an overview of three widespread theories giving exhausting (or “exhausting”?) explanation of the conflicts

1. THEORY OF CONFLICT:
TOWARD THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION
Viktor Pushkar,
PhD in Psychology,
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
Presented at BSPN session Dnipro hotel, Kyiv, Dec 7 2010
Does Super Theory of Super Everything already exist?
Let's give an overview of three most widespread theories giving exhausting (or
“exhausting”?) explanation of the conflicts we actually face with
Hypothesis 1:
Conflicts are mostly of civilization origin (S. Huntington)
Hypothesis 1 criticism (A. Sen, E. Said):
civilization identity is rare in a real world among the real people
Some important identities contradict to civilization one
While constructing Islamic threat H. Underestimated other important risks
How many civilizations do exist – 7 or 8, including “and, possibly, African”?
In polemics Huntington admitted that conflicts within one civilization are widespread.
But those are... Of less importance comparatively to civilization ones.
How unimportant was 100 Years war between England and France
for several generations of its participants?
____________________________________________________
Keep your own dragon to protect from their dragon?
The number of civilization theories approximately equals to the number of empire
states. Each one is based upon two (para)sciences:
alternative history for very special filtering of historical events;
alternative geography for very special division of the world, into 7, 8 or 13 parts
(actually, why not 13?)
every civilization theorist starts with a statement that macro parts of the world
correspond to borders of empires in a year of XXXX. Even if state borders in
contemporary sense were not existing yet.
If we do mind constructing Ukrainian centric civilization theory, the choice of several
starting points is available. Starting with, but not limited to Great Duchy of Lithuania,
Rus' and Zhemaytia within the borders of 1398.

2. Hypothesis 2: Conflicts are mostly of ethnic origin (E. Gellner):
a man is able to (de)actualize multiple identities
The rise on nations is mutually related to ideologies
ideology is necessary using the images of Self and Other
The conflicts are constructed by abuse of negative image of Other
Hypothesis 2 criticism:
when them, so called X, deny that all X are Y, it's just to spite us, Y. Sure, actually no
X exist.
Criticism of criticism: (sure just to spite Y):
if really no X exist, who argues with Y and what are the reasons for?
The imagined communities thesis (B. Anderson),
is often (mis)interpreted as
imaginary X = nonexistent X
But
imagined ≠ imaginary
and some important evidence comes from =>
=> cross-cultural psychology that researches cultural practices and their psychological
correlates (G. Hofstede, H. Triandis, D. Matsumoto)
1) when we practice something, we also have motivations and attitudes, we evaluate
our actions and relate to it emotionally
2) Identity is actualized through the cultural practices and
deactualized in the absence of corresponding practices
so
Hypothesis 2 (modified): Conflicts rise because of the differences of group cultural
practices
despite the importance of ethnicity construct, only some groups are ethnic
non-ethnic groups also have specific cultural practices
_________________________________
Hypothesis 3: Conflicts are mostly of class origin (K. Marx)
Hypothesis 3 criticism (R. Szporluk. Karl Marx versus Friedrich List)
only some groups are classes in Marxian meaning
any class representation of the group could be replaced with competing one

3. Marxist themselves were not following class theory strictly
The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only
of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that,
too, is a step forward."
(A. Rosenberg could have signed this statement 80 years later,
but the actual author is F. Engels, in his paper "The Magyar Struggle")
now attempt testing all three hypotheses to the situation well known to respectful
audience =>
=> Moldova – Transnistria
1.1 Civilization conflict
secularized orthodox versus secularized orthodox
post-soviet against another post-soviet community
Nationalists declared unity of the Neam (folk) with orthodox Romania, rather then
unity with “West” as a civilization.
(Inter)nationalists of Transnistria were fighting to keep unity with Russia
so
civilization hypothesis is wrong
1.2 Ethnic conflict
Moldovian nationalists (or Romanian nationalists?)
versus
Soviet (inter)nationalists?
Communities of the Left and Right bank include Moldovians, Ukrainians and Russians
in different proportions (more Moldovians on the Right, etc). That allows us to
(mis)represent the conflict as ethnic. But
ethnic hypothesis is true only particularly
(some characteristics of ethnic conflict are available)
- psychologically (ethnicity of X1 is X; Petrenko is Ukrainian, etc.) is only one of
available options;
- besides positive rational ethnicity, often described by ethnographers, we can observe

