fundamental issues in conflict transformation
DESCRIPTION
In the course of work carried out through the Center for Dialogue and Human Wellbeing (CDBH) personnel often encounter situations where conflict has become entrenched in the day-to-day interactions among members of the communities with which the Center works. When communities become locked into tit-for-tat cycles of violence, conflict becomes ̳normativized,‘ to an extent, seen as ̳the way things are.‘ In spite of the apparent ̳normalcy‘ of conflict in certain situations, one of the primary goals of the CDBH is to help individuals and communities move away from normativized patterns of violence and conflict, to situations of peaceful interaction and mutual collaboration among the parts.TRANSCRIPT
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
1 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
Fundamental Issues in Conflict Transformation
By
Angélica Ruiz León
Research Collaborator
Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano
Tecnológico de Monterrey
&
Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
University of Malaya
Introduction
In the course of work carried out through the Center for Dialogue and Human Wellbeing
(CDBH) personnel often encounter situations where conflict has become entrenched in the
day-to-day interactions among members of the communities with which the Center works.
When communities become locked into tit-for-tat cycles of violence, conflict becomes
‗normativized,‘ to an extent, seen as ‗the way things are.‘ In spite of the apparent
‗normalcy‘ of conflict in certain situations, one of the primary goals of the CDBH is to help
individuals and communities move away from normativized patterns of violence and
conflict, to situations of peaceful interaction and mutual collaboration among the parts.
When a request is made for the Center for Dialogue and Human Wellbeing to work with
communities in conflict, personnel approach the situation by loosely following the
sequence of steps elucidated below:
A historico-contextual analysis is conducted in order to understand the larger context, and
the history of relations among the communities in conflict. A needs assessment is
conducted in order to understand the root causes of the discord, which often have to do with
unfulfilled needs and an accompanying sense of injustice, anger and frustration on one or
more of the sides. Tools used for the needs assessment include questionnaires and direct
interviews with the different stakeholders. Once the needs and concerns of communities
are understood, workshops are specially designed to fit the situation at hand-- which may
include mediation, reconciliation, healing of memories, dealing with trauma, etc.—
depending on the particulars of each situation. Once the sides are able to listen to each
other, participants elaborate common goals, which they will eventually put into practice in
a collaborative effort to meet the shared objectives. As situations are gradually transformed
from conflict to collaboration, CDBH personnel complete analytical research of the case at
hand by way of a policy analysis. Policy recommendations derived from the study are
given to powerholders at diverse levels who have the potential to bring about long-term
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
2 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
structural transformation aimed at benefitting all through legislative change. The
theoretico-anaytical tool utilized throughout this process in the Ideological-Structural
Analysis (I-SA) (López C., 2005a, 2005b, 2001, 1997, 1990), which will be discussed at a
later point in the present article.
Some Thoughts on Intercommunal Conflict
Intercommunal conflicts often emerge over competition for scarce resources, over who
controls politics and power in a locality, over land, identity, notions of the sacred, etc.
Beyond these issues, at the individual level, people may experience and/or act with
intolerance toward a certain person or community. The lack of understanding and respect
toward different traditions has occurred in societies all over the world. Part of what
underlies these conflict-generating responses has to do with the internalized norms and
‗shoulds‘ that we carry around within us about all manner of things. When people or their
behaviors are different and somehow ‗rub against‘ our internalized norms of ‗correctness,‘
we become irritated or uncomfortable. These ‗different‘ people or communities may do
things in ways different from our own; they may look different, sound different, act
differently. Among individuals and communities, it is common to judge others based on
our own internalized norms. Naturally, this can complicate relations and create tensions.
As human communities, we tend to assume that ours are the ‗correct‘ and the ‗virtuous‘
ways of doing things, of valuing, etc. Many times we implicitly ‗know‘ that our world
view is the most accurate, the most pious, etc.; so other ways of doing things and of valuing
are ‗simply not right;‘ ‗they are inferior,‘ or even ‗sinful‘ in the eyes of the perceiver of the
other and his/her ways. Part of the work of the Ideological-Structural Analysis is to create
activities where individuals and communities have the opportunity to explore and become
aware of the normative filters we hold, which tend to create division and exacerbate
tensions among communities. By increasing awareness of our own internalized modes of
thinking, feeling and responding to the world around us, we also become more aware of the
differences in the norms, expectations and behaviors of ‗others.‘ Beyond the newfound
awareness, a further step is to work toward a genuine knowing of the ‗other‘ through that
community‘s own eyes, working to cultivate a genuine respect for the differences, and a
full awareness of the similarities from which collaboration can grow. This can be
challenging when working with communities that have long been in conflict with one
another. An important aim of I-SA work is for communities to move from a position of
resenting difference and judging it negatively to an understanding of difference as enriching
of the human community. When difference can be viewed in such a manner, and it is no
longer threatening in any way, the door can be opened for peaceful collaboration. The
primary tool used in this process is the Ideological-Structural Analysis, which is
summarized briefly below.
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
3 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
What are the basic premises of the I-SA Macro-Theory and Micro-Theory?
What do both levels of the theory tell us about conflict transformation?
Applications of the Ideological-Structural Analysis (I-SA) for Conflict
Transformation
In this global era, people from diverse traditions are increasingly in contact with one
another. Multicultural cities are everywhere, and they continue to grow rapidly. In them,
people from distinct religious and cultural traditions are coming together in the workplace,
in schools, restaurants and other social and public institutions. Part of the day-to-day
commitment of the Center for Dialogue and Human Wellbeing, (CDBH—for its name in
Spanish), is to work toward normalizing dialogue as a way of life among the world‘s
communities. CDBH staff members wish to see the ‗normativization‘ of dialogue as a
basic set of skills, as an attitude toward communication, and toward humanity in general.
People at the Center believe that every single person will benefit from learning the basic
premises of dialogue, and from acquiring knowledge about people of diverse backgrounds
from the perspective that each community holds about itself.
The Ideological-Structural Analysis allows for the systematic observation of what occurs
within and among interlocutors engaged in the process of dialogue. While Macrotheory
examines the external context, as well as the verbal and non-verbal messages occurring in
the critical juncture of interaction between two or more individuals, I-SA Microtheory aims
to explore that which occurs within interlocutors cognitively and psychoaffectively as they
meet and interact with each other (López, 2004). The theory examines all those factors
involved in the moments and the spaces of interaction among communities in conflict by
exploring both the external environment and the internal processes occurring within each of
the actors involved. It explores from the very deep levels within the person up to those
external spaces, taking into account world views, civilizational paradigms and how the
interactions between the external environment and the internal spaces impact on the
processes of dialogue and interaction. The I-SA, both Macro and Micro Theory are used 1)
as an analytical tool for assessing conflict situations and, 2) as a guide for setting up
workshops and other activities designed to help transform problematic relationships from
conflict to collaboration.
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
4 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
Ideological-Structural Analysis Macrotheory
The I-SA Macrotheory, which looks at external events and their context, focuses on
interactions among individuals and communities ‗from the skin outward,‘ while the
Microtheory explores what happens within individuals as they interact and move about in
conflict situations. The Microtheory explores the construct of ―civilizational paradigms,”
which refers to the historical belief system to which a cultural community traces its roots.
The paradigms are often tied to particular religious or spiritual heritage, which tends to
form the foundation for the collective ways of knowing, interpreting and valuing shared
within the community.‖ When doing the historico-contextual analysis of the situation
surrounding a conflict, the I-SA asks from what traditions the communities in conflict arise
in order to better understand them.
Cultural communities are essentially common ways of thinking and doing which develop
historically because of somewhat isolated in-group communication (Littlejohn, in López,
2004). These communities often trace their roots to a certain civilizational paradigm.
However, it is important to remember that cultures are dynamic, and that they continually
absorb input from their external milieu, whether or not this refers back to the historical
paradigm.
Ideologies—as understood by the I-SA— are not tangible structures, yet they have the
power to set parameters around people´s understanding and interpretation of phenomena
encountered in day to day experiences. For our purpose, the term ―ideology‖ refers to the
basic thought system/s underpinning the beliefs shared by an historical collective. Often, in
analyzing a conflict, CDBH staff finds that the basic systems of thought and ‗logic‘ vary on
important issues between the communities in conflict. The unearthing of deeply-embedded
differences in basic interpretive filters held by the communities helps the sides reframe the
problems and the challenges in such a way as to better understand each other‘s position
concerning the issues underlying the conflict.
