Employing Complementary Processes as a treatment for Symptomatic Conflict

RP Birt

Index of headings:

Complementary rather than Alternative Processes

Overview: the Indigenous and Euro-Canadian heritage

Redefining the diagnostics of conflict

Opposites do not necessarily produce conflict

Symptomatic Conflict… Should conflict be resolved or treated?

Traditions and Values

Conflict Analysis

Process Sequence

A Values-based Process

The Wisdom of Complementary Processes

Diagrams: the Web of Conflict

Complementary rather than Alternative Processes

An analogy can be drawn regarding our model of human systems: as they grow in complexity and the demands for speed and efficiency increase, limits are being reached which stimulate the call for alternatives to these systems, in the proportion that they produce as many problems as they solve while failing to renew themselves.

Perhaps converting to a new model is called for. As long as we do not harness complementary processes, we will meet with resistance and conflict, despite our best intentions. We will continue to maintain, manage and produce toxic by-products in human relations.

Complementary by definition means: “Something that completes, makes up a whole, or brings to perfection. The quantity or number needed to make up a whole. Either of two parts that complete the whole or mutually complete each other¹”. Perhaps it is time to begin a dialogue on what is needed to make our systems work complementarily; that is, to recognize and validate that there is wisdom that is available to all, rather than seeking an alternative outside the system which is in reality not viable or possible.

Overview: the Indigenous and Euro-Canadian heritage

Canada enjoys one of the finest systems of justice in the world. Canada has a remarkable record in human rights and jurisprudence. It is something to be treasured.

At the same time, the system of justice seems to parallel the health care dilemma: pursuing a path of ever increasing technology costs to find cures for chronic illness, while failing to deal with the decline of the general health of the population and a scarcity of resources for providing basic medical services.

In both cases, the term “alternative” has come to describe attempts to take pressure off the systems and to provide relief from increasing demands at the primary levels. “Alternative medicine” and “alternate dispute resolution” have much in common as strategies and practice. Manifestations of side effects are controlled or regulated by the systems and are congruent with the primary mind-set of the power structure.

What is not congruent is that “alternative” by definition means: “the choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities¹”. In fact, there is no viable choice “in the alternative” without withdrawal from the system. This is much more possible in the case of health care, since most health care is at the request of the patient.

The system of justice does not have “alternatives” within Canada. Every resident of Canada is as bound by the Charter of Rights as is the Government of Canada. All are part of the whole, whether they choose to be or not. Both government and citizenry have rights, responsibilities and recourse.

Both of the dominant culture’s systems of justice and health also share the characteristic of having been imported into this land. Some might choose stronger language for ‘imported,’ others might take the view that this was progressive. Both imported systems reflected the dominance of their founders, since they replaced existing systems rather than evolved from them. The displacement of indigenous approaches and the subsequent conversion to the European-derived “rule of law” and the “scientific medical model”, left little room for traditional wisdoms of the past.

Now that both dominant systems seem to be floundering and search about for solutions, they have become willing to “tack on” traditional knowledge and practices. At the same time, the amount of credence and validity being given to these “alternatives” is wanting. Both systems are unprepared to give up power and control for reasons which are well beyond the scope of this summary.

It is the opinion of this writer that these systems have become inverted. They are often producing the opposite of what they intended to. In part, this is due to the increasing volume that they deal with and the abdication of responsibility on the part of those they serve. Often the systems become part of the problem rather than advancing solutions, thus complicating the situation even more.

Both systems threaten to become conflict producers or at the least conflict conduits that have not addressed the fundamental issues of what to do about being part of the problem. It would seem that the more the situations are ‘managed’, the more acute the problems become.

Going back to the question of conflict and its treatment, had traditional practices of the past based on fundamental principles been given the opportunity to evolve, they would have found different contemporary solutions for dealing with very divergent interests within the context of a large population base and a world that is compressed by the speed of communications and technology.

Redefining the diagnostics of conflict

(If we are going to look at conflict differently, then let’s change the models)

One of the most popular models for conflict is the analogy of the iceberg. It is used to describe the levels of conflict.

The image of the iceberg is popular because it is linear, visual and has the property of having its base below the surface…hidden. We can talk about getting below the surface… at what is hidden. We can talk about getting below the surface to the dangerous part… the one that the Titanic discovered.

It is neat, it is clean and it is dramatic- it also says “stay away from icebergs” in its meta-message. It creates nice metaphors like topping or presenting issues at which one can ‘chip away’.

It is not a very complex or complicated model- in fact it assumes that everything connected with it is homogenous- ice from top to bottom—one mass of identical solid matter. It is quantifiable using size- mass displacement.

It was a helpful image to get people to think about getting below the surface or to admit that something underlying could be as relevant as what is seen.

It was an image or metaphor that fit the thinking about the system of justice or other systems which have a need for quantification and finiteness. It was a way to open the door to underlying interests and helped to acknowledge and incorporate interests into the dispute settlement methodology.

“Getting below the surface” does not change anything. It may transform the tip into a different mass, but to do so does not cause the iceberg to metamorphose into something else… an iceberg is still an iceberg.

