Systemic Conflict Transformation (SCT) is not a concept that is formulated from scratch, but rather builds on innovative and state-of-the-art practice in CT and combines this with systemic approaches from other disciplines, such as organisational development (OD), change management (CM), psychotherapy and cybernetics. The conceptual framework of SCT opens the scope for further development of peacebuilding and civil conflict transformation, both in theory and practice. It is expected to be an overarching mode of thinking, representing a comprehensive and integrative approach that can guide the analysis and transformation process of protracted ethnopolitical conflicts.
The core principle of SCT is to analyse conflicts and plan interventions by first interpreting a conflict as a
system – which is more than the sum of its parts, has a high level of complexity and is multidimensional. SCT provides a simple and accessible way to describe this complexity and then helps in seeing through this complexity. Drawing from applied systemic thinking, emphasis is given to social context and to circularity of social phenomenon. While analysing, the system’s boundaries are defined and the interactions and interdependencies in supra- and subsystems are identified. Useful tools in this regard are system diagramming, the system dynamics approach, perspective-taking techniques of ‘bird’s-/frog’s-eye view’, exploration of external actors’ roles and analysis of resistances and feedback loops in the system.
One key characteristic of SCT thinking is the realization that transformation of a conflict system makes more sense if its internal resources are identified with an inclusive and multipartial attitude and mobilised towards social or political change, instead of employing external agents to maintain or stabilise it. The crucial keywords in SCT thinking are local knowledge, relationship-building, human emotions, communication (dialogue, language and metaphors), doing-together and creativity. Power asymmetries especially in ethnopolitical conflicts pose a challenge which SCT addresses through critical-constructive engagement with difficult political actors. A multi-stakeholder dialogue approach and forms of network management between state and non-state, international and local actors become crucial in designing interventions. In addition, a multi-track, multi-issue approach accounts for the comprehensiveness of SCT.
The practical implication of SCT is that “[i]n principle [it] can be applied to all violent inter-group conflicts, especially in disputes over identity, territory, security and governance systems. The approach is suitable for the pre-negotiation, negotiation and post-negotiation phases of conflicts. Its use may be restricted by extreme escalations of violence, for example, which greatly limit the scope of international but also local actors and also make an adequate security regime a necessity” (Wils et al. 2006: v).
SCT is a still evolving framework, and so far reflections on theoretical and practical implications has been made in the conflict contexts of Sri Lanka, Nepal, Aceh/Indonesia, Sudan, Southern Sudan and Afghanistan.
Analysis
The first step towards SCT thinking is to recognise that conflicts are not uni-linear and that merely analysing cause-effect relations calls for danger. Wils et al. (2006: 6) takes on the systemic thinking of avoiding such conceptualisations, having observed that “most interventions at the civil society and grassroots level (Track-3 interventions) generally do not address the conflict system as a whole, rather, they focus on smaller sub-systems involving a specific set of actors and a limited range of issues”.
A number of useful tools employed by SCT help unravel the complexity and dynamics of a system, e.g. modelling, mapping, systems diagramming and system dynamics approach (Neuweiler and Körppen 2008; Wils et al. 2006; Unger and Wils 2006; Ropers 2008). Care is taken to be multi-partial by including diverse stakeholders while using these tools. However, as Woodrow points out, the contextual attribution of mapping falls short in capturing the stakeholders’ emotional and expectation levels in a conflict (Neuweiler and Körppen 2008: 23). Burns’ alternative is the use of narratives and visual methods (e.g. pictures and metaphors) which unlock resonance in the ‘action- resonance- reflection- action’ cycle (ibid: 7).
Archetypes and Patterns
An important part of conflict analysis in SCT is identification of archetypes, i.e. behavioural patterns that cannot be explained rationally, but play a crucial role in protraction of conflict and failure of peace processes by blockading actors in a system from changing their behaviour (Ropers 2008: 30-31)27. Coleman (Neuweiler and Körppen 2008: 11) asks to focus, instead of outcomes, on identifying dynamical patterns of thought, feeling, or action on the individual, group or social level and the variables which contribute to these.
