The biggest setback to political, social and economic gains in ongoing tribal conflicts like that of the Northern Sudan is the lack of common goals for opposing sides to share, according to a recent article in the Sudan Tribune. Illiteracy and lack of common language increases the failure of laying any groundwork on which to build a durable conflict resolution that resists eruptions of violence. But in order to reach a resolution, it is important to be able to accurately articulate the structure of the conflict's origins.
Keeping Conflict to Scale
Conflict is inevitable and is almost impossible to prevent, but it can be managed. In order to pick apart the cause of conflict, it is first important to describe the framework within which tensions arise. The terms used in describing this framework can be misleading and tend to change the scale of the conflict. To define a conflict to scale, it is important to understand the difference between three terms which commonly appear as interchangeable adjectives:
Using any of these terms when describing conflicts tends to detour around the actual political or economic forces at play. And swapping one term indiscriminately for the other is equally dangerous, as each term carries a different specific weight within the framework of a crisis or conflict. For instance, the word "racial" has a genetic or biological weight, and is the most specific of the three terms. A racial conflict is limited to one issue: the discriminating factor of race.
Tribal Interests Add More Weight to the Issue
The word "tribal" is less specific, and carries more geographic and territorial weight than the word racial. Tribal refers to a social division within a larger group that includes families of common geographic origin or lineage but does not exclude individuals that have been adopted or enslaved into the group. The group shares common characteristics amongst its members that distinguish it from a larger social group within the society at whole. Tribal interests are not limited to one specific geographic area, especially in the case of nomadic tribes, but tribal culture remains constant.
Ethnic Conflicts Involve a Broader Scale
Using "ethnic" to describe a conflict employs the broadest term of the three and views the conflict on a larger scale. Ethnic conflicts involve classifying large groups of people by a common background, including common origins of language and culture, religious, tribal or national interests. Ethnic conflicts appear to be more severe than those involving racial or tribal tensions. Former colonies, like those of the African and American continents in the 18th and 19th centuries, have long histories of conflict incited by colonial powers that chose to pit ethnic groups against each other in order to diffuse a united effort to overthrow the imperial power. The footprints of those old conflicts remain today.
Conflict Resolution Depends on Clarity of Terms
Conflict resolution methods have been successful in resolving issues that involve racial, tribal, or ethnic tensions, but only when the terms are clearly defined and one term is not "swapped" for another indiscriminately. The use of each term changes the dimension in which the conflict is viewed and helps to clarify the role of outside political and economic forces involved. Once the terms are clear, it is easier to shape shared goals and manage the conflict in ways that avoid the outbreak of violence.
Keeping Conflict to Scale
Conflict is inevitable and is almost impossible to prevent, but it can be managed. In order to pick apart the cause of conflict, it is first important to describe the framework within which tensions arise. The terms used in describing this framework can be misleading and tend to change the scale of the conflict. To define a conflict to scale, it is important to understand the difference between three terms which commonly appear as interchangeable adjectives:
- racial
- tribal
- ethnic
Using any of these terms when describing conflicts tends to detour around the actual political or economic forces at play. And swapping one term indiscriminately for the other is equally dangerous, as each term carries a different specific weight within the framework of a crisis or conflict. For instance, the word "racial" has a genetic or biological weight, and is the most specific of the three terms. A racial conflict is limited to one issue: the discriminating factor of race.
Tribal Interests Add More Weight to the Issue
The word "tribal" is less specific, and carries more geographic and territorial weight than the word racial. Tribal refers to a social division within a larger group that includes families of common geographic origin or lineage but does not exclude individuals that have been adopted or enslaved into the group. The group shares common characteristics amongst its members that distinguish it from a larger social group within the society at whole. Tribal interests are not limited to one specific geographic area, especially in the case of nomadic tribes, but tribal culture remains constant.
Ethnic Conflicts Involve a Broader Scale
Using "ethnic" to describe a conflict employs the broadest term of the three and views the conflict on a larger scale. Ethnic conflicts involve classifying large groups of people by a common background, including common origins of language and culture, religious, tribal or national interests. Ethnic conflicts appear to be more severe than those involving racial or tribal tensions. Former colonies, like those of the African and American continents in the 18th and 19th centuries, have long histories of conflict incited by colonial powers that chose to pit ethnic groups against each other in order to diffuse a united effort to overthrow the imperial power. The footprints of those old conflicts remain today.
Conflict Resolution Depends on Clarity of Terms
Conflict resolution methods have been successful in resolving issues that involve racial, tribal, or ethnic tensions, but only when the terms are clearly defined and one term is not "swapped" for another indiscriminately. The use of each term changes the dimension in which the conflict is viewed and helps to clarify the role of outside political and economic forces involved. Once the terms are clear, it is easier to shape shared goals and manage the conflict in ways that avoid the outbreak of violence.
No comments:
Post a Comment