The Theorized Role of Psychotherapy in Multi-Level Conflict Resolution

This article aims to contribute to the theoretical discussion on socio-psychological approaches to conflict resolution. It explores what role psychotherapy can offer to conflict transformation of protracted conflicts.

Recognizing the need for greater attention to socio-psychological aspects in conflict resolution methods, I participated in 2014 in a psychotherapy workshop, which introduced me to Jacob Levy Moreno’s psychodrama technique.

Psychodrama Explained

Psychodrama refers to a psychotherapeutic technique whereby ‘a group of individuals […] assemble under the leadership of the therapist or director and enact events of emotional significance in order to achieve resolution of conflicts and release from inhibitions which limit their capacity for spontaneous and creative activity’¹.

During the workshop I started to realize how that drama-method actively and effectively accommodates tangled emotions. Building on Berenike Carstarphen’s definition of shift², I argue that psychodrama’s concept of catharsis³ constitutes the direct relationship to conflict resolution.

Although various authors, such as Jon Kirby, Ronald Fisher, Wilfried Graf, Zeynep Karataş, Susan Allen Nan and Abdel Thabet, have made references to or actually applied the psychodrama technique in conflict resolution workshops, very little research has hitherto been conducted on the role of psychodrama in conflict resolution.

Tying Psychodrama to Interactive Dialogue

In mediation processes in the context of international conflicts, a third-party usually intervenes in unofficial dialogue workshops (Track II⁴) to prepare the ground for the official peace negotiations (Track I).

In order to enhance the facilitative role of the third-party intervener in the interactive dialogue at Track II, I suggest a way to bring about a ‘comprehensive and sustained unofficial track of dialogue’⁵ that is firmly embedded within grassroots level workshops (Track III⁶) and simultaneously provides a strong feedback loop to Track II to, ultimately, influence the official peace negotiations at Track I.

This particular way suggests incorporating the use of Moreno’s psychodrama workshops at Track III. This article primarily directs its attention to the transferability of produced changes at track III to Track II.

The Shortcomings of Conflict Resolution

Over the past decades, the majority of theorists and practitioners have mainly emphasized conflict resolution techniques, which aim to disentangle the issues at stake.

In fact, a great deal of attention in conflict resolution and mediation literature is devoted to multilateral negotiations⁷ whereby often game theory and Pareto-efficiency⁸ is brought up to study the objective of reaching settlement.

It is usually so that the identification of a root cause of a conflict usually implies the classification of the conflict. This, in turn, influences the choice for the most appropriate method of conflict resolution. It then becomes clear that, in the case of long-standing conflicts, this becomes a daunting task, since they very often have multiple and intertwined root causes.

Seeing the Wood Again for the Trees

In his endeavour to bring clarity in the typology of conflicts, Jay Rothman distinguishes identity-based conflicts from interest- or resource-based conflicts⁹.

As a matter of fact, he contends that any intervention effort that ignores the aspect of identity of such deep-seated conflicts is likely to fail in its pursuit to advance the transformation of the conflict.

Ronald Fisher especially alludes to the inappropriateness of traditional negotiation and mediation in emerging and escalating identity-based conflicts¹⁰. What is more, Oliver Richmond points out that, in spite of a disinterest in a compromise settlement by the conflict parties, they often tolerate traditional mediation efforts in an attempt to pursue their initial, incompatible goals¹¹.

Dalia Kaye¹² indicates furthermore that the mediation outcome is neither the sole objective nor the sole appropriate way of measuring success in all of the cases of international negotiations. This basically infers that the negotiation process itself has value and an impact on the process of conflict resolution.

Calling on the Social Scientists

An incremental number of scholars and practitioners identify the enhancement of conflict interaction as vital to genuine conflict resolution¹³.

As a matter of fact, in recent years unofficial third-party interventions have more frequently been coordinated by social scientists, such as John Burton, Christopher Mitchell, Marcus Banks, Nadim Rouhana and Harold Saunders, who give a greater priority to the quality of conflict interaction¹⁴.

Various socio-psychological studies have shown that perceptions and emotions influence attitude¹⁵, which, in turn, explains behaviour¹⁶. Deductively, it is perceptions and emotions that determine the future dynamics of conflict.

Emotions are an important tool in the reconciliation process to express, distinguish or defend the very identity of an individual, group or country. Subsequently, it is reconciliation that has the potential to heal impaired relationships in conflictual societies¹⁷.

