Decolonizing Conflict Resolution: Addressing the Ontological Violence of Westernization

The discipline of conflict resolution perpetuates ontological violence, the suppression and silencing of Indigenous ways of conceptualizing and experiencing the world. In most practice, research, and training, Western problem-solving models of conflict resolution are promoted as appropriate for all cultures, including Indigenous peoples. Indigenous worldviews are marginalized through Westernization, which includes any process used to shape things in a Western mode (Galtung 1990, 313). Westernization involves issues of both power and difference as members of Western cultures often forcefully impose their worldview. Currently, "the West has the power and inclination to institutionalize and implement its conceptions" regarding conflict resolution (Galtung 1990, 314). Utilizing the power of the dominant culture, Western methods have assumed hegemony in the fields of conflict resolution and mediation (Kraybill 1996, 22–23; Lederach 1995).

In response to concerns regarding Western methodologies, researchers within the discipline of conflict studies recommend further research in developing effective communication between individuals from differing cultures (Bendana 1996; Camilleri 1994; Clements 1994; Cohen 1991; Lederach 1991; Nudler 1990; Szalay 1981). However, very little research has been completed on conflict transformation methodology that is designed to acknowledge and accommodate deep cultural differences or worldviews (Avruch and Black 1990, 1991; Galtung 1990, 1996).

Western models of conflict resolution have been criticized as culturally inappropriate for Indigenous peoples due to differences in the worldview underlying the techniques (Beattie 1997; Behrendt 1995; Bluehouse and Zion 1993; Grose 1995; Yazzie 1995). Concerns have been expressed regarding the practice of imposing inappropriate conflict resolution methodologies on Indigenous peoples (Galtung 1996; Huber 1993; Ross 1996; Yazzie 1995).

The worldviews that underlie Western and Indigenous cultures are starkly different from one another. For example, Indigenous approaches to addressing conflict are more accurately described as conflict transformation in that they seek to address the conflict in ways that heal relationships and restore harmony to the group. In contrast, Western conflict resolution methods prioritize reaching an agreement between individual parties over mending relationships that have been damaged by the conflict.

In this article I explore the impact of worldview on a people's approach to dealing with conflict and compare the worldviews underlying specific Western and Indigenous approaches to dealing with conflict. I suggest that power imbalances in conflict resolution research and practice perpetuate colonization through ontological violence, marginalizing Indigenous worldviews and ways of transforming conflict.

Worldview and Conflict Transformation

All human endeavors are shaped by the culture within which they are enacted. Deep culture or worldview shapes people's ways of dealing with conflict (Avruch and Black 1990, 1991; Galtung 1990, 1996). However, the dominant Western models of conflict resolution neither acknowledge nor accommodate differences in culture, claiming that their techniques "cut across culture" (Avruch and Black 1990, 1991). This hegemony of Western conflict resolution limits Indigenous peoples' opportunities to function within their own worldviews and to implement their own methods of processing conflict.

Worldview represents the deeper levels of culture, the beliefs and values that shape all behavior. Edward T. Hall defines worldview as "the underlying, hidden level of culture . . . a set of unspoken, implicit rules of behavior and thought that controls everything we do" (1983, 7). Hall clearly articulates the ontological violence that results when societies ignore differences in worldviews: "as long as human beings and the societies they form continue to recognize only surface culture and avoid the underlying primary culture, nothing but unpredictable explosions and violence can result" (1983, 8).

The following comparison of Western and Indigenous worldviews highlights differences that impact upon conflict transformation. Central characteristics of the dominant Western worldview include:

a unilinear, present-centered conception of time
an analytic rather than holistic conception of epistemology
a human-over-human conception of human relations
a human-over-nature conception of relations to nature

(Galtung 1990, 313)

Central characteristics of many American Indian and Native Hawaiian worldviews include:

circular (or spiral) conception of time

(Bopp et-al. 1989; Meyer 1998)

a holistic conception of...