UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Toward a "conflict" pedagogy: a critical discourse analysis of "conflict" in conflict management education Fisher, R. Michael 2000

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_2000-0060.pdf [ 14.01MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0055569.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055569-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055569-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055569-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055569-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055569-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055569-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

TOWARD A 'CONFLICT' PEDAGOGY: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF 'CONFLICT' IN CONFLICT MANAGEMENT EDUCATION by R. MICHAEL FISHER B.Sc., University of Calgary, 1978 B.Ed.(after), University of Calgary, 1980 Grad. Dip. Rehab., University of Calgary, 1989 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL STUDIES (Adult Education) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA February, 23, 2000 © R . Michael Fisher 2000 U B C Special Collections - Thesis Authorisation Form http://www.library.ubc.ca/spcoll/thesauth.html In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thesis for sch o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date 1 of 1 00-02-24 12:48 ABSTRACT This research study reviewed several disciplinary fields and their conceptualizations of conflict. The primary guiding question was, what is the best conflict education that is required for youth and adults to live in the world of a "culture of violence" in the list century? The general purpose of the study was to provide a critique that would initiate an expanded conflict imaginary, as educators and lifelong learners face a world of growing complex social and cultural conflicts. The "case" under specific critical analysis was identified as conflict management education (CME). CME provided the primary subject (text) for a critical discourse analysis of its conceptualizations of conflict. The main purpose of the study was to determine the hegemony of discourse in the text of a "representative" sample of 22 contemporary CME handbooks and manuals for youth and adults. CME was found to be a new social movement with a powerful "social technology" to change attitudes and behaviors, in order to diminish or eliminate violence. This study found there are virtually no systematic critiques of CME and no significant critiques that focus on the conceptualization of conflict itself. The discourse of CME's conceptualizations of conflict tended toward an ideological bias of consensus, unity, cooperation, 'peace and harmony;' and located within a politically conservative, pragmatist, social psychological discourse. The entire domain of conflict knowledge from critical pedagogies and the sociological conflict theory tradition was largely ignored in CME text. This has significant political and sociocultural implications in the biased shaping of conflict knowledge and the concomitant power relations of teaching, learning, and the constructing of'democracy' itself. Without a critique of its own discourses, CME has limited means, as a discipline of knowledge, to establish how it may be perpetuating the very violence it is attempting to eliminate. 'Conflict' pedagogy is offered as an alternative to constructing a critical conflict education as counterhegemonic to CME. This report closes with a discussion of reflections on the study and recommendations for further research. iii ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES vii ABRE VIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ix CHAPTER ONE QUEST FOR CONFLICT KNOWLEDGE 1 Introduction To Education, Conflict And Violence 1 A Conflict Journey: Self Reflection 1 The Nature Of The Study 7 Conceptualizing And Locating A Few Key Terms 7 Knowledge Formation As Social Practice 7 What Is Violence? 8 What Is Conflict? 10 What Is Conflict Management Education (CME)? 14 'Peace' Vs. 'Conflict' Knowledges And Approaches 18 The 'Peace' Discourse Hegemony 19 Educating For A Culture Of Violence 22 Brief History And Some Critiques Of CME 26 Some Historical And Current Roots/Routes Of CME 26 Some Germane Critiques Of CME 31 Problem Summary And Purposes Of The Study 36 Summaries Of Thesis Chapters 38 CHAPTER TWO THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL RATIONALE: TOWARD A 'CONFLICT' EPISTEMOLOGY 49 Introduction 49 What Kind Of Research Is This?: Some Basic Methodological Assumptions 51 Design Rationale: Methodology And "Case" Sample 53 Rationale For Studying CME Handbooks And Training Manuals: Some Limitations 53 "Casing" The Study And "Case" Sample Descriptions 57 Procedures Of Data Collection And Organization: Reliability And Validity 60 Conceptualizations Of'Conflict': 12 Emergent Categories 63 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA): A Unique Approach 67 iv What Is CDA: A Method? 67 Foucault: Poststructuralist Analysis 69 Introduction: Personal Note 69 Foucault And His Work 71 Cultural Analysis 73 What Is Discourse?: Locating Foucault's Methodology 74 Relation Of Discourse And Ideology 76 What Is 'Conflict'?: Entering The Symbolic Environment And Culture 79 New Social Conflicts: The Battleground Of Representation 80 Three Approaches In One: Toward An Integral Framework 82 'Conflict' Epistemology?: The Politics Of The Production Of Knowledge 85 Epistemology And Dialecticism 85 Epistemology And The Crisis Of Knowledge 86 Social Epistemology 88 Chapter Summary 91 CHAPTER THREE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT EDUCATION: DISCOURSES ON CONFLICT 96 Introduction 96 Understanding Conflict 96 Conflict-Violence Connection: Locating 'The Problem' 99 Self-Reflexivity: Self-Critical Theme 104 Theory Theme 105 Definition-Location Theme 107 Moral Status Theme 112 Role (Sociopolitical) Theme • 114 CME Text From A Conflict Perspective 115 "Classic" And "Modified" Conflict Perspective 116 Interdisciplinary/Comparative Analysis Of CME Discourse 120 Conflict-Positive Reform In CME 122 CME Text From A Foucauldian Perspective 124 Introduction 124 No Acknowledgement Of Discourse 125 Neglect Of Cultural Sensitivity 12 8 Monolithic Normalizing And Naturalizing 129 Disciplinarity, Rationality, Governmentality And Moral Responsibility 132 Chapter Summary 135 CHAPTER FOUR TOWARD A 'CONFLICT' PEDAGOGY 140 Introduction 140 v Tough Decisions In Dangerous Times 142 Researching On A 'Conflict' Pedagogy 142 Locating A 'Conflict' Pedagogy: Staying In The 'Fire' 145 New Social Movements: "New Social Conflicts" 149 CME In Need Of A Critique 149 Discourse Hegemony: Advocacy And The New Social Movements 155 Some Reflections On The Study 160 Recommendations 163 Future Directions From This Study 167 EPILOGUE 170 REFERENCES 174 APPENDICES 195 vi LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Page Figure 1 Domains And Concepts Of Focus 13A Figure 2 Mapping The Fields Of'Conflict* Study: An Integral Perspective 15A Figure 3 Mapping The Fields Of'Conflict' Study: Fields Of Conflict Studies 15B Figure 4 Preston Manning And The "Fourth H' Project" 32A Figure 5 Constructing Images Of "Conflict Managers" 36A Figure 6 Power- 'Conflict' Relationship: Outline for Conflictworker Conceptualization 56A Figure 7 Casing Overview 58A Figure 8 Boshier's Quadrant Map Of Perspectives Underlying Adult Education 64A Figure 9 Order And Conflict Perspectives 64B Figure 10 Conflict Management Text: Youth/School 115A Figure 11 Conflict Management Education Text: Adult/Professional 115B Figure 12 Integral Dialectical Model: Spectrum Of Conflict Work On Violence 147A Figure 13 Four Categories Of Social Theory On Consensus-Conflict Debate 156A Figure 1.4 Mapping The Path Toward A'Conflict'Pedagogy 158A Figure 14a Mapping The Path Toward A 'Conflict' Pedagogy 158B Figure 15 Schematic Framework For'Conflict'Pedagogy 163A Table 1 Sample "Case": School Handbooks/Training Manuals 58B Table 2 Sample "Case": Professional Handbooks/Training Manuals 59A vii ABBREVIATIONS ADR - alternative dispute resolution CCE- critical conflict education CD A- critical discourse analysis CME- conflict management education DFCV- domination-fear-conflict-violence cycle NSM- new social movement Important DEFINITIONS (for terms used in this thesis) 'conflict'-p. 41, fn. 13 conflict (and dispute)- p. 11, p. 14; p. 42 f.n. 21 conflict education- p. 44, f.n. 33 conflict imaginary- p. 168, f.n. 6; Appendix I conflict knowledge- p. 10 conflict management- p. 26 conflict management education- p. 14 conflict practices- p. 40, f.n. 6 conflict resolution- p. 45, f.n. 53 conflict theorists- p. 42, f.n. 18 conflict theory (perspective)- p. 39, f.n. 2 conflict (critical) tradition- p. 43, f.n. 31; Appendix II conflictwork- p. 39, f.n. 5 critical pedagogy- p. 39, f.n. 3 culture- p. 39, f.n. 1 dialogue- p. 168, f.n. 21 discourse- p. 44, f.n. 37; p. 74-5 domination-fear-conflict-violence cycle- p. 44, f.n. 34; p. 167, f.n. 2 education- p. 1 epistemology (social) (Popkewitzian)- p. 88-9 hegemony (ideological)- p. 43, f.n. 25 ideology- p. 44, f.n. 35; p. 93, f.n. 15 new social movements- p. 43, f.n. 28 peace- p. 23-4, p. 167, f.n. 5 postmodernism (Eagleton & Lemert)- p. 71-2 poststructuralism (Foucault)- p. 93, f.n. 20 power (Foucauldian)- p. 78; p. 43, f.n. 26; Appendix IV propaganda (hidden curriculum)- p. 44, f.n. 36 social (communal) conflicts- p. 40, f.n. 7 social conflict (Coserian)- p. 13 theory- p. 39, f.n. 2 transdisciplinary- p. 42, f.n. 22 violence- p. 8; p. 40, f.n. 9 viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Dedicated to the raging rebel-youth in the winter of1999, who had to do something different, something tragic, to make a change in schools. In confronting the violence that holds the pathological patriarchy together, one meets allies and enemies. When leaving the familiar to 'swim up the river' alone for possible better solutions, one needs the encouragement and wisdom of both. I kept going on this investigation because of those big gestures of support and the small. I'm grateful to the following, frightfully busy, academics who are engaging in understanding conflict in their own various ways. The following gave me those "just right" words of encouragement or critique, articles, a reference, a contact, or a learned ear to which I needed to test out my tangling thoughts: Dr. Donald Black (U. of Virginia), Dr. Barrie Brennan (U. of New England, NSW), Dr. Michael Collins (U. of Saskatchewan), John P. Lederach (E. Mennonite U.), Dr. Robert Regnier (U. of Saskatchewan), Dr. Randall Collins (U. of Pennsylvania), Dr. Peter McLaren (U. California, Los Angeles), Dr. Mike Newman (U. of Technology, Sydney), Dr. Thomas Popkewitz, (U. of Wisconsin-Madison), Dr. John Rowan (London, UK), Dr. Tom Heaney (National-Louis U.), Dr. Maocir Gadotti (Instituto Paulo Freire, Brazil), Dr. Denis Collins (U. of San Francisco), Dr. Paz Buttedahl (Vancouver Institute of Americas), Dr. Carl Leggo (The U. of British Columbia), Dr. Al Maher (U. of Ottawa), Dr. David Schweitzer (The U. of British Columbia), Dr. John Ohliger (Basic Choices, Inc., Wisconsin), Dr. Andrew Pirie (U. of Victoria, BC), and Dr. Kathy Bickmore (U of Toronto/OISE). Special warm thanks to Dr. Michael Welton (Mt. St. Vincent U., Nova Scotia) for the walks and talks, and heartfelt belief in my abilities. Sincere appreciation and a big hug to my research committee members Dr. Kjell Rubenson, Dr. Michael Marker, Dr. Steve Petrina for wrestling with the 'big' questions about my work and for their valuable feedback on the drafts. Appreciation to Marg Huber, Director of the Centre for Conflict Resolution, for the help with ix research materials at the Justice Institute of BC. I acknowledge the support from my many allies in Calgary and other graduate students at UBC. And most important, a loving thankfulness to my partner and goddess Barbara Bickel, my unconditionally loving sister Linda Arnold, and my teenage daughters Leah and Vanessa who keep me young and rebellious enough to 'keep fighting' when I feel like taking a longterm sabbatical from planet Earth. ijs JJ» )fc J{S sjc jfc ) 1 CHAPTER ONE QUEST FOR CONFLICT KNOWLEDGE Introduction To Education. Conflict And Violence A Conflict Journey: Self Reflection The journey I have walked could be identified within the realm of radical education. Giroux (1983) argued that the traditional leftist (and Marxist) politics has to be renewed to incorporate the subtleties of cultural capital and cultural politics, where it is no longer so easy to identify, in some unified theory, exactly where oppressors and the oppressed exist. In particular, Giroux's (1983) distinction between education and schooling (training) is important in this thesis research. He wrote, Education has a direct link to the creation of alternative public spheres, and it represents both an ideal and a strategy in the service of struggling for social and economic democracy. As the embodiment of an ideal, it refers to forms of learning and action based on a commitment to the elimination of forms of class, racial, and gender oppression. As a mode of intellectual development and growth, its focus is political in the broadest sense....education, as used in this context, takes place outside of established institutions and spheres.... it represents a collectively produced set of experiences organized around issues and concerns that allow for a critical understanding of everday oppression.... In effect, education represents the central category in the development of alternative public spheres. It refers to critique and the restructuring of social experiences based on new forms of communicative interaction.... (p. 239) The overarching guiding, and problematic question throughout this study was what is the best conflict education thai, is required for youth and adults lo live well in the world of a "culture of violence"1 in the 21st century? Emphasis here is on best and not the best. The search for the best quality in education is not, by some necessity, oppressive in a totalizing 1 manner to a diversity of best ways of thinking and acting in educative sites. This improved quality in regard to understanding and dealing with conflict and violence is, by necessity, I believe, a direction which leads to an improved conflict imaginary— where neither conflict nor violence shrink our imagination from healthy and sustainable means of living together. Giroux's notion of education, from a critical (conflict) theory perspective,2 is challenging to systems of power relations that maintain the status quo of oppression of various kinds. This education focuses on social conflict and violence. It looks to create a pedagogy (art and science of teaching and learning) that is immediately a social activism, and to create "alternative public spheres" where new forms of communications can take place. Giroux points to critique as central, in this radical education. Although I agree, critique, arguments and criticism are incomplete on their own to ensure a healthy democracy (cf. Tannen, 1998 and her critique of the "argument culture"). There is conflict that has to be dealt with whenever we are critical of others. It is the former, more than the latter, which is the foundational interest in creating a 'conflict' pedagogy (beyond the critical pedagogy^ of Giroux, Giroux and McLaren (1989), and many others). A 'conflict' pedagogy, emerging from this thesis research, is a beginning toward an educative focus in using and creating conflict sites as critical locations for teaching and learning, in the formation of just democracies. The overarching question above was born out of my eight years of Canadian experience as a program planner and therapeutic-counsellor, dealing with violence and abuse with families in crisis in rural and urban Alberta during the mid 1980s-90s. The troubling male youth, between 12-18 years of age, in the open-custody residential treatment programs were masters of conflict-creation and slaves of violence. The various school staff and communities where these youth lived were completely unable to deal with the conflicts effectively. They most all thought the youth have the problem and ought to be "treated" for their violence— preferably far away from the community. I guess they did not want to know the reality of contemporary social life— American statistics reveal: "Homicide is the leading cause of death among African-American males ages 15-19 years and the second leading cause of death for all youth4 (Lawton, 1992)" (Lehr and Martin, 1994, p. 12). A second overarching question informed the direction of this thesis, that is, what theoretical resources do educators draw upon when dealing with social conflict and violence in educative sites? American leadership revealed President Clinton, speaking on national news in the midst of the American-led bombing raids on Kosovo, telling the youth of America to learn to manage your anger and look for alternatives to violence as a solution to your conflicts. What are we teaching about conflict and conflicts in schools, workplace conflict resolution training, parenting skills courses, anger management, nonviolence trainings, law schools, neighborhood justice institutes and mediation certification, community development and post-secondary institutions? Do we stop to critically reflect upon our good intentions as leaders, teachers, facilitators and trainers, and question that maybe our understanding and prescriptions regarding conflict(s) may be a little biased— if not harmful itself- if not ingenuous, when looked at in context of a "culture of violence" which we have created and continue to perpetuate daily? Perhaps, "There is violence because we have daily honored violence" (Harris, 1967, p. 246). There are still over 40 wars "... currently causing misery on the planet" (Barbara, 1996, p. 8). Despite some 25 years of conflict resolution/management and peace education programs in North American schools and communities, with estimates of over 8500 conflict resolution programs in American schools (Bodine and Crawford, 1998, p. xiii), a rash of student-led mass rage murders in secondary schools created the context which haunted the data collection and writing of this thesis. In retrospect, there were no conflict resolution programs going on in those days working with youth. I never heard about them. Maybe I never looked hard enough for them? Maybe our staff and I, working in the trenches with marginalized peoples, did not believe the youth and families were going to be helped with packaged ideas and programs about conflict and violence? Maybe we didn't trust the assumptions, implicit righteousness 4 and privileged power of those "nice" middleclass do-gooders who write, publish and administer such universal programs? Psychological models of behavioral modification, social role modeling, reality (control) therapy and cognitivism ruled as the dominant methods and thinking of how to change conflictual troubling behavior into so-called "cooperation and harmony." The apparent "peace," attained from these approaches, never lasted- and more importantly, it was not a solution to the deep hurt and terrorization these families and communities experienced. The conflicts never went away but rather flowed underground, until the next eruption. In retrospect, I wonder what guiding conceptualizations o f conflict and the link with violence, was in the minds and culture of these people. What were mine? Would different ideas about the nature of conflict itself, have made a difference in how the course of so many destroyed relationships seemed unstoppable? M y long interest and involvement in various grassroot liberation movements and social activism since the 1970s, led to the conclusion that social conflict not handled well , both between groups and within groups, was the universal phenomenon that was most destructive to human relationships (and planetary ecosystems). M y work as an ally for women's support groups and reading in the women's (and feminist) movement literature proved to be a strong case example of how forming "Alliances between women, both groups and individuals, are hard-won, contingent and often fraught with conflict [and violence]" (Roy, 1997, p. 260). Hirsch and Kel ler (1990), leading feminists, expressed this problematic around conflict within social justice move-ments, with their long experience in the contradictions o f feminist theory with actual practices. They wrote, Most importantly, we felt a certain urgency about identifying better strategies for practicing conflict.... Discussions within feminist theory today are racked by intense conflicts. While feminists have in principle tended to agree that difference is a more productive theoretical and political category than either universalizing consensus or 5 divisive opposition, in practice, actual differences within feminist discourse have tended to erupt in separate [enemy] camps [cf. Detloff, 1997 "Mean spirits: The politics of contempt between feminist generations. " cf. Fraser, 1997 re: split in the Left]. At this moment... some of these conflicts have proven so divisive that they seem to foreclose rather than stimulate debate, even at times appearing to threaten the very viability of contemporary feminism as a political and theoretical venture, (pp. 3-4) Ring (1991), a feminist political theorist, concluded in a critique of current feminist theorizing that it had a decided bias in "fear of conflict" and "... tend[ed] to minimize the role of conflict that is at the essence of dialectical learning" (p. 27). Sociopolitical theorists like Ring (1991), Bickford (1996), Mouffe (1993) and schooling educators like Bickmore (1991, 1993, 1993a, 1998, 1999, 1999a), Hahn (1996), Kafkafi (1997) and Brown (1997), along with adult and higher educators like Dixon (1998), Pratt (1991, 1993), Newman (1993, 1994/98, 1995, 1997), Baptiste (1998, 1998a), Graff (1990, 1992,1995), Graff and Looby (1994), Thomas (1994), and Cain (1994) have brought attention for a renewed interest in conflict as a critical site of curricular reform, social activism, healthy democracy, and teaching and learning. Education (a la Giroux) and schooling/training cannot ignore conflict(s) and continue to stay relevant to the world youth and adults live in. In my own experience, much like Hirsch and Keller, in grassroot activist groups and graduate adult education courses, most conflicts were denied and repressed within the groups. Leaders and teachers of these groups seemed incapable of engaging with the subtle violence, the conflicts, and incorporating a theory that guided learning processes in the 'heated' sites of social conflict. For grassroot activists, the obvious focus for conflict and rage was directed toward the 'enemies' of injustice 'out there.' But that focus outward was never controllable and eventually the violence occurred within the groups' relationships. 'Splits' divided groups, factions formed, and this in-fighting toxified and fragmented coalition possibilities. So often in my graduate experience, classroom environments of trust, curiosity, and equality of'voice' 6 became places of mistrust, silencing, denial, contempt and resentment- not unlike my past formal schooling and training in institutions of diverse kinds. These conflicts were not merely disagreements about simple needs or interests that could be negotiated or resolved. The conflicts were often ideological and political, where differential power relations and coercive 'games' of rank and privilege riddled the learning contexts between administrators and staff, teachers and teachers, teachers and students, and students and students. The conflicts, on the surface were simple, but beneath were held intractable violent histories of racism, ethnicism, religionism, ageism, classism, sexism, and all other forms of systemic oppression and memories of being hurt. Quick-fix individualist psychological-based models of conflict resolution and management, or educative interventions of "discussion" or "dialogue" continued to be regularly lame in all the experiences above. When rarely invoked, these methods served to treat symptoms, inadequately engaging the deeper conflicts and wounds both psychological and structural (political). Mostly, conflict was ignored or simply not recognized. I agree with Black (1998) that the most common form of conflict that leads to violence, often unacknowledged, is simple unengaged and unspoken "avoidance." Happy notions of a collaborative "learning community" were assumed in polite non-problematic rhetoric and commonly written about in adult education (e.g., Grace, 1997; St. Clair, 1998). I prefer the wisdom of building authentic community through what 1 call conflict-work? as in the writing, for example, of Pratt (1991, 1993), Peck (1988), Mindell (1993, 1995), Graff (1992) and Summers (1994). We were functionally dysfunctional. I doubted, that any conflict (or community) was ever isolatable from the larger 'isms,' and to pretend they were was an act of violence itself, in the commission of neglect of the historical, sociocultural and political complexities of human relationships and conflicts. This thesis is based on approaching human conflict and conflict practices6 as inevitably embedded in contexts of the larger 'isms'— that is, social conflicts or 7 communal conflicts7-- that is, a "culture of violence." To hold to my own integrity in linking theory and practice, I encourage readers to take my critique (and sometimes criticism) of thinking and conflict practices in this thesis, as an invitation to enter conflict processes with me. As a follower of the Sacred Warrior tradition (Trungpa, 1985) and a warrior pedagogue (cf. Regnier, 1995), if one swings the 'sword' of criticism, one must honor the 'sword' which slices back. Hit-and-run critical tactics have caused more than enough hurt and ruin both in the academic community and general social life. The Nature Of The Study Chapter One begins with some personal background and reflections on the growing interest to bring conflict and pedagogy together. The remainder of the chapter is divided into five parts: (a) A Few Key Definitions, (b) Problem Summary And Purposes Of The Study, (c) Peace vs. Conflict Knowledges And Approaches, (d) Brief History And Some Critiques Of Conflict Management Education (CME) and, (e) Summaries Of Thesis Chapters. This thesis has two parallel streams of inquiry moving throughout this report: one, involves a general interpretive attempt to understand the nature of'conflict' itself and how it has been conceptualized in various interdisciplinary fields; the second, involves a direct empirical analysis of the conceptualization of'conflict,' as depicted in the conflict resolution/ management documents studied (cf. Chapter Two and Three). Conceptualizing And Locating A Few Key Terms Knowledge Formation As Social Practice8 This research is a sociocultural, political and educational response to violence9 and the global crisis or world problematique.10 The focus of the study is on identifying some of what constitutes knowledge about conflict and how that conflict knowledge may be biased, particularly within the "case" of conflict management education (CME is defined below). It is 8 assumed that such knowledge may strongly influence our conflict practices. Like this thesis, Rapoport (1974) places conflict in a cultural and symbolic context of understanding. He wrote, The nature of the symbolic environment is such that it depends in great measure on what men [sic] say or think about it. In particular, what men think or say about human conflict... has a great bearing on the nature of human conflict and its consequences.... we shall have to examine various conceptions of conflict... these conceptions make human conflicts what they are. (p. 7) Fry and Fry (1997) argued that"... human conflict and conflict resolution are cultural phenomena. The ways that conflicts are perceived and handled reflect a culturally shared set of attitudes and beliefs" (p. 10). Furthermore, Featherston and Nordstrom (1994) similarly assumed in their research that "Strategies of conflict management are inextricably tied to theories [and ideas] about the causes of conflict" (p. I). "How human nature and its impact upon conflict are understood carries profound implications for how conflict is handled" (Tidwell, 1998, p. 30). I decided to focus almost exclusively on the ideas, conceptualizations and definitions of conflict rather than on the strategies and techniques of conflict resolution and management per se. The latter, would take a much larger study to do justice to. Although, I believe (following a Foucauldian view) that how we conceptualize conflict (i.e., construct conflict knowledge) is an equally important method of resolution and management— that is, a social conflict practice itself. What is Violence? Although this study did not investigate the concept of violence per se (cf. footnote 9 for an indepth definition), an immense topic, the radical and innovative "pure" sociology of conflict (Black, 1976,1989, 1995, 1998, 1999; Cooney, 1988, 1997, 1998; Senechal dela Roche, 1996) draws on vast data from historical and cross-cultural anthropological research, 9 and has recommended a complete deconstruction of traditional understandings o f what 'conflict' is and its relationship to what 'violence' is. B l a c k , 1 1 the leader and founder of this unique synthetic theory of conflict, wrote that"... violence presently belongs to the jurisdiction of diverse fields and is studied by diverse specialists who do not recognize it as part of a single field: conflict." (Black, 1998, pp. xiv-xv). Black views violence in terms of morality, law and the ubiquitous universal battle between 'right' and 'wrong.' He has applied these notions to the sociology of law, crime and justice systems. Cooney (1998), most simply, summarized Black's view on violence. He wrote, Black's (1983) insight that violence is a form of morality contains several unexplored empirical implications.... violence is, for this perspective, a means of handling conflict found under certain social structural conditions, (p. 136) Senechal de la Roche (1996) argued, using Black's paradigm, that "collective violence" is a form of "social control," which Black calls "conflict management." The controversial outcome of Black's paradigm, is that violence is a form o f conflict, which is a form of conflict management in the attempt to make a 'wrong' a 'right' (when certain social structural and political factors are operating). This view o f violence, is a way to avoid "blaming" individuals and their behaviors of "violence" as isolated from the social structural and political context of any situation. This points toward a different sense of morality around violence and responsibility. Black's view is not psychological but a "pure" soc io logy 1 2 o f conflict. This study generally takes Black's epistemological orientation to avoid overly moralizing and rigidifying a superficial, individualist, behavioral, psychological and fixed notion o f violence. Rather, the initiative is that of seeking to understand it in relation to the larger social phenomenon of conflict (both, which are not well understood, as Black reminds us-- thus a humble attitude is required to gain understanding of the dynamics, as opposed to the usual attempt to merely "stop" them). The context of a culture of violence, used in this thesis, is therefore an 1 0 acknowledgement that both culture (a la Bourdieu, or Stuart Hall, etc.) and violence are continuous sites of conflict. Violence, among other forms, is a social conflict practice embedded in the larger oppressive 'isms'. What Is Conflict? This thesis report is partially a self-reflective initiative, whereby I, as a (white heterosexual male) former environmental science worker, human service worker, former school teacher and now adult educator or "worker with adults" (Edwards, 1997, p. 166), may critically re-evaluate the understandings of conflict I have collected. Of what quality is our current conflict knowledge? Whose knowledge is it, in terms of origins and, who benefits? How could conflict knowledge be improved, and on what basis would that improvement be judged? This report begins to address these problematic questions in Chapters Three and Four. Conflict knowledge is the experiential knowledge gained and shared through conflicts (struggles), as well as conceptual knowledge gained through thinking about ideas of what 'conflict'13 itself may be. Conflict is intimately related to violence. What that exact relationship is (« la Black), has been left open for some post-modernist doubt14 and debate, as the definition of'conflict' itself is left open for doubt and deconstruction/reconstruction15 in this study (cf. footnote 13). "More has been written on conflict than on any other theme except God and love..." (Rapoport, 1991, p. xiii, citing R. Duncan Luce and Howard Raiffa in "Games and Decisions"). Canary et al. (1995) remarked that "Although many students [of conflict] recognize the importance of conflict, few understand what it is and how it functions to preserve or to erode [relationships and social life]..." (p. ix). There is no precise all-purpose definition of conflict (Canary et al., 1995, p. 4, citing Weiss and Dehle, 1994). Psychologists may utilize a definition like: 11 Conflict- an extremely broad term used to refer to any situation where there are mutually antagonistic events, motives, purposes, behaviors, impulses, etc. (Reber, 1995, p. 151) And furthermore, may add to this psychological conception claiming conflict involves "... incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or internal demands" (Gall, 1996, p. 8). Researchers in conflict or peace studies say "Conflict is the product of unmet needs and unrecognized differences" (Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University web site16). Others defined conflict as "perceived divergence of interests" (Ruben et al., 1994, cited in Fry and Bjorkqvist, 1997, p. 1). Whether "real" or "perceived," the commonality of so many cursory definitions of conflict is undeniable. The idea of opposing interests is foundational in most of the conceptualizations of conflict in the literature across disciplinary domains (e.g., anthropology, some sociology, cognitive-behavioral psychology, communica-tions and rational choice theory). Social psychological conceptions may infer conflict is present but unseen in social relations but"... arises from the presence of a difference or because the existence of a disagreement brings it into the open..." (Lindzey and Aronson, 1985, p. 353). Conflict sociologists, like Collins (1994), argued that domination is going on all the time in social life, and if conflict is not going on at the surface, then domination is controlling its expression as a result of domination (oppression). However, the most famous social psychologist of conflict, Morton Deutsch,17 drawing on some 60 years of social psychology research and theory, claimed that, Perhaps the most obstructive idea is that conflict occurs because people have opposing interests, in this view, conflict inevitably means that people are working against each other;.... A much more useful definition, based on the work of Morton Deutsch of Columbia University, is that conflict involves incompatible behaviors; one person is interfering, disrupting, or in some other way making another's actions less effective. While this difference [between a competitive definition (the former), or a cooperative 12 definition] may seem minor and academic, it has vast practical implications. People with compatible, cooperative interests can be in conflict as they argue about the best means to accomplish their common tasks, distribute the benefits and burdens of their cooperative effort, and determine how they are to treat each other.... Our studies suggest that within organizations most conflicts occur when people have cooperative interests. (Tjosvold, 1993, p. 7) From Mary Parker Follett (1925/95) to Deutsch (1949, 1973, 1980, 1990, 1991), Tjosvold (1991, 1993) and Johnson and Johnson (1987, 1988, 1989,1991, 1995, 1995a), the field of conflict resolution/management has been inundated with what Tjosvold (specializing in organizations) and Johnson and Johnson (specializing in schools) refer to as a "conflict positive" orientation toward conflict(s). This valuing bias places cooperation above competition, although attempting to claim, conflict itself is neither postive or negative— it depends on how a conflict is handled that would initiate the labelling of "positive" or "negative" (the latter being destructive, violent, competitive, and so forth- that which is to be eliminated if possible in these conflict theorists' 1 8 view). This valuing bias toward a "win-win" approach (cf. Fisher and Ury, 198319) to conflict resolution/management, has been dominant over the interest to understand 'conflict' itself and to critically evaluate conceptualizations of'conflict.' The emphasis in this movement of conflict positive thinking is based on a pragmatics of managing and resolving, thereby, defining 'conflict' predominantly as "conflicts" (noun form) in operational behavioral terms. Generally, these theorists are drawing on social psychology and the research on intragroup dynamics, where there is often already a relatively large degree of conformity and group cohesion (for e.g., in a business organization). To counterbalance, broaden, and challenge, this conflict positive thinking (win-win) approach to conceptualizing 'conflict' and how best to handle it, we could turn to a less benign paradigm of conflict knowledge formation provided by sociology. For example, sociological conflict theorists like Dahrendorf, Simmel and Coser, provided a conceptualization of conflict (less subjectivist, psychological and perception-based than Deutsch) which could be defined as, Social conflict may be defined as a struggle over values or claims to status, power, and scarce resources, in which the aims of the conflicting parties are not only to gain the desired values but also to neutralize, injure, or eliminate their rivals.... Intergroup as well as intragroup conflicts are perennial features of social life. (Coser, 1968, p. 232) From this brief overview, it appears "Conflict is a term used to mean a variety of things, in an assortment of contexts" ( Tidwell, 1998, p. 30). Tidwell (1998) offers a good review of the types of theories of conflict20 that have influenced conflict resolution/mangement. The point of most interest, after examining conceptualizations of'conflict' across several disciplines, is that there is a decided bias to focus on the conceptualizing of'conflict' as a concrete noun. Ubiquitously, the writing moves from talking about conflict to conflicts (or a conflict), without problematizing that such a shift in discourse may have a profound impact on the conceptualization bias of what is conflict ('conflict')? All the types of theories reviewed by Tidwell, are of minor interest in this research, because they ignore a critical analysis of 'conflict' itself- rather, they focus on the discrete, behavioral event, and operational aspects almost exclusively- ultimately, under a privileging motivation to resolve and manage the conflictual behaviors (event). They do not engage in a critique of their own text discourse on conflict, nor consider that a deconstructive approach to 'conflict' may be of value. This study, more or less, prefers the orientation of Tidwell's (1998) critique of conflict resolution, and his reminder"... that conflict is not a discrete event [i.e., conflicts] in life, but rather informs and influences everything people do." (p. 175). Figure 1 shows the different emphasis of this thesis (bottom half) contrasted with the ubiquitous tendency of most writing in the field of conflict management/resolution (top half). Tidwell himself, following John Burton's legacy of theorizing in conflict analysis and 14 resolution, makes the commonly regarded definitional distinction between dispute and conflict21 but then titles the diagram as "Burton's view of conflicts and disputes as separate processes." He moves from conflict to conflicts unproblematically, similar to all the writing examined in this thesis research. Typically, Tidwell gives relatively less attention to the larger circles (dispute, conflict) than to the background context of conflict management/resolution analysis and methods. This greatly influences the framing of conflict knowledge and everything else about 'conflict' in the fields of conflict and peace studies and conflict management/resolution (including what I call "conflict management education"- see below). My own preference, for purposes of this study, emphasized 'conflict' as the important subject, and the fields of conflict management/resolution and conflict management education as "cases" (or domains) within which to study 'conflict.' What is Conflict Management Education (CME)? The terms conflict management was preferred in this thesis to conflict resolution to accompany the word education, because the reality is that conflict (distinct from a dispute) is infrequently "resolved" successfully, and more often "managed" reasonably successfully in many cases (cf. Tidwell, 1998). Conflict management education (CME) was created for this study, and chosen as an umbrella concept for a diversity of approaches to schooling/training and education that deal with conflict and violence, some more implicit, while others are explicit in advertising their "educational" agenda. For purposes of this study CME refers to: - all forms of schooling/training or education, where the aim is to improve understanding of conflict and develop skills to handle conflict so as to avoid or minimize violence. Commonly included in this conceptualization of CME here are: 15 - conflict (dispute) resolution, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), conflict resolution education, conflict management, negotiation training, conflict studies/science (polemology), peace studies/science, conflict education, peace education, cooperative education, collaborative education, and other variants on these general types. Several other educative special interest areas are more or less interested in conflict and how to deal with it educatively. These were not included in this CME definition (due to limitations of the scope of this study): feminist education, postcolonial education, African-American education, anti-racist education, anti-violence education, diversity education, multicultural education, aboriginal/First Nation education, union (labor) education, transformation education, popular education and so on. Clearly, there is no intention to suggest that all of these types of "education(s)" are static or uniform, and in future developments of a 'conflict' pedagogy these areas are important contributions, if not epistemological "standpoints" that would alter the meaning of'conflict' and pedagogy in diverse contexts. Research in conflict or peace science, communications studies and various forms of psychology, anthropology, sociology, law, social activism etc., are considered loosely "education" in terms of the creating of conflict knowledge for the purposes of informing conflict practices and influencing the ideas (or, conflict imaginary- cf. Appendix I) of others by some educative (in some cases propagandizing) means. Conflict knowledge may be distributed or taught by non-governmental organizations, governments, businesses or other organizations as well- all which would come under the CME category. As part of a loosely "post-modernist" approach to diverse knowledges and "disputatious community" in scholarly research (cf. Paulston, 1990, 1996, 1998), a mapping of the 'battleground' of competing knowledges of'conflict' study was undertaken (Figures 2 and 3). CME is located as one form of'conflict' study. This thesis approach to knowledges takes an integral or aperspectival perspective (cf. Wilber, 1977, 1995), where it is acknowledged that 15B 16 each form of'conflict' study (discipline) provides some part of a larger 'picture' of the "reality" of the phenomenon in question— that is, 'conflict' itself. An aperspectival perspective is consistent with a transdisciplinary22 approach. Following Wilber's (1997) critical integral theory2* (and epistemology of knowledge), all views are valid but not necessarily equal in accuracy or importance in the quest for a "complete" (or best) view of a phenomena or concept. Figure 2 indicates the four major fields (spheres) of interest in 'conflict' study. These spheres are contextualized in the various terms of "culture" (outside the spheres) to indicate the background assumption of this study (see description of "culture of violence" below). The size of the spheres is somewhat relevant,24 in order to show the hegemony25 of where the most knowledge about 'conflict' (and its resolution/management) is currently derived— that is, in the Social Sciences-Field of Conflict [Peace] Studies (see Figure 3 for details of that field and its bias toward emphasis on the concept of conflict resolution rather than conflict itself) The Interdisciplinary Spheres (e.g., anthropology, law, communications research, sociology, psychology etc.) are not shown on this map but include a vast array of ways of knowing 'conflict.' The Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Spheres have led to 'conflict' knowledge which informs and supports the "professionalization of conflict"- meaning, the forming of professions, like conflict and peace researchers, government diplomats of peace, lawyers, mediators, therapists, conflict resolution trainers, conflict or peace educators and so on, who, for the most part, gain direct economic payment from dealing with conflict regulation (management and administration) in some way- as part of maintaining social order. This professionalization16 has had an impact on the shaping of "peoples in conflict," and their responsibility and skills (conflict literacy21). This has an influence on "interests" of the researchers and practitioners in terms of their power and epistemology (way of knowing) in regard to making and using conflict knowledge. This impacts and biases their conflict 17 practices. CME is seen as a "social technology" of peace (cf. Olson, 1996) and a part of the new social movements28 (e.g., peace movement, civil rights and law reform via the ADR movement29). These movements have their own "pedagogy" and applications of educative processes (or propaganda) in the interest of furthering their cause and, in particular to CME, to resolve or manage conflict. Figure 2 shows how this CME sphere is attached to the Social Science and Interdisciplinary Spheres from which it is predominantly informed by and mutually informs. Across the 'bridge' in Figure 2 is the Education Sphere. Two fields are found here: (I) the larger field of Critical Pedagogy (and its variations) and, (2) the almost nonexistent emerging field of'Conflict' Pedagogy. All the terms used in the two fields are actually utilized by various researchers and theorists in education,30 although it ought to be kept in mind that both fields (of the critical/conflict tradition31) are minor (subdominant and marginalized, if not oppressed) within the general field of Education and pedagogy. Generally, from the perspective of the status quo field of Education, both these fields are likely to be seen as politically (too) 'radical.' Often, conflict, in these two fields is seen as an important form of "resistance"32 to the status quo hegemony. This is a complex topic for the last chapter. What is important to note, is that these educational marginalized fields are informed somewhat by the Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary studies of conflict— less so Critical Pedagogy. The diagram shows the desire to develop the 'Conflict' Pedagogy sphere as an integrated conflict knowledge joining the left and right sides of the map. These two fields of Education (spheres) are shaping a conceptualization of'conflict' very differently, if not in contradiction, from the Social Science and Interdisciplinary Spheres (including CME). The integral approach to knowledge in this study, is an attempt to build the "bridge' where these fields of conflict knowledge/practices can come together in a dialogue (and/or important 'battle' for a "theory of conflict"- "conflict theory"). The rest of this thesis shows how there is a huge 'gap' between CME and the pedagogies of the critical (conflict) tradition. No sufficient conflict education^ ('conflict' pedagogy) or conflictwork practice can exist to deal with the domination-fear-confiict-violence (DFCV) cycle™ if it has not integrated all the conflict knowledges, more or less, on this map (across the 'bridge'). 'Peace' Vs. 'Conflict' Knowledges And Approaches ... all knowledge is forged in histories.... [of] social antagonisms [conflict], (McLaren, 1995, p. 141) [in] comTictual public and institutional spaces. (Sleeter and McLaren, 1995, p. 6) Intellectual life is first of all conflict and disagreement.... Intellectual conflict is always limited by focus on certain topics, and by the search for allies. Not warring individuals but a small number of warring camps is the pattern of intellectual history. Conflict is the energy source of intellectual life.... (R. Collins, 1998, p.l) The nature and location of this thesis research cannot be understood, unless the larger context is understood— that is, a context of a 'battleground' of power/ knowledge dynamics or relations (a la Foucault, cf. Chapter Two). Following the post-structuralist and strategic postmodernist approach of McLaren and Sleeter, and a conflict sociological perspective of Collins, the assumption made here is that conflict knowledge is created, formed, and transformed because of a constant 'battle.' There is also conflict over 'conflict,' which involves ideological35 positions and the politics of domination and subordination. Knowledge about conflict and how best to deal with it, is therefore, embedded in contestation— or simply, ought to be seen as a 'battle' itself. To deny this 'battle' exists as the matrix of constructing (or teaching) conflict knowledge is a distortion of the intellectual history of ideas of conflict and the social epistemological (a la Popkewitz's Foucauldian view) "reality" of knowledge production as cultural capital (a la Bourdieu). Such a denial, when accompanied by the teaching about conflict and how best to handle it, is cause for a serious charge that any such teaching is more propaganda than education. Propaganda, with its "hidden curriculum,"36 19 falls within the definition of violence, as defined in the first part of this chapter. A major concern of this study, is that CME, or any peace or conflict education has a hidden curriculun which reproduces the DFCV cycle in its attempt (explicitly or implictly) to benignly pretend to only help eliminate violence. Specific to the study of CME text here, this encompassing 'battle' context involved the choosing of a culture of violence as the social "reality" in which to begin a critique of CME text discourse,37 and build a CCE and 'conflict' pedagogy. As is evident from the brief discussion below, this context is controversial as a starting point for educational analysis and curriculum development. Many "peace advocates," in contrast to "conflict advocates," will likely have serious concerns with this chosen context and foundation for a critical conflict education (CCE) and 'conflict' pedagogy. Two main domains of inquiry (and discourse) were seen to articulate conflict knowledge: (1) "peace studies" and, (2) "conflict studies." Although, often these overlapped in their interests in conflict and conflict management/resolution, there is enough evidence to question why are there two labels and domains of inquiry in regard to conflict knowledge? These two domains are discussed below as peace sciences/education vs. conflict sciences/education. Granted this is a complex topic, beyond the scope of this study and space limitations here, it is a simple dichotomy, albeit problematic, still worthy of further exploration. The 'Peace' Discourse Hegemony Searching the Education Resource, Instruction and Curriculum (ERIC) data base (including all Silverplatter data bases for all years back to the mid 1970s) turned up 73 entries under the search term "conflict education" and 793 entries under "peace education. " Several entries showed up under both labels but most all of the conflict education entries were focused on peace education explicitly, with only a rare few focusing on "conflict education" 20 as a subject label. To my knowledge, the strongest American promoters of "conflict education" (Webster-Doyle's, cf. footnote 33) were not included in the above E R I C database. "Conflict resolution education" had 48 entries and "conflict management, education" had 11 entries, most all involved schools and training programs. The conflict management education entries were all administrative in nature— that is, how to manage conflict in education sites. The peace education literature is over ten times more numerous than the conflict education literature. What differences in pedagogy and politics, if not contradictions in assumptions, may appear in those who promote and teach others "conflict education," compared to those who favor "conflict management/resolution education," or those who prefer "peace education" and a "pedagogy of peace" (e.g., Rohrs, 1994)— rather than a "pedagogy of conflict" or 'conflict' pedagogy? The language used, and categories emphasized, are part of a discourse that is likely significant to outcomes. What term or concept gets the most attention likely reflects deeper ideological investments and values. It appears many contemporary educational writers prefer a "cooperation," "consensus," and "harmony" means and method to creation of conflict "management," "resolution," and "peace." These discourses tend to make "competition," "aggression," and "fighting" absolutely bad, wrong, or violent— yet, they embrace that conflict is a part of life and not bad, wrong, or violent itself. This was discussed earlier as a conflict positive attitude and approach toward conflict but 'conflict' itself is not given much attention (cf. Figure 1, —as we shall see in Chapter Three). This preferred valorisation of certain traits (notions of what is "human" and "civilized" etc.) strongly influences the shaping of the conceptualization of'conflict' and prescriptions about how best to deal with it. The classical dichotomy between "hawks" and "doves"38 in regard to "peacemaking" or "conflict resolution" has led many writers to distinguish between "non-violent conflict resolution" and "violent conflict resolution." The conceptualization of'violence' and 'conflict' are in question, debate, and in 'battle' amongst these extreme views with their particular focus and values. 21 What should we be focusing our research, teaching, energies and dollars on, in the pursuit to end violence? Should we focus on "How to better cooperate?," say some of the peace-loving side (e.g., Beal, 1996; Johnson et al., 1988), or "How to fight better (healthier)?," say some on the conflict-loving side (e.g., Arnold et al., 1996; Mindell, 1995)? Cross-cultural research on perceptions of conflict in Duryea (1992), indicated that "... conflict is almost universally seen as negative, undesirable and unsavory." (p. vi). This negative reaction is corroborated in this thesis, as the 22 CME training manuals and handbooks indicated this as a "problem," and that training programs ought to aim to change this attitude to one of being conflict positive. This is seen as a progressive, albeit suspect,39 core aspect of contemporary CME. As well, there are numerous books on the market that continue with this biased (if not prejudice) discourse, for example: "From conflict to consensus: A conflict intervention process" (Ballek, 1997); "From conflict to cooperation: How to settle a dispute" (Potter, n.d.40). Tidwell (1998) critiqued the conflict resolution field for this general bias, whereby "resolution" is favored to "conflict," because of the con-struction of the term "conflict resolution." In regard to schools, organizations, and organizational or "school cultures," there follows, as part of a 'peace' hegemony, to always seek consensus, cooperation and harmony as a sign of a healthy "culture"- which, Leonard (1999)41 claimed is a highly spurious association of conceptions. Giroux (1983) challenged educational theories generally for their 'peace' and consensus functionalist42 hegemony. He wrote, Rather than celebrating objectivity and consensus, teachers must place the notions of critique and conflict at the center of their pedagogical models. Within such a perspective, greater possibilities exist for developing an understanding of the role of power.... (p. 62) In both its conservative and liberal versions, educational theory has been firmly entrenched in the logic of necessity and efficiency and has been mediated through the 22 political discourse of integration and consensus. This becomes clear if it is recognized that notions such as conflict and struggle are either downplayed or ignored in the discourse of traditional educational theory and practice.43 (p. 73) Conflict education, rather than peace education, is likely to follow Leonard's and Giroux's challenge and conception of education and culture as conflict-laden. Conflict education, would also challenge the promotion of peace education where the motivation is "cooling the climate of schools" (Jeffries and Harris, 1996) or cooling the climate of any social life, when the "heat" may be much more preferred to bring about the needed social changes in the big social conflicts or 'isms.' It is also important to be cognizant that social conflict initiatives in youth or adult institutional settings may not always be constructive resistance to oppression but rather, merely another form of reproduction of one of the types of oppression (cf. Willis, 1977). Educating For A Culture Of Violence The objective of the peace movement is of the highest order— what sane person can disagree with the noble goal of'peace on earth'.... (Hon. Preston Manning, cited in Gould, 1997, p. 14) Indeed, with its 'apple pie nature': (who is against consensus and harmony?).... (Duryea, 1992, p. 13) Ideals are an actual hindrance to our understanding.... (Krishnamurti, 1953/81, p. 26) The interest in conflict education, specifically CCE and a 'conflict' pedagogy, in this thesis, is a reflection of the shift in 'camps' I have undergone in the past few years. I am no longer identified as a "peace educator." I prefer the term conflicts or ker to describe the research and practices I'm involved in currently. The pursuit and focus of an ideal like 'peace' is highly problematic both conceptually and as practice. Smith (1998) wrote, Perhaps the least analyzed aspect of the peace process in general is the term 'peace.' There is often an assumption in the wider debate that peace is an intrinsically virtuous condition. It is not. It is an exceptionally complex notion that cannot be reduced to the idea that it denotes a benign situation... Peace is a highly contestable political end-state. To put it another way, the peace process is, by its very nature, a politicized process.... Ultimately, the process is, like the conflict itself, a dispute about political ends. (p. 366) It is too unproblematic to use 'peace' as a focus in peace education, peacemaking, conflict resolution/management and CME generally. This 'peace and harmony' discourse, as I call it, is amplified in the context of common rhetoric amongst educators and organizations that promote a social life/global culture characterized as a "culture of nonviolence" (Barbara, 1996), "culture of peacefulness" (Bonta, 1996), "culture of peace" (UNESCO, cf. Breines, 1998), "peace culture" (Boulding, 1992; Nagler, 199944) and the UN declaration for 2001-2010 as "The Decade for a Culture of Peace and Nonviolence for the Children of the World.45" It is an ideal like the best 'apple pie,' and tends, therefore, to divert or exclude criticism and deconstruction of its own essentialist assumptions and bias (with the exception of Nagler's, 1999 critique). It is an 'apple pie' based on, and within, embedded conflict and politics, according to the conflict perspective and that of any CCE or 'conflict' pedagogy. This study takes a view of social life, for all humans, as embedded in a vast flow of 'rivers of conflict' that are toxified by millenial patriarchal histories (cf. Eisler, 1987) and memories of violence (i.e., the big 'isms' of social conflict). There is no escape, nor is violence likely to disappear in any forseeable future. CCE and 'conflict' pedagogy are not a pedagogy of "hope,"46 because, hope is so often despair in another 'dress' (cf. Trungpa, 1985). To fully understand 'conflict' as a social phenomenon (epistemologically speaking), we best go into it, sit in it, dance in it, learn to fight healthily in the 'fire' and 'heat.' rather than try to "cool it," change it, manage it, manipulate and control it, or "win" anything in it or from it--the latter which tend to try to move away from conflict, to some ideal goals of cooperation, 24 resolution, consensus, harmony and peace, and so on. No one likely really wants violence or social conflict as a "first choice"— but each of us likely will, under oppressive circumstances, follow a path of violence as a "forced choice" (a contradiction). These are some of the emerging assumptions behind a conflict perspective, CCE and 'conflict' pedagogy. The implication of this view, is to acknowledge a world and "culture" of violence, 'fear' and terror, as indicated by several astute observers. In contradistinction to consensus theory and a 'peace and harmony' CME discourse, CCE adopts a historical context of "systems of domination"47 and a sociocultural context of a "violent society" (Bodine and Crawford, 1998, p. 8), "culture of violence" (Brendtro and Long, 1995; Dill andHaberman, 1995, p. 69; Galtung, 1997; National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1993, p. 80; Olson, 1996, p. 75), "performative terror of the state" (Yeatman, 1994, p. 117), "culture of terrorism" (Chomsky, 1988), "terrorism and everyday life" (Lefebvre, 1990, p. 202), and an overall"... saturation of social space by fear"48 (Massumi, 1993, p. ix) and what has been called a "culture of fear" (Corradi et al., 1992; Fisher, 1998; Furedi, 1997; Massumi, 1993, p. ix). CCE, therefore, is a counterhegemonic discourse constructed in conflict theory (actually many theories of the conflict tradition, cf. Collins, 1994). The consensus-conflict debate (battle) of social knowledge and theory has a history of a few millenia (cf. Bernard, 1983), and ought not to be ignored in any discussion about 'conflict.' From a conflict theory perspective, and a "culture" of violence, conflict, fear and terror, is it not reasonable to assume that people would have a predominantly 'negative' association with conflict? Maybe, their 'negative' attitude toward conflict is intelligent in the context of lived experience in oppressive societies? Should educators of CME be attempting to change this attitude without changing the nature of the oppressive society which shapes our conflict practices? Are CME text and conflict practices part of the very violence, which they purport to be "managing" and eliminating through the promotion of'peace and harmony'? Should we 25 as educators, be concerned that the CME texts in this study are nearly completely absent of any mention that conflict theory (the conflict tradition) exists as an alternative (possibly better) way to understand conflict? CME text in this study have not questioned assumptions about the political nature and pedagogical impact of their own hegemonic ideological discourse. The CME dominating discourse and goal of creating "win-win"49 "safe learning environments" (e.g., Bareham and Clark, 1995; Lehr and Martin, 1994) and being "conflict positive" (e.g., Johnson and Johnson, 1995; Tjsvold, 1991) is problematized and challenged in this study. The social psychologist, Morton Deutsch has been a founding and popular theorist of much of the CME discourse in handbooks and training manuals. Deutsch's work has led to the strong influence of the "cooperative learning movement" in the field of schooling education and conflict resolution (Girard and Koch, 1996, pp. xxii-xxiii). Who is the theorist in CME to rally for "resistance" and an "uncooperative learning movement" when that is necessary? Collins (1994), the leading promoter of conflict sociology, summarized well the political conservativism in most social psychology (a la Deutsch and others), ... social psychology also had political resonances. American sociologists were liberal reformers, not radicals nor conservative cynics; they wished to see America as a land of equality and opportunity, and social psychology was conveniently focused on the individual and the small group [cognition, attitudes, behavior etc.], and thus, away from embarassing questions about the larger structure of stratification, wealth, and power [conflict], (p. 43) The "hidden" division in the field of CME comes clearer to the surface when the focus of pedagogy is symbolically directed to the popular book titled Educating for a Peaceful World (Deutsch, 1991)50 and not a book titled Educating for a Violent World (my preference). 26 Brief History And Some Critiques Of CME Some Historical And Current Roots/Routes Of CME The handling of right and wrong, known in sociology as social control or conflict management, occurs throughout the social universe, wherever people intermingle. It includes phenomena as diverse as litigation, violence, mediation, gossip, ostracism, psychotherapy, sorcery, sabotage, and suicide.... [and] covers everything from a glance of disapproval to the bombing of a city. (Black, 1998, p. xxiii). In Black's "sociology of conflict" and conflict management, the history of CME would be embedded in the history of "educative" (socializing) attempts to bring about social control.51 "In its most competitive and destructive form, conflict resolution equates with warfare [as social control].... The resolution of conflicting interests between nations by making war is a long-standing tradition"52 (Sweeney and Carruthers, 1996, p. 328). This would extend our analysis to the beginning of teaching and learning in social groups, long before the terms "conflict management," "mediation" or "justice" were used. Black's theory and a social history of conflict management/resolution is far beyond the scope of this study. The history of CME is restricted here to contemporary forms of Northwestern (and Australian) conflict management/ resolution that have been labeled as such. Tidwell (1998) reported that conflict resolution53 "... has its tradition in three different areas: organizational development and management science; international relations and the peace movement; and alternative dispute resolution" (p. 8). He acknowledged that there have been many other influences but these are the three "most consistent and powerful influences." The "... field of conflict resolution is divided.... where the division in the field comes through is found in the definition [conceptualization] of conflict (p. 17). Thus, depending on the conceptualizations of particular terms in this field, the intellectual debate (battles) tend to reflect"... the difficulty in knowing whose history of conflict resolution is being examined" (p. 9).54 27 Despite these problems of "divided" (conflictual) interpretations of "whose history," Tidwell (1998) reviews the three 'roots' beginning with the pioneer American organizational development leader, Mary Parker Follett, in the early 1920s, who emphasized "... the view that conflict had a positive place in organizations. Instead of trying to eradicate conflict from the workplace, she advocated using conflict positively" (p. 10). This was very influential in management sciences to follow. Blake and Mouton (1964), authors of The Managerial Grid, emphasized the problem-solving component, and typology of the different ways of dealing with conflict. In general, in the early part of the 20th century, management sciences developed important conceptual tools for analysing conflicts. Labour vs.management disputes played an important role in shaping common ways of conceptualizing and dealing with conflict. Tidwell (1998) wrote, Many of the processes of addressing conflict, such as mediation, arbitration and facilitation, grew in relation to their application to organizational needs. Mediation, for example, did not become commonly used in the USA until after the federal government brought mediation to the settlement of labour-management disputes. In fact, labour-management relations have played a major role in the evolution of methods for addressing conflict. Yet the usual discourse of labour-management relations has included little that aims at understanding conflict, but has focused on making conflict less costly and more efficient, (p. 12) "In the study of societal and structural sources of conflict the study of international relations has played a vital role. The UN Charter provides for the use of mediation and conciliation in the resolution of disputes" (Tidwell, 1998, p. 12). The League of Nations and the UN arose from the post World War devastation, and a search for new"... peaceful resolution of conflicts through dialogue, negotiation, and cooperation" (Sweeney and Carruthers, 1996, p. 329). "It was in the period after World War II and the start of the Vietnam War that interest in conflict resolution crystallized" (Hocking, 1996, p. 124). Tidwell 28 believes the UN has been a dismal failure on this front.55 Citing Burton (1986), Tidwell argued that the academic community, interested in conflict in the mid-20th century, was greatly divided between those who utilized a traditional "power view" (or structural social-political conflict perspective) and those who preferred a "behavioral view"56 (or internal psychological perspective, based on human needs and interests) (p. 12-13). Burton's approach, which was very influential in the field, was not focused on superficial quick-fix "negotiation" between parties, but more a search for better "explanation" and "analysis" (in terms of a social scientific investigation). Alongside the analytic work on conflict resolution, there was in the l960-70s a burgeoning social activism from religious and peace activist sectors of civil society. The Quakers and Mennonites are noted by Tidwell (1998): The Quakers' long-standing pacifism created the necessity to look for alternatives to conflict. Mennonites,57 in a similar vein... also sought the creation of alternatives... Kenneth Boulding, himself a Quaker, was a key participant in the early conflict resolution movement.... Anatol Rapoport, Herbert Kelman, Quincy Wright and others joined forces in the mid-1950s58.... In 1957 the Journal of Conflict Resolution (JCR) was first published.... Yet it is limited in its appeal by its continued perpetuation of its founder's [above] intentions to pursue a study of conflict through quantification (e.g., game theory). There are many who view this as antithetical to the effective study of conflict, (pp. 14-15) "The kinds of social values associated with ADR, the human potential movement, and the work of the Mennonites also supported the development of a peace culture" (Hocking, 1996, p. 133— cf. Stomfay-Stitz, 1993 for a review of "peace education" in America between 1828-199059). The divergence of spiritual and peace initiatives in social activism and the professionalization of conflict resolution, the latter, with the creation of a social scientific study (quantification approach in .ICR), is another division (battle) in this field, with 29 important methodological and ideological implications for "education" about conflict and how to best handle it In the mid-1970s, in Australia, and spreading rapidly in America, was the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) movement, which many believe grew out of the "... dissatisfaction with the methods used to administer justice and resolve community disputes" (Tidwell, 1998, p. 15).60 ADR is a legal reform movement with a long history in "informal justice" (cf. Pirie, 1998, p. 508).61 In America, "The end of the 1970s saw the establishment of neighborhood justice centers in at least six major cities. It is estimated that there are over four hundred of these centers today" (Girard and Koch, 1996, p. xxv). With the general trend to "community-based" justice, law reform, policing and so on, this number is now likely doubled. These centers teach CME in various forms, and have expanded their agendas, in some cases to that of creating "safety" and security62 in a climate of increasing crime, fear, and violence. Tidwell (1998) noted that in these community-based ADR contexts, Conflict resolution, for some, appears to offer alternatives to what seems an otherwise dangerous and threatening world.... [and the focus has been on] techniques or methods by which conflict can be handled.... [the scale of most of this conflict resolution is] individual actors, or a small collection of actors.... (p.l) It appears adults involved in the community conflict resolution education programs, like the Justice Institute of British Columbia, are primarily self-focused with "inner work" in their conflict practices, in order to apply skills in the context of their personal and family lives (cf. Hocking, 1996, p. 128). Investigation in adult education literature for this thesis, indicated that conflict resolution skills are constructed as "needed" by today's adults and should be part of workplace training (e.g., Gershwin et al., 1996; Marsick, 1998; Shmerling, 1996; Western Sydney Institute of TAFE, 1995). School-based CME, with its encompassing and varied goals and benefits,63 "... emerged out of the social justice concerns of the 1960s and 1970s" (Girard and Koch, 1996, p. xxv). 30 Although, a case could be made that progressivist educators in the early 20th century, calling for citizenship education models in classrooms, were interested in teaching problem-solving, critical thinking skills, encouraging informed dissent, and taking other's viewpoints while engaging in conflictual dialogue as essential to a pluralist democracy (e.g., Dewey, 193064). Tracing the origins and history of CME in schooling is a complex topic and beyond the scope of this study. In the past 30-40 years in America there are some historical highlights worth mentioning. While some groups, such as the Quakers, had long supported the teaching of problem solving and peacemaking to young children, a broad spectrum of religious and peace activists adopted this cause in the mid to late 1970s, and teachers began incorporating dispute resolution instruction into their curricula. In the early 1980s, Educators for Social Responsibility organized a national assocation that took as its central question the examination of how students could best learn alternative ways to deal with conflict. The Children's Creative Response to Conflict, the Community Boards Program, and the Peace Education Foundation led the development of the field of conflict resolution with their efforts in elementary schools. Another concurrent development was the inclusion of law-related education in the social studies curriculum. Through this new curriculum component, students took on larger roles in instruction and classroom governance and gained a better understanding of dispute resolution mechanisms in our society. The growth of conflict resolution instruction and programs in the schools and the expansion of mediation and other alternative dispute resolution services in other sectors led to a joint meeting of educators and mediators in 1984 to consider how best to lay a foundation for teaching conflict resolution skills in the schools. A network and clearinghouse for information and training, the National Association for Mediation in Education (NAME) [now is called the National Institute for Dispute Resolution 31 (NIDR)], was formed and has been active ever since. In 1984, approximately fifty school-based conflict resolution programs existed.... Eleven years later, NAME and NIDR estimate that there are well over five thousand. (Girard and Koch, 1996, p. xxv). [Bodine and Crawford (1998), and NIDR estimate this has grown to over 8500; and since the outbreaks of mass rage murders led by students in schools in early 1.999, this number has likely grown substantially] Some Germane Critiques Of CME A systematic review of all the literature falling under the umbrella of CME is far beyond the scope of this study. However, it is reasonable to assume from reports of writers in this field (e.g., Lederach, 1995; Pirie,65 1998; Tidwell, 1998) and outside of this field (e.g., Delattre, 1991), that there are virtually no substantial and systematic critiques of CME (Tidwell, 1998 is somewhat of an exception but his writing has little focus on "education"). No systematic critiques of CME's use of'conflict' as a concept itself, were found. The exaggerative and evangelical tone of the promoters of CME (especially in school-based programs) has been critiqued directly by Delattre (1991), McEwan (1986) and Tidwell (1998). NIDR, one of the most powerful corporate-backed66 non-profit advocacy groups in the U.S.A., linked their universal conflict resolution programs with both the global reform67 of society and the very defining of what it means to be "human." Their CME training manual concluded, ... [we] who learn about conflict resolution through pre-service and in-service programs will be able to introduce improved problem-solving skills at every level of our nation's schools. In doing so, they will lay the foundation for a society of highly skilled peacemakers and a new century that embraces the values and behaviors that most rightly mark us as human.... (Girard and Koch, 1996, p. xix) The evangelical tone of these C M E advocates has gone further to suggest that conflict resolution (skills) and "education" are the "Fourth R" (e.g., Benenson, 1995; Davis and Porter, 1984 cited in Webster, 1991, p. 113). The Hon. Preston Manning,68 leader of the Opposition (Reform Party) in Canada, has his own version of the final "cure" for conflicts that have transcended the "normal democratic methods." Gould (1997) reports that Manning's 100 page document69 has 22 pages of Biblical references, where he attempts to use Christ's crucifixion as a universal model for conflict resolution (Figure 4). Dr. Andrew Pirie, law professor and former Director of the University of Victoria Institute of Dispute Resolution, skeptically wrote, You can imagine what the discourse looks like in law as the legal profession tries to situate itself as the leader in ADR. The best for me was an article in a lawyer mag calling ADR 'The Second Coming of Litigation'! (personal communication, July 14, 1999) (underline added for emphasis). Tidwell (1998), tike Burton (1988) has stated that conflict resolution is not "value neutral" but rather is based in politics with histories. The history of conflict resolution, at least in America, has shown the good intentions of various interest groups, is embedded in mostly white middle class values and interests. They usually write the CME training manuals and handbooks. This has led to the most systematic and strongest critique in CME in recent years with the challenge to the ethnic and racial bias in conflict resolution practices (e.g., Lederach's work cited in Duryea, 1992). Duryea (1992), Tidwell (1998), Lebaron et al. (1998), Pirie (1998), Salem (1993) and Rupesinghe (1996) among others have critiqued CME in various ways that commonly assert that a greater cultural-sensitivity is required to conflict resolution/management practices. Although, none of these "cultural" critiques of CME discussed the implications of cultural differences (or class or race differences etc.) and how they may directly impact the educational process of learning and teaching (i.e., pedagogy) about conflict and conflict resolution. The main focus of CME literature invariably is on the 32A Figure 4 Preston Manning And The "Fourth 'R' Project" "The Fourth 'R' Project" is the title which seems most appropriate for this image/ discourse, which has multiple layers and metaphors of meanings. Without drawing these out here, what seems valuable is to make the circumstantial, if not inevitable, link between the "R' symbol in the image with the social movement of ADR and the booming reform "industry" of conflict resolution training programs in N.A. public school systems. Some significant leaders of this new social movement (see Chapter One ) are calling conflict resolution the "Fourth 'R'" in education (e.g., Benenson, 1995; Davis and Porter, 1984). (from: Gould, 1997) conflict resolution processes and techniques of intervention, at the expense of direct pedagogical self-critique.70 Lederach (1995),"... one of America's leading scholars of conflict resolution" (Solomon, 1997, p. xi), has called for CME trainers and facilitators to begin to move beyond their own narrow circular feedback loop of "technical" dominated pedagogy.71 Writing from within conflict transformation (and Mennonite mediation experience), Lederach connected this technicism with managerialism when he wrote, Some years ago, conflict 'management' entered... heavily Western in conception, management pointed toward the idea that conflict follows certain predictable patterns and dynamics that could be understood and regulated.... But experience tells us we do not really control human action and interactions, nor is the object of our work to simply reduce volatility. Thus 'management' only partially depicts the goal and work of mediators. Transformation suggests we do not eliminate or control, but we do impact the path of conflict. (Lederach, 1989, pp. 51-52) Salem (1993) critiqued the "hidden assumptions" behind Western conflict resolution and its "utilitarianism," which Pirie (1998) continues in his criticism of ADR which locates much of CME as an ideological"... new hegemony of social control..." (p. 514), with a "... preoccupation with consensus." (p. 541), or what Nader (1983) called a "harmony ideology" (cited in Pirie, 1998, p. 514). Olson's (1996) pride in conflict resolution as a "social technology of peace" is criticized here as an overly rationalistic, positivist and technicist model of dealing with people and education processes via managerialism72— and the goal to create social "harmony" at all costs. What privileged individual(s) group(s) 'in power' does that hegemonic discourse benefit? Concurrent with the "cultural" diversity critique of CME, was an emerging methodological critique. One of the earliest signs of this came from Duryea (1992) in 34 describing the general criticism coining out of the Interdisciplinary Seminar on Culture and Disputing at the University of Hawaii in 1.987. She wrote, ... [participants] were very critical of the positivist orientation toward dispute resolution found in the U.S. They favored instead a naturalistic paradigm of inquiry.73 The naturalistic perspective views dispute as embedded in a 'longer story that is anchored in a rich and specific history and culture' (p. 57) (citation is from Milner and Shook, 1987, p. 32). Milner and Shook (1987) noted the tendency in social sciences, and its often dominating positivism, to create exploitative relationships in both studying and practicing dispute resolution. This methodological critique became part of the "cultural" critique (above) which Milner and Shook recommended be accompanied by "... consideration of fundamental epistemological questions." (p. 37). Delattre's (1991) critique echoed this same concern, from his political philosophical view of the conflict resolution/management field. Pirie (1998) challenged ADR's assumptions in terms of power/knowledge and a Foucauldian critique, similar to this thesis. He argued the informal ADR movement is arguably, a "mask" for state power, and the more subtle styles of social control that the state welcomes. He wrote of ADR's political hidden agenda, This new hegemony of social control reflects Foucault's philosophy of power. Power is located in socio-legal concepts and understandings rather than primarily in official punishment or simple brute force. However, the intimate relationship between ADR and social control should not be surprising. The rise of ADR often is equated nostalgically with the demise of traditional sources of authority and control such as churches, schools, and the family.... If ADR strengthens the state's monopoly on social control, it would not be unusual to find 'insiders' or elite professionals in formal legal institutions [and schools, or corporate institutions] busy in the movement toward informalism. (pp. 514-515) 35 Utilizing a Weberian (conflict perspective) sociological analysis of the relationship between law and capitalism, Pirie further argued that ADR has moved to making conflict individualized and privatized "By de-emphasizing legal rights and emphasizing [individualistic] party interests and needs, ADR depoliticizes law."74 He believed that ADR "... reframing disputes from rights-oriented problems to interpersonal or psychologically based problems, may reproduce societal differences in power and privilege... Who are the people who want better justice through informality rather than the authority of the state to enforce their rights?" (p. 517). In a somewhat similar Foucauldian view, Thomas Popkewitz, who studied school reform as social power/knowledge dynamics, wrote, "T have always been perplexed with the peace education [CME] literature that turns to psychologizing the problem of war/peace..." (personal communications, December 6, 1999). And the conflict sociologist, Randall Collins, a left neo-Weberian, critiqued the "sociological weakness" of the "pragmatist liberal reformers" who tend to "regard conflict as arising from misunderstanding among individuals." The general ignoring of economic class and power positions in social conflict, leads Collins to conclude that CME generally, ... stays with the immediate situation and its psychological dimensions, and does not look for the deeper structural background of inequalities and organizational structures. That is why the 'conflict tradition' in sociological theory and research seems to operate on a different level of analysis than the literature of conflict resolution. It seems to me that a more realistic conflict pedagogy could be built if it incorporated more of these structural concerns, (personal communication, July 31, 1999). (underline added for emphasis) Mindell (1995) summed up what the above authors have implied, that is, "Western thought is biased toward peace and harmony. That's why many non-mainstream [oppressed] groups consider the very idea of'conflict resolution' a mainstream fabrication." (pp. 36-37). 36 Salem (1993), an Arab professor of Political Studies at the American University of Beirut, critiqued the "triumphant West" and its over virtuous thinking about "peace" and its underestimation of the "virtues of battle." He argued that one hidden assumption of Western conflict resolution is based in "Utilitarianism and the comfort culture of the 20th century," which "... relies heavily on the assumption that pain is bad and pleasure, or comfort, is good." (p. 364). Perhaps, this managerialism, if not colonialism, of Western CME, is depicted best in an image from an American educational journal that had a special issue on conflict resolution in schools. Figure 5 shows how this movement has constructed a new youth identity formation, called "conflict managers." Problem Summary And Purposes Of The Study The main purpose of this study is to develop critical conflict knowledge and educational praxis which examines our biased conceptualizations of'conflict;' and how such biases may influence the perpetuation of the DFCV cycle. This study is therefore a contribution toward expanding the current conflict imaginary. The specific problem and purposes of this study are embedded in the thesis that there is a general uncritical utilization of CME knowledge and inadequate challenging of the ideological discourses and assumptions behind CME teaching, training, programs and research in the Northwestern world (including Australia). This study therefore, attempts to show this is a problem. With regard to the foregoing, the problems of this study are: (1) to identity the dominant and sub-dominant discourses on conflict in a "representative" sample of conflict management education (CME) handbooks and training manuals for youth and adults, (2) to problematize those dominant discourses as hegemony and critically analyze their sources, meanings and implications within, historical, cultural and sociopolitical contexts. gure 5 Constructing images o f " C O N F L I C T M A N A G E R S " C > m T e n c P h o t o g r a p h y (from: Johnson & Johnson, 1995, p. 63) This image comes out o f an issue of Educational Leadership (a professional Amer ican periodical) that presented an entire issue on conflict resolution and violence in schools. There were many photos o f individuals involved. This particular image stood out and could provide a multi-layered, multiple interpretation o f messages constructing the idea o f conflict management (i.e., peer mediation) and o f conflict managers (peer mediators). These black young woman are uniformed in a white shirt, both conforming well to the viewer/photographer/gaze of a periodical that is predom-inantly fil led with articles from white F.urocentric males. The article itself was written by two (presumably) white male researchers, who specialize in conflict resolution/management programs (cooperative education) with a "conflict positive" orientation Any black feminist theorist, or woman, or critical theorist would deconstruct the racist colonial imagery presented. The control o f a minority group, such as black woman youth ( 3 X oppressed via race, gender and age) by the conformist attire and stance, gives the reader the impression o f the politics so easily hidden m the curriculum of C M H . 3 7 Two longterm, general purposes of this study are: (3 ) to develop a rationale for inclusion of the study of'conflict' and CME as part of a critical sociocultural topic within adult education and schooling education— especially to create and encourage a critical dialogic exchange and cross-fertilization of ideas between CME and critical (conflict) traditions/pedagogy in regard to 'conflict' and how best to deal with it, (4) to direct attention toward further research in developing a 'conflict' epistemology as the foundation of a critical conflict education (CCE), and 'conflict' pedagogy, which reflects an emerging neo-conflict theory that informs conflictwork for living in a violent world. The latter two purposes are discussed in Chapter Four, with several recommendations for future studies. Alongside this specific analysis of conceptualizations of'conflict' in the above, a longterm study of critical pedagogy and critical adult education literature was taking place under a guiding question of how do criticalists' theorize conflict in relation to teaching and learning? As well, a review of the major critiques of CME was undertaken. These two initiatives occurred before the specific analysis of CME, and therefore influenced the thinking that went into the design of the CME text analysis. There were deductive and inductive processes applied to this study and this allowed for an evolving "design" to data collection and interpretation frameworks (cf. Chapter Two for details). The criticalist view of educational writing placed a biased viewpoint on the study, in which no attempt was made to take the CME data as "value-neutral" or "apolitical," or even potentially so. And no attempt was made to interpret the CME data descriptively alone, thus a large normative aspect is included in this thesis. CME is continually put under challenge as a political hegemonic discourse, which is contradicted by an emerging counter-hegemonic CCE discourse in the development of a 'conflict' pedagogy. 