Structures found in the external environment have a strong bearing on how people will
interact with one other, on the norms of propriety, on delimiting power relations and,
therefore, ‗appropriate‘ behaviors among people within a society. Institutions, such as
marriage, schools, and places of worship are some examples of the external structuring
mechanisms, both held by the collective and holding the collective together in a particular
set of relationships. These structures are carried around within individuals as a reflection of
external norms which have become imprinted and normativized in a person‘s memory
stores, forming a set of interpretive filters through which we will ‗understand‘ and
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
5 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
interact with the world and the people around us. In uncovering the invisible structures
delimiting how relationships can be carried out ―correctly‖ within a community, power is
invariably a factor underlying how people may interact ―virtuously‖ among themselves,
according to the implicit, internalized norms of the community.
Worldview refers to an overarching conception of how the things of life are understood.
Worldviews vary from culture to culture, nation to nation, tradition to tradition. Naturally,
subtle or not-so-subtle differences in worldview come to bear on implicit expectations
people hold concerning the ―shoulds‖ of ―proper‖ human behavior. Among people from
diverse traditions, the ―shoulds‖ are not always the same, at times, giving rise to confusion,
misunderstanding, anger, etc. among the diverse actors.
In conflict transformation, the I-SA considers Trust and Good Faith as essential ingredients
for successful interaction among individuals and human communities (Rokeach, 1969 in
López, 2004).
Trust in the other, and the belief that both are acting out of good faith go a long way in
helping all sides, tolerate cultural and communicative differences among them which may
violate sociocultural norms and provoke a sense of discomfort on one, both, or all sides. As
such, it is of paramount importance to rebuild trust and a belief in the good faith of the
‗other‘ among the communities which have experienced conflictual relations with each
other
(López, 2004: p. 33).
Ideological-Structural Analysis Microtheory
The factors mentioned in the Macrotheory section above come from external milieu.
Through socialization and life experience, these become internalized by each individual,
having a strong bearing on the person‘s world knowledge and his/her implicit ways of
understanding, valuing, interpreting, feeling about situations and, ultimately, of behaving.
The I-SA Microtheory explores this internal world at the level of memory stores, cognition
and psychoaffect, and how these come into play in conflict situations. Some of the major
constructs of the Microtheory are reviewed briefly below:
Prototypes: Imagine you have a circle with a smaller circle inside it. Prototype Theory says
that we have at the center of our prototype, for example—of ‗woman‘—a composite of the
many women like those to whom we‘ve been exposed frequently since we were born. Our
prototype of ‗woman,‘ then, has great flexibility, in terms of what women may look like,
what they wear, how they may behave, etc. Women resembling our prototypical norm of
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
6 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
‗woman,‘ are placed at the center of our prototype. They are ‗unmarked,‘ meaning that
they are quite similar to the women who we commonly encounter in our external
environment. The outer circle of our prototype, also accepts ‗women‘ as human females.
But the women who fit toward the outer limits of our prototypes are ‗marked,‘ to the
perceiver—meaning that they are different from the person‘s composite prototypical norm.
For example, a Malay Muslim woman wearing a baju kurung and a tudong in Kuala
Lumpur fits well into the unmarked prototypical norm of most of the locals in the
Malaysian capital. Her physical appearance will likely not cause undue attention, since she
is part of the prototypical norm for ‗woman‘ in that particular locality. This very same
woman walking in Mérida, Yucatán in México, however, while still being understood by
the locals as a woman, would fit into the outer parameters of the prototype of ‗woman‘ for
that particular locality. The difference between her and the local prototype would likely
catch the attention of the locals, which is a function of her ‗markedness‘ vis-à-vis the local
prototype.
Stereotypes are caricatures of a sort, which often cast negative aspects of humanity on the
person or the cultural community being stereotyped. We obtain stereotypical information
about ‗others‘ from sources such as the media, institutions, our elders and peers passing
their prejudices onto us, etc. Stereotypes are second-hand information received, not from
the person or the community with whom we are interacting, but from sources which purport
to ‗tell us how these people are.‘ When we unconsciously respond to stereotypical
information activated within us by our interlocutor´s outward physical self, we often
awaken negative expectations and judgments about the person and the outcome of our
interaction with him/her, thereby increasing the probability for misjudgment and
misunderstanding among the interlocutors. Since stereotypes cast, at best, inaccurate
information on the interlocutor, and often, negative notions of who the person is, they get in
the way of us knowing each other.
What happens when an ‘other,’ someone having a degree of markedness, comes into the
perceptual field of a community? Since we tend to have had less first-hand experience
with people who are ‗marked,‘ and fit within the outer parameters of our prototype, we
often fill the gaps in world knowledge concerning ‗someone like her‘ with second hand
information—from sources such as the media, stories adults have told us about ‗people like
her,‘ etc. This gives rise to stereotypical judgments, assumptions and expectations
concerning the individual in front of us—who we do not know. When our stereotypes are
activated, we often interact—not with the person—but with the stereotypes activated within
us by her presence. Naturally, this can cause deep offense and misunderstanding as we cast
our stereotypical judgments on the person, failing to see and come to know the person in
front of us. Part of the work of the I-SA is to provide people with the spaces to explore and
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
7 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
become aware of the stereotypes we hold about ‗others‘ and how these stereotypes affect
our judgments, expectations and, ultimately, our actions toward individuals and
communities.1 The aim of the exercises provided in our workshop activities is to help
participants go beyond stereotypes and come to ‗see the human face of the other,‘ allowing
her (or him) to tell us who she is, and truly coming to know her through interaction as a
genuine relationship develops between us.
Schema as Normative Expectations
Like with prototypes, schema activated in our long-term memory create normative
expectations concerning places, or the contexts in which our interaction with the ‗other‘
occurs. Take, for example, our notion of a doctor‘s office. In different countries and places
where CDBH staff have offered workshops and activities, people hold in common a general
agreement about the context and the ‗ingredients‘ to be found in a doctor‘s office. We
have, for example, a nurse, a receptionist, stethoscopes, white hospital scrubs,
thermometers, etc. We also have a waiting area, where people may be sitting; they may be
reading a magazine of chatting while waiting for their turn to see the doctor. Concerning
the aforementioned aspects of a doctor‘s office, people around the world seem to share
common contextual schema, although they have never been in the same doctor‘s office as
others from different places. However, if we were to see, for example, a cow, sitting in the
waiting area, calmly leafing through a magazine, this abrupt break with the normative
expectation for doctor‘s offices would immediately catch our attention, as it jumps the outer
boundaries of our schema for doctors‘ offices. In our memory stores, we hold schema
concerning all manner of things. Upon seeing the cow, our schema for veterinary clinic, or
for farm might be awakened—moving away from the doctor‘s office schema into some
context where the cow ‗fits‘ more comfortably within our memory stores. How does this
relate to people and conflicts? Just as we wouldn‘t expect to see a person in a bikini in a
church or a temple, we have schematic expectations about the places in which our
interactions with others take place. When schema violations have taken place--such as
seeing someone in a scared place dressed inappropriately, people experience an alarm
response, which calls conscious attention to the schema violation, often giving rise to
feelings of anger, shock, etc. In unearthing the roots causes of conflicts, we often find that
schema violations have occurred between or among the parties in conflict.
1 Although our prototype of ‗women‘ is highly flexible—accommodating human females within itself with
greater or lesser degrees of markedness, there are boundaries beyond which we can no longer accept ‗x‘
within the prototype—such as a ‗bearded woman,‘ who we might place in our prototype of man, or we might
not. We probably wouldn‘t be sure where to place her, awakening within us a degree of uncertainty about
how we should interact with this person who doesn‘t fit easily within our internal structuring mechanisms.
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
8 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
Scripts and their Power to Create Normative Behavioral Expectations
If the schema concerns the context and sets up normative expectations, the scripts are those
actions and behaviors expected to occur and deemed appropriate for a particular schematic
context. For example, in our doctor‘s office schema, we would find it appropriate for the
nurse to take someone‘s temperature—not calling undue attention to the action. However,
if that same nurse stood on the receptionist‘s desk and started dancing, this action would be
a violation of our script for appropriate behaviors within the schema of doctors‘ offices.
We would notice the behavior which is beyond the normative expectation for that particular
context; we would probably experience an alarm response and likely, we would feel anger,
confusion, and possibly indignation as well. Once again, in conflict analysis, we often
unearth script, or behavior, violations perceived by one side toward the other. Just as with
schema violations, scripts violations awaken the alarm response, calling attention to the
‗inappropriate‘ action and often giving rise to great consternation, anger and even violence
toward the perceived violator of the schema.
Values are one of the foundational structures around which human societies are built. The
existence of values within social groupings takes as its point of departure a dichotomized
notion of the existence of good and bad or `virtuous´ and `evil,´ serving as an evaluative
mechanism often held below the level of consciousness. When people‘s values—held
within themselves—are violated by an ‗other‘s‘ actions, words, etc. alarm response, anger
and—at times—violence are awakened toward the violator of the values.
