Month: January 2021

We started off by reviewing the different types of conflict and violence (direct, structural, cultural, non-violent, violent) as well as the different domains of conflict. We also shared our personal rankings of where we believe in what areas stereotypes are most harmful.

.  

Galtung’s Conflict Triangle:

We looked at Galtung’s conflict triangle as an example of a model which could be applied to help peacebuilders facilitate peace. One of the benefits of using this model is that it displays the interconnectedness of behaviour, attitudes, and context rather than putting one as the source or direct consequence of another. It also takes into consideration different depths – what is visible and invisible, what is manifestations and latent.

Iceberg Analogy:

The iceberg analogy is another model which can be used to analyse conflict. Here it shows a liner sequence of how invisible things like ideas shape observable actions like our behaviours.

Why is it important to analyse conflict? 

It is important to analyse conflict as it has many depths and may stem from unobservable factors such as beliefs and ideas acquired through a persons childhood and life experiences. Hence, these models are a helpful tool in guiding how to analyse conflicts or even approach them.

Is conflict always bad?

It depends on how the concept of conflict is defined. Often times, the definition of conflict is limited to only physical violence, and therefore conflict is immediately seen as a harmful and catastrophic event. However, I would argue that conflict may sometimes be beneficial in catalysing change and expressing different ideas. Each conflict is unique and can arise based on a variety of factors, therefore by implementing these models, we can analyse such conflicts more efficiently.

We started off today’s session discussing one of the potential sources of conflict: stereotypes. We watched a film and reflected on how it suggested stereotypes were made and reinforced, and what impacts they have. We also reflected on what assumptions we made during the film. This felt like quite an unusual process, as I think it is often quite hard to recognise our own prejudices and assumptions that we make on a day to day basis. And often, many of these assumptions are hard to recognise because they are not communicated so directly and obviously, but even as small as a microaggression can have multiple impacts on both the people saying it and receiving it. We looked into the importance of the effects of these stereotypes by using examples of our own experiences and answering the following questions:

What might have been the intentions of this statement?

How might the statement have been interpreted by the person receiving it?

What impact might this statement have had on the person receiving it?

This also sparked thought on the importance of intentions versus the actual consequences. Using the example of microaggressions, sometimes comments made are not with violent intent but are a reflection of the preexisting stereotypes.

See below for assumptions and stereotypes we’ve encountered in our personal experiences:
 

In the following session, we continued to discuss stereotyping and how unconscious bias plays a role in forming and projecting those stereotypes. We also watched a snippet of ‘A Class Divided’, which was a classroom experiment of teaching third graders about discrimination. This was to prompt discussion on how we would lead a reflective conversation on stereotypes, considering what questions we would ask participants, key points of the discussion, and the importance of wording.

After breaking up into groups and conducting our own research on real-life examples of stereotypes in different areas, we made infographics to display our ideas and had a gallery walk to share our findings. See below for our group’s infographic in the category of education & opportunity.

“Stereotypes are a barrier to peace”

Stereotypes limit people into reductive and inaccurate categories. Although sometimes it is inevitable in the sense that categorising and grouping things together help us process information and make sense of the world, it also can be destructive if that mindset is carried forward to situations where is it not applicable. Such experiments about conflict and peacebuilding may be hard to execute because it is hard to detect and prevent these types of internal biases. I think much of the danger is when stereotyping isn’t seen as dangerous or is excused. Although it may not be to the extent where it leads to motivating mass physical violence, it still shapes the way which we see and therefore interact with others.

For today’s session, we were split into 2 groups – either Jah or Kay which represented 2 countries and were each given a sheet of instructions. We were given time to read the sheet in our groups and plan how we were going to execute the tasks before we would interact with the other group at the end of the session.

See below for snippets of each of the description sheets

Kay represented a much wealthier and developed country, whereas Jah represented a less developed country, with rich culture but fewer natural resources. I was put in the Kay group, and we were essentially meant to plan how we would assist the Jahn’s in a project which would benefit their country. Right from the start, I think our group was already cautious about how much help or what type of help we could offer to the Jahn’s. Especially since we understood that this activity simulated unintended or overreaching outcomes when developed countries intervene in less developed countries. We tried our best to consider how we could help support the basic needs and infrastructure of the country without being involved in their politics despite how much we disagreed with it.

However, I think much of this was disregarded when we actually interacted with the Jahn’s. Because we could not see each other’s instruction sheets, we all did not even take the time to check whether we all had the same objective and could work cooperatively. As part of the Kay group, I recall being enthusiastic and feeling prepared to offer help, although upon “arriving”, we were immediately dismissed. In the moment, it felt frustrating communicating with the Jahn’s as we didn’t know what else we were to do if our help was not accepted, or how we could prove our intentions. I also felt that some members from the other group misunderstood their own set of instructions and failed to deliver all the information accurately.

Some strategies for working through the miscommunication and arguing was splitting up the groups – having smaller discussions between people of both Jay and Kah, or having representatives from each of the groups to speak to everyone.

I understand that the nature of the activity and instruction sheets were purposely constructed to provoke conflict and elicit a reaction from both sides due to miscommunication. I do think if we all were a little bit more flexible and patient we would have made more progress. Ultimately the aim of the activity was not to actually carry out the tasks, but understand how conflict can arise in such situations where there is a ‘power gap’ between 2 actors and intentions are not instantly clear.