Gandhian Philosophy, Resolution Theory and Practical Approaches to Author(s): Thomas Weber Source: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 38, No. 4 (Jul., 2001), pp. 493-513 Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/424899 Accessed: 10-06-2015 14:46 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Peace Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ^^^^^^SKiM ? 2001 Journalof PeaceResearch, vol. 38, no. 4, 2001, pp. 493-513 , SagePublications (London, Thousand Oaks, S 7i A 7R CA and New Delhi) [0022-3433(200107)38:4; 493-513; 018402]

Gandhian Philosophy, Theory and PracticalApproaches to Negotiation

THOMAS WEBER

School of Sociology, Politics and Anthropology, La Trobe University

It is puzzling that links between Gandhian social philosophy and recent conflict resolutionlnegotiation literature, especially given the latter's Gandhian 'flavour', have received so little scholarly attention. While there seems to be no direct causal link between the two bodies of knowledge, conflict resolution literaturein the guise of modern problem-solvingand win-win (as opposed to power-basedand zero- sum) approachesleading to integrative conflict resolution (as opposed to mere compromise and dis- tributive outcomes) strongly echoes 'sown writings and the analysesof some Gandhi scholars. This is especiallytrue in the case of non-mainstreamwritings that see conflict resolution techniques as potentially being about more than the solution of immediate problems, that see a broaderpersonal and societal transformationas the ultimate goal. This article explores these connections and argues that Gandhian satyagrahashould be squarelylocated within conflict resolution discourse.

Introduction Gandhian social philosophy who are also familiarwith the conflict resolutionliterature Many celebrated peace activists and Nobel - given its Gandhian 'flavour'. Peace Prize recipients have acknowledged It would seem to be a reasonableassump- their intellectual debt to , tion that Gandhi'swell-publicized examples and there has also been much written about of nonviolent resistanceand the voluminous Gandhi's influence on social activists (for writingson his techniquesat least set the tone example,Ingram, 1990) and some writingon for the later development and phenomenal his influence on the shaping of recentsignifi- growth of conflict resolutionliterature in the cant peace, justice and environmental guise of modern problem-solving and philosophies (Weber, 1999). However, it is win-win (as opposed to power-based and puzzling that possible links between Gand- zero-sum) approachesleading to integrative hian praxis and the recent conflict resolu- conflict resolution (as opposed to mere tion/negotiation literature have received so compromise and distributive outcomes). little attention. Gandhi was, after all, a life- However, the two bodies of knowledge - long practitionerof conducting majorpublic concerning Gandhian and conflicts and a profound conflict theorist. In modern conflict resolution theory and its short, it could be arguedthat Gandhi should practicalapplication as spelled out in negoti- be viewed from within conflict resolution ation guidebooks - seem to have developed theory, ratherthan as being distinct from it. in mutual ignorance.This raisesthe issue of The fact that this is not the case can appear how they may enrich the field if they areseen particularly puzzling to those versed in as parts of a largerwhole.

493

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 494 journal of PEACE RESEARCH volume38 / number4 / july 2001

Satyagrahaas the Gandhian cooperatewith evil); to be willing to sacrifice Approach to Conflict Resolution (by not escapingfrom punishment and being willing to die if necessary);not to polarizethe Satyagrahais Gandhi'stechnique of nonvio- situation (one should distinguish between lent activism. The term has variously been antagonisms and antagonists, between translatedas 'passiveresistance', 'nonviolent persons and status, one should maintain resistance', 'nonviolent direct action', and contact with opponents and have even 'militantnonviolence' (Weber, 1991: 2). for their position, and be flexible in defining For Gandhi it was not only a method of con- parties and positions); not to escalate (by ducting conflict, it was also a way of life, of remainingloyal, not provokingthe opponent living in Truth. or allowing onself to be provoked, by not Galtung (1992: 94-96), echoing Nrss humiliating or allowing oneself to be humili- (1974: 70-85),1 summarizes Gandhi's con- ated, by not expanding the goals of the con- flict norms in such a way that at least partsof flict and by using the mildest forms of them could almost seem to have rise to given conflict behaviour). or been derived from the conflict integrative The thirdand final norm relatesto conflict resolution literature. (Other well parts go resolution,and it directsthat conflicts should beyond this literature into the realms of be solved (do not continue the struggle human transcendence.) forever,always seek negotiation,seek positive The first norm relates to and con- goals social transformation and seek transform- flicts, and states that one should act in con- ation of both the self and the opponent); that flicts for own out of (now, here, your group, one should insist on essentials rather than and out of conviction); define the identity non-essentials(do not tradewith essentials,be conflict well (state your goals clearly,try to willing to compromise on non-essentials); understandthe opponent's goals, emphasize that one should see oneself as fallible (be goals, state conflict common and compatible aware that you may be wrong, admit your relevantfacts objectively); and have a positive mistakes, maintain consistency over time); the conflict (give the conflict a approach to that one should be generouswith opponents see it as an opportunity to positive emphasis, (do not exploit theirweaknesses, do not judge as an opportunity to meet the opponent, them harderthan yourself, them); and transform society and as an opportunity to finally that one should aim for conversion transformthe self). ratherthan coercion (seek solutions that can second norm relates to conflict The be accepted by both you and the opponent, nonviolently struggle and enjoins one to act nevercoerce the opponent, convertthe oppo- (do not harm or hurt with words, in conflicts nent into a believer of the cause, or, as property, deeds or thoughts, do not damage Galtung implies throughout this section, be do good even to preferviolence to cowardice, open to being convertedyourself). the evil doer); to act in a goal-consistent Gandhi's own statements readily reflect manner (by including constructiveelements, these principles: 'A satyagrahi2must never acting using goal-revealingforms of struggle, forget the distinction between evil and the ratherthan secretly,and by aiming the openly evil-doer' (, 8 August 1929);3 struggleat the correctpoint); not to cooper- ate with evil (do not cooperate with evil 2 A satyagrahiis one practisingsatyagraha. structures,status, action or with those who 3IndianOpinion, Young India and Harijan were newspapers edited by Gandhiand arethe majorsource of his writings. 1 In turn, both N;ss's and Galtung'sbooks are based on The full articlescan be found in the appropriatevolumes of their earlierjoint book (Galtung& Ness, 1955). Gandhi(1958-1991) at the relevantdate.

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Thomas Weber GANDHIAN PHILOSOPHY 495

'The essence of non-violence technique is A classicin the field of scholarlyGandhian that it seeks to liquidate antagonismsbut not literature,Bondurant's book is subtitled The antagonists themselves' (Harijan, 29 April GandhianPhilosophy of Conflict.It not only 1939); 'it is often forgotten that it is neverthe analyses Gandhi's campaigns but also de- intention of a Satyagrahito embarrassthe lineatesa theoreticalbackground that sounds wrong doer'; 'The Satyagrahis object is to similar to, and in some aspects goes well convert, not to coerce, the wrong doer' beyond, the conflict resolutionliterature that (Harijan,25 March 1939); 'It is the acid test followed it. Bondurantpoints out that of non-violence that, in a non-violent con- The objectiveis not to assertpropositions, but flict, there is no rancourleft behind, and in to create possibilities.In opening up new the end the enemies are converted into choicesand in confrontingan opponentwith friends'(Harijan, 12 November 1938). the demandthat he makea choice,the satya- In a conflict situation, for Gandhi, there is grahiinvolves himself in actsof 'ethicalexist- ence'. The forces a no other than the adherenceto nonvio- process continuing plan examinationof one'sown motives, an examin- lence in thought, word and deed, and no ation undertakenwithin the context of other goal than to reach the truth (and ulti- relationshipsas they are changedtowards a mately the Truth). Because good ends can new, restructured,and reintegratedpattern. never grow out of bad means, the opponent (Bondurant,1965: vi-vii) (for Gandhi there may be opponents but This dialectical process, she adds, is essen- neverenemies) is not forced to expose him or tially creativeand inherentlyconstructive. Its herself to loss. There is ideally no threat, co- immediate object is ercion or punishment. Instead, in Gandhi's scheme, the idea is to undergo 'self-suffering' a restructuringof the opposingelements to achievea situationwhich is satisfactoryto both in the belief that the opponent can be con- the originalopposing antagonists but in sucha verted to seeing the truth by touching his or wayas to presentan entirelynew total circum- her , or that a clearer vision of stance ... through the operation of non- truth may grow out of the dialecticalprocess violent action the truth as judged by the for both parties. fulfilmentof humanneeds will emergein the form of a mutuallysatisfactory and agreed- uponsolution. (Bondurant, 1965: 195) Conflict Resolution Theory in the This line is clearly echoed in some modern Gandhian Literature conflict resolution sources that do not A search through the English-language mention Gandhi. For example, Burton Gandhi literaturereveals limited attempts to (1997) sees conflict as inextricably linked make the connection with conflict resolution with unfulfilled human needs, and Mitchell theory. Apart from one book that attempts (1993: 79) sees the aim of problem-solving explicitlyto makethis link (Weber,1991), and exercisesas a re-analysisof the conflict as a three others that examine Gandhi's philos- shared problem, as providing alternativesto ophy and praxisof conflict (Bondurant,1965; coercion and 'new options for a generally Nxss, 1974; Galtung, 1992), thereappears to acceptable and self-sustaining resolution, be little in the way of other majorpublications involving agreementand a new relationship dedicated to the topic. The rest of the litera- between erstwhileadversaries'. And it is very tureseems to be limited to a handfulof articles closely reflectedin the still relativelyobscure in the journal Gandhi Marg on the general recent approachto conflict resolution called theme, or at least with titles suggestingthat the transformativemodel (Bush & Folger, they may relateto the generaltheme. 1994).

