Professor Ho-Won Jeong
George Mason University
Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Shauna Carmichael
CONF 730
Book Review: Violence Explained
February 24, 2003

In Violence Explained, Burton explores many facets of social conflict. However his primary focus is on the role of social structures in engendering or preventing conflict and violence. Based on the assumption that there is a common pattern of response to the frustration of human needs by structural circumstances at all social levels (28) and that "relationships are affected by the total social environment," (65) in Violence Explained Burton treats the different social levels as one. Conflict; basic human needs; structural violence; economic, social, and political structures are among the topics he discusses. In addition there are several conceptual frameworks he uses throughout his analysis, including adversarial structures, problem-solving, and power-based philosophies.

The first major component of Burton's analysis is his definition of conflict and violence. Rather than defining conflict as the perception of incompatible interests between groups and the contentious pursuit of these interests, as is common to conflict resolution theory, Burton includes violence directed against individuals and property that would usually be identified as interpersonal crime. Another important distinction is that the parties involved may not be consciously aware of the needs or interests triggering their actions. In doing so he opens the door for his analysis to explore both the micro and macro levels of society and to include structural violence in his analysis. Burton identifies contemporary violence with an ongoing conflict between what he terms the "traditional coercive compliance structures" of contemporary social, political, and economic systems and "basic human needs."

The assertion that there are irrepressible basic human needs is at the foundation of Burton's analysis. He consistently contrasts the needs and structures of societies and individual human behaviors. He asserts that humans' have "basic needs" that are predetermined by their biological status as human and cannot be molded to conform to societies' needs. In chapter three he states that, "Behavior, on the other hand, is the result, not of institutional history, but of the gradual evolution of inherent human drives and abilities..." (21) He also asserts that the frustration of these needs is the primary source of aggressive behavior, concluding that aggression is thus the result of society making inappropriate demands on the individual and not the result of individual delinquency. (19-21) Further, Burton contends that because these needs cannot be suppressed by the individual or society, policies based on deterrence and coercion ultimately cannot be successful. (37)

Burton defines structural violence as deprivations resulting from the structure of social systems and institutions. There is an aspect of intent in structural violence because the institutions are necessarily created and administered by people who control the institutional apparatus and make decisions which may adversely affect those under the authority of the institution. Historically, the hierarchical structure which separates those who "own" the institutions from those who are "owned" by the institutions has been necessitated by the nature of the institutions themselves. In a complex social organization, which may involve large numbers of people, it is necessary for some to lead and others to follow. However, these natural divisions result in alienation and are often aggravated by social and physical separations that deny a portion of the society of an identity because they prevent the two parties from recognizing each other as individuals. (32-35)

At the micro-level, structural violence can take the form of domestic violence or, more generally, the use of corporal punishment within a family. (33) Burton identifies the family as the basic unit of society, thus maladaptive structures on the familial level can have negative effects on the society as a whole. He begins the history of conflict within the modern family with industrialization. The process of industrialization led tot he devaluation of women's role and identity in the family and society. This loss of identity led to conflict within the family which is then carried over into the larger society through the actions of children socialized in this conflictual environment. Children raised in this type of environment tend to feel deprived of identity and security, which can lead them to seek identity through alternative means, such as gangs. Less extreme though no less damaging, this environment produces adults who, socialized into adversarial and power-based frameworks, are likely to perpetuate these systems. (51-57)

Historically, legislatures arose to meet the needs and cater to the interests of the most powerful interest groups without regard to the needs of the underclass or to universal representation and consent. According to Burton, this trend has continued into the present. Majority rule politics is essentially based on power; the needs and interests of the minority can be ignored with the full sanction of the legal and political system. Given this sanction, it is assumed that minorities (including ethnic groups, as well as the economically disenfranchised) can and should submit to the legislature's authority. (67-69)
Burton targets economic relations as one of the primary culprits in creating the alienation that leads to conflict. He asserts that alienation resulted from the aggregation of people from small into larger groups. These larger groups had a hierarchical structure that denied a significant portion of society of a personal identity. This is highlighted by the adversarial management versus worker conflicts characterizing the economic arena, where workers are denied a personal identity instead becoming impersonal "units of production." (85-86)

