The conflict between individual and communal rights

The conflict between individual and communal rights

The conflict between individual and communal rights

:H AFTER ^ ri • •ID Conflict and

Peacema ki If you want peace, work for justice.”

—Pop.e.P.9ul.Vl.

What creates conflict?

How can peace be achieved?

Postscript: The conflict between individual and communal rights

There is a speech that has been spoken in many languages by the leaders of many countries. It goes like this; “The intentions of our country are entirely peaceful. Yet, we are also aware that other

^nations, with their new weapons, threaten us. Thus we must defending ourselves against attack. By so doing, we shall protect our way of life and preserve the peace” (Richardson, I960}. Almost every nation

^claims concern only for peace but, mistrusting other nations, arms

itself in self-defense. The result is a world that has been spending

$5 billion per day on arms and armies while hundreds of millions die of

malnutrition and untreated disease (SIPRI, 2011).

ORDER COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION PAPERS ON The conflict between individual and communal rights

The elements of such conflict (a perceived incompatibility of

actions or goals) are similar at many levels: conflict between nations in

an arms race, between religious factions disputing points of doctrine,

between corporate executives and workers disputing salaries, and

between bickering spouses. People in conflict perceive that one side s

gain is the other’s loss:

• “We want peace and security.” “So do we, but you threaten us.”

• “I’d like the music off.” “I’d like it on.”

• “We want more pay.” “We can’t afford it.”

A relationship or an organization without conflict is probably apa-

hetic. Conflict signifies involvement, commitment, and caring. If conflict

482 Part Three Social Relations

As civil rights leaders know, creatively managed con­ flicts can have constructive outcomes.

conflict A perceived incompatibility of actions or goals.

peace A condition marked by low levels of hostility and aggression and by mutually beneficial relationships.

is understood and recognized, it can end

oppression and stimulate renewed and

improved human relations. Harmony

occurs when justice and mutual respect

prevail but also when “everyone knows

their place” in an unjust world (Dixon &

others, 2010). Without conflict, people

seldom face and resolve their problems.

Genuine peace is more than the sup­

pression of open conflict, more than a

fragile, superficial calm. Peace is the

outcome of a creatively managed con­

flict. Peace is the parties reconciling

their perceived differences and reaching

genuine accord. “We got our increased

pay. You got your increased profit. Now each of us is helping the other achieve the

organization’s goals.” Peace, says peace researcher Royce Anderson (2004), “is a

condition in which individuals, families, groups, communities, and/or nations experi­

ence low levels of violence and engage in mutually harmonious relationships.”

In this chapter we explore conflict and peacemaking by asking what factors create

or exacerbate conflict, and what factors contribute to peace:

• What social situations feed conflict?

• How do misperceptions fuel conflict?

• Does contact with the other side reduce conflict?

• When do cooperation, communication, and mediation enable reconciliation?

WHAT CREATES CONFLICT?__________ I Explain what feeds conflict.

Social-psychological studies have identified several ingredients of conflict. What’s striking (and what simplifies our task) is that these ingredients are common to all levels of social conflict, whether international, intergroup, or interpersonal.

Social Dilemmas Several of the problems that most threaten our human future—nuclear arms, cli­ mate change, overpopulation, natural-resource depletion—arise as various parties pursue their self-interests, ironically, to their collective detriment. One individual may think, “It would cost me a lot to buy expensive greenhouse emission controls. Besides, the greenhouse gases I personally generate are trivial.” Many others reason

483Conflict and Peacemaking

similarly, and the result is a warming climate, melting ice cover, rising seas, and more extreme weather.

In some societies, parents benefit by having many children who can assist with the family tasks and provide security in their old age. But when most families have many children generation after generation, the result is the collective devastation of overpopulation. Choices that are individually rewarding become collectively pun­ ishing. We therefore have a dilemma: How can we reconcile individual self-interest with communal well-being?

To isolate and study that dilemma, social psychologists have used laboratory games that expose the heart of many real social conflicts. “Social psychologists who study conflict are in much the same position as the astronomers,” noted conflict researcher Morton Deutsch (1999). “We cannot conduct true experiments with large-scale social events. But we can identify the conceptual similarities between the large scale and the small, as the astronomers have between the planets and Newton’s apple. That is why the games people play as subjects in our laboratory may advance our understanding of war, peace, and social justice.”

Let’s consider two laboratory games that are each an example of a social trap: the Prisoner’s Dilemma and the Tragedy of the Commons.

THE PRISONER’S DILEMMA

This dilemma derives from an anecdote concerning two suspects being questioned separately by the district attorney (DA) (Rapoport, 1960). The DA knows they are jointly guilty but has only enough evidence to convict them of a lesser offense. So the DA creates an incentive for each one to confess privately:

• If Prisoner A confesses and Prisoner B doesn’t, the DA will grant immunity to A and will use A’s confession to convict B of a maximum offense (and vice versa if B confesses and A doesn’t).

», • If both confess, each will receive a moderate sentence. F • If neither prisoner confesses, each will be convicted of a lesser crime and i receive a light sentence.

The matrix of Figure 13.1 summarizes the choices. If you were a prisoner faced with such a dilemma, with no chance to talk to the other prisoner, would you confess?

Prisoner A

Confesses Doesn’t confess

Confesses

Doesn’t confess

10 years

Chapter 13

social trap A situation in which the conflicting parties, by each rationally pursuing its self-interest, become caught in mutually destructive behavior. Examples include the Prisoner’s Dilemma and the Tragedy of the Commons.

FIGURE:: 13.1 The Classic Prisoner’s Dilemma In each box, the number above the diagonal is prisoner A’s outcome. Thus, if both prisoners confess, both get five years. If neither confesses, each gets a year. If one confesses, that prisoner is set free in exchange for evidence used to convict the other of a crime bringing a 10-year sentence. If you were one of the prisoners, unable to communicate with your fellow prisoner, would you confess?

484 Part Three Social Relations

FIGURE:: 13.2 Laboratory Version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma The numbers represent some reward, such as money. In each box, the number above the diagonal lines is the outcome for person A. Unlike the classic Pris­ oner’s Dilemma (a one-shot deci­ sion), most laboratory versions involve repeated plays.