Personal Development — CONTROVERSY: WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT, AND THE VARIOUS FORMS IN WHICH IT MAY EVOLVE

1. Controversy: the concept

We human beings naturally have a liking for consensus or consent, and a dislike for disagreement or argument. So are we more naturally inclined to avoid disagreement or argument and rather seek consensus or consent instead.

Both Johnson & Johnson (1979) as well as Johnson (2008) contrast “controversy” from “concurrence-seeking” through the following two passages respectively:

●“Controversy exists when one person’s ideas, information, conclusions, theories, or opinions are incompatible with those of another person, and the two seek to reach an agreement” (Johnson & Johnson: 1979 , p.53). Hence, controversy always calls for dialogue and discussion so as to reach an agreement, and this necessarily involves argument. Some instances of controversies recently highlighted in real time and in the real context of Rwanda can be found here .

●“Concurrence seeking [sic] occurs when members of a group inhibit discussion to avoid any disagreement or argument, emphasize agreement, and avoid realistic appraisal of alternative ideas and courses of action” (Johnson: 2008 , p.3).

2. Justification/Importance of Controversy

Controversy is indispensable if people are to avoid both individualistic decisions (autocracy/monocracy) and groupthink (dictatorship of the majority, whether population group number majority or power majority — regarding these two types of majority in opposition to the corresponding two types of minority, detailed explanations can be deducted from Farley: 2005 ) and rather take inclusive and agreed decisions instead.

3. Two famous quotes about Controversy

● “Since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinion that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied” (John Stuart Mill [1859] On Liberty. Quoted in Johnson [2008 , p.3]. Also accessible from here , or else here , p.50).

● “There is no more certain sign of a narrow mind, of stupidity, and of arrogance, than to stand aloof from those who think differently from us” (Walter Savage Landor quoted in Johnson: 2008 , p.5).

4. Controversy in a nutshell

As was already said at the very beginning, we human beings naturally have a liking for consensus or consent, and a dislike for controversy or disagreement. This is so not because the latter is not useful, but it is so simply because we human beings do not like being challenged and losing our comfort zone. Yet, challenge should normally not be seen as detrimental especially when we stand for a just cause as per the following quotation:

“He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper” (Edmund Burke [1790] Reflections on the Revolution in France. Quoted in Johnson: 2008 , p.10. Also accessible from here , p.138).

5. Controversy’s degeneration into Conflict

Controversy between two people or groups of people either gets resolved or else persists, and Unresolved and Persisting Controversy always degenerates into Conflict. In this regard, the following consideration formulated by Johnson & Johnson (1979 , p.53) is of obvious relevance:

“The conflict resides in the two [i.e. controverting] people’s attempt to resolve their disagreement”.

On the other hand, Conflict may also arise within one person, and such a conflict is known as ‘internal conflict’. With reference to the classroom context, Johnson & Johnson (1979 , p.53) specifies that student’s ‘internal conflict’ is particularly called conceptual conflict, and that

It [i.e. conceptual conflict] “exists when two incompatible ideas exist simultaneously within a student’s mind and must be reconciled. A common source of conceptual conflict is receiving new information which does not fit with what one already knows”.

Regarding this concept of ‘conflict’, Johnson & Johnson (1979 , pp.52-53) further observe that

“A conflict [sic] exists whenever incompatible activities occur. An activity that is incompatible with another activity is one that prevents, blocks, interferes with, injures, or in some way makes the second activity less likely or less effective”.

6. Forms into which Conflict, in turn, may evolve

First of all, regarding its location, Conflict erupts either within the Self, or with Others, or else with Nature/Environment.

Then regarding the different ways in which it is possibly dealt with, Conflict is managed — and the process relevant thereto is called Conflict Management — either negatively towards Conflict Escalation into Violence, or else positively towards (1) Conflict Transformation, or (2) Conflict Termination (and the latter, i.e. Conflict Termination, is done through either Conflict Resolution or Conflict Dissolution). Positive Conflict Management is actually the one most usually addressed as Conflict Management in the literature for obvious reasons pertaining to its usefulness, and Berghof Foundation [ed.] (2012 , p.18) particularly defines it as follows:

“Conflict management [sic] focuses on how to control, handle and mitigate an open conflict and how to limit the potential damage caused by its escalation [emphasis added]. Like prevention, it can include military and non-military components. It is mainly understood as trying to contain a conflict or, at best, reach a compromise, without necessarily resolving it [emphasis added]. This means looking for ways to deal with conflict constructively and aiming to engage opposing sides in a cooperative process that can establish a workable system for managing their differences”.

From this definition therefore, it follows that in no way [positive] Conflict Management can be a final stage or an end in itself, but it is well a stepping stone or a means to an end, which end or final stage should be either Conflict Transformation, or Conflict Termination through either Conflict Resolution or Conflict Dissolution.

As for negative Conflict Management whose aim is Conflict Escalation into Violence, it is normally the deal of people usually known as ‘spoilers’ of peace processes, whom Berghof Foundation [ed.] (2012 , p.26) describes in the following words:

??In any setting of protracted conflict [emphasis added] there are agents of violent change or resistance but also agents of peaceful change. Any process of conflict transformation must find and connect the drivers of peaceful change, but also understand the drivers of violence and war: the “spoilers” of peace processes [emphasis added]. In the words of Dekha Ibrahim Abdi once more: “You don’t see them as a problem, but you see them as people needing to be understood […] and then they become part of the strategy development” ?.