It is only when we look at conflict in another way, as a natural human by-product which is organic and has different chemical elements that it begins to make comprehensive sense. When we look at the by-product’s energy, we can begin to draw a different model.

Conflict is a natural human by-product. All of us create conflict. All of us are impacted by it. Not all of us take on the ownership of dealing with it. In fact, like other natural human by-products, we rely on systems as well as other people to make it go away. Most of us avoid it as much as we can and deal with it only when we are forced to. Sometimes we retain others to do it for us.

Conflict can be broken down into elements and described by types. It can also be quantified as energy, with intensity being a common primary descriptor. The intensity changes with the addition of the factor of time. Intensity over time is an energy that - when compressed - produces volatility. It is really the formula for fermentation. It is also the recipe for a bomb.

The essential truth is… all of us are conflict creators and all of us create waste that we do not want to deal with. In fact, each of us abdicates a great deal of the responsibility for processing conflict to others or to systems that are already over-burdened.

Opposites do not necessarily produce conflict

It would seem that conflict is not necessarily created by opposite factions, but rather by factions that oppose each other. They may share many interests in common, even if they are incongruent with regard to their respective values-base or intention.

As long as the paradigm of power aims to limit the integration of values from outside the system, the disconnection will produce a form of symptomatic conflict that will increase over time.

Traditional wisdoms or teachings form part of the values-base for identity groups. When they are displaced rather than incorporated into the dominant culture, this becomes a source of alienation and begins a legacy of conflict that often appears as symptomatic conflict… a never ending series of conflicting engagements that do not seem to have a rational basis. The result is a situation where perceived solutions or settlements can actually exacerbate the conflict.

It is interesting to note that a similar dynamic may be occurring within the First Nations. The adoption of rights-based approaches creates an inverse reaction in which the values-base of the community is split between the paths of adoption or resistance. Collaboration with the justice system can be seen as being bought off or as capitulation.

Contribution and compensation may be seen as punitive damage for what was once taken away, but also as a buy-off amounting to the continued imposition of the system and the indignity of being dependent. There is no settlement that will lay this condition to rest, unless there is treatment of the symptomatic conflict.

Symptomatic Conflict… Should conflict be resolved or treated?

Symptomatic conflict is a manifestation of the legacy and by-products of untreated conflict. It is often seen in recurring disputes or retributive actions. People involved in the conflict seek recognition and validation for their positions, adding to its infectious nature. If conflict is treated, should treatment only go so far as to eliminate the symptoms or should the treatment address the cause(s)? Is there an inoculation or medication that can cure it? Or is it more a question of a course of treatment that includes traditional as well as scientific remedies?

One does not have to experience conflict directly, since conflict is part of our environment. The notion of treatment is not usually related to conflict. Nevertheless, the fact remains that conflict and its toxicity is making us all sick. Not only does the immediate conflict impact us, but the legacy and by-products of untreated conflict add to the infectious nature of its manifestations, here called symptomatic conflict.

It is interesting that the West has placed so much emphasis on the outcomes of struggles for power or control, whether in a geo-political or social context, together with the corresponding issues of rights, that the notion of conflict as a symptom of something which needs additional treatment has been largely neglected. Rights-based claims or “disputes and settlement” preoccupy the justice system and consume the resources that could be allocated for prevention of chronic environmentally pervasive conflict.

Traditions and Values

Values can not be quantified without the danger of stereotyping or labeling, which runs the risk of increasing alienation, thus exacerbating a situation. Values can not be determined a priori.

Values represent what we hold most closely … our beliefs. They form a large part of our identity which is at times masked. Often a social role that we fill is in opposition to our identity or values; these may not always be seen in our actions or words.

Personal expression of values can be censured, even considered improper or bad form in some cultures. Often there is a disconnection with our beliefs as we “go along” with an action, because we weigh the actions against the consequences.

Internal conflict which is in essence the friction or tension created by the difference between polar opposites, “this and that,” creates an energy which has to find an outlet. This tension in turn can become a source of energy from which actions can be generated… ranging from stimulation, motivation to retaliation, self or mutual destruction.

Given that there are few viable options available for citizens to exercise an alternative outside the civic whole- there is a need for ongoing reconciliation processes that take into account differences in values, especially when energy is stored, set aside or pent up. People seek to join with others to find recognition and validation. People seek to be valued and connected to others.

Each relationship is unique. To manage or encapsulate this energy without valuing those in the relationship is very risky, especially if there is alienation.

Tradition is part of identity and is a value. If it is not recognized and validated or if the value is not attended to, it will lead to friction or tension and to alienation. Continued alienation will lead to chaos and a breakdown of trust and respect. Power will have its energy depleted, while trying to cope with continued threat and will eventually either exhaust itself or become more rigid and entrenched, i.e. unable to renew itself. Without renewal, its span is finite. Entropy will prevail.