Reshuffling the Academic Cards

I share the view of Kingsley de Silva and Stanley Samarasinghe who contend that mediated agreements frequently disappoint to produce reconciliation¹⁸. Therefore, I endorse Herbert Kelman’s approach, as we share the view that reconciliation is both a process and an outcome¹⁹.

If reconciliation is viewed as a process, I argue that reconciliation should occur even prior to conflict settlement. Indeed, I disagree with Wendy Lambourne’s view in that relationship building should receive attention only in the phase of post-conflict peacebuilding²⁰.

What is more, I hold that such psychosocial approaches should be integrated across all levels of peacebuilding to produce a more durable agreement.

Kelman’s psychological approach is based on the earlier work of human needs theorist- practitioner John Burton, whereby he conceptualized the value-based interactive problem-solving workshop at Track II.

His workshop holds an unofficial and non-binding character; provides a setting for sharing experiences and exploring options; analyses the needs and fears of self and the other in a process of joint thinking; is facilitated by a competent third-party; and, usually includes politically engaged participants²¹.

Tying Interactive Dialogue to Change

The goal of Kelman’s workshop is ‘to produce change […] in the particular individuals who take part in […] workshops, and to transfer these changes into the political debates and the decision-making processes in the two societies’²².

Moreover, John Paul Lederach denotes that Track II is the most appropriate level to sustainably and effectively transform the regional landscape in deep-rooted social conflicts²³.

One core concept of Kelman’s approach is particularly interesting: interactive dialogue. Kelman posits that direct interaction is ‘more likely to address the parties’ fundamental needs and to elicit their commitment to the agreement and sense of ownership of it’²⁴.

Paraphrasing Kelman, the interactive problem-solving workshop facilitates the participants to reconstruct their identity; to become aware of that of the other; and, eventually, to integrate the other’s identity into their own²⁵.

Thomas Pettigrew claims that contact per se does not preclude or reduce violent intergroup conflict²⁶. That is why the role of the third-party intervener is tremendously crucial to further the resolution of the conflict. Kelman corroborates this: a third-party must be knowledgeable about international conflict, group processes and the conflict region²⁷.

Marrying Change, Shift and Catharsis

I now explain how attitudinal changes at Track III would be channeled back to workshops at Track II.

Bringing about attitudinal change first towards self and then the other may require an enormous amount of work, and needs to be conducted by trained professionals. In addition, a neutral and stable environment may be desirable that can act as a safety net when emotions run high.

Given the politically involved participants at Track II, I recognize that it might prove challenging to persuade Track II participants to engage in psychodrama workshops. Therefore, I suggest that the Track II third-party facilitator is involved in psychodrama workshops at Track III together with civil society members.

Ideally, this third-party intervener should hold a diploma in psychodrama. In this way, the intervener can assume the role of organizer or director, and lead the sessions. The underlying idea is to enhance the third-party’s role at Track II by increasing its insights and understanding of the conflict dynamics at the grassroots level.

In a way, this construction constitutes an attempt to bring the third-party “closer to the conflict” by a higher personal involvement. Moreover, as a result of the psychodrama method, the third-party will have gained a deeper understanding of the people’s needs and fears that will, in turn, be more comprehensively conveyed to an entourage that is closer to decision-making circles.

As a result, an unofficial track of conflict analysis and resolution becomes more sustained, all- inclusive and better integrated²⁸.

That is why I suggest that psychodrama should be more promoted as part of the social-psychological approaches to conflict resolution, and, indeed, closer linked to it. Ultimately, the performance, i.e. the durability, of the peace negotiations at Track I may be increased.

Summing It All Up

To conclude, I identify two objectives of such new approach: first, the enhancement of the third-party’s performance, and, thus, of the interactive dialogue workshops at Track II, and, second, the personal growth of the civil society participants, as a result of the inherent, cognitively transformative characteristics of psychodrama.

In this way, I have hypothesized that the regional landscape of the protracted conflict is being constructively transformed at the grassroots of society, while at the same time enabling a direct transfer of knowledge and experience from Track III to Track II.

The third-party intervener plays herein a crucial role by integrating these produced insights into his or her own interactive dialogue workshops at Track II, so that grassroots expertise can infiltrate in circles that are closer linked to the decision-making levels of society.