Solutions
The conventional conflict resolution practice of concentrating on analysing the ‘causes’ of conflict is not favoured in SCT. Ropers reasons that “the search for [‘]causes[’] is problematic because it provokes arguments about who to blame (which can easily re-fuel the conflict) and because it risks missing the interdependencies driving the conflict [, ... and] interventions risk helping to reproduce the conflict system instead of mobilising resources for transforming it” (2008: 25-28). Taking Retzer’s (2006) solution-orientated approach based on applied systemic thinking, Ropers proposes to analyse factors and mechanisms which could become drivers of CT by overcoming the cycles which reproduce conflict systems (2008: 30). Other solution generating methods available to SCT are systemic tools like circular questioning, visualisation and constellation work, that help create a space where people could develop alternative options, as suggested by Merk, based on her experience in South Africa (Neuweiler and Körppen 2008: 24).
Local Perceptions and Knowledge
In contrast with conventional CT trends, Lederach’s integrated framework for empowerment and local or indigenous knowledge is central to sustainable CT (1997: 31). SCT heavily draws from this idea and stresses on the need to involve diverse local actors who would define what is part of the conflict and what is not, and to identify specific characteristics of the different sub-systems, e.g. gender, ethnic and religious balances. (Wils et al. 2006)
Space
SCT acknowledges the importance of having and creating a space (Wils et al. 2006: 17, 22; Ropers 2008: 92) where constructive dialogue, reflection, analysis and joint learning could take place. In certain conflict scenarios however, such a space cannot be offered at negotiation tables or cross-cutting dialogue workshops, but rather by some out-of-the-box initiatives.
Learning
SCT regards an open-ended shared learning process to be highly essential in starting a process of social and political transformation in protracted ethnopolitical conflicts. Practical stimulations for learning are paradoxical interventions, creative techniques and knowledge transfer. SCT by itself is a learning process that is integrated within its long-term cyclic process of i) observing the system, ii) working with and within the system, and iii) evolving along with the system. In SCT thinking, the concept of second-order learning becomes important: “to address protracted conflicts, not only [‘]first-order learning[’], i.e. learning within a given order, was necessary, but also [‘]second-order learning[’], i.e. learning which questions the values, principles and structures of this order” (Ropers 2008: 16).
Personnel
A perceived difficulty for SCT is on having skilled resources available: “Systemic conflict transformation requires very well-trained key personnel who display a high level of openness and have the excellent process and mediation skills needed to implement systemic approaches (Wils et al. 2006: vi, viii, 73)”.
Dialogue and Beyond
Dialogue is one of the prime focuses of CT and SCT. A creative systemic tool that SCT employs in workshops and dialogue processes is the Fishbowl exercise which fosters dialogue and creative problem solving in an innovative setting of communication and observation (Wils et al. 2006: vi, Hart 1991: 3-23 – 3-24).
Process-Orientation
Due to its broad overarching nature, SCT requires a substantial investment of time and resources – an apparent limitation that needs to be considered by all different stakeholders in the conflict who might otherwise be inclined for quick resolution (Wils et al. 2006: 85).
Bibliography
Hart, Lois B. 1991. Learning from Conflict: A Handbook for Trainers and Group Leaders. Second edition. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.
Körppen et al. (eds.). 2008. A Systemic Approach to Conflict Transformation. Exploring Strengths and Limitations - Berghof Handbook Dialogue Series No. 6. Berlin.
Lederach, John Paul. 1997. Building peace: sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Neuweiler, Sonja and Körppen, Daniela. 2008. Workshop Report. Exploring the Potential of Systemic Conflict Transformation. 2008. Berlin.
Ropers, Norbert. 2008. Systemic conflict transformation: Reflections on the conflict and peace process in Sri Lanka. The Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation Dialogue series, No. 6. 11–43. Berlin: Berghof Forschungszentrum für konstruktive Konfliktbearbeitung.
Retzer, Arnold. 2006. Passagen – Systemische Erkundungen. Stuttgart: Klett Cotta.
Unger, Barbara and Wils, Oliver. 2006. Systemic Conflict Transformation – Guiding principles for practitioners and policy makers working on conflict. Berlin: Berghof Foundation for Peace Support (BFPS).
