Abstract

My purpose in this chapter is to advance the foundational theoretical project in the field of conflict analysis and resolution; that is: the development of an explanatory account of conflict that makes it possible for scholars, practitioners, policy-makers and leaders of all sorts to understand conflict in its various manifestations, and to carry out targeted, effective strategies to ameliorate it. Of course, any such attempt must acknowledge its debt to the pioneering efforts of John Burton and his Human Needs theory of conflict. For as Vivian Jabri points out, Burton’s “self-conscious integration of theory and practice” is the intellectual contribution “which has had most influence in the field of Conflict Studies and which has placed Burton at the heart of debates around the question of responses to conflict” (Jabri 1997: xii). To my mind, there are two elements of Burton’s thought that constitute permanently valid contributions to the field. The first is his insistence upon the foundational importance of an explanatory account of conflict. For as Burton puts it: “It is only on the basis of an adequate explanation of the problem that we can evolve a constructive approach to solving it” (Burton 1990: 1). Or more pointedly: “One of the major obstacles in dealing with basic problems [of] conflict has been the absence of an adequate theoretical framework and, even more serious, the absence of a realization that such a framework is necessary for solving a problem” (Burton 1990: 25). The second contribution is related to the first, and lies in Burton’s identification of the key terms and relations of that foundational project. He explicitly identified “the human dimension of conflict” as the locus of explanatory efforts in the field, and called in particular for an explanation of the functional relationship of human behavior, social structures and conflict (Burton 1990: 25-33). That said, Burton’s own effort to meet the explanatory exigence of the field has proven to be less enduring than his framing of the foundational task itself. He dubbed the fruit of his effort “Human Needs theory,” and explained the link between conflict behavior and social structures as follows: “There are certain ontological and genetic needs that will be pursued, and socialization processes, if not compatible with such humanneeds, far from socializing, will lead to frustrations, and to disturbed and anti-social personal and group behaviors” (Burton 1990: 33). Burton went on to argue that his analysis paved the way to resolving conflict, because it provided analysts with an “explanation of conflict from which to deduce the principles of its treatment” (Burton 1990: 1). Over the years, a variety of objections to Burton’s Human Needs theory have emerged. On the level of analysis, scholars have argued that it fails to account adequately for key elements of the relationship between social structures and conflict behaviors – notably the role of culture (see, for example, Avruch and Black: 1987; Avruch 2012: 21-23). Others have pointed out that, as formulated by Burton, Human Needs theory fails to adequately explain the conflict behaviors of key protagonists in specific conflicts – especially those in power (see, for example, Rubenstein 2001). On the level of practice, scholars and practitioners have identified both conceptual and practical limitations in the problem-solving approach to conflict resolution that Burton extrapolated from his theory (see, for example, Mitchell 1990; Jabri 1997: xii). Although these critiques of Human Needs theory seem to me on point, it is not my purpose in this chapter either to rehearse or to add to them. Instead, I will follow a different line of questioning. Not: how relatively adequate is Burton’s explanation of conflict? But rather: what is Burton doing when he is explaining conflict, and how relatively adequate is this approach? This line of questioning picks up the thread of Burton’s foundational, theoretical aspirations for the field. It also seems to me appropriately Burtonian in a second sense, for Burton regularly argued that the social and political problems generated by conflict behavior are symptomatic of deeper, causal factors that must be attended to, clarified and explained if those problems are to be solved. In similar fashion, I will argue that the conceptual and practical anomalies generated by Burton’s Human Needs theory are symptomatic of deeper, analytical issues that must to be attended to, clarified and explained if those problems are to be resolved. More specifically, I will go on to argue that the Insight approach to conflict analysis offers a way of overcoming the shortcomings of Burton’s approach to explaining conflict and of advancing his permanently valid contributions to the field. First, however, I will clarify the approach to explaining conflict employed by Burton and his formulation of Human Needs theory.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call