1

AAffrriiccaann CCeennttrree ffoorr CCoonntteemmppoorraarryy SSttuuddiieess

www. accs.org.uk

Philosophy and Principles of Conflictology

By

Professor C.S. Momoh, Department of Philosophy

and Dean of Faculty of Arts,

University of Lagos

Conflicts management is a stepping solve to conflict resolution. The

expression “conflict management” gives the impression, an impression which

is true, that conflict is a permanent feature of reality, and that the best man

can ever accomplish is to strive to manage and contain it. On the other hand

the expression “conflict resolution” gives the impression that conflict is

sporadic or occasional event even though it is a fact of life. Since it is a

sporadic or occasional event man can resolve it once and for all.

Both contention have their strengths. The thesis that conflict is a permanent

feature if reality is ontological in the sense in which it can be taken to be a law

of nature whereas the thesis that conflict is a fact of life is existential in the

sense in which it can be taken to be a law of living. Any ontological thesis is

general, stronger and superior to any existential thesis which is particular and

2

specific. The existential derives from the ontological. Life derives from nature.

Living is an aspect of reality.

I coined the word “conflictology” which is the study of the nature of conflicts,

kinds of conflicts, causes of conflict, causing conflict, principles of conflict

management and resolution, and the resolution and management of conflicts

based on these principles. Richard Nelson-Jones, in his book Human

Relationship Skills, give the etymology of the `word “conflict” In latin it is know as

“conflicts” a word two roots come meaning together and meaning to “strike”. As with

any other concept, the word “conflict: has a dictionary definition and an intellectual,

academic or scholarly definition, One dictionary defines conflicts as a hostile

encounter, antagonism, fight, battle, a clashing or sharp disagreement as

between idea, interests or purpose. Thus Nelson-Jones says that dictionary

definitions of conflict emphasis words like “fight”, “struggle” “antagonism”

and “sharp disagreement”. Richard Nelson Jones isolates three elements

common to dictionary definitions. 1. A difference or disagreement, (2) The

disagreement is severe, and (3) There is ill will.

We observe that dictionary definitions are necessarily constrained by space,

etymology and popular and popular usage. A dictionary has limited space

and pages and so it cannot devote too much space to one word or concept. A

standard dictionary always gives the etymology of a word or concept. A

standard dictionary always gives the etymology of a word which can

3

influence its definition of that word. But the cotemporary usage of a word

might be thousands of kilometers away from its etymological meaning. At the

same time a dictionary definition of a word strives to do justice to popular

usage of a word in its definition of that word. There are two problems in this

respect. The first is the tension that can exist between the etymology of a word

and its popular usage. The second problem is that the popular usage of a

word is not as sharp and as condensed as a dictionary would want to make

out.

All this is not to say that an academic or scholarly definition of conflict or any

other concept can fare better but it is at least always crafted to suit the

purpose at hand. Professor John pass more points out the generally accepted

criticism of an academic definition of a concept to the extent that it is either

often too narrow or too general; if it is too narrow it becomes severally

exclusive and if it is too general, it becomes belatedly inclusive. We observe

that defining a concept is one of the most tedious undertaking in scholarship

and intellectualism. In fact authors, intellectually lazy authors, shy away from

it these days. For example, David W. Johnson in his book entitled Reaching

out: Inter Personal Effectiveness and Self-actualization, a book of over 300 pages

devoted largely to conflict resolution or management shield away from

defining the core concept of the work. Still we have two academic definitions

of conflict to consider before we offer one. In their book entitled Groups In

Context: Leadership and Participation in Small Groups, Gerald L. Wilson and

4

Michael S. Hanna, define “conflict as a struggle involving opposing ideas,

values, and/or limited resources. “Morton Deutsch” his own book The

Resolution of Conflict defines conflict as an “action that is incompatible with

another (and it) prevents, obstructs, interferes, injuries, on in some way makes

the latter less lively or less effective” Wilson and Hanna also conceptualize

conflict” as a struggle over values and claims to secure status, scarce power,

and/or some resources”. The first definition too porous. A struggle by

whom? Morton Deutsch’s definition is surprisingly silent on the conceptual

spinal cord of conflict which is response. The definition gives the impression

that conflict is passive whereby an injured person or party takes issues

socratically stoically or philosophically. Conflict cannot exist in a passive

state. There is conflict when the Law of action and reaction defines a state of

affairs. We define conflict as a process of an emotional, verbal or physical

response by am entity to a provocative act or state of affairs. For there to be

conflict there must be what is perceived by a party to be an affront and a

response to that affront.