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 496 journal of PEACE RESEARCH volume38 / number4 / july 2001

Among other Western scholars, Arne and decoupling (Galtung, 1992: 84-93). Naess was greatly influenced by Gandhi This typology is similarto the ones presented (Weber, 1999), but his work on in much of the recent 'guide to' conflict reso- and conflict has not had the same impact as lution literature,but was written before that his writings on 'deep ecology'. His book literature,and in typical Galtungian fashion Gandhi and Group Conflict (1974) system- is original thought and does not refer to atizes the norms and hypotheses that under- anyone else'swork as source material. gird a Gandhian approachto the resolution Many Indian books on Gandhi's satya- of conflict. Some of the propositionsinclude: graha do have some referencesthat sound as all human beings have long-term interestsin if they come from the same tradition as common; violence is invited from opponents modern conflict resolution literature. For if they are humiliated or provoked; oppon- example, Diwakar points out that in a con- ents are less likely to resort to violence the flict situation 'while violence to person and better they understand your position; the propertydiverts the mind of the partiescon- essential interests which opponents have in cerned from the real issues involved, nonvio- common should be clearly formulated and lent action invites the parties to a dialogue established on that basis; per- about the issuesthemselves. A common solu- sonal contact with the opponent should be tion of the problembegins to be the objective sought; opponents should not be judged of both rather than the destruction of each harder than the self; opponents should be other' (Diwakar,1969: 25). trusted; an unwillingnessto compromise on Dhawan's early and still major study on non-essentialsdecreases the likelihood of true Gandhi's political philosophy (Dhawan, resolution;and a position of weakness in an 1946) is, however, more typical. While it opponent should not be exploited (Naess, contains sections on social conflicts, religious 1974: 60-84). conflicts and economic conflicts, the book is Ness's ex-pupil and the founder of reallya detailed study of satyagraha,and was modern peace research,, gave written while the Mahatma was still alive, us the Gandhi-inspiredconcept of'structural well beforethe adventof modern conflict res- violence' (Weber, 1999). He has also written olution literature. The terminology, there- at length on Gandhi and conflict resolution. fore, is quite distinct. A manuscriptwhich exploresthis connection Most contemporaryIndian writing in the (Galtung, 1971) was never published. A area does not follow the lead of Bondurant, reworked version (Galtung, 1992) did not Nass and Galtung and does not take the appear between covers for more than two literature further than does Dhawan. The decades, and then from a relatively little- quasi-scholarlyjournal GandhiMarg seems a known Indian peace research institute, little more encouragingat first glance, but its almost guaranteeing that it would be un- articles make few such connections. In a noticed by Western scholars. In the book, short article, Rath (1986: 857) asserts that Galtung includes a section on Gandhi and Gandhi'ssatyagraha may be 'one of the most conflict resolution. He lists six approachesto viable techniques of conflict resolution',and conflict resolutionwhere the incompatibility the author is astonishedthat this aspect of it is eliminated (he lists a furthersix where the 'has not received the attention it deserves'. incompatibility is preserved):resolving the Although he makesnote of Gandhi'sstages of incompatibility,compromise, trading, multi- conflict resolution (negotiation, followed by lateralization(taking the conflict out of the self-sufferingand nonviolent direct action), frame where it is often stuck), integration, this is not relatedto any modern literatureon

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Thomas Weber GANDHIAN PHILOSOPHY 497 the techniques that may facilitatethe resolu- formal rivalJournal of PeaceResearch (JPR), tion of conflict. The same is true for other especiallyin the latter'searlier years under its articles with promising titles (e.g. Chan- founding editor, Johan Galtung. After the drasekaran,1990; Mehta, 1991). firstfew issues,there is practicallynothing on any potential link with Gandhi in JCR. a content of the Gandhi in the Conflict Resolution Nevertheless, analysis journal revealsseveral important articleson Theory and Negotiation Practice scholarly Literature some of the aspects of the conflict process that would later find their way into the new The ResourceManualfor a Living Revolution problem-solvingnegotiation literature. (Coover et al., 1981) was an underground The early issues of the journal, not sur- classic,widely used by those conducting non- prisingly,focused on internationalconflicts, violence trainingworkshops for severalyears with many articles on arms control, deter- beforeit was published.The book exploresthe rence and international bargaining. Still, it processof workingin groupsand living in sup- had room for works on interpersonalcon- portive communities, the techniques of per- flicts and bargainingas well as ones relatedto sonal growthand consciousness-raising,and is Gandhian nonviolence. Over time, nonvio- packed with exercisesand other information lence seems to have become marginalizedin that can be used to fosterpractical skills. More the scholarly conflict resolution literature, important, it also contains a chapter on the and during the 1960sJCR came to be heavily theoreticalbasis for change and a sub-chapter predisposedtowards the publication of on conflict resolution. The chapter, in a theory-relatedarticles. section dealing with developing a theory of However,in its second volume the journal change, lists Gandhian nonviolenceas one of containsarticles (NMss, 1958; Deutsch, 1958) the importantsocial change theoriesand rec- which eventuallywould be incorporatedinto ommends the studying of case-historiesas a books on Gandhiand conflictor conflictwith way of assistingin the formationof a frame- a Gandhian flavour (Naess, 1974; Deutsch, work for exploringthe theoryof socialchange 1973). The next volume contains a relevant movements. A reading list of material on article(Galtung, 1959), and a reviewessay on Gandhi'scampaigns is provided.The section Bondurant'sbook (Sharp, 1959). Galtung's on conflict resolutionfocuses on 'I-messages', articlestates that the antagonistshould be sep- 'activelistening', 'brainstorming'and 'no-lose arated from the antagonism - a theme problem-solving processes'. The source of common to Gandhianand the 'win-win con- much of this information was the hugely flict resolution literature.In their introduc- popular ParentEffectiveness Training manual tion, the two Norwegian guest editors state (Gordon, 1970). That manual, however,lists that these articles'seek to clarifysome of the as suggested readingbooks in child psychol- issues to be faced in developing researchon ogy, therapy and parenting books, but no non-violent alternativesin conflict situations' Gandhiansources. (Rinde & Rokkan, 1959: 4). The first major 'peacestudies' periodical, The only other articleto dealwith Gandhi founded in 1957, the Journalof ConflictRes- inJCR was a reviewessay dealing with books olution (JCR) seems to be an appropriate on Gandhi (Erikson, 1969) and nonviolent place to starta searchfor Gandhian theory as activism (Sharp, 1973). In this article, Lipsitz part of the conflict resolution tradition. & Kritzer (1975) suggest that non-violence However it proves to have a less Gandhi- should be examinedmore closely as a form of minded approach than its somewhat less unconventional political action, but rather

