Understanding Contemporary Conflict 119

be the topic - a hybrid coming together of different transdisci

plinary frameworks.
Contemporary analysts such as Peter Coleman (Coleman et al. 2003) have
ecognized that systemic complexity is quite consonant with long-term stabil-
S1nce once a complex system has settled into a pattern no single stimulus
or
even collection of stimuli may be sufficient to overcome its constantly
enorced inertia. The broad conclusionis that.ifthe ajm is systemicconflict
StoTmation, then either thecomplex mustbe alfeeted-as-a whole, or the
Stem must be displaced to another environment which.is more benign.
OSe
working in the conflict transformation field must, therefore, be patient
well informed in their selection and sequencing of entry points, and must
CXpectsetbacks and apparent regression. It is also understood why the process
OLransition may be less stable, more turbulent, and potentially perhaps more
ddilgerous, than the original more familiar
concatenation. The dynamical
e s approach to conflict analysis and conflict transformation of Coleman,
ogetner with others working in a similar way, represents a significant step
Orward and
provides much-needed tools for understanding and managing
Complex conflicts (Coleman et al., 2005).
Within this framework it is also worth noting how the linguistic dimension
of conflict is
mapped. This is usually done in terms of'mental models' and the
roles that
they are seen to play in perpetuating complex
ncts. These are seen and intractable con-
the
conceptual frames or cognitive structures, largely
as

unconscious, that shape our tacit knowledge

and beliefs and adapt us to con-
form to prevailing social norms what Lakoff and
Johnson have
metaphors we live by' (1980). For example, as David Stroh put it incalled 'the
a
private
communication, 'systemic thinking is mental models made visible', Norbert
Ropers, building on the work of Oliver Wils et al.
mental models as one of the (2006), takes thinking in
defining tcharacteristics of(systemic thinking"
Thinking in (mental) models yet acknowledging
analytical models reduction of
are a
perspective-dependency: Accepting that al
the complex reality (and are necessarily perspective
dependent) and are therefore only ever a
tool and not "the reality" as such. (2008a:
original emphasis) 13

This idea recurs, albeit not in name, in

attempts to accommodate 'beliefs, feel
ings, and behaviors' in the dynamical-systems approach (Coleman et al., 2007:
6. Mental models' are included as distinct elements insystems perspective
maps (Woodrow, 2006). Mental models are identified with 'widely held beliefs
and norms' in systemic conflict analysis maps within the
'attitude' dimension
of the (SAT) model of peacebuilding (Ricigliano,
2011).(Mind maps) encom
Dassing stakeholder and evaluator perceptions and interpretations, are used
for testing resonances and exploring collective dialogue in the emergent
evaluations of large-scale system action research (Burns, 2006: 189).
See figures 4.2 and 4.3 for examples of systems perspective mapping. These are
Peter Woodrow'spreliminary worksihop models as applied in Burundi and (with
Norbert Ropers) in STi Lanka, lhey would be continually adapted and refined
122
Contemporary Conflict Resolution

g h t of input from different conflict parties and third

parties, changing
stances, and outcomes from resulting interventions themselves.

This
his
Conclusion
chapter has outlined a framework
a
a
then t
draws on
for the
Edward Azar's account analysis of contemporary con-
pates it via a
levels of
of protracted social contlict and
State levels. This frameworkanalysis approach at international, state and
ng
of the chiéf sources of is not a
theory of conflict, but a model
Sate war is by no means contemporary conflict. The for

ems kely to remain the ruled out, but

more unruly
possibility of a revival
nough there predominant multilevel conflict
theorization many overlapping pattern for the immediate
of contemporary
are

ne main conclusion to y conflic patterns thheories reviewed in future.

is if this chapter- the
pe.Given complexity of
the
be taken
from it anything
for the rest of overdetermined
contlict the book is
resolution have much relatively
Sving equally contemporary conflict, attempt at
to to be
the
middlemaximize
of humanitarian space comprehensive. Although
contict to an ongoing wars and the
scope for peace peacemakers
constraints,
end (chapter 6)
(chapter 7) usually have aiming to bring the initiatives in
or

(chapter 5) orlong-term
to peacebuilders who
to work
within quite
violent phase or
(chapters 8, 9 and
the
ensure that
settlements aspire to prevent
narrow power
10) have to violent conflict
to framework
threats within which
address the
are
transformed into
deeper sources of lasting peace
generated by criminalconflict resolution
chapter
ievei (for11). This is greed (see conflict. Here is
would also seek
likely to involve chapter 6) and to
exampie, via more respond
arrangements),
priate equitable
structural change at and
contextual change at
political
the
terror (see
constitutional
-including statebuilding the stateaccountable international
global and
party level (for adaptations and the level (for regional
and
cultural example, via
in
critical cases), promotion example,
of via
appro-
courses and change al all levels relational good
community relations and change governance
at the
we
have institutions which (for example, the reconciliation
conflict
dimensions suggested in sustain and
via
work)
model of (political, chapter 1 that an reproduce transformation of
economic, social, application ofviolence). That is dis-
conflict
plementarity (figure 1.3),
global, escalpersonal
ation|de-escalation which
psychological, appropriate sectoral
why
societal and within an
maps cultural) to
cosmopolitan Overall
spheres, best frameworkcontingency
complexity of conflict resolution of
dynamic
and
a

captures the linked com

contemporary conflict. addresses
as it
the ecological,
challenge and
Recommended
Berdal and reading
It is to
these rapidly
changing systemicof
themes that
task
Malone (2000);
Kaldor (2006); we
Körppen et al.Brown (1996)
(2008), MartinColler et
now
turn.
al.
(2003); (2003); Duffield
Münkler (2005); Reno (20011
(1999.