Stages of development of conflict resolution field
Stage one
Failure to control the eruption of the First World War led to people coming up with ways to avert reemergence of wars in the future. The first stage of development of conflict resolution modalities started in 1918 and went on until 1945. Idealistic views characterized this phase and individual states played a critical role in conflict resolution. One feature that makes this phase noteworthy is the attempt by the countries to resolve conflicts using a non-violent approach. Moreover, the phase marked the establishment of international relations.
Stage two
The second stage is also referred to as the second generation, which lasted between 1945 and 1965. Introduction of nuclear weapons led to the need for urgent conflict resolution management. Conflict resolution approaches used in this stage were state centered and every state strived to stem out the cause of the conflict. The feature that makes this stage noteworthy is the society’s endeavor to come up with conflict resolution methods using numerous institutions.
Stage three
The third stage of development of conflict resolution field started in 1965 and lasted until 1985. The cold war marked this period. Civil society sought to manage conflicts through mediation. They endeavored to nurture expertise in the community, promote labor intercession, and advocate for family conciliation. This phase is essential as it marked the establishment of an empirical interpretation of destructive conflict from interstate level aimed at attaining win-win accords between the superpowers.
Stage four
The fourth stage began after the end of the cold war in 1985 and lasted until 2005. In this phase, there was a need to introduce ânew world orderâ of conflict resolution. Individuals adopted the virtue of âcomplementarityâ and âcontingencyâ to help in conflict management. Dialogue took the centre stage of conflict resolution with a belief that soft forms of conflict resolution would help to restore trust between conflicting parties. This phase is crucial since it saw the involvement of non-governmental organizations in conflict resolution programs.
Stage five
The fifth stage of development of conflict resolution field started in 2005 and it is currently evolving. The struggle by countries to curb terrorism characterizes this stage. Countries strive to establish a peaceful regime by respecting cultures and advocating for democracy.
Besides, they encourage inter-country trade as one of the approaches of establishing peaceful coexistence between countries. This phase is noteworthy since it led to international cooperation between countries. Moreover, it led to many countries attaining their sovereignty as developed countries sought to promote democracy.
Definition of culture
One of the hardest concepts to elucidate is culture. Every day, people talk about culture. Nevertheless, when asked to describe what culture is all about, they become dumb.
Based on LeBaron, Avruch and Ramsbothamâs perceptions of culture, one may define culture as the collective deposit of beliefs, knowledge, meanings, hierarchies, spatial relations, experience, and religion that people borrow from contemporaries or their ancestors. In most cases, people accept these practices without questioning. Culture is figurative, and symbols are passed from one generation to another.
There are clear similarities and differences in LeBaron, Avruch, and Ramsbothamâs explanation of how culture contributes to conflict and conflict resolution. LeBaron alleges that culture plays a significant role in conflict and conflict resolution. He asserts that culture determines how individuals interpret things.
Besides, it tells people what they need to do. LeBaron accepts that culture is a key contributor to conflicts, especially in areas that entail development of personal values and identity.
Ramsbotham refutes claims that culture contributes to conflict. He claims that cultural variation does not contribute to conflicts, and they should not be factored in when coming up with conflict resolution policies. On the other hand, Avruch warns against application of âinadequate ideasâ when dealing with conflict. Avruch claims that culture is possibly genetically rooted and locally changed.
Ramsbotham claims that culture plays a significant role in conflict resolution. He gives the example of religion, as one of the cultural factors that people ought to consider when developing conflict resolution mechanisms. LeBaron alleges that culture seeps into conflict despite the situation.
Consequently, to come up with viable conflict resolution mechanisms, it is imperative to understand the shared and unspoken beliefs of the conflicting parties. Ramsbotham and LeBaron believe that individuals contain inherent cultural aspects, which make them exhibit either positive or negative behaviors.
LeBaron, Avruch, and Ramsbotham share similar views with respect to culture and behavior. They all agree that culture influences the behavior of every society. Hence, they posit that it is rational to analyze the behaviors of the conflicting parties in line with their cultures prior to solving the conflict.