Advertisement

Sustainability: The Dynamics of Enduring Peace

  • Robin R. Vallacher
  • Peter T. Coleman
  • Andrzej Nowak
  • Lan Bui-Wrzosinska
  • Larry Liebovitch
  • Katharina G. Kugler
  • Andrea Bartoli
Chapter
Part of the Peace Psychology Book Series book series (PPBS)

Abstract

In  Chap. 1 we stated that the focus of this book is on conflict. However, all along we have had a hidden agenda (or latent attractor): as ultimately we seek a better understanding and articulation of peace. Of course, peace is more than the absence of destructive conflict. Attempts to suppress conflict can, in fact, have the ironic effect of promoting catastrophic ruptures in interpersonal, intergroup, and international relations. Nor is peace a stable state. Rather, it evolves in the context of ongoing social relations. Sustainable peace must therefore be approached with an appreciation of dynamic processes, including the development and maintenance of attractors for social relations. Insight into the dynamics of sustainable peace can generate specific strategies for peacemaking and peacekeeping. Case studies of successful transformation from war to peace demonstrate the efficacy of these strategies.

Keywords

International Criminal Court Peace Education Constructive Conflict Destructive Conflict Peaceful Relation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alban, C., & Druckman, D. (2012). The role of equality in negotiation and sustainable peace. In P. T. Coleman & M. Deutsch (Eds.), Psychology’s contributions to sustainable peace. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Barabasi, A. (2001). Linked. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
  3. Bartoli, A. (2005). Learning from the Mozambique peace process: The role of the community of Sant’Egidio. In R. J. Fisher (Ed.), Analyzing successful transfer effects in interactive conflict resolution. Oxford: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  4. Bartoli, A., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., & Nowak, A. (2010). Peace is in movement: A dynamical systems perspective on the emergence of peace in Mozambique. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 16, 211–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blum, G. (2007). Islands of agreement: Managing enduring armed rivalries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Coleman, P. T. (2003). Characteristics of protracted, intractable conflict: Toward the development of a metaframework—I. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 9, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coleman, P. T. (2012). The essence of peace? Toward a comprehensive and parsimonious model of sustainable peace. In P. T. Coleman & M. Deutsch (Eds.), Psychological contributions to sustainable peace. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coleman, P. T., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., Vallacher, R. R., & Nowak, A. (2006). Protracted conflicts as dynamical systems. In A. K. Schneider & C. Honeyman (Eds.), The negotiator’s fieldbook: The desk reference for the experienced negotiator (pp. 61–74). Chicago: American Bar Association Books.Google Scholar
  9. Coleman, P. T., & Deutsch, M. (Eds.). (2012). Psychological components of sustainable peace. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Coleman, P. T., Hacking, A., Stover, M., Fisher-Yoshida, B., & Nowak, A. (2008). Reconstructing ripeness I: A study of constructive engagement in protracted social conflicts. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26, 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coleman, P. T., Vallacher, R. R., Nowak, A., & Bui-Wrzosinska, L. (2007). Intractable conflict as an attractor: Presenting a model of conflict, escalation, and intractability. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1454–1475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coleman, P. T., Vallacher, R., Nowak, A., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., & Bartoli, A. (2009). A systemic approach to peace: Lessons from Mozambique. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. Marcus (Eds.), A guiding handbook for conflict resolution in the Arab world. New York: International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Coleman, P. T., Vallacher, R. R., Nowak, A., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., & Bartoli, A. (2011). Navigating the landscape of conflict: Applications of dynamical systems theory to protracted social conflict. In N. Ropers (Ed.), Systemic thinking and conflict transformation. Berlin, Germany: Berghof Foundation for Peace Support.Google Scholar
  14. Deutsch, M. (1973). The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Deutsch, M. (2006). A framework for thinking about oppression and its change. Social Justice Research, 19, 7–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deutsch, M., Marcus, E., & Brazaitis, S. (2012). A Framework for thinking about developing a global identity. In P. T. Coleman & M. Deutsch (Eds.), Psychology’s contributions to sustainable peace. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Diehl, P., & Druckman, D. (2011). Evaluating peace operations. Boulder: Rienner.Google Scholar
  18. Disney, A., & Gbowee, L. (2012). Gender and sustainable peace. In P. T. Coleman & M. Deutsch (Eds.), Psychology’s contributions to sustainable peace. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Dörner, D. (1996). The logic of failure: Recognizing and avoiding error in complex situations. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub.Google Scholar
  20. Fisher, R. E., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (2nd ed.). New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  21. Fry, D. P. (2006). The human potential for peace: An anthropological challenge to assumptions about war and violence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fry, D. P., & Miklikowska, M. (2012). Culture of peace. In P. T. Coleman & M. Deutsch (Eds.), Psychological contributions to sustainable peace. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Gomes de Matos, F. (2012). LIF PLUS: The life-improving force of peaceful language use. In P. T. Coleman & M. Deutsch (Eds.), Psychology’s contributions to sustainable peace. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Gottman, J. M. (1993). The roles of conflict engagement, escalation, and avoidance in marital interaction: A longitudinal view of five types of couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 6–15. doi: 10.1037//0022-006X.61.1.6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gottman, J. M., Swanson, C., & Murray, J. (1999). The mathematics of marital conflict. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 3–19. doi: 10.1037//0893-3200.13.1.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gottman, J. M., Murray, C. D., Swanson, C. C., Tyson, R., & Swanson, K. R. (2002). The mathematics of marriage. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gottman, J., Swanson, C., & Swanson, K. (2002). A general systems theory of marriage: Nonlinear difference equation modeling of marital interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 326–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gratch, A. (2012). The psychodynamics of peace. In P. T. Coleman & M. Deutsch (Eds.), Psychology’s contributions to sustainable peace. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Gurr, T. R. (2000). Peoples versus states. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  30. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
