 |
 |
|
Introduction:
Peter Coleman discusses how some aspects of an intractable conflict might be transformed while others are not.
| |
This rough transcript provides a text alternative to audio. We apologize for occasional errors and unintelligible sections (which are marked with ???).
Transforming Intractable Conflicts
Peter Coleman
Assistant Professor of Psychology and Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, and Director of the International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution at Columbia
| |
Q: I wonder if that kind of work ultimately ends up in making the conflict over abortion not intractable in the sense that it's not destructive. So if the
definition of intractable conflict is a conflict that is enduring and destructive
but then something like PCP would make it less destructive but more enduring,
is it still an intractable conflict?
A: Yes, that's interesting. That's a good question which I haven't thought
through but I think that I would say that the issue is intractable but the
relationship isn't because it's moved into a different place so it is sort of
how we define the conflict, whether it's at an issue level or a relation level
or a broader or system level and the conflict I think is still an enduring
conflict. I don't think that issue will change between these groups. Certainly
people's attitudes change over time and I think the women's attitudes have
changed certainly about the other parties but not about that phenomenon. But
definitely the relationship's changed in a tremendous way and the support is
there. So it is not an intractable relationship anymore even though it continues
to be organized around an intractable issue. And that's such an interesting
case, I love that case.
|
 |
 |
 |