that the old discipline-based paradigm for the study of conflict-psychology, sociology or anthropology, international relations, etc.-is outmoded. These disciplines all implicitly accept the reality and integrity of different levels of social discourse and interaction. Burton and Sandole reject this in favor of a theory that makes possible a radically adisciplinary science of conflict and conflict resolution.