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 498 journal of PEACE RESEARCH volume38 / number4 / july 2001

than linking it to conflict resolution they that 'how the game was played, and how the suggest that the value of nonviolence lies in opponent felt about his antagonist after the its healthy disregardfor authority,which is game was over' also mattered for Gandhi good for democracy,and becauseit may be a (Klitgaard,1971: 147). This aspect was not way of getting children out of the habit of expandedon in the article,but it is at leastone group identification. of the main links between satyagrahaand Although in its early years Galtung con- negotiation practiceas detailed in the recent tributed theoretical papers on the general problem-solvingliterature. theme of nonviolence (e.g. Galtung, 1965), Like Klitgaard, Chatterjee attempts to JPR tends to deal with actual inter- or intra- place Gandhian satyagrahain a national conflicts and pays less attention to framework (that is one that subsumes a conflict resolution theory and negotiation rationalstrategic context). However,he con- practicein the way that I am looking at them cludes that satyagrahabelongs to a class of in this article. Only three articles (Pontara, 'with threat-vulnerableequilibria', that 1965; Klitgaard, 1971; Chatterjee, 1974) is, 'whereone or the other playeris in a pos- deal with approachesto conflict resolutionin ition to inducethe otherplayer to shift but not a mannerthat might show the applicabilityof toforce him to shift' (Chatterjee,1974: 28). Gandhian techniques to situations involving Severalpractically oriented journals with the conflicting process. Other Gandhi- promising titles (for example the Negotiation related articlessummarize Gandhian philos- Journal and Quarterly) have ophy-in-action (e.g. Bose, 1981), deal with appearedin the relativelyrecent past. So far, the post-Gandhi Gandhian movement Gandhi and Gandhian nonviolence have not (Hettne, 1976), examine the attitudes of been among the subjectsthey have covered. Gandhians to the question of the seeming realityof accommodationas againstthe ideal The Links Between Gandhi's of conversion (Nakhare, 1976), or detail and Modern Conflict Gandhi's influence on the field of peace Satyagraha Resolution Practice research(S0rensen, 1992) or on notable indi- viduals in the field (Weber,1999). The words 'conflictresolution' can mean very Pontara,in an early and thorough philo- differentthings to differentpeople. They are sophical examinationof Gandhi'sattitude to often used synonymously with 'dispute violence in extremegroup conflict, points out settlement' and ''. that he makesno detailedattempt to work out Pioneeringanalyst of the position of needs in the philosophyof conflict which is implicit in conflict situations,John Burton sees conflict Gandhi'swritings, and admits that he barely resolution as a problem-solvingexercise that looks at Gandhi's satyagrahaas an effective aims at the elimination of the sources of the substitute for violent methods of conducting conflict, not merely the management of the social conflict. Klitgaardnotes that satyagraha conflict or the settlement (often through as a hard-headedzero-sum bargainingtactic coercive power in a way that does not meet may provide valuable payoffs, but possibly the needs of all parties) of the manifest because its underlying principleswere com- dispute. In short, for Burton, conflicts may promised or its contradictionsglossed over. be managed and disputes may be settled Although Gandhian tactics may have been without conflicts being resolved. ultimately violent (or at least coercive), they In contrast to an 'adversarial power may haveworked because they wereperceived approach', Burton champions a problem- as being nonviolent. However, he also notes solving approach which is grounded in his

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Thomas Weber GANDHIAN PHILOSOPHY 499 view of innate human needs, which tran- party to determine the outcome in accord- scend , and which must be satisfied ance with prevailingnorms, and accordingto if deep-seated conflicts are to be resolved. theoristslike Burton still operatedwithin the For Burton, the violation of the drives that power-bargainingframe, with legal or indus- stem from these needs leads to conflict and trial norms determining the outcome. Later crime, while their satisfaction, through in the 1960s a new approach, focusing on problem-solving processes, prevents vio- human needs, became more fashionable. In lence, and conflicts can be resolved by this approach,conflicting partiesare brought getting to the roots of a problem through a together to analyse the conflict in a non- 'searchinganalysis by all those concerned in bargainingway that looks at its deep-rooted the light of which an agreement can be sources so that the conflict can be truly reachedwithout any compromise of human 'resolved', rather than creating a situation needs' (Burton, 1997: 45). where merelythe manifestdispute is 'settled'. This collaborative problem-solving For simple interpersonal disputes, com- approachto conflict resolutionseems to have munity or neighbourhood justice centres its origins in developments in industrial became popular, providing cheap mediation relations in the 1960s, when the idea arose as an alternativeto legal and quasi-legalpro- that more cooperative interaction between cesses. the partiescould lead to a greaterincrease in These developments were gradually productivity than that which ensued from moving towards the Gandhian model, and more traditional forms of power bargaining particularlyso in the recent non-mainstream (Scimecca, 1989: 267-268).4 In the mid- approach known as transformativemedia- 1960s, Burton instituted 'international tion that sees mediation as a process that problem-solvingworkshops' at the Centrefor potentially can change individuals, and the Analysis of Conflict in London. One of through them society, for the better. This the facilitatorsat the first workshop (which approach, very reminiscent of Bondurant's may have playeda part in stopping hostilities characterizationof a Gandhian view of con- between Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singa- flict (but againwithout referenceto Gandhi), pore), was the Harvard professor of inter- starts from the premise that conflicts need national law Roger Fisher (Scimecca, 1989: not be seen as problems in the first place. 268). Also, around this time, some peace Insteadit suggeststhat they should be seen as activists turned their attention to peacemak- opportunities for moral growth and trans- ing activities; and dissatisfaction with the formation (Bush & Folger, 1994: 81). costly, slow and adversarialcourt system led to the development of what has come to be known as the 'alternativedispute resolution' The Gandhian 'Flavour'of Modern (ADR) movement (Tidwell, 1998: 10-17). Conflict Resolution Literatureand This 'alternative' conflict resolution Practice method grewout of the adjudicativelegal tra- Deutsch (1987: 48), in his work on the dition and maintained the role of a third differences between constructive and destructiveprocesses in the resolutionof con- 4 Another impetusmay have been the developmentof the flict, summarizedthe position as follows: field of peaceresearch (Laue, 1987: 21). Peaceresearch, in If one wants to createthe conditionsfor a turn, at leastin the form given to it by JohanGaltung, was directlyinfluenced by the philosophyof MahatmaGandhi destructiveprocess of conflictresolution, one (Weber, 1999). However,this connection does not seem would introduceinto the conflictthe typical enough to establishany strongcausal link. characteristicsand effects of a competitive

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 500 journal of PEACE RESEARCH volume38 / number4 /july 2001

process:poor communication; coercive tactics; agreements, on the other hand, resolve suspicion;the perceptionof basicdifferences parties'interests so that both partiesare satis- in values;an orientationto the increasing fied. They reconcile the strongestinterests of powerdifferences; challenges to the legitimacy the are more than of the partiesand so forth.On the otherhand, parties, lasting compro- if one wantsto createthe conditionsfor a con- mises and strengthenrelationships as well as structiveprocess of conflict resolution,one 'improve the chances of finding subsequent would introduceinto the conflictthe typical integrativeagreements' (Pruitt, 1987: 69). effects of a com- cooperativeprocess: good Various studies of individual preferences munication;the of similarityin perception for methods of conflict to beliefsand values; full acceptanceof another's conducting appear legitimacy; problem-centerednegotiations; indicate that settlement of disputes is easier mutual trust and confidence;information for individualsto grasprather than coming to sharingand so forth. terms with underlying conflicts. For example, LaTouret al. (1976) arguethat dis- Deutsch (1969: 23) makes the point that in putantsgenerally preferred a form of dispute- a cooperative context a conflict is seen as a managing procedure that involved a large common problem in which the opponents degreeofthird-party intervention rather than 'havethe joint interestof reachinga mutually individualface-to-face bargaining, which was satisfactorysolution'. This processis likely to the least preferredmethod. It seems that if lead to a productive conflict resolution disputants can put their cases fully they are because 'it aids open and honest communi- more comfortable with an impartial third cation of relevant information between the party making a decision for them. Neverthe- participants', reducing misunderstandings less, the popular recent practicallyoriented 'which can lead to confusion and mistrust';it training books on negotiation practice tends to limit ratherthan expandthe scope of promise that 'you can get to yes' (Fisher & the conflict by encouraging 'the recognition Ury, 1987), 'you can negotiate anything' of legitimacy of each other'sinterests and of (Cohen, 1980), 'you can negotiatewith diffi- the necessity of searching for a solution cult people' (Ury, 1991), that 'I can win and which is responsiveto the needs of each side'; you can win' (Wertheimet al., 1992), in fact and 'it leads to a trusting, friendly attitude that 'everyonecan win' (Cornelius & Faire, which increasessensitivity to similaritiesand 1989), and generallythat 'win-win solutions' common interests, while minimising the are possible to conflict. These books are self- salience of differences'(1969: 24). He adds help manuals that eschew third-partyinter- that 'Threat induces defensiveness and vention, and they regularly make it onto reducesthe toleranceof ambiguity as well as best-sellerlists. openness to the new and unfamiliar;exces- The advice on negotiating techniques sive tension leads to primitivization and leading to integrativeagreements that these stereo-typing of thought processes' (1969: books dispense must have some empirical 22). basis. However, as a rule they provide anec- Pruitt (1987) also notes several possible dotal evidence ratherthan referencedsources outcomes to a negotiation. Where an agree- and in fact 'show little evidence of attention ment is reached, the outcome may be the to ongoing, empirical research'(Weiss-Wik, capitulation of one of the parties, or, more 1983: 707), let alone any connection with positively,the traditionaloutcome of a com- Gandhi. Nevertheless,if we look at popular promise, or, most positively,what he calls an negotiation manuals we find many proposi- 'integrative agreement'. Compromises are tions that arebacked up by empiricalresearch reasonable,but not outstanding. Integrative and Gandhian 'flavoured' statements. For

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Thomas Weber GANDHIAN PHILOSOPHY 501 example, the phenomenally successful book intentions discovered,basic assumptionsand Gettingto Yes(Fisher & Ury, 1987) promotes understandingschecked and misinterpreta- what the authorscall 'principlednegotiation' tions minimized; demonstrating a willing- and suggeststhat in this method ness to cooperateand adapt by showing that you look for mutualgains wherever possible, a win-win solution is sought and the desire and whereyour interestsconflict, you should for one conveyed; and finalizing agreements insistthat the result be basedon somefair stan- clearly so that they 'are definite enough to dardsindependent of the will of eitherside. promote commitment and compliance' The methodof is hard principlednegotiation (Weiss-Wik, 1983: 715-716). In short, the on the merits,soft on the people.It employs no tricksand no posturing.Principled negoti- basic approachof these (and many later)self- ation showsyou how to obtainwhat you are help manuals is to attempt to achieve entitledto andstill be decent.It enablesyou to win-win solutions by separatingthe people be fairwhile protecting you againstthose who from the problem. Problemsand their solu- wouldtake of fairness. advantage your (Fisher tion, rather than the defeat of enemies, & Ury,1987: xii) becomes the goal. The books recognize the And, 'separating the people from the compelling natureof needs and instructtheir problem allows you to deal directly and readersto focus on interestsrather than pos- empatheticallywith the other negotiatoras a itions. human being, thus making possible an ami- Some scholars,however, have pointed out cableagreement' (Fisher & Ury, 1987: 14). potential dilemmas involved in this integra- A plethora of these 'how to do it guide tive approach.Stating one's position in terms books' appearedin the late 1970s and early of problemsto be solved, ratherthan termsto 1980s. While they tend not to contain a bib- be accepted, and remainingopen to possible liography of their sources, the bargaining solutions that may present themselves in strategiesof the practice they describe must negotiation means that there cannot be com- be based at least partly on uncredited theor- mitment to a position that is most favourable etical experimentalliterature. And in many to one's own interest. Further,providing the instancesthe conclusions of this literatureare opponent with an accurate picture of one's relativelyobvious to those who have studied needs precludes the tactic of preventing the Gandhi's thoughts on interpersonalconflict opponent from learning in advance one's or been involved in nonviolent activism. bottom line (Pruitt, 1972: 141). These Weiss-Wik, in an examination of six dilemmas notwithstanding, many of the popular 'self-help'negotiation manuals, dis- steps in this process are corroboratedby the tills their common guidelines for successful researchliterature as being efficaciousin pro- . He lists them as the adoption of moting successfulbargaining outcomes. a win-win outlook; incorporatingthe need The empirical conflict resolution litera- to preparefor the negotiation by planning, ture points out that the need to 'save face' studying the situation, setting objectives, plays a large part in shaping negotiating establishing priorities, and plotting the behaviour (Brown, 1968; Swingle, 1970: course of action; concentratingon the nego- 267); Weiss-Wik (1983: 719) concludes that tiators' needs and employing a problem- the studies seem to indicate that 'face-related solving approachto ensurethat they are met; responses' in conflict situations 'generally considering sources of power and imple- project resistanceand increasedcompetitive- menting appropriatetactics; endeavouring to ness toward the experimental other'. communicate adroitly so that areas of Although Rubin & Brown (1975: 155) common concern arepinpointed, underlying found that frequencyof cooperationand size

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 502 journal of PEACE RESEARCH volume38 / number4 / july 2001

of outcomes increasedwhen intangibleneeds rather than cooperative effort. This experi- (such as those for self-esteem)were converted ment indicates that when negotiators have into tangible ones, Weiss-Wik, after examin- been made to look foolish and weak before ing the empirical evidence, was able to con- importantaudiences, they are likely to retali- clude that 'If a negotiator concentrates on ate against those causing the humiliation. satisfying his counterpart'sintangible needs, And this may occur despite the knowledge that would seem to be all for the better', and that 'doing so may requirethe sacrificeof all that 'needs lend themselves to a greater or large portions of the availableoutcomes' number of solutions than do positions' (Brown, 1968: 119). Likewise, Siegel & (1983: 720). Fouraker (1960: 100) concluded from the The manuals advocate focusing on simi- resultsof their experimentsthat 'Some nego- larities, on drawing out interdependenceby tiations collapse when one party becomes looking to problems rather than positions. incensed at the other, and henceforth strives Rubin & Brown (1975: 202-206) note that to maximizehis opponent'sdispleasure rather the most effective bargaining was achieved than his own satisfaction.'Where demands when goals and orientationswere formulated are seen as excessive,giving in to them may cooperatively.The manuals also claim that be viewed as tantamount to appeasement, issues can be successfiullyworked through and this may be seen as disadvantageous when they are treatedas problems that need because appeasement'would only encourage to be solved. On this aspect Weiss-Wik them to make even stronger demands' (1983: 722) concludes that 'severalaspects of (Tedeschi& Rosenfeld, 1980: 241). integrativebargaining. . inform the train- On the question of threats, Weiss-Wik ers' recommendations to concentrate on (1983: 727) concludesthat the authorsof the needs'. negotiation manuals and most of the Some studies, however, posit toughness, researchersconcur that they are inappropri- with extreme initial demands, few conces- ate for successful, that is win-win, negoti- sions and an unyielding position as the most ation outcomes. 'An overwhelming amount advantageous strategy (Siegel & Fouraker, of experimentalresearch shows that threats 1960; Bartos, 1970: 65). Further,Rubin & tend to elicit counterthreats, which then Brown (1975: 267) found that subjects in draw in competitive pressure,concern over experimental studies achieved better out- restoring face, and hostility. The conflict comes with extreme rather than moderate spirals'(Weiss-Wik, 1983: 728). initial positions, and Komorita & Brenner Despite his finding that 'those who were (1968) found that in some cases the proba- tough tended to receivea higher payoff than bility of reachingan agreementwas lowered those who were soft', Bartos (1970: 65) if bargainersbegan with the positions they explained that 'the main reason for this was eventuallyexpected to settle upon. This may the fact that toughnessin the bargainingsitu- be because extreme positions show that one ation did not impede progress towards an will not allow oneself to be exploited (Rubin agreement too seriously' because it was of & Brown, 1975: 268). style. Where toughness becomes 'positional In contrastto the above,a study byWilson commitment' ratherthan style, negotiations & Bixenstine (1964) indicated that unjusti- tend to breakdown. Being tough, even where fied insult, unfair reduction of one party's there is no subjective positional commit- outcomes by an opponent, or other behav- ment, can have another drawback:it can be iour posing a threat or damage to 'face' perceivedas unfair and unfair demands will usuallyresulted in retaliationand mutual loss be rejected.

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Thomas Weber GANDHIAN PHILOSOPHY 503

Diesing (1961: 369) maintains that good tactics lose their effectiveness' (Tedeschi & relationshipsmake genuine agreementsposs- Rosenfeld, 1980: 232). ible, whereas if the relationship is bad When focusing on 'adroit communi- 'chances of agreement are missed through cation', the negotiation manuals employ misunderstanding,energies are absorbed in techniques that go under the names of useless belligerency, and dealings are dis- 'bilateralfocus', 'role reversal','active listen- torted by attempts to retaliatefor imagined ing' and 'restatement'.These techniques are past injustices and insults'. Presumably intended to improveunderstanding, increase because of such factors, the manuals also trust and promote the compatibilityof goals. the use of appropriate bargaining Looking at the researchliterature, Weiss-Wik tactics. This means being cautious about (1983: 730) finds that they do not appearto employing extremely tough strategies and be 'a uniformly beneficialtype of communi- avoiding the use of threats. cation'; however, he adds that some experi- Bartos(1977) presentsthe hypothesisthat ments (reported in Tedeschi & Rosenfeld, negotiatorsview the midpoint between their 1980: 231, following Schelling, 1960) have offersand demandsas just, and striveto reach shown that negotiators who know their it, and consequently negotiations only opponent's bargainingrange ('utility sched- proceed smoothly as long as there is a collec- ule') 'conceded more than uninformed ones tivist desire for fairness (i.e. cooperation). because their norms of fairness came into The reasonnegotiators do not zero in on the play and restrainedtheir demands' (Weiss- agreementthey eventually expect to reach is Wik, 1983: 732), so as not to exploit an because this may lead to exploitation by the advantage.In fact, the researchseems to indi- opponent. Bartos, therefore, recommends cate that negotiatorswill conduct themselves that negotiators be scrupulously fair and in ways consistent with their values and avoid the temptation to take advantage of ethical standards of behaviour, and that opponents, becausea tough stancemay result pointing out that a certain course of action in larger early concessions but eventually will allow the opponent to act in accordance opponents will discover that they are being with a higher code of conduct is a powerful treated unfairly and then become tough negotiating tool (Lewickiet al., 1994: 209). themselves, leading to deadlocks or break- Weiss-Wik (1983: 734) sums up the downs in negotiations. problem-solving studies he examined by When pressuretactics are employed in a noting that they 'do lend some support to conflict situation, they are generallyincom- trainers' prescriptions. They more or less patiblewith the aim of persuadingthe adver- argue for defining the problems in negoti- sary to make concessions, and such tactics ation, searchingfor and evaluatingsolutions, actuallysubvert the aim of a productivecon- and making decisions.'As a final conclusion, flict resolution (Pruitt, 1972: 136; Deutsch he is only able to admit that the 'verbalstyle & Krauss, 1960: 188). Further,while tactics of the successful negotiator as prescribedby that centre on bluffing and deceitful state- trainers currently lies beyond directly ments may be successful in the short term relevant,empirical criticism'. and in one-off bargainingsequences, 'they are Patchen (1987: 182), in his examination likely to backfirein the long run and acrossa of the literatureand studies of the best strat- series of bargaining sessions because of the egy to use in order to get another party (and distrust that is generated. Once one learns this can refer to anyone from individuals to that a playercontinually bluffs and misrepre- nations) to cooperate rather than to try to sents his or her hand in a poker game, these win an advantage, claims that there is a

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 504 journal of PEACE RESEARCH volume38 / number4 Ijuly 2001

'remarkable convergence of findings'. It gave the appearanceof being 'suckers',but appears that 'a policy of unconditional observersare moved by martyrdomand tend cooperationtends to bring exploitationby an to treat martyrswith kindness. adversarywhereas a policy of consistent co- This is backed up by Reychler (1979: ercivenesstends to lead to a fight'. However, 257), who found that a pacifiststrategy tends it seems that a strategythat begins with firm- to be most effective in reducingviolence and ness, including a threat, coercion, and then exploitativebehaviour when the human dis- moves to , will be effective in tance between the opponents and subject is securing cooperation from opponents. small, the subject is well informed of the Some studies in the conflict resolution pacifist'sstrategy, the subject is required to literature,for example that of Shure, Meeker justify his or her behaviourafter the fact and & Hansford (1965), found that those (at when a third party is present. Pacifist strat- least in laboratory studies) who employed egies, and this is the key aim of Gandhian pacifist strategies (that is those by ethically praxis,force an opponent to choose between motivated cooperatorswho rejectedviolence morality and self-interest.And 'the strongest and coercion and instead aimed for con- predictor of the effectivenessof the pacifist version) in bargaining were not successful. strategy is the image of the pacifist held by Although pacifists tried to get their oppon- the subject'. Lewicki et al. (1994: 217) con- ents to see the unfairnessof their claims and clude that 'A negotiator'sreputation plays a the immorality of their actions, and tried to critical role in how persuasiveshe will be: establish their own personalresolve and give those with better reputations will be more assurancethat all their actions were in good persuasive,especially in the long term';they faith, a favourableimage of the pacifist was add that being 'nice and pleasant is a logical not enough for an effective appeal. Domina- step in being more persuasive'(1994: 219). tors did not become cooperatorsbecause of Some conflict studies, however,point out the pacifist tactics, and such tactics could that this playingto a third-partyaudience can even invite exploitationand .And, cut both ways. The social embarrassmentof similarly,Deutsch et al. (1967) found that a admitting to a moral errormay increasethe 'turn the other cheek' strategywas not suc- intractability of an opponent (Meeker & cessfulin eliciting cooperation- it was in fact Shure, 1969). more likely to be exploited. Rapoport(1960), in an old but still useful This, at first glance, seems to go against a typology,classifies disputes in terms of fights strategy that one could consider Gandhian. (attempted mutual coercion, where the Nevertheless,some other studies clearlyseem object is to harm the enemy), games (where to support this less immediate version of the object is to outwit the competitor) or 'martyrdom pays'. Braver & Van Rohrer debates (where the object is to convert the (1975: 653), for example, have found that potential ally,to come to a win-win solution, 'subjects most often will cooperate if they in short to resolvethe conflict). This classifi- have reasonto believe their opponent will be cation ranks conflicts in order of increasing benevolent'.This, however,does not seem to resolution potential and with an increasing work between martyrs and their exploiters level of humanity of the conflicting parties. (because easily exploited martyrs are Debates can involve the assistanceof third exploited), but what the authorscall a martyr parties or they can be based in face-to-face strategydoes 'evoke a high degree of cooper- negotiation. Fora debate, the opponent must ation from a lateropponent who observesthe be heard and understood, and they must martyrdom'.To the exploiters the martyrs know that they have been heard;the areasof

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Thomas Weber GANDHIAN PHILOSOPHY 505 validity in the opponent's stand must be (afterall Gandhi wanted his immediate goal delineated, and an assumption of similarity of freedom for India to prevail,albeit without should be induced (Rapoport, 1960: humiliation for the opponent), the main aim 286-287). The best method of doing this is of conducting conflict may be something to state the opponents case back to them, for beyond winning or losing, or even beyond a 'To make a dent in the opponent'sarmor, you win-win resolution of the dispute at hand - must make him listen, and something he is it may have more to do with an existential sure to listen to is his own case' (1960: 291). transformationof the individualsinvolved. This means that opponents should not be Tidwell (1998: 17) fiurtherclaims that the threatened, and a relationship of trust and values that inform conflict resolution, that is mutual responsivenessshould be built up. It nonviolence, fairness,individual choice and is easier to move from cooperation to com- empowerment, as well as the support for a petition than from to cooper- variety of fundamental principles such as ation, so trust needs to be built early in the human rights, common sense or human relationship. This is particularlyimportant needs, are essentially Western in nature. because approachesto trust can create self- Gandhi's philosophy has come to epitomize fulfilling prophecies (Lewicki et al., 1994: many of these values, and his method of con- 336; Axelrod, 1984). Trust-buildingcan be ducting conflict can only partly be said to done by showing a positive interest in the result from his interaction with Western opponents' welfare and demonstrating a and philosophy.This, therefore,may readinessto respond helpfully to their needs indicate that ratherthan inhibiting 'its useful and requests. Of course trust can be application acrosscultural and political bar- exploited, but too often conflicts are con- riers'it may demonstratethe universalityof ducted on the assumption that if parties are at least some of these values. not sufficientlytough they will be exploited. Those engaged in a conflict, and wanting There is risk, but the risk is less than the risk to conduct the process in Gandhian terms, of the loss of a mutuallyacceptable resolution would look to the following propositions as that would result from the use of pressure givens (NEss, 1974: 70-85; Weber, 1991: tactics. 36-39). First,violence is invited from opponents if they are humiliated or provoked. Gandhi's Satyagrahaand Conflict a violent attitude is less Resolution Second, likely on the part of a would-be satyagrahiif he or she Tidwell (1998: xi) claimsthat not all conflicts makes clear to him or herself the essential can be or should be resolved,some should be elements of the case and the purpose of the won. Gandhiansatyagraha, at least at a theor- conflict. The sincereundertaking of a conflict etical level, rejects this on at least two along Gandhian lines requiresan affirmative grounds. First, in Gandhi's approach, answer to the question: 'Is my motive when attempts should be made to resolve all con- startingthis new direct action unmixed- is it flicts and attemptsshould be made to convert just to realisethe goal of the campaign, and all opponents so that the parties end up 'on not alsoto wish to injurethe opponent or due the same side'. If, however, this is not poss- to other deviant motive?'(Naess, 1974: 104). ible, it provides a way of fighting for justice Third, opponentsshould be providedwith that minimizes the possibility of excluding a full understandingof one'scase and conduct. the chance of later conversion taking place. According to Pelton (1974: 86), because Second, while winning is not totally rejected nonviolentpersuasion is basedon the 'straight-

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 506 journal of PEACE RESEARCH volume38 / number4 / july 2001

forward dissemination of information', the just to please the adversary (Bose, 1972: 'packaging'of issues by withholding infor- 115). However, one should be preparedto mation or making unsubstantiatedcharges, 'make large concessions on all points except and by appealingto greed,prejudice or hatred, where a principleis involved'(Gandhi, 1928: 'cannotunder any circumstancesbe reconciled 245); in fact, in casesshort of mattersof prin- with the philosophyof nonviolence'. ciple 'A satyagrahinever misses, can never Fourth, the essential interests which miss, a chance of compromiseon honourable opponents have in common should be clearly terms' (YoungIndia, 16 April 1931). Never- formulated and cooperation established on theless, Bondurant (1965: 197) points out this basis. Gandhi points out that when we that the Gandhian process of conflict is one put ourselvesin our opponents'shoes we will of synthesis rather than compromise. The do them justice and most of the 'miseriesand Gandhian practitioner of conflict is never misunderstandings in the world will dis- preparedto yield a position which he or she appear'(Young India, 19 March 1925). holds to be the truth, but 'he may be per- Fifth, opponents should not be judged suaded that he is in errorin so holding them' harderthan the self: 'An opponent is entitled (1965: 220). to the same regard for his principles as we Eighth, the conversion of an opponent is would expect others to have for ours furtheredby personalsincerity. (Harijan, 4 May 1940). In other words, Ninth, the best way of convincing an Gandhi believes that love must be shown to opponent of sincerityis to make sacrificesfor opponents and that the way to do this is to the given cause. give them the same credit for honesty as we Tenth, a position of weaknessin an oppo- would claim for ourselves. He notes that nent should not be exploited, and advantage toleranceis important because 'we will never should not be taken of an opponent's weak all think alike and we shall see Truth in frag- moments 'if they have not been the result of ment and from differentangles of vision'. As satyagraha,but due to extraneous reasons' conscience differsbetween individuals,while (Bose, 1972: 116). By the same token, it may be a guide for immediate conduct, however,satyagrahis 'could not give up their 'imposition of that conduct upon all will be objective if they found their strengthdwind- an insufferableinterference with everyone's ling away (Gandhi, 1928: 412). freedom of conscience'(Young India, 23 Sep- Besides the obvious moral reason, such tember 1926). weakness should not be exploited because Sixth, opponents should be trusted.While surrender caused by some misfortune suf- it has been noted above that some studies fered by the opponent making it necessaryto have shown that trusting behaviourmay lead call off the struggle may leave them, after to exploitationrather than cooperation,these their capitulation, as opposed to the settle- experiments did not factor in the very ment as they were before their hand was important subjective and larger societal forced. Surrenderwithout conversion is not payoffs (in the Gandhian scheme) that come the ideal Gandhian way of terminating a from living by one's personal morality struggle. Conversely, the demonstration of (Pelton, 1974: 22-25). good will by not taking advantage of an Seventh, an unwillingnessto compromise opponent's position may induce them to on non-essentialsdecreases the likelihood of trust one's sincerity and 'preparea suitable converting the opponent. For Gandhi, atmosphere for a settlement' (Nass, 1974: demands made must be of the 'irreducible 104). minimum', and they should neverbe lowered The above points, gleaned from Gandhi's

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Thomas Weber GANDHIAN PHILOSOPHY 507 writings and personal experience, are very for needs to be met they must first be under- reminiscentof the key concepts put forward stood, and this requirestrue self-awareness. by the self-help negotiation manuals as the For Gandhi the discovery of Self was the main components of achievingwin-win sol- primarytask of life. As noted above,however, utions. But the Gandhian conflict process parties to a conflict often preferredthird- also goes well beyond conflict resolution to party intervention to being totally respons- integration (or transformation)at a deeper ible for the disputing process.This is perhaps level. understandable,but it depends on what the Galtung and Nzss clearlymake the point desired outcome of the process is - a settle- that for Gandhi the aim of the processof con- ment of this dispute, the resolution of any flict was not merely to reach a resolution in underlying conflict, or, in Gandhian terms, the sense that it is advocated in the negoti- achievingthe dignity that comes from taking ation practice/training manuals. For the responsibilityfor the self, and thus aiding in Mahatma the processwas about the achieve- the understandingof Self. ment of self-realization,nothing less. Forhim Debates, or negotiations,in the Gandhian the fundamental principle was that of the ideal are bilateral;the two parties are them- unity of existence (or more immediately, selves the decision-makers.This reduces the unity of humans). People are relatedto each dependence on experts but, as others have other in a way that has a transcendental argued, such independence can be frighten- nature, and conflict should be seen as a gift ing for those without skills or clear insights providing a rich opportunity, potentially to into their own needs. In Gandhian terms the benefit of all (Galtung, 1992: 62), to mere dispute settlement does little to answer realizea higher self. fundamental life questions. Taking personal Galtung (1992: 63) notes that social responsibility for negotiation, rather than scientists see conflicting parties as having assigningthe processto arbitratorsor adjudi- differing perceptions of the conflict, some- cators, offers an increased opportunity for times wrong perceptions. The heat of con- personal growth by exposing parties to the flict may dim or distort visions, and views of the other, and provides the oppor- therefore third parties with objective tunity for deep self-reflection. It takes the unclouded visions may be needed to achieve process beyond the immediate dispute. The resolution. For Gandhi, as interpreted by manuals also champion a bilateralapproach. Galtung, things are different. While media- Even if the reasonfor this is more about cost tors may play an important role in helping than empowerment, and certainly not self- parties come to a mutually acceptableagree- realization (but as noted above it should be ment, generally third-party intervention about being decent, according to Fisher & should be rejectedand the conflict viewed 'as Ury, 1987), the approachesdo have marked a medium through which the parties can similarities.It should be noted here that the develop a higher degree of awareness of more recent literatureon conflict transform- themselvesas well as of the other party'.This ation (e.g. Bush & Folger, 1994) attempts to is because resolution is only one element of place mediatorsspecifically within this para- the desired outcome of the conflict. Others, digm and notes that this is the unfulfilled equally or even more desirableas criteria of 'promiseof mediation'. success, include a new social structureand a While the findings and arguments that 'higher level of self-purification in both martyrdom tactics do not generally lead to actors' (Galtung, 1992: 88). successful conflict outcomes, and seem to According to Gandhian practice,in order contradictGandhi's dictum that self-suffering

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 508 journal of PEACE RESEARCH volume38 / number4 / july 2001

would melt the stoniest heart, nonviolence what little exploration there has been of theoristshave long taken this knowledgeinto Gandhi'ssatyagraha in terms of conflict reso- account (Pelton, 1974: 135, 140, 143) and lution. demonstrated that Gandhian nonviolence Gandhi's writings often refer to arbi- does work in conflict situations, albeit in trationand even judicialadjudication as ways more subtle ways. The Gandhian literature of resolving conflicts. It must be remem- acknowledgesthat conversionmay not come bered, however,that much of his energywas by such direct methods but may rely on con- taken up with opposing large-scaleviolent version of third partieswho in turn push the ethnic and religious conflicts, and in these opponent into behaviouralchange. situations anything that could calm passions Rogers (1961) notes that life can become was welcome. Given that the Mahatma had existentiallydysfunctional if it is 'incongru- died decadesbefore the adventof the alterna- ent', and this, at some stage will force change tive movement or before in individual behaviour. In a conflict situ- conflict resolution literature had brought ation, this incongruence is most likely to be some sense of order to the terminology used initiated by being out of step with third in the field, it is not surprisingthat he used partieswho are in a close social relationship the term 'mediation' interchangeablywith with the actors (Galtung, 1989: 20-21, 25; ''. Weber, 1993). If one can influence an audi- The Gandhian process of conflict-solving ence at a closer social distance to the oppo- sees the appearanceof a case in an adjudica- nent or alter public opinion - the milieu in tive tribunalas a failureof the partiesto settle which opponents must live - there is a fair the dispute and emerge as the friends the chance of influencing their attitude even model aims at. Adjudication generally pre- when there has been no opportunity for cludes the Gandhian dialectic from ever direct communication. Gandhi, quite can- coming into play between the opponents. didly, claimed that 'the method of reaching Although it may be a truism, it must be real- the heart is to awakenpublic opinion. Public ized that individualsoften see no other choice opinion, for which one cares, is a mightier open to them than to go to the police or a force than that of gunpowder'(Young India, lawyer owing to mistrust of the other dis- 19 March 1925). And this may help oppon- putant and/or a generalfeeling of impotence ents to clearerinsights into their own moti- in being able to carryout their own negotia- vation and sense of belonging in a larger tions. Even when a dispute is in the hands of reality. lawyersa settlement may be reachedshort of In short, conducting conflict in what can actual adjudication,but rarelywill one party be termed a Gandhian context may not only see the other'spoint of view and have under- be instrumentallyvaluable but may be intrin- gone a process of 'conversion', thereby sically important in an existentialsense. removing the source of future such disagree- ments and the possible need for ensuing liti- gation (Weber, Conclusion 1986). The modern ADR movement has estab- For many Indian scholars, Gandhi is the lished a system aimed at avoiding legal 'Fatherof the Nation', and their examination adjudicationand giving disputantsa measure of Gandhi's techniques tends to relate to of control over the outcome of disputes in political activism and the freedom struggle. something of a Gandhian spirit through the Not surprisingly,it is the Westernanalysts of good officesof a mediator.It is the mediator's Gandhian thought who have undertaken job to assist the partiesto come to their own