[1] Davies, M. H. (1987). Dramatherapy and psychodrama. In: S. Jennings (Ed.). Dramatherapy: Theory and practice for teachers and clinicians. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Brooklyn Books, pp.104–123.

[2] Carstarphen, B. O. (2003). Shift happens: Transformations during small group interventions in protracted social conflicts (Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University).

[3] Psychodrama’s concept of catharsis is distinct from the one that Fisher uses: Fisher sees ventilation as a synonym for catharsis (see Fisher (1997), Training as interactive conflict resolution: Characteristics and challenges. International negotiation, 2(3), pp.137).

[4] Track II refers to any unofficial problem-solving activity and dialogue process that promotes and relationship building and creative problem-solving. Participants usually include academics, civil society and religious leaders who can act more freely than official actors. This definition is taken from the U.S. Institute of Peace.

[5] Fisher (2001). Cyprus: The failure of mediation and the escalation of an identity-based conflict to an adversarial impasse. Journal of Peace Research, 38(3), p.323.

[6] Track III would include journalists, representatives from the private sector, members of the peacebuilding society, leaders of civil society groups, politicians, professionals from various sectors and artists. This definition is closest with the one provided by the U.S. Institute of Peace.

[7] See for instance Sebenius, J. K. (2009). Negotiation analysis: From games to inferences to decisions to deals. Negotiation Journal, 25(4), 449–465; or, Mnookin, R. H. (2003). Strategic Barriers to Dispute Resolution: A Comparison of Bilateral and Multilateral Negotiations. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 8(1), 1–27.

[8] Game theory is the study of strategic behaviour of individuals who behave rationally. Pareto- efficiency is the situation whereby the best deal for everyone is reached and no one can improve her or his situation without somebody else being impaired by that decision.

[9] Rothman, J., & Olson, M. L. (2001). From interests to identities: Towards a new emphasis in interactive conflict resolution. Journal of Peace Research,38(3), 289–305.

[10] Fisher, R. J. (2001).

[11] Richmond, O. (1998). Devious objectives and the disputants’ view of international mediation: a theoretical framework. Journal of Peace Research, 35(6), 707–722.

[12] Kaye, D. D. (2001). Track Two diplomacy and regional security in the Middle East. International Negotiation, 6(1), 49–77.

[13] See for instance Kelman, H. C. (2004). Reconciliation as identity change: A social-psychological perspective. In: Y. Bar-Siman-Tov (Ed.) From conflict resolution to reconciliation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111–124; or, Suliman, M. (Ed.). (1999). Ecology, politics and violent conflict. London and New York: Zed Books.

[14] Saner, R., & Yiu, L. (2001). External Stakeholder Impacts on Third-Party Interventions in Resolving Malignant Conflicts: The Case of a Failed Third-Party Intervention in Cyprus.International Negotiation, 6(3), 387–416.

[15] Dijksterhuis, A., & Van Knippenberg, A. (1998). The relation between perception and behavior, or how to win a game of trivial pursuit. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74(4), 865.

[16] Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of experimental social psychology, 22(5), 453–474.

[17] Lederach (1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

[18] De Silva, K.M. and Samarasinghe, A. (1993). Peace Accords and Ethnic Conflict. London: Pinter Publishers.

[19] Kelman, H. C. (2010). Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation: A Social-Psychological Perspective on Ending Violent Conflict Between Identity Groups. Landscapes of Violence, 1(1), p.3.

[20] Lambourne, W. (2004). Post-conflict peacebuilding: Meeting human needs for justice and
reconciliation. Peace, Conflict and Development, 4(April), 1–24.

[21] Kelman, H. C. (2010). Interactive problem solving: Changing political culture in the pursuit of conflict resolution. Peace and Conflict, 16(4), 389–413.

[22] Kelman, H. C. (2006). The role of an international facilitating service for conflict resolution. International Negotiation, 11(1), p.213.

[23] Lederach (1997).

[24] Kelman (2010), p.392.

[25] Kelman (1999). The interdependence of Israeli and Palestinian national identities: The role of the other in existential conflicts. Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 581–600.

[26] Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual review of psychology, 49(1), 65–85.

[27] Kelman, H. C. (1997). Group processes in the resolution of international conflicts: Experiences from the Israeli–Palestinian case. American Psychologist, 52(3), 212–220.

[28] Fisher (2001).

Back to Articles