Читать книгу Conflict Resolution Beyond the International Relations Paradigm - Philip Gamaghelyan - Страница 6

Philip Gamaghelyan is not only the author of this book, but also an expert conflict resolution practitioner. The book you hold now represents a synthesis of expert insights from his years of practical engagement in conflict processes, presented with careful reflection. By pairing his own experience of over a decade of facilitation with reflective practice with colleagues and in-depth study of other conflict transformation literature, Philip offers us important insights that will inspire needed developments in the field of conflict resolution.

This book challenges us to create truly inclusive conflict transformation processes. So much of conflict is about exclusion. In deeply divided conflicts, the “other” is dehumanized, and their stories and perspectives dismissed. When we start to engage in these conflicts, getting to know them and their conversations, we begin to speak the conflict’s language. That language risks perpetuating the conflict. The book challenges us to ask how dialogues on conflict issues can avoid perpetuating these exclusionary dynamics?

I have faced the struggle with exclusionary dynamics in my own work. When Philip came to the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, he worked with me on a dialogue series called Point of View. The first of these dialogues had taken place at George Mason University’s conflict resolution retreat center, Point of View, just after the August 2008 war over South Ossetia. People from Tbilisi and Tskhinval(i) came together there and considered ways to address the ongoing humanitarian needs after the war. They needed each other to address issues such as missing persons (where information from the other side of the ceasefire line was helpful), prisoners held across the ceasefire line, etc. By the time Philip joined us in 2010, the dialogues had developed into a phase of increasing understanding across the dividing line. Philip was quick to point out to me that we had framed the dialogues as Georgian-South Ossetian dialogues. But, we also had people of mixed heritage participating in the dialogues. What of the participants who were part-Georgian and part-South Ossetian? Did the dialogues make them choose a side? Yes, they traveled to the dialogues from one side of the ceasefire line, but were they being constrained by the framing of the discussion as a two-sided conversation? Could they not also have unique perspectives, drawn from conversations with relatives across the dividing line? In fact, everyone on the dialogues each brought their own unique perspectives. With Philip’s encouragement, we incorporated more thematic discussions that did not need to be framed as two-sided. As we turned to look at what would make prisoner release possible, we became a group of individuals, each with his/her own connections to the prisoner release efforts, each with his/her own expertise, and we worked on solving a shared problem. Yes, some of the group could meet only with the leadership in South Ossetia, and, yes, some of the group could meet only with the leadership in Georgia, but these were not the only defining aspects of the expertise participants brought. Some were legal experts, some were media experts, some worked with displaced people who had vocal opinions on the prisoner release issues, and some visited prisoners to monitor human rights. Drawing on these various kinds of expertise was important to allow the dialogue group to lay the groundwork that made the eventual prisoner release possible. By seeing the complexity of each participant’s identity, we drew on the many strengths in the group.

All this points out that the suggestions offered by this book are timely and pragmatic. The book touches the core of the field of conflict analysis and resolution, asking us to improve our theory and our practices, and, ultimately, the structure of our field. Starting with how we conceive of conflict transformation dialogues, and how we invite individuals to join these dialogues, moving on to how a conflict mapping organically represents the people gathered in the room, based on their own ways of categorizing themselves, and then considering how to prevent dominant factions from commandeering conversations. Our field must build more inclusive structures, overcome the competition for funding that in practice makes a mockery of our theory of collaboration, and build teams that engage all members’ voices with respect. Philip’s many years of conflict resolution work allow him to speak with authority about approaches that have worked in practice.

The Participatory Action Research (PAR) methodology that informs this work was also essential to its success. Philip writes not only from his own experience, but also from that of the colleagues that joined him as co-researchers, reflecting together on their experiments with more inclusive conflict resolution practices. By engaging colleagues as co-researchers, Philip assured he was not only examining others’ assumptions, but also putting his own assumptions up for examination. Philip’s own auto-ethnography is a core part of the book, allowing him to tell his own stories of his forays into conflict transformation. In addition, a major strength here is the collective auto-ethnography he captures based on group reflection of their shared work. I hope Philip’s work will be read not only for the important theoretical and practical insights offered here, but also as an example of methodological innovation that offers our field new possibilities in research. I see many more possibilities for the expansion of Participatory Action Research (PAR) in conflict resolution research.

In conclusion, I urge colleagues and students of conflict resolution to read this book attentively. Philip offers us guidance as we develop practices that more closely align with our constructivist and inclusive theories. And, he offers guidance on how to do conflict-appropriate research with PAR. There is, of course, still more to do in this direction. Philip is already working on more in-depth consideration of gender inclusivity in conflict transformation processes. And, I encourage readers to find additional ways to build on this revolutionary work.

Susan Allen, Ph.D.

Director, Center for Peacemaking Practice

Associate Professor, School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution

George Mason University