The definition we have offered of conflict is formal and logical enough to

accommodate interpersonal conflict. This is a situation where an individual

quarrels with himself because there is no visible physical external factor to

hold responsible for the glory of internal conflict. For unemployment, hunger,

sickness can cause interpersonal conflict. A person might commit a mistake

and thereby get despondent and be a in state of interpersonal conflict. An

individual Might be sad over a missed opportunity and sulk over it. Sadness,

5

melancholy, anger, moodiness, drunkenness and even crying can be

manifestations of states of interpersonal conflict. Time can resolve

interpersonal conflict Social interaction can be helpful too. Prayers are also

very effective in resolving intrapersonal conflict. Conflicting and discussing

with trusted friends and elders can help to manage intrapersonal conflicts. A

person can be in a prolonged or semi-permanent state of interpersonal

conflicts because of injuries in nature, envy, pettiness or sense of failure.

Our notion of entity in the definition of conflicts is very elastic. It can mean an

individual, a corporate body, a community, a race, an ethnic group, a union,

an individual, a corporate body, a community, a race, an ethnic group, a

union, an organization or indeed even a country. The response, as we said in

the definition can be emotional, verbal or physical response, as we all know,

can end in violence, terrorism on in war. We have defined conflictlogy. We

now have to define the philosophy of conflictology. We point out that the

philosophy of conflictology falls under rubic or the philosophy of the

infrastructure of disciplines exemplified by Philosophy of History, Philosophy

of Law, Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Education, Philosophy of

Economic, etc. It is easy to define the philosophy of conflictology because we

have an existing format for defining the philosophy of any discipline.

Otherwise, it must be conceded that conflictology is yet to mature as some

other disciplines. Now we define the Philosophy of Conflictology. The

Philosophy of conflictology deals with the rigorous examination, criticism

6

and critique of the nature of conflictiology, the fundamental conepts of

conflictology, and the claims of conflictologists, conflictoloigcal rival

theories and cultural and spatio-temporal antecedents, limit, limitations of

conflictology and the inter and intra relationship of conflictology to other

disciplines and real life issues. Indeed, it is an all comers fields for now.

There is no Department of Conflictology in any University but it is, in the

name of conflict resolution or conflict management, treated, discussed and

taught as a course on subtheme in the facilities of social sciences, arts and law.

Many NGO’s (New Government Organizations) and freelance consultants are

also involves, one way on the other, in conflictology. By coning the name

conflictology, we are only helping to establish and nurture a new discipline a

role for which philosophy is traditionally known to excel.

THE NATURE OF CONFLICTOLOGY

One fundamental point about the nature of conflictology is that nature itself is

conflictology. Here we have in mind two conceptions of nature. The first

conception is exaction and the second is the natural order of things. Conflict is

inherent in creation but creation is conflictological that is to say, that there are

also in-built mechanisms in creation to manage or resolve conflict. There is

inequality in creation. There is disparity in creation. There is divergence and

discrimination in respect of human and environmental endowments can, ab

initio, constitute remote and immediate causes of conflict. But creation is also

beauty, order, aesthetics, harmony and concord. There is some wonder, some

yesterday in creation bur creation is largely rational and systematic.

7

Man is at the center of creation, and he is a conflictoloigcal animal; he can

cause conflict but he can also manage and resolve conflict. Many philosophers

argue that man possess freedom, man has free-will.