Conflict Analysis

Use the “Web of Conflict Diagram” to outline and define the:

4 primary elements for Fundamental Conflict… Trauma, Drama, Alienation and Chaos

4 Factors… Friction, tension, compression and time

4 Types… Dispute, Underlying, Identity and Legacy

Describe the system (in terms of form and function)

· Related to issues of safety, from the perspective of historical evolution…“battling it out in Court”

· Adversarial/ controlled/ transparent… meaning public (picture a court room)

· Framed by: authority, formality

· Quantification of type… deflection of the primary elements, control-contributing factors through rules, codes and procedures

Characteristics:

· Facts… precedents… merits… oaths… compelling elements

· Parties face the front not each other, is played out like a chess game in a series of strategies and moves

· Can be based on the skills of the advocate and resources of the party as much as on the merits

Mediation/ADR is closed, but functions within the justice system with officers of the court under the rules of practice.

· People face each other, but can be separated into caucus

· Can become an exercise in shuttle diplomacy

· The mode has changed from Poker to Bridge with the clients present, i.e. from confrontational to collaborative mode

· Some emphasis on underlying interests.

Process Sequence

If a given system is “processing in reverse,” then the major flaw is in the intake and the pre-process when the context and framework for processes are defined. It is at this stage when the dynamics are set in motion and where disconnection and alienation may be increased, if too much is left untreated or personal dignity is attacked. Primary treatment which deals with symptomatic conflict in a holistic/integrative fashion could learn from traditional Aboriginal approaches.

Traditional Aboriginal process has many of the qualities and values for being such a primary treatment process:

Aeration, circulation, containment, treatment, and surfacing… so that something can be dealt with vs. stirring it up.
Bringing a sense of order by bringing things to a state of rest.
Transforming the elements and the energy, then directing them towards a new process or stage to be dealt with through another ceremony or process.
Taking decisions that are for the now, perhaps not forever or for everyone.
Building wisdom, not necessarily precedent.
Concern for healing those who are in need.

Although traditional ways did not arise to cope with the conditions of the present, they deserve the opportunity to be tried out.

It is very probable that at the least, there would be some preservation of the values of healing and reconciliation. It is worth recognizing that certain decisions would be made by fewer people at the secondary stages and that at some point, there would be a need for an accepted authority to determine outcomes.

If there were vested positions of power, struggles for power and control would result in aggression of some form, which would impact the unwilling or innocent. These things would still have to be dealt with.

We should be looking to traditional ways for solving problems through the primary treatment of conflict, at the front end of the process, rather than as a “tacked on” or marginalized “alternative”. This would require using the traditional process as a process in itself for itself… can it be self-fulfilling?

A Values-based Process:

In a values-based process, the determination of the outcome comes from the mandate and permission given by the parties rather than from an instance of authority. Criteria for eventual steps are determined by the parties. The level of trust is built on a foundation of principles which are grounded in the values ascribed to by the participants.

· Does form follow function? Or is function determined by form (inversion)?

· Look at the justice system as a triangle and how this is manifested in the form and function of the system. It is directed towards a point of closure.

· The system can produce a process that is labeled “alternative.” In reality, the “alternative” is a sub-process consisting of two triangles that form a square. Power directly opposing power with mediation in between. It can either come to a point of closure or return to the main process. It may deal with more elements than the primary process, but only within a very narrow set of parameters or ground rules.

· Consider the traditional Aboriginal approach as a circle with everyone facing each other and all being part of the process.

· This type of process can go on forever. Its objective is not necessarily closure. It is a circle. Listening is as active as speaking …reflection is as important as action. Its purpose often is to create the unity of a greater whole… it airs things out, and new content can be added. It can increase its capacity if necessary, and become very fluid.

· This process may not be a final step. It does not have a “point”. It may not have been convened for a purpose; it may have been convened by virtue of a calendar or as part of a cycle.

· The complementary process is the area that is outside of the subset of the square contained within the circle.

A values-base must contain the elements within the circle. If they are not recognized and validated, then they have no voice. With no voice, the energy changes and becomes recompressed. That is not to suggest that everyone can have their own way. It is not about taking action. It is about understanding what direction or type of action is required.

In a values-based process, the complementary elements are recognized along with their differences. The differences may be reconcilable or not. If they are to co-exist, then how can that be achieved without a struggle for power? Where can receptivity be found? What has changed during the process, so that power is no longer an issue? What has emerged that needs to be dealt with in new ways? Where is the future that is free from the legacy of fermentation? A circle can raise and answer many questions. It can convert energy and dissolve matter.

Circles are non-linear, but can be subject to time and can come to rest. They can be like the calendar and marked or quantified. They can set things in motion. They can contain other circles and accommodate the triangle and the square and hold them completely and contain all of their energy and mass.

The Wisdom of Complementary Processes

Power fears that a chink in the armor will invite injury. Entrenchment is the preferred form of protection while attack is also a common option. The mind set of power is still primarily “medieval”. We talk about the age of enlightenment, but power never really became enlightened… just more sophisticated. Perhaps it is time to download to the citizenry not only the costs, but also the tools to begin renewal through a process which is complementary to that of the justice system, that will bring together the best of our greatest wealth… our collective heritage. Can Canada recognize the symptoms of legacy-based conflict and respond?

The Web of Conflict

Layers in Sequence with Web of Conflict

Notes