Taboo constitutes a category of behaviors which are considered out of bounds, not to be
done, nor discussed. Violation of taboo provokes powerful negative affective reactions
toward actors believed to have caused the violation, leading to deep anger and—at times—
to violence directed at the person or the community perceived to have violated the taboo.
Sociolinguistic competence refers simply to the implicit norms of propriety in
communication, concerning what is and can be said and how it may, or may not be said.
Sociolinguistic norms vary among communities and, to a degree, within them as well. The
sociolinguistics of one community may allow discussion of certain issues which another
community finds taboo, or out-of-bounds. In one community, direct critique, and loud and
angry locutions may be expressed, while another community may find such expressions
completely inappropriate and unacceptable. Once again, violations of sociolinguistic norms
are often found underlying conflict situations—exacerbating the anger and
misunderstanding existing between or among the groups in conflict.
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
9 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
(López, 2004: p.13-32)
The aforementioned theoretical constructs of the I-SA allow us to analyze inner and
external situations, in the attempt to understand and transcend the conflict at hand, as well
as providing a basis for workshops and other sessions aimed at working directly with the
groups in conflict. The ensuing section looks at the different ‗levels of being‘ comprising
the human person, as we attempt to work with growing consciousness of both self and
‗other‘ as we work to move from conflicting to cooperative interactions among the
communities.
Levels of the Being
In our mediation work, CDBH facilitators discuss the I-SA‘s levels of being with the
parties in conflict. Coming to an understanding of the deeper levels of ourselves and
others, we are more able to go beyond that which separates us, learning to listen
respectfully, and to genuinely transform our angry behaviors into acceptance and empathy.
Now please imagine a circle with another circle drawn inside it and, inside that middle
circle, there is a still smaller circle drawn at the center of the diagram—something like a
target with an outer circle, a middle circle, and a bullseye in the center.
The first level—represented by the outer circle-- is the Outward Physical Self. It is the part
of the person with which we first come into contact upon meeting in the critical juncture of
dialogue. It has to do with his/her physical characteristics, mode of dress, the accent we
hear when the person speaks, etc. This is the level of ourselves which other people see and
to which they initially respond upon coming into contact with us. Input—usually visual
and auditory—coming from this outward level, activates mis/information stored in long
term memory, creating expectations and setting a tone for how we will interpret and
interact with the person in front of us. It is here where we make instantaneous judgments,
often even before interaction has begun. The more marked the person is for us, the more
second-hand stereotyped mis/information and mis/expectations about the ‗other‘ will tend
to awaken, leading us to interact in response—not to the person, but to the mis/information
awakened within us by the person‘s outward physical self.
The middle circle represents the Cognitive and the Psycho-affective Self, meaning our mind
and our emotions. This is the level where long-term memory resides; it is the locus of our
thought processes, our interpretations, and the feelings arising from them concerning our
interlocutor. Ideological-Structural Analysis Micro-theory focuses precisely on this level
of the human person, exploring how cognition and psychoaffect—our thoughts and our
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
10 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
emotions—come into play in conflict situations and how these levels of the self can be
consciously transformed in favor of peaceful and collaborative interactions among the
groups formerly in conflict with one another (López, 2004).
The third level of being addressed by the I-SA-- represented by the inner circle of our
diagram-- is called the Life Essence.
―This level, sometimes called the ground of being, is the very existence and sustenance of life within us. All
human and other living beings share this life essence, of which we are often not even aware. This is the level
from which our life source emanates‖
(López, 2004: 9).
Regardless of which religious, linguistic or cultural tradition from which a person hails, all
humans share this life essence, friends and foes alike. An exercise used by CDBH staff to
invite people to an awareness of their own life essence goes something like this: ―Please
place your finger beneath your nose. Do you feel your breath going in and out? What is its
source?‖ People will say that the breath comes from the lungs, which are controlled by the
central nervous system, which is controlled by the brain, etc. When the group arrives at the
end of their physiological explanations, the staff then asks how this breathing—a symbol of
the life within us—was called into action? How did you come to be? How did life come to
be embodied in you? It does not matter if a person answers ―Allah,‖ ―God,‖ ―Cosmos,‖
―Energy,‖ or whatever. Regardless of differences in ideology, worldview and belief
systems, all living human share this essence, which sustains them over the course of their
lifetimes. When a person discovers his/her own life essence, s/he is able to see the very
same essence residing at the deepest level of all people, both of one‘s own community and
of the ‗enemy.‘ The moment of being introduced to our life essence and that of all others,
is very often transformative for participants in CDBH workshops. A further exercise is
offered where we each salute or greet the (scared) life essence within each other. This
means that I—who have just discovered my own sacred essence—will receive a greeting
from others—friends and enemies—which salutes and honors the life within me. People
are often stunned and humbled at the discovery of the sacred life within themselves.
Participants are then asked to observe and to salute the life within all other participants;
which is often the beginning of their discovery that, not only are they themselves sacred
beings, but that those around them share this essence as well, whether they happen to be
part of our community, or of those we have viewed until now as ‗others.‘
This activity, of course, must only be conducted once participants have worked through the
hurt, the misunderstanding and the rage felt toward the ‗other.‘ For this, the mediator must
have great discernment as to when the group is ready to explore this level of being. This
exercise has a profound impact on people as individuals and on their perception of others
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
11 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
around them. When this particular Levels of Being exercise has taken root in the cognition
and the psychoaffect of workshop participants, this is where the new beginning is born. It
is from here onward that groups can sit together in the critical juncture and gently sort
through the traumas, the painful memories, and the historical injury which has arisen
among the communities over the course of the conflict.
From the healing of memories stage, CDBH staff begin to facilitate discussions about the
interests, concerns and fears of the groups involved. Negotiation goes on; groups give and
take, and vie throughout the process in order to construct a common set of goals, toward
which they will create a concrete plan of action, delegate tasks, and establish loose
timetables for moving together toward common goals.
CDBH staff must also prepare the group for dealing with relapse, which often occurs when
something triggers old antagonisms and misunderstandings. Local leaders are trained in
conflict transformation and mediation so that the community no longer needs to rely on
outside sources for settling grievances which may continue to arise among them.
Along with the community leaders, CDBH staff help create a set of Policy
Recommendations, to be offered to persons of authority in hopes that they will work toward
the structural changes which may be necessary to ensure lasting peace among the parties.
Our staff may return to the communities from time to time; they also remain ‗on call‘ and
try to be easily reachable in case intervention would be required by the communities in
cases of particularly virulent relapse into old patterns of violent, conflictual interaction.
Although we are willing to be there if needed, the aim of CDBH staff is to ‗not be
necessary‘ for the communities. It is to help sort through the conflicts, to arrive at an
honoring of each other, to collaborate toward common goals, to become easy with
differences which inevitably remain, and to help communities be self-empowered as they
progress through the denormativizing of violence toward an ever-deepening culture of
sustained peace in the locality. Work in transforming the normal state of affairs from
conflict to collaboration moves forward ‗in fits and starts,‘ often advancing three steps,
only to regress by nine. In spite of the difficulties and the tremendous challenges
presented, CDBH staff members remain committed to the work of conflict transformation.
Fundamental Issues in Conflict Transformation
The following questions are set forth as a guide in hopes of mining available literature for
insights concerning issues which often arise in the course of conflict transformation work.
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
12 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
Groups in conflict: Choosing peace
Different authors conceptualize peace in different ways. In his book Peace by Peaceful Means:
Peace and conflict, development and civilization, Johan Galtung offers two definitions for peace.
I) Peace as the absence or reduction of violence of all kinds
II) Peace as nonviolent and creative conflict transformation
(Galtung, 1996).
The first definition is violence-oriented; peace being the negation of violence. To know about peace
we have to know about violence, The second definition is conflict-oriented; peace is the context
within which conflicts can unfold nonviolently and creatively. Galtung writes that in order to know
about peace, we must know about conflicts, and how conflicts can be transformed nonviolently and
creatively (Galtung, 1996).
For Galtung, the solution to a conflict can be defined as ―a new formation that is acceptable to all
actors and sustainable by the actors‖ (Galtung, 1996, p.89).
1. Galtung believes that a conflict is not truly solved if only elites, and signatory actors agree to
establish a resolution for the parties of a conflict. He further suggests that deep-seated conflicts
cannot be solved solely through civil society involvement. In order for conflict transformation
to be successful, it is necessary to involve all levels of society in the process. If behaviors
are to be transformed from conflict to collaboration, civil society and elite involvement is
paramount. When only the elites sign a peace treaty, relapse back into violence and
conflict is practically inevitable. When people throughout society are involved in and
committed to the transformation, the probability of reaching and sustaining peace increases
greatly.