In matters of immediacy and contingency man can indeed be said to have free

will but on fundamental issues of life, man is not free. Man, for example, did

not create conflict. Conflict is ontological and exists in its own with right quite

apart from any thing or element in nature. Man did not create creation.

Creation is ontological and man is consequence of it. Man did not create birth

as or procreation, but man must exist. Nor did man create death, and yet man

must die. In all these ontological realms, there is unbending, inexorable and

iron cast determinism. At the base and at the apex of reality, man is

determined, he had neither freedom non free will. Between the base and the

apex or ontological reality man can be said to posses freedom on free will but

this can be seen to be immediately diluted when a realize that ontological

reality has its own dynamics which compel necessity and obedience. Rosseau

cannot be right with his claim that man is born free but he is everywhere in

chains. How could man have been born free when he did not determine his

own conception or, before him, his parents conception and birth? How could

man have been born free when he did not determine his own sex? How could

man have born free when he did not determine his own parentage, his own

race and his own country? How could man have been born free when he did

not determine procreational logistics impregnation, duration of pregnancy i.e.

8

day, week and month of birth? How could man have been free when he has

no choice but to carry immediately he is babied? How could man have been

born free when his first pang is of hunger? How could may have been born

free when no one taught birth to sack his mother’s breast? How indeed could

man have been born free when he came into the world with hunger and pain?

It is closer to reality to say that man is born determined but he is everywhere

trying to be free. Spinoze got it right; man cannot be free by the nature of

things. Is man free not to be hungry in all the ramifications of hunger? Is man

free not to be angry? Is man free not to pacificist? Is man free not to be a war-

monger or not to be a peacemaker?

Philosophers have carried on the controversy on freedom and determinism as

if one excludes the other. In other words, if man is free, he is not determined

or if man is determined, he is not free. This is a dichotomous way of thinking

which is inherently defective. By dialectical logic Freedom is a factor in

determinism and determinism is a factor in freedom. In other words, man is

determined to be free, and man is the freed to be determined.

Translated into our conflictological interest, this means that even though man

can quarrel, fight and go to war, man can also settle, manage and resolve

differences and conflicts. In other words conflicts is natural but so also it its

management and resolution. Man is doomed to conflict but man is free to

resolve conflict. In other words, man is conflictological. A refusal to settle or

9

resolve conflict or unending intransigence is unnatural. It accords neither

with determinism nor freedom. It violates the Law of Action and Reaction

because it leaves the entity in permanent state of action or in a permanent

state of reactions. Either of these alone is a negotiation of conflictology.

Permanent belligerency or intransigency has no status in conflictology.

Indeed we refuse to accept that it has any positive status in nature.

The second conception in the thesis that nature is conflictologicalis the natural

order of things. We can refer to this as physicalism.

The conception of physicalism here is not exactly the name with the doctrine

of physicalism in determination which holds that the theories in physics

explain all that can possibly be explained in nature. In this context

physicalism in an off-shoot or derivative of logical positives which formulated

a set of criteria from mathematics, physics, biology or logic to evaluate, either

by confirming or verifying, any statement that claims to be meaningful. If any

statement can be so handled, then it is meaningful; otherwise it is

meaningless. What physicalism as a doctrine in logical positive/determinism

now claim is that physics is the most ideal and appropriate discipline to

provide the set of criteria by which nature or reality can be explained.

The Physicalism we here in mind have relates to physical facts or realities in

nature which are conflictological, which can explain the nature of conflict. The

10

first point here is natural physical endowment which can either be, broadly

speaking, positive or negative, high or low, big or small, bright or dull,

beautiful on ugly, we begin first with climatic conditions, or seasonal

conditions. Some climates are more conductive to human habitations than

others. Generally the Mediterranean climate is the best for human habitation.

In the tropics the rainy season is preferable to the dry season. In the Northern

Hemisphere, spring is the ideal season. We enter a note of caution here by

emphasizing that we are concerned only with what is conducive to passive

human habitation, otherwise it is common knowledge that harsh, hostile

climatic conditions can compel men to be inventive and think of ways to

overcome difficulties to master nature. Comparatively there should be fever

cases of conflicts in the spring season than in the winter and summer reasons

which are the extremes in North America for example. Similarly, in a tropical

country like Nigeria there should be fewer cases of conflicts during the rainy

season.