38 Summaries Of Thesis Chapters Chapter One introduced concepts of education, conflict and violence as they are utilized in this thesis within a conflict perspective and a "culture of violence." Guiding questions were articulated with the study's rationale from personal experiences. Rationale is explicated for why 'conflict' and discourses of conflict are important. The nature of the study is outlined with discussions of key definitions, problem summary, purposes and methodology of the study. The "division" and conflict about conflict knowledge is emphasized in studying peace-focused writing vs. conflict-focused writing and a brief history and summary of germane critiques of conflict management education (CME) concluded this introductory chapter. Chapter Two details the methodology of the study, describing and locating the kind of research undertaken with basic assumptions. Design rationale and a critical discourse analysis are explained with a review of Foucault's poststructuralist analysis as a valuable tool for applying to conceptualizations of'conflict' in 22 CME training manuals and handbooks for youth and adults. The chapter ends with a review of the developing 'conflict' epistemology as a basis for the emerging 'conflict' pedagogy and critical conflict education (CCE) proposed in this thesis. Chapter Three introduces the reader to understanding conflict and the conflict-violence connection and the various themes of discourse that showed up in the CME text surveyed. The CME text data is then interpreted from several perspectives, including a sociological conflict perspective, an interdisciplinary/ comparative analysis and a Foucauldian analysis. Chapter Four is designed to further interpret the results of this study and place them in the context of an emerging 'conflict' pedagogy. Results are interpreted which indicate a biased hegemony of CME discourse that is explainable, to some degree, within the ideological and historical dimensions of CME as a new social movement. The results indicate that a systematic critique of CME, in general, is required. Reflections on the study are offered and recommendations for future research explicated. 39 1 This term is used by several authors, to follow in Chapter One. Throughout this thesis, I use "culture" in a Bourdieuian sense, as Grenfell and James (1998) defined it: "... the world of knowledge, ideas, objects which are the products of human activity. Education is part of culture...". (p. 10). Like Bourdieu, McLaren (1988) conceptualizes culture as a symbolic economy of knowledges and images which circulate to create stratification (and oppression— i.e., domination-subordinate relations and the violence and social conflict associated with that) in societies. McLaren (1988) defines culture as "... a field of struggle in which the production, legitimation, and circulation ofparticular forms of knowledge and experience are central areas of conflict." (p. 171). See also Bourdieu and Passeron (1977). With this term "culture of violence" I do not mean that all of the culture, in any case, is reducible to only violence. 2 Theory is used at this point in a loose sense, as 'a view or perspective' (theoria L) . See Collins (1994) and Turner (1986) for a sociological summary of the conflict theory tradition and how the critical theory of Marx and neo-Marxism (a la Habermas and the Frankfurt School, which Giroux and many other critical pedagogues rely on) are seen as part of conflict theory. Gouldner (1971), Lyotard (1984, p. 11) and Chambliss (1973, p. 2) note that two great currents/traditions have influenced sociological thinking and what Lyotard called "basic representational models of society." Collins (1992) further defined conflict theory as, "... theory [which] explains social structure and changes in it by arguing that actors pursue their interests in conflict with others [more so than by cooperation and consensus as found in the functionalist or consensus theory of which is the other contrasting, if not contradicting, representational model of society] and according to their resources for social organization. Conflict theory builds upon Marxist analysis of class conflicts, but it is detached from any ideological commitment to socialism." (p. 288). And Smelser (1988) adds, that the conflict perspective is found "... stressing domination, oppression, and conflict as the central organizing basis of explanation in social life." (p. 11). And Collins (1994) clarified, "Its main argument is not simply that society consists of conflict, but the larger claim that what occurs when conflict is not openly taking place is a process of domination.... The conflict vision of society is rarely popular. Conflict sociologists have usually been an intellectual underground. Prevailing vieM's [functionalism/consensus theory] have usually stressed a much more benign picture, whether based on beliefs in religious beings underpinning the social world, or on secular beliefs in the goodness of one's rulers and the charitable intentions of established elites. To conflict sociologists, these kinds of justifications are ideologies cloaking real self-interests of groups hiding beneath them. To point this out, obviously, does not usually make one very welcome in mainstream society." (pp. 47-48). See further details in Appendix II. 3 McLaren (1989) wrote about critical pedagogy and the questions critical educators ask when analyzing life in school cultures [could include adult work cultures/organizations etc.]. He noted their focus on "status and class positions" (i.e., power relations) (cf. Collins, 1975, 1985, 1994, as a conflict sociological analysis and the conflict tradition which takes a generally similar focus) and how schools may well support oppressive dominant-subordinate relations of "social reproduction." He wrote, "... the conflict or resistance theorists [critical or radical educators], such as Giroux and Paul Willis.... [pay attention to school culture] and the role of conflict and contradiction within the reproductive process itself." (p. 187). "Critical adult education [which I would generally locate this study, critique, and myself as a worker with adults] positions itself in society as a cultural practice and depicts its practitioners as'cultural workers'(Westwood, 1980, p. 44)." (Plumb, 1995, p. 157). 4 Feminist critics of militarism (e.g., cf. Walker, 1983, pp. 1062-63) would argue these homicide (killing) statistics for youth (especially males) are skewed and underestimated— that is, in light of the numbers of youth who are sacrificed (in nationalistic infanticide) as soldiers and civilians in war zones. 5 Confliclwork, a term borrowed from Mindell (1995), is an attempt to move conflict practices beyond conceptualizations within heavily biased terms like "conflict resolution," "conflict regulation," "conflict management," or "conflict transformation." This is a complex topic, beyond the scope of this thesis. But it is important to note that a sritical theoretical position is taken in conflictwork, but with an equally strong theoretical position taken in regard to the conflict that being critical brings up in people. My interest is to begin formation of a notion of a "new" role— conflictworkers— for educators (and others) similar to Giroux's (1992) "cultural workers," Edwards's (1997, p. 156) "reflexive worker," or Agger's (1992) "literary workers." Conflictworker is a critical role that challenges the current fashionable notions of the "knowledge worker" (Pinchot and Pinchot, 40 1994; Victoria Training Board, 1998) and the "knowlege era," (Marsick, 1998) or "knowledge society" (Diaz et al., 1995), which are images and identities being constructed largely without any regard of a conflict theory' perspective— a critique similarly applicable to notions of "lifelong learners" and a "learning society" (e.g., Boshier, 1980; Faure et al., 1972; Husen, 1986). The conflictworker would also be informed by important conceptions of Gramsci's (1971) "organic intellectual," McLaren's et al. (1998) "committed intellectual," Giroux's (1994) "border intellectual," Said's (1996, p. 110) "amateur intellectual," (cited in McLaren et al., 1998, pp. 83-4), Giroux's (1988) "transformative intellectual," and "pedagogue as warrior," (cf. Regnier, 1995) or Purpel's (1989) notion of "pedagogue as prophet" (cited in Regnier, 1995). This term, conflict practices, was created to embrace all conscious actitivites and thinking that are directed at dealing with conflict and violence in some way. Of course, there are many conflict practices that could be habitual and unconscious, and in the text these will be referred to as distinct from conflict practices that are conscious 7 The notions of inlrapersonal conflicts and interpersonal conflicts are not focused on in this thesis because of their tendency to conceptualize conflict apolitically. Burgess and Burgess (1996) utilize the umbrella term communal conflicts to capture, somewhat, the nature of my interest in conceptualizing conflict. They offered the definition that [communal conflicts] "... are conflicts between ethnic, religious, linguistic or regional groups, either within or across nation-stale boundaries. Typically, the conflicts focus on one or all groups' desire for cultural, religious, ethnic, or national self-determ-ination and security.... [these] have become especially prominent since the end of the Cold War.... most communal conflicts were suppressed or hidden under the overarching superpower standoff... Communal conflicts seem to be among the most difficult to resolve or even manage. Conflict resolution specialists do not agree on how best to manage such conflicts, (p.65). To add to this definition, and bring it in line with the use of social conflict, Coser's (1968) definition is utilized in general. "Social conflict may be defined as a struggle over values or claims to status, power, and scarce resources, in which the aims of the conflicting parties are not only to gain the desired values but also to neutralize, injure, or eliminate their rivals.... Intergroup as well as intragroup conflicts are perennial features of social life." (p. 232). Therefore, my assumption is that social conflict is any conflict between two or more individuals, no matter what the stated "conflicting interests" may be. It is impossible, in my view, to extract interpersonal conflicts from their embeddness in social and communal conflicts (the big 'isms'). When any such reductionism is attempted, and this is common in "interest-based" approaches (e.g.. Fisher and Ury, 1983) to conflict resolution, mediation and negotiation etc., it is violent itself because individuals are group actors, group mediators and social constructors at all times. We are sociocultural, historical and political beings, not merely reducible to our minds or behaviors as an individual body or psyche. 8 These concepts are pursued in-depth in Popkewitz and Brennan (1997) and Popkewitz (1991, 1997) who take a Foucauldian (after Michel Foucault) post-structuralist approach. See discussion of Popkewitz's "social epistemology" in Chapter Two. 9 For the purposes of this study, "violence" is used generically to refer to unwanted coercion of all kinds— that is, hurting. This includes overt acts of physical harm, as well as psychological, emotional and financial abuse— "... a chosen action against a chosen victim" (Franssen et al., 1998); to oppression and toxification of all life forms and planetary ecosystems via anthropocentrism; to racism, sexism, classism (and many other forms); to the more subtle forms of "ideological violent conflicts" (Graff, 1992, p. 169), and "intellectual violence" (Miller et al., 1998, p. 393) from "paradigm wars" (Gage, 1989) and "symbolic violence" (Bourdieu, 1979) to the "violence of abstraction" (Sayer, 1987) "... when we begin forcing the world to fit our truth [theories]...". (Plumb, 1995, p. 171); to the seemingly evanescent spiritual abuse, yet insidious "spiritual dualism" of consciousness which "... does violence to the very universe it seeks to understand." (Wilber, 1977/82, p. 45)— otherwise known in secular philosophical traditions as "misplaced concreteness" (a la Whitehead) or the fallacy of "reification." All interconnected, these forms are embraced in the "'fear' pattern virus" metaphor (Fisher, 1995, 1997, 1998) and the metaphor of a vast network of toxifying "violence in rivers of conflict." '° World problematique is defined here as "... the interrelated tangle of global economic, environmental, political and social problems...". (Boshier, 1996, p. 3). Today, the concept of "globalization" is intimately related to this problematique. ' 1 Black is not well-known in education or sociology circles, at least in Canada, from what I can tell from casual inquiries among academics I know. Apparently, in the 1980s Donald Black was Assistant Director of The Center for Criminal Justice at Harvard Law School. He is currently professor of sociology at the University of Virginia. The major conflict sociologist in North America working "mainly on violent conflict now," Randall Collins, only 41 briefly mentions Black's work in his book (Collins, 1994). In personal correspondence, Collins identified Black's work on conflict and violence with high regard: "Another analytical work of great importance as a synthetic theory of conflict (if not especially micro) is Donald Black, The Social Structure of Right and Wrong...". (Randall Collins, personal communications, March 17, 1999). Black talks about social space and ageometry of "conflict structures." This is quite complex but Black (1998) is a good place to start. His main model involves predicting conflict (violence) through a five dimensional geometry of analyzing social spaces. He is not interested in studying individuals but how individuals (and groups) respond and behave in conflict depending on the dynamic characteristics identifiable ithin his geometrical analysis of social space (social life). Environmental-geographer types and perhaps some "postmodernist" thinkers, would likely be attracted to Black's theories, as they are a strong attempt to show the moral aspect of conflict and violence without being a moralistic analysis. 1 J As a formal convention, the (') marks on this term (also on 'peace') indicate that the definitions, conceptualizations and meanings of'conflict' are being deconstructed in this research. Therefore, no preconceived dictionary, encyclopedia, normal, or common meanings of this term are regarded as privileged in accuracy over any others at this time. When the term is used without the (') marks, this refers to the overall everyday use of the word in the dominant culture(s) (i.e., primarily white Eurocentric). This deconstructive attitude toward 'conflict' is an epistemological strategy to attempt to open up new spaces and possibilities for improving our understanding of 'conflict' as a concept and social phenomenon. It is assumed that a historically predominant way of seeing, imagining and constructing the meaning of'conflict is a significant part of the problem of increasing violence (i.e., the domination-fear-conflict-violence (DFCV) cycle). Black (1998), in his radical "sociology of conflict," has challenged current Western conceptualizations of conflict as mostly inaccurate and misleading. He has called for a renewed view of conflict and a new discipline of "pure sociology" to study conflict systematically. Black's work deserves future examination as part of the theoretical framework for an emerging 'conflict' pedagogy (and neo-conflict theory) which is proposed in this thesis. See later in Chapter One for a brief discussion in reference to Black et al. 1 4 Doubt and the deconstructive attitude (a la Lyotard, Derrida, Lacan, etc.) toward 'conflict' in this thesis are consistent with a postmodernist attitude (cf. Burbules, 1995). Although, the term postmodernist or postmodern are highly problematic and varied, I concur with Harvey's (1989) general assessment of the attitude or approach that these concepts (and times) bring to social science research and knowledge production. Harvey cited Terry Eagleton, "Post-modernism signals the death of such 'metanarratives' [such as modernisms 18th century ideas of a universal, rational, shared cultural view point on progress, equality, peace, goodness, development, liberation, justice, success etc.] whose secretly terroristic function was to ground and legitimate the illusion of a 'universal' human history. We are now in the process of wakening from the nightmare of modernity, with its manipulative reason and fetish of the totality, into the laid-back pluralism of the post-modern, that heterogeneous range of life-styles and language games which has renounced the nostalgic urge to totalize and legitimate itself... Science and philosophy must jettison their grandiose metaphysical claims and view themselves more modestly as just another set of narratives, (cited in Harvey, 1989, p. 9). And Lemert (1997) continues, "... postmodernism is a culture that believes there is a better world than the modern one.... Postmodern is a culture that prefers to break things up, to respect the several parts of social world [local situations]. When it speaks of culture it prefers lo speak of cultures." (p. 22). This is somewhat consistent with a general post-structuralist approach of analysis a la Foucault (cf. Chapter Two). Some critics will immediately attack the 'conflict' pedagogy notion proposed in this thesis as sounding universalist (if not modernist). For theoretical purposes, in the early part of this development, this universal quality of a 'conflict' pedagogy is required, I believe, to later be taken by others from various identity-formations, marginalized groups, and a varied assortment of locales— all of whom are most welcome to take 'conflict' pedagogy and apply it to their unique interests and situations. I am not a postmodernist, nor am I advocating such a position in its entirety. It also has a "shadow" and destructive pathological-side (tendency to extreme relativism and nihilism), like modernity. I prefer Lemert's (1997) classification of "radical modernism," "radical postmodernism," and "strategic postmodernism." This study is embedded in radical modernism and strategic postmodernism (like Agger, Wexler, McLaren, Giroux and others). However, the "ism" classification is not one I prefer to use period. I reserve "isms" as a labeling for when a healthy movement (e.g., postmodernity) turns to pathological ideology (e.g., postmodernism). 1 5 Hall (1996) gives a sense of the culturalist/postmodernist approach to analytical strategy used in this study of 'conflict.' He wrote, "Unlike those forms of critique which aim to supplant inadequate concepts with 'truer' ones. 42 or M'hich aspire lo the production of positive knowledge, the deconstruct ive approach puts key concepts 'under erasure.' This indicates that they are no longer serviceable— 'good lo think with'— in their originary and unreconstructed form. Bui since they have nol been superseded dialeclically, and there are no other, entirely different concepts with which to replace them, there is nothing to do but to continue to think with them— albeit now in their delotalized or deconstructed forms, and no longer operating within the paradigm in which they were originally generated (cf. Hall, 1995)." (p. 1). 1 6 George Mason University is one of the older, highly recognized conflict analysis educational programs in America. See http: /Avww.gmu.edu/departments/lCAR/ICAR_philosophy.html 1 7 According to Tidwell (1998), Deutsch is an American social psychologist "... who has made significant contributions lo the study of conflict resolution. Central lo his work has been the issue 'not [of] how to eliminate or prevent conflict but rather how to make it productive' (Deutsch, 1973, p. 17). (p. 67).... Deutsch may be credited with making the strongest link in conflict resolution Iheoiy between the understanding of conflict and its resolution [compared to Simmel, Coser or Lewin]." (p. 69). * 8 The term conflict theorist (or conflict theory) is very controversial. Much of the literature does not distinguish between theorists who write and research about conflict and conflict resolution (e.g., Follett, Deutsch), and the traditional sociological conflict theorists, like Marx, Hegel, Simmel, Coser, Dahrendorf etc. Dahrendorf (1959) is credited with initiating the term "conflict theory" (Johnson, 1995, p. 52) and the conceptualization of "power conflict"— as the conflict theorists in sociology (cf. Collins, 1994) are most interested in classism, and other forms of big 'isms' as part of conceptualizing conflict. Dahrendorf "... argued that conflict centers primarily on power, on the division between those who control others and those who are controlled." (Johnson, 1995, p. 52). This contrasts with Follett, Deutsch, Tjsvold, Johnson and Johnson and the like, who do not centralize their thinking on notions of power and oppression within larger social structural and cultural dimensions. I believe "conflict theory" and "conflict theorists" are terms that ought to be reserved for their meaning within the conflict tradition of social theory (cf. Bernard, 1983) and sociology. For theorists who study and write about conflict, the terms "theory of conflict" or "theorists of conflict" are more accurate and respectful of the analytical, philosophical and political distinction in the two 'camps.' From this point forward, these distinctions are upheld in this thesis. ' 9 Fisher and Ury (1983), in their popular books, of which Gelling to Yes, has been most influential in influencing the field of conflict resolution and ADR (alternative dispute resolution) (Tidwell, 1998, p. 8). These authors from Harvard Law School, do not attempt to even define conflict in their Getting lo Yes, book. They do, as professionals working with negotiation and conflict resolution, seem to prefer a conception that "... conflict is a growth industry." (p. xi). I have grave concerns about conflict becoming a commodity for business capitalists. Tidwell (1998) noted the theories of conflict are usually divided into three groups: interpersonal, group, and social (e.g., Kriesberg, 1982)— but he preferred, a schema of theories "... into those which are largely functional-- holding that conflict serves a social function; those that view it as situational— finding expression under certain situations; and those who hold it to be largely interactive." (p. 32). It ought to be evident, that this thesis study is not interested in all the different typologies of theories of conflict, or types of conflicts. This is because they are operationalized in these literatures to such a degree, that the focus of the operationalization is determined toward resolving and managing conflict(s)— and 'conflict' itself is virtually ignored. This ought to come more clearly out, with more analysis, in the rest of this thesis. 2 1 Conflict- describes a long-running, deep-rooted battle, which is difficult, if not impossible to resolve in some cases. Dispute- describes a short-term and more easily negotiable situation (Burgess and Burgess, 1997, p. viii). These are problematic and ambiguous distinctions conceptually, and in lived reality. They are terms not always consistently distinguished in the various literatures surveyed in this study. My complaint, is that both terms are still focusing on "conflicts" and not on 'conflict' itself. 2 2 Transdisciplinary is distinguished from mullidisciplinary and interdisciplinary (cf. Bailey, 1984; Romey, 1975). Aperspectival mind (or "vision logic," as Wilber, 1995 calls it, is from Jean Geber's work— cf. Karpiak, 1997 also, as she applies this to adult and continuing education) is a form of consciousness or awareness that is developmentally capable of going beyond merely 'taking multiple points of view' in a rational manner. Wilber (1995) wrote, "... rationality can indeed take different perspectives, as we saw. Bui vision-logic, or the integral-aperspeclival mind, adds up all the perspectives tout ensemble, and therefore privileges no perspective as final: il is aperspectival.... in other words, is holonic thorugh and through: contexts within contexts within contexts forever." (p. 187). Transdisciplinary, in simple terms, is deconstructive/reconstructive, where bringing the multiple perspectives together is part of an intention to outstrip their limitations, transcend them, and move 43 toward transform.ng the very way of seeing- transform the very methodologies themselves- transforming habitual and d.sciphnary ways of seeing- creating "new" ways of seeing (new consciousness, awareness) I would argue that this study is transdisciplinary because it is difficult to situate within any discipline, and it is creating and transforming disciplinary knowledges continually with "new" inventive concepts and means of knowing 'conflict' itself. Because this approach is preferred and attempted here, does not necessarily mean that this was successful or this thesis is exemplar of the best way of taking this approach See Crittenden (1997) for a good review of this unique and potentially powerful (largely unknown) epistemological methodology. This is a theory that goes beyond and avoids the pitfalls of eclecticism. 2 4 The 'Conflict' Pedagogy sphere is overly exaggerated in size. It would be relatively much smaller. But logistically, in order to read the words inside the sphere it had to be made larger. "Power as a form of cultural domination has been captured in Gramsci's (1971) concept of ideological hegemony, a concept that helps to reassert the centrality of the interconnection among politics, culture, and pedagogy.... The implications of this concept for teachers become clear if the notion of culture as ideological hegemony is qualified. Hegemony does not simply refer to the content found, for instance, in the formal curriculum of schools [or disciplinary knowledges]. It is that and much more; il also refers to the way such knowledge, is structured. In addition, it refers to the routines and practices embedded in different social relationships...". (Giroux, 1983, pp. 196-197). See similarities with discourse (a la Foucault) and discussion of "Relation Of Discourse And Ideology" in Chapter Two. 2 6 Foucault (1980a) links this to power and production of truth and wealth. He wrote, "Power never ceases its interrogation, its inquisition, its registration of truth: il institutionalises, professionalises and rewards its pursuit. In the last analysis, we must produce truth as we must produce wealth [capital], indeed we must produce (ruth in order to produce wealth in the first place." (p. 93). 2 7 This is a highly problematic term, in light of the growing critiques of "literacy" generally. However, in the future this may prove to be useful as part of critique of CME discourse. I only found this term used once in the literature reviewed- that is, in Wenden (1994). 28 - • I am using this term as Welton (1993) articulated it: "In contemporary social theory the term 'new social movements' has gained 'wide currency' (Cohen, 1985, p. 663), and it is standard practice to identify peace, feminist, ecological, and local and personal autonomy movements as exemplars.... Any collective actor or social movement, must have a clear self-image or identity (collective identity), know decisively who they are against (an antagonistic relation to an opposed group), and struggle for the control of the development of the sociocultural lifeworld...". (p. 153) (also cf. Newman, 1995). I am most interested in this link between CME and new social movements because of the link of "soft" reform and revolutionary change (in new social movements) with pedagogical interests in these conflict sites of learning and teaching (cf. Finger, 1989; Holford, 1995; Welton, 1993). Some writers in CME refer to the field of conflict (dispute) resolution as a "movement" (Bowen and Gittler, 1991; Harty and Modell, 1991) or "social movement," (Hocking, 1996), for example, Olson (1996) wrote from a sociological perspective, "The interest in researching conflict, violence, and war has grown to the point where YOU are now a part of an international movement to build a Social Technology of Peace. Together we can work to reduce the frightening lag in the field of conflict resolution." (p. 3). No writers reviewed in this study have referred to CME (or conflict resolution/management) as a NSM explicitly. Although, indirectly CME falls into the new social movement categories (Newman, 1995; Welton, 1993) in regards to it being implictly part of the "peace movement" generally— and ADR as part of legal reform movements (according Pirie, 1998), and as part of the "civil rights movement." The third strand in the development of conflict resolution according to Burgess and Burgess (1997) can be traced to "... the civil rights and other popular empowerment movements of the 1960s." (p. viii). ADR is regularly written and spoken about as the "ADR movement" (e.g., Hocking, 1996; Pirie, 1998). Many of these theorists are mentioned throughout this thesis, but not all. Chapter Four mentions some of their names and work to some degree. These two terms critical tradition (i.e., critical theory) and conflict tradition (i.e., conflict theory) are highly problematic and complex. There is no one definition that would fit for the variety of thinking and methods in these theory traditions (or perspectives). Appendix II includes the overview of Collins's (1994) interpretation of the conflict tradition, and in which many authors of the critical theory tradition (e.g., Habermas and the Frankfurt School) are included within. In this thesis I will use the conflict tradition for simplicity, while acknowledging most, but not all, critical theory would fall in this tradition. 44 -1 In Chapter Three, power and conflict (power conflict a la Dahrendorf and Weber) are examined in relation to each other to bring a Foucauldian post-structuralist and conflict theory perspective together as integral knowledge-making Conflict (tactics of struggle and opposition), was not dealt with by Foucault to my knowledge, as he rather preferred the term resistance— concluding that wherever there is power there is resistance (cf. discussion in McHoul and Grace, 1998, p. 84). Giroux (1983, p. 165) argued that resistance is the "... active side of hegemony, it also provides the basis for a radical pedagogy that would make it the object of a critical deciphering and analysis." Giroux thus leads us to theorizing about resistance as conflict, related to power, when he wrote, "Teachers must attempt to understand the meaning of the contradictions, dysfunctions, and tensions [conflict] that exist in both schools and the larger social order. Moreover, they must focus on the underlying conflicts in both schools and society and investigate how these can contribute to a more dialectical theory of citizenship education." (p. 199). He cites Johnson (1979) who pointed out the dialectical nature of domination and resistance [conflict] (p. 199). J J Conflict education in italics refers to a generic label for any education which highlights an interest in conflict and violence. "Conflict education" with (") marks indicates specifically the work of J.& T. Webster-Doyle (1997) (Atrium Society) and their followers like Fitzell (1997), who take a moderately radical (highly inner consciousness) approach to working with conflict in education settings. The Webster-Doyle material can be found on their web site http://www.atriumsoc.org/organization.html j 4 In simple terms, I assume that 'conflict' cannot be well understood unless it is studied within this domination-fear-conflict-violence (DFCV) cycle complex (which is discussed further in Chapter Four). The DFCV cycle conception, created for this thesis, is backed up, somewhat, by Collins's (1994) conflict sociology position that stated "Its main argument is not simply that society consists of conflict, but the larger claim that what occurs when conflict is not openly taking place is a process of domination." (p. 47). As well, my own research into the link of'fear' and violence supports the DFCV cycle conception as being worthy of further study (cf. Fisher, 1995, 1997, 1998). 3 5 In simple liberal terms, "ideologies" in education (for youth or adults), be it formal, informal, or nonformal, are "... competing [conflicting] patterns of ideas and beliefs [values, assumptions] about education." (Meighan, 1981, p. 20). Gage (1989) argued these become "paradigm wars" in education research, practices and policies, often with disastrous fragmenting results. In this study, ideology, albeit problematic in its diverse definitions and uses, is used in the radical sociological sense of most critical theorists (conflict theorists)— that is, "... any system of ideas which justifies or legitimates the subordination of one group by another" (Jary and Jary, 1995, p. 306). Havel (1990) wrote, "Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. Il offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier [as a discourse] for them to part from them. As the repository of something 'supra-personal' and objective, it enables people lo deceive their conscience and conceal their true position... both from the world and from themselves.... It is a veil behind M'hich human beings can hide their own 'fallen existence', their trivilization, and their adaptation to the status quo. "(p. 50). 3 6 Propaganda used in this context refers to "... ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or lo damage an opposing cause...". (Websters New College Dictionary, 1981, p. 916). From a post-structuralist and conflict perspective of knowledge networks, the furthering of one's cause (to make central) is implicated necessarily in a marginalizing of'Other'. This theorizing of "othering" has been radically disturbing in terms of "identity" construction and constitutive analysis (cf. Butler, 1993; Derrida, 1981;Hall, 1996; Laclau, 1990— cf. also Bhabha, 1994). As othering is applied to theorizing about identity constitution, I would assume that othering is applicable to theorizing about concept constitution— that is, to the conceptualizing processes involved in concepts like 'conflict.' But I don't regard all othering (differentiation) as necessarily violent (as I often hear). This ferreting out of distinctions of differentiation and dissociation processes (loosely and problematically called "othering") is beyond the scope of this study, but it is important to acknowledge in my own theorizing about violence. Hidden curriculum "... is a term used to refer to those aspects of learning in schools [or elsewhere, as used in this study] that are unofficial, or unintentional, or undeclared consequences of the way teaching and learning are organized and performed...". (Meighan, 1981, p. 34). 3 7 Discourse has many different meanings, depending on the discipline and context in which it is being defined and used. Further details are given in Chapter Two. Throughout this report "Discourse then, consists of recurrent statements and'wordings across texts (Foucault, 1972)." (Luke, 1995-6, p. 15). "... discourses are not simple groupings of utterances or statements, but consist of utterances M'hich have meaning, force [power], and effect within a social context. " (Mills, 1997, p. 13). 4 5 T O - From briefly surveying the CME literature and some peace education materials, a case could be made that there is a major division ('battle') between "patriarchal" ways of conflict resolution and "feminist" ways— that parallel the "hawks" and "doves" perspectives, respectively. This attempt in current CME to change the attitude of people to conflict positive from a negative view of conflict, is supposedly based on the assumption that such a change will bring about less violence (assuming that people with a conflict positive attitude will better handle conflicts non-destructively or non-violently). Duryea (1992) however, noted that studies of the ways of conflict resolution in 24 peaceful societies around the world (cf. Bonta, 1996) pointed out contrary evidence. Bonta found that 50+% of peaceful societies have no recorded violence and they also have a highly negative view of conflict. 4 0 From the booklist on the website http //www abwam.com/nalybi/consciousliving/Conflict.shtml 4 1 Leonard (1999) argued that the over emphasis on consensus and harmony in definitions of "school culture" in the literature are problematic. She wrote, "Such definitions may also serve to 'reduce the complexity of culture to an almost absurd level of simplicity by emphasizing only that culture creates consensus' (Angus, 1996, p. 976). Culture, however, does not necessarily emerge in a smooth, orderly fashion, devoid of conflict, but is actively created and contested against competing visions and values.... (p. 28). 4 2 In social theory and sociology, the debate between consensus theory (very closely related to fimctionalism) and conflict theory will be taken up in Chapter Three and Four— as this debate is related to "peace" and "conflict" educational discourses, respectively. 4 3 Anyon's (1979, 1980) extensive studies of current social studies textbooks "... conclude thai such books are dominated by themes such as (J) an over-valuing of social harmony, social compromise and political consensus, with very little said about social struggle or class conflict; (2) an intense nationalism and chauvinism; (3) an almost total exclusion of labor history...". (cited in Giroux, 1983, p. 69). 4 4 Nagler (1999), a long-time peace researcher, provided a good critique of why the "peace movement" and "peace culture" have failed in undermining violence. His argument supports my thesis that a culture of violence is the actual context which we have to educate and research within. Those steeped in 'peace' rhetoric and idealism too often forget how "non-violence" and "peace" discourses are so quickly appropriated (if not inevitably) into a culture of violence (cf. Nagler). 4 5 The UN declaration was taken from a classified advertisement in Common Ground, Issue 95, August, 1999). 4 6 The Sacred Warrior tradition, I have studied and taught for over a decade, is based on going well beyond a "need" for hope (cf. for example, Trungpa, 1985). 4 7 "As Terry Eagle ton (1989, p. 167) has obsen>ed, human history can be interpreted as being characterised by domination, by 'the mind-shaping reality of consistent, unending, unruptured oppression and exploitation'. Feudalism, capitalism, slate socialism— all have been systems of domination." (Foley, 1993, p. 23). 4 8 Massumi (1993) referred to this as an "organizedfear trade" (p. viii) led by the communications media and the elite political and corporate power of those in control of mass media. 4 9 This could also be "need-based" and "interest-based" environments. "The terms interests or needs are commonly used in the context of win-win. Many people refer to Fisher and Ury's (1981) model as an interest-based process." (Hocking, 1996, p. 101). Fisher and Ury (1983) have been very influential in their popularizing of this approach (cf. Tidwell, 1998, p. 8). 5 0 Note, that this book was published by one of the most well-organized, corporate funded, and influential non-profit advocacy groups in the U.S. It is published by the National Association for Mediation in Education (which is now the National Institute for Dispute Resolution, with a Conflict Resolution Education sub-section). 5 1 Pirie (1998, p. 514) citing Abel (1982), remarked that the politics of informal justice movements and reforms can be summarized as "...'the primary business of informal institutions is social control'". 5 2 "Duranl and Durant (1968) calculated that, 'in the last 3, 421 years of recorded history, only 268 have seen no war' (p. 81), but history is also replete with examples of cooperative and constructive ways of settling disagreements." From Socrates (470-399), through Plato and in the far East, there have been alternative traditions to resolving conflict, other than war— that is, through "knowledge" and "dialogue" (Sweeney and Carruthers, 1996, p. 328-329). 5 3 "The phrase conflict resolution means different things to different people, reflecting its varied historical development. Some see conflict resolution as any process by which conflicts are handled [this is like "conflict management" as used by Black (1998)]. This would include warfare, violence, management solutions, deterrance, contracts and so on. [note: this would include both violent forms of conflict resolution and nonviolent 46 forms]. Others, however, have developed more narrowly defined meanings. Burton, for example, argues that conflicts concern only situations where human needs satisfaction is denied. Resolution of such conflicts occurs only after relationships have been re-examined and realigned [in terms of mutual need fulfillment]." (Tidwell, 1998, pp. 8-9). 5 4 For another view of the history of conflict resolution as a movement, see Harty and Modell (1991). 5 5 "... the track record of the UN in resolving conflicts has been so dismal that it is arguable that the organization has provided a model showing the alternatives to be avoided. A major criticism of it is that it has not really provided an alternative to power politics at all, but rather has provided only another method through which power politics may be played out. Power was one of the key points of criticism offered by a group of international theorists." (Tidwell, 1998, p. 12). This critique of the UN, echoes my own mistrust and critique of the UN's 'apple pie' advertisements of the decade of the years 2001 -2010 as "The Decade for a Culture of Peace and Nonviolence for the Children of the World", mentioned earlier in this chapter. The UN has not included aboriginal/First Nations groups, 1 am told, and this hardly is a foundational policy for peace and nonviolence. 5 6 Burton (1986) noted that this "behavioral view" is not to be confused with the 'behavioral' or quantitiative school of the 1960s (Tidwell, 1998, p. 12). 5 7 The Mennonites began one of the first Victim-Offender Reconciliation Projects (Hocking, 1996, p. 137). The East Mennonite University, Virginia, now has an extensive internationally recognized program in "Conflict Transformation" (cf. Lederach's work). 5 8 "The first conflict resolution movement was associated with the University of Michigan during the 1950s when the Journal of Conflict Resolution and the Center for Research on Conflict Resolution were founded (Harty and Modell, 1991, p. 721). The goal of this movement was to bring together a group of professionals who would develop conflict theories that would serve policymakers in maintaining peace. Others who supported conflict resolution and programs of nonviolence joined forces during the 1960s with social rights activists in the context of the civil rights movements. Conceptions ofpeace began to take on hopes for social change and human rights as well as the cessation of war." (Hocking, 1996, p. 124). Due to limitations of this study, "peace education" literature was not thoroughly examined, and therefore, a more indepth historical understanding of conflict resolution as a social movement would be gained through a review of the history of peace movements and peace education per se. 6 0 Webster (1991) argued the ADR movement formed in response "... to the growing conviction that our country's justice system had reached a crisis point. In reaction to this belief, trained community members began to serve as facilitators in the resolution of interpersonal conflicts that rangedfrom quarrels between two people to disputes affecting entire neighborhoods. The goal of the centers was clear: to resolve disputes without using the court system.... Some of the early community programs were staffed by law professors and their students... and some were sponsored by the American Arbitration Association." (p. 114). 6 ' Pirie (1998) called ADR "... a movement to reshape modern justice systems within North America." (p. 512). 6 2 It appears the latest versions of the neighborhood Justice Institutes (e.g., the one in Vancouver, BC, Canada) have expanded their goal to "Helping to provide training for safer communities" (excerpt from the Justice Institute of British Columbia, 1999 brochure)-- "... to resolve differences and build harmonious relationships. " (Huber, 1999— excerpt from the "Mission" statement of the Center for Conflict Resolution ("A Message From The Director"), the Justice Institute of British Columbia, Calendar Jan.-Aug., 1999). 6 3 "From the beginnning, the broadest goal of conflict resolution programs in the schools has been to teach better problem-solving strategies and decision-making skills. These are life skills that enhance interpersonal relationships, provide the necessary tools for building a climate within a school that is more cooperative and conducive to learning, and offer a frameworkfor handling differences in ways that may lead to improved communication, greater understanding, and less fear. Through law-related education, conflict resolution approaches to classroom management, and school-wide peer mediation programs, students have the opportunity to strengthen their self-esteem, learn to appreciate diversity, improve their communications and analytical skills, and avoid disciplinary problems. Schools as a whole may benefit as these programs support staff and parents' abilities and willingness to cooperate and solve students' problems. Research on conflict resolution programs in the schools, while limited, does suggest that they have helped decrease violence and fighting, reduce name-calling and put-downs, decrease the number of suspensions, increase the self-esteem and self-respect of peer mediators, enable staff to deal more effectively with conflicts, and improve the school climate." (Girard and Koch, 1996, p. xxvi). Typically, this is NIDR publicity material, if not propaganda, which unfortunately, does not 47 problematize C M E as a form of conflict knowledge There is no intention to suggest Dewey was a fan of a conflict perspective or 'conflict' pedagogy— the contrary is likely more true. Niu (1995) comparing Mao and Dewey's social philosophies, wrote, "... Their view on class, class struggle, and revolution are quite different... [Dewey rejecting Marxian ideas]. Dewey's "democracy" was reached not through class struggle [conflict], "... hut through the solidarity of social force, not by conflict but by cooperation." (p. 145). Ratner (1939) wrote in criticism of Dewey, "To say that all past historic social progress has been the result of cooperation [a consensus theory explanation] and not of conflict would also be exaggeration." (p. 445). 6 5 "There is a dearth of useful critical literature on ADR developments generally... ". (Dr. Andrew Pirie, Faculty of Law at the University of Victoria, B C , personal communication, June 11, 1999). 6 6 NIDR is funded by the Ford Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation and the MacArthur foundation (Girard and Koch, 1996). 6 7 Peace III (1991) wrote, "Liberal peace reform is identified with conflict resolution, international lew, and world order designs...". (p. 23). CME, as a new social movement, and liberal peace reform agenda, cannot be underestimated in its universalizing programs for a new world order. 6 8 Manning ran a consulting business, specializing in conflict resolution, before he entered politics (cf. Gould, 1997). 6 9 Preston Manning's report called The Reconciliation of Parties in Conflict: The Theory and Application of a Model of Last Resort was written and "... distributed in 1983 to clergymen andfellow travellers of the religious right in Canada and the United Slates.... Manning calls 'the Initiator' [God]... 'the Mediator' [Jesus Christ].... Presumably this is the model Manning wouldfollow in resolving conflicts between management and labour, or oil companies and aboriginal people.... In the paper. Manning makes grandiose claims for his theory of last resort. He asserts it may be as powerful as the laws of nuclear physics or the biological sciences [a naturalizing discourse of scientific authority for religious authority— that is, racism, ethnicism, religionism, and basic colonialism].... Manning retained his faith in the theory enough to repeat its central tenets in his 1992 book The New Canada." (Gould, 1997, p. 10). 7 0 This is a general claim based on a small sample of literature, and it is not meant to underestimate the great initiatives of these cultural critiques of CME, and their attempts to deal with conflict practices differently with people of varied cultural backgrounds. Indirectly, teaching approaches have been self-critiqued in some of this literature, but the emphasis is not on pedagogy (learning and teaching as a science and art) but on teaching conflict resolution processes per se. 7 1 Lederach (1995) opens the way for adult education to interact with CME discourses. He argued that conflict resolution as a field needs to draw lessons from experiences in popular (adult) education, appropriate technology, and ethnography, "... as useful alternative and conceptual bases for any pedagogical project." (p. 7). 7 2 Wilson and Cervero (1997) launch a similar critique of rational-technical approaches that have dominated adult education planning and practices in the West for over 50 years. Managerialism as used here, refers to management approaches that become ideological and hegemonic. 7 3 Duryea (1992) further noted, that in the naturalistic paradigm, "Disputeing is seen as inseparable from other things happening simultaneously, such as changes in the community, other attempts to resolve the issue and the nature of the family relationship. The posilivist, in contrast, views reality as single, tangible and fragmentable. The knower and the known are independent, a dualism in apositivist'sperspective. Time and context-free generalizations and value-free inquiries are possible for positivists, but not for naturalists." (p. 57). The naturalistic paradigm alternative and criticism of positivism, is one that links closely with a feminist perspective and critique of CME practices. Feminist critiques apparently are rare in this field. Cordula Reiman, a graduate student in Peace Studies at Bradford University, England, wrote, "... the practice and theory of conflict management have always been a 'gendered discourse':.... In turning a blind eye on the 'gendered' underlying assumptions of conflict management as theory and practice, conflict/peace research perpetuated and indirectly enforced the exclusionist power structures and power hierarchies among society: by 'managing' or 'continually resolving conflicts', conflict management as theory and practice remains caught in the logic and practices of reconstruction, which excludes the constituting impact of material, discursive and institutional underpinnings of violent conflicts/wars as social constituities." (personal communication, January 6, 1999) 1 also acknowledge that First Nations (aboriginal peoples) critiques of Western "white" conflict resolution and justice are not included here because of the limitations of this study— where there was not time to engage respectfully (cf. Duryea, 1992 48 and LeBaron et al., 1998 for further references). Pirie (1998) argued, "Social reform is thus inhibited [by ADR]. Conflict is individualized because similar experiences by other members of a social group, particularly a group lacking political and social power, become irrelevant. The conflict becomes private, often excludedfrom public scrutiny, and loses any of its public interest features." (p. 517). 49 CHAPTER TWO THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL RATIONALE: TOWARD A CONFLICT' EPISTEMOLOGY Introduction Theory is 'the net we throw out in order to catch the world- to rationalize, explain, and dominate it.' (Popper, 1935, cited in Dahrendorf, 1959, p. 73) ... any form of education that concerns itself with a part and not with the whole of man [sic] inevitably leads to increasing conflict and suffering. (Krishnamurti,1953/81, pp. 28-29). This chapter reviews the basic assumptions behind the construction of the problem, and the basic assumptions behind the methodological and theoretical rationale for approaching the problem. As seen in earlier sections, simplicity turns quickly to complexity when topics such as conflict and violence are engaged with in any serious way that does not attempt to reduce the "whole" to the "parts."1 The thesis in this chapter confronts the ethical challenges to theoretically and methodologically construct a "holonic" (part/Whole) approach (cf. Wilber, 1995); whereby, violence is not created in the name of creating knowledge- and where Popper's criticism of theory's domination effect is minimized. The disconnection and separation (dissociation) of /?art-knowledge and w/zo/e-knowledge, as classically part of the shadowy underside of modernity and sciences, is referred to by some feminist scholars as the foundation of "evil" (Noddings, 1989) or "sin" (Welch, 1985). Arguably, part and whole are inherently in a 'tension' which requires attention. This entire study, analogous to an 'organization' has the task of"... determining how this tension between parts and wholes is dialectically resolved." (Foster, 1986, p. 142). As well as this more subtle self-reflexive background to methodology, this chapter presents some of the traditional scholarly "checks" on reliability and validity of the data presented, which assist the researcher and reader to assert an 50 intelligent cautiousness and criticality in regard to the claims that are to follow in Chapters Three and Four. This chapter is divided in two general parts, which are not completely distinguishable because of their interweaving holonic interrelationship: (1) the elucidation of the empirical study of the conceptualizations of conflict in CME and, (2) the developing of theoretical conceptualizations for a potentially "better" way (epistemology) to study and know 'conflict,' than what has currently been done. The reality of this study is that both parts have mutually evolved together, and this chapter attempts to give some of the content for this interplay of the deductive and inductive aspects, while also, perhaps offering some of the texture of the abductive2 aspects which have promoted the most creativity in this research and report. To begin to fulfill the study's main purposes, a customized CDA was created consisting of three parts: (1) a Foucauldian analysis, (2) a sociological conflict perspective analysis and, (3) an interdisciplinary/comparative analysis. These are described below and provided with a rationale for their choice in this study. The focus of the CDA is specifically on conceptualizations of'conflict' within texts from CME and indirectly, the disciplines of anthropology, sociology, communications, cognitive-behavioral psychology and social psychology. This locates this study as a distinct, and unique, initiative to better understand social conflict and how to critique discourses on social conflict. This is not a study about people but rather, the textual productions of their discourses and the possible impacts those productions may have. A major assumption behind this initiative, is that 'we'3 do not understand social conflict very well, and therefore are not able to deal with it well— thereby, the DFCV cycle4 is not effectively interrupted or undermined. This means, domination is turned to violence— while conflict (as social practice), attempting to mediate in between domination and violence is 'overwhelmed,' (overloaded) misconstrued, and ultimately appropriated to become a part of the 'pathology'5 of people continuing to hurt other people— justified, by every form of dominating, 51 violent rationalization and ideology one can imagine. 'Our' conflict practices are mostly habitual (unconscious) and embedded in violence discourses themselves. CME is a worthwhile initiative to undermine the DFCV cycle but lacks the theoretical and methodological depth to critique itself and ensure that it is not part of the continuation of the "teachings" of the embedded violent discourses. Chapter Two explicates the design rationale of this study and the limitations of this design and procedures utilized. Some important definitions are provided. This chapter is divided into the following sections: 1. What Kind Of Research Is This?: Some Basic Methodological Assumptions 2. Design Rationale: Methodology And "Case" Sample 3. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA): A Unique Approach 4. Review Of Foucault's Postmodern Analysis And Key Ideas 5. 'Conflict' Epistemology?: The Politics Of The Production of'Conflict' Knowledge What Kind of Research Is This?: Some Basic Methodological Assumptions This research study of CME training manuals and handbooks is undertaken within the following basic five methodological assumptions: (1) CDA of the CME text discourse is both empirically-based and interpretive — that is, there is a quantitative and qualitative aspect involved, with a tension between the methodological stances (below), (2) CDA (Foucauldian) is a poststructural approach to knowledge and ... is a shift from questioning whether or not a discourse gives us a 'true' representation of the 'real world'-- a continuation of the modernist scientific approach- to an examination of the ways in which discourse constructs 'truth' and the consequences of accepting it as true— a form of cultural analysis .... The focus on 52 discourse, therefore, has been associated with recognition of the heterogeneity of meanings and powerful consequences that are engendered in the use of language and narrative processes.... Meaning.... is itself a site of contest [conflict]. (Edwards, 1997, p 6) (3) this study is located in a general critical theory/tradition which Guba and Lincoln (1994) cogently summarize: "Critical theory's dialogic/dialectical6 methodology [is] aimed at the reconstruction of previously held constructions" (p. 112). Conceptualizations of'conflict' are deconstructed and reconstructed, more or less, utilizing a three-in-one CDA (see below). (4) in general, a "fallibilist" or "critical realism7," is maintained, which according to Palys (1997),"... can be seen as a mid-way resolution that acknowledges some truth in both realist and social constructionist perspectives. Like the constructionists, critical realists acknowledge that 'reality' is indeed constructed and negotiated, but they also assert that reality is not completely negotiable, i.e., all explanations are not equally viable. In other words, we ean be 'wrong'.... [meaning] there must be a reality out there that exists independent of our opinions of it." (p. 412) (5) "The most that any inquiry into human beings and their behavior can hope for is deeper understanding or [what Weber called] 'verstehen'. In social science research therefore, any quest for fundamental truth, let alone absolute proof, is misguided" (Parrott, 1996, p. 48). However, if an inquiry is conducted, as is this one, into "knowledge" and not "human beings" as the subject, I believe the above assumption may be itself, somewhat misguided or inapplicable. 53 Design Rationale: Methodology And "Case" Sample From reading through the CME literature it was evident that social order and control are inevitably central in any form of conflict management/resolution process (social practice). Social theory and sociology have both had a long history of interest in social order and social change. Therefore, the conflict perspective and consensus perspective became important resources to give a reference for thinking about social order and social change in CME discourses. 1 am interested in documenting "patterns" of ideas to see how authoritative text used in CME (training) are constructing ideas about social conflict, and what hegemony of ideas are evident. The impact of this hegemony and explanations for its historical and political roots, were of most concern in this study. CDA (a la Foucault) was seen as the best method to approach the data (see below). There is no attempt to be overly "descriptive" in analyzing the data. This is a "normative" study with prescriptive and value-biased intentions, which involved a search for a CCE which was decidedly attempting to undermine the DFCV cycle, and that was conscious, simultaneously, of its own practices of social injustice/violence. The methodology of such a CCE, in my view, would have to include a critical theory orientation (e.g., Giroux, 1983; hooks; Lather; McLaren etc.) which is critically self-reflexive in terms of a social epistemology, 'conflict' pedagogy and political activism. Rationale For Studying CME Handbooks And Training Manuals: Some Limitations In order to better understand 'conflict' as a subject itself, a particular "case" was chosen where conflict was a central concept utilized in social practices involving teaching and learning. As an educational researcher, a study of conflict had to engage with the various disciplines interested in conflict, but ultimately, a study (thesis) had to focus on conflict in an educational setting. The field of conflict resolution/ management education (CME) was a first choice. CME handbooks and training manuals were an efficient way to investigate how conflict was 54 conceptualized and being taught to others. This source of text was ideal for a Foucauldian discourse analysis. CME handbooks and training manuals are discussed here within a general Foucauldian perspective on power/knowledge (see later in this chapter). Italicized words are key ideas of Foucault and his analysis. For brevity I use "manuals" for both handbooks and training manuals (which are defined later in this chapter). Manuals are perhaps the most succinct form of authoritative (expert-derived) knowledge produced in any field or discipline. They are given implicit status within a field or discipline as the "standard" of knowledge, skills, attitudes by which practitioners are to be judged. Although, the judging, evaluation and certification process in trainings may be complex, the training manuals are a concrete ground of knowledge documented in objective (product) form-- and sealed and approved by some authorities. Training texts and discourse (including behaviors) combine into a complex of normalizing processes, whereby a field or discipline may be regulating, and the trainers and trainees are self-regulating. Power is thus being enacted in a system of power relations linked intimately with knowledge, discourse and regimes of truth. The training manuals (text) serve as the normal, regulating set of rules and social practices which govern certification (approval and reward) processes. CME manuals are thus likely to attempt conformity, consensus, unity, 'peace and harmony', and have little encouragement for resistance, disruption, conflict and the personal construction of subjugated knowledges from the clients, students, participants and learners. Variations, differences or challenges to the dogma within the manual texts and the tradition they stand for, have little privilege in changing discourse and knowledge formations within the sub-culture of the teaching and learning about conflict management/resolution. Often the tradition, which CME manuals represent, are important for consistency and social control. The material to be learned is both consistent in formation as is the way the learner is formed by subjection processes. The manuals are reprinted year after year to maintain efficiency, performativity, and standards, with only small gradual changes (typical of consensus 5 5 theory/functionalism) as the norm. Deviation and deviancy from the norm are often quickly declared, explicitly or implicitly, as taboo or pathology and a threat to stability and accountability of the whole/tradition. Learners (which included teachers/trainers), like manuals, are re-presented'by authorities and imprinted year after year. The overall practice is administrative power and a form of governmental ify. One's identity, formally as a professional, or informally, is often linked to the tradition in which these referent manuals belong. In some cases the authors of the manuals are left out and long forgotten, as the authority is now impersonal and greater than personal ('bigger than life'). Identification with that transcendent quality of'bigger than life', feeds the ego/self structure to become 'bigger' than others who don't have the power/knowledge and status and privilege that go with the regime/tradition. The discourse of training is linked to "success" as long as one is disciplined and punished (failed) to carry out the rules and regulations that construct the nature of that technical measurable "success." The information, is given only as if it is necessary information. The politics of the knowledge and discourse are evaded and denied, in most cases. The information in manuals may be questioned by participants but characteristically, the information is made to be delivered, absorbed, and regurgitated (practiced) at will upon the authority's request (and tests). The manuals are a regime of truth embedded in a techno-rationalist thinking and "transmission" learning and teaching model8-- whereby, "effective delivery of content" is of prime value and concern (cf. Pratt and Associates, 1998, p. xiii). Sometimes, manuals are "officially" approved by boards, agencies and government bodies (state). They may be, in some cases, documents that are "legal" and "ethical" in terms of professionalism and the qualifications for competent practitioners. For these reasons, and there are others, the manual is potentially an ideal resource for Foucauldian analysis (Foucault used them himself). The value (and power) of text as narrative is justified in this study based on new thinking in cultural studies. 56 I agree with Edwards (1997) that, "Social practices such as education and training.... can be seen as text..." (p. 5), which construct social reality. C M E text is itself social practice and inevitably bound up in education and training. This notion of text as social practice, ought to challenge critics ideas who believe text is "only words" and "abstraction"-- and thus, such critics can not so easily claim unproblem-atically, that this thesis is "only theoretical" and not practical. Limitations of this study begin by stating this study is not: (1) an analysis o f people and their conflict practices, nor persons who authored or authorize C M E manuals, (2) using evidence from C M E text to support or reject C M E practices or the field of conflict resolution/management as a whole. This chapter and the next two apply a three-in-one analysis of C M E text (conceptualizations of conflict), in which Foucauldian analysis is very important but only one part of the three. This study is limited further, in that it is not using evidence to either "test," "validate," or "invalidate," either conflict theory(ies). or Foucault's work and what is called here, a "Foucauldian Analysis." Neither, is this study suggesting, the way both of these traditions are utilized in critical analysis, in this study, are the best or only correct way to use them. In this manner, this study is an "experiment" in bringing together diverse, often seen as incompatible, critical frameworks of analysis and applying them to C M E manuals and their conceptualizations of conflict. Figure 6 provides a schematic diagram o f the potential "integral approach" to understanding the relationship between power, knowledge, conflict, domination, and violence— within a modernist (conflict (critical theory) tradition analysis) and a postmodernist 9 analysis (a la Foucault). This diagram emphasizes the suspected value of 'conflict' as a concept to bring about (catalyze) this integration of vast domains of analysis and knowledge in the social sciences. The concept of the conflictworker, preferred over conflict manager, is also highlighted. Further discussion of this diagram is found in Chapter Four. Feedback from readers and practitioners across disciplines and over time, w i l l provide the evidence for "testing" the value of 56 A 57 this experiment. Chapter Four offers further problematic reflections on this study and recommendations for further research. "Casing" The Study And "Case" Sample Descriptions Before going into the details of the 22 CME manuals chosen for this study, this introduction reviews the process of "casing" that has gone on behind the scenes, so to speak. The research decisions of casing the subject(s) and object(s) is critical to any research study. Casing is a term used by Ragin (1992) to describe the process of making a "case" or "case study" as an ongoing part of research planning and decisions. Ragin (1992a) discussed the problems in the social sciences of defining a "case" and how the term is used by different authors in many different ways. Casing is the process of "concocting cases" to "delimit or declare cases," as a basic research tactic (Ragin, 1992, p. 217). Ragin (1992) wrote on the power of ideas and the impact on how and what we study, It is impossible to do research in a conceptual vacuum. Whether it is viewed as given or socially constructed, the empirical world is limitless in its detail, complexity, specificity, and uniqueness. The fact that we can make any everyday social category problematic... is testimony to the complexity of the empirical. We make sense of its infinity by limiting it with our ideas. In effect, theoretical ideas and principles provide ways to see the empirical world and to structure our descriptions [and prescriptions] of this world.... In short, ideas and evidence are mutually dependent; we transform evidence into results with the aid of ideas, and we make sense of theoretical ideas and elaborate them by linking them to empirical evidence. Cases figure prominently in both of these relationships... [he asks the reader to see "cases" not as "empirical units or theoretical categories"-- thus, "cases" are best seen] as the products of basic research operations. Specifically, making something into a case or 'casing' it can bring operational closure to some problematic relationship between 58 ideas and evidence, between theory and data. Casing, viewed as a methodological step, car occur at any phase of the research process.... (pp. 217-218) If 1 understand Ragin correctly, this study so far has involved several casings. These casing have influenced the way the various data (literature and ideas) have been collected, sorted and concocted to support various research goals. Figure 7 provides a cursory view of the basic casim process to this point. Beginning at the top: a first casing of vast amounts of reading and notes could be put under the delimited category of "Social Movements." Without going into all the detail of this section, suffice it to say, that the development of a 'conflict' pedagogy, as the long term aim of this thesis, is most likely going to interest people (in social movements) who are involved in a lot of conflict (more or less). The next casing is "New Social Movements," as this was an attempt to find a category out of the first casing, to then link the data in adult education literature (and NSMs) on conflict within the concept of Welton's (1993) notion of NSMs as "revolutionary sites of learning." The NSMs focus was also a good casing move because NSMs, according to Agger's (1998, p. 36-37) list, are one characteristic of postmodernity. This fit well with the emerging poststructuralist Foucauldian CDA that is used in this study of CME. The remainder of Figure 7 is self-explanatory, with three more casings to arrive at 'conflict' as a concept for investigation. The Foucauldian analysis and the right-facing arrow is largest, to exemplify the focus of this research, with the conflict (critical) tradition/ theory analysis less predominant (left-facing arrow). Gramsci, is merely one example of a theorist who, along with his concepts of ideology and hegemony, are brought into later chapters. Bourdieu's concept of habitus is mentioned least, but forms a minor part of the later discussions. The last chapter discusses the casing of new "Sphere[s] of possibilities for..." the conceptualizing of'conflict' in different disciplines, other than CME— as part of a search for ways to improve the conflict imaginary of all peoples. The 22 CME training manuals and handbooks (all written in English) were divided into two general groups: A. School Handbooks/Training Manuals (Table 1, n=10) were written for youth Table 1 Sample "Case" A. School Handbooks/Training Manuals 1. (EML-002) Schrumpf, Fred, Crawford, Donna & Usadel, H. Chu (1991). Peer mediation: Conflict resolution in schools (Program guide). Champaign, IL: Research Press Co. [Common Ground Project, Urbana, IL] 2. (EML-003) Sorenson, Don L. (1994). Conflict management training activities: Promoting cooperative learning and conflict resolution in middle and high schools. Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corporation. 3. (EH-004) Girard, Kathryn & Koch, Susan J. (1996). Conflict resolution in the schools: A manual for educators. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [National Institute for Dispute Resolution] 4. (EECS-005) Kew, Kathy, Wickens, Karen & Wickens, Gayle (Eds.) (1988). Rainbow feelings: A conflict resolution handbook. Burnaby, BC: Public Education for Peace Society. 5. (EM-006) Kalmakoff, Sandy & Shaw, Jeanne (1987). Peer conflict resolution through creative negotiation (A curriculum for grades 4-6). Burnaby, BC: Public Education for Peace Society. 6. (EECS-007) Levine, Diane E. (1994). Teaching young children in violent times: Building a peaceable classroom. Cambridge, MA: Educators for Social Responsibility. 7. (EML-008) Bodine, Richard J. & Crawford, Donna K. (1998). The handbook of conflict resolution education; A guide to building quality programs in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [National Institute for Dispute Resolution] 8. (EML-009) Johnson, David W. & Johnson, Roger T. (1995). Reducing school violence through conflict resolution. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 9. (EML-010) Concerned Teens, Inc. & Texas Young Lawyers Association (1988). Conflict management, training guide. Houston, TX: Concerned Teens, Inc. 10. (EML-011) Schmidt, Fran, Friedman, Alice & Marvel, Jean (1992). Mediation fc kids: Kids in dispute settlement. Miami Beach, FL: Grace Contrino Abrams Peace Education Foundation. 59 and adults that work with youth primarily in public school settings (with the exception of #9 which was based for work within human services and care settings). Two of the books were particularly designed for working in Early Childhood settings (#4 and #6), seven were designed for working in Lower-Mid Elementary grades (#1, #2, #5, #7, #8, #9, #10) and one for Highschool and Post-secondary levels (#3). Twenty percent are Canadian and 80% American. Publishing dates range from 1987-1998, with 70% after 1991 and 30% between 1987-1988. From a total of 18 known authors (re: gender) involved, 28% are males and 72% are females. All books were published and sponsored by an organization or project (non-governmental), except #2 which was independent of any organization. B. Professional Handbooks/Training Manuals (Table 2, n=1210) were written for adults only, mainly in professional capacities (primarily in law) but also general community and workplace skills training. Five are Canadian (although, #4 is Australian originally), five are American and two are from Australia. Publishing dates range from 1978-1998, with ten published in the 1990s, one in 1988 and one in 1978 (a classic11). From a total of 12 known authors (re: gender) involved, 41% are males and 58% are females. All books were published and sponsored by an organization (non-governmental as far as I can tell), except #4 which was independent of any organization (in its Canadian printing). The sampling procedure is non-probabilistic. There is no intention in this study to have a statistically representative sample, in order to make probabilistic generalizations about all CME training manuals and handbooks. However, the sample selected was intended to be conditionally "representative" in terms of gathering the more popular, and thus, presumedly influential CME training manuals and handbooks available in university and public libraries (including the BC Justice Instititue library). A "convenience sampling" procedure was utilized, which "... involves little more than 'getting [whatever you can.'" (Palys, 1997, p. 136). I searched for what books were most easily available. These would most likely be the same books that a teacher, or community member would pick up off the shelves of the types of libraries stated above. They are likely the books most in use, although, I have no way of knowing that for sure. Part of this Table 2 Sample "Case" 59 A B . Professional Handbooks/Training Manuals 1. (Prof 001) Peachey, D.E., Snyder, B. & Teichroeb, A. (1983). Mediation primer: A (raining guide for mediators in the criminal justice system. Kitchner, ON: Community Justice Initiatives of Waterloo Region. 2. (Prof 002) Federal Emergency Management Agency (1991). Leadership and influence: Emergency Management Institute. 3. (Prof 003) Kessler, S. (1978). Creative conflict resolution: Mediation (Leader's guide). Atlanta, GA: National Institute for Professional Training. 4. (Prof 004) Boulle, Laurence & Kelly, Kathleen J. (1998). Mediation principles, process, practice. Toronto, ON: Butterworths. 5. (Prof 005) Charlton, Ruth & Dewdney, Micheline (1995). The mediator's handbook: Skills, and strategies for practitioners. North Ryde, NSW: LBC Information Services. 6. (Prof 006) Coates, Mary Lou, Furlong, Gary T. & Downie, B.M. (1997). Conflict management and dispute resolution systems in Canadian nonunionized organizations. Kingston, ON: Industrial Relations Centre, Queens University. 7. (Prof 007) Wisinski, Jerry (1993). Resolving conflicts cm the job. NY: American Management Association. 8. (Prof 008) Condliffe, Peter (1991). Conflict management: A practical guide. Abbotsford, Victoria: TAFE Publications RM1T. 9. (Prof 009) Allred, Keith G. (1997). Conflict management. In L.J. Bassi & D. Russ-Eft (Eds.), Wliat works: Training and development practices, pp. 27-50. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. 10. (Prof 010) Hart, Lois B. (1991). Learning from conflict: A handbook for trainers and group leaders. Amherst, MA: Human Resource Development Press. 11. (Prof 011) Haddigan, Karen (1997). [a] Introduction to conflict resolution and negotiation. Vancouver, BC: Center for Conflict Resolution Training, The Justice Institute of British Columbia, [b] Conflict resolution. Vancouver, BC: Center for Conflict Resolution Training, The Justice Institute of British Columbia. 12. (Prof 012) White, Deborah (1990). Conflict resolution in the workplace. Vancouver, BC: Center for Conflict Resolution Training, The Justice Institute of British Columbia. 60 selection involved a phone interview with Marg Huber, Director o f the Conflict Resolution program at the B C Justice Institute in Vancouver in July 1999. She helped me select some of the books she thought were generally most in use at the time. By searching the reference lists in each manual or handbook I found, I was able to get a good sense of the most cited manuals and handbooks and ensure that I was able to gather and include the most referred to (cited) ones. The number of books in the sample ended up as 22, but there was no significance to this number, other than it was the number that reflects the most convenient number of books available. Other C M E training manuals and handbooks are available but they were not easily accessible beyond this sample of 22. Books were identified as C M E training manuals or handbooks i f the words "training manual," "handbook" or "guide" were in the titles. In some cases these words were not in the titles and by reading the introduction, or back (or inside) covers, it was evident the book was intended as a sourcebook for the purposes of guiding training and/or guiding readers to the fundamental knowledge and practices of conflict management/resolution (or mediation and so on). Procedures O f Data Collection A n d Organization: Reliability A n d Validity There is no one way or standard way to do a Foucauldian type C D A . This makes reproducability of the study and reliability and validity of results problematic. However, there is in this study a procedure in collecting and sorting the data which could be reproduced by other researchers using the same C M E training manuals and handbooks. This allows for results to be checked and compared, either in a repeated analysis o f the same material, or by another researcher using the same material. The procedure could also be applied to other similar material ( C M E knowledge products). The amount o f data in any such book is enormous. This study was originally intended to analyze both the conceptualizations of'conflict' and prescriptions of how to best handle 'conflict.' It was unweildly to work with so much data in such a limited study. The 6 1 focus was then given to the former and some notes were collected on the latter. As Chapter 3 reveals, the C M E training manuals and handbooks (and most other books generally on the topics) are heavily weighted in attention to conflict resolution/management and procedures of how to deal with 'conflict.' Little attention, characteristically, is given to understanding 'conflict' per se. As well as amount of data being a factor in studying 'conflict' over and above how to best deal with 'conflict,' the other rationale in this priority selection involved the assumption that how 'conflict' is conceptualized may be the most significant influence on the prescription of how best to deal with 'conflict.' This made intuitive sense to me; The procedure for collecting data from a book involved: (1) recording all pertinent information on title, authors, background of authors, dates, influential people and theories that informed the authors, organizational sponsorship (and mission statements, philosophy of such organizations), general notes of mission and philosophy of author(s) regarding 'conflict,' violence, and how best to deal with them and, (2) scanning the text for conceptualizations of 'conflict' (defined below) and recording these quotes (with notes: page number and pertinent context, accompany-ing figures or images). The procedure for categorizing data from a book included: (1) distinguishing between a definition of conflict and a conceptualization of conflict. The concept of 'conflict' is the focus of interest in this overall study. However, as pointed out in Chapter Three, most writing refers to conflict or conflicts without any interest to deconstruct and reconstruct the term conflict in any way. Therefore conflict or conflicts is the predominant (mostly commonsense/common use) way 'conflict' is being written about in these texts. One way to understand the concept12 of conflict is to define it as a "nominal" (sometimes called "constitutive") definition which "... involves articulating what you mean by the concept under scrutiny. It's a bit like supplying a dictionary definition, although the nominal definition may be linked to one's theoretical stance" (Palys, 1997, p. 62). I assume in this study that every definition is, more or less, linked to one's theoretical (and political13) stance. The conceptualizing process itself, is arguably political, as is 62 the process of operationalizing a nominal definition (and concept). Palys (1997) clarifies the relationship, Following from the nominal definition is the operational definition, which is more closely linked to what we will do. The operational definition involves giving specific empirical meaning to a concept. We delineate the specific indicators or operations that are to be taken as representative of a concept.... [choosing] one or more indicators that best approximate your nominal definition. The nominal definition articulated what you were after; the operational definition specifies how you propose to capture it [and write about it, and prescribe about it in the case of managing and resolving conflict (i.e., with conflict as the concept)](p. 63). Clarifying the distinction between a definition of. conflict (both nominal and operational) and conceptualization of conflict, may be illustrated in the examples from the CME texts. A definition (or part thereof) of conflict is most easy to spot in scanning a text. Often a glossary of terms is included and the word "conflict" is defined. A definition of conflict is one that includes usually a statement of the following form, where the word "is" has a definitive directive to provide a nominal definition, for example, "Conflict is a form of competitive behavior involving actual or perceived differences in interests or limited resources." (Coates et al., 1997, p. 9) or, "Conflict: controversy or disagreement; to come into opposition" (Schrumpf et al., 1991, p. 148). The 'dictionary feel' to these nominal definitions is evident. Then, the CME manuals contain many "definitions" that are not so clearly of this type- and we could call them an operational definition, for example, "When our perceptions of fairness differ, conflicts result." (Sorenson, 1994, p. 98), or "When conflicts arise, most people either react with verbal or physical aggression, ignore the situation, or withdraw from it..." (Sorenson, 1994, p. 1). These operational type definitions are common in the texts. I have then placed them into 11 categories/themes. By adding the nominal definition to the 12 categories of operational type definitions, I have constructed a 12 category list which appears to include all the ways of 63 "defining" conflict in the C M E training manuals and handbooks investigated in this study. These 12 categories are referred to as Conceptualizations of'Conflict ' (below). Therefore, when this report speaks of a conceptualization of'conflict' (conflict), the context is specifically referring to one (or more) of the 12 categories, which include: CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF 'CONFLICT': 12 EMERGENT CATEGORIES 1. Definition- usually a statement referring to "Conflict is..." (or something similar), for example, "Conflict: [is] controversy or disagreement; to come into opposition."(Sorenson, 1994, p. 148). [i.e., dictionary-like, a nominal definition] 2. Description- usually a statement referring to "Conflict as..." (metaphorical, or list of qualities, characteristics, or referring to the nature of, what it may mean/represent, or is associated with), for example, "Conflict is[as] therefore a double-edged sword which we both live and die by." (Condliffe, 1991, p. 16). 3. Classification- usually a statement referring to distinctions, taxonomies (formal or informal), continuums, components of, for example, "A conflict can be as small as a disagreement or as large as a war. " (Johnson and Johnson, 1995a, p. 15). 4. Location- usually a statement referring to locating or placing and norming of, for example, "... conflicts within and between the other sub-parts of the mind." (Sorenson, 1994, p. 11, supplement 1 4). 5. Origins- usually a statement referring to the origin o f conflict, such as "Conflict is caused by..., " for example, "When our perceptions offairness differ, conflicts result." (Sorenson, 1994, p.98). 6. Moral Status- usually a statement referring to the 'good' or 'bad', 'positive' or 'negative' valuation (valorisation) (what is, what should be), for example, "... assumes that conflict is a ... positive force...". (Schrumpf etal . , 1991, p. 1). 7. Effects/Affects- usually a statement referring to "Conflict effects/affects...," for example, "When conflicts arise, most people either react with verbal or physical aggression, ignore the situation, or withdraw from il...". (Schrumpfetal. , 1991, p. 1). 8. Behavior- usually a statement referring to the dynamics of conflict in action, for 64 example, "Conflicts arise...". (Sorenson, 1994, p. 78). 9. Role- usually a statement referring to the sociopolitical function or role of, for example, "Conflict can be a positive force for personal growth and social change." (Schrumpf et al., 1991, p. 7). 10. Self-reflexive- any discussion of the problematics of the 'conflict' discourse, [of which none were found in the sample, but Lederach (1995) provides a good representation: "... we need to explore critically at a much deeper level both the content and the approach to conflict resolu-tion training...". (p. 6)]. 11. Value-refraining- any statement that refers to how the value and meaning of conflict is directed/prescribed, for example, "We learn and grow from conflicts— they are a necessary part of our learning experiences." (Sorenson, 1994, p. 7). 12. Theory- any discussion of a coherent or fragmentary theory of conflict, for example, "Glasser's book Control Theory...". [which was used to support and discuss the understanding and conceptualization of conflict(s)] (Schrumpf, et al., 1991, p. 7, 9). All these categories are not entirely distinct. There is some overlap but they allow for a useful first gross form of descriptive (non-critical) categorization of discourse. A second more critical (and prescriptive) categorization of the discourses in the texts involved: (1) writing out all the quotes from the 12 categories of conceptualizations of'conflict' onto 'paste-if notes, so that individual quotes from each category could be moved around independently and, (2) placing 'paste-it' notes onto a quadrant grid (Figure 8)~ using a subjective interpretation (with more "objective" referent data on consensus/order vs. conflict perspectives, see Figure 9, and Appendix III) of each statement, with the discourse in which the statement was thought to be embedded. For example, a statement from the texts was "A conflict exists when incompatible activities occurs" (Johnson and Johnson, 1995a, p. 15). This statement was placed on the four-quadrant grid in the upper right corner of the lower left quadrant- that is, it was interpreted as having an objectivist (scientific-like) quality (epistemologically speaking), and a consensus/order perspective because there is no indication of a challenge (i.e., conflict perspective) to the status 64; Figure 8 BOSHIER'S Q U A D R A N T M A P O F PERSPECTIVES U N D E R L Y I N G A D U L T E D U C A T I O N [Conflict Perspective! Challenge RADICAL HUMANIST RADICAL STRUCTURALIST INTERPRETIVIST FUNCTIONALIST Reinforce [Consensus Perspective] B o s h i e r (1996) 64B Figure 9 O R D E R & C O N F L I C T PERSPECTIVES (adapted from Horton. 1966) [The order and conflict models as outlined represent polar ideal types which are not consistently found in the inconsistent ideologies of actual social research and political practice. If the models have any utility to social scientists, it will be in making more explicit and systemic the usually implicit value assumptions which underlie their categories of thinking." p. 707 cited in Horton. John. (1966). Order and conflict theories of social problems as competing ideologies. The American Journal ol Sociology. 71(6): 701-713.] O R D E R CONFLICT Image of Social Reality * a system of action unified by shared values, commun-ication, & political organization * a contested struggle between individuals & groups with op-posed aims and perspectives Nature of Society * transcendent entity which is greater than and unique from the sum of its parts * immanent entity not unique or different from individuals in re-lationships; the parts make up the society; society as an ex-tension of the individual Human Nature * half animal (nature) - half socialized in need of restraints for the col-lective good; morally superior are more socialized * existential, the active creator of self and society via choices and autonomous social actions * optimum capacity of individual to adjust to roles & standard values of the social system and its maintenance * what is required to grow and change and overcome, through struggle, chronic alienation Social Problems & Pathology Treatment for Social Problems * caused by lack of social control or * caused by oppression from the inadequate socialization and dis-equilibirum of the social system; failure of individuals and groups to meet society's needs * increase social control and more efficient institutionalization of social values; adjustment of individuals (dev-iancy) to system needs; working within the system; administrative solutions dominant groups of the social system; possibly progressive to bring about needed change; failure of society to meet indiv-idual and group's needs * radical transformation and disruption of social system values; revolutionary change by the people 'outside' the dominant institutions Associated People * professional establishment and ad-ministrators in power controlling the central social system (owning class) * "humanitarians" and political mavericks/rebels at the mar-gins (mostly the working class) Political Orientation * conservative (focus on the 'Whole') * radical (focus on the 'part(s)') 65 quo of social order/society. This allowed a physical means of mapping the statements (quotes) and discourses on a gross level, in terms of epistemological and sociological-political (ontological?) contexts. This classification within the quadrants was not always easy but was generally obvious in most cases. 1 tested for reliability by placing several quotes on the quadrant, mapping them and then removing them. They were mixed up and then, after a day, placed back up on the quadrant. Results were compared with the first placement. They were very similar. 1 sensed this was fairly reliable but not entirely, as subjective factors heavily influenced the placement of some quotes, while others were less dubious. Part of the problem in consistency of placement involved the ability (and development thereof) to learn the consensus/order perspective and the conflict perspective (e.g. Appendix III). With practice and reviewing results in repeated reliability trials, I would guess that there would be a fair amount of consistency over time within a researcher's selections. Further research would have to be done for inter-rater reliability between researchers. But for a gross categorization of discourse, this quadrant procedure was useful to start to become familiar with dominant discourses of the conceptualization of'conflict' (cf. Chapter Three results). If reliability could be established in this procedure, then validity could also be challenged. Validity is dependent on reliability, though reliability is not sufficient to it, and together they demand a researcher establish overall "data trustworthiness," as Lather (1986, p. 66) called it. The collection of quotes from CME texts is concrete empirical evidence, with little contention as to its existence. It can be easily verified for its reliability by others. The subjective interpretation of those quotes, in CDA, is much more qualitative and challenges validity of the results, especially when the researcher, as in this case, is overtly stating the research is normative, rather than descriptive. I have aimed for a modicum of rigor in categorizations and interpretations of the data from the texts. Like Reason and Rowan (1981) I wanted an "objectively subjective" approach, and this I believe is partly achieved by utilizing a discourse analysis of concepts from three different "objective" referents (below): (1) CDA (Foucault), (2) conflict perspective 66 (sociology), (3) interdisciplinary/ comparative data. The possibility for validity through triangulation and repetitive reflexivity (a la Guba) are more likely with this three-in-one discourse analysis (integral) approach. With a qualitative (subjectivist) focus, Lather (1986) provided a review of the issue of validity in social sciences research, and reconceptualized validity "... appropriate for research openly ["ideological"15] committed to a more just social order" (p. 66). Validity ought to attempt to falsify propositions made from data, rather than try to support interpretations. This gives the qualitative research trustworthiness (cf. Lather, 1986, p. 67, citing L. Cronbach). This current study is weak in face validity because the authors of the texts surveyed in the CDA were not consulted as to their meanings and conceptualizations of'conflict,' nor were other experts in the CME field given the opportunity to "member check" the interpretations. This lack of interaction with people in this study also makes construct validity impossible to test, although, I have attempted to not create constructs, nor impose theory in collecting the particular data from the CME texts. There is some descriptive data gathering in the analysis, where 12 emergent themes of conceptualization of'conflict' were "arbitrarily" decided upon based on an inductive approach. The data were then filtered through the various conceptual and theoretical lenses in a deductive approach. However, arguably, the consistent effort to not pre-define 'conflict' as a concept (or 'reality') is likely to assist in the prevention of the tendency to impose theory on the understanding of'conflict,' both in the CME texts, and 'conflict' as a phenomenon. No catalytic validity is possible as no people were involved in the study. Although my concern of good research, is that its efforts "... produce social knowledge that is helpful in the struggle for a more equitable world..." (Lather, 1986, p. 67). It is too early to be able to tell what the impact (catalytic) and effects of this conceptual research will be. 67 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA): A Unique Approach After the two procedures of organizing and categorizing data, CDA is applied generally using a Foucauldian-type methodology (see below). However, more generally, a brief discussion of CDA sets the context for Foucault's approach and the other two referent's analyses for this study. What Is CDA: As Method? When examining texts in educational research, one can utilize content analysis and/or critical discourse analysis (CDA). To understand CDA, it is useful to distinguish it from content analysis. Petrina (1998) describes these two forms of text analysis, Content analysis provides a quantitative treatment of issues of quality. It is a systematic method in the social sciences by which manifest and latent contents of spoken or written text are determined (Babbie, 1983; Kirppendorff, 1980; Rosengren, 1981; Weber, 1990). Uses for this method in education have ranged from detecting textbook difficulty to exposing biases and propaganda. In simple form, this method involves identifying units of analysis and counting the number of times particular words, or units, are used, within semantic contexts. These units form categories which provide another level of analysis where coding frameworks can be used. Conceptual and operational codes, like conservative or radical, and economic or cultural help to give latent meaning to analysis of manifest content. Critical discourse analysis provides a means of dealing with latent issues of text quality, such as ideology and symbolic meaning. Discourse refers to recurrent statements, themes and wordings across texts, which represent orientations to the world. Discourse analysis is a method of text analysis in which the 'text' can represent the spoken or written word, an image, narrative or media; text is the artificial representation of the world (Ettinger & Maitland-Gholson, 1990; Janks, 1997; Lindkvist, 1981; Luke, 1995; Patterson, 1997). it is a method that assists the researcher in linking text to structural 68 formations and relations of power. Questions central to critical discourse analysis are: 'How is the text positioned or positioning? Whose interests are served by this positioning? Whose interests are negated? What are the consequences of this positioning?' (Janks, 1997, p. 329). This method draws historically from hermeneutics, linguistics, rhetoric, and semiotics, or more generally from critical and post-structuralist theory. On one level this involves a critical reading of how texts are constructed. On another, it involves a critical reading where text and content are culturally located and interests identified. Critical discourse analysis is a means of tying texts together and of demonstrating the political and powerful nature of seemingly mundane statements and symbols. In education, uses have ranged from demonstrating how schools govern through surveillance and moral regulation to how textbooks embody sexist and racial discourses and structure thought processes (Janks, 1997; Luke, 1995). (pp. 30-31) Janks (1997) further summarizes CDA, which, ... stems from a critical theory of language which sees the use of language as a form of social practice. All social practices are tied to specific historical contexts and are the means by which existing social relations are reproduced or contested and different interests are served, (p. 329) This study follows Fairclough's (1989, 1995) basic design16 for CDA (cf. Janks, 1997). The rationale for not choosing content analysis or a combination of both content analysis and CDA (like Petrina, 1998, for example) is based on three issues: (1) the entire study of social conflict and its implications for the development of a 'conflict' pedagogy are embedded in a poststructuralist and conflict perspective-- thus, Foucault's interest in power (and resistance= conflict?), and the conflict perspective's focus on power and conflict, are better suited with CDA and the focus on power/knowledge discourses, relative to content analysis which has broader less "critical" focus as a methodology and, (2) the focus of this study is not directed on the "content" of the CME training manuals and handbooks, rather the tbcus is on an analysis of CME 69 discourse as part of a new social movement and form of "education" and, ( 3 ) unfamiliarity with content analysis theory and methods, and time limitations, restricted the use of a time-consuming content analysis and/or combination with CDA. A content analysis, regarding the interpretation of conceptualizations of'conflict,' perhaps, would have empirically (quantitatively) strengthened some of the claims made in this study. Foucault: Poststructuralist Analysis Introduction: Personal Note I am a beginner to Foucault. Although, he was important as a radical voice in the 1980s when 1 was studying theories of the sociopolitics of disability (i.e., mental health and other oppressed groups called "disabled"), I never read his work. Coming to university after tens years working in the field of adult education, I was resistant to read Foucault once again, for at least two reasons: (1) his work was becoming the fashionable thing in critical analysis in universities (and I generally avoid the fashionable of the day) and, (2) his ideas I heard in classes, and from hardcore Foucauldian's, were difficult to grasp (sounded philosophically "elitist") but more so, were too historical for me, abstract, and difficult to accept as useful— mainly, because he was so anti-modernist/progressivist and against critical theories of liberation— he seemed to paint a relativistic, if not nihilistic, picture of social reality and the future, which turned me off. Later, postmodernism as a general attitude of the late 20th century, similar to Foucault, was to also turn me off for somewhat similar reasons. I offer this to readers who may feel the same feelings, have the same kinds of thoughts, either now, or when they engage with Foucault and the poststructural and postmodern temperament in academic writing and literature. Studying adult education in graduate school, led me to read of Foucault and postmodernism, and their emerging impact in discussion and critiques of adult education (e.g., Bagnall, 1994; Edwards, 1994, 1997; Edwards and Usher, 1996; Inglis, 1997; Jansen and van der Veen, 1997; MacLean, 1996; Pietrykowski, 1996; Tisdell, 1998; Usher and Edwards, 1994; 70 Westwood, 1992). General schooling educators and sociologists of education have apparently been ahead of adult education, in regard to engaging with postmodernism and Foucauldian post-structuralist thought. After studying the critics of CME, it was clear that they had not taken, for the most part (except Pirie, 1998), a postmodernist analysis or Foucauldian analysis.17 It seemed early on in this thesis, that a great benefit may be gained by applying a Foucauldian and postmodern-type analysis to CME and the problem of understanding 'conflict' in discourses. I was being led, by Foucault's method and analysis of discourse to become more of a "historian" than I thought would ever be appealing. It was a good surprise. Unfortunately, an examination of Foucault and postmodernism came very late in this study. Foucault, as I have come to understand his work through secondary sources primarily, has made history alive for me— that is, the history of ideas-- unfolding and impacting our everyday lived experiences in both actions and in text. Through the past year of graduate studies, I've become aware of the political criticisms forming to challenge Foucault and postmodernism (especially from feminist writers, cf. Nicholson (1990), and critical adult educators (cf. Welton, 1995). I have been influenced by scholars like Agger, Popkewitz et al., Wexler (1983), who were taking Foucault and postmodernism and integrating it with critical (conflict) traditions. This led to my interest (Fisher, 1999) to bring together Foucault and postmodernism with conflict theory as part of the critical analysis of CME- and part of an attempt to find a 'new1 way to understand 'conflict' and the DFCV cycle. Seidman (1998) has attacked this integrating, suggesting the two forms of analysis are incompatible for the most part. Dr. Richard Edwards, Open University in the UK, argued that there are a lot of criticisms launched by "purist" postmodernists at critical social theorists (e.g., Agger) and critical pedagogues (e.g., Aronowitz, Giroux, McLaren) for attempting to appropriate inadequately parts of postmodernist thinking, while remaining within the critical (conflict) tradition (personal communication, August 11, 1999). Therefore, there is a tension and 71 problematic involved in this thesis methodology, which is beyond the scope of this study to address fully. Foucault And His Work Foucault, Michel (1926-84)- a major figure in the great French philosophical debate on reason, language, knowledge and power, who's work was influenced by Marx, Freud and Nietzsche. (Jary and Jary, 1995, p. 241) It is interesting from the point of view of integrating Foucault (and post-modernist analysis) with conflict theory analysis, that three of these 'big' theorists that influenced Foucault are "conflict theorists" (less so Nietzsche18)-- but with Marx and Freud, they had ideological roots that Foucault would reject as "grand narratives" totalizing, and trapped in biased "deep" structural explanations of reality— a reality, that they believed was 'out there.' Language and discourse was not yet to be influential with these "big' three as it was for Foucault, within the context of the "linguistic turn" in late 20th century philosophy. Foucault's ideas, not unlike postmodernism as Harvey (1989) describes the latter, [are] "... to be wrestled with... a battleground of conflicting opinions and political forces" (p. 39). To understand Foucault's work he has to be compared to post-structuralism and postmodernism. Lemert (1997) provides an interesting typology in his book called Postmodernism is not what you think. He wrote, ... it is impossible to talk about postmodernism and its social theories without also talking about modernism.... I include a discussion of radical modernism along with two different kinds of postmodernisms- one that considers modernism done with (radical postmodernism) and another that considers modernity at least in need of a thorough remaking (strategic postmodernism), (p. 20) 72 To essentialize and speak as if there is 'one' postmodernism, is greatly problematic. This study is embedded in the radical modernism + strategic postmodernism of Lemert's scheme. However, these categorizations into 'isms' is likely to be seen by "postmodernist" writers as another attempt to overgeneralize, universalize and totalize something that cannot be done without committing the very kind of errors that postmodernity has attempted to critique in modernity. With the exception of Lyotard, major "postmodern" thinkers, like Foucault, Derrida and others, have rejected placing themselves and their writing in postmodernism (Dr. Richard Edwards, personal communication, August, 11,1999). Although, it is generally agreed that Foucault could be called a "postmodernist" thinker. Postmodernity as a condition we are now in is an important concept, as it is a "... condition under which there is no operative consensus concerning the ultimate or transcendental grounds of truth and justice" (Yeatman, 1994, p. 107). The postmodern political attitude is doubt, suspicion, and a challenge to the idea of a universal, rational, shared cultural view of life, progress, peace, goodness and so on. For some like Terry Eagleton a description of postmodernism is a dramatic slicing 'sword' which challenges the powers of modernism's symbolic/narrative violence. Eagleton wrote, Post-modernism signals the death of such 'metanarratives' whose secretly terroristic function was to ground and legitimate the illusion of a 'universal' human history. We are now in the process of wakening from the nightmare of modernity, with its manipulative reason and fetish of the totality, into the laid-back pluralism of the postmodern, that heterogeneous range of life-styles and language games which has renounced the nostalgic urge to totalize and legitimate itself... Science and philosophy must jettison their grandiose metaphysical claims and view themselves more modestly as just another set of narratives, (cited in Harvey, 1989, p. 9) It may be worthwhile to turn attention to postmodern analyses (as cultural analysis) which leads us to discuss post-structuralism and the movement of cultural analysis (particularly Foucault). 73 Cultural Analysis ... postmodernism is a culture that believes there is a better world than the modern one. In particular it disapproves of modernism's uncritical assumption that European culture (including its diaspora versions in such places as South Africa, the United States, Australia, and Argentina) is an authentic, self-evident, and true universal culture in which all the world's people ought to believe. Postmodernism is a culture that prefers to break things up, to respect the several parts of social world. When it speaks of culture it prefers to speak of cultures. (Lemert, 1997, p. 22) Wetherell and Potter (1992) position Foucault and describe his general approach19 to historical and post-structural (post-ideological) cultural analysis,20 Foucault is probably best seen as a historian of science, although this designation also proves too narrow.... His general procedure within this domain is to take a clump or complex of knowledge and related institutional practices and ask about the 'grid of intelligibility' which makes this complex possible (Dreyfus andRabinow, 1982, p. 121). What are the statements here, how are they placed in relation to each other, what do they order and what objects and subjects emerge as a consequence? How, in other words, is knowledge constituted and what else is created in the process.... There is no stance or platform 'outside' discourse, or, in Foucault's later work, power/knowledge.... He does not think it is possible, therefore, to take the privileged vantage point the concept of ideology [e.g., Marxism] seems to imply.... he wants to substitute for this kind of historical narrative a study of vantage points in themselves. The result is what Foucault calls archeological or, later, genealogical studies which look at how the conditions for knowledge, including historical knowledge, become produced, (pp. 79-81) [underline for emphasis] Foucault's overall rethinking of his field--"... the history of ideas, or 'the history of systems of thought,' as he preferred to call it..." (McHoul and Grace, 1998, p. 1) is of interest in this thesis research on the ideas (and discourses) of'conflict' in a body of knowledge called CME (a new 74 social movement)-- a system or set of systems of thought about 'conflict' and how best to handle it. What narratives are being told about the "regimes of truth" about 'conflict' and who do they best serve? His early archeological and genealogical methods applied to the history of ideas, could be summarized (my own words) in the following: (1) the attempt to unbury the hidden, marginalized and repressed discourses ("subjugated knowledges" or "discourse formations") which 'properly' represent subjugated persons (e.g., prisoners talking about their own experience and definitions of being a prisoner, as opposed to merely theories about crime, delinquency and imprisonment created by the privileged and powerful knowledge-makers21), (2) he explores the conditions which preceded and contributed to the formation of a specific "discourse formation" (or discipline of knowledge)— and he asked questions about these discourse formations or disciplines to find out what they are about in terms of power and social control- in order to see (partially) 'outside' of these discourse formations, he would ask what would exist in its place if the particular discourse formation did not exist?, (3) look for how the discourse formation and disciplines of power/knowledge construct a 'subject' (and objects) (for e.g., how does medical knowledge construct a woman's body and thus 'woman' or 'women'22) and, (4) how do knowledges act as 'normalization' processes, and thus create arbitrary moral distinctions which greatly shape societies, organizations, bodies, selves, souls and so on— and such normalization constructs certain 'normal' (acceptable) knowledges with more privilege and thus rationalizations to impose irrational or inhumane treatments (practices like "law") upon others less privileged (i.e., the "abnormal"). See Appendix IV for a review of some of Foucault's major concepts useful to discourse analysis. What is Discourse?: Locating Foucault's Methodology Foucault's work cannot simply be applied, but can be considered as a set of theoretical [and conceptual] tools that can be used. Foucault himself, 'spoke of theory as a tool-box of concepts' (Rajchman, 1995, p. 14). (Comber, 1997, p. 390) 75 Although discourse, as a concept, has already been briefly defined in this report, and defined with some caution due to the complex and varied uses of the term, some further clarification of Foucault's use of discourse (and its methodological location) is appropriate in this methodology section. The very definition of discourse itself situates the methodological interest and rationale of this study. Hicks (1995-96) wrote, ... a focus on socially situated meanings is a necessary interpretative stance if one wishes to explore relations between discourse and processes of teaching and learning.... the term discourse implies communication that is socially situated and that sustains social 'positionings' [stratification]: relations between participants in face-to-face interaction or between authors and reader in written texts, (p. 49).... The term discourse implies a dialectic of both linguistic form and social communicative practices. One can talk of discourse in terms of oral and written texts that can be examined after the fact and socially situated practices that are constructed in moment-to-moment interaction (Fairclough, 1992; Gee, Michaels, & O'Connor, 1992). (p. 51) This study involves the CME written texts that are examined "after the fact" but that are directly a part of "socially situated practices." Discourses are "... not fixed but are the site of constant contestation of meaning" (cf. Pecheux23, 1982, cited in Mills, 1997, p. 16). Discourse is not something abstract, merely ephemeral, or inconsequential. Discourse has a material-like life of its own. Wetherell and Potter (1992) wrote of this materiality of discourse in why they chose "mapping" to critically analyze the language of racism as discourse and exploitation, Gramsci (1971) has argued that the starting point for any critical account must be the historical process in which identity and self-consciousness are constructed: 'the infinity of traces deposited without leaving an inventory'.... [oppression is] mediated through patterns of signification and representations of others... Discourse seems insubstantial and transitory compared with the people, objects and events which furnish our world. Yet the metaphor [of map] forces us to see racist language in a new way. It emphasizes that 76 discourse does have substance, it is a material which can be explored and charted... In focusing this book primarily on discourse— on meanings, conversations, narratives, explanations, accounts and anecdotes— .... we are not wanting to argue that racism is a simple matter of linguistic practice. Investigations of racism must also focus on institutional practices, on discriminatory actions and on social structures and social division.... (pp. 1-2) If the reader substituted the word social conflict in place oi racism in the above quote, the approach of Wetherell and Potter is very similar to the approach to discourse taken in this study, albeit, limited to text in the latter. Wetherell and Potter are also interested in a discourse analysis as critical social psychologists of white majority groups. They critique social psychology in its attempts to analyze racism, arguing that social psychology often has "... played a double role-investigating racism but also sustaining some of the ideological practices of racist discourse" (p. 2). In parallel, CME (and its reliance on social psychology generally) has to be culpable to this same criticism. Chapter Four examines the specific case of CME discourses on 'conflict' within a broader analysis than racism alone. Relation of Discourse and Ideology This study has a non-empirical value bias underlying the choices made to design the research. In this sense, I agree with Palys (1997), "There is indeed, then an ideological component to the sort of research [in natural and social sciences] in which one engages" (p. 30). In simplified terms, research has a politics, comes out of a politics and manufactures a politics (ideology and its power/knowledge implicat-ions). Foucault, does not necessarily state a political position distinctly in his writing but he is embedded within a critical French philosophical discourse that is challenging of the authority of the status quo and elite. His interest was primarily practical, with the intention of exposing the political and strategic nature of knowledge formations or "regimes of truth," in contemporary W. societies (McHoule and Grace, 1998, p. 7 7 59-60). In terms of a particular tradition of methodology, Foucault is neither a "realist" ("determinist"), "idealist," or "dialecticist." Rather, he prefers to slip inbetween these approaches, more with an interest in "calculating strategies" (McHoul and Grace, 1998, p. 53) of how to transform the dominating power relations based on discourses. He is not very interested in the "truth"24 as the methodologies listed above generally can be. Foucault (1980) links the necessary relationship of discourse to power-knowledge, In a society such as ours, but basically in any society, there are manifold relations of power which permeate, characterise and constitute the social body, and these relations of power cannot themselves be established, consolidated nor implemented without the production, accumulation, circulation and functioning of a discourse. There can be no possible exercise of power without a certain economy of discourses of truth which operates through and on the basis of this association. We are subjected to the production of truth through power and we cannot exercise power except through the production of truth, (p. 93) Clearly, Foucault's "... writing on power cannot be discussed outside his investigations of the production of'truth'... "(McHoul and Grace, 1998, p. 57). 'Power' and 'truth' are of epistemological interest and ideological interest to us in this study. Discourse is intimately linked with both interests. Earlier in this report it was mentioned that discourse, as used in this study, is very similar, to ideology, as used in this study. Although, this is a very complex topic, well beyond the scope of this thesis, it is worth exploring briefly. Is CDA an ideological analysis? Is an ideological analyis, inevitably a CDA? It appears that Gramsci's interest in ideology (hegemony) is not too far from Wetherell and Potter's (1992) interest in discourse analysis. Further exploration of definitions of these two terms indicates that they are commonly related to an analysis of power/domination relations in social life. But Havel's (1990, p. 50) definition of ideology, like most sociological accounts, tends to place the core focus of ideology around the distinction between "false" consciousness and "true" consciousness. As well, ideology 78 tends to focus on a simplified dichotomy between dominators and victims. Jary and Jary (1995, p. 306) wrote that the sociological meaning of ideology is "... any system of ideas which justifies or legitimates the subordination of one group by another." When Foucault's notion of power is examined, he moves the concept into metaphors beyond dichotomies of dominators and victims, and he is not interested in proving or spectulating about which is "false" or "true" consciousness. McHoul and Grace (1998) summarized Foucault's notion of power, Power is not to be read, therefore, in terms of one individual's domination over another or others; or even as that of one class over another or others; for the subject which power has constituted becomes part of the mechanisms of power.... We can therefore refer to a terrain of power which, for Foucault, is not to be taken as merely 'ideological' in the weak sense, where that term refers to any aspect of individual or collective consciousness (p. 22).... [re: Foucault's notion of "discipline", likewise] Thus we cannot say that discipline is guided by a 'false' or ideological conception of the human body. (p. 69) McHoule and Grace (1998) contrast the methodology of Foucault's analysis with other critical theorists and traced the reasons for Foucault's unique analysis of power beyond the discourses of power that were previously available in Europe-- due to the political climate with a conservative side of politics and a radical Marxist left side. They state it was this political situation that prevented a Foucauldian idea of power because "Both sides remained content to 'denounce' power as the global property of the 'other side'" (p. 87). Power is the result, not the cause, of dominant-subordinate relations, according to Foucault. It appears that a focus on ideologies, and not local micro-practices and 'conditions' for knowledge, misses the relation dynamic of how power flows through actors in fields and "terrains," at times in impersonal and somewhat arbitrary ways. McHoul and Grace (1998) concluded, As such, Foucault recommends an ascending rather than descending analysis of power. Hegemonic or global forms of power rely in the first instance on those 'infinitesimal' practices [discourses].... Finally, Foucault stresses that the types of apparatuses of 79 knowledge associated with the exercise o f power cannot be considered systems of 'ideology'. Elsewhere, he argues, 'discourses are not once and for all subservient to power or raised up against it... (1979a: 101). While ideological productions certainly exist, they are much less important than the instruments and procedures which produce them, and what may be called the historical 'conditions' o f this knowledge, (p. 90) If I understand this distinction and difference between Foucault's discourse and critical theory's ideology, it is evident both are important in the analysis of power/knowledge and dominant-subordinate relations (for e.g., the DFCV cycle). However, they have major differences in methodologies and focus of interest in approaching social analysis. That is why this study has chosen a "three-in-one" approach to CDA (see below), to ensure discourse and ideology are both included in the critique of CME. What Is 'Conflict'?: Entering The Symbolic Environment & Culture The nature of the symbolic environment is such that it depends in great measure on what men [sic] say or think about it. In particular, what men think or say about human conflict... has a great bearing on the nature of human conflict and its consequences. Therefore, in discussing conflict as a feature of man-made environment, we shall have to examine various conceptions of conflict, not only with the view of estimating to what extent the concepts are accurate (as one does with scientific theories) but also with the view of seeing how some of these conceptions make human conflicts what they are. (Rapoport, 1974, p. 7) Rapoport, a renowned international scholar on conflict, provides important support for the value of doing a conceptual analysis of'conflict', especially, within the socially constructed world of the symbolic environment of language, texts and symbols. However, this study does not take a pre-given epistemological position that concepts can necessarily be known in terms of a scientifically accurate truth. Foucauldian analysis is not interested in the truth about what 'conflict' is or isn't. Poststructural or postmodernist analyses are typically antipathetic to 80 investigations and methodologies that attempt such an essentialist or naturalistic answer (e.g., cf. Edwards, 1997). Foucault's approach to concepts and discourses about concepts (e.g., power) is more oriented to how we "tell the truth," about such things; and how we actually carry out practices that reinforce certain tellings of the "truth" and exclude other "forbidden knowledges" or tellings about the "truth." Who is the 'we' in control of these tellings is important. The historical, sociopolitical and economic basis of these inclusions and exclusions of tellings (knowledge formations) is of great interest in CDA (and Popkewitz's approach to analysis of discourse as social epistemology). This symbolic focus is most appropriate to use with CME training manuals and handbooks. The reference sources of information in any specialized or disciplinary field of knowledge, are generally seen to be the best "truth" in a particular field (see discussion on authoritative knowledge earlier in this chapter- "Rationale For Studying CME Training Manuals."). New Social Conflicts: The Battleground Of Representation The social, political and economic context for 'doing' CDA in education is nicely summarized in Luke (1995-96), as he emphasized the important changes of post-WWII demographics, socioeconomics and information technologies. He sets out the emphasis in a postmodernist world of language, discourse and difference as central aspects of research in a sociology of knowledge and the politics of knowledge. Texts images, and representations, ... have become both the means and objects of processes of commodification25 (Baudrillard, 1981). This situation has raised public and professional debate over the kinds of textual and literate competence required for economic productivity and democratic citizenship (e.g., Lankshear & McLaren, 1993). It has also succeeded in making texts and images the new battlegrounds for a politics of representation, (p. 5).... [noting the battleground of cultural control] It should not be surprising, then, that many of the new social conflicts [within new social movements and elsewhere] are about representation and 81 subjectivity. In terms of representation, they involve the production and consumption of texts [and images], access to and legal control over texts, and the rights to name, to construe, to depict, and to describe. In terms of subjectivity, they involve how one is being named, positioned, desired, and described and in which languages, texts, and terms of reference. (Luke, 1995-96, p. 5-6) [underline for emphasis] Although Luke is apparently describing mostly the mixed multi-ethnic/racial26 composition of many societies today, his ideas are very applicable to the construction of knowledge and subjectivities about anyone in any discipline. His ideas are applicable to the formation of 'conflict' knowledge and what is 'conflict'? CME discourses (text and images) in training manuals and handbooks are herein subjected to many of these questions and ideas from Luke and others (see below). What marginal or sub-dominant discourses are not included in CME? Why not? How knowledge of'conflict' or conflict resolution/management, or peer conflict managers are depicted and controlled is of longterm interest in this study. The focus of this research however, is dedicated to conceptualizations of'conflict' per se in CME texts. Domination and violence27 go together and may work in the physical world as well as the "symbol-saturated environments" (Luke, 1995-96, p. 5) of a postmodern world. CME, like any new social movement, is challenged to acknowledge the cultural battle for control of knowledge formation and the politics of power/ knowledge ideologies that go with its "educational" (or "propagandist") agenda. Education, like knowledge production, is not value-neutral. New social movements as "educational sites" or "revolutionary sites" are ultimately conflict zones of cultural, political and economic consideration. CME is a unique conflict zone of "new social conflicts" (a la Luke) that creates and disperses conflict knowledge itself. This CDA is a methodology which attempts to critically unveil what has not been systematically examined, from a poststructuralist view, in CME discourses— at least, not to my knowledge (if it exists, it is virtually inaccessible). 82 Three Approaches In One; Toward An Integral Framework Luke (1.995-96) traces the historical roots and dominant approaches to discourse analysis in education since the early 1980s and the "linguistic turn" in the social sciences. The hegemonic methodology in these studies was "scientific" and principally focused "... on the study of language development and use per se rather than on the relationship between discourse and larger social formations" (p. 8). Luke noted that the earlier studies, distinguished from his view of CDA, were most often attempts to explain individual behavior and motivations— what, I have referred to as a psychologism bias. CDA is "... derived from poststructuralist, neo-Marxian, and feminist theory and from critical linguistics" (p. 8), in which a social and political dimension is emphasized in understanding the construction of discourses. Luke (1995-96) wrote of how Foucault's work is a major contributor to CDA; Foucault described the constructing character of discourse, that is, how both in broader social formations (i.e., epistemes) and in local sites and uses discourse actually defines, constructs, and positions human subjects. According to Foucault (1972, p. 49), discourses 'systematically form the objects about which they speak,' shaping grids and hierarchies for the institutional categorization and treatment of people. These knowledge-power relations are achieved, according to Foucault, by the construction of'truths' about the social and natural world, truths that become taken-for-granted definitions and categories by which governments rule and monitor their populations and by which members of communities define themselves and others, (p. 8-9) Several critical concepts of a Foucauldian analysis are summarized in Appendix IV. These serve as the basic concepts by which to critique CME discourses on 'conflict.' Luke's (1995-96) important paper on CDA draws attention to the sociological analysis component in some discourse studies in education. In particular, he noted that although the microanalytic text analyses are very important, other important studies have called for "Discourses," with a capital 'D' (Gee, 1990); whereby,"... the large-scale ideological formations28 and 'forms of life',..." 83 (Luke, 1995-96, p. 10) are studied in pedagogies (e.g., Donald, 1992; Gore, 1993; Luke, 1989— all cited in Luke, 1995-96, p. 10) with their histories and practices. This 'form of [social] life,' of the macro aspect of social reality is of great interest in this thesis. The idea indicated here, is that Discourses take on a life of their own at the institutional and collective level of organizations and societies. This harkens to the sociological theories of Weber and Durkheim, especially. Agents and their actions are necessary embedded in this macro level of social life, but the Discourses of "large-scale ideological formations" are not of the same categorical, or logical type as micro scale formations. One way of seeing the big 'D' in social analysis, is to read what people say or write as text- which is text writing the people (subject). In simple terms, one could say that what we speak and write is not necessarily our own- it is a discourse "truth" with a long sociocultural and political history. This study takes a general CDA approach, as does Luke (1995-96) when he wrote, I want to explore the potential and value of discourse analysis explicitly tied to a sociological analysis of how educational knowledge, competence, and curriculum contribute to the differential production of power [conflict] and subjectivity.29 (p. 11) This sociological emphasis of Luke, leads into the next approach utilized in this study. After Foucauldian analysis, the second approach in building an integral critical discourse framework for this study, is the conflict perspective. The basic ideas and history behind this perspective in social theory and sociology have been mentioned in Chapter One briefly. Appendix IIII provides the basic concepts and discourse of conflict theory vs. cooperative theory (cf. also Figure 9). These concepts and discourse from sociology and social theory provide the base for a critique of CME discourses as well. There is no need to repeat this information at this point, other than to remind the reader that these two approaches, Foucauldian analysis (poststructuralism) and conflict theory (structuralism) tend to be seen generally as incompatible by many social theorists (e.g., Seidman, 1998). This problematic has been referred to a few times throughout this report. The sociological conflict perspective provides a contrasting discourse with the consensus 84 perspective, and they are a useful referent to apply to how the CME discourses may be dominated with either of these two perspectives. Finally, the third approach in this unique critical framework is that of an interdisciplinary/ comparative analysis of discourses on 'conflict' from anthropology, sociology, communications, cognitive-behavioral psychology and social psychology. The discourses on conceptualizing 'conflict' provided a referent basis within major disciplines, for how "best" to define 'conflict.' CME discourses are compared across these disciplines, and evidence is provided as to which disciplines may be providing the dominating discourse to CME constructions of'conflict.' The three-in-one conception here for an integral framework of CDA is based, somewhat, on the critical integral theory of Ken Wilber's transpersonal psychology and philosophy (cf. particularly, Crittendon, 1997). Although, it is beyond the scope of this study to elaborate the epistemological and ontological dimension behind Wilber's synthesis and critical integral theory, suffice it to say that "integral" is an important conception in Wilber's research and writing. It is basically, a term used to indicate that there are many ways of bringing together diverse, and sometimes contradictory theories and ideas, and integrating them (critically) into a new synthesis. This integrating is very different, and in opposition, to functionalist or consensus theory's conceptualization of "integration." The integral notion of Wilber, although somewhat neo-Hegelian, is far beyond the limitations of Hegel, and much less deterministic. Wilber basically argues there are likely many different approaches and methodologies among the various disciplines for a good reason- yet, they are all attempting to seek the same truth(s) about the deeper structures of reality. His "spectrum" notion is part of "critical integral theory," and it serves as a metaphor to make room for all of the discourses on any subject (e.g., cf. Wilber, 1977; 1981) on his integration of all the different forms of consciousness and psychological-therapeutic subdiscplines). All the parts (and ways of approaching knowledge) have a place in the making of the whole— but for Wilber (1995), are always part/wholes (i.e., holons). Wilber (1995) argued, integral vision (or 85 aperspectival consciousness)30 is a form of thinking that allows for bringing all the diverse, and sometimes contradictor}', approaches to knowing together but without a "flat" eclecticism (perspectivism31)— because we still require critical analysis. The three-in-one concept here, is based on the assumption that all different ways of conceptualizing 'conflict' are valid and important in understanding 'conflict'— although, some knowledges in this diversity may be more "integrative" (expansive in their embrace of wider and deeper knowing) than other forms. All knowledges are still valuable and essential to a more complete and integrative knowing. 