Читать книгу Conflict Resolution Beyond the International Relations Paradigm - Philip Gamaghelyan - Страница 9

At the time of my involvement with the Syrian dialogue mentioned above, I was working actively on a research project titled “How is Change Sustained?” Convinced that conflict resolution practices inherently do good, I was concerned with improving their effectiveness and longer-term influence of the change they produce. Yet I was suddenly confronted with the realization that in the Syrian case, the conventional binary frame of the conflict resolution practices that I aimed to make more effective resulted in marginalization of the majority of Syrians.

This realization prompted me to explore whether the marginalization embedded in binary frames was unique to the evolving context of Syria, and whether the contexts where the binary frame had long been established, such as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, were better suited for conventional and binary dialogue designs. Or was it possible that binary frames could marginalize affected populations there too? And were the binary frames the only trap in the conflict resolution discourse that had the potential to marginalize? I did not know the answers, but I knew that I could no longer assume that change produced by conflict resolution practice was necessarily positive and ask, “How is Change Sustained?” I now had a prior question: what were the possible variants of that change and was it possible that some of the change produced marginalization or other harm?

My main intention for this book is not solely to be critical. I continue to be devoted to the conflict resolution field and believe in its promise and potential for changing societies for the better. I also remain and plan to remain a scholar-practitioner in this field, working on its theory and practice. My research questions, therefore, have the goal of reflecting on my own practice and that of my colleagues, identifying patterns that could be marginalizing or otherwise harmful of affected populations, raising the awareness of my colleagues in regard to such practices, and, most importantly, exploring possible inclusive alternatives.

The following questions drive this inquiry:

 Are binary frames problematic in the Syrian conflict only or do they adversely affect conflict resolution practice in other conflict contexts as well?

 Are there other patterns of conflict resolution practice that (re)produce conflict or that contribute to exclusion from the peace processes of populations affected by conflict and marginalization of peace constituencies?

 Do we need to rethink not only conflict resolution but conflict itself in order to develop adequate responses to today’s challenges?

 If the answer to any of to the above questions is positive, what can be the alternative approaches that help us conceive inclusive conflict resolution practices?