Tanjutek, in his book The 500 years Curse 1492-1992 shows how inclement

natural conditions can drive a race or a people to embark or do or die survival

tactics. In this massive study of over 900 pages. Tanjutek detailed how the

inhabitants of a peninsula located at the northwestern corner of the ancient

continent metamorphosed as the world’s richest to most powerful race in just

500 years.

11

This tiny Causcasian race, as at 1492, was riddled with famine, chronic crimes,

barbarism, human burning sacrifices, tribal wars, extreme poverty, ignorance

and near extinction or terminal existence. Tanjutek shows how before 1492,

“all other races were living on 85% of the planet earth land surface and

outnumbered what he called the evil race by ten to one. Today all the other

races numbering about 4.5 billion people are living on only 40% of the earth

land masses and outnumbered the evil race by only three to one. The 1.5

billion people that descended from this evil race occupying 60% of the earth

land surface in 1998. today this evil race is still terrorizing and enslaving all

the other races around the would under all types of international

organizations, decrees, system, standards, crusades and whatnots that are

rented, controlled and operated by this evil race. This is what we call “the 500

tears curse”.

We are not concerned with the venom and hatred running through Tanjutek’s

pages but the point that inclement and hostile natural conditions constitute a

natural causal candidate for conflict and confrontation is a compelling thesis.

The history and culture of the Arabs also exemplify this thesis. The Arabic

speaking people include Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Persia, Egypt,

North Africa and medieval Sicily and Spain but the original Arabs are the

Bedouin in Arabia. The Bedouins, accordance to P.K. Hitti, in his book Arabs:

A Short History, are nomads who represent the best adaptation of human life

12

to desert conditions. To them normadism is as much a scientific way of living

as industrialism is in Detroit or Manchester. Normadism is a reasonable and

stoic adjustment to an unfriendly environment being one of the driest and

hottest countries in the whole world. The Bedouin is individualistic to the

core and in the words of Hitti, “discipline respect for order and authority are

not among his ideals”. Even the Holy Koran stigmatizes them as “most

confirmed in unbelief and hypocrisy”. A poet captured the consequences of

all this in two verses”. Our business is to make radis on the enemy, on our

neigbour and on our own brother, in case we find non to raid but a brother”.

Just as natural scarcity or hostility is a natural causal factor in conflict, natural

plenty on endowment plays the some role. In other words, too much natural

blessing or acquisitive propensity or greed can trigger conflict. For example

after the Caucasians hit gold, treasurers and other resources in the New

World they fought themselves over the loot. They converted the New World

into empires and fought themselves over that too. All this culminated in the

two worlds into empires and fought each other over that too. All this

culminated in the two world wars. In the 1st world war about 10 million lives

were lost and about 20 million wounded. The 2nd world war was more daily

the 1st but with fewer causalities. Thanks to the wealth from petroleum

resources and earnings, Arabia today is one of the richest regions in the world

but that too has been a source of conflict for the Islamic world.

13

In Nigeria our oil wealth is a story of endless doom. The struggle by Nigerian

and Biafara to satisfy the West as to who was in control of the Bonny terminal

led to the immediate outbreak of the Nigeria civil war on July 6, 1967.

Physicalist factors of conflict can be seen not only in racial and continental

dimensions but also in zonal and individual differences in natural

endowments. For the latter one person is physically stronger than others, and

therefore bullies or intimidates them. One lady is more beautiful than the

others and therefore magnetizes the attention of all the men around with the

consequent envy of the other ladies. She might, in the circumstances, even be

haughty and naughty beauty is an example. A poet said the following on

Helen’s beauty: monelous, if you are really going to kill her, then my

blessings go with you, but you must do it now before her looks so twist the

strings of your heart that they turn your mind round; for her eyes are like

armies. And where her glances gall there laities burn until the dust of their

ashes is b/own by her sight. I know her menelaus, and so do you all those

who know her suffer”

Some of powerfully women well known in history were Bathsheba of the Old

Testament, the Chinese siren Hsishi and Cleppatra of Egypt. In Nigeria we

had moremi and Amina, and Nne Mmiri of Igbo mythologu.

