Possessing The Desire For Reconciliation

Douglas Fry, in his studies of the Semai and Zapotec peoples and in his reviews of related literature, concludes that all of the sources and case studies “emphasize that the goal of conflict resolution is to reestablish normal, harmonious relationships among the disputants” (Fry 345). Reconciliation behavior can be found in all peoples and emerges in various forms. Reconciliation behavior may include: stretching out a hand, smiling, joking, kissing, and embracing, special reconciliation meals, social gatherings of all the affected parties, rituals of drinking and smoking, and third party involvement to bring the parties together. All cultures and many animal species have in common this desire, need, and ability to reconcile their differences. In some cases, the post-conflict resolution needs to happen simply to stop the violence and to ensure the survival of the group and the individuals in the group, while in other conflicts a deeper recognition of the benefits of reconciliation by the community allows for some kind of reconciliation process to be entered into. Is it the anxiety of conflict that triggers this desire to move away from conflict and “make-up” with the other side or is it more complex than that, involving survival and productiveness of the species in general and cooperation among individuals to advance themselves in particular? The idea of reconciling differences with an adversary is complex, yet we see the behavior manifest itself in humans as well as in other animals.

The major school of thought on reconciliation suggests that this behavior is related to relationship re-building, while an opposing smaller school of thought presented by Silk (180) says that the post-conflict behavior, at least in primates, is mainly meant to signal that there is no longer an intent to be aggressive or create harm. The behavior is simply an easing of tensions and has no underlying connection to relationships or group survival. The subtlety of these differences seem trivial at first glance, yet they go to the heart of what is being studied and talked about around reconciliation, anxiety relief, relationships and conflict resolution.

Frans De Waal, from his studies of primates and humans writes,

The fact that monkeys, apes, and humans all engage in reconciliation behavior means that it is probably over thirty million years old, preceding the evolutionary divergence of these primates. The alternate explanation, that this behavior appeared independently in each species, is highly “uneconomical,” for it requires as many theories as there are species. Scientists normally dismiss uneconomical explanations unless there is strong evidence against a more elegant unified theory. Because no such evidence exists in this instance, reconciliation behavior must be seen as a shared heritage of the primate order. (De Waal, Peacemaking 270)

Does this mean that we are all born with the ability and desire to reconcile our differences? It is probably not as simple as that. The complexities of our cognitive abilities to learn how to survive coupled with our abilities to innately know how to survive, muddy the waters of the nature vs. nurture arguments. We can, however, infer from the extensive studies in non-human primates and the limited studies in humans that the existence of and desire for reconciliation behavior is something that we can count on to be present in most humans.

The Five Core Capacities

The next several posts will explore five major areas of human core capacities and will focus attention on answering the question as to whether these capacities are a result of “nature or nurture.”

Those core capacities are:

• Possessing the desire for reconciliation
• Understanding the benefits of cooperation
• Having the cognitive capacity to forgive
• Understanding the reciprocal nature of relationships
• Having the capacity for empathy

(Aureli et al. 2000; Raviv 60; Bonta 1993; Batson 413).

Nature vs Nurture and Game Theory

Areas of thought and research that naturally collide with this project include nature vs. nurture and natural selection and evolution. A great deal of research and debate has been pursued in the area of nature vs. nurture, both on very specific human behaviors and in general terms as it relates to instincts and genetic pre-dispositions. Darwinian theories of natural selection and evolution are another area of study rich in research and directly related to the subject at hand in this review. Although this paper will naturally touch on some aspects of these ideas and theories, an overall review of the literature will not be made here.

Research on negotiating techniques has been studied at length over many years by many people, and recently there has been a great deal of thought put into “Game Theory.” Negotiating decisions may rely on the actions of others or they may be based on one side’s understanding of the situation, with little or no understanding of the other party’s input. The idea of possible cooperation within negotiation adds a complex layer to the mathematical construct some theories are based upon. Game Theory started as a mathematical calculation that allowed for a determination of an optimal outcome given a set of circumstances. “In basic form, game theory is a “rational-choice” model of analysis that posits certain assumptions about the parties’ rationality and common knowledge. Game theory provides a model for understanding and predicting what a “rational” party “ought to do” based on that party’s self-interest, assuming complete or partial knowledge of other parties’ “choices” (Siegfried 69; Dickey 2). Cooperative bargaining theory is a form of game theory in which the players share common concerns (Dickey 3).