  31. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). New developments in social interdependence theory. Psychology Monograph, 13, 285–360.Google Scholar
  32. Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Tjosvold, D. (2012). Effective cooperation, the foundation of sustainable peace. In P. T. Coleman & M. Deutsch (Eds.), Psychology’s contributions to sustainable peace. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Koo, J., Han, J., & Kim, J. (2002). Integrative complexity of South–North Korean correspondences: A time-series analysis, 1984–1994. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46, 286–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Koo, J., & Kim, J. (1999). Integrative complexity in newspaper columns and the bulletins of political parties: The impact of economic crisis and political transition on integrative complexity. Korean Journal of Social & Personality Psychology, 13, 35–52.Google Scholar
  35. Kriesberg, L. (2005). Nature, dynamics, and phases of intractability. In C. A. Crocker, F. O. Hampson, & P. Aall (Eds.), Grasping the nettle: Analyzing cases of intractable conflict (pp. 65–98). Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.Google Scholar
  36. Kugler, K. G., Coleman, P. T., & Fuchs, A. M. (2011). Conflict, Complexity, and Openness: Constructive versus Destructive Dynamics of Discussions over Intractable Issues. WOP Working Papers No. 2011/3. Retrieved from: www.psy.lmu.de/wirtschaftspsychologie/forschung/working_papers/index.html
  37. Latane’, B., & Nowak, A. (1994). Attitudes as catastrophes: From dimensions to categories with increasing involvement. In R. R. Vallacher & A. Nowak (Eds.), Dynamical systems in social psychology (pp. 219–249). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  39. Levine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  40. Liht, J., Suedfeld, P., & Krawczyk, A. (2005). Integrative complexity in face-to-face negotiations between the Chiapas guerrillas and the Mexican government. Political Psychology, 26, 543–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lindner, E. (2012). Fostering global citizenship. In P. T. Coleman & M. Deutsch (Eds.), Psychology’s contributions to sustainable peace. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Losada, M. (1999). The complex dynamics of high performance teams. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 30, 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Losada, M., & Heaphy, E. (2004). The role of positivity and connectivity in the performance of business teams: A nonlinear dynamics model. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 740–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mischel, W., DeSmit, A., & Kross, E. (2006). Self regulation in the service of conflict resolution. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  45. Nets, R. (2012). Fixation and change of the Israeli official memory regarding the causes for the exodus of the Palestinian refugees during the 1948 War, 1949–2004 (Unpublished dissertation).Google Scholar
  46. Nowak, A., & Vallacher, R. (1998). Dynamical social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  47. Nowak, A., Vallacher, R., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., & Coleman, P. T. (2006). Attracted to conflict: A dynamical perspective on malignant social relations. In A. Golec & K. Skarzynska (Eds.), Understanding social change: Political psychology in Poland (pp. 33–49). Haauppague, NY: Nova Science Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  48. Pruitt, D. G. (2006). A graphical interpretation of escalation and de-escalation presented at Dynamics and Complexity of Intractable Conflicts. Poland: Kazimierz.Google Scholar
  49. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 88–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sandy, S. V., & Boardman, S. K. (2000). The peaceful kids conflict resolution program. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(4), 337–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schwartz, I. B. (1992). Small amplitude, long period outbreaks in seasonally driven epidemics. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 30, 473–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Siegel, D. J. (2010). Mindsight: The new science of personal transformation. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
  54. Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E., Streufert, S., Smith, C. P., Atkinson, J. W., McClelland, D. C., et al. (1992). Conceptual/integrative complexity. In C. P. Smith, J. W. Atkinson, D. C. McClelland, & J. Veroff (Eds.), Motivation and personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 393–400). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Svyantek, D. J., & Brown, L. L. (2000). A complex-systems approach to organizations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(2), 66–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Integrative complexity of American and Soviet foreign policy rhetoric: A time-series analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1565–1585. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.49.6.1565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vallacher, R., Coleman, P. T., Nowak, A., & Bui-Wrzosinska, L. (2010). Rethinking intractable conflict: The perspective of dynamical systems. American Psychologist, 65(4), 262–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vallacher, R. R., & Nowak, A. (Eds.). (1994a). Dynamical systems in social psychology. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  59. Vallacher, R. R., & Nowak, A. (1994b). The stream of social judgment. In R. R. Vallacher & A. Nowak (Eds.), Dynamical systems in social psychology (pp. 251–275). San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  60. Varshnay, W. (2002). Ethnic conflict and civic life. New Haven, CT: Yale University.Google Scholar
  61. Winter, D. G. (2007). The role of motivation, responsibility, and integrative complexity in crisis escalation: Comparative studies of war and peace crises. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 920–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robin R. Vallacher
    • 1
  • Peter T. Coleman
    • 2
  • Andrzej Nowak
    • 3
  • Lan Bui-Wrzosinska
    • 4
  • Larry Liebovitch
    • 5
  • Katharina G. Kugler
    • 6
  • Andrea Bartoli
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyFlorida Atlantic UniversityBoca RatonUSA
  2. 2.International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution Teachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland
  4. 4.International Center for Complexity and ConflictWarsaw School of Social Sciences and HumanitiesWarsawPoland
  5. 5.Division of Mathematics and Natural SciencesCity University of New York Queens CollegeNew YorkUSA
  6. 6.Economic and Organisational PsychologyLudwig-Maximilians-Universitaet MuenchenMunichGermany
  7. 7.School for Conflict Analysis and ResolutionGeorge Mason UniversityArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations