Engaging Provention: a Pressing Question of Need David J
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Occasional Paper 28 Engaging Provention: A Pressing Question of Need David J. Dunn Honorary Senior Research Fellow Keele University, United Kingdom 2013 CONTENts About the School . ii About the Author . iii Foreword . iv Introduction . 1 Burton’s Developing Perspective . 1 The Mess We Are In . 3 The Way Ahead . 6 References . 10 Engaging Provention: A Pressing Question of Need i ABOUT THE SCHOOL The School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University [S-CAR] was, until recently, the Institute for Conflict Analysis & Resolution. Its continuing mission is to advance the understanding and resolu- tion of persistent, protracted conflicts among individuals, communities, identity groups and nations. In fulfillment of this mission, the School conducts a wide range of programs and outreach activities. Among these are its graduate programs offering the Doctorate and Masters of Science in Conflict Analysis and Resolu- tion at its Arlington campus and an undergraduate program taught on its Fairfax campus. S-CAR also offers a joint Master’s degree in the field with the University Malta in Valetta. Clinical and consultancy services are offered by individual members of the faculty, and a number of short certificate programs are offered, as well as public programs and education that include the annual Vernon M. and Minnie I. Lynch Lecture Series. The School’s major research interests include the study of conflict and its resolution, the exploration and analysis of conditions attracting parties in conflict to the negotiating table, the role of third parties in dispute resolution, and the application of conflict resolution methodologies in local, national and international settings. The School’s Applied Practice and Theory Program [APT] develops teams of faculty, students, alumni and applied practitioners to analyze and address topics such as conflict in Schools, and other community institu- tions, crime and violence, and jurisdictional conflicts between local agencies of government. Recently the APT program has extended its focus to other types of intra-societal conflict in countries such as Liberia and the Ukraine. Long an integral part of the School has been Dr. Marc Gopin’s Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution, and this center has recently been joined by the Center for the Study of Narrative and Conflict Resolution, led by Dr. Sara Cobb. Most recently the School has established the Center for Peacemaking Practice under the direction of Dr Susan Allen Nan Among other activities, the Center will take over many of the short training courses provided by the School at its research, retreat and conference center down at Point of View on Mason Neck. For further information please consult the School’s web site at www.scar.gmu.edu or telephone (703) 993- 1300. ii Engaging Provention: A Pressing Question of Need ABOUT THE AUTHOR Dr. David J. Dunn was educated at University College, London, Lehigh University and the London School of Economics and Political Science. He taught International Relations and Peace and Conflict Studies at Staffordshire University in the United Kingdom for over twenty years before moving to Keele University in 1997, where he taught International Relations and Security Studies. Still associated with Keele, he is an Honorary Senior Research Fellow , working in the field of Peace Research, International Relations and the issues that connect them. In the last decade a study of John Burton’s work was followed by a survey of the first fifty years of peace re- search. Currently, he is working on a study of the pioneers of Peace Research, the crisis in International Rela- tions theory (and practice) and the current state of peace research around the world. Engaging Provention: A Pressing Question of Need iii FOREWORD The School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution is most pleased to publish Dr. David Dunn’s work on “Engaging Provention; a Pressing Question of Need” in its Occasional Paper series. There are a variety of reasons for this, not least among them the intrinsic interest of Dr. Dunn’s theme for us at the School - and for the field of Conflict Analysis in general – but also for the clarity and grace with which he presents his arguments. For one thing, many of us have long felt that some of the ideas and themes that were first set out thirty years ago by one of the School’s founders, Dr. John W. Burton, needed revisiting and re-evaluating, which is precisely what this paper does in a comprehensive and provocative manner. For another, the author throws a strong light on an often neglected aspect of Burton’s work, often underplayed, even by those who do use many of his ideas in their own work. Most people in the field, for example, are familiar with the nature and utility of problem solving workshops in analyzing and often helping to resolve protracted and intractable conflicts. Many scholars have written about, or had their own work influenced by, ideas about the importance of basic human needs. The ideas of proactive prevention—in Burton’s vocabulary “provention”—have become routinely part of a conflict resolver’s toolbox, even if the word itself has not yet managed to become incorporated into the spell- check dictionary of desktop computers. However, in this paper Dr. Dunn draws attention to a neglected central theme - that Burton was never afraid to tackle large themes and universal problems and that he was passionately convinced that research had to be useful for solving such problems—the mess that we were in— and how it was all inter-connected. As the author points out, Burton’s writings were about links between war and violence, between legitimacy and satisfied needs, between anticipation prevention and survival. All these and other themes are tackled in Dr. Dunn’s paper and there is no one better qualified to remind us of the breadth of Burton’s interests or the scope of his scholarship. David Dunn was a student of John Burton’s in London in the 1960’s and he stayed in touch with Burton in England and the United States, as well as during Burton’s retirement in Australia. He is the author of a major study of Burton’s life and work—“From Power Politics to Conflict Resolution; The Work of John W.Burton” [London; Palgrave; 2004]—and is currently at work on a major survey of the origins of the field of peace research, tentatively entitled “Pioneer of Peace Research”. The current paper is thus a foretaste of much interesting writing to come. -Christopher Mitchell Emeritus Professor of Conflict Research. iv Engaging Provention: A Pressing Question of Need Introduction Burton’s Developing Perspective In three major sections, what follows is unified by Burton was very much his father’s son; he took his the notion of need. The uses of this term are slightly name and was John Wear Burton Junior. The father different, but there is a unity throughout. That was of British stock, who emigrated to Australasia unity is the life and work of John W. Burton, whose and became a Minister of the Methodist Church. He contribution was recognised and celebrated at the was a reformer and religion was about doing good, conference, held at “Point of View” in April and May about social improvement. He was, by all accounts, of 2011, that preceded this work. a forceful character who did, in fact, effect significant reforms. He set an example for John junior to follow. Over the course of 40 years my engagement with The younger Burton received his first degree in John Burton followed no consistent pattern. He was Psychology, graduating with First class Honours. He one of my teachers when I was an undergraduate joined the Australian Civil Service, where he hoped student at University College in London, and I was and assumed he would be of service. He shunned immediately attracted to his way of thinking and his the church, even though there seemed to be plans engagement with students. He did not look down for him to follow his father’s path. He shunned it on us, but trusted our opinions and urged us to think because he could not tolerate “all the religious stuff.” creatively, and he valued our opinions. We went, As he said, “Religion was about improving things, not necessarily, our separate ways, and after graduate all the other stuff.” He went to London, worked at school in the United States and London I embarked Australia House and also received his Ph.D. from the on a career teaching International Relations in London School of Economics. To cut a long story the United Kingdom. Though I did not encounter short, Burton went far and very fast, becoming Burton for two decades, his work and perspective effectively the head of the Australian Foreign Service stayed with me and influenced my own approach to shortly after the end of the Second World War. He at- the study and teaching of the subject. When I did tended the founding conference of the United re-engage with Burton’s work, it influenced me pro- Nations in San Francisco and was a significant player foundly, to the extent that I wanted to write a study in the development of post-war Australian diplo- of its evolution: the importance of it, as far as I was macy. He was forceful, and he made enemies. concerned, was such that it needed to be engaged Principally, he did not share the consensus view with more widely and more significantly (See Dunn, regard to the emerging Cold War in Europe and Asia. 2004). That purpose is re-stated here. He resigned, but he did not drift from the scene.