The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a classical matrix showing the motivations of two people in conflict and how a structure can be placed on a negotiation and how cooperation affects outcomes. Tit for Tat (cooperation followed by mimicking moves of the opponent), can be layered within game theory scenarios as a model that could determine behavior. In an effort to predict outcomes and understand negotiator differences, Neale and Bazerman explore the areas of how and why negotiators with a clear and positive negotiating zone can still fail to reach agreement (Neale 49).

Lewicki, in his book on negotiation essentials and theory concludes; “…it appears that several aspects of negotiator cognition are significantly influenced by culture and that negotiators should not assume that findings on negotiator cognition from Western negotiators are universally applicable to other cultures” (246).

The scope of this blog will not include these types of conflict resolution and negotiating analyses, yet it is important to underscore the existence of these theories, behavior strategies, and ways of thinking about conflict resolution, as we move toward looking at the core capacities that may underlie them.

Current Literature Around Natural Abilities to Resolve Conflicts

All of the literature reviewed and life works studied here add up to an emerging view that humans have natural abilities that help them resolve conflict. Aureli, De Waal and others call this idea “Natural Conflict Resolution”. “According to evolutionary theory, it is logical to expect conflict management mechanisms as natural phenomena that function in maintaining the integrity of groups and the associated benefits to each group member” (Aureli 4). Aureli concludes that his analyses “highlight once more the similarities across species, cultures, and disciplines and strengthen the perspective of conflict resolution as a natural phenomenon” (Aureli 9 ). This paper will examine five constructs of universal behavior that fit in directly with conflict management systems and resolution. These five behaviors have naturally emerged during my review of the literature and have consistently surfaced throughout my studies of mediation and conflict resolution. In very broad terms, the behaviors are: reconciliation, cooperation, forgiveness, relationship value awareness, and empathy.

“Natural Conflict Resolution” is a term for a theoretical trend in peacemaking today. This theory states that not only do the fittest survive when the going gets tough in conflict situations, but that cooperation among individuals, groups, and entire societies is a natural ability and a natural reaction that works to promote long-term survival of the parties and the species in conflict (Yarn 68). In a broad sense, the natural resolution of conflicts in both humans and non-human primates has similar roots.

The importance of the nature vs. nurture (born with vs. learned) aspect of this research cannot be understated! If humans are born with one or more common capacities that help them resolve conflict, then it could follow that resolving cross-cultural conflicts should focus on and leverage this/these common capacities as a foundation for the process. Cultural differences make human existence rich and vibrant and these differences cannot be ignored, yet these differences are also what make some conflicts inevitable. Conflict resolution processes that understand the cultural differences, and rigorously use the human commonalities as a foundation for the process will, in many cases, serve parties best.

I have limited my research to Western and English language literature. I have so far found no literature reviews that focus on the idea of identifying all of the common abilities described in this paper. I have found various literature reviews and compilations of works that focus on single abilities. Frans De Waal and Filippo Aureli, for instance, focus a great deal of energy on reconciliation and relationship abilities in human and non-human primates in their book “Natural Conflict Resolution” (Aureli 3-9). Morton Deutsch, a pioneer in social psychology, has done extensive research and reviews on the idea of cooperation and the human capacity to understand the value of cooperation. Bruce Bonta has done extensive literature reviews on the subject of peaceful (non-violent) societies and what the potential commonalities might be. I will be interested to explore beyond the Western view, as I believe that exploration will lead to additional studies which will reinforce the commonalities found so far.

Stay tuned for ideas around nature vs. nurture and negotiating techniques in the next post....