Jo Lynn Cunningham

The University of Tennessee

The experience of violence raises concerns in all dimensions of our lives. Schoolyard fights, domestic abuse, and wars between nations are examples of violent situations at the individual, family, and societal levels. Although some people sometimes may rationalize the occurrence of some of these conflicts, it is hard to imagine a rational case being made against the idea that the world would be a better place without violence at any level.

What are the similarities and differences among these different types of violence? What are the connections, if any, among them? And how can our understanding of violence at different levels provide the basis for effective intervention and even prevention?

It is essential to note the difference between conflict and violence. Conflict occurs when there are two or more parties (e.g., nations, organizations, individuals, or even intraindividual perspectives) that interact and perceive differences between or threats to their wants, beliefs, or values. Conflict is inevitable and indeed can have positive outcomes. Violence, however, always is a choice and always has negative consequences. The key distinction is not in the presence or absence of conflict but in the response to that conflict–that is, whether the conflict is handled constructively or destructively.

It also is important to consider the relationship between conflict and peace. Peace, a goal that often is identified in discussing conflicts, is not the absence of conflict but rather is conflict over the true issues that is addressed using appropriate strategies. Again, conflict is inevitable and peace is a choice. Just as violence represents a destructive response to conflict, peace results from a constructive response to conflict.

Three conceptual models are particularly useful in understanding conflict as a basis for identifying strategies that are more likely to result in peace rather than violence. Each of these models has relevance at multiple levels.

Fiutak (as cited in Hanson, 1997) proposed a model for viewing peace and conflict that is based on a combination of conditions in the environment and perceptions of the participants. There are four quadrants of the model:

1. False conflict occurs when participants identify concerns about conditions in the environment that are not the true problem. Thus, conflict is focused on the wrong issues.

2. False peace occurs when there actually is a problem that exists but participants fail to recognize or acknowledge that problem. Thus, the conflict that exists is denied by the participants.

3. True conflict occurs when there is is a problem that exists and participants recognize and acknowledge it. Thus, there is conflict over the right issues.

4. True peace occurs when conflicts that exist have been recognized and addressed constructively. Because conflicts are inevitable, this can occur only after true conflict has occurred and been addressed constructively.

One of the reasons that false peace is such a frequent response to conflict is that no change is required. However, achievement of true peace requires change in participants. The durability of the peace most likely is a function of the type of change. Bateson (1972) and Watzlawick, Weakland, and Fisch (1974) used systems theory to introduce the concept of different levels of change:

1. First-order change, sometimes described as commonsense change or normal operational change, refers to change in behaviors without a change in the structure of a system. Such change is minimally threatening at either an individual or a collective level and always is reversible. However, it also is the least effective and least durable type of change because there is no change in the context, organization, or structure; that is, there is no systemic change.

2. Second-order change is a more fundamental change that sometimes is referred to as a change in the system itself. It is irreversible because there are structural changes. It is more difficult to accomplish than first-order change because it requires new skills and new beliefs or perspectives. However, it is more effective and more durable than first-order change.

3. Third-order change is a metalevel change. There is a change in the supersystem through a transformation of the focal system. It may involve reframing a problem as a kind of solution being used. Beliefs are changed as the situation changes, so this kind of change results in a "learning system."

4. Fourth-order change is a change in a metasystem. Paradigm change is illustrative of fourth-order change, which involves change in the whole hierarchy of subsystem, system, suprasystem, and metasystem.

5. Fifth-order change is a change in the environment itself. This occurs outside a system’s boundary and may or may not be related directly to a change in a focal system.

Effective and durable responses to conflict require high levels of change, or change that is transformative. Most of the work on transformative change is from the literature on therapy. However, Bush and Folger (1994) presented a framework for addressing conflict using mediation to achieve a process of transformation of the participants. The two key elements are empowerment (i.e., self-determination for all parties) and recognition (i.e., understanding of and responsiveness to perspectives of other parties). Although this approach was presented in terms of mediation, the basic concepts also are applicable to other strategies for responding to conflict.

From theoretical and empirical work in the social and natural sciences, some key principles have been identified that provide a foundation for understanding conflict. These principles are helpful in examining the concepts of conflict, violence, and peace at different levels:

1. Conflict is a natural part of life. It is a normal outcome of human interaction in the face of unlimited wants and limited resources.

2. Conflict is not necessarily good or bad. Its absence does not ensure happiness or success.

3. People act based on perception--not a concrete external "reality." Recognizing, accepting, and understanding different perceptions is important for successful management of conflicts.

4. Effective communication is central to the constructive management of conflict. Skill in both sides of the communication process (both sending and receiving) is required.

5. Recognition of the psychological and social roles of the participants is necessary for effective management of conflict. These roles, which are learned through social interaction, can be revised over time.

6. Face-saving and reciprocity are important to humans. For conflict to be managed successfully, people must perceive that they got something from the exchange and that they were not unilaterally at fault.

7. People change, memories change, and relationships change over time. Focusing on what happened in the past is less important than trying to agree on what the problem is now and what is desired for the future.

8. Understanding power is critical to managing conflict effectively. This includes the distribution of power, who has it, how it is used, and what the effects are of using that power.

9. Seemingly contradictory or inconsistent ideas may be reconciled through integration into a "higher-level" idea. This involves a synthesis or integration of the initial ideas.

10. Any change in one part of a system has consequences for other parts of the system as well as for the system as a whole. What is identified initially as the "problem" often is a symptom of underlying and related issues that must be addressed.

11. Attention to process as well as content is essential to successful management of conflict. The same general process is applicable to conflicts at various levels, in different systems, and regardless of content.

12. Systems are in a constant state of change. Therefore, every conflict "resolution" contains the seeds for future conflict.

Given these perspectives on conflict, how can results of research on peace and violence in child- and family-related situations be understood as a basis for violence prevention (avoidance of violence), intervention (conflict management to direct outcomes toward peace rather than violence), and postvention (addressing and alleviating traumatic effects of violence)? Examples will be drawn from two primary areas of research: children’s conflicts and domestic violence.

Research on children’s experience of conflict was conducted using both questionnaires and interviews with children in school settings. Children were asked about their experience of conflicts in home, school, and neighborhood settings. School records (e.g., referrals for peer mediation, suspensions) and informal observations and interviews with teachers also were used to supplement children’s reports. Examples of application of the previous perspectives include the following observations:

1. Children generally recognized that conflict occurred in various areas of their lives. However, the messages they received from policies and individuals in the systems in which they operated often were focused on avoidance of conflict rather than avoidance of violence.

2. Strategies that children were taught for dealing with conflict included both constructive and destructive approaches. For example, peer mediation programs and peace tables (communication-based strategies that include reconciliation of different perspectives) sometimes were used in schools, but all schools used suspension (a power-based strategy that is based on unilateral blame).

3. Children identified ways that they applied the messages they received about dealing with conflict from one setting as they moved into other settings. For example, children who experienced or were taught at home to use physical force reported using these same strategies in school and neighborhood settings, and children who were taught peer mediation strategies at school reported using elements of these strategies in responding to conflict in home and neighborhood settings.

4. Teachers’ observation of children’s application of peer mediation strategies changed their perceptions of children’s abilities to deal with conflicts. Changes in perceptions were particularly pronounced with peer mediators who initially had been perceived as children who were more likely to be the cause of problems than part of the solution to problems.

5. Some resistance to peer mediation programs resulted because of systemic changes that occurred. For example, as the time for mandatory student assessments (which influence the evaluation of the school and individual teachers) approached, referrals to peer mediation programs declined and suspensions increased. Investigation of this pattern resulted in recognition that suspension was used upon occasion with students who were not likely to perform well on the mandatory assessments.

Research on domestic violence was conducted using questionnaires with professionals working in different roles in the domestic violence community (e.g., victim advocates, leaders of batter intervention programs, law enforcement officials). Informal interviews and observations were used to supplement these reports. Examples of application of the previous perspectives include the following observations:

1. Professionals in different roles often were focused on one dimension of the problem. For example, victim advocates considered only victims, staff of batterer intervention programs viewed only the perpetrator as a client, and both reported

inadequacies of the legal system. Common responses were focused on blaming individuals (e.g., lack of anger management skills by abusers or failure of the victim to leave an abusive situation). Few participants conceptualized either the problem or the solution in systemic terms.

2. Policies sometimes prohibited responses based on reciprocity and communication. For example, all programs were organized around labeling one participant as a victim and another as a perpetrator, funding for Family Justice Centers was contingent on limiting services to victims (and requires exclusion of any services to perpetrators), and mediation programs typically excluded participants with any history of domestic violence.

3. Professionals generally recognized domestic violence as attempts by one participant to exercise power and control over another. Some programs had goals of empowering victims, but issues of power were addressed less frequently in programs for perpetrators.

4. Most professionals recognized the importance of helping both victims and perpetrators to perceive and implement new roles in their social relationships. Typically, the focus was for such changes was on future relationships rather than the current (or immediate past) abusive relationship.

5. There was limited recognition of the systemic nature of domestic abuse, either in causes or solutions. For example, most attention was directed to individual participants in a domestic abuse situation. When potential systemic changes were identified, they usually were for changes in the legal system. Few professionals identified the role of other systems (e.g., responses of other family members, overt and covert attitudes of friends and colleagues, workplace policies, actions and inactions of the faith community).

Peace and violence must be addressed through both conceptual and practical understandings of conflict. When conflict occurs, peace always is a viable goal, and achieving this goal requires a perspective (world view) that is based on understanding of and acceptance of conflict and also on development of skills for resolving conflict constructively. Violence never is an appropriate strategy; rather, appropriate strategies include components such as collaboration, listening, respect, acceptance of differences, and shared responsibility.

The perspective and skills for effective responses to conflict are developed from the early years of life, primarily through the family and supported through schools and other social institutions. Perspectives and skills learned in family settings are applicable in school, workplace, community, and global settings. Likewise, perspectives and practices observed in global settings undoubtedly influence individuals, and this influence should not be ignored. However, perhaps the most effective thing that every individual can do to achieve peace is to "think globally and act locally."

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Chicago, University Of Chicago Press.

Bush, R. A. B., & Folger, J. P. (1996). The promise of mediation: Responding to conflict through empowerment and recognition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hanson, D. S. (1997). Cultivating common ground: Releasing the power of relationships at work. Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Watzlawick, P., Weakland, R., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principals of problem formation and problem resolution. New York: Norton.