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Thomas Weber GANDHIAN PHILOSOPHY 509 resolution of their dispute (Deutsch, 1973: effects: empowerment (giving disputing 382-388). There is no power to compel parties a sense of 'their own value and settlement; the disputantsmust rely on their strength and their own capacity to handle own mutual agreementwith assistancefrom life's problems')and recognition (generating the mediator and, becauseit is in their inter- feelings of'empathy for the situation and est, they themselves make settlements work. problems of others'). Recently this approach While the outcome sought is an accommo- has been utilized in victim/offender media- dation between the parties, it could lead to tions, but perhaps its value has not been the conversionaimed at by satyagrahaand so taken as far as it could be. Some theoristsfeel come close to the Gandhian ideal. In other that the transformativedimensions of medi- words, this level ofthird-partyinvolvement is ation, that is, empowermentand recognition, not totally outside the parametersof the ideal matter more than the settlement, not only Gandhian conflicting process, as adjudi- because of their intrinsic value but also 'as cation or even arbitrationwould be. After all, expressionsof a much broadershift to a new Gandhi himself took pride in being a third- moral and social vision' (1994: 4). party assistant in so many disputes that he Although role-plays by nonviolent could say that 'a largepart of my time during activists, in preparationfor involvement in the twenty years of my practice as a lawyer situations of direct physical conflict, may was occupied in bringing about privatecom- explore the use of creativesuffering, no one promises of hundreds of cases',and 'that the has yet devised techniques of conflict resolu- true function of a lawyerwas to unite parties tion or negotiation practice that are so riven asunder' (Gandhi, 1940: 97; also specifically Gandhian as to place a large Weber, 1986: 695-697). In short, while the emphasison self-suffering.Perhaps this is not Gandhianconflict processis generallyseen as possible or even thought to be desirable; a bilateralone, Gandhi himself may haveper- however, the shift from a model of conflict ceived a role for mediatorssimilar to the one resolution that was traditionally based on advocated by the champions of transforma- power and coercive bargaining to one of tive conflict resolution as aiding in a spiritu- problem-solving processes that aimed to ally and morally enriching process by not resolve conflicts (rather than merely settle merely going beyond issues of power and immediate disputes) seems to have produced rights, but even those of interests,to ones of conflict resolution processes with strong relatedness(Dukes, 1993: 50). similarities to the preliminary phases of In this vein, Bush & Folger (1994: xv) Gandhi'ssatyagraha, and some new theoreti- have recently argued that mediation has the cal thinking about the broaderdimensions of potential to do more than produce agree- approaches to conflict has strong parallels ments and improve relationships.They go so with Gandhi'squest for an existentiallymore far as to argue that it can transformpeople's satisfyinglife. lives. They make the very Gandhian point In Gandhi'svision satyagrahawas not only that conflict affords opportunity for moral a useful technique for the resolution of con- development and that the role of the media- flicts, and the satyagrahiwas far more than a tor is not only to find solutions to problems mere practitionerof a certainskill. The satya- but also 'to change people themselvesfor the grahi was the embodiment of an ideal, and better';they complain that this potential has the satyagrahilifestyle was the lifestyleworth largelybeen overlooked. living. In claiming that a person's 'highest Bush & Folger (1994: 2) see this trans- duty in life is to serve mankind and take his formativeprocess coming about through two share in bettering its condition' (Indian

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 510 journal of PEACE RESEARCH volume38 / number4 / july 2001

Opinion, 23 February 1907), Gandhi was The GandhianPhilosophy of Conflict.Berkeley, making the point that the ultimate congru- CA: Universityof CaliforniaPress. ence of the self and the other means that the Bose, Amina, 1981. 'A Gandhian Perspectiveon Peace', Journal Peace Research 'highest form of morality' is the practice of of 18(2): 159-164. altruism. While self-suffering was quite likely Bose, Nirmal Kumar, 1972. Studiesin . to be a consequence of altruism, Gandhi was Ahmedabad:Navajivan. convinced that to suffer was firmly wrongs Braver,Sanford L. & Van Rohrer, 1975. 'When less than to inflict them. degrading Martyrdom Pays:The Effects of Information Although none of the authors of the Concerning the Opponent's Past Game popular books espousing the new win-win Behaviour', Journal of Conflict Resolution models acknowledge any debt to Gandhi, 19(4): 652-662. and although it seems that the theoretical Brown, Bert R., 1968. 'The Effects of Need to work on which this new literature is based Maintain Face in the Outcome of Inter- cannot be causally linked to Gandhi's satya- personal Bargaining',Journal of Experimental graha, the two bodies of knowledge are com- SocialPsychology 4(1): 107-121. Burton, John W., 1997. Violence The plementary in principles and goals. Further, Explained: Sourcesof Violenceand Crimeand their the empirical literature, while not going as Conflict, Prevention. Manchester: Manchester Uni- far as Gandhian theory, does seem to versity Press. provide reasonably for the strong backing Bush, RobertA. Baruch& Joseph P.Folger, 1994. of the Gandhian to con- validity approach The Promiseof Mediation:Responding to Con- flict resolution that grew out of a lifetime of flict ThroughEmpowerment and Recognition. conducting conflict and seeking Truth for San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass. the Mahatma. Practitioners and populariz- Chandrasekaran, A., 1990. 'Gandhian Tech- ers of both disciplines could gain much by niques of Conflict Resolution [International realizing that they are in fact part of the Politics]', GandhiMarg 11(4): 470-474. same discourse. They could profitably read Chatterjee, Bishwa B., 1974. 'Search for an that part of the literature that is unfamiliar Appropriate Game Model for Gandhian Peace Research to them in order to help them better con- Satyagraha',Journal of 11(1): 21-29. ceptualize conflict resolution. And perhaps Cohen, Herb, 1980. YouCan NegotiateAnything. skilled mediators could consider whether, Secaucus,NJ: Lyle Stuart. consistent with Gandhi's approach, there Coover, Virginia;Ellen Deacon, Charles Esser & may be a broader normative and trans- Christopher Moore, 1981. ResourceManual formative dimension in their search for inte- for a LivingRevolution. Philadelphia, PA: New grative agreements. Society. Cornelius, Helena & Shoshana Faire, 1989. EveryoneCan Win: How to ResolveConflict. References Sydney: Simon & Schuster. Axelrod, Robert, 1984. The Evolutionof Cooper- Deutsch, Morton, 1958. 'Trust and Suspicion', ation. New York:Basic Books. Journalof ConflictResolution 2(4): 265-279. Bartos, Otomar J., 1970. 'Determinants and Deutsch, Morton, 1969. 'Conflicts: Productive Consequences of Toughness', in Paul G. and Destructive',Journal of SocialIssues 25(1): Swingle, ed., The Structureof Conflict. New 4-41. York:Academic Press(45-68). Deutsch, Morton, 1973. The Resolutionof Con- Bartos, Otomar J., 1977. 'Simple Model of flict: Constructiveand Destructive Processes. Negotiation: A Sociological Point of View', New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press. Journal of ConflictResolution 21(4): 565-579. Deutsch, Morton, 1987. 'ATheoretical Perspective Bondurant, Joan V., 1965. Conquestof Violence: on Conflictand Conflict Resolution',in Dennis

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Thomas Weber GANDHIAN PHILOSOPHY 511