The legal system is also adversarial. It is based on the power frame that emphasizes deterrence and compliance regardless of individual needs or the structural context. Thus, it contributes to alienation and conflict as people pursuing their basic human needs are punished for that pursuit and further frustrated. As a solution, Burton proposes merging the current practice of law with a problem-solving approach. This would acknowledge the importance of the structural context of events and promote the use of such an approach in other areas of social life. He also proposes that conflict resolution be used to resolve cases involving basic human needs and that the traditional legal framework be limited to material disputes. (95-97)

The international system functions on the same adversarial and power-framed basis as the intra-national levels of analysis. It is thus rife with structural violence as states and elements within them, such as multi-national corporations, interact with each other. The international system is further complicated by the existence of supra-national organizations constructed by states, which reflect and perpetuate their adversarial and power-framed biases. (99-109)

In the final section of the book, "Towards Consensus Change," Burton emphasizes revised problem-solving and decision-making processes as the route to sustainable positive social change. He proposes that they offer the means for institutions to successfully adjust to the constantly changing social, economic, and political conditions, as well as the ever-present basic human needs. In order to be successful, these processes must be capable of constantly and proactively reassessing existing structures. As long as changes were assured and social problems guaranteed expedient redress, conflicts of the sort currently plaguing societies could be avoided. (113) In addition, the decision-making processes should be consensually agreed upon by all members of a society. This consent would prevent the alienation which causes conflict. (44)

Joseph Sany

REVIEW ESSAY ON:

VIOLENCE EXPLAINED
by John Burton

I- CONTEXT

As a former diplomat, Burton was immersed in the realities of International Relations where power was the only variable and the power-compliance framework advocated by the 'realists' such as Morgenthau the only approach. On one hand, he was personally concerned and interested in processes of decolonisation where the World witnessed the defeat of great powers by national movements fighting for their autonomy, identity, recognition and control of their destiny; and in the other hand, social conflicts within countries where social and economic structures frustrated human needs which led to major protests and conflicts in the workplace and the society as a whole. Decolonization, secession, civil movements brought Burton and his colleagues to question the realist approach and to recognize the human behaviour component that was missing in the framework. Burton brought a new discourse in the field, and alternative to the power frame.

"The individual as a behaving entity was brought into the discipline and with the individual a widening of its discursive boundaries to incorporate a multidisciplinary approach to the study of such issues as identity, nationalism, poverty and violence …where the discursive stress on power was replace by a focus on interactive communication and interdependence." (p.xi)

With this new discourse, Burton also brought a different understanding and new insights on concepts used in the field.

II- SOURCE OF CONFLICTS

For Burton conflict results from the frustration by institutions of ontological human needs. There is a strong discrepancy and in some cases, incompatibility between Institutions, norms and the needs of the people affected. The society is therefore hold together not by mutual consent, but by compliance of the powerless majority, which is forced to do so through deterrence and compliance measures. The questions therefore become: What are those needs, which frustration will lead to violence and conflict? Who designs those institutions? How do they frustrate human needs? Burton uses two concepts to provide answers to these questions.

-Human Needs theory

The needs theory is critical to the framework proposed by John Burton in Violence Explained. He argues that they are certain human needs that will be pursued regardless of the coercion or institutional obstacles. The attainment of these needs will lead individuals to challenge the status quo and refuse to comply to the existing structures of authority.

Maslow recognized human needs, as ranging from physical needs for food, shelter to relationships needs. But Burton puts more emphasis on relationships needs such as recognition, identity and the security they provide. These needs are not relative to cultural nor class context, "they are assumed to be inherent in human beings and in other species also and, therefore universal and not just cultural." That is why Burton concludes that they can be generalized across class and cultures. The theory therefore makes a clear difference in one hand, between human needs and human rights, to show the contextual nature of the latter; and in the other hand, between negotiable interests and non-negotiable needs, to explain the difference between disputes and conflicts. Disputes are around negotiable interests (wages, resources etc…) for which solution can be obtained through meditation, negotiation, bargaining and legal processes; meanwhile conflicts are centered around non negotiable needs such as identity, recognition, security etc…Unlike material needs or resources, these needs are satiable and not limited, their satisfaction doesn't reduce their quantity, they cannot be divided.

Through the needs theory, Burton challenges one of the strong paradigms that has dominated the field of International Relations, that deterrence deters. Which is the basic assumption around which institutions and norms are built, those same institutions that frustrate the ontological human needs.

-The power frame

"Power theories are valid in explaining the growth of societies and their institutions…Because institutions emerged within a power frame, it has incorrectly been assumed that power controls individuals behaviours, that deterrence reliably deters even when non-negotiable human needs are being pursued." (p. 26)

Burton argues that in their pursuit of social economic and political interests the more influential members of the society (elites) have developed through out history norms and systems to ensure the status quo, to ensure law and order. As evidence and experience show, this has been done at the expenses of the powerless majority, whose needs for identity and recognition have been frustrated. And this situation of domination aroused from the assumption that human behaviour is sufficiently malleable and that if coercive measures are not dissuasive punishment will be applied.

In other words, norms and institutions have been designed by the elites (in a given country) and powerful countries (in the international system) to protect their interest, regardless the needs of the powerless majority. And this has led to the development all sort of institutions to ensure compliance (police, courts, armies etc…), which unfortunately as evidence shows have led to alienation and anti-social behaviours.

This logic of power frame found at every level of the society, in the family, public institutions and in the world of work, also derived from the utopian ideal of total control from above and absolute obedience below. Unfortunately has Burton concludes, "[the power frame] is applied in the absence of insights into the reasons for defiance of social or international norms. When compliance is strategy the values, motivations, needs and aspiration that inspire 'culprits' are not treated as relevant"(p. 23)

And the situation leads inexorably to alienation and marginalization of groups at all levels of the society.

- Alienation and marginalization

Alienation in this case is defined by Burton as an emotional response to structural violence. Structural violence is the result of compliance measures, perceived injustices, deprivations such as absence of jobs, lack of role in the community. At the base there is a belief that for the system to work, you must have those who direct from the top and those at the bottom that must obey. And this belief is present in every institutions be it in the family where the father and in some extent both parents direct and the children ar expected to comply; in organizations where there must be those who have leadership roles and those over whom the authority is exercised. And whether the system work or not, the belief is that compliance can be enforced.

The result of such belief in an elite driven society, is the widening gap between the 'haves' and the 'have-not'; from a social standpoint, we witness the exclusion of the powerless as youth, women in some countries and cultures; in modern and so called democratic societies, we witness an increase sense of political apathy as people don't identify themselves to the adversarial settings, thus increasing the number of people not represented.

But how can anti-social behaviours and conflicts, violence burst out alienation, marginalization and apathy?

- Aggressiveness

For advocating human behaviour in conflict resolution, Burton couldn't avoid addressing the question of whether aggressiveness that leads to hostile behaviour and conflict is an inherited feature of human evolution or it is the result of norms and institutions imposed to the powerless majority by elites, thus leading to anti-social behaviours and violence?

Burton dismisses the theory of aggressiveness as been part of human nature or what he calls the survival-of-the-fittest theory; because the theory is based on the fact that aggression is expressed in the pursuit or protection of material resources and territories which are limited. Burton argues that the acquisition of resources is rarely a source of conflict since there are always room for compromise through bargaining, mediation and negotiation processes, particularly given the costs of conflicts. He argues that, aggression is engendered by norms and institutions imposed to people regardless of their basic needs; and instead of adjusting the institutions and norms to meet those needs, there is a tendency to model human behaviours to fit those institutions, thus generating more aggressiveness and anti-social behaviours.