'Conflict' Epistemology?: The Politics Of The Production Of Knowledge Epistemology And Dialecticism Dialecticism as a methodology for knowing (and epistemology) was mentioned earlier as the most traditional epistemology for the conflict perspective (a la Hegel and Marx). There is little room in this thesis to elaborate on how important dialectical means and concepts (like, contradiction) are in understanding. A thorough investigation of this epistemological method would likely prove very useful for knowing 'conflict' itself. Ring (1991), a feminist political scholar, has opened up this path in her "minimalist dialectics" approach (which avoids the overly ideological determinism of Hegel and Marx, but retains the dialectical method of these important W. thinkers of the conflict tradition). Ring has criticized feminist theoreticians for being afraid of "conflict" and leaving their epistemology open to an overly harmonious unity-focused and muted form. She concluded that,"... all three [Jagger, Harding and Fox Keller] minimize the role of conflict that is at the essence of dialectical learning" (Ring, 1991, p. 27). But at this point, Popkewitz et al. provide an important postmodernist epistemology that deserves most attention in this thesis because of the emphasis on Foucault. 86 Epistemology And The Crisis Of Knowledge This entire study has assumed the best context for studying CME discourses is a conflict perspective and/or postmodernist view of a world in crisis. Social sciences are in crisis (Willinsky, 1999, p. 71). Knowledge ("as power and product"32) is also in crisis. Thereby, this study assumes, that CME and its construction of'conflict' knowledge is also in crisis because of this larger social and political context. Some may not see the crisis or believe it exists. Some may argue, that the methodological approach of this study itself, constructs and creates the crisis. My purpose here is to support this conflict perspective and crisis view through methodological considerations that come from the sociology of science and knowledge. To keep this short, Palys (1997) gives a good outline of the paradigm shift and valuable contribution the sociology of science has offered in the past few decades. Foucault's work emerged in parallel with this critique from the sociology of science. Palys (1997) argues that with the constructivist view in social sciences emerging in the 1960s and 1970s, there has been less homogeneity, less clear "standards" to judge "validity" and "truth"- because "objectivity" has been highly contested in research methodology. More marginal 'voices' from various ethnic and racial groups, feminists and others brought forth their own knowledges, ways of knowing (epistemology) and questioned the hegemony and power/control of dominant groups (and science). He wrote of the academic atmosphere of the those times, But with growing heterogeneity, the consensus model (which positivist approaches pretty much take as a starting point) that had dominated sociology and underlay psychology suddenly came in for intense scrutiny, [a "crisis of confidence," Elms, 1975— cited in Palys, 1997, p. 32). [underline for emphasis] Within constructivism and the new politics of knowledge, "social facts" and the domination of positivism33 were challenged and seen as anything but factual, real, or empirical (alone). 'Reality' and 'truth' are not merely "out there." Palys (1997) commented on the paradigmatic shift 87 to a sociologically constructed 'reality' less of consensus and more consistent with a conflict perspective and/or postmodernist view. He wrote, 'Knowledge' came to be seen as bound by the perspective [worldview] of the research that had generated it. The constructed nature of science and knowledge became obvious when many new participants made clear that they would construct truth another way. Reality became negotiable, (p. 32) The sociology of science, and Kuhn's (1970) work attempted to sensitize "scientists" and other knowledge-makers that".. scientists' theories embody a worldview, and that observation, the cornerstone of scientific practice, is 'theory-laden' rather than 'theory-neutral' (as the positivists had maintained)" (Palys, 1997, p. 31). 'Reality' and 'knowledge' became, for many academics, consciously associated with power/ knowledge dynamics and conflict. Foucault's work brought this to the foreground even more. Reality as "negotiable" was perhaps a liberalist euphemism for what was going on. This conflict of knowledges has grown into what Palys (1997) suggests "... are tense times in academe." (p. 34)-- what other researchers in education, perhaps more honestly, have called "paradigm wars" (Gage, 1989), "culture wars" (Graff, 1992) and powerfully hurtful practices related to methodology and a "paradigm gap" in academic research (Miller et al., 1998). Epistemology is a central issue often in the battles for 'truth,' and 'reality.' Becker (1996) remarks that these epistemologies and knowledges become similar to an encounter between "cultures." CME, like this study, are embedded in discourses in conflict/battle- and this becomes even more intriguing when the content of the discourses analyzed are directly about the nature of 'conflict.' How do we best research and understand 'conflict'? This is the initial question that leads this study toward a search for a possible 'conflict' epistemology (or 'conflict' standpoint theory34). Albeit, this is a large question beyond the scope of this study. The social epistemology of Popkewitz et al. (below) offers some guidance in considering an epistemology suited to 88 understanding 'conflict'— and that challenges, in a Foucauldian manner, the consensus-positivist-modernist hegemony in traditional methodologies of the natural and social sciences. Social Epistemology Politics reside not only in subject matter but in the discourse of the classroom. (Shor, 1992, p. 14) The study of discourses oi social conflict in CME training manuals is part of a deconstructionist35 effort to challenge all current definitions and conceptualizations of'conflict.' An important part of that challenge has to do more with the way the conceptualizations of 'conflict' are produced as a social practice, than with the actual concept of'conflict' (e.g., social conflict) that is presented by any author, group or social movement. The interest to challenge how 'conflict' is conceptualized is primarily an epistemological concern. A guiding question throughout the analysis of this report is what is the best, way to know 'conflict'? It appears throughout a search in the CME literature that this epistemological question is rarely addressed in a systematic way. More practical interests in "resolving" or "managing" conflict take priority over questioning the ability of the methodology and methods by which 'conflict' is known (or thought to be understood). This raises the research question of how good is the conflict knowledge that is utilized to teach, train and inscribe learners who partake in ChAE programs of anykind? This is a very large question and only a small part of it can be addressed in this limited study. Recommendations for what is 'good' (more complete, integral, or better) conflict knowledge are presented in Chapter Four. The work of Popkewitz et al. on social epistemology may provide some useful Foucauldian approaches to improving the critical analysis of CME. Popkewitz and Brennan (1997) wrote, [re: the political project they are promoting]"... we call a 'social epistemology.' Our interest is to consider knowledge as a social practice that generates action and participation [via power]" (p. 289). Popkewitz (1991) is interested in a political (historical) sociology of knowledge, of change, and reform in schooling and teacher 89 education practices. Specifically, he is interested in the relation of"... knowledge and power that structures our perceptions and organizes our social practices" (p. 1). Popkewitz (1998) asks what are "... the systems of reasoning that organize the practices of'success', 'empowerment,' and 'voice'? (p. 4)- or, in this study could be asked in terms of what are the systems of reasoning that organize (via rules and regulations) the practices of conflict resolution/management? How are those systems of reasoning embedded in historical and sociopolitical agendas and who is best served by them? There is little space here to outline all of the work of Popkewitz et al., It is important to emphasize the significance of social epistemology in the most basic terms. Popkewitz and Brennan (1997) summarize, The significance of a social epistemology is that it helps us recognize that when we 'use' language it may not be us speaking .... Speech [and text] is ordered through principles of classification that are socially formed through a myriad of historical practices. When teachers talk about school as management, teaching as production of learning, or children as being 'at-risk,' these terms are not 'merely' the personal words of the teacher, but are produced in the context of historically constructed 'ways of reasoning.' The 'reasoning' inscribed in systems of ideas order 'seeing,' talking, and acting, (p. 293) [underline for emphasis] This idea that "when we 'use' language it may not be us speaking" is more than merely thinking of educators as social agents/actors playing out roles or games. Although, roles and games are part of discourses, the challenge of critical analysis and social epistemology is to extend to a deeper political and historical analysis of the language/text/speech/images, that we both produce and reproduce in everday social practices. Once power (and conflict) are included as core variables in the knowledge utilized in language/text/speech/images (including actions), then discourse has a meaning and a social epistemology that offers political salience to undermining the DFCV cycle in curriculum and educative sites. 90 The text and speech of curriculum as "historically formed knowledge" is critical to the social epistemological analysis. In this study of CME discourses, the CME curriculum is also under investigation as a Discourse (capital 'D') itself-- that is, a discourse of social order/control and regulation. Popkewitz (1997) wrote, I view curriculum as a particular, historically informed knowledge that inscribes rules and standards by which we 'reason' about the world [about social conflict] and our 'self [as conflict managers] as a productive member of that world. The rules for 'telling the truth' in curriculum, however, are not only about the construction of objects for our scrutiny and observation. Curriculum is a disciplining [social] technology that directs how the individual is to act, feel, talk, and 'see' the world and 'self As such, curriculum is a form of social regulation [administration, governmentality] My use of epistemology is to give reference to how the systems of ideas in schooling organize perceptions, ways of responding to the world and conceptions of'self The social in epistemology emphasizes the relational and social embeddedness of knowledge, in contrast to an American philosophical concern with epistemology as a search for universal knowledge claims about the nature, origins and limits of knowledge. (See Toulmin, 1972 and 1988 for a discussion of science that relates to my usage of epistemology) (p. 132) Particularly attractive, is Popkewitz and Brennan's (1997) combining interest in Foucault's "regimes of truth" and Pierre Bourdieu's36 "habitus" and an interest to go beyond Marxist [conflict and critical theory] notions about power and politics of change. Their interest is "... with a view of power that is both different from and, at certain points, complementary to that of the structuralism of Marxist theories"37 (p. 288). This complementary (integral) aspect of their social epistemology may be useful to my own interests in bringing together the conflict perspective in sociology and postmodernist thinking, in the development of a neo-conflict theory and eventual 'conflict' epistemology. 91 Chapter Summary Chapter Two reviewed the purposes of the study and locates the type of research undertaken with five basic methodological assumptions. The study is both empirical and interpretive, quantitative and qualitative, and the results are meant to have an "objectively subjective" quality. Design rationale are explicated with details of the sample "cases" (10 school-based CME training manuals and handbooks and 12 adult-professional-based CME training manuals and handbooks). Procedures of data collection and categorization of data are explained in the context of issues of reliability and validity. A discussion of "trustworthiness of data" (validity) is examined in light of this research involving what Lather refers to as "openly ideological research." Strengths and weaknesses of the methodology and interpretation of results are suggested. An overview of Foucault's work and CDA is undertaken with the purpose to locate Foucault's methodology. Definitions are given for key terms like discourse and ideology and their similar and different aspects to each other as concepts. A unique approach to CDA is outline as a "three-in-one" method of analysis in this study. It involves: (1) Foucauldian analysis, (2) conflict perspective analysis and (3) interdisciplinary/ comparative analysis. The combination of these three forms of analysis are thought to improve possibilities for an integral conflict knowledge and analysis of discourses in CME texts. This approach is contextualized in terms of Wilber's critical integral theory. The Chapter closes with a discussion of the importance of considering a 'conflict' epistemology in relation to the study of'conflict' and its conceptualizations. The context of this discussion reiterates the Foucaudian concern (and Popkewitz's) regarding the politics and crisis of the production of knowledge, particularly in the social sciences and education. Implications of Popkewitz's work on a social epistemology are considered as part of the analysis of discourses in this study, as well as a potentially powerful approach to developing a 'conflict' epistemology in the long term. 92 1 Equally problematic is the inflation of "parts" to "wholes." This point is raised in the text to merely raise the awareness of the problem, contestation and battle that goes on in knowledge-making. This accent is footnoted here also because of the interplay of consensus theory (functionalisrn) and conflict theory and their long battle for reality and the best ways of knowing and explaining social reality. "... both the term 'function' and the functionalist perspective retain widespread significance in sociology, for they involve a concern with the crucial issue of the interrelationship of parts to wholes in human society and the relationships between social structure and human agency...". (Jary and Jary, 1995, p. 249). Appendix IV shows several authors who write that the consensus (functionalist) theory tends to valorize and emphasize the "whole" over the "parts," and the conflict theory tends to valorize and emphasize the "part" over the "whole." Although, this is an oversimplification, I believe it still has a lot of salience in any investigation into the politics and power of knowledge and constructions of how best to structure organizations and societies. Both consensus and conflict theories can fall into their own dissociation from each other and over-valorize and over-emphasize one or the other aspect of social reality and knowledge formation. Detecting this "over-" (or pathological) component in both theoretical positions and in discourses, that is of great interest to me. The holonic or integral approach (epistemology) of Wilber (1995, 1997) is likely to bear fruit on this problem, as has been pursued in early sociology writing on the principle of the problem of "synecdoche ... a confusion of the whole with its parts..." (Demerath III, 1967, p. 502). 2 Scheff and Retzinger (1991) present a description of how C S . Peirce's "abduction" serves as an important sociological methodology (between induction and deduction), integrating micro-macro frames and part/whole processes of seeing and working with interpreting and creating ideas from data and developing hypothetical formulations. 3 Generalizations and grouping diverse peoples into one group is always dangerous. I am not intending to speak "for" anyone. I speak only as part of the whole ("we"). I am particularly referring to a 'we' or 'our' genetically as educators in N.A. I do think adults of all kinds and locations are, relatively, and potentially important educators— albeit, not all are professionals. I also acknowledge, the multiple problematics of my own background, writing as a white Canadian male of European ancestory, in that these have been oppressive dominator locations of privilege for many centuries. Being raised poor working class, and "choosing" to live as a well-educated working class person, I feel I can speak to issues of violence and oppression from first hand experience as both oppressor and victim. 4 The DFCV cycle dynamic is further elaborated in Chapter Four. ^ This is perhaps an abrupt insertion in this thesis. The word pathology can bring up a lot of reactions. As a concept, pathology itself, has been and can be part of a dominating and violent discourse. I use it sparingly, and problematically. For purposes of this study, my use of 'pathology' (i.e., with the (') marks on it) cautions the reader of its meaning, and asserts no pre-given, or pre-supposed privileged meaning to the concept. It is a term that needs to be deconstructed and reconstructed. I would argue that 'pathology' is a reality (albeit, problematic), which can be recognized as a pattern/discourse of social life. For example, my primary use of the term, in this context refers to the hurting of others and hurting of self. This is part of a much too lenghty discussion, I won't go into, on the distinction between "coping" and "healing" as paradigms and life styles in various cultures. To spoil (toxify) oneself, others, the nest in which we live (the planetary ecosystems) is 'pathological'— and no one, or no group, is free from this 'pathological' assessment on my part. Arguably, a case could be made that of the three primary methodological traditions in the human and social sciences, dialecticism is the choice methodology (rather than positivism or idea/ism) for a critical (conflict) theory position, as that taken in this study. "Dialectical theories assume that the histoty of human society reflects qualitative changes resulting from contradictions within earlier societies [or organizations] and that contradictions will continue to be found in the future. These theories attempt to explain contradictions as processes of change." (Boguslaw and Vickers, 1977, p. 181). I acknowledge that dialectical methodology and theories of social change and transformation are diverse and problematic (e.g., Hegelian and Marxian "metaphysics"). Some further discussion of diaiecticism and contradiction as part of a 'conflict' epistemology can be found at the end of this chapter. Dialectical methodology is appealing to a study of'conflict' because it highly valorizes conflict in social change within a political 9 3 and sociocultural context, rather than a more individualist de-politicized psychologism or vapid liberalism. 7 This is epistemologicaily consistent as a methodological consideration with the work of two important conflict theorists in sociology utilized in this report— that is, Randall Collins and Donald Black. See particularly, Collins (1998) for an interesting re-interpretation of the "realist" position, in relation to social constructionist ideas. Below, I discuss Foucault's epistemology somewhat, and it appears his epistemological stance, although difficult to peg-down, is similar to a critical realism, but less so than those like Collins or Black. Although this brief synopsis may be overly critical sounding, there is no attempt to create a false dichotomy and suggest that there is no purpose or value to "transmission" models of teaching and learning. They have their place but they may become violent forms of knowledge and practices, and the latter is what needs to be critiqued harshly. Context, and content, location and specifics, are necessary in any critical analysis, be it Foucauldian or not. This study is working with no specific people, events, or locations of practices. The comments are therefore merely generalizations for theoretical interest and possibilities to future critique of CME or any training text and processes. Foucault's work ought not to be equated with postmodern analysis or postmodernism so easily. See discussion later in this chapter under "Foucault: Poststructural Analysis." 1 0 #11 has (a) and (b) manuals but these are counted as one, because they are by the same author and published by the same organization. 1 1 Personal communication with M. Huber, Director of the Conflict Resolution program at the British Columbia Justice Institute, July, 1999). 1 2 In this study concept is used as follows: "... a concept is an abstraction from observed phenomena; it is a word that states the commonalities among those observed events and situations and distinguishes the phenomena from other events and situations. Concepts are used in place of descriptive phrases.... Concepts, however, are more than the [value-neutral] accumulation of data regarding people, incidents, participant language and participant 'meanings."' (McMillan and Schumacher, 1989, pp. 94-95). Palys (1997) gives an example of the politics of constitutive definitions, that is more than merely a difference due to different disciplinary knowledges. "As the preceding paragraphs suggest, variations among researchers in the constitutive definition of theoretical variables may reflect ideological, theoretical, or disciplinary differences among those researchers. I noted earlier, for example, that a crime might be defined as 'any violation of the criminal law.' Although this is obviously a reasonable and defensible definition, many would argue that such a choice reflects tacit agreement with status-quo interests, and should be replaced with a broader, narrower, or even totally different focus.... one's choice of constitutive definition affects how one goes about conceptualizing one's research strategy [as well as how one attempts to deal with the problem called 'crime'-- of which, could be substituted the word/concept of conflict]." (p. 63). Palys here is indicating there are status quo-maintaining definitions and status challenging-changing (revolutionizing) definitions— all, with their different, if not contradictory, outcomes in doing research and in attempting to solve social problems. This is supportive of the assumption behind this study in regard to the political and social importance of analyzing the conceptualization of'conflict.' 1 4 Sorenson (1994) consisted of two books, one for adults/trainers and a "Supplement" for students. 1 5 Lather (1986) is using the term ideology in a neo-Marxian (a la Gramscian, and M. Apple) way. She wrote, "This notion is opposed to orthodox Marxist usage which sees ideology as a distortion of reality, protective of existing power arrangements.... Gramsci theorizes that ideology comes in progressive as well as oppressive forms...". (p. 78). This is not the same usage of the term in this report (based on V. Havel). Reason (1981) uses ideology as '"preferred sociological norms" (p. 48) in a non-Marxian way. Fairclough's 3-dimensional model of discourse and discourse analysis (as outlined by Janks, 1997) involves text-description (text analysis), discourse practice- interpretation (processing analysis) and explanation- (social analysis) sociocultural practice. 1 7 Perhaps, it could be argued, that Duryea's (1992) initiative in bringing a cultural diversity critique to CME (along with others) was a breakthrough to beginning to recognize many or marginal 'voices' (oppressed groups) and their value in constructing conflict knowledge. 1 8 For many authors, like Harvey (1989), Nietzsche is an early root to postmodernist thought, it is he (like Foucault) in particular "... that emphasizes the deep chaos [conflict/battles] of modern life and its intractability [unyielding to rational managerial control] before rational thought." (p. 44). 1 9 For an indepth review of Foucault's overall project and methods, see Dreyfus and Rabinow (1982). 2 0 Wilber (1995) places Foucault, along with Peter Berger, Mary Douglas and Jurgen Habermas, Charles Taylor and Clifford Geertz, in the domain of "Cultural Analysis" as opposed to "social analysis." He argues that "... the study of 94 human '.sociology' (especially Anglo-Saxon countries) has usually been the study of the observable behavior of social systems (or 'social action systems'). Something is a 'really real' science if its data can he seen empirically.... it has been so hard for sociologists lo buck the posilivistic trend of studying only behavior-oriented action systems [external], and to study not just society but also culture, or the shared values that constitute the common worldviews of various social systems— that is the interiors of the social systems." (p. 13). Wilber notes these theorists of the interior and interpreted realm have not been part of the mainstream of social sciences— rather, they are directed to investigating meaning, symbolism, language and discourse. Wilber categorizes Foucault within "structuralism" (p. 124). Mills (1997, p. 75) regards Barthe's and Foucault's work on discursive structures (especially in Foucault's archeological period of investigations) as "structuralist" However, Wilber qualifies this, arguing that Foucault's early work (archeology ofactual existence) was a "... neostructuralist reworking of the traditional structuralist's analysis.... Foucault bracketed not only the truth of linguistic utterances— the standard phenomenological move-but their meaning as well...". (p. 598). McHoul and Grace (1998) referred to Foucault's philosophical path as a steering away from, rather than between realism and idealism (p. 2). Wilber's critique of Foucault is too complex to elaborate, other than the important point he is making that Foucault's work is not all of one type or location, as Foucault wrote over a period of a few decades and evolved as he worked out his own methodology. Jary and Jary (1995) noted that "Although, sometimes referred to as a 'structuralist,' he usually rejected this label. He is perhaps best seen as a 'post-structuralist' in the sense that he M'ished to discover the nonrational scaffolding of reason, but without any commitment to either an underlying order or a finally determinant power in the construction." (p. 241). Although, Foucault would have agreed with a socially constructed "reality,' that is contextual and relative, like the structuralists, he would not likely have agreed there is any underlying "deep" structure (power, entelechy, telos) that can be used to explain the way "reality" is. He also was not interested (but very critical) in the interpretive schools of philosophical and social analysis that gather under the name of hermeneutics (cf. Dreyfus and Rabinow, 1982). Foucault and his work have many critics, Wilber (1995), Habermas and some feminist writers (cf. Nicholson, 1990) are a start for the beginning reader. 2 1 McHoul and Grace (1998, p. 19) cited Foucault (1977, p. 209) speaking of prisoners and their important discourse "... against power.... a counter-discourse of prisoners." (as Foucault called it). 2 2 Foucault, is acknowledging that such essentializing of'woman' or 'women' goes on all the time, but he does not necessarily endorse it, but rather wants to deconstruct it, and see how it is defined by a privileged majority under certain conditions. "Pecheux's work is important in that he stresses more than Foucault the confliclual nature of discourse. He stresses the fact that ideological struggle is the essence of discourse structure...". (Mills, 1997, p. 14). 2 4 "Foucault, then, is more than dubious about notions of absolute truth, or indeed of definitive philosophical answers to political questions. And he is far from believing that it is the task of intellectuals to provide such things. But this does not mean that 'there is no truth.' On the contrary, there can sometimes be many, each with its own rationality. But the question is [for Foucault]: which of these, at any given period, comes lo predominate and how?" (McHoul and Grace, 1998, p. 19). Plumb (1995) critiquing critical adult education, from a postmodernist view, traces the historical and ideological importance of commodity and commodification from Marx, to Habermas to Baudrillard. For our purposes, commodificalion is a process which emphasizes cultural and symbolic reproduction (via representation, signification) where no longer is a product produced for its traditional (original) values and meanings and or money/profit alone— but in a postmodern world, is reproduced for "... the ideological battle for cultural control...". (Plumb, 1995, p. 168) to manipulate and legitimate knowledge, power and privilege of those who have the most resources (e.g., access to the media) to use discourses (texts and primarily images). For example, cf. Plumb (1995, p. 167) on how the bourgeois "... resorts to the manipulation of culture [symbolic environment and representations] to ensure its [classist] perpetuation...". "The commodificalion of culture only occurs when capitalists realize that money can be made producing signs and when they actually begin to produce them as commodities." (p. 173) (cf. Hebdige, 1988). Plumb's critique begins with the assumption that pervasive commodification of culture (via globalization) is having immense negative impacts on society (albeit, he mentions some poststructuralists believe it is a good way to resist domination as well for some parts of the culture). He noted, "The commodification of culture generates such a proliferation of signifters that il undermines the capacity of individuals or groups lo locale themselves in an action-coordin-ating system of norms." (p. 179). He believes social movements will be hampered as political forces in the lifeworld (a la Habermas). His concern is that adult educators have not taken up a significant or systematic study of the 95 importance of contemporary culture in critical adult education (p 169). Lyotard's (1984) notion of performativity is closely related to commodification, with the former representing the ideology that is dominating the postmodern world and education. As Boshier (1996) explains performativity, [it is] "... the notion that only education [usually training] that contributes to the economy is of value. Hence, the task of colleges and universities is to 'create skills, and no longer ideals... The transmission of knowledge is no longer designed... [or] capable of guiding a nation towards its emancipation, but to supply the players capable of acceptably fulfilling their roles al the pragmatic posts required by its institution' [Lyotard] (1984, p. 53)." (p. 93-94). See Briton and Plumb (1993) for a review of the commodification of contemporary adult education. All of these concerns could be applied to CME. 2 6 Luke (1995-96) in particular focuses on "... educational claims of cultural minorities and indigenous peoples and of girls and women, and the inclusion of linguistically diverse students into classrooms [schools]...". (p. 7). 2 7 Recall the definition of violence in Chapter One, and especially Sayer (1987) and Bourdieu (1979) on symbolic violence. "These are histories of ideas documenting the emergence of pedagogic discourses, ranging from those of Reformation Protestantism and educational progressivism to contemporary neo-Marxism and feminisms. That is, they describe and critique larger formations of statements across broad fields of institutional life. But these and many other recent Foucauldian works slop short of detailed, close analyses of the linguistic or technical features of written and spoken texts." (Luke, 1995-96, p. 10). 2 9 "These have been and remain central issues in the sociology of education and in curriculum studies (Apple, 1985, 1993; Wexler, 1987)." (Luke, 1995-96, p. 11). 3 0 See Karpiak (1997) for her application of Wilber's "integral vision-logic" to adult and continuing/higher education theory and practices. Aperspeclival refers to a type of critical cognition (a la Jean Gebser) that Wilber (1995) discussed at length— a level of consciousness which is beyond eclectic perspectivism— the latter, which liberalists like to bandy about as indicative of their tolerance to diversity (e.g., see Palys, 1997, p. 34 below, who equates perspectivism with "liberating epistemology"). 1 Palys (1997) argues the "liberating epistemology" we need today as researchers is one where diversity and tolerance are at the forefront of our methodologies (p. 34). His eclectic approach to research is typified in his prescribed "perspectival diversity"— that is, "None is best" — each has its own advantages and disadvantages, and so on (p. 34) (see in contrast with Wilber's (1995) "aperspectival" view of critical integral theory). The latter, is preferred in this study. Palys's prescription that "None is best" is an ideological and hierarchial "best" of another kind-- that is, for him, eclecticism is best. He doesn't seem to see that. 3 2 Willinsky (1999) p. 4. 3 3 See Palys (1997) p. 35. "... Becker (1996) describes it, the use ofpositivist criteria as an academic yardstick is more a statement ofpower than of logic." (Palys, 1997, p. 35). Positivism, usually is associated with quantitative research designs, and "realist epistemology" but not always (Palys, 1997, p. 35). 3 4 I don't pursue this option here but it is taken from the concept of a feminist epistemology called "feminist standpoint theory"or what Jaggar (1983, p. 385) called simply a "women's standpoint." In gross but simple terms, a 'conflict' standpoint theory would view social reality and experience from a conflict perspective (i.e., neo-conflict theory)-- what I sometimes have argued is a "rebel's view." 3 5 Deconstructionism, albeit, is a very prolematic and complex term, with several meanings. The work of Derrida is most usually associated with the postmodernist view of deconstruction as a methodology of pulling apart text and meaning. I have no experience with Derrida per se, but I take the 'spirit' of his work and others of this movement as valuable to re-interpret what any concept or text may mean, from many different perspectives. I therefore, use the term very loosely. 3 6 Popkewitz and Brennan (1997) noted that before Bourdieu— the 'big' sociologists, like Durkheim and Weber were also interested in "habitus." (p. 290). 3 7 See also the re-visionist and strategic Marxism [conflict perspective] emphasized in Stuart Hall (1986) and what he called "a Marxism without guarantees" (cited in Popkewitz and Brennan, 1997, p. 289). 96 CHAPTER THREE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT EDUCATION: DISCOURSES ON CONFLICT Introduction [critical discourse analysis leads to]... looking for... patterns that I can use to establish hypotheses about discourses at work in society (Janks, 1997, p. 331). The CME training manuals and handbooks (hereafter also called CME text1) provide a glimpse "case" study of a new social movement (NSM). This particular CME, as a NSM, is generally directed at managing, preventing or undermining violence. The diversity of CME text among the 22 manuals and handbooks studied is underlayed with common "patterns." Chapter Three is intended to review the data collected on the conceptualizations of'conflict' (conflict) and interpret (via hypotheses) the patterns as discourses, created by, and supporting these conceptualizations. Chapter Four discusses these hypotheses, and attempts to explain the results in relation to the critical theoretical frameworks used in this study. Generally, this Chapter and the next plot results of the CDA in a repeating form or developmental sequencing from: (1) text analysis (description), (2) processing analysis (interpretation) to, (3) social analysis (explanation), loosely following Fairclough's (1989, 1995) model for CDA. The twelve emergent themes of conceptualizing 'conflict' in CME text2 are discussed selectively, with differential attention. There simply is not enough space to give all twelve themes, and their relevant quotes, attention within the limitations and purposes of this study. Understanding Conflict The more we learn about conflict, the greater the chance of learning from them, reducing unnecessary ones, and managing future ones with more confidence. (Hart, 1991, p. i). We can and must learn from our conflicts. (Hart, 1991, p. 1-9). 9 7 As part of the teaching of conflict resolution/management, the CME text regularly refer to the importance of first understanding conflict(s). CME text often set goals which include,"... to enhance our understanding of conflict and conflict management" (Condliffe, 1991, p. xiii). Hence, conflict is distinct (though overlapping) from conflict management— two conceptions of sociocultural phenomena. This distinction is assumed, universally, in the CME text studied. But in the Hart quotes above, we can see there is a potential confusion in CME text as to whether one is talking about understanding conflict or conflicts. Understanding is gained through learning, and thus, conflict resolution/ management training and facilitation is fundamentally educational. This apparent (rhetorical) prioritizing of learning and undertanding before resolution/management, involves the beginning of text that would build and support a conceptualization of conflict. This understanding invariably begins with several statements about the "nature of conflict" or "definition of conflict." Thirteen themes emerged from the study of CME text in regard to this conceptualizing conflict for the purpose of understanding conflict (cf. Chapter Four). As well, there is a continual, sometimes explicit, and mostly implicit, theme that conflict is related to violence— that is, if we understand conflict we will understand violence and be able to stop violence. There is another goal of understanding that goes beyond the content of the CME text and the nature of'conflict' itself. For example, there is an explicit or implicit goal for training that leads to the "... ability to develop/encourage greater understanding, and reduce interpersonal conflict" (Haddigan, 1997b, n.p.). This improved or "greater understanding" is often stated in the context of cultural diversity but also general differences between people and their goals, values, beliefs, needs, interests and so on. The understanding is also to be learned through various conflict practices,3 in the case of conflict resolution (Haddigan, 1997b), where one major learning objective is to "... gain an understanding of conflict approaches and styles...", (p. 1.3) of oneself, and others that one is observing or attempting to utilize in helping resolve a dispute/conflict. Often, the search for understanding in the attempts to resolve or manage 98 conflict is a search for "origins" or "causes" of the identified conflict(s)or dispute(s) (i.e., "diagnosis"4). Infrequently, the CME text makes reference to power and its importance in understanding the origin or cause ofa conflict (e.g., Condliffe, 1991, p. 155).5 Conflict (and violence?~see below) are, therefore, directly linked in CME text to inadequate "understanding" (or misunderstanding) at both the level of content (re: the nature of'conflict' itself), and the level of human diversity and difference (re: the nature of relationships and communication). The CME text inherently presents the impression that through learning both content about the nature of conflict, and practicing the practices of conflict resolution/management, virtually any student/person/group/organization may improve the quality and nature of interpersonal relationships and general healthy functioning. This improvement, it is assumed, is related to improving democracy in our communities, societies, organizations and the world at-large. As this analysis proceeds, the various authors recommend the general reduction of conflict (or what some call "destructive conflict" and "violence"), in one form or another, as part of the overall improvement and "progressive" discourse toward greater cooperation and democracy. Bodine and Crawford (1998) summarize a central role of understanding, When conflict is understood, it can become an opportunity to learn and create. The challenge for people in conflict is to apply the principles of creative cooperation in their human relationships, [cited from Bodine et al., 1994] (p.xiii). Despite the almost universal emphasis in CME text on understanding conflict there is usually only a very small percentage of pages devoted to this directly as discussion. For example, in a 151 page manual on peer mediation and conflict resolution in schools, 3.5 pages are on "Understanding Conflict" and 2.5 pages of practice/activity are devoted to it (Schrumpf et al., 1991). In a 160 page manual on conflict management in schools, 1.5 pages are on theory "Understanding/Origin" and 6 pages on practice activities on understanding conflict as a phenomena (Sorenson, 1994). Girard and Koch (1996) included 25 pages on theory re: "The Nature of Conflict," out of 187 total pages. The discussions about understanding conflict are 99 typically more about understanding "conflicts" and reactions to conflicts (conflict styles). It is not uncommon to have less than one page devoted to understanding conflict and theories of conflict. The emphasis in CME text is clearly on "how to" handle or deal with conflicts in the concrete/behavioral sense. The text is consistently dominated by practical application of techniques and conflict practices oriented to conflict management/resolution. Conflict-Violence Connection: Locating 'The Problem' No one is teaching children how to manage conflicts constructively through example or through indirect methods, such as moral codes and patterns of living. Some communities directly promote violence as a way to resolve disputes. Inner-city children typically grow up surrounded by teenagers and adults who are themselves deviant, delinquent, or criminal. The result is youth who have been directly and painfully taught to be violent when faced with a conflict. (Johnson and Johnson, 1995a, p. 3) Johnson and Johnson (1995a), have studied conflicts in schools for over 30 years as researchers, and have been part of the initiation for "schools as safe havens" (cf. also Bodine and Crawford, 1998, p. 8 and others) and schools as "conflict positive organizations"6 (pp. 5-6) (a la Tjsvold). Johnson and Johnson's claims above are strong, if not extremist, as they assert their "expert" knowledge about 'others' in the margins of society. Issues of classism and racism are immediately apparent in their quote, but these 'isms' are not addressed directly in the CME text by them. They located the problem of "violence" with inner city life, marginalized groups (e.g., "deviants" or 'at-risk' children7), with poor role models and unlearned and unskilled knowledges of "constructive conflict"- as distinguished from "destructive conflict" (following in the theories of Deutsch and Lewin's social psychology of conflict). Kessler (1978), following Deutsch (1973), claims, "Violence is yet another, more primitive way, of settling disputes... Unfortunately, violence is still a popular means of settling unresolved conflict..." (p. 2). Kessler's claim that violence is a conflict management strategy, 100 albeit, a destructive and "primitive" one, has many possible implications which could be problematized. However, it is the oldest CME text (a classic) in the field and this idea appears not be taken up by other authors in this study (cf. Black, 1998; Duryea, 1992; for a similar view). In the professional adult CME text "violence" is almost never mentioned, except in Condliffe (1991), where he cites Rummel (1976) who wrote, "The bad consequences of conflict are many and include violence...".