In Nigeria, state Regional premiers and state governors have been known to

be in conflict goaded by women. The tension between Babaginda and Abacha

14

was partly traceable to the tension between the two Mariams. Truly behind

every successful man there is a woman but in front of every successful

woman there is a man who must have broken the rules to make the woman

successful.

From the former, that is, different social natural endowment, what we have in

mind here is that the six ecological zones in Nigeria are differently naturally

endowed. One area has cocoa, another coal, another oil, another groundnuts

and yet another ports. There zones conventionally should be complementary

for the betterment of the Nigerian people and nation. But no. they have,

instead, been sources of conflict. It was one of the major causes of the

Nigerian civil war. Now it is even a cause of greater concern, the Oodua

Peoples Congress are insisting that the Lagos ports should be controlled and

used primary for advancement of the interest of the Yoruba nation. The Ijaw

(Egbesu) Youths lay claims to all the coastal endowments in Nigeria. The

result is violence and irredentism everywhere.

Another fundamental point about the nature if conflict in nurture which is

also conflictological. Here we oppose nurture to nature. We use nurture to

capture a cluster of non-natural reality in respect of societal. The thesis here is

that any human collectively or corporate entity is, by definition,

conflictological. This should not be surprising. If nature itself is

15

conflictological, then nurture is much more confictological. If nature is

imperfect, then nurture is much more imperfect.

Childbirth itself can be sources of conflict. A husband can get upset if the wife

is giving birth only to females or males depending on which sex his culture

prefers. Most of cultures prefer male children for obvious reasons. A study is

India, for example, once revealed that over 90% of pregnancies were aborted

when scanning showed them to be females. In other words, in Indian culture

has its way, only 10 o every 100 female should be allowed to live. Indian

culture also disinherits the female. This partially explains why it is that in

India, it is the bride that pays dowry.

Even the upbringing of children can be a sources of conflict. First upbringing

in virtually all cultures is sexist. In this respect culture has put asunder what

nature intended to join together Culture has determined that some roles are

exclusively [played by males while other roles can be conterminously played

by males and females. In all cultures there is no social role which a male

cannot play. The roles which seemingly, are exclusively to females are so on

account of their perceived inferiority.

Outside childbirth, sex of a child and family upbringing and training,

marriage itself is conflictological. Spousal roles and functions are defined

along sexist lines. A husband in most cultures, is the head of the household.

16

This role is predicted on the assumption and expectation that the husband is

and remains the boss of the wife if he is no longer the breadwinner? These

days, a wife can be the sole breadwinner of a family but does not make her

the boss? But suppose she is partial breadwinner, an equal breadwinner or a

major breadwinner does that entitle her to be boss of her husband and the

family? One can give out reasons why the husbands, the man will always,

remain the boss even if the wife has all the economic wherewithal and

financial muscles over and above the man. First the man remains the boss in

sexual intercourse in respect of the physical posture during sex (man on top,

woman under). Secondly, however the physical posture of sex is varied, the

irreversible natural fact remains that the man “gives”, out and the woman

“takes” in. Thirdly, on marriage, the woman drops her surname and proudly

becomes Mrs. her husband surname. Fourthly, the marital products children

bear the father’s name. We can dash concede that these augments are typical

of male chauvinists. A feminist can advance counter-argument to show that

de facto a woman is always the boss of the man, the husband

There are other issues in marriage that can cause conflict-lack or breakdown

of communication, infidelity, in-laws, lack of care and concern, paucity or

death of romance, bareness or family planning poverty, riches, change in

fortune, expensive life style, new tastes, unsuccessful, children, a successful/

or an unsuccessful, spouse, lack of etiquette (show appreciation or gratitude

even by habit of always buying “thank you” can work wonders), different

17

religious affiliation especially if one spouse is a fanatic or a fundamental and

different political beliefs or affiliation, insincerity, cheating, nagging, etc. To

manage or resolve conflicts in marriage or any other area of human life, the

cause or causes or causes of marital conflict must be properly studied and

understood. It is only after this is done that any conflictological theory can be

effectively and meaningfully applied or utilized.

