The Escalation and De-escalation of Intractable Conflict
Dr. Jessica Jameson

As a teacher and scholar of conflict management I would like to examine a particular theory of conflict escalation which raises important questions we must ask to gain insights into the events of September 11th.  Terrell Northrup's theory of Intractable Conflict is particularly appropriate for this conflict situation (Northrup, 1989).

Intractable conflict is conflict that occurs over time and becomes increasingly resistant to resolution attempts.  Conflicts are considered intractable when there is 1) poor or nonexistent communication between parties, 2) extreme rigidity in positions, 3) a high level of hostility and attempts by at least one party to harm the other, and 4) conflict that is accepted as inevitable and glorified.  The current conflict shows the potential for becoming intractable, and some might argue it already is.

Northrup's theory posits four stages of escalation that lead to intractability and the three levels of change that can bring about resolution.  These are detailed below, followed by the questions each raises about the causes of and response to recent events.

Stages of Escalation

Stage One - Threat to Identity.  Identity is defined as how we see ourselves in relation to the rest of the world; what we see as appropriate attitudes, values, behaviors.  Many conflicts begin when we feel criticized or demeaned.  At the group level threats to identify occur when we come into contact with other groups who do things differently and challenge our world-view.  Sometimes just the existence of opposing views provides a threat.  For example, in the Middle East both Palestinians and Israelis have defined their identity in terms of land ownership.  Jerusalem represents each group's core sense of identity, their religion, their values.  Not occupying that land threatens their core sense of who they are as a people, and therefore threatens the meaning of their existence (Northrup, 1989).

We must assume that there are elements of U.S. society and culture that threaten the identities of others.  We should be asking ourselves how our way of life, our ideology, or our foreign policy threatens the identity of others around the world.  Scholars have found, for example, that consumerism threatens basic Islamic values.  Recent media reports suggest that the role of women in our culture may also be threatening.  Conversely, how do others around the world threaten our national identity and how do we respond to that?

Stage Two - Distortion.  A common response to criticism or threat is defensiveness.  This characterizes the second stage of escalation - distortion.  Our national response to information perceived as threatening is to either deny the legitimacy of the information or the people who sent the information.  For example, when settlers came to America and encountered Native Americans who did things differently, it was considered to be because they "didn't know any better."  They were called "uncivilized" and "savages," and their ways were not seen as legitimate or valid ways of being.  We have seen this in recent weeks where actions of some of our own citizens seemed to equate Muslim with anti-American or terrorist; and where others have assumed that all Americans are anti-Muslim.

We should be asking: How have others distorted information to misunderstand who we are (as Americans), how we live, and the variety of beliefs Americans hold?  How have we distorted information about other groups to protect our identity and how does this distortion influence our view of others around the world and the actions we have taken in our foreign policy?

Stage Three - Rigidification.  Through continued distortion we bifurcate groups into "Us" versus "Them."  We then look for ways to differentiate the "in-group" from the "out-group."  We emphasize those differences while we over-emphasize similarities in our own group.  We reduce communication with the out-group and may put up psychological or physical barriers to further reduce interaction.  The Berlin Wall is perhaps the greatest example of the use of a physical barrier to keep groups separated.  In Bush's recent speech he said "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists."  His rhetoric suggests there are only two groups: "us' and "them."

We need to examine the ways in which our foreign policy and/or our worldview have erected barriers to interaction and communication with other groups.  How has this negatively impacted our ability to see others as legitimate and respond to their needs?  Conversely, how have others stereotyped Americans and is this related to lack of interaction with or understanding of us?

Stage Four - Collusion.  This final stage of intractability occurs when groups see the conflict as necessary for the preservation of their identity.  A group or Nation's identity may become defined by "who they are not."  The conflict becomes ritualized and celebrated through the election of leaders who hold extreme positions, a complete lack of communication or interest in resolution, and continued escalation or attack.  We have seen this occur in countries where leaders have been overthrown when they participated in peace talks with "the enemy."

We must wonder whether the United States will collude in the continuation and escalation of this conflict.  Is this what we want to do?  Will our next actions illustrate collusion or attempts at de-escalation?

Many have asked how you de-escalate a conflict such as this.  Based on this theory it is clear that we need to reduce the threats to identity.  Such efforts should occur between the U.S. and parts of the world where terrorists are most prevalent - where there appears to be the largest threat.  Northrup has identified three levels of change that may assist in the de-escalation of intractable conflict.

Levels of Change and De-escalation

Level One.  A level one change occurs when laws and legislation are passed or military tactics are used to stop the escalation and violence.  Groups are essentially "forced" to cease fire.  Economic sanctions may force countries to halt activities, but nothing is done to alter communication between the groups or the perception of core identities.  As we have seen in the Middle East, temporary agreements to stop the violence can be reached, but this does not create long-term resolution.  For the current conflict, cutting off money flow and forcing terrorists to stop their activities is a temporary, level one solution.  It may be an important first step, but it does nothing to change the way they see themselves or us.  We wonder if our activities will stop at this level.

Level Two.  Level two changes occur when there are real communication changes between the two groups.  New processes are put in place to improve interaction and dialogue opportunities are created.  Muslim clerics from the Middle East recently met with Christian clerics from the U.S. in Europe.  Perhaps this will open new lines of communication.  In the past we have seen level two change when diplomats from different countries have met with external third parties who facilitate productive dialogue and alter destructive patterns.  We should think about the communication processes currently in place for communicating with other groups throughout the world.  Do we need to adapt these processes to improve communication with other groups?

Level Three.  A level three change involves a change to each group's core sense of identity.  Each group changes their world-view and how they see themselves in relation to the other.  They no longer see the other as "less than" them.  This allows the groups to transcend the conflict and work together for its resolution.  This new viewing of each other as legitimate may in itself be enough to resolve the conflict.  Level three changes often occur in response to some external threat that forces parties to work together.  In the past the threat of nuclear war forced countries to realize that continued escalation would lead to the destruction of humankind.  This concern provided a common goal of world preservation, which de-escalated the conflict.

We need to explore what would have to happen to create a level three change in the current conflict.  How could we change the way we see ourselves in relation to the rest of the world and the way we see others?  How can we change the way they see us?  Can we improve our relations with others and align our world-views in such a way that we would no longer pose a threat to each other's identity?  If our goal is long-term resolution, these are the questions we must ask to determine how we will respond to the events of September 11th.

Source: Northrup, T.A. (1989). "The dynamic of identity in personal and social conflict."  In L. Kriesberg, T.A. Northrup, and S.J. Thorson (eds.), Intractable conflicts and their transformation.  Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.