(p. 16)" (p. 8). Five of the 12 professional adult CME books had no explicit mention of violence and several had implicit connections. Most commonly there is a connection of the potential of conflicts to turn into what Deutsch (1973) distinguished as "destructive conflict" (as opposed to "constructive conflict") (Haddigan, 1997; Hart, 1991; Peachey et al., 1983) or "destructive behavior" (Coates et al., 1997). Kessler (1978) noted that repressed conflict that is not dealt with turns to what Deutsch called "conflict pathology"^ (p. 2). A strong value-bias, if not ideology, seems to implicitly accompany the CME text, whereby it is "better" to have "constructive" rather than "destructive" conflict/behavior (outcomes). Hart (1991) poignantly remarked,"... you need to help others realign their attitude toward conflict so they view it as constructive" (p. 1-8). This value-bias, if not ideology, is typically a discourse of the "individual" and their "attitudes" as the focus (i.e., psychologism), rather than a sociocultural or political focus of the meaning of "destructive" conflict/behavior for various people located in various positions/stratifications within a society. Condliffe (1991) (an Australian, teaching professional conflict management) is less of this "constructive" and "positive" camp of authors, and does acknowledge "There is no doubt that some conflict is counterproductive or destructive" (p. 16). However, Condliffe provides a list of types of conflict, of which two of the categories are "Structural" and "Cultural & Ideological"--naming in these categories the 'big' sociopolitical oppressions of classism, sexism, racism (although he avoids using the 'isms'). But neither he, nor the other authors use "violence" in 101 their discussions. Why is "destructive conflict/behavior" utilized very frequently but not the term "violence?" This is particularly, not the case in the school and youth CME text. School and youth CME text (other than Kalmakoff and Shaw, 1987; Kew, 1988) continually introduce the topic of conflict management/resolution as part of an attempt to intervene in the unacceptable increasing amount of violence (and discipline problems9) among youth, and in our communities generally. Bodine and Crawford (1998) wrote, "The current data on youth violence give us some insight into using conflict resolution as a prevention strategy" (p. xiii). Concerned Teens, Inc. (1988) developed exercises for youth to look at how "violent" heroes in the media use "violence" as their method of resolving conflict (recall Kessler above). A few authors linked conflict (not dealt with well) as part of a continuum that ends up as nuclear war (Concerned Teens, Inc., 1988) or war generally (Johnson and Johnson, 1995a, p. 15). Most of the youth CME text included notions of Deutsch and the distinction between "destructive conflict" and "constructive conflict." Johnson and Johnson (1995a) clarify, that Deutsch was talking about how conflicts are "managed" and that is the functional feature that leads to one calling the outcome "destructive" or "constructive." This is regularly linked to Deutsch's theory10 about attitudes and approach to conflicts— distinguishing, "competitive" vs. "cooperative," respectively with "destructive" and "constructive." Johnson and Johnson (1995a) specifically wrote, Conflict resolution education is based on underlying principles of cooperative problem solving [they called "constructive problem-solving skills"] not competition, (p. xv) Girard and Koch (1996), Sorenson (1994) and Levine (1994) emphasize this Deutschian dichotomy. These terms, and the social psychological theory of Deutsch on conflict, are fairly ubiquitous in the CME text. 102 Johnson and Johnson (1995a) also promote the utilization of conflict resolution as a "discipline program" in schools, which also importantly acts to reduce "stresses." Patterson (1995) in the Foreword to Johnson and Johnson (1995a) wrote, Can schools invest in strategies other than a police force, surveillance equipment, and metal detectors to manage violence and conflict? [and reduce "stresses"] (p. v) Levine (1994) prefers to distinguish and separate discipline and conflict resolution in her initiative for "peaceable classrooms" (p. 58). Levine (1994) also makes a strong claim about the inadequacies (conflict illiteracy? or peace illiteracy?) of people in these violent times. She wrote, There is a growing awareness that more and more children are not developing the skills they need to live together in peace or to resolve their conflicts in nonviolent ways.... Few adults have adequate, if any, preparation for dealing with the effects on children of increased violence in society, much less for teaching children how to live with others peacefully.... (p. 5). Sorenson (1994), preferring cooperation and consensus, attempts to challenge a postmodernist, or conflict/crisis perspective on social reality, as well as the inevitability of "competition," in the goals of his conflict resolution programs. He wrote, "We are seeking to establish an environment of cooperation—to change the idea that we must constantly be in conflict with one another" (p. 8). This consensus framework is ubiquitous throughout most of the CME text (less so in Condliffe, 1991, in the professional adult CME text). The conflict-positive, consensus, cooperative and collaborative thinking (i.e., "harmony ideology") of most all CME text points to making a distinction between "conflict" and "how conflict is handled." In other words, the problem the CME texts address is violence (more or less stated explicitly) and its destructive aspects. 'The problem' however, is typically not "conflict" but rather, the managing of it. For example in the youth CME text, Johnson and Johnson (1995a) wrote, 103 * "Conflicts are not the problems- they are part of the solutions..." (p. 13). Bodine and Crawford (1998) complement this idea by noting, ... conflict in and of itself is not positive or negative. Rather, the actions chosen turn conflict into either a competitive, devastating battle or else a Constructive challenge... (p. 44) [cf. Girard and Koch, 1996, p. 1 for a similar statement]. Notice the shift in language with "battle" becoming "challenge." This is very popular, generally, in the conflict-positive writing in CME text. Similarly, in the professional adult CME text Haddigan (1997b) wrote, "Conflict itself is neither good nor bad; how people interact in conflict influences whether it leads to desirable or undesirable outcomes" (p. 32). Coates et al. (1997) similarly, wrote, "It is not conflict per se that matters; it is how effectively and efficiently the parties resolve conflicts which naturally occur that really matters. (Kochan & Osterman, 1994, 51)" (p. 7). And Wisinski (1993) wrote, "The main issue with conflict is not so much that it occurs, but how you manage it when it does" (p. ix). Hart (1991) wrote,"... what is most important is how we understand, resolve, and learn from them [conflicts]" (p. 1-9). Peachey et al. (1983) wrote, "What is important is that conflict be handled in ways that prevent or minimize destructive results" (p. 2.1). Clearly, most CME text is biased toward this pragmatic action-side ("how to'Vperformativity) of the phenomena of social conflict— and the more effective and efficient the results/outcomes, the better. Reduction of "destructiveness" (violence) is the ubiquitous goal of CME text and programs. No author questioned that this biased view, or the techniques themselves used to undermine violence, are explicitly, or potentially violent or destructive. Haddigan (1997b) provided the most explicit acknowledgement of the program's bias in values and resultant limitations of application but this does not question the violence (or potential of) in its own methods and value-bias. 104 Self-Reflexivity: Self-Critical Theme Conflict is the sine quo non of reflection and ingenuity. (Dewey, 1930; cited in Condliffe, 1991, p. 8) Reflection is the internal processing of the conflict. It can occur after the conflict is resolved or in the pauses during a conflict resolution process... (Haddigan, 1997b, p. 39) As a trainer or facilitator, you need to re-examine your own attitude toward conflict so you will confidently convey a postive attitude. (Hart, 199.1, p. 1-9) To be effective in the mediator and problem-solver roles, we must become aware of how we handle our own conflicts. We must become more aware of ourselves, Knowing ourselves is a prerequisite to helping others.... (Sorenson, 1994, p. 1.0) The above quotes are representative of a common theme in the CME text. The application of the reflexivity (reflection) upon one's actions and work is completely aimed at the practical helping-side (i.e., "professionalism") of CME. No use of the reflexive process was found to be dedicated to discussion of the problematics of either conflict discourse or the conceptualization of conflict itself as a concept or phenomenon.11 One example approached this theoretical and conceptual reflexivity. Wade (1995), in the Foreword of Charlton and Dewdney (1995) writing for practitioners, emphasized the value of interdisciplinary contributions and reflective practitioners in mediation. The functional value of the reflective practitioner (a la Schon, 1983) is described by Wade, Reflective practitioners constantly swap horror and wonder stories, practical hints, adapted 12-step processes, statistics true or not so true, grand visions and reworked theories.... The authors [Charlton and Dewdney] are to be congratulated for this outstanding contribution to the tradition of reflective mediator practitioners who theorise, practice, critique, adapt theory and adapt practice cyclically, (p. viii) Neither Wade, nor Charlton and Dewdney are part of the sample for this study. Hart (1991) is the only author to explicitly challenge the teacher/facilitator/trainer to look at their 105 "Philosophy about Conflict?" She wrote, "Once you are clear on your assumptions, be sure to state them to your participants... when you introduce your program on conflict" (p. 1-9). But she offers no framework of how to systematically be self-reflexive or self-critical of that philosophy, nor does she encourage equally participants elaborate and deconstruct their own philosophy about conflict— or to problematize the issue of having a philosophy of conflict when one doesn't know what possibilities for conceptualizations of conflict are available. There was no evidence in any of the CME text, that serious, or systematic reflection and self-critique was applied to the conceptualization of conflict itself, and its implications for prescriptions of how best to handle conflict. Theorizing and critique of theory was not encouraged by the readers (or trainees). In most CME text, especially for youth and school communities, there was no disclosure of the theoretical sources upon which the training was based. „ Theory Theme The theory theme is divided into a) formal theory and, b) informal "theory" or fragments of theory. The brief overview below is focused on text that deals directly with conflict not conflict resolution/management. For most school and youth CME text, any theory was meagre. In regard to formal theory, Schrumpf et al. (1991) was the only book to bring in an "Overview of the Basic Theory of Conflict" (i.e., Glasser's Control Theory). Glasser's theory informing a view of conflict is based on needs (genetic-biological) and psychological dimensions (generally excluding social and cultural dimensions). Bodine and Crawford (1998) also make a small reference to Glasser's work, through a strong assertion that, Control theory [Glasser] explains why (and to a great extent how) all living organisms behave.... The purpose is always to attempt to satisfy basic needs that are built into our genetic structure, (p. 36) 1 0 6 The emphasis was on "control" and individual perceptions and choices that lead to "control" (i.e., regulation of one's behaviors within appropriate social norms). Deutsch's social psychological theory of conflict was most commonly used at a cursory level, re. "competitive" (destructive) and "cooperative" (constructive) concepts for conflict behaviors and attitudes. Johnson and Johnson (1995a) use Deutsch's (1973) theory of conflict to claim, "One incompatible activity prevents or interferes with the occurrence or effectiveness of a second activity" (p. 15). Whether, it is Glasser or Deutsch, the emphasis of theoretical understanding about conflict is focused on behaviors/outcomes— that is, what is observable in the simplest, physical, empirical way; albeit, cognitive-behavioral (rational) elements are discussed in these theories. Importantly, neither of these theories is interested in the problematics of conceptualizing conflict per se, nor do the CME text problematize Glasser's or Deutsch's theory and their biases. No critical literature of such theories or approaches to social knowledge are introduced as references for the curious critical reader/student. In professional adult CME text, there was no formal theory given regarding conceptualization of conflict per se. These authors were more interested in theories and models of conflict resolution/management, conflict cycles and so on. The informal theoretical-type of claims were found throughout all the CME text, with examples like: "Many theories of conflict are based on cycles of change that demonstrate how conflict emerges and resolves" (Haddigan, 1997b, p. 19);"... the dimension of conflict relating to our interpersonal wants is helpful in linking conflict to the idea of personal and social aspirations. All of these elements are useful... for the exploration of the nature of conflict" (Condliffe, 1991, p. 3); "The beginning of the process is the perception of conflict. This is the stage of a conflict.... The conflict is often latent during this phase and may remain so for a long time" (Condliffe, 1991, p. 9)- [informal theory examples, in school CME text:] "Almost every conflict involves an endeavor by the disputants to meet the basic psychological needs for belonging, power, freedom, and fun" (Bodine and 1 0 7 Crawford, 1998, p. 39); "To understand conflict and perceive it positively, the knowledge that no two people can have exactly the same wants is central" (Bodine and Crawford, 1998, p. 38). Definition-Location Theme The nominal, and somewhat dictionary-like, definitions of conflict are central to uncovering the conceptualization of conflict in the text. The location theme provides contours of the initiative to locate, place or norm-reference some qualities associated with the conceptualization of conflict. Both themes directly address answering the question what is conflict? Understanding conflict is essential to a program of managing and resolving conflict. Within the school and youth CME text, Schrumpf et al. (1991) wrote, "A definition of conflict" is a core part of a program (p. 24). Unlike most CME text, Girard and Koch (1996) echo this concern and the complexity of defining conflict (albeit, they believe a "clear definition" is possible to achieve for students), This module enables learners to develop a clear definition of conflict... There are many definitions of the word conflict. Formal definitions range from the more abstract— 'a state of disharmony'— to those that signal a more concrete event, (p. 2) Notice, that although it is acknowledged in the manual (and teaching) that there are "many definitions" of conflict, this is not further problematized, nor are other definitions provided or encouraged. Some, typical, and common definitions of conflict in CME text include (school/youth text in italics and professional adult in non-italics): "Conflict: controversy or disagreement; to come into opposition" (Schrumpf et al., 1991, p. 148); "Conflict or dispute- to engage in an argument, to struggle over, quarrel" (Concerned Teens, Inc., 1988, p. 64); "A conflict exists when incompatible activities occurs "(Johnson and Johnson, 1995a, p. 15); "Deutsch (1973), for example, states that 'conflict exists when incompatible activities occur' (p. 10) (Girard and Kock, 1.996, p. 2); "Conflict is a discord of needs, drives, wishes, or demands" (Bodine and 108 Crawford, 1998, p. 33); "Conflicts are disagreements or problems people have with one another that usually lead to negative reactions and feelings" (Levine, 1994, p. 57); "Hocker and Wilmot (1991) go further, defining conflict as 'an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources and interference from the other party in achieving their goals' (p. 12) " (Girard and Koch, 1996, p. 2); "Here 'conflict' refers to an ongoing series of disputes of severe intensity which have occurred over an extended period of time" (Boulle and Kelly, 1998, p. 13);"... we define conflict simply as 'the existence of incompatible goals, either real or perceived" (Peachey et al., 1983, p. 2.1); "Conflict is essentially a clash of interests, emotions, and values" (Condliffe, 1991, p. 155); "Conflict- the actual or perceived opposition of needs, values and interests between people resulting in unwanted stress or tension and negative feelings between disputants" (Haddigan, 1997b, p. 16); "Conflict is a form of competitive behavior involving actual or perceived differences in interests or limited resources" (Coates et al., 1997, p. 9);"... a form of relating or interacting where we find ourselves (either as individuals or groups) unders some sort of perceived threat to our personal or collective goals.... These perceived threats may be either real or imagined" (Condliffe, 1991, p. 3); "Conflict occurs when individuals or groups are not obtaining what they need or want and are seeking their own self-interest..." (Hart, 1991, p. 1-4); "Conflict-... it exists because we have differences.... Occurs when we think our differences are in opposition" (White, 1990, p. 4). From this overview of definitions of conflict it is obvious that they are all very similar, if not virtually identical in basic pattern of conception. In a few cases definitions are drawn from "expert" authors but most CME text define conflict(s) without such qualifying references. A few books had no definition of conflict (e.g., Kalmakoff and Shaw, 1987; Kew et al., 1988; or Wisinski, 1993; Kessler, 1978; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1991). No author above suggested their definition was problematic or incomplete, and that trainees ought to be encouraged to create their own definition,12 and/or to revise the one 109 offered. In all cases, the proposed definition was an "operational" pre-established device to then launch into the predominant text on conflict management/ resolution theories and techniques. A common pattern in most CME text was to immediately, and unproblematically. move from talking about a definition (or the nature of) conflict to talking about defining "a conflict" or "conflicts"— for examples, To create conflict positive schools, educators first need a general understanding of conflict.... What conflict is....What is a Conflict? (Johnson and Johnson,!995a, pp. 13-15) The more we learn about conflict, the greater the chance of learning from them... (White, 1990, p. i) Kalmakoff and Shaw (1987) offer children an exercise: "In group discussion.... [we] will define conflict on the basis of their own experience." The examples illustrated are of conflicts (conflict situations). Girard and Koch (1996) wrote, Conflict is part of the hidden curriculum13 in all our educational institutions. It exists in classrooms, lunchrooms, and teachers' lounges.... Taking charge of what learning occurs from the conflicts that surround us is an important and crucial responsibility of all educators, (p. 1) Most manuals and handbooks only conceptualized conflict as conflicts (of various numerous kinds). The emphasis in CME text is on a concrete, behavioral event, or action that can be easily diagnosed and defined in terms of oppositional interests (i.e., "conflict of interests" or values). This bias is not considered, by this author, as directly involved in a critical reflection upon, or understanding of the concept of conflict itself. Locating conflict(s) as a social phenomena was common in all CME text. Two main sub-themes emerged: (1.) ubiquitous, frequent and inevitable existence and, (2) natural, normal and necessary. Sometimes these sub-themes overlapped in the same statement. Some examples of these attempts to locate confli.ct(s) included (school/youth in italics, professional adult in non-1 10 italics): Sub-theme (O —"... conflict is perpetually present..." Bodine and Crawford, 1998, p. 1.8); "inevitable conflict" (Bodine and Crawford, 1998, p. 12); "Conflicts occur all the time. They are a normal and inevitable part of school life" (Johnson and Johnson, 1995a, p. 13); "... conflict are an inevitable part of living..." (Sorenson, 1992, p. 2); "Everyone experiences conflict... " (Girard and Koch, 1996, p. 28); "Conflicts are a daily occurrence in all schools" (Schmidt et al., 1992, p. ii); "Conflicts are inevitable..." (Sorenson, 1994, p. 90); "conflict-positive schools" "... recognize that conflicts are inevitable... "(Johnson and Johnson, 1995a, p. 13); "We live in a pluralistic and conflictual society constantly being changed and transformed..." (Condliffe, 1991, p. 8); "Beliefs underlying the collaborative approach:.... Conflict is part of an ongoing cycle of change; it is to be expected as a part of human interaction" (Haddigan, 1997b, p. 32); "Conflict is not simply inevitable; rather, it is the nature of complex organizations.... (Putnam, 1995, 183-4)." (Coates et al., 1997, p. 1);"... conflict... as a fact of life.... The common reality of conflict..." (Boulle et al., 1998, p. 46); "Conflict is an inevitable aspect of life" (Condliffe, 1991, p. xiii); "Truths: 1. Conflict will occur. Without question. It is a natural dynamic when interacting with others" (Wisinski, 1993, p. 3); "Conflict, therefore, far from being something that will go away if we try hard enough or if things get better, will tend to be ever-present in groups and organizations..." (Condliffe, 1991, p. 155); "Conflict is inevitable in organizations...". (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1991, p. 7);"Conflict... is inevitable..." (White, 1990, p. 4);"... people who live together, work together, or interact frequently have ongoing conflicts..." (Peachey et al., 1983, p. 2.2); "[re: Dahrendorfs view] "He sees social change in terms of group conflict which in his view is always present" (Condliffe, 1991, p. 160); "Conflict in organizations is as inevitable as organizational member's interests and perspectives are diverse. Conflict is also pervasive..." (Allred, 1997, p. 27)-- Sub-theme (2)— "Underlying a conflict resolution program are certain precepts: - conflict is natural and normal... " (Bodine and Crawford, 1998, p. 47); "... conflict as organic to the human condition, as a natural phenomenon... " (Girard and Koch, 1996, p. 2); "Conflict is a Ill natural vital part of life" (Schmidt et al., 1992, p. 5); "... a natural, vital pari of life" (Schrumpf et al., 1.991, p. 5); "Conflict is a natural part of everyday life" (Sorenson, 1992, p. 7); 3 key principles in a conflict resolution program, include [conflict] "... is a natural part of life" (Girard and Koch, 1996, p. 1); "Conflicts of interest are common— they occur naturally and are deliberately created" (Johnson and Johnson, 1995a, p. 15); "... conflict, is normal..." (Girard and Koch, 1996, p. 2); "... conflicts— they are a necessary part of our learning experiences" (Sorenson, 1994, p. 7); "Belief statements ... a basis for achieving consensus.... [for program] Conflict is a natural part of everyday life" (Bodine and Crawford, 1998, p. 161); "Conflict is a natural, vital part of life" (Bodine et al., 1994, cited in Bodine and Crawford, 1998, p. xxiii); "... conflict exists and is not going away...14" (Bodine and Crawford, 1998, p. xxviii); "Assumptions about conflict: 1. Conflicts are a normal and healthy part of life" (Hart, 1991, p. 1-9);"... we assume that conflicting interests are a natural part of the employment relationship (Kochan and Osterman, 1994, 51)" (Coates et al., 1997, p. 7);"... conflict is a universal experience, occurring naturally,..." (Peachey et al., 1983, p. 2.1); "Conflicts are a natural part of living..." (Hart, 1990, p. i);"... phases of conflict are as natural as phases of peace and harmony" (Haddigan, 1997b, p. 19);"... if we look around at how our society, and indeed any society, functions, it is through the expression of certain levels of conflict" (Condliffe, 1991, p. 16); "Organizational experts tell us that conflict is normal and natural and of course, it is" (Wisinski, 1993, p. 1). Throughout the CME texts, almost exclusively, there appears a need (desire?) to make a distinction implicitly between "destructive" and "constructive" conflict, and at the same time, conceptualize conflict generally, as healthy, natural, normal and essential to social life and organizations. Clearly, the term "conflict" or "conflicts" is being used loosely without declaration to the "type" of conflict as either "destructive" or "constructive"- the latter two conceptualizations tending to declare the way conflict is handled, and the former declaring the nature of conflict as (if) somehow distinct from how it is handled by humans. Locating 1 1 2 conflict(s) in a category of "natural" and "organic" has powerful philosophical implications. This is not problematized in any of the text. All the benefits of conflict are given commonly in the texts but this is not taken up in this study due to limited space. The more general locating and "Moral Status" themes (see below) are given focus here. Moral Status Theme These are statements that attach moral value/status to claims about the conceptualization of conflict(s). Below are several examples (school/youth in italics and professional adult in non-italics): "If used appropriately: conflict can be good... "(Concerned Teens, Inc., 1988, p. 12); "Conflict positive schools.... Conflicts are not the problems— they are the solutions.... Unfortunately, most schools today are conflict negative; they should aspire to be conflict positive" (Johnson and Johnson, 1995a, p. 13); "... conflict in and of itself is not positive or negative"(Schrumpf et al., 1991, p. 9 and Bodine and Crawford, 1998, p. 44);"... conflict, its neutrality..." (Girard and Koch, 1996, p. 1.4); "Of all these formal definitions, none denote conflict as either positive or negative" (Girard and Koch, 1996, p. 2); 3 key principles to a conflict resolution program- "/.... conflict is not inherently positive or negative..." (Girard and Koch, 1996, p. 1); teachers and students need to make "... commitment to approach conflict in a positive way" (Schrumpf et al., 1991, p. 6); "... assumes that conflict is a... positive force... " (Schrumpf, 1991, p. 1); "It would be a rather dull life without conflicts " (Sorenson, 1994, p. 7); "... conflict can have either creative or destructive results" (Schrumpf et al., 1991, p. 7); "... when it comes to conflict the perceptions of most people are quite negative [negative perceptions]..." (Schrumpf et al., 1991, p. 5 and also Bodine and Crawford, 1998, p. 35); "Many people have negative attitudes toward conflict..." (Haddigan, 1997b, p. 19);"... as a society and as individuals we simply do not like conflict..." (Coates et al., 1997, p. 1.4);"... we often think of conflict as being a negative or destructive force in our lives.... [but it is also] positive..." (Condliffe, 1991, p. xiii); "Conflict is not necessarily a negative phenomenon. Conflict is often regarded as being symptomatic of a pathology..." (Boulle et al., 1998, p. 47); "Beliefs underlying the collaborative approach:.... conflict itself is neither good nor bad;..." (Haddigan, 1997b, p. 32); "In mediation... conflict is seen less negatively... if it is handled constructively..." (Boulle et al., 1998, p. 47); court/litigation history in American society "... is giving conflict a bad name" (Kessler, 1978, p. 2); "Key Conflict Management Principles: .... that conflict will occur and that conflict is not a bad thing" (Coates et al., 1997, p. 2); "Conflict is often seen as a bad thing.... Conflict can be productive... In this manual conflict is not viewed as being intrinsically bad" (Peachey et al., 1983, p. 2.1);"... organizational values must encourage... seeing conflict as a positive opportunity..." (Coates et al., 1997, p. 14); "Conflict in the workplace used to be perceived as a negative.... something to be avoided at all costs. Today, conflict is viewed much differently [as positive, constructive, functional]" (Wisinski, 1997, p. 1). Generally, CME text attempts to give a neutral moral status to conflict(s), although, with the term used very loosely, there are times when it is decidedly seen as positive and good. There are repeated statements that claim many people in society (societies?) do not like conflict and perceive it as negative rather than positive (cf. Duryea, 1992 in Chapter One). The literature of CME ubiquitously attempts to turn this around, and in Hart (1990) she outrightly states the educational purpose of programs, that is,"... you need to help others realign their attitude toward conflict so they view it as constructive" (p. 1-8). This seems to imply a dysfunctional "moral" attitude toward conflict(s) is an important part of the internal cognitive and psychological change/transformation required in some CME. Bodine and Crawford (1998) cite Johnson and Johnson's research over the decades, remarking that, "Untrained students [without the conflict resolution program] uniformly had negative attitudes toward conflict. After training, students had more positive attitudes toward conflict" (p. 105). I 14 Role (Sociopolitical) Theme Under this theme contlict(s) are conceptualized as part of social life (or organizational life). Below are several examples (school/youth text in italics and professional adult in non-italics): 'Without conflict, there would likely he no personal growth or .social change" (Bodine and Crawford, 1998, p. 35 and Schrumpf et al., 1991, p. 5); "... conflict can enrich und strengthen our school community..." (Bodine and Crawford, 1998, p. 12); "Conflict stimulates not only economic and scientific change but also the..." (Condliffe, 1991, p. 8); following Coser (1956, p. 31)"... a certain degree of conflict is an essential element in group formation and the persistence of group life" (cited in Condliffe, 1991, p. 155); "For Coser conflict is a useful instrument of social integration. Conflict helps to facilitate communication, define structures and create conditions for equitable and effective settlements (Coser, 1956, 121)" (Condliffe, 1991, p. 155);"... the expression of that conflict and its attempted resolution or management is important for the realisation of a more equitable (just) society" (Condliffe, 1991, p. 16); "Conflict stimulates... the overthrow of old norms and institutions" (Condliffe, 1991, p. 8);"... it is the struggle for change through conflict that raises the consciousness of various groups in society to their predicament (Coser, 1974,458)" (Condliffe, 1991, p. 9); re: Dahrendorf s view— "He sees social change in tenns of group conflict which in his view is always present. Society can only be understood when one considers coercion and constraint [and their resistance as conflict] as well as unity and coherence Change in structures [according to Dahrendorf] will depend upon the conflict that occurs" (Condliffe, 1991, p. 160); conflict(s) function as an "informer" and other positive processes for "Opportunity for creative change both personally and organizationally" (White, 1990, p. 2). Clearly, the school/youth CfvlE text deals very little with the sociopolitical realm and the relationship to the role of conflict(s). The professional/adult text is also typically barren of statements in this Role (Sociopolitical) Theme. Condliffe (1991), by far, provides the most text devoted to this theme. He continually draws on a wide variety of theories and authors but 115 utilizes, unlike other CME books in this study, the conflict theorists from sociology (Dahrendorf and Coser) who write about conflict from the conflict tradition/perspective. CME Text From A Conflict Perspective The first discourse interpretive device applied to the descriptive data in CME text is a conflict perspective. This involved using sociological criteria based on the consensus theory and conflict theory distinction (and contradiction or debate— e.g., cf. Figure 9). This is not intended to be a descriptive "neutral" sociological classification of the data, as I was looking at the data within a critique from the conflict perspective. This means I was very critical of how the quote and its context may or may not qualify as a conflict perspective. This critique emphasis is based on the evidence in sociology and sociology of (adult) education literature that argues the conflict perspective is the common sub-dominant discourse and the consensus perspective the dominant discourse. This sociological evidence is taken in general, and is problematic, but serves as a beginning to offer a basis for a normative critical assessement of discourse in CME text. With most CME text the differentiation between the two sociological perspectives was very easy. In some instances it was very difficult to distinguish the perspectives, as there were blends of both. In some instances I suspected the consensus perspective, as a discourse, was attempting to appropriate the conflict perspective in part, but without the substantial inclusion of the sociopolitical 'spirit' (or completeness) of the conflict perspective (see examples below). Figures 10 (youth/school) and 11 (professional /adult) provide a view of the CME text organized along a horizontal gradient of subjectivist to objectivist epistemology and along a vertical axis from consensus to conflict view ontologically (cf. Figure 8). The data was also organized within three epistemological spheres of'it', T, and 'We' based upon Wilber's (1995) integral theory (a la Habermas)15. 115A 115 B I 16 In Figures 10 and 11 a solid black dot or an open circle represents one quotation of C M E text. Open circles are used on the conflict side only. Figure 10 (youth/school), although, a limited sample of all the CME books, is likely representative, in that such consistency in conceptualizations (definitions) has already been found in the descriptive analysis of the data previously. Figure 10 shows that the consensus discourse is very predominant (95%). The conflict discourse (5%) is barely in the conflict perspective half of the figure. No significant difference in the frequency of subjectivist and objectivist discoures were found; nor did the distribution between 'it', T , and'We' appear significant. Figure 11 (adult/professional) included a selected sample of nine out of 12 CME books, ft again, is likely representative for the same reasons as the youth/school text. Figure 11 shows that consensus discourse is very predominant (87%). The conflict discourse (13%) is nearly three times higher in frequency than in the youth/school text. There is an appreciable difference in that 18% of the conflict discourse occurred in the objectivist domain and 7.5% in the subjectivist domain. This objective conflict discourse is due to Condliffe's (1991) writing alone. If Condliffe's book was not included in the sample of adult/professional text, the two figures would look virtually identical. There is another difference between the two samples in terms of distribution of consensus discourse, where a heavier proportion of the quotes are in the 'it' (objectivist) area in the adult/professional text, relative to the youth/school text. But, this latter difference is highly subjective and marginally of significance or reliability. More significant and reliable, is the difference of the conflict discourse placement near the extreme end of the vertical continuum in the adult/professional sample; relative to the marginal conflict discourse placement near the mid-way of the vertical axis in the youth/school text sample. "Classic" and "Modified" Conflict Perspective This section gives some examples of quotes representing the two sociological discourses in Figure 10 and 11. As well, there are examples given where there appears to be a blending 1.17 and/or appropriation of a consensus discourse into a conflict discourse. This was significant enough in the data to make the distinction of "classic" and "modified." First, a few examples of quotes from the youth/school text which are located in the four quadrants of Figure 10: Lower Left (consensus-objectivist)- "Students will learn that conflict is a potentially positive force..." (Schrumpf et al., 1991, p. 43) and "... positive life force" (Schrumpf et al., 1991, p. 5); "The synergy of conflict... [in nature]." (Schrumpf et al., 1991, p. 5);"... conflict act as a destructive force..." (Schmidt et al., 1992, p. vii). The rationale and obvious criteria for locating these quotes within the Lower Left quadrant includes the physics-like scientific language of "force" as if it is "life" itself, or of nature (recall the "natural" quotes in CME text in regard to conflict, earlier in this chapter). The term "synergy" is a systems science term which involves "energy" dynamics (and cooperation to synergize) and again, a reference to the elemental discourse domain (de-politicizing) of systems and nature (moving toward an organic location as we saw in a few quotes earlier in this chapter)-- all of these of which are 'typical' of a consensus discourse. Upper Left (conflict-objectivist)- "Causes of conflict. Sometimes when there are shortages of certain resources... conflicts result..." (Sorenson, 1994, p. 8); "Conflicts also result when there are shortages of certain resources such as time, space, money, power, influence, and position" (Sorenson, 1994, p. 90; Sorenson, 1992, p. 12). The latter quote regarding power, influence and position (implicitly, stratification and oppression?), as well as mentioning money (implicitly, classism and capitalism?) provide a sociopolitical context to the discussion of conflict as a concept. Although, these are descriptive statements and thus, minimally a conflict perspective, with little reference to changing the status quo in a normative discourse. Lower Right (consensus-subjectivist)-"... conflicts within and between the other sub-parts of the mind.... internal conflicts reside within us..." (Sorenson, 1992, p. 11); and Schrumpf et al. (1991) use of Glasser's cognitive-behavioral theory emphasizing conflict "within;""... conflicts— they are a necessary part of our learning experiences" (Sorenson, 1994, p. 7). The consensus-subjectivist discourse in these quotes is 1 18 given because they are more involving "inner" parts of social reality, where mind/thought/ choices are emphasized, along with experience. There is no political challenge to social power relations in these quotes to place them in the conflict perspective. Upper Right (conflict-subjectivist)- "If used appropriately: conflict... helps make change" (Concerned Teens, Inc., 1988, p. 12). The close link of conflict to change has a potential to enact a conflict discourse, but very minimally, because "change" could be anything-- including, maintaining the status quo for a change in a revolutionary condition. In the adult/professional text the examples for each quadrant would be similar to the above. What is important, however, is to foreground some of Condliffe's (1991) quotes as examples of a decidedly conflict discourse in terms of conceptualizations of conflict (at least partially so)— for example. Upper Left (conflict-objectivist)-"... change in structures [according to Dahrendorf) will depend upon the conflict that occurs" (p. 160); "Conflict can be seen to cause change either within the social system or of the whole system" (p. 9); "Conflict stimulates ... the overthrow of old norms and institutions" (p. 8)16 and Kessler (1978) noted that crimes are often a result of "unresolved conflict" (p. 2). The conflict perspective is most apparent as a discourse when conflict is connected to attempts to change the status quo, or act in ways that are deemed crime, rebellion, deviant, by the status quo that does not want to change its privileged status and domination of less-privileged. Next, an analysis of "classic" and "modified" discourses on conflict were sorted. "Classic" refers to an explicit statement which is easily recognized by this author as either of the consensus or conflict perspective/theory discourse. "Modified" refers to a statement that has an implicit (less obvious) reference to either the consensus or conflict perspective/theory discourse. This exercise of sorting was carried out with all CME text using the following themes: "Definition," "Description," "Classification," "Location," and "Moral Status." Although, this data is not shown in this study, it was useful to pick out one example of where the blending and/or appropriation of discourses is evident. The critical interest in blending 1 19 and/or appropriation is due to the tendency of dominant discourses (e.g., consensus theory) to usurp and incorporate challenging and/or contradictory discourses (e.g., conflict theory). A classic conflict perspective is very rare in the CME text, and those have already been documented under the Condliffe (1991) quotes above. A blended perspective comes from Putnam (1995, 1.83-4) as cited in Coates et al. (1997, p. 1). They wrote, "Conflict is not a breakdown of a cooperative, purposeful system." The conflict discourse emphasizes conflict is not pathological in systems. We saw plenty of evidence of this positive attitude toward conflict conveyed earlier in quotes (although, some authors prefer to keep conflict itself as neutral, and rather, to label destructive and constructive conflict in terms of practices/outcomes). The classic consensus discourse was to pathologize conflict, deny it for the most part, and focus on cooperation and consensus as the most important and essential part of social systems/societies. Deutsch (1973), a social psychologist, saw the only "conflict pathology," as the inability to deal with conflicts well (and he meant in a cooperative, constructive way). But Deutsch and the conflict positive generation of social theory and thinking tends to follow a discourse that is partly consensus and partly conflict (see Coser's "conflict functionalism"17 especially, as used in Condliffe, 1991). The maintenance of a discourse of consensus is maintained in these theorists by their assumption that the largely "cooperative and purposeful" social system is always in place as the ground upon which conflict(s) can be somewhat functional (especially, "useful" when they are handled well). This blended, if not appropriated, discourse is what has been termed "modified." Almost all the quotes taken in this exercise above, have been shown to be "modified." No author takes the classic consensus (functionalist) position that conflict is pathological in social life. However, in later discussions (Chapter Four), the "modified" discourse of consensus is shown to be highly problematic in its biased conceptualization of conflict. No CME authors in this study, not even Condliffe (1991), have mentioned the consensus-conflict debate and its 120 implications for conceptualizing conflict and the impact of sociological discourse on prescribing how best to deal with conflict(s). Jnterdisciplinary/Comparative Analysis Of CME Discourse The sub-theme of inevitability of conflict can be found in many conceptualizations of conflict across the disciplines reviewed in this study. Frequently, in CME text, inevitability claims about conflict are linked to claims of conflict being natural, normal, essential, creative, and healthy in an essentialist, unquestionable, absolute way. Other CME text tend to stay "neutral" and focus on conflict being neither "positive" or "negative" in itself. Such judgments are made and labeled upon conflict situations based upon the way human beings handle the conflict- that is, either "constructively" (cooperatively) or "destructively" (competitively). The "problem" with conflict is in how humans deal with it, via their attitudes, their actions and so on. This discourse of inevitability has profound implications and problems re: conceptualizing conflict in social life. From earlier chapters, conflict is seen in various disciplines as inevitable in social life because there are "opposing" or "divergent interests" in some form or other whenever groups of people are together— for example: (I) Anthropology- Levi-Strauss's notions have partially influenced the thinking that conflict is ubiquitous in all cultures but they each have different ways of managing conflict; Bjorkqvist (1997) sees this inevitability from a functionalist perspective (following sociological theorists like Parson's, Smelser and Coser— of which only Coser is a 'minor' politically conservative conflict theorist, and the other two are more theorizing from within a consensus perspective); Fry (1996) sees conflict as inevitable but aggression is not, a view similar to Fetherston and Nordstrom (1994)-- both Fry and Fetherston and Nordstrom tend to include subjectivist type language re: "human needs" and "perceived divergent interests," respectively, when conceptualizing conflict and its origins, (2) Sociology-a little less subjectivist than anthropological conceptions of conflict, sociology tends to 121 emphasize "opposition" and "competition for shortage of resources," often within a materialist-objectivist framework but this is less Marxist in views within conflict sociology (a la Collins and his Weberian interest in power, competition and conflict); Simmel and Coser and Dahrendorf generally see conflict as inevitable and particularly Coser attempted to make conflict functional, in that it may stop the breakdown of consensus in societies18-- it is not dysfunctional or pathological inherently- although, Coser's definition of social conflict included violent aspects; Collins (1992) sees the inevitability of conflict and its role in shaping the "... distribution of power, wealth, and prestige..." (p. 288) but his view is less benign than the consensus perspective. Communication- this field generally sees conflict as a "fact of life" where it can be both positive and sometimes negative depending on how people socially constructive it, and handle it— conflict originates from "... opposing interests, views, opinions" (Cahn, 1990, p. xii; Nicholson, 1991); Ogley (1991) sees conflict can be "healthy" or "natural" but a destructive violent side is possible too. Cognitive-Behavioral Psychology - implicitly states the obvious inevitability and functionality of conflict in individual choices, functioning of the mind, in responses to stimulus, and interrelations generally- although, some psychopathological links with conflict are more characteristic of thinking in the 1970s and in depth psychoanalytical traditions. Social Psychology- assumes an inevitability of conflict as part of group dynamics and choices of "approach" or "avoidance" (K. Lewin), which are thought to be related to "laws of nature." Deutsch focused on "incompatible activities" amongst the conflict parties but a subjectivist psychological interest (and "social behaviorism" a la G. H. Mead) dominates in the conceptualization of Deutsch and most mainstream social psychology. Deutsch preferred to define conflict as "cooperative," rather than "competitive" (the latter which had dominated a lot of 19th century social thinking in the northwestern world). 122 Conflict-Positive Reform In CME Generally, then, CME text on the inevitability and naturalness and/or functionality discourse as part of conflict conceptualizations, is consistent with a lot of the literature reviewed across disciplines. Sociology is the only discipline, particularly the conflict perspective, that does not specifically comment on conflict as "natural" or justifiable by "natural" or "scientific" laws or principles. From the literature reviewed in this study, the larger context of historical, ideological, social and political contexts is particularly important in sociology (and less so in anthropology), in terms of conceptualizing conflict. However, all disciplines neglected a systematic analysis of conflict as a concept itself and the problematics of how to best know what 'conflict' itself is. The individualism and psychologism in many of the definitions of conflict in communications, cognitive-behavioral psychology and social psychology seem to be used in CME text frequently (especially Deutsch). Social psychology discourses, and their politically conservative liberalism (Collins, 1994, Fox and Prilleltensky, 1997; Wetherell and Potter, 1992) are particularly evident in CME text. The functionalist and consensus perspective is dominant, with functionalism, pragmatism, utilitarianisn, rationalism, modernism and white middle classism (see Wetherell and Potter, 1992). CME text, although beginning to look at cultural diversity and hegemony of its approaches to conflict and conflict management, still has not utilized the conflict perspective in sociology nor the challenging skeptical views of anthropology in regard to the North American naive assumptions that 'peace and harmony' and consensus are always best (e.g., Avruch, 1998; Colson, 1995; Moore, 1995). Ignoring the criticisms of social psychology's assumptions is particularly problematic because many of the assumptions are found in other disciplines (note in Chapter Three, how often Deutsch is cited in other disciplines, although not in the sociology literature and conceptualizations of conflict). From the literature reviewed, it is evident that from Mary Parker Follett (1920-30s), to Deutsch (1940s on), to Coser19 (1950s on), there is an apparent "progressive" movement in CME to make conflict "positive"— at least in a general way (recall the "modified" discussion earlier in this chapter). This has led people in organizational and business fields to talk about the "conflict-positive organization" (Tjosvold, 1993) and "conflict-postive schools" (cf. Johnson and Johnson's work in CME). The CME text is full of implicit and explicit discourse on this move to make conflict a 'positive' event- or at least, to suggest a conflict-positive attitude is one where conflict is not denied, but dealt with in rational ways. The purpose of course, is to find a solution or resolution, as efficiently as possible. Notice, that this conflict-positive attitude steeped in a consensus-based social psychology, has "common" interests to Collins's (1994) conflict sociology. Collins wrote that the conflict perspective foregrounds conflict, and presupposes that if conflict is not taking place, then domination is. Apparently, the social psychology view is saying it is good to show conflict also. But the differences ideologically between the two are major (see discussion in Chapter Four). The consensus-conflict debate, historically, sociopolitically, and metaphysically (cf. Bernard, 1983), is not taken up in the CME text, social psychology, or any of the other disciplines (other than sociology) that were reviewed. As part of this move, originating from Follett, Deutsch and Coser, there is a focus on seeing (and constructing knowledge about) conflict as inevitable, necessary, and 'natural' within healthy functioning systems/organizations. Tjosvold (1993) wrote, "Our studies suggest that within organizations most conflicts occur when people have cooperative interests" (p. 7). These conflict educators and theorists have given a strong emphasis on "intragroup" or ("within") conflict. Albeit, Deutsch also studied intergroup conflict. The cooperative over competitive framing seems to work "best," say these authors, for conflict within organizations that have a lot of similar interests in common. Whether that is true or not, the cooperative model and conceptualization to conflict and conflict management is often broad-brushed across all types of conflicts (and disciplines) in the CME text with little, or no critical differentiation as to the applicability of the Follett-Deutsch-Coser functionalist "conflict-positive" framework. 124 The quasi-experimental research and empirical nature of this conflict-positive discourse, given unproblematically in the CME text, probably makes it more appealing to the practical applications of a means to apply a "social technology"-- that is, conflict management/resolution by "managers" and "administrators." Furthermore, the conflict-positive writers (and CME text) do not address the very conflict they are part of in chosing a "cooperative" (consensus theory) over "competitive" (conflict theory20) approach to conceptualizing conflict. They seem to deny their own claim that it is important to deal with conflict up front and as part of life and being conflict-positive. They do not confront the conflict and power/knowledge dynamic of their own positioning in their Follett-Deutsch-Coser theoretical stance. See below, for a further critique of this bias and denial of conflict, from a social epistemological (Foucauldian) view. CME Text From A Foucauldian Perspective Introduction The third part of the three-in-one CDA involves applying Foucault's analysis of power/knowledge and other central concepts (see Appendix IV). This study is limited to a particular CDA of conceptualizations of'conflict' in the CME text. Not all CME text has been analyzed but would be important for a more complete analysis. At times, the larger aspects of CME, as a new social movement creating and promoting certain kinds of knowledge, are included as supplemental to the analysis of conceptualizations of'conflict.' This third part of the CDA is unique from the other two forms of analysis because it is not a focus on the actual definitions or conceptualizations of conflict per se, but is more interested in the way the conceptualizations of conflict are produced as a social and educational practice (a la Popkewitz et al. and the social epistemology of knowledge/curriculum). 125 No Acknowledgement Of Discourse The CME text in conceptualizing conflict (and in general) does not enter into a discussion and acknowledgement that everything written in the text is part of a relativist narrative with various discourses. Language, symbol, discursive formations, and discourse are unproblematically accepted in the CME text, with no elaboration of the power/knowledge dynamics involved. In other words, the words and language, their construction and meaning, are not implicated by the authors as part of knowledge formations that carry certain claims about "truth" and the power that goes with that. A Foucauldian awareness in the development of CME text, may include as statement for the readers which suggests the text is laiden with discourses about the nature and role of conflict— and, that there is uncertainty and ambivalence, contradictions and doubts that are part of the formation of the knowledge of conflict expressed herein. In Chapter One a few critical authors in CME suggested the knowledge foundations of conflict resolution/management as a field are not always clearly spelled out for readers. In some cases textbooks are very narrow and biased (Burgess and Burgess, 199721). What could also have been mentioned, is that the knowledge consists of discourses with historical and sociopolitical biases. But Foucauldian analysis of discourse, challenges the knowledge formations of CME even further. Discourses are a contested battleground. Foucault (cf. also Pecheux in Mills, 1997, p. 116) argued that discourses are not static and benign (i.e., politically value-neutral)-- meaning, they come out of oppositions historically and politically. They are in battle, competition, and conflict with other discourses. Discourses function within the networks and actions of power in societies and organizations. There is no acknowledgement in the CME text that the predominant discourse on conflict presented is in an actual battle/conflict for the privilege of its representation in the CME text. If that was acknowledged, then the subjugated (subdominant) knowledges would have been acknowledged and thus power/ knowledge differentials would be exposed in CME as a new 126 social movement and social educative practice. For example, the conflict theory/perspective and tradition (a la Collins, Black and so on) would have been acknowledged as left out of discussions about the conceptualization of conflict knowledge in the CME text. The consensus-conflict debate (a la Bernard) in social theory and sociology would have been mentioned, as well. The domination of social psychology, as a discipline, and a 'big' power-player in the discourse formation of conceptualizations of conflict, would also have been acknowledged as being largely privileged. The problematics of how some CME promoters prefer a philosophy of peace education and others conflict education, or methods of cooperation rather than competition (a la Follett-Deutsch) would have been discussed in terms of the politics of these choices. The continual downplaying and rejection of competition and competitive approaches to conflict resolution in much of the CME text could be construed as competitive domination itself. Who benefits from such competition? If cooperation were truly being practiced by the CME authors involved in this study, would they not wish to cooperate with the conflict tradition or a postmodern view? Apparently not. Without these acknowledgements of hegemonic discourses, the reader is left with no easy way to challenge the CME "regime of truth" that is being perpetuated by the authority of the CME text, facilitators, trainers, or educators involved. In Foucault's terms, there is an "expert knowledge" that is given and largely unquestioned in this neglect to mention discourse. This constructs learners in a way that produces passive recipients of technical expert discursive formations. In other words, the knowledge itself becomes part of a disciplinarity by experts, in which the students are disciplined into conformity with the expert knowledge. The use of certification processes and other methods in CME training may add to the passive subjection of learners. This is particularly a concern in light of Pine's (1998) criticism that ADR discourse is a "... new hegemony of social control..." (p. 514). As well, there has been evidence offered in critiques in Chapter Two that the dispute resolution literature has a tendency and "preoccupation with consensus" (Harrington and 127 Merry, 1988) or what Nader (1983) called a "harmony ideology" (cited in Pirie, 1998, p. 514). Lederach's (1995) concern that the conflict resolution field has recently become dominated by W. managerial approaches, with control and predictability (one could add rationality, modernity and positivistic scientism), is an additional reason to challenge the neglect of C M E text to openly acknowledge its discourses. The C M E text did not acknowledge that its representation of knowledge about conflict could stir up more social conflict as it is attempting to manage and resolve conflict (cf. Luke, 1995-96 and "new social conflicts"). The hegemony of discourse on conflict comes through in a few examples from C M E text. In Sorenson (1994) an exercise is provided for students/teachers whereby they are to engage in "Defining the Conflict." Notice, how understanding what conflict is has been de-emphasized and conflict as a "form" is constructed for the learner, and the learner is allowed to "define" "the conflict," but not allowed or encouraged to question what is "conflict" in the first place. This is the unproblematic transposition (operationalizing) that has been pointed out in this study as moving quickly and pragmatically from conflict as a concept to conflicts as behaviors in a situation. The exercise reads as follows: H o w you describe or define [i.e., understand] a conflict affects how you wi l l attempt to resolve it. For successful conflict resolution, it is important to develop a ski l l for defining conflicts. There are several important steps to follow to define a conflict in a way that w i l l aid in its resolution [assuming this is possible]. 1. Describe the conflict in a win/win [cooperative] rather than a win/lose or lose/win fashion.... (p. 150). In this example (and there are others), the learners have to take the "expert knowledge" (opinion) for granted that it is better to understand and define (conceptualize) conflict as "conflicts" within a cooperative win/win framework, as opposed to other options. It is this 128 opposition of discourses that is unproblematically by-passed and thus, learners are not encouraged in this exercise to challenge the technique being taught, nor are they informed of the political and power implications of the expert knowledge and its bias— nor are they told that this move is "forced" upon them to take the "win/win" option because it is actually competing for privilege over other options. Another common example in several of the CME books studied, was the exercise offered to the learners regarding "understanding" or "defining" conflict. Typically, these exercises involve the teacher or trainer asking students to "define conflict.22" The students write a list of words, situations, and experiences down on paper about what they think conflict is (e.g., Schrumpf et al, 1991, p. 43). Then the teacher is told in the manual to give "the [right] definition" for conflict23 ~ meaning, the definition that is used unproblem-atically in the CME text (see all the examples of defining conflict(s) in the earlier discussion). One wonders why, and how much power is given to the students own definition of conflict— or worse, the definition of conflict elicited was never clarified with the distinction that the concept of conflict is not the same as the description/ experiences of various conflicts the students may have written down. The students are not informed that the way of conceptualizing conflict(s) is based on power/ knowledge dynamics, where some definitions or conceptualizations of conflict are given privilege over others. What might be the implications of this privileging of conceptualizations of conflict? The students/ learners are not (at least textually) encouraged engagement in this question in a Foucauldian manner. Why not? Who privileges from this lack of challenging the power/knowledge relations of the field of conflict management/resolution? or the classroom in which this knowledge is transmitted to others? Neglect Of Cultural Sensitivity The above approach to conflict, as knowledge and as pedagogy, appears to carry a cultural bias as well. There are no acknowledgements that the conceptualizing of conflict may be 129 differently understood by people in different cultural groups-- for example, a lesbian, a working class person, someone from Asia and so on. No cultural differences are recognized. There are a few CME text that recognize briefly the cultural differences in how conflict is handled or reacted to. But the actual conceptualization of conflict across cultures and cultural identity groups is not discussed. When one thinks of the diverse ethnic, race, gender, class and cultural differences in the average classroom of youth or adults today, it is clearly a dominant W. Eurocentric and modernist conceptualization of conflict that is being represented as a totalizing universal narrative. The "scientific" background in the disciplinary knowledges of psychology and social psychology appears to dictate in dogmatic form the conceptualization of conflict that is best for learners of all kinds and in all places. This is more problematic, when one examines the basic definition of conflict(s) across the disciplines and finds a great deal of repetition and uniformity in defining conflict(s).24 The CME text are even more monolithic in their conceptualization of conflict(s). Terry Eagleton (cited in Harvey, 1989, p. 9) wrote about the "terroristic function of metanarratives" in modernist discourse, where only certain people of privilege are given the voice to define concepts and to define language use, based on ideologies of power and control over others.25 Most critical theory, Foucauldian, poststructuralist, postmodernist, feminist and post-colonial critical traditions of knowledge would not accept this hegemony of discourse without cultural and local-relative sensitivity in the defining and conceptualizing of conflict. Monolithic Normalizing And Naturalizing As mentioned above there is a good deal of monolithic similarity in the CME text in regard to conceptualizing conflict. This inter-textual similarity could be due to use of a common language of common sense use as preferred by managers, administrators and those teachers and facilitators with a practical interest alone to technically manage or resolve 130 conflict(s). Without a good deal of self-reflexivity in these conceptualizations it is fairly common, to see some authors, especially in youth/school CME, using similar statements and sometimes exact statements. It appears they use each others writing to more easily write their own books, and they begin to reference each other and thus establishing a form of self-enclosed, non-critical acceptance of fundamental assumptions in the construction of conflict knowledge. This monolithic "expert" valorisation of conflict knowledge leads to and reinforces a pattern of CME text that normalizes knowledge. In other words, the CME text begins to be collectively a body of normal knowledge. This normalizing then has the implicit power to make a conceptualization of conflict, either 'normal' (and thus "correct") or 'abnormal' (and thus "incorrect," or dangerous and pathological— i.e., a threat to the status quo stability of normal). Foucault has argued that normalizing creates a useful, and potentially oppressive tool for administrative purposes, for regulating and legitimating certain knowledges and legitimating certain regulatory social practices of institutions (in this study this could be a workplace, school, etc.). Authority is granted to what is 'normal.' Purely by repetition of the same kinds of conceptualizations of conflict throughout the CME text, there is a tendency to construct a normal conceptualization of conflict and to construct the normalizing discourse and its power to dominate 'other' opposing conceptualizations. The normalizing of text and the discourse of universalizing or totalizing, characteristic of modernity, make this Foucauldian critique one of the most important. To strengthen normalizing one adds naturalizing. These social practices reinforce the power of authority. Two examples of CME text demonstrate the tone and content of linking normalizing and naturalizing: (1) in Schrumpf et al. (1991) (student manual), the section called "Understanding Conflict" is pedagogically more about universalizing dogmatism than education. They wrote, 131 STATEMENTS ABOUT CONFLICT- People live, work, and play together, and it is important for them to get along. To do so, people must understand the following ideas about conflict. - Conflict is a natural part of everyday life. - Conflict can be handled in positive or negative ways. - Conflict can have either creative or destructive results. - Conflict can be a positive force for personal growth and social change, (p. 7). [underline for emphasis] Earlier in this chapter, we saw several examples of CME text, either explicitly or implicitly, claiming that conflict is normal, inevitable and natural. In the above example, there is no question about this claim. Normal is implied and natural is explicitly stated. In the next example the dogmatism is repeated in content and in the tone of unquestionable presentation of the "facts." (2) in Bodine and Crawford (1998) the Chapter on "Understanding Conflict As A Learning Opportunity" they wrote, Conflict is a discord of needs, drives, wishes, or demands.... Conflict is a natural, vital part of life.... Without conflict, there would likely be no personal growth or social change.... In every conflict, the individual has a choice: to be driven by negative perceptions or to take control of the situation and act positively, (p. 35) So clearly, these are claims about conflict and conflict practices that are from a viewpoint (albeit well-intentioned) that is privileged by race and class (at least). These claims could both be deconstructed from many places where power and privilege of positionality of the author(s) could be revealed. That detailed analysis is beyond the scope of this study. What is important, is to notice that conflict knowledge is being presented as a relatively consistent normal knowledge about conflict. Conflict itself, is being constructed as normal (everyday) and as natural (reinforced by the "inevitability" text discussed earlier). The move to add natural is very powerful because it legitimates conflict as the way of the whole system, of Nature, of 132 society26— without allowing a questioning about the social-cultural-political domination that accompanies conflict ( D F C V cycle). Equally problematic, is the jump from claiming the human condition is one of "conflict" but that does not deal with explicating the type of human condition (e.g., under oppressive capitalism and economic globalization) that is being referred to. For others, like myself, the human condition and human nature are not at all of the same category and thus, to claim the human condition is human nature is highly problematic. It would not be a large stretch to claim that if conflict is natural (or organic21), then domination/violence is natural (a typical social Darwinist claim). Natural implicitly makes this domination/violence OK? (or at least, makes domination/violence "inevitable"?). This is highly problematic and filled with contradictions, as a consenus rhetoric of "whole" and "system" is implied to legitimate knowledge claims; and at the same time, an early traditional "conflict perspective" (or 'competition perspective' a la social Darwinism) is implied. This is not surprising as discourses tend to have a 'life of their own' and move in and out of text and language. A detailed CDA would examine these contradictions further and bring forth the challenge of greater self-reflexivity in utterances and text. The difficulty with these statements above, is that they are given as "the. understanding" that is to be learned about the nature of conflict. And notice, there is no declaration, or reminder that the authors are distinguishing between "destructive" or "constructive" conflict. Why is this distinction not being made? Why are all the claims given above written as "Conflict is..." without uncertainty or doubt and without acknowledgement this is only one perspective. The use of priviledged expert knowledge above all other knowledges, leads this author to claim this is dogmatic propaganda not education. Disciplinarity. Rationality, Governmentality And Moral Responsibility The CME text is completely informed with rational and reasonable language. There is no easy way to transmit to the reader this quality. I would refer readers to experience the text and its logicalness, use of reason and overall "rational" approach to both understanding conflict and conflict processes of management and resolution. Self and other regulation, control of irrationality (e.g., anger emotions, or desire as non-rationality) is common throughout. The conceptualization of conflict is very unimaginative and, as already stated, is rather technical, rational and scientistic (positivistic), within the disciplinary discourses of psychology and social psychology. The attempt to make 'conflict,' as a social phenomenon, a controllable and understandable concept or operational construct— that is, a measurable behavior or event, is ubiquitous and dominant. This is likely to be the very nature of training in conflict management— where something very complex, is intended to be simplified, reduced and "managed." The managerialism of CME was pointed out in Chapter One. Foucault's work has challenged the human sciences as disciplinary knowledges and their so-called "rationality." He showed, the discourses were often anything but rational and humanistic and rather, they constructed and legitimated social and institutional practices of punishment (e.g., in criminalizing deviance, madness, sexual behavior etc.), a form of violence itself. The conceptualizing of conflict in this expert-authoritative-disciplinary fashion in CME text may both construct and reflect the disciplinary intention (and punishment?) that is offered in the conflict knowledge and conflict practices prescribed. Most of the CME text is written for use in institutional settings that tend to normalize (naturalize) within the acceptable bounds of that "organizational culture." The power/knowledge dyanmics of institutions and bureaucracies are problematic— none of the CME text deal with this governmentality in their discussions. The context of application of the "techniques" and "knowledge" about conflict are largely ignored. It does appear, at first glance, that conflict is constructed in these conflict-positive discourses as non-deviant, non-criminal and non-pathological (i.e., the "modified" version of consensus-functionalism). However, there is a definite pattern to control, resolve, manage, and eliminate "conflict" (could read "deviance" or "disruption") at the same time. More 134 contradictions exist than the authors of these texts are willing to acknowledge. The cooperation, consensus and collaboration agenda is clearly hegemonic over competition. In most of the CME text, implicitly, "competition" is rejected as morally unacceptable. It is assumed that competition leads to "destructive" conflict management— i.e., violence. Most importantly, it appears "conflict" is no longer made morally 'bad' but how one handles conflict is constructed in this morally 'bad' discourse. This is implicit in most all the CME text. The CME is dedicated to "correcting" bad habits, or inappropriate ways of handling conflict. Presumably, these texts, then perpetuate a notion that violence (DFCV cycle) can be intervened with successfully by rational moralistic means. This discussion would take us beyond the conceptualization of conflict. But it is likely that the limiting of discordant and conflicting views of the conceptualization of conflict is part of the rationalizing, moralizing, normalizing and naturalizing pattern of discourse28 that goes with modernity in its most destructive aspects. The governmental ity (as a form of power/knowledge and regulation) is evident in the CME text where conceptualizations of conflict are based on an expert-professionalism and authority to regulate the discordance of views of oppositional definitions and conceptualizations of conflict. This is not explicitly stated anywhere in the CME text. However, there is no encouragement to move beyond the regulating (regulations and rules) about what a student/learner must know and accept as the best understanding of conflict- in order to then best manage or resolve conflict(s). The learner/student must be morally responsible to gain this given knowledge about conflict and then practice the conflict practices following these "rules" and pre-given knowledges from the authorities. Moral responsibility, in terms of violence prevention, is then located in the individual to accept normal conceptualizations of conflict that they did not have power to participate in and challenge. This is another contradiction in terms of constructing civil morally responsible students, which CME texts imply continually. Is the process of constructing both conflict knowledge and conflict-workers in these texts a democratic process? Is it educative or is it propagandist conditioning in 'fear' that one may be labelled "abnormal," or implicitly excluded from the "morally responsible" majority taking the CME programs-- excluded, because they are not choosing to follow the normative rules and regulations of CME? This moralizing discourse is well "hidden" in the CME text for the most part, but does occur more obviously at times. Although some texts are challenging the moral irresponsibility of violent societies in the introduction, the texts, generally neglect to locate the responsibility for social conflict in the institutions and social practices that are legitimated by the authorities (which is what the conflict tradition theorists would do predominantly). This locating of moral responsibility primarily on individual students/learners is a crucial part of implementing self-regulation in students/learners as part of the governing of their desires and individual critical thinking29 (see more detailed discussion in Chapter Four). Governmentality is not readily evident in the CME text on conceptualizations of conflict but is most recognizable in discussions of how conflict managment/resolution practices are prescribed to be done— as, what Foucault would likely have called social technologies of control (surveillance and self-surveillance). See Appendix IV on pastoral power and its role in governmental ity. Chapter Summary Chapter Three offers an interpretation of the data collected from the CME text. This is done using a three-in-one critical discourse analysis that included: (1) a conflict perspective, (2) an interdisciplinary/comparative perspective and, (3) a Foucauldian perspective. The focus of the interpretation is on conflict as a concept in the CME text and not on the conflict practices of management and resolution. Although, the CME text, as discursive practice and discourse is included as part of conflict practice. The central role of "understanding" conflict in the CME text is foregrounded, as well as the problematics of the biases involved. The hegemony of "cooperative" ("constructive") approaches over "competitive" ("destructive") approaches to understanding and framing 136 conceptualizations of conflict is noted; and is related to the consensus-conflict debate in social theory and sociology discourse. This is arguably, a competitive and exclusionary discourse within CME itself but is not acknowledged in the CME text. Emphasis on conflicts (behaviorally) rather than the concept of conflict itself, is seen as part of a pragmatic social behaviorism with roots in social psychology. Social psychology, in particular, appears to have had, and continues to have, the most influence in the knowledge formations of CME text. The power/knowledge dynamics of how CME text construct the conceptualizations of conflict are analyzed and critiqued. Violence is rarely mentioned in the texts, and the larger social conflicts of sexism, racism and classism (for examples) are not included in the problematics of defining or conceptualizing conflict and presents possibilities of the CME text perpetuating the very violence it seeks to undermine. ****** 1 Text, as used in this report refers to words/language in written form, rather than a text book. 1 CME text in this Chapter 3, refers to the 22 training manuals and handbooks studied in this research. 3 Conflict practices includes any actions, thinking, or feelings, which are part of an aware and intentional practice to either increase conflict(s) or decrease conflict(s). There is no judgement applied to conflict practices as either good or bad, right or wrong. I distinguish this from the use of the term conflict habitus, the latter, which refers to conflict practices that are largely unconscious and conditioned by sociocultural myths, norms, and so forth. 4 From a mediator's viewpoint: "Conflict can be diagnosed.... diagnosing the causes of conflict in order to develop a hypothesis regarding possible interventions." (Boulle and Kelly, 1998, p. 47). 5 G. Morgan (1986), writing on the political activity of organizations and groups, suggested "One of the most important ways of understanding conflict is through the medium of power (Morgan, 1986, 158-85). It is through power that members of organisations are provided with means to enhance their interests and resolve or perpetuate conflict." (Condliffe, 1991, p. 155). Critical readers may argue that my claim of "infrequently" is inaccurate. For example, Charlton and Dewdney (1995) both mention power in mediation and claim, "A great deal of the academic literature on mediation focuses on inequalities ofpower and what mediators should or can do to redress any imbalances." (p. 238-9). These authors use "power" in a non-Foucauldian manner and all the uses of power in the CME text are not within a conflict perspective. For these ommissions, and the "thin" use of the word "power," they are not seen as very significant contributions to a power discourse critical evaluation within CME practices or theory. For example, Charlton and Dewdney (1995) refer to quantitative, thing-like conceptualizations of power, when they wrote, "Children and adolescents have tremendous power over their parents.... Lack of knowledge is a prime source of power imbalance....". (p. 239-40). These are not conceptualizations of a rich conceptualization of pm'er in many critical postmodern (a la Foucault, Popkewitz) or conflict perspectives. Girard and Koch (1996) come close to the view of power taken in this study, but they do not develop it. They wrote, "Power is also a constant presence and influence in any conflict situtalion. According to Mocker and Wilmot (1991), power may flow from expertise, control of resources, interpersonal connections, or communication skills. Institutional 137 policies, rules, and practices (along with informal controls) give members of one group more power than others...". (p. 83). See also Haddigan (1997a, p. 17) for a somewhat similar conception of power to that of Foucault's. ^ "To create conflict positive schools [also called cooperative school," (p. 29)], educators first need a general understanding of conflict. They need to apply that understanding within the context of a school environment...". (Johnson and Johnson, 1995, p. 13) "Our culture is producing a growing population of hostile, unattached children with weak conscience development. We must have the guts to stand up lo those who would discard an entire generation of children in conflict." [they identify "children at risk", "childhood bullies" etc.] (Bodine and Crawford, 1998, p. 22). For a critical discourse analysis of "at-risk children" discourses in today's society and educational systems, see Martineau (1999). Conflict pathology describing the condition when "There was no constructive way of dealing with conflict when it did arise. " (Kessler, 1978, p. 2). 9 Several manuals for schools try to "sell" CME as a way to decrease discipline problems in schools and the communities. Among the many goals of CME, "... improving the learning environment through better classroom management and more student-centered discipline." (Bodine and Crawford, 1998, p. xiii) is common, either implicit or explicit in the text. Sweeney and Carruthers (1996) pointed out that "...early methods of resolving conflicts were often punitive." in many school systems (p. 329). As consultants and counselors in schools, Sweeney and Carruthers have seen the common case "... that conflict resolution programs typically get their start in a school because of staff member's interest in how they may help lo alleviate student conflict. It is our experience that school staff members first ask how well these programs operate with students before they begin to ask how the principles and practices apply to themselves.... A study of educational practices in history reveals that methods of conflict resolution in schools have evolvedfrom systems heavily dependent on externally based rewards and punishments to systems that mix external controls with internally basedforms of self-discipline." (p. 329). M. Collins (1998) argued that violence prevention has to begin in schools with the adults who run them. Many of the CME manuals mention the need for "violence prevention" and that "students who are at risk" to be violent, will likely benefit from strategies that include "conflict resolution life skills" (e.g., Bodine and Crawford, 1998, xiv). CME is apparently taking place in an atmosphere of "crisis." How does that crisis management mentality impact on the learning process and the construction of conflict knowledge by trainers, teachers and learners? The social control of so called "deviant behavior" is implied in this disciplinarity that is inherent in the CME text studied. The sociocultural and political implications of constructing "deviance" is a large topic that this thesis cannot enter into fully. Although, it is important to keep in mind that with crisis and the fear of violence there is likely an increasing tendency to "use" CME for means, other than what they were intended (as Sweeney and Carruthers, 1996 exemplify in their mild critique of CME tending toward use as a disciplinary strategy in schools that don't fully understand the conflict resolution programs). This attempt to have students internally self-regulate and control their peers through conflict practices, constructed as "positive," requires thorough analysis as to who benefits from such internal self-regulation of conflict? With schools known to serve a conserving function of the state and elite classes in society (Postman, 1979)-- and managing of social order via socialization, discipline and punishment (a la Foucault), CME can be easily problematized (cf. discussion in Chapter Four). 1 0 Johnson and Johnson (1995a) remark that their work is based on the earlier work of Deutsch and even back further to Kurt Lewin (1935, 1948) (both in social psychology of conflict). 1 1 The most text was devoted to conceptualization of conflicts, which dominate the discussion. Little discussion is ever devoted to conflict as a concept per se (see below under Definition Theme). 1 2 Although, in a few manuals there is an exercise in which students are asked to write down their view (or associations) with "conflict"-- which, arguably, is a meagre attempt to have them define conflict for themselves. 1 3 Never does the CME text refer to a "hidden curriculum" of CME. 1 4 Bodine and Crawford (1998) noted that this statement is the core of the ideas behind the Children's Creative Response To Conflict program in 1972, which grew from the Quaker Community Project in New York City (p. 91). J This is an experiment and would require more work and definition in future studies on epistemology and conflict knowledge (e.g., CME text). The three part scheme relates to how 'reality' is being talked about, viewed and studied—as an 'it' (object, 'externality', as in methodological positivism), as an T (subject, individuality) and as 'We' (subject, collectivity)— with the latter two either of a more external or internal focus. 138 1 6 Condliffe (1991) also cites the functionalist conflict theorist Lewis A. Coser a few times. The Coserian and Dahrendorfian views of conflict are not the same (see Collins, 1994; Turner, 1986)-- the former much more conservative and a functionalist with a general consensus perspective and somewhat of a conflict perspective. 1 7 Reviewed but not included in this thesis report as "Sociological" conceptualizations of'conflict.' 1 8 According to Rose Coser (1984) paraphrased her husband's (Lewis A. Coser) work in 1956. She wrote, "Given segmental participation, the very multiplicity of conflicts in itself tends to constitute a check against the breakdown of consensus." (p. 236). 1 9 Granted, Coser, is not in the same theoretical category as Follett and Deutsch (Coser is a 'minor' conservative author in conflict theory/tradition), but their link is still within the functionalist tradition, sociologically speaking. That is, the mainstream status quo structures of society are not thought to be generally problematic (i.e., coercive and oppressive). 2 0 It would not be a stretch to call the conflict perspective "conflict-negative" relative to the way the CME text constructs "conflict-positive." Obviously, researchers and theorists within anthropology and sociology would not be interested in constructing the concept "conflict-negative." One has to ask, why "conflict-positive" is given such weight in CME text and this social movement generally? I would suggest, it is a discourse that is attempting to promote what looks like a landslide transformation of thinking — progressivism— in attitudes about conflict and how to best handle it. The "transformation" has appropriated discourse and language from the marginal community of oppressed groups, like gays and lesbians. This is highly problematic. The "transformation" is a "reform" at best, and at worst, it is not progressive at all, because of how it leaves out and ignores the conflict perspective on conflict. It is a reform, that more looks like ideology and propagandizing using a very "positive" appropriation of emancipatory language/discourse. "Positive" is the 'in' thing in North American popular culture these days (see the 'new age' literature and most self-help personal growth literature in most any book store). 2 1 "Because its roots are so diverse and its applications so widespread, it is difficidt for people who are interested in this new field to find information about the conflict resolution 'knowledge base.' Textbooks are available, but each tends to examine only one aspect of the field— in part because it is so large but also because it is growing so rapidly." (p. viii). 2 2 Girard and Koch (1996) set the objective that the students/learners ought to "... develop a clear definition of conflict, acknowledge the pervasiveness of conflict...". (p. 1). Note, these are given as a fact of social life, when the very definition of conflict is already decided by the CME text (the "experts"). On what grounds, is a "clear" definition of conflict possible, preferable (and preferrable to what other options), or 'real?' If students define conflict in their own way, does that mean they will necessarily agree that such a "pervasiveness of conflict" is real? What is real? How would they know? The questions not asked in this form of pedagogy dealing with conflict, are as important as the questions asked. 2 3 Also, the students are asked to compare their answers to the "given" definition in the manual or on the board, as given by the teacher of the training. There is never encouragement in the CME text to take individual/group constructions and modify or change completely the definition given in the manual or on the board by the "experts." The Federal Emergency Management Agency (1991) trains leaders. The exercise of defining conflict begins (p. iv-2) with staging a conflict (pre-given notion by the instructor of what is conflict)-- then viewers/participants are asked how they feel, that is, "... how the conflict made them feel." The instructions in the manual then say, "Then the instructor defines conflict, inviting input from the participants." But no specification is given as the how that "input" is to be dealt with and the issue of expert-power-knowledge involved in the defining. The overhead for the instructor is also pre-given and is to be shown to the class to take down as notes. The overhead reads: "What is Conflict? Conflict- occurs when goals or preferences of one person or organization are blocked by the actions of another." (p. 7). The predominant transition to move from talking about conflict as a concept to conflicts as an operational action, behavior or event, is a powerful way of ordering and categorizing a social phenomenon. It could be argued that such a move involves constructing conflict(s) as an object, via reification. This also may involve constructing subjects (learners), in ways which limit their positioning relative to the phenomena of social conflict. This topic is taken up in Chapter Four. 2 5 A Foucauldian perspective would look at the "discursive rules" and "regulations" that are explicit or implicit in the CME text, which permit or forbid some statements or types of questions. How the dominant discourse "tells the truth" about conflict, is likely to reflect the dominant discourse of how the CME text "tells the truth" about students/learners and themselves as teachers and facilitators. These various "regimes of truth," as Foucault called 139 them, may unveil how we tell the truth about the world condition or organization we are living and/or working within. This is the use of a "transcendental" essential aspect to the conceptualization of conflict that makes it beyond any social structure or cultural conditioning/practices. This has metaphysical implications 2 7 S e e Girard and Koch (1996, p. 2). 28 What is contradictory in the CME text, is the move to bring about greater individual responsibility in resolving and managing conflict(s) (less institutional and social responsibility?)— and yet, at the same time the professionalism of institutions (disciplines of knowledge) is dictating what the conceptualization of conflict is and should be. This latter move, taking away the individual responsibility in constructing the understanding of conflict. 2 9 This is another contradictory aspect of the CME text. The CME text and programs often link conflict management/resolution skills with general abilities of critical thinking skills and problem-solving skills. Apparently, such skills are only to be utilized in a very narrow way, and not to deconstruct the structures of the status quo (i.e., institutions, or big 'D' discourses, that are dictating these CME programs). 140 C H A P T E R F O U R T O W A R D A C O N F L I C T ' P E D A G O G Y Education is intimately related to the present world crisis, and the educator who sees the causes of this universal chaos should ask himself [sic] how to awaken intelligence in the student, thus helping the coming generation not to bring about further conflict and disaster.... But in order to do this, the educat