4. negative (X2 denies ethnicity corresponding his/her origins), and irrational (X3 claims
to be Light Elf since grand grandfather)
community might be built upon the ethnicity denial, as we can observe in Transnistria
(Bogomolov, Semivolos, Pushkar, 2009)
1.3 Class conflict
On both conflicting sides we find the representatives of (post)Soviet nomenclature,
low rank state employees (sluzhashiye) and working class.
We might recognize agrarian workers (mostly living on a Right bank) and industrial
workers (mostly living on a Left bank) as two antagonistic classes in Marxian sense.
Which step makes
- class conflict hypothesys particularly true
(some characteristics of class conflict present)
to complete the (post)Marxian representation,
we need to find an exploiting class. Could that be
post(Soviet) nomenclature,
using both agrarian and industrial proletarians in it's own interests?
so further clarification is needed.
In each of the theories
civilization (imperialist)
ethnic (nationalist)
class (Marxist)
REAL HUMAN BEINGS
are replaced by (sometime) relevant theoretic concepts
1) Theory, related to the groups, but ignoring individuals, does not fully explain group
interaction either
2) Social desirability constructs might be very different from social reality
3) One might search and find no persons who explicitly say “We want conflict”. But
the conflict will occur anyway
any other possible explanations? =>

5. Psychological theories of aggression.
A) Aggression as an important evolutionary mechanism (K. Lorenz)
B) Aggression as “negative” learned behavior (A. Bandura)
C) Aggression as a part of regular interpersonal relationship (F. Perls)
D) Destructiveness as a pathological form of aggression (E. Fromm)
According to theory B) aggression is “absolute evil” that should be and could be
avoided
In theories A), C) and D) it is an instrument that could be used for negative and
positive purposes. Fromm mainly concentrates on damage produced by
destructiveness, Lorenz and Perls – on less visible normal functions of aggression.
Other as an object of moderate aggression
- shares some cultural practices and channels of communication with aggressor
- is represented as “also a human being”, “almost like me”
- the Other is moderately respected on individual basis
Other as an object of pathological aggression
- doesn't have common channels of communication (or such channel are purposely
“switched off”)
- maximally dehumanized and deindividualized (“them” as group of non-humans)
- asymmetric representation of Self and Other is applied, collective Other is
represented as belonging to distinctive pseudo-spacey,
- violence toward “them” takes forms and ways, strictly forbidden within the group of
“us”.
Symbolic violence as “civilized” analogue for physical
The fundamental question(s) for further research
- why do “them” mark “our” territory
- which way do “them” mark “our” territory
How much symbolic violence is “real” or “imagined”?

6. Psychological theories of aggression.
A) Aggression as an important evolutionary mechanism (K. Lorenz)
B) Aggression as “negative” learned behavior (A. Bandura)
C) Aggression as a part of regular interpersonal relationship (F. Perls)
D) Destructiveness as a pathological form of aggression (E. Fromm)
According to theory B) aggression is “absolute evil” that should be and could be
avoided
In theories A), C) and D) it is an instrument that could be used for negative and
positive purposes. Fromm mainly concentrates on damage produced by
destructiveness, Lorenz and Perls – on less visible normal functions of aggression.
Other as an object of moderate aggression
- shares some cultural practices and channels of communication with aggressor
- is represented as “also a human being”, “almost like me”
- the Other is moderately respected on individual basis
Other as an object of pathological aggression
- doesn't have common channels of communication (or such channel are purposely
“switched off”)
- maximally dehumanized and deindividualized (“them” as group of non-humans)
- asymmetric representation of Self and Other is applied, collective Other is
represented as belonging to distinctive pseudo-spacey,
- violence toward “them” takes forms and ways, strictly forbidden within the group of
“us”.
Symbolic violence as “civilized” analogue for physical
The fundamental question(s) for further research
- why do “them” mark “our” territory
- which way do “them” mark “our” territory
How much symbolic violence is “real” or “imagined”?