Underlining the necessity for civil society and elite participation, Galtung suggests what he calls
‗double-track diplomacy‘ as a more lasting means of conflict transformation. This involves both
‗elite-track and people-track‘ interactions (Galtung, 1996, p. 89).
* What are some of the diverse understandings about what peace is?
* How is the concept of peace understood by different actors within the community?
* Can we come to a shared understanding of peace among all actors involved?
* If so, how does the community choose to define peace?
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
13 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
* How and why does conflict become normative in societies?
* How does the normativizing of violence/conflict impact on societies?
* How might alternatives to conflict emerge from among members of the groups
themselves?
* How can conflictual-violent behaviors be denormativized?
* What types of behaviors/relations can replace normativized violence and
conflicts? (These decisions must be made by the stakeholders themselves and
facilitated, not imposed, by CDBH facilitators).
* How can CDBH staff facilitate the aforementioned processes?
The strategies provided by Galtung include offering tools to people in order to solve conflicts.
Specifically, ‗people-track solutions‘ aim to complement and enhance resolutions and decisions
made by powerholders in search of conflict transformation.
For Galtung, conflict has to do with incompatibility on the one hand, and with actors and their
‗conflict formation‘ on the other (1996). From an I-SA perspective, ‗conflict formation‘ would
refer to the conceptions of conflict, the levels of acceptability, etc. stored in the memories of
individuals, which have been acquired through life experience. To an extent, this internalized set of
norms is tied to cultural identity, religious tradition, and other factors that make up both the
thought-interpretive processes and the feelings of a person. Those elements together constitute the
formation of an individual, a community and—to a large extent-- a civilizational paradigm and its
world view (López, 2004). In addition to struggles for power and resources, deeply-embedded
differences in the world views, in valuing and interpretation have been sources of conflict
throughout human history.
Conflict transformation aims not to eliminate differences within and among cultures-- which
represent the wealth of human diversity, but to help channel communities toward a progressive
understanding of, and respect for each other‘s way of life. Going beyond mere tolerance, CDBH
staff hope that empathy and genuine respect will emerge from listening to and truly aiming to
understand each other.
Galtung reminds us that conflict transformation is an ongoing process (1996) since new
contradictions tend to emerge even after the formulation of solutions. In conflict transformation,
variables are in constant flux from the parties involved, meaning that ‗solutions‘ are often only
temporary. Due to the dynamic nature of human relationships, it is advisable to prepare
communities for dealing with change and relapse, as situations shift and flux unendingly long after
formal solutions have been reached and mediation teams have left the locality.
Concerning conflict
When manifestations of violence occur in an ongoing, habitual manner, they may become
normativized within a particular milieu. When something is ‗normative,‘ it is seen as ‗the way
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
14 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
things are‘ although the community does not like the situation. Normativized violence, or conflict
ceases to have the same shock value as it would in environments where peace is the norm. For
example, if a child has grown up seeing his father hit his mother and the woman bearing it, he may
perceive intra-familial violence as somehow acceptable, even if he doesn‘t like to see his father hit
his mother. Since this habitual behavior models violence as a form of power and control, it
constitutes part of the formation of an individual, becoming internalized as a normative example for
him. Whether or not the child views such actions as pleasant or unpleasant, they are stored in
memory as a set of scripts of behavior occurring within the family setting. The same may happen
in whole communities which have been mired in a historical conflict. Since entrenched
conflicts have their roots in the past, generations have somehow ‗gotten used‘ to living
within the conflict situation; eventually, this conflict becomes part of the society and, over
time, it becomes normativized.
As the person matures, the information acquired through immersion in a particular cultural community comes
to shape his/her values, world view, norms of conduct and so on
(López, 2004, p.14).
Peace is to be built by each member of the communities and, according to Galtung, the first
step in denormativizing conflict is to recognize that it exists. Normativized aggression
affects societies since it somehow dulls the collective alarm response to violence and
conflict, which stymies efforts to work toward a peaceful transformation of difficult
situations.
In Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation across cultures, John Paul Lederach,
(1995) suggests four key steps to follow in the process of building peace: Education,
Confrontation, Negotiation and Sustainable Peace, where ‗education‘ is seen as awareness
and recognition of the conflict. Throughout history, philosophers have said that reasoning is
the way to achieve peace, and that education is the way to engage people‘s reasoning
capabilities. Confrontation is seen by Lederach as the way to increase interdependence
among parties; therefore, through negotiation, parties have the opportunity to dialogue
about their views, interests and concerns as they seek a common understanding of the
issues at hand. Parties involved must recognize that they cannot impose their own
decisions or eliminate the other side‘s suggestions, but that they must instead work toward
achieving mutual goals (Lederach, 1995).
Lederach defines Conflict Transformation as follows:
Transformation suggests a prescriptive direction based on the core elements in early developments in the
field. Specifically, there is the idea that conflict unabated can take destructive patterns that should be
channeled toward constructive expression. (…) a transformation is assumed in terms of the relationship,
which shifts from mutually destructive, unstable and harmful expressions toward a mutually beneficial and
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
15 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
cooperative basis. (…) In other words, conflict is seen as a transforming agent for systemic change (…)
Transformation suggests a dynamic understanding that conflict can move in destructive or constructive
directions, but proposes an effort to maximize the achievement of constructive, mutually beneficial processes
and outcomes
(Lederach, 1995: pp. 18-19).
For Lederach, peacebuilding involves changes at both the personal and the systemic level,
which are necessary in order for a social conflict to be transformed. This is why the CDBH
works with individuals and groups, as well as providing policy recommendations aimed at
ushering in systemic transformations which work on favor of peace
While Galtung suggests that peace can be fully achieved when both the elite and the people
of the sides in conflict agree, Lederach suggests that a framework for conflict
transformation and peace building must be provided, based on justice and mercy, as well as
personal and systemic change.
At the level of personal change, Lederach suggests that we work with trauma, fear, anger,
and bitterness; which are challenges that any mediator will face from all sides when
involved in a conflict transformation process. At the systemic level, engaging elites and
decision makers can aid in the process of transforming and creating structural change
toward sustaining peaceful.
Collaborative relations within a community
Lederach reminds us of the importance of providing a safe environment for parties involved
in dispute and conflict. Among other tools for moving people into more peaceful frames of
mind, Lederach suggests the use of poetry as a formula for conflict resolution, stating,
Poetry remains a revered art form and can move people toward war or toward reconciliation. As a formula of
conflict resolution it helps locate and situate grievances and meaning and justifies views and demands of
different groups (…) This traditional mechanism has an effect on public opinion and conflict analysis by
arguing for causes, rights, and responsibilities
(Lederach, 1995: pp. 97-98).
Michelle LeBaron (2002) reminds us that communities engaged in conflict transformation
must first have the motivation and the desire to work toward peace. When violence and
conflict are normativized within a society, it is often difficult for actors to envision other
alternatives. Part of the role of a facilitator, then, is to help communities explore and bring
to conscious awareness the fact that other norms of societal interaction are possible, and
that they have the power to collectively choose desired norms in order to strive together
toward them. While the facilitator can help parties envision peaceful options, it is
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
16 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
* What is the role of a mediator in a conflict transformation process?
* How is the mediator perceived by all sides in the conflict?
* How must the mediator be perceived in order to be effective in conflict
transformation?
* How can the mediator work toward gaining the acceptance of all actors
involved?
* What strategies can the mediator apply to help communities move from
conflict to collaboration?
* How can the mediator facilitate a sense of agency and incentives for
stakeholders in conflict situations?
ultimately up to the parties themselves to articulate their shared vision and to elaborate a
plan of action on the path toward reaching their goals.
Concerning the Mediator
Incentives
In their work, Schmidt and Tannenbaum (2000) focus on the tools available for conflict
resolution within organizational structures. The context of organizational conflicts is taken
to exemplify what could function as an incentive for collaborating with people having
diverse viewpoints and, possibly, diverse work cultures. The organizational context can be
contrasted with the intercultural one; for example, in a given conflict in which two
communities live in constant clash, the mediator might analyze the diverse segments of
society in order to identify the source of the main problems. This type of analysis helps to
identify the root sources of anger and discontent. By doing a cross-sectorial analysis, the
mediator may find that some members of either or both communities are not directly
involved in the discord; yet, they may suffer the consequences of the conflict, regardless of
their level of direct involvement or the lack thereof.
Interculturally, as in organizations, people from similar backgrounds may have less
tendency to dispute, as they may approach and interpret problems in a similar way. In the
case of intercommunal conflict, the mediator may wish to focus on those people who are
not directly involved in the conflict who, at times, may comprise the majority of the
population. Since these two parts of the opposing communities live under similar
conditions, they can be encouraged to come together and examine the problem, often
discovering that they, in fact, view the issues quite similarly. This discovery provides a
strong incentive for working together toward a common solution.
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
17 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
Despite the numerous conflicts that human beings may face as a result of cultural
differences, I-SA Theory suggests that communities and individuals with very different
cultural origins can, not only to coexist peacefully; they can also enrich each other‘s lives
with the different perspectives brought to the local milieu by the different sides. Using the
notion that ‗two heads are better than one,‘ Schmidt and Tannenbaum (2000: p. 16)
describe the differences among people as an opportunity to enrich the perspectives of all
sides involved in conflict resolution, since they -‗the two heads‘- represent a richer set of
experiences and, therefore, a variety of possible solutions. However, in order for parties to
see each other‘s value as enriching or enhancing the realm of possibilities, it is important
for communities to move beyond the sense of threat often felt by human groupings in the
face of perceived ‗others.‘ CDBH staff consciously work with communities‘ sense of
security and collective self-esteem to help groups move from the perception of ‗other as
threat‘ toward an understanding of ‗other as gift.‘ This takes time; yet this attitudinal
shift—once achieved—provides a solid foundation for healthy interactions among groups
which were once in conflict.
Mediation
A primary issue in mediation concerns the acceptance of the mediator by all parties to the
conflict. Given that one of the objectives of conflict resolution is to seek agreement among
parties, if one or more of the parties does not accept the person who functions as mediator,
the success of both the process and the strategies for transformation can be greatly
diminished.
Individuals working as mediators must strive to be absolutely neutral, leaving their own
views aside in the mediation process, and listening to the different opinions from as
objective a point of view as is humanly possible. The mediator must try to avoid his/her
own inclinations toward a specific idea or side. The perception of the mediator‘s neutrality
by all sides is so important that s/he should even attempt to avoid looking more toward one
of the sides than toward the other, since even the person‘s gaze can be interpreted as
favoring one side over the other. It‘s important to remember that a mediator‘s job consists,
not in giving solutions, but in allowing parties to hear each other‘s points of view, and to
seek common ground from which to build toward solutions.
For Schmidt and Tannenbaum (2000) the mediator must be able to diagnose and understand
differences. Prior to intervening, the mediator should conduct an historical which allows
him/her to uncover the roots of the conflict, in order to understand the differences and the
potential points of agreement. Schmidt and Tannenbaum recommend the following
questions which can help the mediator to find such roots:
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
18 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
I) What is the nature of the difference among the persons?
II) What factors may underlie this difference?
III) To what stage has the interpersonal difference evolved?
(Schmidt and Tannenbaum, 2000).
Without taking sides, the mediator should analyze and recognize the world/conflict view of
each party, as well as the understanding the views and feelings that each side holds toward
the ‗other.‘ During the process of conflict transformation, the mediator‘s subjective feelings
and criticism of the parties must be avoided. Such criticism will block the parties‘
acceptance of the mediator, as well as their interest in seeking to transform the conflict.
Finally, the mediator must be able to select appropriately from a variety of behaviors,
postures, attitudes, levels and types of interactions with the parties. Furthermore, one of the
most important abilities a mediator must have concerns being able to deal with his/her own
feelings so they don‘t impede the neutrality of the mediation process.
Jacob Bercovitch (2007) proposes the following techniques for mediation:
Clarify the situation
Develop rapport with parties
Make parties aware of relevant information
Rehearse appropriate behaviors with each party
Clarify what the parties intend to communicate
Avoid taking sides
Bercovitch argues strongly for the importance of mediation in conflict transformation
saying,
Even if a conflict remains unresolved, mediation –in any guise- can do much to change the way the disputants
feel about each other and lead, however indirectly, to both a long-term improvement in the parties´
relationship and a resolution of the conflict
(Bercovitch, 2007: p, 187).
The mediator can help parties see the advantages of working toward conflict resolution;
however, this must be done without seeming intrusive, which can often be achieved in a
Socratic manner, through asking questions designed to guide the groups to envisioning
possible solutions to the conflict at hand. Bercovitch suggests that one way of working
toward the denormativizing conflict is by helping sides see the ongoing costs of non-
agreement (2007). If the mediator is successful in helping people see the negative
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
19 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
consequences of living in conflict, and if actors are disposed to changing the situation, then
the process of conflict transformation can take place.
This ties in with Lederach‘s (1995) description of potential steps in Conflict
Transformation, which are as follows:
Disputants are expected to reveal their concerns and feelings
The mediator provides an atmosphere for hearing and identifying the issues and working
on the relationship
Through open-ended questions, a common agenda or list of issues to negotiate is created
The mediator asks disputants to focus on one issue at a time; to separate their proposed
solutions2 from their underlying interests, and to brainstorm a variety of opinions before
they evaluate and move toward a solution
Solutions can come together or in pieces. It is important to strive for the formulation of a
final agreement between or among the disputants
(Lederach, 1995).
Lederach highlights the importance of creating a final agreement which, ideally, all parties
would sign and keep for their community to see and read. However this is not possible in
all cases of conflict. In order for there to be a sense of ownership and acceptance, parties
must perceive themselves as the transformers of the situation through changes in their own
perceptions and, ultimately, their behaviors. At times, mediation and conflict
transformation activities focus more on training for changing perceptions, feelings and
behaviors than on the search for definitive solutions. Long term solutions are best achieved
when parties are able to agree on what behaviors will be changed and what actions will be
taken in order to transform the conflict into a healthy relationship.
At the beginning of the mediation process, it is normal for parties express anger as result of
the antagonism existing among them. A wide variety of techniques exist for healing injured
feelings and painful historical memories. These range from the use of art in its different
forms to the process of deep dialogue where actors attempt to view, feel and think about the
situation through the eyes of the ‗other.‘ These techniques, and the creation of a safe
atmosphere for listening and establishing common issues are discussed below.
2 A person mediating a conflict will inevitably have opinions and potential ‗solutions‘ in mind. However, s/he
must be fully aware of the parties‘ positions-- from where a great variety of opinions will emerge. The
mediator must definitively separate his/her proposed solutions from those solutions sought by the parties. S/he
must work as a facilitator of communication and, at most, a provider of suggestions, never as dictums giver.
Through respectful non-intrusive mediation, parties are more willing to participate in the transformation
process.
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
20 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
* How can parties in conflict come to listen to each other – to see and feel the
situation through the eyes of the ´other´?
* What instruments and techniques are currently available in the literature for
facilitating conflict transformation?
* How can parties in conflict be brought into collaborative relations with one
another?
* How can empathy be generated?
* How can common goals be established in order to bring parties into
collaborative win-win relationships with one another?
* How can a win-win situation be negotiated so that all sides are satisfied with
the outcomes?
Concerning Conflict Transformation
Listen to Each Other
The Ideological-Structural Analysis perceives the construction of ‗ingroups‘ and
‗outgroups,‘ and the formation of stereotypical notions about each other as major obstacles
to healthy intercommunal relationships. In order for misunderstandings among the parties
to be clarified, all sides must be able to genuinely listen to each other. During this process,
the mediator must provide a key ingredient: respect.3
Schmidt and Tannenbaum say that misunderstandings in communication limit the
management of differences. They remind mediators to conduct encounters among the
parties in such a way that parties can safely exchange ideas and feelings, maintaining the
basic rule of respect for both self and the other.
One of the ways to bring differences into a problem-solving context is to ensure that the disputants can come
together easily. If they can discuss their differences before their positions become crystallized, the chances of
their learning from each other and arriving at mutually agreeable positions are increased. Having easy access
to one another is also a way of reducing the likelihood that each will develop unreal stereotypes of the other
(Schmidt and Tannenbaum, 2000: p. 21).
3 In the stage of listening-to-each-other, the mediator will suggest ‗respect‘ as a key rule. S/he can justify this
rule on the Levels of Being explained by I-SA Theory making emphasis on the deeper level –Life Essence-
since the others two levels make differences among individuals.
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
21 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
Dialogue sessions provide a venue for bringing parties together in a safe way, so that they
may learn from the voice of the ‗other‘ the real differences, and the similarities between
them. Here parties are able to reflect about each other and themselves before judging. Staff
members at the Center for Dialogue and Human Wellbeing perceive dialogue as a very
helpful and necessary instrument for soothing anger and for moving beyond fixed,
stereotypical views and judgments about each other. Furthermore, it is important to unearth
differences in interpretation that parties may hold about similar phenomena.
Schmidt and Tannenbaum note that:
Perceptual factors exert their influence when the persons have different images of the same stimulus. Each
will attend to, and select from the information available, those items which he deems important. Each will
interpret the information in a somewhat different manner. Each brings to the data a different set of life
experiences which cause him to view the information through a highly personal kind of filter. The picture
which he gets therefore is unique to him. Thus it is not surprising that the same basic facts may produce
distinctive perceptual pictures in the minds of different individuals
(Schmidt and Tannenbaum, 2000: p. 6).