J. D. Sandole & Ingrid Sandole-Staroste,eds, Gandhi, M. K., 1928. Satyagrahain SouthAfrica. Conflict Management and Problem Solving: Madras:G. Natesan. Interpersonalto InternationalApplications. New Gandhi, M. K., 1940. An Autobiographyor The York:New YorkUniversity Press (38-49). Story of My ExperimentsWith Truth.Ahmed- Deutsch,Morton & RobertM. Krauss,1960. 'Effect abad:Navajivan. of Threaton InterpersonalBargaining',Journalof Gandhi, M. K., 1958-1991. The CollectedWorks AbnormalandSocialPsychology 61(2): 181-189. ofMahatma Gandhi, vols.1-100. New Delhi: Deutsch, Morton; Yakov Epstein, Donnah Publications Division, Ministry of Infor- Canavan & Peter Gumpert, 1967. 'Strategies mation and Broadcasting, of of Inducing Cooperation: An Experimental India. [CD ROM version, 1999. New Delhi: Study', Journal of Conflict Resolution 11(3): Publications Division, Ministry of Infor- 345-360. mation and Broadcasting, Government of Dhawan, Gopinath, 1946. The Political Philos- India.] ophy of Mahatma Gandhi. Bombay: Popular Gordon, Thomas, 1970. P.E.T: ParentEffective- Book Depot. nessTraining. New York:Peter H. Wyden. Diesing, Paul, 1961. 'Bargaining Strategy and Hettne, Bj0rn, 1976. 'The Vitality of Gandhian Union-Management Relationships',Journal of Tradition', Journal of Peace Research 3(2): ConflictResolution 5(4): 369-378. 227-245. Diwakar, R. R., 1969. Saga ofSatyagraha. New Ingram, Catherine, 1990. In the Footstepsof Delhi: . Gandhi. Berkeley,CA: Parallax. Dukes, Frank, 1993. 'Public Conflict Resolution: Klitgaard, Robert E., 1971. 'Gandhi's Non- A Transformative Approach', Negotiation Violence as a Tactic',Journal of PeaceResearch Journal9(1): 45-57. 8(2): 143-153. Erikson, Erik H., 1969. Gandhis Truth:On the Komorita, S. S. & Arline R. Brenner, 1968. Origins of Militant Nonviolence. New York: 'Bargaining and Concession-Making Under Norton. BilateralMonopoly', Journal of Personalityand Fisher, Roger & William Ury, 1987 [1981]. SocialPsychology 9(1):15-20. Getting to Yes:Negotiating Agreement Without LaTour, Stephen; Pauline Houlden, Laurens GivingIn. London: Arrow. Walker & John Thibaut, 1976. 'Some Deter- Galtung, Johan, 1959. ' from a Socio- minants of Preferencefor Modes of Conflict logical Point of View', Journalof ConflictReso- Resolution', Journal of Conflict Resolution lution 3(1): 67-84. 20(2): 319-356. Galtung, Johan, 1965. 'On the Meaning of Non- Laue, James, 1987. 'The Emergence and Insti- violence', Journal of Peace Research 2(3): tutionalization of Third Party Roles in Con- 228-257. flict', in Dennis J. D. Sandole & Ingrid Galtung, Johan, 1971. 'Gandhi and Conflictol- Sandole-Staroste, eds, Conflict Management ogy, in Papers:A Collectionof WorksPreviously and Problem Solving: Interpersonalto Inter- Available Only in Manuscriptor VeryLimited national Applications.New York: New York Circulation Mimeographed or Photocopied UniversityPress (17-29). Editions.Vol. 5: Papersin English 1968-1972. Lewicki, Roy J.; Joseph A. Litterer, John W. Oslo: PRIO, 1980 (107-138). Minton & David M. Saunders, 1994. Negoti- Galtung, Johan, 1989. Nonviolence and ation. Chicago: Irwin. Israel/Palestine. Honolulu: University of Lipsitz, Lewis & Herbert M. Kritzer, 1975. Hawaii Press. 'UnconventionalApproaches to Conflict Res- Galtung, Johan, 1992. The Way is the Goal: olution: Erikson and Sharp on Nonviolence', GandhiToday. Ahmedabad: Journalof ConflictResolution 19(4): 713-733. PeaceResearch Centre. Meeker, Robert J. & Gerald H. Shure, 1969. Galtung, Johan & Arne Nass, 1955. Gandhis 'Pacifist BargainingTactics: Some "Outsider" Politiske Etikk [Gandhi's Political Ethics]. Influences', Journal of Conflict Resolution Oslo: Tanum. 13(4): 487-493.

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 512 journal of PEACE RESEARCH volume38 / number4 / july 2001

Mehta, Geeta, 1991. 'Gandhi and Conflict Reso- Therapist'sView of Psychotherapy.Boston, MA: lution', GandhiMarg 12(4): 477-482. Houghton Mifflin. Mitchell, Christopher, R., 1993. 'Problem- Rubin, Jeffrey Z. & Bert R. Brown, 1975. The Solving Exercises and Theories of Conflict SocialPsychology ofBargainingandNegotiation. Resolution', in Dennis J. D. Sandole & Hugo New York:Academic Press. van der Merwe, eds, ConflictResolution Theory Schelling, Thomas C., 1960. The Strategyof Con- and Practice:Integration and Application.Man- flict. New York:Oxford UniversityPress. chester:Manchester University Press (78-94). Scimecca,Joseph A., 1989. 'What is Conflict Res- Naess, Arne, 1958. 'A Systematizationof Gand- olution?', in Harold E. Pepinsky & Richard hian Ethics of Conflict Resolution',Journal of Quinney, eds, Criminologyas Peacemaking. ConflictResolution 2(4): 140-155. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press Naess,Arne, 1974. Gandhiand GroupConflict: An (263-279). Explorationof Satyagraha.Oslo: Universitets- Sharp, Gene, 1959. A Review of Joan V. Bon- forlaget. durant, Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Nakhare, Amrut, 1976. 'Meaning of Nonvio- Philosophyof Conflict',Journal of ConflictRes- lence:A Study of SatyagrahiAttitudes', Journal olution3(4): 401-410. of PeaceResearch 13(3): 185-196. Sharp, Gene, 1973. The Politics of Nonviolent Patchen, Martin, 1987. 'Strategies for Eliciting Action. Boston, MA: PorterSargent. Cooperation from an Adversary:Laboratory Shure, Gerald H.; Robert J. Meeker & Earle A. and Internation Findings',Journal of Conflict Hansford, 1965. 'The Effectivenessof Pacifist Resolution31(1): 164-185. Strategies in Bargaining Games', Journal of Pelton, Leroy, 1974. The Psychologyof Non- ConflictResolution 9(1): 106-117. Violence.New York:Pergamon. Siegel, Sidney & Lawrence E. Fouraker, 1960. Pontara, Giuliano, 1965. 'The Rejection of Vio- Bargainingand GroupDecision Making. New lence in Gandhian Ethics of Conflict Reso- York:McGraw-Hill. lution', Journal of Peace Research 2(3): S0rensen, Georg, 1992. 'Utopianism in Peace 197-215. Research:The Gandhian Heritage',Journal of Pruitt, Dean, G., 1972. 'Methods for Resolving PeaceResearch 29(2): 135-144. Differences of Interest:A Theoretical Analy- Swingle, Paul G., 1970. 'Dangerous Games', in sis',Journal of SocialIssues 28(1): 133-154. Paul Swingle, ed., The Structureof Conflict. Pruitt, Dean, G., 1987. 'CreativeApproaches to New York:Academic Press (235-276). Negotiation', in Dennis J. D. Sandole & Tedeschi, James T. & Paul Rosenfeld, 1980. Ingrid Sandole-Staroste,eds, ConflictManage- 'Communication in Negotiation and Bar- ment and Problem Solving: Interpersonalto gaining', in Michael E. Roloff & Gerald R. International Applications. New York: New Miller, eds, Persuasion: New Directions in YorkUniversity Press(62-76). Theoryand Research.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Rapoport, Anatol, 1960. Fights. Games and (225-248). Debates.Ann Arbor,MI: Universityof Michi- Tidwell, Alan, C., 1998. ConflictResolved?A Criti- gan Press. cal Assessmentof ConflictResolution. London: Rath, BirajaShankar, 1986. 'Gandhi and Conflict Pinter. Resolution', GandhiMarg 7(12): 850-857. Ury, William, 1991. GettingPast No: Negotiating Reychler,Luc, 1979. 'The Effectivenessof a Paci- with Difficult People. New York: Bantam fist Strategyin Conflict Resolution:An Experi- Books. mental Study', Journal of Conflict Resolution Weber, Thomas, 1986. 'Legal Ethics/Gandhian 23(2): 228-260. Ethics'. Gandhi Marg 7(10): 692-706. Rinde, Erik & Stein Rokkan, 1959. 'Towardsan Weber, Thomas, 1991. Conflict Resolutionand International Program of Research on the Gandhian Ethics. New Delhi: Gandhi Peace Handling of Conflicts: Introduction',Journal Foundation. of ConflictResolution 3(1): 1-5. Weber, Thomas, 1993. '"The Marchers Simply Rogers, Carl, 1961. On Becominga Person:A Walked Forward Until Struck Down":

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Thomas Weber GANDHIAN PHILOSOPHY 513

Non-violent Suffering and Conversion',Peace THOMAS WEBER, b. 1950, PhD in Social and Change18(3): 267-289. Sciences (La Trobe University, 1991), Senior Weber, Thomas, 1999. 'Gandhi, Deep Ecology, Lecturerin Politics and Head of PeaceStudies, Peace Research and Buddhist Economics', La Trobe University (1991- ). Most recent Journalof PeaceResearch 36(3): 349-361. books: Gandhis PeaceArmy: The Shanti Sena Weiss-Wik, Stephen, 1983. 'Enhancing Negotia- and Unarmed (Syracuse Uni- tors' Successfulness: Self-Help Books and versity Press, 1996), On the : The Related Empirical Research',Journal of Con- Historiographyof Gandhis March to Dandi flict Resolution24(4): 706-739. (HarperCollins, 1997) and (ed., with Yeshua Wertheim, Eleanor;Anthony Love, LynLittlefield Moser-Puangsuwan) Nonviolent Intervention & Connie Peck, 1992. I Win YouWin: How to AcrossBorders: A RecurrentVision (Spark M. Have FewerConflicts, Better Solutions and More MatsunagaInstitute for Peace, 2000). SatisfyingRelationships. Melbourne: Penguin. Wilson, Kellog V. & V. Edwin Bixenstine, 1964. 'Forms of Social Control in Two-PersonTwo- Choice Games', in Martin Shubik, ed., Games Theoryand RelatedApproachesto SocialBehav- ior. New York:Wiley (338-358).

This content downloaded from 130.64.11.153 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:58 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions