Reinvigorating the Interactive Problem-Solving Approach to Protracted Social Conflicts

Abstract

Protracted social conflicts (PSCs) are “hostile interactions which extend over long periods of time with sporadic outbreaks of open warfare fluctuating in frequency and intensity” (Azar, Jureidini, & McLaurin, 1978). According to Azar and colleagues, protracted social conflicts (PSCs) are a mixture of socioethnic and interstate elements that defy traditional settlement methods, and generate escalating perceptions and behaviors. Because crises are managed to restore the status quo and keep conflict at only a moderate intensity, the conflicts take on an inertial or even ‘frozen’ quality, lacking any resolution despite repeated attempts at settlement. PSCs also involve deep-seated religious, racial and ethnic animosities that set these conflicts apart from those not involving group identities and the rights asserted and sought through these (Azar and Farah, 1981).However, ethnicity is not the sole causative factor in these conflicts. Azar and Farah (1981) highlight the role played by structural inequalities and political power differences, particularly when these in turn result in differential distribution of rewards among groups in the society. These differentials typically are reinforced through unequal international connections, meaning that uneven and unequal development benefits will actually further exacerbate differences. One group dominates over others, thereby linking discrimination and victimization to group identity. Group identity and hatred frames all interactions and attributions, and passes from one generation to the next through socialization.Models of conflict give us frameworks for thinking about what needs to change in order to move out of the worst sorts of conflict. Most frame intractable conflict not only as a clash of interests, but also as a dysfunctional relationship (Saunders), etc.. In order to change dysfunctional relationships, changes are needed in attitudes and interaction patterns, but also in inequities in participants’ abilities to address their needs. A more thorough and nuanced understanding of how different interventions aim to change different contributing factors can help us shape realistic and appropriate expectations, and corresponding assessment, for exploring and improving the success of various intergroup conflict interventions (d’Estree, 2001). Parties require not only opportunities to learn about one another and form relationships, but also require opportunities to craft realistic political solutions that will address the structural inequities and injustices that are at the root of protracted social conflicts.This paper revisits one classic method for creating both new awareness but also new solutions: interactive problem-solving. This paper briefly reviews the history, development and design of interactive problem-solving, but focuses primarily on recent applications of this approach and the modifications that attempt to expand on strengths and address weaknesses.Finally, a case is made for better documentation of impacts and relative contributions of methods designed to address intergroup conflict. Peacebuilding requires changing both the willingness of conflicting parties to engage with each other, but also requires the ability to find a path forward. While contact and dialogue approaches may be best designed to change attitudes and perceptions and thus change parties’ willingness to engage, integrative negotiation approaches may be best designed to jointly develop solutions to problems and thus identify a path forward. It can be shown that interactive problem- solving approaches as they have been more recently modified not only engage parties in attitude change and in negotiating constructive solutions, but also more explicitly engage parties in the changing of structural inequalities that are key to movement in protracted social conflicts.