III-Maintaining the status quo

Institutions and norms have evolved from the will of the elites and the powerful to preserve their socio-economic and political interests. It is therefore advantageous for the elite to maintain the status quo, and any behaviour toward social change to reverse the trend is considered as an anti-social behaviour. This elite driven society has therefore devised systems to protect law and order and ensure the compliance of the powerless majority whose needs have been frustrated. The society operates under the assumption that, the deterrence deters, in others words, coercive institutions such as the police, courts system, armies will ensure that people comply and in case of defiance there is punishment. Status quo is therefore obtained through compliance rather than mutual consent; reinforced by deterrence measures.

This raises the question of the legitimacy of those norms and institutions and even of the leadership. In the paradigm of power frame and adversarial decision-making processes, where deterrence is a key feature, the concept of legitimacy is a relative term centered around acceptability and legality; it is based on the same assumption (whether on democratic or dictatorship), that "decision-making is democratic and legitimised even without inputs from those affected". This means that an individuals or small group (democratic elected authorities) has the ability to determine goals and policies without input from those affected; in a democracy, in the absence of popular support, says Burton, legitimacy rests wholly on legality.

The issue of legitimacy also bring us to look at the question of decision-making processes and structures of some crucial institutions.

-The decision-making processes in various institutions

"Social structures are the result of decisions which reflect the interests, beliefs, values and norms of those making them, and to some degree those of others likely to be affected." - p.41

In an elite driven society were the norms and institutions are developed to preserve the interests of the elites and where compliance is secured through deterrence, there is little importance given to the assessment of responses at all levels of the society and institutions. I will therefore look at specific decision making processes in some key institutions, I will be exploring their structure: Family-Legislatures- Workplace- International system

Family

The family has been considered as the base of the society, it is the environment where the norms and behaviours are first learned. However the family has its own compliance measures sometimes leading to violence. Even though the family is the basic unit of the society, it belongs to the realm of private institution, therefore making it difficult to be studied. But evidence shows that deterrence and violence are not alien to family; in most cultures the husband father has a dominant role and parents do ensure their authorities through compliance measures. There are studies that show a causal relationship between the childhood and the behaviour in the adulthood. Indeed a child who has grown up in an environment to his needs of identity and recognition, an environment providing him with a role, is more likely to contribute positively in the public institutions; unlike the young person whop has been alienated, who will show more propensity to aggressive behaviours. Therefore the structure of the family plays a critical role in the development of individuals.

However, this structure has gone through tremendous changes with time. In traditional societies, the family was part of the community, where members knew each other and children where under the responsibility of the community which has devised mechanisms to ensure that children were brought up in a caring environment that provided them with a role and respected their identity. With the agricultural era, the family operated as an integrated unit, with each member playing a precise role in the unit, but there was less the sense of community as in the tribal societies. The Industrial era worsened the situation, as the family was split with the man working outside the house and the woman taking of the children; as man became the only bread-provider, women were perceived to play a less diminishing role; violence began to emerge as the man expected more respect of its authority and its new identity. And today, mainly in developing countries, male dominance and compliance are becoming the norms. This situation influences the children who most likely tend to perpetuate the situation in their turn.

The workplace

Through out the history the workplace has tremendously influenced the organization of the society, in other words the workplace has been and remains the dominant institution. Burton argues that it is probably the adversarial relationships in the workplace that spread out to the entire society. However just as in any other institutions, the decision-making process has evolved in the workplace. From a top-bottom approach, we are beginning to see the introduction of a more collaborative decision process that takes into consideration the responses. The motivation to this change is less due to the needs of the workers as it is for costs and financial reasons. Adversarial relationships are proving to be not only costly to the society but to the companies as well; studies show that there has been increased of productivity where worker were involved in the decision-making processes.

The legislatures

Theoretically, legislatures are supposed to represent the population, but most legislatures are structured around interest groups, competing against one another top push their private agenda in an adversarial setting. Less and less people take part into electoral processes, thus refusing to identify themselves with the system.
In most democracies if not all, the decision making process applied is the majority rule. This is based on the assumption that the minority will and can conform to the decision taken. In these adversarial settings, the minority views carry less weight. And experience shows that, in this context, most groups such as youth, unemployed are excluded because of structural conditions, meaning they are not represented even in the legislatures that are supposed to address most of the social issues they are facing.

The situation therefore poses two challenges: first, how to make legislatures more representative; and second, how to change decision-making processes so that, even though they may not be sufficiently representative, they become less adversarial and more collaborative and inclusive of the needs of the excluded. Burton goes on making couple of suggestions ranging from compulsory voting to the funding of candidates, in short he proposes a solution based on processes that ensure participation, accountability and representativity.

IV- HOW TO CHANGE THE SITUATION?

One critical input of Violence explained is less the analysis of the existing norms and institutions as the suggestions made on how to dealt with the division, alienation and conflicts. He suggests to move from compulsion to consent, through suggesting processes that value relationships by bringing elites or the powerful and the excluded together to share goals and built mutual consent for a sustainable harmony and peace. This however requires not only a paradigm shift but different approaches.

A Paradigm shift

To change the situation, it is important to begin by making a paradigm shift, to move from an adversarial settings to a more collaborative and inclusive one; to shift from the assumption that deterrence deters, therefore people will comply to norms and institutions even if those norms frustrate their human needs; to recognize that by adapting norms and institutions to the needs of people and ever-changing conditions they will address effectively the issues the societies. In other words, institutions and norms must depend on the environmental circumstances rather than on the preservation of self-interests of the elite and the powerful.

Decision-making process

Decision-making is the first result of this new paradigm. Burton argues that for decision-making processes to be functional they must be based on informed assessments of responses through the involvement in some direct communication of those who will be affected by the decision. Such involvement can provide reliable data, an opportunity to assess costs and consequences of compliance strategies before the decision are taken. At the same time it provides opportunity of constant feedback on the effectiveness of the institutions, therefore creating avenues for change, toward institutions more oriented to satisfy the needs and agreed goals of members. It is more a bottom-up decision -making process than the traditional top-down process.

Holistic approach rather than specialization

The complexities of problems and the interdependence of issues in modern societies require a holistic approach. An approach that enables to tackle problems in their globality, thus looking not only at the symptoms but also at the deep-rooted sources and direct causes. Burton argued eloquently by saying that,

"If there were to be a holistic approach to the problems of civilization, the policies advocated would be to decrease resource exploitation to sustainable levels and to satisfy the pressing physical needs of those in poverty by income redistribution nationally and internationally." (p. 126)

This approach is particularly relevant for a conflict resolver, as in conflict situation whether international or domestic violence, there are many parts, versions that need to be looked in whole, in order to have an accurate assessment of the situation. In order words they are different stories in a conflict situation depending on which side you are on. Therefore for a third party it is important to relate the dots and adopt a holistic approach that gives the big picture of the situation, thus ensuring an accurate and an impartial analysis.

Provention

Burton uses this concept as part of a process to address the prevention of violent conflicts by addressing the deep sources and direct causes. This concept requires an assessment of circumstances, conditions as well as predictions of behaviours; since no person or institution can conduct with accuracy such analysis, the concepts requires therefore a collaborative approach, thus making the case of problem -solving approach which is understood to be a more comprehensive framework in dealing with deep-rooted conflict resulting from the frustration human ontological needs.

Problem-solving

As an alternative to authoritative compliance and to structural violence based on threats and deterrence with disregard of human needs, Burton suggests a more comprehensive analytical process, within which the offenders and those who represent the norms and institutions come together towards agreed social goals and mutual consent, so crucial to harmony and cohesion in the society. Problem solving focuses not on establishing a new system, but instead, a process that enables an accurate assessment of responses and adjustments in decision-making, taking into consideration human basic needs, thus making compliance and deterrence less necessary and less relevant. It offers a framework where all parts of the system are involved in genuine analytical discussions to identify and frame the issues, choose options and goals to be achieved.

But problem-solving approaches require that, the elites and decision-makers must enter into communication with the alienated, those who suffered from structural violence and deprivation; they must have the means both intellectual and resources to assess the impact of their decisions on those affected; in other words a clear understanding of ontological human needs and the way they are frustrated by the decisions, norms and institutions.