Cultural itself is conflictological. All culture recognize the legitimacy of

conflict-dash quarrels, disagreements, hostility, aggressiveness, fights,

arguments, riots, social unrest, and indeed wars. Conflictology recognizes the

legitimacy of both conflict and “proflict” conflict is against peace, order,

harmony, friendliness and good neighborliness while: proflict” is for peace,

order, harmony, friendliness and good neighbourhood. All cultures also

recognize the need for these positive human, societal and social

characteristics.

Politics is conflictological. Business is conflictological. Religion, unfortunately,

is also conflictological. Religious conflicts can never be resolved but they can

definitely be managed through an acceptance of the principles of religious

tolerance. By common consent, religious war is the deadlist of wars. Why is

this so? The reason is that religious drags on its train philosophy, ideology,

racism, politics, business, ethnicity, culture history, language, social relations

etc, religion is the only aspect of nature that encompasses both the celestial

18

and the terrestrial. A conflictological who can manage religious conflicts can

resolve any conflicts.

LEVELS O CONFLICT

On a board canvass we delineate three levels of conflict.

1. Low level conflict Average conflict

2. Medium/middle level conflict average conflict

3. High level conflict Optimum conflict

This is a tidy and neat categorized of conflict. To a large extent, exemplifying

them can also be tidy and neat but after a point there are bound to be

complications and complicates.

Running through the level of conflicts we have intra-personal conflict,

interpersonal conflicts, intra-group conflict, inter-group conflict, inter-

communal conflict, intra-national conflict and international conflict.

Generally we define low/conventional conflict as jaw-jaw conflict which

acknowledges a disagreement that has to be managed or resolved. The hall

mark of conventional conflict is the absence of pugnacious hostility or

probability. In other words, the conflicts is such that physical combat can

never result on is ruled out by the nature of things or by nurture of things. As

a matter of fact, low/conventional conflict is almost crisis free. Two elements,

19

consequently must be absent in a situation of convention/low level conflict

situation crisis and physical combat.

In the category of Middle/Average level conflict crisis is inherent and

pugnacious hostility is a possibility. In Middle/Average level conflict

situations, physical combat can ensure by the nature of things on by the

culture of things.

Generally we define a Middle/Average level conflict situation as one

characteristic by crisis, aggressiveness and physical combat and hostility. In

Middle Level of conflict situation there must be tension, crisis, fear, and

apprehension and hostility verbal and physical hostility. There could be

destruction of a few properties and shedding of blood. Beyond this point, the

conflict is on a higher level.

The third category of conflict is the High/Maximum level. This is the peak

and the apex of conflict. We define a High/maximum leves conflict situation

as one characteristic by crisis, chaos, mayhem, shedding of blood and

destruction of live and property. In this category, war the ultimate. Terrorism

is also dreaded in conflict. We should not that the military also talks of these

levels of conflict but within the context of military operations. Military duties

to ensure internal stability containing violent demonstration, social unrest and

insurrections and staging coup detats can be classified under low level

20

conflict resolution as management pace-keeping, engaging in warfare that

does not require the development of sophisticated weapon, is middle level

conflict.

But warfare involving the three arms-army, navy or airforce with advanced

sophisticated weapon is in the category of high/maximum level. For our own

classification any conflict involving shedding of blood and destruction of

property on a sizeable scale is high level conflict. It will, of course not be easy

to answer the philosophical question of how many property must be

destroyed, what quantity of blood has to be shed or how many lives lost

before we can say we are in situation of high level conflict.

It must be pointed out that even what stated as an interpersonal conflict can

snowball and graduate imperceptibly from low level of middle level to high

level conflict.

Conflictological Principle or Canons/Guidelines by conflictologyical

principles, canons or guidelines, we means principles which can be used to

resolved or at least manage conflicts. These principles on cannons are not

exhaustive but they are at least basic. Nor is any claim being fostered for their

automatic on absolute efficiency. Conflictology is a young discipline, and all

interested hands are on deck to make it a rigorous discipline. Guided by the

Latin etymology of the word conflict, conflictus, we shall use the word

21

“conflictist” for someone involved in a conflict. The word “conflictist” sounds

less foreboding and acidic than antagonist, enemy, belligerent or fore. The

point here is that parties to a conflict, disagreement on quarrel should not be

seen nor should they see one another as enemies or antagonists but simply as

conflicts. In the literature, the peacemaker in a conflict is sometimes referred

to as a facilitator but for us he is also a “consultant conflictologist”. Again let

us remember that these new teams are our own enological contribution to the

emerging discipline of conflictology. The under listed are some conflictology

principles.

1. The Cognitive Principle: This is the requirement that the

consultant conflictologist must be knowledgeable equipped not

only about conflicts in general but also about the particular conflict

in question. Before a consultant conflictologist can resolve a marital

conflict, for example, he or she must be very knowledgeable about

the nature of marriage, the purpose of marriage, religious &

cultural dimensions of marriage, the economic perspective to

marriage, the responsibility of spouses, stabilizing and destabilizing

factors in marriage, the rate and frequencies of divorces in

marriage, inter and intra ethnic marriage, etc. Unless the consultant

conflictologist is very informed and knowledgeable about the

particular point on issue in conflict, it will be difficult for him to

impress the conflicitists, win their respect and trust, and ultimately

22

resolve the conflict successfully. A conflict that has lingered on for a

long time or that has been very intense, even though pf short

duration, cannot be resolved at a go unless, or course, the

conflictists are battle weary.

2. The Humorous Principle: A consultant conflictologist must not be

knowledgeable but also be imaginative and creative. He or she

should also master the art of humour or crushability. Any session

held to resolve conflicts cannot succeed it the conflictists remain

stiff. Serious, rigid, unsmiling and unrelaxed. A consultant

conflictologist who is not gifted in the art of humour should employ

a professional comedian on play video clips or comedy before the

formal discussions commence. Comedy, humour or laughter is the

anti-dote to tension, stiffness or anger. Comedy or laughter is a

messenger of goodwill, relaxation or ease. It should be remembered

that any time quarrel or conflict enters a room through the window,

smiles, ease an friendliness disappear through the one of the first

things to be invited to the area of conflict resolution is laughter,

humour, smiles, friendliness and ease. The most reliable way to do

this is by humour or comedy. One good thing a quarrelling couple

or lovers who are not even on speaking terms needs do is to watch

a comedy together. In other words, if you are to settle a quarrel

between two lovers arrange a comedy for the venue. Traditional

23

royalty knew the relaxation tonic in hunour hence every palace had

a palace crown. Glottology is the study of languator and humar for

therapentic purposea. Biological and socially laughter is supreme

importance in human life scientist come discovered that

biologically “laughter” activates muscles, inveases heart rate and

blood circulation and allows oxygen intake, and when laughter

subsides, andoctrines are release the in the brain causing physical

relaxation and alteration of tension” Sigmund Fvend believed that

humour could be used effectively as a therapy. At its said that

laughter is the music of life and that it is used effectively as a

therapy. At it said that laughter is the music of life and that it is

hard of dislike people with whom you spend time laughing. John

stepis puts it the other way round – it is impossible to laugh

heartily and be angry at the same time. Hal Roach says in his poem

that “to laugh is to love, to laugh is to understand, to laugh is to

forgive”.

All this is not to say that humour should be used indiscriminately.

As J. Ruby says: “Watch to see how opponent is reacting to the

humour to rendy to either take it to the next level or run”.