These ‘agents of conflict escalation’ who need to be understood if conflict is to be not only transformed successfully but also even better, terminated, are as well called “conflict entrepreneurs” (Snodderly [ed.]: 2011 , p.15), “‘spoilers’ of peace processes” or “‘spoilers’ of peace” or just “spoilers” (Berghof Foundation [ed.]: 2012 , p.26; CDA Collaborative Learning Projects: 2004 , p.15; Newman & Richmond: 2006 , pp.105-110; Bar-Tal: 2012 , pp.5-6; Elman: 2012 , pp.7-17; Snodderly [ed.]: 2011 , p.48) with “vested interests” (Schulz & S?derbaum: 2010 , p.17), or “extremists” (Schmid: 2014 , pp.20-22), and they are usually “hard to reach” (Babbitt et al.: 2013 , pp.112-113) for peace entrepreneurs.

Finally regarding the various protagonists whom it possibly involves, Violence erupts either against the Self, or against Others, or else against Nature/Environment.

7. From Violence to Peace — The Culture of Violence on the one hand, and the Breaking of the Cycle of Violence (or guca inzigo in Kinyarwanda) for the purpose of putting in place a Culture of Peace on the other hand

One typical instance illustrative of the Culture of Violence (Cyclical Violence or inzigo in Kinyarwanda) is borrowed from the field of the Jewish Faith/Religion where, under the traditional naming of lex talionis, the said typical instance of the Culture of Violence (Cyclical Violence or inzigo in Kinyarwanda) is also currently found in the body of Christian literature called the Bible’s Old Testament (more precisely in the Bible’s books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy respectively) through the formulation “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (Exodus 21:24 ; Leviticus 24:20 ; Deuteronomy 19:21 ). With respect to the vengefully merciless lex talionis’ mantra of “An eye for an eye”, Quote Investigator (2010) reports that Mohandas Gandhi, George Perry Graham, Louis Fischer, Henry Powell Spring, and Martin Luther King, are respectively believed to have come up each with the particular frightening warning that “An Eye for an Eye Will Make the Whole World Blind”.

As for the achievement of putting in place a Culture of Peace which results from the action of Breaking the Cycle of Violence (or guca inzigo in Kinyarwanda), one may say that the cycle of violence (or inzigo in Kinyarwanda) is broken thanks to the practice of Nonviolence and the practice of further more virtues such as Benevolence, Beneficence and even Self-Sacrifice. One relevant instance illustrating very well such virtuous practices may also be the particular Bible’s reference of the Gospel according to Matthew 5, 38-42 which goes:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’h 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you”.

Regarding the above-mentioned practice of Nonviolence and the practice of further more virtues such as Benevolence, Beneficence and even Self-Sacrifice both of which serve to Break the Cycle of Violence (or guca inzigo in Kinyarwanda) and thereby put in place a Culture of Peace, they are implemented mainly through the peace process of Peacemaking in the first place that is followed next by the peace process of Peacebuilding which also bears the name of Peacefostering since the peace it deals with is already ‘made’ through Peacemaking — more detailed information about the peace processes can be found in Burgess (2004) . Important to note here is finally the fact that the combination of these peace processes of Peacemaking and Peacebuilding or Peacefostering as the second process is also called constitutes a novel and eclectic but most effective, efficient and special peace process known as Peace Education.

References

Babbitt, E., Chigas, D. and Wilkinson, R. (2013) Theories and Indicators of Change in Conflict Management and Mitigation: Concepts and Primers. Washington DC: USAID. Available here .

Bar-Tal, D. (2012) Introduction: Challenges of Peacemaking and Spoilers. In N. Goren & M. F. Elman [Editors] Spoilers of Peace and the Dilemmas of Conflict Resolution. Tel Aviv: Mitvim [The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies] and PARCC [The Program for the Advancement of Research on Conflict and Collaboration], available here , pp.5-6.

Berghof Foundation [ed.] (2012) Berghof Glossary on Conflict Transformation: 20 Notions for Theory and Practice. Berlin: Berghof Foundation Operations GmbH. Available here .

Burgess, H. (2004) Peace Processes. In?Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess (Eds.) Beyond Intractability. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Available here .

CDA Collaborative Learning Projects (2004) Reflecting on Peace Practice Project. Cambridge, MA. Available here .

Elman, M. F. (2012) Spoilers of Peace and the Dilemmas of Conflict Resolution. In N. Goren & M. F. Elman [Editors] Spoilers of Peace and the Dilemmas of Conflict Resolution. Tel Aviv: Mitvim [The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies] and PARCC [The Program for the Advancement of Research on Conflict and Collaboration], available here , pp.7-17.

Farley, J. (2005). Minority. In New Dictionary of the History of Ideas – Encyclopedia.com. The Gale Group, Inc. Available here .

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson R. T. (1979) Conflict in the Classroom: Controversy and Learning. In Review of Educational Research, Vol.49, No.1, available here , pp.51-70.

Johnson, D. W. (2008) Constructive Controversy: The Value of Intellectual Conflict. In SSRN Electronic Journal of November 2008. Electronic copy available here .

Newman, E. & Richmond, O. (2006) Peace Building and Spoilers. In Conflict, Security & Development, Vol.6, No.1, available here , pp.101-110.

Quote Investigator (2010) An Eye for an Eye Will Make the Whole World Blind. Article published on December 27, 2010, available here .

Schmid, A. P. (2014) Violent and Non-Violent Extremism: Two Sides of the Same Coin? The Hague: International Center for Counter-Terrorism [ICCT] Research Paper. Available here .

Schulz, M. & S?derbaum, F. (2010) Theorising the EU’s Role in Regional Conflict Management. Available here .?

Snodderly, D. [ed.] (2011) Peace Terms: Glossary of Terms of Conflict Management and Peacebuilding. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, Academy for International Conflict Management and Peacebuilding. Available here .?