Conflict Resolution

What Are The Issues?

If a problem arises at a large event with no mechanism in place to deal with it, it tends to be made public, and naturally everyone feels some sort of duty to be involved, or at least show an interest. But this often feels like voyeurism; problems are not best solved when they descend into being titillating gossip for everyone at the gathering or action. If bringing their problem to the whole group is the only option then people are deterred from bringing it up at all. Small groups are by far better at offering meaningful support than large ones. Also important is to minimise the disruptive effect these conflicts can have on the business of the gathering, site or action.

People with certain mental illnesses can also have a disruptive effect when there is a lot of work to be done, but blowing this out of proportion is not helpful to any one involved. One suggestion is to try to ensure there is a welfare space. Most festivals have a welfare tent, and so should our gatherings and large action camps. There is a need for 'trained' or experienced people who can take on running this space as their main role in the gathering. But we should also accept the limits on the movement: dealing with the mentally ill is difficult, and the busy and stressed atmosphere at activist events does not allow us to devote the time to this that it really deserves. Whilst we recognise that the personal is political, we are not a therapy group and there are certain situations where the needs of certain mentally ill people and the activity in question are not compatible.

The variety of conflicts is huge, and we shouldn't expect to be able to deal with different situations in the same way. Often they trigger emotional reactions in many other people because they are symptomatic of bigger problems in our movement or society. We should recognise that at times we are all both the oppressors and the oppressed, and that under the system we all live in there will always be unequal power relationships. Not recognising these oppressions legitimises and permits them - they are something which we should be continually challenging in our movement.

Should People Ever Be Excluded from Events?

The consensus in the workshop was that there will be times when this is necessary. Allowing people to be intimidating or abusive puts so many other people off actively participating that doing this is far more exclusive than to take the decisive action of ensuring those causing the disruption are banned from the event. The difficulties arise in deciding when this should happen.

Ground rules, consensual decided at the start of a gathering are a good s tart. Examples of ground rules which have previously been adopted have included banning alcohol before 6pm, and banning racist, sexist or homophobic behaviour. Anyone breaking these ground rules could clearly and legitimately be excluded from the rest of the gathering.

But experience has shown that the range of conflicts which require attention cannot all be anticipated in advance. Instances will arise where action will have to be taken and if it is not to involve everyone then it must be a small group of people that undertakes that action. These people should be motivated by the smooth running of the event and/or empowering 'victims' and not set themselves up as being vigilantes kangaroo courts.

The problem is how to create a safe environment without requiring people to expose gory details. People are often called upon to justify details of the situation, and this can be both difficult and undesirable. But there is also a desire to find out the facts, to get both sides of the story. All sorts of problems arise when you are trying to deal sensitively and fairly with difficult situations, witch hunts do happen, lies are told and so on. There is never going to be a simple solution.

Those involved in conflict resolution need to be careful. We criticise the justice system in mainstream society, we do not want to recreate the same problems ourselves. The work involved can be very draining, and there is a danger that the group gathering can abdicate responsibility onto a small group of people who 'deal with situations'. It maybe best to ask individuals who feel able to deal with it to do it in each case. Remember that it should never be an exclusive group that tackles conflict resolution; anyone who wants to should have the right to intervene.

Of course, those trying to resolve disputes should see exclusion as a last resort. Temporary exclusion might be mutually recognised as a good way to calm down a situation in some cases. In a similar way apologies, recognising problems and agreeing to look at ways of resolving them may be seen as a sign of progress.