Understanding in conflict: Hegelian approach to conflict analysis and transformation

 “In all these events and accidents we see human activity and suffering in the foreground, everywhere something which is part and parcel of ourselves and therefore everywhere our interest takes sides for or against.”

-Hegel, Reason in History

Introduction

We all have our own biases within and as the field of conflict analysis and resolution (CAR), which we are taught to recognize, acknowledge and prevent from clouding our impartiality. Despite our work as agents of progress, positive change, and peace it seems we as a field are quite biased towards the status quo – and rightfully so. We also seem to lean away from purely theoretical approaches, ideas that cannot be applied in the field. This, also, is a proper tendency for our field. However, there is one prejudice that is quite hard to agree with. The field of conflict resolution possesses a severe lack of interest toward modern philosophy and toward philosophy in general. This is understandable since philosophy is difficult to apply in practice and is easily dismissed as a luxury we practical people do not have much time for. Precisely because the necessary time is not spent generating new ideas and perspectives for the practical purposes of using philosophy, the field of conflict analysis and resolution misses many opportunities to think more creatively about conflict.

This article aims to do just that, to open a window between the field of CAR and modern philosophy–and a window toward different philosophical approaches in general. The goals are to show that Hegel can be useful for the field of conflict analysis and to underline that different philosophical ideas–from ancient to postmodern–have important perspectives our field can use. Despite that we are living in an age where even pragmatism is considered out of date, as Rorty (1982) states in the introduction of Consequences of Pragmatism, Hegel would probably be thought of by many as ancient. He has, however, an immense amount of resources which to offer to the field of CAR. Merleau-Ponty (1964) mentions that “all the great philosophical ideas of the past century had their beginnings in Hegel,” and he also claims “interpreting Hegel means taking stand on all the philosophical, political and religious problems of our century.”

Just like the field of CAR was able to get past the idea of “being neutral,” we are also beginning to understand that we are not the number zero in a summative math equation. Our agency — the very fact that we are studying conflicts, analyzing, and intervening in them — means that we have a stance and agenda. This should not be confused with a stake in the outcome. The very act of interest in a certain conflict begs the question why that interest arises. Moreover, an intervention does change, or aims to change, the flow of things. Taking that stance is an important act in itself. Taking a stance with a certain depth in a way of thinking would only strengthen one’s position, which brings us back to the article at hand. Being an excellent conflict analyst, Hegel offers us a framework with three main merits to approach a conflict: dialectical understanding of conflict, relational freedom, and the Understanding. In the quest to demonstrate Hegel’s usefulness, this paper will first explain and then will try to integrate the aforementioned three merits to the field of conflict analysis and resolution.

Importance and Definition of Conflict

Though one can say defining what conflict is as a concept is a tricky and hard thing to do, as we can see from the debates taking place within the field, it appears as though there is some general consensus. We know a conflict when we see one. We can name it different terms such as a dispute or a misunderstanding, but there is something we can recognize. There is a disruption of the status quo and, as interested persons, we intervene, mediate, resolve, or transform the situation – or at least we try to. Hegel offers a rather unique take on conflict. Although he does not define what conflict is, nor even use the word like we do, a large portion of his work can be interpreted in terms of conflict and its unfolding. In these lines, Hegel talks about a disruption of the norm as a negation of the status quo. Conflict is the negation of the given situation, no matter if it is big, small, violent, non-violent, within the borders of mutual understanding or not; a negation (conflict) is a contradiction:

"Contradiction is the root of all movement and vitality; it is only in so far as something has a contradiction within it that it moves, has an urge and activity" (Hegel, 1969).

This not only enforces the field’s basic merit that conflicts are not bad, but good for generating understanding, it goes a step further. Hegel thusly claims contradictions are the only way any given individual or society will move forward and progress (moving forward and progression will be explored further in “Understanding”).

At this point, it is important to mention a rather controversial topic, not for Hegel, but for most everyone else who has read Hegel. Although conflicts are the only way to progress any given relationship toward the Understanding, things get quite debatable when we start talking about world history and war. Without getting into a lengthy explanation of Hegel’s metaphysics, we can at least say that according to Hegel there are certain people who exceed their time and who progress the Spirit of World History. People who embody the History of the World are according to Hegel not bound by the laws and morality of their time (since they are beyond it) (1956; p. 67). They are justified by the results of their actions, which they might not be necessarily aware of. To use Hegel’s favorite example, Napoleon introduced so many reforms to Europe in so many different areas that no one else could have pushed the progression of World History if it was not for Napoleon. That is why, according to Hegel, the millions of deaths in Napoleonic wars were justified. Although it is a very worthy topic of discussion, getting into such complicated matters of ethics is not the aim of this paper and would be gravely counterproductive for the purposes of this article.

Conflict as Dialectic

Treating conflict as the only way to overcome the status quo and achieve a better state of being, a Hegelian framework suggests that conflicts are natural phenomena, a result of the duality of existence. This suggests a dialectical understanding of nature, as well as conflict. But what do we mean by the dialectical nature of the conflict? To answer that question, let us further explore the idea of dialectics, what exactly they are and why they are so central and important in Hegelian philosophy.

A dialectical way of thinking is the basis of Hegelian understanding. Quoting Hegel, Speight (2008) claims that not only is “the very nature of thinking is dialectic…finite things are inherently dialectical” (pg. 11). Perhaps the best example that can be provided is found in the preface of the Phenomenology. With the following example Hegel shows that dialectics are not just an unfolding of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, but an interlocking system with many layers:

"The bud disappears in the bursting-forth of the blossom, and one might say that the former is refuted by the latter; similarly, when the fruit appears, the blossom is shown up in its turn as a false manifestation of the plant, and the fruit now emerges as the truth of it instead. These forms are not just distinguished from one another they also supplant one another as mutually incompatible. Yet at the same time their fluid nature makes them moments of an organic unity in which they not only do conflict, but in which each is as necessary as the other; and this mutual necessity alone constitutes the life of the whole" (Hegel, 1977, pg. 2).

According to the understanding of dialectics in this metaphor, a conflict, though “they negate the given situation” cannot exist if it were not for the conditions in which they happen (Pippin, 2008). In other words, every situation inherently has its own negation, every status quo inherently has its resistance, every couple inherently has their couple problems, and every war inherently opens the door for anti-war movements. If it was not for the inequalities in the U.S. political system, for example, there would not be a civil rights movement. If there was not any conflict, there would not be the field of conflict resolution.

In addition to this big picture sense of dialectical existence of conflicts, we can identify dialectical patterns in conflicts themselves. During a mediation session, we will most likely hear positions and counter-positions, arguments and counter-arguments, narratives and counter-narratives. A party will employ a negation when he or she is confronted with a position or an argument that differs from their own. Two countries at war will have different perspectives on the history of their dispute and those perspectives will most likely try to negate each other.

This means a conflict will unfold in a dialectical pattern. When X contradicts Y, this means these two parties are in a state of conflict. Where Y is the status quo, X is its negation; where Y is the thesis, X is the antithesis. Their meeting will result in a synthesis, regardless of an intervention. Synthesis means nothing more than the clash of thesis and antithesis. What kind of synthesis it will bring about, however, might depend on the intervention or lack thereof. For example:

There might be a synthesis which becomes an intractable conflict with a constant stalemate, just as experienced between Israel and Palestine.

There might be a synthesis which becomes an intractable conflict, not with a constant stalemate, but with lack of communication and lack of willingness to engage the conflict, just like there has been between Turkey and Armenia.

The synthesis might unfortunately end up being a violent act, such as murder, war, or genocide.

In the three cases above, the newly established synthesis becomes the new status quo. In such cases, the intervener needs to shoulder the role of “contradiction” as he or she tries to negate the conflict situation. The purpose of the clash between the new status quo, “the conflict,” and the intervener is to supply a momentum, as aforementioned. The momentum will be towards “the Understanding.” Without having to confront the conflict as an established status quo, it would be best to guide the clashing parties to a synthesis that would bring the parties closer to “the Understanding.” Such perfect intervention, unfortunately, is rarely the case.

To summarize and list the importance of dialectical thinking in interpreting conflicts:

In a more macro sense, conflict can be understood as a negation of the status quo and peace efforts as a negation of the conflict. The resulting product would be ‘the synthesis’ or the new status quo which also has a further negation, and this dynamic would keep unfolding.

In a more local sense, conflicts are constructed as dialectical. It is nearly impossible to see a non-dialectical conflict (according to Hegel, everything in the universe is dialectical). There is constant unfolding of narratives-counter narratives and action-reaction between agents.

One consequence that will be mentioned later on in the paper is the impossibility of achieving a resolution. A dialectical system constantly unfolds and nothing ever ends. Conflicts can only be transformed towards “the Understanding.”

Relational Freedom

A Hegelian framework of conflict has to do with freedom as much as it has to do with the dialectical nature of conflicts. Why the concept of freedom is important for a Hegelian framework of conflict goes back to the dialectical understanding of conflict. With a swift dialectical move, Hegel concludes that the essence of Spirit is Freedom:

"The nature of Spirit may be understood by a glance at its direct opposite–Matter. As the essence of Matter is Gravity, so, on the other hand, we may affirm that the substance, the essence of Spirit is Freedom" (1956; p. 17).

Hegel goes on to explain that the unrestful relentlessness of the Spirit’s consciousness constantly pushes for more Recognition. Defining the Spiritís measure of Recognition as Freedom, Hegel concludes, “the final cause of the World at large, we allege to be the consciousness of its own freedom on the part of the Spirit, and ipso facto, the reality of that freedom” (1956, p. 19). This means that every conflict in the world happens because there is a lack of Recognition and Freedom in the conflict situation.

This brings us to Hegel’s idea that every entity in the world, from humans to states, is related to each other with mutual recognition and freedom. To explain this further, let us contrast Hegel’s idea of free will to relational freedom. Hegel does not oppose an understanding of “fully reflexive, free human mindedness” (Pippin, 2008). This means a power to create a world in one’s own image, so to speak, or a free will of agency. Although he does not oppose it, such an understanding of free will does not concern Hegel. According to Hegel, the existence of relational freedom is much more prominent, liberating, or limiting than any kind of free will one can ever posses. A “perfect freedom and independence, ‘I’ that is ‘We’ and ‘We’ that is ‘I,'” is the idea of freedom Hegel sees as most important. This “being with self in another” is a collectively achieved relational state (Pippin, 2008). It is involving oneself, relating oneself to others, being active with others via deeds and practices.

Such an idea of relational freedom focuses on our relationships, which can enable more for us, instead of mainly focusing on the enabling power of individual agency. Precisely because Hegel values relationship over individual agency, the role that the intervener assumes is extremely crucial. In this framework, the intervener creates a liberating relationship expanding the range and the repertoire of the knowledge of discourse and behavior for the conflicting parties.

Ironically, at this point the pragmatic social constructionist idea regarding the role of established discursive relationships seems to overlap with Hegel’s idea of relational freedom. Hegel’s idea can be summarized thus: we are free as much as our relationships allow us to be and we can increase this freedom by engaging in more liberating relationships. The social constructionist idea can be summarized as asserting that our knowledge of behavior is constructed within the “context of conversationally developed relationships” and these conversations “are manufactured out of pre-existing linguistic resources…we understand the world in specific linguistic versions” (Shotter, 2002, 4; Edwards and Potter, 1995, 21). Both ideas suggest our relationships provide us with a repertoire on which we can draw from to act. Therefore, the question of free will becomes rather irrelevant. What becomes relevant is the role of the intervener as another relationship providing an empowering an alternative repertoire.

The Understanding

According to Hegel’s ontology, world history is a process by which the Mind actualizes self-consciousness. This means history is teleological, that is, it is going toward an end. It also means historical progress is governed by the Mind and, at the end, the Mind will reach to a state in which it can see itself perfectly in what has become the realization of this entire dialectical unfolding as well as of the status that is reached at the end, “being with self in another” (Hegel, 1997; Weiss, 1974). Although this ontological language just keeps on telling its tale, what does the above terminology tell us in terms of conflict analysis?

As was mentioned in the beginning of this essay, one of the consequences of a dialectical mode of thinking is the acceptance of the idea that nothing ever ends but rather evolves in a dialectical unfolding towards a goal. The realization of this dialectical unfolding and its end is called “the Understanding.” In a Hegelian framework this is what the intervener strives for: parties’ realization of the understanding. In addition to the aforementioned role as a repertoire providing and empowering relationship, an intervener will also aim to create the space for the parties to reach the Understanding. The Understanding, when interpreted from Hegelian ontology to the field of conflict transformation, means a state in which:

Parties realize that conflict is a natural part of existence and their relationship. They might or might not have further conflicts.They can choose to keep their relationship consumed by conflict or they can choose to enhance their relational freedom and most importantly, they can comfortably express their discontents or wills to each other without a need for a third party.

If parties can establish such an acceptance of themselves, of each other and of their relationship, the Understanding will be realized and there will not be, most probably, any further need for an intervener. In terms of the type of this approach, it can be considered transformative. Such a description of conflict transformation is quite accurate for the Hegelian framework, “In contrast to problem-solving styles, relational styles focus less on agreement making and more on opening lines of communication” (Deutsch, Coleman, Marcus, 2006).

Conclusion

This essay did not intend more than to humbly introduce the basics of Hegelian ideas to the field of conflict and offer an opportunity for analysts and practitioners to consider basic merits of dialectics, relational freedom, and the Understanding. If this essay encouraged anyone to consider different philosophical ideas for basis of conflict analysis or to take a further look into Hegel’s system of thought, it will be considered a success. Although Hegel proposes somewhat of a utopia when he suggests his perfect understanding of freedom or his idea of a perfect society, and although utopias are generally considered by definition an impossible dream, the burden of trying to establish even something remotely close to that is upon the shoulders of us conflict analysts and practitioners. The dream might go unfulfilled, but we will never know if we don’t strive for it.

Works Cited:

Deutsch, Coleman, Marcus (2006). The Handbook of Conflict Resolution, Jossey-Bass Publishing

Edwards, Potter (1995). “Remembering” HarrÈ ed. Discursive Psychology in Practice, London: Sage Publications

Hegel (1956). Philosophy of History, New York: Dover Publications Inc.

Hegel (1967). Philosophy of Right, New York: Oxford University Press

Hegel (1969). Science of Logic, New York: Prometheus Books

Hegel (1977). Phenomenology of Spirit, NY: Oxford University Press

Hegel (1997). Reason in History, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall

Merleau-Ponty (1964). Sense and Non-Sense, Northwestern University Press

Pippin (2008). Hegel’s Practical Philosophy, Cambridge University Press

Shotter (2002). Conversational Realities, London: Sage Publications

Speight (2008). The Philosophy of Hegel, McGill-Queenís University Press

Weiss (1974). Hegel, Essential Writings, Harper & Row Publishers

Author’s Note:

I would like to thank Michael English and the rest of the editorial cell for all the useful comments they have provided to the earlier drafts of the article.