Wils, Oliver et al. 2006. The Systemic Approach to Conflict Transformation. Concept and Fields of Application. Berlin: Berghof Foundation for Peace Support (BFPS).
The core principle of SCT is to analyse conflicts and plan interventions by first interpreting a conflict as a
system – which is more than the sum of its parts, has a high level of complexity and is multidimensional. SCT provides a simple and accessible way to describe this complexity and then helps in seeing through this complexity. Drawing from applied systemic thinking, emphasis is given to social context and to circularity of social phenomenon. While analysing, the system’s boundaries are defined and the interactions and interdependencies in supra- and subsystems are identified. Useful tools in this regard are system diagramming, the system dynamics approach, perspective-taking techniques of ‘bird’s-/frog’s-eye view’, exploration of external actors’ roles and analysis of resistances and feedback loops in the system.
One key characteristic of SCT thinking is the realization that transformation of a conflict system makes more sense if its internal resources are identified with an inclusive and multipartial attitude and mobilised towards social or political change, instead of employing external agents to maintain or stabilise it. The crucial keywords in SCT thinking are local knowledge, relationship-building, human emotions, communication (dialogue, language and metaphors), doing-together and creativity. Power asymmetries especially in ethnopolitical conflicts pose a challenge which SCT addresses through critical-constructive engagement with difficult political actors. A multi-stakeholder dialogue approach and forms of network management between state and non-state, international and local actors become crucial in designing interventions. In addition, a multi-track, multi-issue approach accounts for the comprehensiveness of SCT.
The practical implication of SCT is that “[i]n principle [it] can be applied to all violent inter-group conflicts, especially in disputes over identity, territory, security and governance systems. The approach is suitable for the pre-negotiation, negotiation and post-negotiation phases of conflicts. Its use may be restricted by extreme escalations of violence, for example, which greatly limit the scope of international but also local actors and also make an adequate security regime a necessity” (Wils et al. 2006: v).
SCT is a still evolving framework, and so far reflections on theoretical and practical implications has been made in the conflict contexts of Sri Lanka, Nepal, Aceh/Indonesia, Sudan, Southern Sudan and Afghanistan.
Analysis
The first step towards SCT thinking is to recognise that conflicts are not uni-linear and that merely analysing cause-effect relations calls for danger. Wils et al. (2006: 6) takes on the systemic thinking of avoiding such conceptualisations, having observed that “most interventions at the civil society and grassroots level (Track-3 interventions) generally do not address the conflict system as a whole, rather, they focus on smaller sub-systems involving a specific set of actors and a limited range of issues”.
A number of useful tools employed by SCT help unravel the complexity and dynamics of a system, e.g. modelling, mapping, systems diagramming and system dynamics approach (Neuweiler and Körppen 2008; Wils et al. 2006; Unger and Wils 2006; Ropers 2008). Care is taken to be multi-partial by including diverse stakeholders while using these tools. However, as Woodrow points out, the contextual attribution of mapping falls short in capturing the stakeholders’ emotional and expectation levels in a conflict (Neuweiler and Körppen 2008: 23). Burns’ alternative is the use of narratives and visual methods (e.g. pictures and metaphors) which unlock resonance in the ‘action- resonance- reflection- action’ cycle (ibid: 7).
Archetypes and Patterns
An important part of conflict analysis in SCT is identification of archetypes, i.e. behavioural patterns that cannot be explained rationally, but play a crucial role in protraction of conflict and failure of peace processes by blockading actors in a system from changing their behaviour (Ropers 2008: 30-31)27. Coleman (Neuweiler and Körppen 2008: 11) asks to focus, instead of outcomes, on identifying dynamical patterns of thought, feeling, or action on the individual, group or social level and the variables which contribute to these.
Solutions
The conventional conflict resolution practice of concentrating on analysing the ‘causes’ of conflict is not favoured in SCT. Ropers reasons that “the search for [‘]causes[’] is problematic because it provokes arguments about who to blame (which can easily re-fuel the conflict) and because it risks missing the interdependencies driving the conflict [, ... and] interventions risk helping to reproduce the conflict system instead of mobilising resources for transforming it” (2008: 25-28). Taking Retzer’s (2006) solution-orientated approach based on applied systemic thinking, Ropers proposes to analyse factors and mechanisms which could become drivers of CT by overcoming the cycles which reproduce conflict systems (2008: 30). Other solution generating methods available to SCT are systemic tools like circular questioning, visualisation and constellation work, that help create a space where people could develop alternative options, as suggested by Merk, based on her experience in South Africa (Neuweiler and Körppen 2008: 24).
Local Perceptions and Knowledge
In contrast with conventional CT trends, Lederach’s integrated framework for empowerment and local or indigenous knowledge is central to sustainable CT (1997: 31). SCT heavily draws from this idea and stresses on the need to involve diverse local actors who would define what is part of the conflict and what is not, and to identify specific characteristics of the different sub-systems, e.g. gender, ethnic and religious balances. (Wils et al. 2006)
Space
SCT acknowledges the importance of having and creating a space (Wils et al. 2006: 17, 22; Ropers 2008: 92) where constructive dialogue, reflection, analysis and joint learning could take place. In certain conflict scenarios however, such a space cannot be offered at negotiation tables or cross-cutting dialogue workshops, but rather by some out-of-the-box initiatives.
Learning
SCT regards an open-ended shared learning process to be highly essential in starting a process of social and political transformation in protracted ethnopolitical conflicts. Practical stimulations for learning are paradoxical interventions, creative techniques and knowledge transfer. SCT by itself is a learning process that is integrated within its long-term cyclic process of i) observing the system, ii) working with and within the system, and iii) evolving along with the system. In SCT thinking, the concept of second-order learning becomes important: “to address protracted conflicts, not only [‘]first-order learning[’], i.e. learning within a given order, was necessary, but also [‘]second-order learning[’], i.e. learning which questions the values, principles and structures of this order” (Ropers 2008: 16).
Personnel
A perceived difficulty for SCT is on having skilled resources available: “Systemic conflict transformation requires very well-trained key personnel who display a high level of openness and have the excellent process and mediation skills needed to implement systemic approaches (Wils et al. 2006: vi, viii, 73)”.
Dialogue and Beyond
Dialogue is one of the prime focuses of CT and SCT. A creative systemic tool that SCT employs in workshops and dialogue processes is the Fishbowl exercise which fosters dialogue and creative problem solving in an innovative setting of communication and observation (Wils et al. 2006: vi, Hart 1991: 3-23 – 3-24).
Process-Orientation
Due to its broad overarching nature, SCT requires a substantial investment of time and resources – an apparent limitation that needs to be considered by all different stakeholders in the conflict who might otherwise be inclined for quick resolution (Wils et al. 2006: 85).
***
Bibliography
Hart, Lois B. 1991. Learning from Conflict: A Handbook for Trainers and Group Leaders. Second edition. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.
Körppen et al. (eds.). 2008. A Systemic Approach to Conflict Transformation. Exploring Strengths and Limitations - Berghof Handbook Dialogue Series No. 6. Berlin.
Lederach, John Paul. 1997. Building peace: sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Neuweiler, Sonja and Körppen, Daniela. 2008. Workshop Report. Exploring the Potential of Systemic Conflict Transformation. 2008. Berlin.
Ropers, Norbert. 2008. Systemic conflict transformation: Reflections on the conflict and peace process in Sri Lanka. The Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation Dialogue series, No. 6. 11–43. Berlin: Berghof Forschungszentrum für konstruktive Konfliktbearbeitung.
Retzer, Arnold. 2006. Passagen – Systemische Erkundungen. Stuttgart: Klett Cotta.
Unger, Barbara and Wils, Oliver. 2006. Systemic Conflict Transformation – Guiding principles for practitioners and policy makers working on conflict. Berlin: Berghof Foundation for Peace Support (BFPS).
Wils, Oliver et al. 2006. The Systemic Approach to Conflict Transformation. Concept and Fields of Application. Berlin: Berghof Foundation for Peace Support (BFPS).