3. The Natural Principle: Conflict is natural and usual. The consultant

conflictologist must keep emphasizing this point at the beginning,

middle and end but must also always add that it is equally natural

24

to settle. The slogan is. “It is natural to quarrel and also natural to

reconcile”. The Yorubas say that is a bastard who does not take

offence but it is equally a bastard who does not forgive. We son

only for God to forgive us. Even the state grants pardon to a

convicted criminals. Gods quarrel, and to they settle. Spirits quarrel

and they settle. Witches a wizard quarrel to they settle. Animals

quarrel and they settle. In life conflict is ontological, and it is

positive. Nature exists in duality/right left, day/night, wet

season/dry season, storm/calm, male/female, Happiness/sadness.

One of Isaac Newtons Laws says that for every actions there is an

equal and opposite reaction. There can be no electricity without

positive and negative charge. Ontology exist in duality and this is

what accounts for progress. Man and woman constitute an

ontological pairs, opposite or duality, is responsible for procreation

which sustain mankind, civilization and progress.

4. The Principles of Patience: This is more or less a principle of rule

of the game Patience is a human quality which most cultures and

virtually all religious acknowledge. The Hausa people say that

patience is the universal remedy. Christians never tire of telling the

story of Job who, by all accounts, seemed to be most patient man

God created. In the conflictology time is a friend. This means first

that the consultant conflictologists and the conflictologist should

25

not be on haste to rush things. Secondly, and most importantly, it

means that a conflicitist or each party to a conflict must be patient

to listen to the other conflicistist and hear him out. Part of the

rationale in conflict resolution is to allow conflictistics let off steam

and constant interruption on interjection does not accelerate this

psychological process.

5. PRINCIPLE OF PARTICIPATION: As already pointed out, the

consultant conflictologist must be imaginative, creative and

knowledge. The consultant conflictologist must enact scenarios

analogues to the conflict or tell true stories of same and then request

the conflictists to deliberate or proffer solutions to request the

imaginary conflict. This way the conflicists will appreciate that their

own conflict is resolution and begin to see a may our.

6. The Principle of Empathy: In some literatures this principle is

known as role reversal. The first requirement here is that conflicitist

must sympathize and understand the point of view and position of

the other conflictist. The second requirement is that conflictist must

see himself or herself as the other conflictist he must be completely

immersed, spiritually and psychologically, in the point of view a

position of the other conflictists. The third requirement which is a

third of the 2nd, is that one conflictist, as a mark of good faith and

26

intentions, shared be made to state the position and point of view of

the other conflicitist.

It must be emphasized that the principle of empathy is the most difficult

principle to apply. It should not be applied early. In fact it should be last

principle to be applied; it is a canon of last resort. In man situation of conflict

resolutions the consultant conflictogist might discover that it is unnecessary to

resort to the principle of empathy. The application of the principle also helps

the consultant conflictologist to know which conflictist is really ready for

peace and the conflictist who is willing and does not feel uneasy about

assuming the other conflictis position. The hardened and uncompressing

conflict is unlikely to cooperate in the application of the principle empathy. If

conflictists on both sides cooperate in the application of the principle, the

consultant conflictologists can be rest assured of appreciable success.

7. The principle of Active Oath: This principle is mean to compel and

enforce truth, veracity and trust. At requires swearing actively to

tell the truth and nothing but the truth, to cooperate honestly and to

respect the feeling of others. The principle is comprehensively

discussed in my book entitled.

The philosophy of a New and an Old Future.

It was formulated initially to enforce moralism, incorruptibility, integrity and

accountability in public officers and political appointees.

27

The principle served from and was inspired by the current passive oath which

political appointee takes during swearing in ceremonies. This passive oath

lacks the basic ingredient of invocation which specifies accurse to the fall the

other taker in case of deliberate violation of the oath.

There is the Christain oath to be taken by reading a relevant passage from the

Holy Bible. There is the Muslim oath to be taken by reading a passage from

the Holy Qu’oran. And there is the indigenous oath to be taken by swearing

on juju or a nature god or spirit. In all cases the consultant conflictologist

should specify the invocation to anchor the oath.