Cultural background and information acquired through personal experience stored in the
memory of each party makes it logical that each will look at a situation in a different
manner. Through experience, media, inherited prejudices, etc. individuals and communities
form stereotypes about people, as well as particularistic interpretive schema concerning
events. By the sides listening to each other during the dialogue process, parties attempt to
go beyond stereotypes they hold about each ‗other.‘ They also attempt to understand how
the other side is viewing and interpreting the issues found at the roots of the conflict at
hand. In CDBH workshops and sessions, individuals entering into the critical juncture of
dialogue learn how to listen respectfully in the attempt to understand the ‗other‘ and his/her
interests and concerns through his/her own eyes, while consciously suspending judgment
and evaluation of the interlocutor through one‘s own interpretive filters and values system.
(López, 2004).
Techniques for Conflict Transformation
Our particularistic ways of communicating arise partially from our personal traits and
characteristics; our cultures, however, also plays a role in shaping our strategies for
problem solving, which arise in part from our personality, the context, and a whole system
of knowing called our worldview. Coming to know our particularistic and our culturally-
influenced communicative styles, and those of the interlocutor, helps us bridge the
inevitable differences respectfully. According to LeBaron strategies for conflict
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
22 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
transformation should be developed in ways which complement the different ways in which
humans learn.
As human beings we have emotional, imaginative, physical, and spiritual gifts that assist us in the central
human task of getting along. Using them, we welcome diversity; we build a range of cultural ways of being
and navigating conflict into our processes (LeBaron, 2002: p. 10).
When working in conflict transformation, it is important to remember that visual,
kinesthetic and auditory-style learners will be present. As such, different approaches may
be used which aim to embrace the different learning styles, as well as emotional
intelligence, spiritual meaning making, physical movement, and creative imagination
(LeBaron, 2002).
For dealing specifically with anger, Lederach (1995) suggests that art be utilized in order to
express mind-set in a reconciliation process. Since art is an abstract way to express feelings,
and its application is virtually limitless; almost anything and any situation can be used to do
art, which helps bring feelings to the level of conscious awareness. Art can also give
release to traumatic memories, to anger, and to many sorts of difficult psychoaffect, which
otherwise may impede the dialogue process. Poetry and other types of artistic expression,
such as painting, can be applied in the peacemaking processes. For example, if a mediation
team has decided to use painting, participants should be told that the artistic activity
requires no previous training, since its only objective is to express those barriers that cannot
be explained by talking. This technique is sometimes used before bringing parties face-to-
face in order to help the diverse actors visualize their ideas, allowing them to have clarity at
the time of talking to each other. Painting, poetry, music and other forms of art are very
valuable strategies when the facilitator is able to apply them in conflict transformation
situations.
Le Baron (2002) proposes a wide range of creative methods for bridging differences among
participants. She believes that analysis, reason and logical problem solving are not the only
skills needed for solving conflicts. Since conflicts are situated in particular cultural
understandings, creative expressions of cultural and personal idiosyncrasies are highly
valuable to the conflict transformation process. Creative tools range from the dramatic--
like psychodrama (acting out situations for therapeutic reasons)-- to the ordinary—like the
universal act of telling a story. Methods such as employing metaphors and rituals are
suggested as well.
Through sharing stories, dreams, and other facets of ourselves, we clear our minds and hearts for effectively
solving the problems that divide us (…) Bringing emotional, spiritual, physical, and imaginative resources to
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
23 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
conflict gives us many more routes to resolution or transformation. (…) These processes help us bridge
cultural and personality differences; they help equalize power, they broaden the wisdom available for
changing the form and dynamics of conflict
(LeBaron, 2002: pp. 10-15).
LeBaron offers what she calls a creative relational approach to conflict transformation. The
approach is holistic, and it is flexible enough to welcome surprises instead of eschewing
them. The author warns that actors must suspend judgment if the wish to reach creative
win-win solutions to conflicts, warning that ―judging will shut down creativity every time.
Engaging creative processes requires suspending judgment, at least temporarily,
substituting a spirit of inquiry and openness to outcomes‖ (2002: 22).
For this author, conflict transformation must involve our whole selves – the physical self,
the emotional self, the imaginative self and the spiritual self. In engaging the whole self,
the author suggests the use of music or deep breaths as self-calming techniques. By using
creative tools, distinct learning styles will be involved as well (Le Baron, 2000).
In their 2006 piece, Deutsche and Coleman suggest the use of analogy as a starting point
for drawing possible solutions, stating that
…analogy is the process of mapping the solution for one problem into a solution for another problem. This
involves noticing that a solution to a problem from the past is relevant and then mapping the elements from
that solution to the target problem. For example, a student learning about the structure of the atom enhances
her understanding by drawing on her prior knowledge of the structure of the solar system
(p. 261).
While there is definitely value in recognizing that people can learn from previous events
and previous models of conflict transformation, CDBH staff would like to offer a word of
caution concerning the temptation to apply solutions from one situation or context to
another. It‘s important to remember that every situation is unique, and that historico-
contextual, as well as needs analyses should be conducted for every conflict situation with
which one might become involved, which is a point made very clearly by Stella Ting-
Toomey below.
Collaborative Relations
Ting-Toomey (2001) speaks of three dimensions which are imperative for the successful
management of intercultural differences and, at times, of conflict. The first requirement is
having in-depth knowledge of the situation at hand. In working with the groups in conflict,
the mediator must possess a heightened mindfulness concerning all manner of things,
including the psycho-affective state of the actors involved. Furthermore, a major objective
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
24 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
of the facilitation process is to invite actors involved in the conflict to a heightened stage of
mindfulness concerning themselves, their community, and the ‗others‘ with whom they are
experiencing conflict. Greater self-awareness and heightened empathy with the other party
go a long way toward transforming conflictual situations into peaceful ones.
In line with the Ideological-Structural Analysis‘ emphasis on listening deeply to each other
in the critical juncture of communication, Ting-Toomey highlights the importance of
cultivating and acquiring knowledge related to one‘s own culture and that of the
interlocutor; she writes:
Without culture-sensitive knowledge, disputants cannot learn to uncover the implicit ethnocentric lenses they
use to evaluate behaviors in an intercultural conflict situation. Without knowledge, people cannot have an
accurate perspective or reframe their interpretation of a conflict situation from the other´s culture standpoint
(Ting-Toomey: 2001, pp. 174).
The knowledge acquired from the other parties in the conflict, as well as the behaviors and
skills which emerge from this knowledge-- if well channeled-- will directly improve the
probability for successful outcomes in the conflict transformation process. Ting-Toomey
talks about a ―mindfulness dimension,‖ meaning that the mediator and the parties must
practice mindful thinking in order to translate concrete knowledge into competent conflict
practice. This means being mindful and double-checking the assumptions and the reactive
emotions that we bring into a conflict situation. The author writes that in order…
…to be a mindful interpreter of intercultural conflict, one must develop a holistic view of the critical factors
that frame the antecedent, process, and outcome components of a conflict episode. Mindfulness means
attending to one´s internal assumptions, cognition, and emotions and, at the same time, becoming attuned to
the other´s conflict assumptions, cognition, and emotions (Ting-Toomey: 2001 p.177).
This suggestion deserves attention, since it focuses on the need for becoming aware and
fully conscious of intercultural differences and, as the author suggests, in order to get to
this point of consciousness, people can be trained to see the unfamiliar behavior from a
nonjudgmental perspective (Ting-Toomey, 2001). This suggestion can help parties to not
only to listen and to know each other, but to learn from each other as well, as all sides
involved seek to draw out common solutions to the conflict at hand.
In addition to ‗mindful thinking,‘ Ting-Toomey suggests the technique of ‗mindful
observation,‘ which involves a formula referred to as ‗O-D-I-S,‘ or ‗observe, describe,
interpret, and suspend evaluation.‘ ‗Mindful listening‘ means learning to apply culturally-
sensitive concepts, such as ‗intergroup‘ or ‗out-group interaction styles,‘ in order to make
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
25 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
sense of conflict variation behaviors. Mindful listening can also be practiced by engaging in
paraphrasing and making perception checking statements to be sure that one is
understanding the interlocutor‘s communicative intention. Paraphrasing skills include two
techniques: (a) verbally summarizing the content meaning of the speaker´s message in your
own words and, (b) nonverbally echoing your interpretation of the emotional meaning of
the speaker´s message
(Ting-Toomey, 2001).
A further technique suggested by the author involves what she calls ‗mindful reframing.‘
This technique suggests that interlocutors aim to understand the context within which the
conflict unfolds from an alternative perspective in order to better understand the conflictual
behaviors present. She writes:
Just as the frame may change your appreciation of a painting, creating a new context to understand the
conflict behavior may redefine your interpretation and reaction to the behavior or conflict event
(Ting-Toomey: 2001, p.181).
The author suggests that interlocutors seek to reframe, not only cultural dimensions –which
can be understood as the acceptance of distinct world views, but also reframing personal
and introspective dimensions as well. In summary, Ting-Toomey suggests the following
steps for intercultural conflict management through what she calls the ‗dialogue approach:
Apply an ‗ethno-relative lens‘ in order to better understand the conflict from the diverse
points of view. Engage in ‗mindful observation‘ and ‗mindful reframing‘ of the problem
and the context within which it unfolds. Invite parties to engage in an ‗invitational
inquiry.‘ Seek power sharing solutions where all sides feel they have won or gained from
the proposed outcomes. Seek to engage in ‗mutual-face giving.‘ Emphasize common
interests. Seek creative options, and win -win outcomes (Ting-Toomey, 2001).
Seek to Elaborate Common Goals
Ting-Toomey suggests emphasizing common interests as one of the primary strategies in
conflict transformation. While this idea may seem straightforward, due to the nature of
differences between the distinct parties‘ traditions, common goals are not always self-
evident. Said commonalities can be identified by the parties through the dialogue process
with the help of the mediator. When parties are unable to see the common ground between
them, the mediator can sometimes begin by identifying common complaints, which may
aid in the process of uncovering shared concerns and the underlying common goals. This
can provide the basis for a solution to the common problems faced by the diverse actors.
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
26 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
When no common solution is possible, an alternative involves the establishment of a
negotiated compromise, which may involve all actors committing to transforming the
behaviors that maintain the conflict alive.
According to Deutsche and Coleman (2006) once trust has been established among the
parties, the search for common goals can be promoted. The authors write that…
…relationships can be further strengthened if the parties are able to build Identification-Based Trust [IBT].
Strong calculus-based trust is critical to any stable relationship, but IBT (based on perceived common goals
and purposes, common values, and common identity) is likely to strengthen the overall trust between the
parties and enhance the ability of the relationship to withstand conflict that may be relationship fracturing. If
the parties perceive themselves as having strong common goals, values, and identities, they are motivated to
sustain the relationship and find productive ways to resolve the conflict so that it does not damage the
relationship
(Deutsche & Coleman: 2006, p. 111).
However, when the situation is very tense, and sides are unable to come to an agreement
easily, the mediator can present as objective an analysis as possible in the attempt to find
converging zones of interest or values shared by the parties. These spaces of convergence
can be used as a basis for proposing a solution, although the mediator must never give
dictums.
Schmidt & Tannenbaum (2000) suggest that:
If the disagreement is over goals or goal priorities, he –the mediator- may suggest that the parties take time to
describe as clearly as possible the conflicting goals which are being sought. Sometimes arguments persist
simply because the parties have not taken the trouble to clarify for themselves and for each other exactly what
they do desire. Once these goals are clearly stated, the issues can be dealt more realistically
(p.20).
When the conflict is over values, Schmidt & Tannenbuam suggest that the mediator ask the
following question in order to help individuals become more fully aware of the limitations
to which their actions are subject: ―What do you think you can do about this situation?‖
(Schmidt and Tannenbaum, 2000). This question is suggested instead of something to the
effect of asking ―What do you value?‖ which may provide less concrete information. The
objective of asking very specific questions is to avoid ambiguous resolutions; the challenge
for mediation is to know which strategies to use in order to help parties propose a solution
in which both conflicting parties feel engaged and satisfied after the dialogue process.
As previously mentioned, definitive solutions may not emerge from the conflict
transformation process; positive changes take place over time, with fits, starts and relapses.
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
27 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
From early on in the process, facilitators aim to promote a shift in the way that the parties
view and feel about the situation and about each other. This shift in perspective should
open the way for a range of behaviors that will progress toward transforming the conflict
into a healthier relationship.
Again, the types of behaviors to be acquired are chosen by the stakeholders themselves, and
not imposed by the facilitators. Thomas Schelling (1980) suggests that the uncovering of
mutual needs and interests provides a solid basis for building collaboratively toward a
solution by the parties in conflict. The author mentions Game Theory as a potential tool for
conflict transformation, where sides can move from a ‗zero-sum‘ mentality to the search for
a win-win solution to the underlying causes of the conflict. His writing suggests that Game
Theory as a technique offers a sort of dramatic interest while, at the same time, pointing out
how the discovery by the sides of their mutual dependence can lead to collaboration and
mutual accommodation (Schelling, 1980).
Schelling discusses two stages of his approach, which are:
1) To identify the perceptual and suggestive element in the formation of mutually consistent expectations.
2) To identify some of the basic ―moves‖ that may occur in actual games of strategy, and the structural
elements that may occur in actual games of ―strategy‖, and the structural elements that the moves depend on;
it involves such concepts as ―threat‖, ―enforcement‖, and the capacity to communicate or destroy
communication
(Schelling, 1980, p. 84).
At the moment of drawing common conclusions and attempting to propose solutions, the
facilitator can suggest procedures which facilitate problem solving. Here, Schmidt and
Tannenbaum (2000) suggest separating the idea from the person who proposes it, when
referring to the different options given by the parties in conflict. ―This increases the chance
of examining the idea critically and objectively without implying criticism of the person‖
(Schmidt and Tannenbaum, 2000: p.22).
Seeking a Win-win Solution
In order to achieve long term solutions, parties must be able to discuss their differences as
well as their commonalities. While sharing points of divergence, the conflicting parties can
be trained to listen with understanding rather than reacting with judgmental evaluation.
Differences can sometimes be enriching in the sense that they can bring a greater variety of
solutions to problems and allow for a deep testing of the proposed solutions. According to
Schmidt and Tannenbaum (2000) the mediator plays a vital role in encouraging the
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
28 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
perceptual shift from the idea of an ultimate ―winner‖ and a ―loser,‖ which can be viewed
as the search for win-win outcomes with which all sides are essentially satisfied.
Ting-Toomey (2001) provides the core characteristics for a win-win conflict orientation,
which are as follows:
* Respect toward cultural differences
* Identity validation
* A collaborative attitude
* Sensitivity to the context and history of the conflict
* Discovery of mutual-interests and goals
* Uncovering of deeper conflict needs and assumptions
* Collaboration, giving and taking
* A willingness to seek compromise
* Practicing mindful conflict transformation skills
* Willingness to change
If the aforementioned steps have been carried out successfully; if the parties have listened
to each other, understood, and learned from each other; if they have found common goals in
their converging zones of values and feelings, the next question asks how peace among the
parties is going to be maintained on into the future.
Breakstone et al believe that empathy is an essential ingredient for long term
transformation, stating that:
Empathy is the ability to feel what the others are feeling. Empathy is the identification with, and the
understanding of another‘s situation, emotions, and motives. In other words, it is the ability to see the world
through that person´s eyes. Empathy influences us to treat others with respect and kindness; in turn it reduces
violence and cruelty to others.‖
Breakstone et al, 2008 p. 31).
The authors offer some activities to be applied in helping groups reach a point of empathy
with the ‗other.‘ The first activity is inward-looking, suggesting that as people gain greater
awareness of their own emotions, they will be more able to be empathetic with their
counterparts (Breakstone et al, 2008). This first activity includes the use of ‗emotion
words‘ as vocabulary, reinforcing the value placed on emotional awareness in the process
of generating empathy. An additional strategy for increasing empathy invites people to
recognize the physical cues of their own emotional states and the emotional state of others.
The authors write that ―the Emotional States Activity helps [people] to recognize how their
emotional states affect their bodies. It also helps them to recognize the physical cues their
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
29 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
bodies are giving them to indicate their overall emotional state or how they are feeling
about a specific issue‖ (Breakstone et al, 2008, p. 38). The activity can complement the
skills proposed by LeBaron (2002) above, since they include distinct scenarios and games
that incorporate the use of the distinct ways of learning. Breakstone et al suggest that these
creative strategies can be applied in schools and/or in social groups formed after the
processes of resolution in order to maintain peace among societies.
In areas where conflict among the diverse groups has been the historical norm, empathy is
definitively needed in order to live peacefully. A key to generating empathy between
societies involves focusing on the new generations, since generating empathy among the
young people can help promote a generational change in the direction of peace. Where
deep and painful conflict has been entrenched, education for empathy can be very valuable.
For example, Johnson and Smith (1993) talk about a project called ―Creating Empathy and
Equity,‖ which involves a program to educate children about prejudice and stereotyping.
Education for Empathy or Education for Peace should include learning how to listen and
understand each other. It needs to also help build a culture of awareness about the creation
of stereotyped perspectives in order to try to avoid them. Johnson and Smith suggest that
children and young people in conflict zones can, over time, potentially transform a
historical conflict into a progressive understanding and tolerance.
Final reflections
In light of the brief review of current conflict transformation literature provided above, the
present segment offers some final reflections on the central questions posed earlier on in the
article.
CDBH staff view peace, not only as the absence of war, but as a goal constructed by the
distinct members of the society which will provide them wellbeing and the ability to live
peacefully and respectfully among others. Peace is not achieved if only the elites create
formal agreements. For deep and lasting peace, members of the community come to live
and interact with respect and empathy.
A brief summary of important points is provided below:
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
30 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
In situations of normativized violence, work beyond the idea that conflict is a
normal state of human affairs.
Respect is a key rule. All people, no matter their religion, cultural identity or
ethnicity share the same levels of the being. The Absolute Life Essence exists
within everyone and respecting it is paramount in order to sustain peace.
Dialogue sessions create safe spaces for expressing ideas, concerns, fears, etc.
Every participant is able to share their views and to be heard. Parties can find
common beliefs and needs so than they can formulate common goals.
Art and other creative tools. Each person learns differently. Distinct methods
have to be used when dealing with feelings since there are visual, auditory and
kinesthetic persons.
Knowledge: Before judging another, coming to self-knowledge, concerning our
thoughts, feelings and actions, allows us to become more aware of these similar
attributes and processes occurring within the ‗other.‘
Similar conditions: Mediators can help conflicting parties uncover similar
conditions as an incentive for working together toward the achievement of conflict
transformation.
Nonjudgmental perspective. The mediator must assume a nonjudgmental
Many view conflict as a normal process among human beings. This idea exists because
conflict appears all too often at the distinct levels of the world society–individually, locally,
nationally and internationally. In a community, normativized conflict doesn´t allow
formulations for wellbeing to emerge, since it may dull the alarm response among people.
When conflict has become normativized, people may become passive, possibly for fear of
going against the norms of violence or, more simply, for fear for their own survival.
In the context of normativized violence, fear, anger, trauma and resentment are going to be
obstacles for letting people uncover the way out of the cycle of conflict and violence. The
role for mediation is to help people be fully aware of the needed changes, to allow for a
sense of empowerment, and to facilitate the envisioning of something more desirable than
the current state of affairs. The new behaviors must be based on mutual respect and a
commitment to sustained peace—even when old injuries and angers flare again. The way
forward should be delineated by the parties themselves, involving people from all levels of
society. The Center for Dialogue and Human Wellbeing offers the Ideological-Structural
Analysis as tool for analyzing both the context and the behaviors that are blocking the way
for a healthy relation among communities.
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
31 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
Conclusion
In a world where everybody is coming ever more together, every single person has the
capacity to generate peace wherever she/he interacts. The construction for peace can begin
from offering our generosity, listen respectfully the others, accepting different world views
and working within our societies toward creating and sustaining healthy relations. Each
person in the communities should know that her/his beliefs are important, as well as
understanding that other persons and other traditions also have very valuable insights from
where we can learn and grow. Inside every person, within every community, the shared
Life Essence is present in and among all. Communities would do well to genuinely
understand the human diversity found among their members as both wealth and gift.
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
32 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
REFERENCES
Bercovitch, Jacob. (2007). ―International Conflicts. Theory, Practice and Developments‖
Peacemaking in international conflict: methods and techniques US Institute of Peace Press:
Washington DC, pp. 163 -194.
Breakstone, Steve; Dreiblatt Michael; Dreiblatt Karen, (2008) ―How to Stop Bulling and
Social Aggression: Elementary Grade Lessons and Activities That Teach Empathy,
Friendship and Respect‖, Corwin Press
Deutsch, Morton & Peter T Coleman. (2006) ―The handbook of conflict resolution: theory
and practice‖ John Willey and Sons.
Galtung, Johan (1996) ―Peace by peaceful means: peace and conflict, development and
civilization‖ International Peace Research Institute, Oslo
Johnson, Lauri and Smith, Sally. (1993) ―Dealing with diversity through multicultural
fiction: library-classroom partnerships‖, American Library Association, Michigan
University
LeBaron, Michelle (2002) ―Bridging troubled waters: conflict resolution from the heart‖
Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Lederach, John Paul (1995). ―Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across
Cultures‖ Syracuse University Press.
López C., Carolina. Civilisational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace. Book project.
Centre for Civilisational Dialogue, University of Malaya and Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar
Humano, Tec de Monterrey. Tentative Publisher: Routledge-Curzon. Expected Date of
Publication: 2010 or 2011.
López C., Carolina. Ideological-Structural Analysis of Global Ideological Reproduction:
The case of Mexican educational policy. Tentative Publisher: Zed Books. Expected Date
of Publication: 2010 or 2011.
López C., Carolina; ―México: Political, Socioeconomic and Cultural Dimensions, An
essay…‖ in Latin American Panorama: International Colloquium on Latin American
Studies in Asia. 29-31, December 2008. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. In Press at Penerbit
UKM Press. Expected date of Publication: 2010.
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
33 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
López, Carolina, ―G/local Challenges and Changes: Human Rights in post-Merdeka
Malaysia,‖ in Malaysian Politics and Civil Society. Terence Gomez (Ed), United Nations‘
Research Institute for Social development. Routledge-Curzon. (2007). López, Carolina. (2005a). Ideological-Structural Analysis Micro and Macro Theory:
Antología de Escritos Teóricos. Librerías Tecnológico de Monterrey: México. López, Carolina. (2005b). "Ideological-Structural Analysis Micro and Macro-theory of Intercivilizational Dialogue" Mohd. Hazim Shah (ed). The Malaysian Journal of Science and Technology Studies. Vol. 2. No. 1.
López, Carolina, (2004) ―Ideological-Structural Analysis Micro and Macro - Theory of
Intercivilizational Dialogue‖ Malaysian Journal of Science and Technology Studies Vol.2,
2004, pp. 2-44.
López, Carolina. " Security, Human Rights and Wellbeing: Malaysia as a mirror of g/local
dynamics and contestation" en Investigación Multidisciplinaria.Volumen 3, Número 1,
Primavera 2005. López, Carolina. (2004). "The Meeting of the British and Malay Civilizational Traditions: A brief history." in Investigación Multidisciplinaria. Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring 2004. López C., Carolina." Human Rights Discourses and Practices at the Global, State and Local Levels: Rights Narratives and Contestation in Malaysia and the Global Milieu." Working Paper Series of the Institute of Malaysian and International Studies No. 8. March 2004. National University of Malaysia Press. López C., Carolina. "The British Presence in the Malay World: A meeting of civilizational traditions," Sari Journal of the Malay World and Civilization. Vol. 19. pp. 3-33. July 2001.
López C. Carolina. " Ideological-Structural Analysis of External Influences on Current
Human Rights Discourses in Malaysia," Akademika: Journal of the Social Sciences and
Humanities. No. 59, pp. 53-73. July 2001.
López, Carolina. (1997). Integrated Ideological-Structural Analysis of Global Ideological
Reproduction: The case of Mexican educational policy. (Doctoral Dissertation. Northern
Arizona University).
López, Carolina. "An Overview of Psycholinguistic and Second Language Acquisition Research: Implications and Applications for the Target Language Classroom," Miyagi Gakuin Journal, Vol. 71, July 1990.
Saliha Hassan & López C., Carolina Ideological-Structural Analysis of Human Rights
Discourses and Practices in Malaysia: Through the Mahathir Era. Tentative Publisher:
Civilizational Dialogue as an Instrument of Peace Ruiz León (2014)
34 Centro de Diálogo y Bienestar Humano Centre for Dialogue & Transformation
Tecnológico de Monterrey Campus Chihuahua University of Malaya
México Malaysia
ISEAS Press: University of Singapore or Routledge-Curzon. Tentative Date of
Publication: 2010 or 2011.
Saliha Hassan & Carolina López C. (2005). "Human Rights in Malaysia: Globalisation,
National Governance and Local Responses," in Capturing Globalisation: Global, State and
Local Responses. Ojendal, Joakim & Loh, Kok Wah,(eds.) GESEAS: Swedish Institute
of Southeast Asian Studies.
Schelling, Thomas C, (1980) ―The strategy of conflict‖, Harvard University Press, United
States of America.
Schmidt, Warren H. and Robert Tannenbaum. (2000). ―Management of Differences.‖
Harvard Business Review on Negotiation and Conflict Resolution. Harvard Business
School Press: Boston, pp. 1-26.
Ting-Toomey, Stella (2001) ―Managing intercultural conflict effectively‖ Sage
Publications, California.